Talk:Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Poland is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Poland, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.

Poland is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1:
• Archive 2:
• Archive 3:

[edit] Population

I added population 2002 census data (38,230,080). However, it may create a false impression that the population of Poland is increasing because the given estimate of 2005 (38,635,144), taken apparently from CIA World Fact Book, is higher. In fact, Polish Central Statistical Office estimates the population at the end of 2004 as 38,175,000. Other data from Demographics of Poland (again apparently from CIA World Fact Book) have also discrepancies from Central Statistical Office data.

I think the Central Statistical Office data are more reliable and I propose to use them instead of CIA ones. Any objections? Poszwa 22:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Population estimate from July 2006 is 38,536,869 people (this number is constantly growing).--Thomaspca 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

Has anyone else noticed that the Demographics and Culture sections are basically identical? What gives? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.46.198.237 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC).

• I added some information to the Culture section. No major changes. --Thomaspca 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I added phones info

Telephones - mobile cellular: 25,3 million (Raport Telecom Team 2005)
Telephones - main lines in use: 12.5 million (Raport Telecom Team 2005)
source: http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1161177,10,item.html (in Polish)
The information CIA World Fact Book is often very outdated or simply ridiculous

[edit] Motto

There is no official motto. Neither in the Constitiution, nor in any other document. Please do not insert it again and again. Poszwa 02:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the motto not "Honor i Ojczyzna" (Honor and Fatherland)? I have this on many of my flags, both military and civilian.--Gpriest 15:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's not a national motto. "Honor i Ojczyzna" or "Bóg, Honor i Ojczyzna" are slogans frequently featured on many (mostly military) banners and could be considered an (unofficial!) motto of the army, but not the state. Especially that the modern state is neutral when it comes to God's existence so it couldn't adopt such a motto anyway. Halibutt 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have cuted my changes until the end of discussion at polish wiki.MaLu 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The most popular Polish web-portals

I removed this part because it is of no use to non-Polish-speaking readers and was constantly attracting spam links. Poszwa 13:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Halibutt 15:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poland's GDP

Is Poland's GDP really $512.9 billion?

Yes, this is the 2005 GDP (PPP) value according to the International Monetary Fund. The estimation for 2006 is $546.5 billion. Here is the link:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/02/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=2005&ED=2006&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=941-946-137-122-181-124-138-964-182-423-935-128-936-961-939-184-172-132-134-174-144-944-178-136-112&S=PPPWGT&CMP=0&x=80&y=8

[edit] History

• The "History" section of this article suffers from what I call the "exponential effect"--an increasing amount of space is devoted to events as the dicussion moves from Polish prehistory to the present. While it's true that we know more about recent events than past events, this is not an issue at this high level of detail. I think the section should be rewritten in a more uniform level of detail. I'll try to get around to it sometime if no one else does. Appleseed 17:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

is saying that poland was not controlled by jews but russia was controlled by jews for 2000 years very anti semitic it is probably vandalismBouse23 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• This horrible article does not mention one word about Polish collaberation with the Nazis in the Holocaust. Please refer to the book Neighbors!!!!! The article also doesn't mention that unlike any other nation in Europe the Holocaust continued in Poland even after Germany lost the war. Polish anti-semitism made possible genocide of Jews until at least 1950. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.27.83 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Well... why don't we mention about the collaboration of some Jews with the Nazis while we are at it, this happened as well. It doesn't matter who one was, what mattered was was he/she a good or a bad person, never mind the background. The Holocaust lasted during the war only and was run by the Nazi Germans, please do not spread those unfounded lies around. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and see this part of our history from a very specific point of view. Also - please sign your posts, show some respect to others discussing here. --Pitdog 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a lie. Don't know where you've read, don't really care. This is crap, especially when you consider that after IIWW Poland was under communist reign. What is more many Poles have helped the Jews during the Nazi occupation and circa 1/3 of the Israeli Yad Vashem (sp?) Institute medal receivees are from Poland. 212.76.37.152 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)prorok lebioda

• Nothing has been included about the declaration of Marshall Law in 1981! and Shock therpy caused many of the social problems that Poland sufferes from today whilst contributing to the formation of an elite corrupt class mainly composed of the ex-communists (CFRU) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.179.62.107 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Unexplained

The are a few aspects of the history of Poland which are left unexplained on the article. Now unless they are given coverage here thern there is probably no article which will do so, and in any case, they do actualy belong here. Poland as a name reflects a power more than a person. Polish identity is primarily based on Slavic descent like many others around them, but there is no one single Polish subgroup. Historically and even today to a lesser degree, Poland is made of numerous communities such as Masovians, Mazurians, Silesians, Slovincians, Kashubians, Pomeranians etc. some extinct, others still there... now Poland as a national power has long been succesful in a way that Yugoslavia was not. The Belgrade based federation fell into disrepair in the 90s because for the entire period of the state's existence, the government failed to silence the clerics crying from greater privileges in the name of the republic (people's local name) which in the long term is a recipe for disaster. The Polish government has at different times had problems with the minorities but have done well to silence them and lure them into accepting the Polish flag whilst isolating itself from the policies of the Greater Slavic national ideas which bordered them. At present, the simmering is mainly in Silesia. Traditionally, all the little communities, as well as having had their own dialects, had their own local flags, customs, desire for autonomy, structuring of society, and continued existence alongside those related to them. Warsaw failed to extend its borders to incorporate German administered Lusatia. If they did, then Upper and Lower Sorbian would be two more Polish dialects spoken by Western Poles. If Pomerania had steered clear of Warsaw rule then it may have been a seperate state with an administrative seat in Gdansk and then it is highly unlikely that the Pomeranians would class themselves as Polish subnationals when in fact they are already a Slav subnation. My question to any Slavic historian is, how did these communities originally form and how did they get the name 'Poland' when the only Slavic subnation to use the term 'Pole' is the Poleszuk/Tutejszi people of the Polesie? They are now situated between Belarus and the Ukraine, a clean Slavic zone but outside of the political influence of modern Poland. How did Kashubians become Polish, but Polesie end up Ukranian?! Please write to me, any expert. Celtmist 24-10-05

The comparison with Yugoslavia s only partially valid since you are comparing modern Yugoslavia (from 20th century) with early mediaeval Poland, from the times of Mieszko I. Ten centuries is quite a long time.

As to dialects, you fail to distinguish separate Slavic languages (Sorbian, for instance) with dialects of the Polish language (like Lesser Polish, Greater Polish or Mazovian). While during the regional division of Poland many regions were ruled by autonomous rulers, I doubt any of them had a dream of a separate state. Instead, most of the dukes wanted to reunite Poland under their own rule.

Now, on to the pre-historic times of Poland. There are several theories on how was Poland created. My personal favourite is that Poland was formed just like most other states of Europe, as a federation of tribes. There were two major tribes gaining the upper hand, with one centre of power in Kraków and the other one in Greater Poland. Eventually those from Gniezno and Poznań (Polanie - hence Poland) gained an upper hand and finally Mieszko I of Poland became the first historical ruler, while the history does not even mention those from Kraków. Halibutt 10:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, I think you answered my question without seeing that you did. For you however, you've probably only created more confusion. If each community was represented by a duke, be it elected or that he had acquired power via some other source, and of course those dukes had wished to unite, then naturally a new nation is born. So the comparison with Yugoslavia was partially valid indeed, but it's that 'partial bit' that is of interest to me. Even Poland had to once pass the hundred year stage; even their people had to get used to no longer being Masovian, but now united with Kashubia aswell. Of course, if they had done, then after a thousand years there would not be the linguistic diversity that there is now, nor the frequently modified flags to represent each community. Under the surface of Poland is just like any other modern European country, if Germany gives Bavaria more autonomy then Bavarians will cry even more for a seperate state, if they get that state and award autonomy to the Swabs who are a subdivision of an established subnation, the Bavarians - the problem starts again! I won't tell you about Yugoslavia because this is not the correct page but there are administrative reasons that Poland has survived and that country didn't, but even they started the same - a desire to create a new state and overturn the existing Austro-Hungary (this the Yugoslavs I mean). Now let's go back to the Lusatian Slavs. Today they are in Germany because of how the borders were drawn, are you really going to tell me that if Sorbia were in Poland, that their language would still be seperate from Polish and that Sorbs would still not be Polish, but everyone else does speak Polish and IS Polish? Upper and Lower Sorbian differ in exactly the same way that the adjacent regions in Poland and the Czech Republic do linguisticly. Lower Sorbian, like Polish has a tendency to use the Slavic 'G' where-as Upper Sorbian in words such as 'Hlej' (Look!) use the 'Ch' of Scottish loch for the same reasons. The fact is that Sorbs are at one extreme on an ethnolinguistic continuum which encompasses Poland's entire principle population and the Slavic states around them. For being Slavic remains the underlying principle on which Poland is founded. Inhabitants of Poland not to speak a Slavic language as a first language will not declare themsleves Poles and nor will they be seen to be Polish by any Slavic Pole, whether or not Poland's governing figures opted to stay out of an enlarged Slavic state. Now on this premise, you can see something else, the Polish inspired name Bielsko-Biała is one of Poland's border towns. The people of this town have traditionally had stronger cultural links with the Slavic people living in Ostrava than with those in Koszalin. Linguisticly, the speech of the Bielsko people closer resembles the speech of people in Ostrava than Koszalin, and let's face it, you know this - I don't - but if it weren't for a standard Polish language, people from Koszalin and Bielsko wouldn't understand a word the other was saying. Traditionally, the older folk of Bielsko still speak the town dialect. That dialect is a part of the chain which includes Koszalin but is closer to Ostrava, BUT there is one problem. Ostrava is in the Czech Republic, not Poland - if Ostrava had been incorporated into Poland, would they still be Bohemians/Czechs? Probably not. They'd have their custom and dialect but for the dialect part, their speech would also be influenced by Standard Polish, so even if Sorbian of Lusatia is not a dialect of Poland, the western Poles nearest Lusatia speak much closer to Lusatian than Standard Polish. Sorbian DOES form a part of the continuum, and so if Sorbian isn't a Polish dialect, nor is that along Poland's border with Germany. It is not clear where one nation begins and the other ends, my only interest was that of how and why all these communities united. To establish this, one needs to understand how they were established before this happened; under the rule of whom did they live? And what were the circumstances surrounding the events which led to the state's creation. Maybe it is not a good idea to answer this because like with Krakow - history may not have the answer, that is to say that the answer is burried in prehistory. I'm always interested. Celtmist 25-10-05

Historical correction - almost all Polish historians do not belive in "federal theory" (it is very unlikely). Most of them thinks that between many Polish tribes two were very expansie: Polanie in Greater Poland and Wiślanie. Both tried to form own state by subordinating neighbours. But Wiślanie were conquered or subordinaed in other way by Great Moravia. Polanie had much more luck. They formed own state, conquered or subordinate in other way Polih tribes. They also take lands of Wiślanie (in 10th century Great Moravia was defeted by Hungarians).

Now language - You should remember that Polish langage stated to form in 10th century! Before tribes of modern Poland, Czech Republik, Slovakia and Eastern Germany used common language of Western Slaves in many local variations. Polish language was effect of seperate state that needed some unficating factors (other was new, common faith - christianity). In 12th century were wrote first known words in Polish.

You can ask - what is it "Polih language" - it's a mixture of two main dialects of "proto-Polish": Greater Polish and Lesser Polish. Why those two? - because, after raid of Bohemian duke Břetislav I political center was moved from Poznań, Gniezno, Giecz and Ostrów Lednicki to Cracow. There are also major influences of Masovian. Why those? After division in 13th c. provinces of early Piast state had different history:

• Greater Polan and Lesser Poland formed reunited Piast monarchy
• Masovian Piasts were semi-independent
• Silessian Piast were vassal of Bohemian rulers
• Tribes of Western Pommerania were subordinated by Brandenburg
• Tribes of Eastern Pommerania and Masuria were conquered by Teutonic Knights

Why dukes of those provinces wanted to reunite country? - All of them were colse related - as descendents of Boleslaus III and his testametnt every of them feel that he has right to be overlord of Poland. Idea of reunated country had strong support in catholic hierarchy (common for all lands of Piast's) and new part of society - citizens of towns (they were in large art merchants - so in their interest was country without borders)

Poland was again partitioned in 19 c. In western and northern part Poles were under Prussian/German domination, they had to fight in defence of own language (Kulturkampf, Strike of children of Września in 1901). Simillary was in eastern part, ruled by Russians. Only in southern area, in Habsburg Monarchy Poles had right to culitvate own language. Common fight in defence of language prevents divisions.

Now look at map of modern Poland and Poland in 1939. Wast areas of modern state (western, and north-eastern part) is inhabited by mixture of people from many regions. In fact piervous provinces with own dialects are:

• Greater Poland
• Lesser Poland
• Masovia (with Podolia, Podlahia)

In those three people thinks that they are cardle of Poland - in Masovia there is capital - Warsaw, in Lesser Poland - Cracow, capital of country for most time of it's history, andin Greater Poland - here are roots of Piast Dynasty, oldest capitals, firs bishoprisc and archibishopric...

• Eastern Pomerania - You have Kashubians with their own language
• Upper Silesia - some of people want to proof that there is Silesian language, but after Industrial Revolution, since this area was main industrial area of modern Poland, also in post-ww2 era (with all symptoms of industrialisation like migration of many People from other provinces...), people of Upper Silesia are also mixture of People from all provinces.

In fact there are no such big difference between language used commonly in Bielsko-Biała and in Koszalin, Poznań or Lublin - it's effect of unification policy started after 1918 and practicly continuated till 1989

Radomil talk 17:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• There is nothing fundementally wrong with anything that you have stated. In fact much of it was quite clear in the first place; perhaps you totally misunderstood the message I was getting accross. I wish to make one corretion to your statements and that because what you said was simply erroneous; the speech of Bielsko and Koszalin not being much different. If you speak to university students from both towns, naturally their speech will lean towards the standard language of Poland as is today. The people of both towns however, have it within them to revert to a digloss system, why in a country of 40 million it would be ridiculous to assume that they all speak the same; that doesn't happen anywhere. If the people of Bielsko were to speak in their own dialect totally decentralized from the standard language, then their speech is very different, and closer to the Czech spoken in Ostrava. In true Bielsko dialect as is still heard in many quarters, if not in the town then certainly the surrounding villages, there is often an absence of the 'G' sound of standard Polish and it its place is 'H', so hour might be 'hodina' or 'hodzina' in Bielsko - if he speaks with the 'g' of Masovia then he is not speaking in Bielsko dialect. In all languages, all regions have a long term tendency to yield towards standard but that doesn't change tradition, even if that tradition is confined to the lower working classes, the peasants etc. Remember, before a dialect can be chosen as standard, many more have to exist in the first place, all developing through time to suit the needs of the local people, regardless of whom they serve politically. Now IF any of you who wrote to me are suggesting for one minute that traditional speak in Bielsko is closer to that of Gdansk that Ostrava although all are Slav descended, then you are also automaticly insinuating that the inhabitants of Bielsko OR Ostrava only inhabited their settlements later AFTER having established a language type somewhere else, because wherever you go in the East/West Slavic zones, there is an ethnolinguistic traditional continuum which changes only slightly village by village and town by town, and Poland is NOT switched off from this phenomenon. If of course, Bielsko came to be inhabited only 200 years ago with its settlers originally living in Pomerania, then there is that chance that their speech will be closer to Gdansk speak: apart from that, the thought is inconceivable. To paint a clearer picture: Supposing the modern people of Bielsko did descend from northern settlers to the south. Who is to say that they ALL would have stopped in Bielsko and nobody would have shifted to the surrounding area either side of Poland's current boundry? What of the people who were already living there? Those traditionally settled would speak a language similar to the Ostrava Czechs whilst Ostrava itself may well have welcomed some of these northern migrants. An example is in Southern Denmark: there are towns where Danish is used by some people and Low German dialects by other people. Danish and German are both Germanic languages but they each belong to a seperate continuum, Danish being North Germanic and German, West Germanic; this reflects different plights in earlier adventures by the descendants of these people. When after so long, descendants of the Proto-Germanic speakers finally reunited in the same towns, their culture had developed in various directions and as a result, the Danes from the same towns as the Germans will have more in common linguisticly, geneticly and even culturally with the Icelandics than the Germans (who in turn have more in common with the Dutch for the same phenomena). Now about the rest of the paragraphs, all of that only explained Poland as a power! Or rather, a Pole is simply one who finds himself under the rule of the state. Historically Polands borders have chopped and changed, so has the centre of power for that matter. Poland once even held a joint union with Lithuania with covered an enormous region, yet modern Lithuania only presides over a few thousands square kilometres by the Baltic Sea which were not even included in that colony!!! All this still begs the original question, how did these communities become 'Poles'. Members of the Kociewiacy are already a subdivision of a greater Pomeranian nation who have a history of being independent but not a part of Poland, but having united (be it by choice) with the rest of the people to create a larger state then they become Poles despite being Pomeranians. Why then don't Poles attach their name to ALL Slavic peoples? Polonie is Polish territory outside of Poland - the word 'Pol' forms the root of the nation currently along the Belarus and Ukranian frontier, so they are Poles - Pomeranians live in Poland but use another name to describe themselves - so they are Poles, but Sorbs are outside of Poland and do not use the term Pole of any kind, so they are not Polish. One must make up his mind! Either the Poles are those who refer to themselves as something with a 'Polish' root whether they live inside or outside of a country that calls itself Poland, OR they are simply ALL the people inside a designated national territory where-by names such as Silesians and Kashubians are inapplicable, with no claim to anybody else outside of the territory who otherwise have no reason to call themselves Poleszuk or something similar! Where does hunger for power actually end? Poland as a nation did not want to form a greater Slavic state but did very well to unite as many Slavic communities as it could under one government, and I still say, would they have rejected Sorbia if Lusatia fell into that sphere of influence? Would Sorbs still not be Polish? Would their speech not show signs of eventual yielding? Not even by students who studied in Krakow? Think about it before writing back in anger

Celtmist 26-10-05

[edit] Recent 'President' Reverts

I cannot beleive how silly the recent reverts regarding the presidency have been. Kwasniewski will remain president until the end of the year when Kaczynski is sworn in. Kaczynski is the President (elect) until that time, and Kwasniewski is still the president. Encyclopedias are supposed to refect fact. - not fantasy. It seems obvious that the solution to this problem is to insert a line into the table to reflect that Kaczynski is President (elect) - (despite the fact that some may not like it). I'm not good with tables but I'll try to change it. If it doesn't work perhaps somebody with a mature approach to editing might want to make the change. Adz 12:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don’t think that adding ‘President-elect’ and 'Prime minister-designate' is necessary. This is a short and strict table and IMHO should only contain info about current officeholders.

--Myszodorn 15:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Well, I don't understand why some vandalism that I thought I'd reverted still persisted. Odd. Maybe I did click the wrong link. It's possible. But this is the second time this has happened. Oh well. I'll give the Wikipedia software the benefit of the doubt once more. --A bit iffy 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

Could someone add a better map for this country? This seems to me to be a problem for most country and city entries throughout Wikipedia, there are no decent maps. The "administrative map" given here shows very few cities and no detail. Location maps for cities within Poland often show just a silhouette of the country with a dot giving an approximate location of the city. These lacks of detail make it difficult for anyone to get an idea on geography. DJProFusion

Since it is more diffucult to create a graphical image then to write text, we have fewer images then we would like. Feel free to create one or search for one that is available under open licencse (or ask owners of those which are not to change their license).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Llist of cities

I think the detailed list of 40+ cities is unnecessary and makes the article messy. Lets keep only the small table with the voivodships and their capitals and if someone wants to see a more complete list of cities, they can visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Poland

Any comments? MD

Just to clarify. Kaliningrad Oblast is NOT an enclave, its half-enclave, because it have a sea connection to Russia. It's a detail but it's really two diffrent things.

Not "half-enclave" but exclave Radomil talk 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English City Names

Why are you using the Polish city forms in the English names, and reverting changes? I don't care for your blind Polish nationalism imposing things on the English language. Here is how I see it:

1, The English language lacks the special characters in use in the majority of those names.
2, The English language lacks the basic SOUNDS as in Szczecin, and we say it as 'Stettin'. English IS a Germanic language, you see.
3, I have never seen the Polish city forms used in English atlases, only German or English-modified German forms (IE, Dantsic).

So stop trying to impose your versions of city names on the English wiki. Antman 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

List:

Szczecin is pronounced 'Stettin' in English, and most Atlases use 'Stettin'.
Gdansk USED to be used as 'Danzig' in English, but after the Cold War we began to use Gdansk (no accent).
Wroclaw, we can't really make those sounds, most people I know who come from there who aren't Polish (German-ancestry or people referencing it) say Breslau.

We also don't use accented characters because our keyboards cannot easily make them. Antman 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well British Embassy in Warsaw and US Departament of State has different opinion about those names than You. I belive them. Radomil talk 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you even editing here; this is an English Wiki. Antman 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No arguments? Is it so painfull? Radomil talk 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I realise rationality may be misplaced here, but... Antman's argument that Standard German forms should be used, since English is a Germanic language, is so specious as to be frankly laughable; one point does not follow from the other. Suffice it to say that modern English doesn't even use the German forms for all German cities --- often it's anglicised French (Cologne for Köln, Vienna for Wien, Munich for München). As for the cities we're actually dealing with, I think it would be fairest to say that there are no English words for these cities, because people without some personal connection to them or the country they are in (unlike, say, Paris, Rome or even Warsaw) are unlikely to have even heard of them, much less know what to call them. There are two Polish cities which have clear, well-known English names: Warsaw and Cracow (and even the latter you see written more and more as "Kraków" nowadays). As for the rest, people who don't know anybody from the region will go by local usage, however hard it may be to pronounce. Incidentally, English speakers are perfectly capable of making every sound in the word "Szczecin" on its own, they're just not used to the spelling or order. Oh, and any claims along the lines of "most atlases use..." will be ignored without citations. ～J.K. 00:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No. It is more often "Krakow" than "Cracow", and more often "Cracow" than "Kraków", in English. But that's just part of a general getting away from changing K to C, in both personal names and place names, though nobody ever complains yet about noisy krikitts outside of Wikipedia. Both Cracow and Krakow deserve mention as English spellings; nothing is added by throwing in a Polish spelling. Krakov also has a fair amount of use, but Cracov and Krakóv are much rarer. Gene Nygaard 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this issue is resolved by the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. In the modern, post 1945, Szczecin is Szczecin, not Settin.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Questioning people's right to contribute to Wikipedia is not civil and doesn't help wikipedia. Anybody with any level of competency in English can, and should be encouraged, to contribute to the English Wikipedia. A diversity of sources provides a much richer diversity in information that can be contributed and shared. It also contributes to a greater number of perspectives. Apart from the fact that wikipedians in various parts of the world are able to contribute various types of information by virtue of the fact that they are located closer to alternative (non-English) information sources, and that they can translate those sources, wikipedians from non-English speaking backgrounds contribute to countering systemic bias, ethnocentrism, and consequently a less WP:POV Wikipedia. Wikipedians from various backgrounds are valued and are to be encouraged!

I don't support either side of nationalist disputes. I think they are embarrassing and there are often a simple NPOV solutions if only cool minds prevailed. It's unfortunate that on some issues it seems all too difficult for people to work together. I think it wouldn't hurt to read the WP:CIV and Wikipedia:Etiquette pages from time to time.

-- Adz 07:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Even many young Germans use the name Wroclaw instead of Breslau.

Xx236 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The translations of Polish province names into English! Good God! Where did we get these aberrations from? Cuiavian-Pomerania? Never heard of it in all my life! Let's just stick to the Polish names (minus the accented letters). Whatever next? The Boat's Voivodship or the Holy Cross Voivodship! It's like the Polish translator's passion for turning 'ul. Mickiewicza' into 'Mickiewicz Street'. Like one translates 'Bahnhofstrasse' into 'Bahnhof Street' or 'Rue de Paix' into 'Peace Road'. Or indeed 'Oxford Circus' into 'Cyrk Oksfordski' or 'Marlborough Street' into 'ul. Marlborough'a'

Michael Dembinski

Micheal, welcome to Wiki. You may want to create an account and raise this issue at our noticeboard. Also, note that there are the Holy Cross Mountains...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Piotr (the name is spelt 'Michael') I have signed up. I am keen to see the principle of reciprocity on Wikipedia. The Polish site does not attempt to translate British place names into Polish, other than London/Londyn. So why the attempts to translate Polish place names into English (other than Warszawa/Warsaw)?

(BTW I find it amusing that the very Poles who get upset by Australians' pronounciation of their highest peak as "Mount Koskee-usko" are also vehement that the northernmost stop on the Warsaw metro be pronounced "Plats Veelsona" rather than "Łylsona")

The names of Polish cities should remain as they are in Polish. Szczecin should remain as Szczecin. The term 'Stettin' is usually only found in older atlases and this is because of the Germanic connection - it should now be considered offensive to use the German name for this Polish city. The same obviously applies to Wrocław (Wroclaw, Breslau) and so on. I can, however, understand not using Polish characters because not all PCs are set up to show Central European characters but the correct Polish spelling should at least be put in brackets. Xania 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It not is a real history of Poland. It is a sweet idyllic "syrup". What about polish serfdom?

"The citizens of Poland took pride in their ancient freedoms and parliamentary system, although the Szlachta monopolised most of the benefits. Since that time Poles have regarded freedom as their most important value. Poles often call themselves the nation of the free people."

Authors have overlooked that the most part of Poles since the middle of the fourteenth century were serfs. The serfdom was severe. Landowners gained almost unlimited ownership over serfs. The Polish expansion on the East, in ancient russian princedoms, carried the serfdom to the Ukrainians and Belorussians Ben-Velvel 13:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Was Galich Rus' annexed by Poles or by Lithuanians in the 14th century? Also, I don't think that "The Polish expansion on the East, carried the serfdom to the Ukrainians and Belorussians." statement is correct, as Russian serfdom developed rather independently (the article cleary states The origins of serfdom in Russia are traced to Kievan Rus in the 11th century.). Besides, Serfdom came with feudalism, and spread through entire Europe, one nation carrying it to another, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In Kievan Rus' relations between the peasant and the landowner did not developed in the serfdom. There were only preconditions of strengthening of dependence of the peasant from the landowner. Then there was a destructive Mongol-Tatar invasion and as a result the serfdom in eastern Russia was generated in the beginning of 17th century only. However since Mongol-Tatar invasion the former western Russian princedoms went under rule of Poland and Lithuania and received the serfdom from Poland. In any case the medieval nation cannot be named the nation of the free people Ben-Velvel 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your specific points at the Talk:History of Poland. I do agree that the following fragment should be revised, as it is both POVed and unreferenced: Since that time Poles have regarded freedom as their most important value. Poles often call themselves the nation of the free people. I won't object to it's removal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Russian"????????

Xx236 12:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"went under rule of Poland and Lithuania and received the serfdom from Poland." Lithuania used to have its laws. When did Lithuania accept Polish laws regarding peasants? What was the name of the law? Xx236 13:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish National Government

Hello. I new user has just created Polish National Government. I cannot immediately verify whether or not the page is factual or has any merit. I notice that this new user has already been warned once today about alleged vandalism to a user page. I hope that someone here will check out the page. Please let me know if it should be deleted. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tnx. We added it to Portal:Poland/New article announcements. It is probably a good entry, if on a stub-level.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mieszko I

Was Mieszko I only a prince his whole life or did he become a king later? Informationguy

AFAIK he was a prince only, it was his son Bolesław I Chrobry who was the first king of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Mieszko I died shortly before his scheduled coronation.

[edit] Let's remove the History part

There is the text History of Poland. Why to keep an another text, containing errors - Russia (should be Rus or Halich) or Kazimierz Wielki. Xx236 12:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Every country article should have a history section. Correct the errors, instead of deleting the content.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very hard to manage two different coherent articles. Probably the only way is to make the article "History" the best possible and to write its shorter version for "Poland". Corrections make a text different but I'm not sure if better. Xx236 12:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Would it be possible to replace the pictures of Katowice with some nicer ones? The ones that are up now (all three of them!) really don't do the city any justice! MD 10:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There are more to chose from at Katowice, and note relevant picture categories both here and on Commons. Be bold and chose the ones you like - or go make some new photos :).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I put up a picture of Torun and changed the picture of Katowice with the reflection in the window (!) for a nicer one of the Spodek but someone reverted that and posted the old ugly pictures again! :( Come on: if you really want to include pictures of Katowice, why not some nicer ones? -- MD 12:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Spodek picture is much better. The one with reflection is pretty bad. Poszwa 17:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On a related sidenote, Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements#Images contains info on some Poland-related images which will soon be deleted, becaue uplodars didn't use image copyright tags or didn't link the images from any articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This picture situation is really getting out of hand. Is there any way to stop this nonsense, agree on a series of HIGH QUALITY NICE PICTURES and prevent users like the one that keeps putting up the picture with the reflection from sabotaging our article? -- MD 13:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused with the picture of the Third Reich flag put as a Polish flag... Is it intended or just vandalism? --Programming Hamster 18:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently something has to be done about Gagabrain because he put that 3rd reich flag here twice (just checked a few earlier revisions) - Programming Hamster 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katowice photos

Any idea on how to handle these pictures ? This is not a picture gallery. The photos should be representative for the country. I don't think we need any photo from Katowice in this article, and definitely not 3 of them. Also it would be good to pay attention to the quality of the photos. --_Lysy^talk 19:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see one photo of Katowice - it's one of the major cities... and I was born there :) A nice picture of Spodek would probably be the best choice. Everything else should go to commons (remeber to add appopriate Category, like Category:Katowice, to the image, so it's not forgotten!).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

But photo at teh begining desribed as "Highway DTS Katowice", was changed by A2 Higway photo which is IMHO better (not ideal, and waiting for succesor) as "highway". Then look at editions of LUCPOL and SZPANER (I suspect that this is this same user). LUCPOL is also known on pl:wiki for "actions" that could be called "Katowice or death!". I agree that we need here one good photo of Katowice. :) Radomil talk 23:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Katowice but I'm not quite sure if we need a photo of every major Polish city here. First let's think how many and what kind of pictures do we want to illustrate the article. I think something like 20 images would be fine for now, including maps, drawings etc. That would leave us more or less 15 photos. What should there be ? Sure some major cities both historic sights and modern centres, possibly some city landscape pictures featuring landmarks rather than focusing on individual objects. Then some countryside pictures, different landscapes, mountains, seaside, lakes, forests. A typical village architecture. Do not foget about the nature, which is one of the major assets of Poland. Do you agree ? Any ideas ? --_Lysy^talk 13:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think if there is no agreement which picture of Katowice to choose, I'd prefer having none. I think Spodek is acceptable but is not particularly nice and the blue one with the reflection is horrible. Poszwa 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The infamous pictures are back again!! Is there a way of blocking the IP of the person responsible for this vandalism?! --MD 14:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dobra. Słuchajcie. Obserwując ostatnio artykuł o Polsce można wywnioskować tylko jedno. Najpierw było mało zdjęć. Później dołożone zostały 3 zdjęcia Katowic: jedno w kategorii o miastach (gdzie są zdjęcia rynku największych miast) i pozostałe 2 zdjęcia z wieżowcami w kategorii o ekonomii (obok zdjęć wieżowców w Warszawie). Później się nagle wszyscy obudzili i zaczeli tkać tam swoje zdjęcia kasując poprzednie!!! Trzeba pójść na ugodę. Sprawa jest następująca. Zdjęcie rynku w Katowicach może zostać tak jak inne zdjęcia rynku innych największych polskich miast. Jeśli chodzi o dział ekonomia to powinien znaleźć się tak zdjęcie Spodka. Te drugie zdjęcie Katowic (wieżowce nocą) można wycofać z artykułu (jeśli chcecie). I teraz druga sprawa. Czy warto zostawiać zdjęcia jakiś wioch? Przecież to wstyd dla Polski. Polska będzie się kojarzyła z wioskami, a nie z cywilizowaną Europą. Zastanówcie się nad tym. I jeszcze dajcie tylko zdjęcie bociana... do artykułu o Polsce. Hehehe. Pozdrawiam --LUCPOL 13:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Use English. This is English language wikipedia, not Polish, and most of users do not udnerstand our language
2. Stop using sock-puppets to avoid 3RR violation
3. Give your propositins of photos bleow

Radomil talk 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Na PL.Wiki nieraz teksty po rusku idą, a tu narzekają na Polski. Hehehe

Use English on talk pages - that's important. That said, I don't see what's the fuss about L/S actions is about, and some who call it vandalism seem to behaving pretty uncivil. I do think that 1 photo of Katowice (rynek to fit the series, as LUCPOL noted) is in order. To answer Lysy - my rule of thumb is that a picture can be added to the article as long as therere is one picture per line and the lenght of the 'picture' block is no longer then the text - so yes, we should hopefuly have a pic of every major Polish town, and some other things. Spodek is nice, but I don't see it's relevance to economy. If anything, it should have some factory or something more 'economic'. Finally, as for 'village' addition, see my comment here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't call him "a troll", I only wanted to take greater attention on him from our Polish sub-community. One user that push his POV too hard, using for this purpose sock-puppets can destroy this delicate balance between different POV on Cetral Europe related articles. As for length of "picture block" - it's proportions with text depends on display resolution of Your monitor... Radomil talk 23:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Photos

So let's try to make list of those 15 photos: Radomil talk 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Warsaw old town (as rebuilt from ruins )
2. Warsaw modern city centre (something like , but maybe better)
3. Cracow (old town or the castle, or both, like here: Image:Krakau05.jpg but better quality and license)
4. Poznań (town hall) or
5. Wrocław (town hall or Ostrów Tumski)
6. Katowice (or other town of GOP) or Łódź ?
7. Gdańsk (the crane, Neptune fountain or the cathedral ?)
8. Village1 (maybe Mazowsze architecture or landscape, or typical Polish manor house ?)
9. Village2 (maybe Podhale or Beskidy architecture ?) or maybe Biskupin? Radomil talk 21:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

   it could be difficult to get a good picture of Biskupin, that would not look like a cheap reconstruction. --_Lysy^talk 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

10. Small town (e.g. Lanckorona , Kazimierz  ?)
11. Baltic shore (Słowiński or or Woliński National Park?)
12. Lake districts (Masuria or other)
13. Plains (Masovia, Southern Greater Poland, Lower Silesia, maybe with view on Warta , Odra or Vistula ?)
14. Mountains (Tatra ?, there are many photos of those mountains)
15. Nature (White Stork , horses, wisent , Puszcza Białowieska ?)
16. A castle (Ogrodzieniec , Malbork , Książ, Nowy Wiśnicz ?)

    A couple of things to consider:

    • Polish or foreign (e.g. Teutonic) ?
    • original/rebuilt/ruins ?
    • medieval ?

    Maybe other element of material culture? or something like that?

[edit] Discussion

• Do we allow "portrait" form, or "landscape" only ? --_Lysy^talk 21:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• quality ?
• license ?
• maybe try to make them into featured pics, first ?

I'd suggest adding Łódź pic, if we want to have most major cities covered. Kraków is the most famous Polish city abroad, probably as famous as Warsaw, so I'd suggest 2 pics of it (especially if we want to pics of Wawa). In the case of Wawa, I'd suggest one of the pics to show the 'modern' city - the curren selection of castle+old town would be more suitable for Cracow, not our capital. Finally, on a related note: it's nice to see some activity here, and photos contribs are always welcome - please remember to use image copyright tags and put the image into Category:Images of Poland (or Category:Poland on commons), or into more specific city/region related subcategories.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Łódź is of course very important but not many pictureque (similarly to Katowice). What would be the representative picture of Łódź ? Piotrkowska ? On a photo it looks just like a street, not very intereting. Two pics for Warsaw would be justified if they are very different, therefore I suggested one of the old town and one of the modern centre. As for Cracow, I know it is an important city, but what different pictures again ? I guess both would be of the old town ? I think they should be rather exposing some diversity, therefore I suggested only one. --_Lysy^talk 04:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Łódź, but I am sure we can find something nice. Kraków gives us lots of choice - I'd suggest Rynek/Sukiennice, and Wawel. Wieliczka and Oświęcim are popular turist atractions that we may consider as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Oświęcim etc. This is not supposed to be a tourist guide, but a selection of pictures giving an impression of multiple aspects of the country. Ideally, the pictures should be not only good technically, but interesting, "eye-catching" and typical or characteristic for the country. I think that photos of interiors are appropriate for individual articles but not for this one, which is obviously a general one. Therefore it would be difficult to have a decent picture of Wieliczka. As for Oświęcim, hmm, is this a typical picture of Poland or what ? As for Wawel and Rynek, they are not very different thematically, in that they both would both be pictures of historic buildings. Maybe, if we have really good and appalling pictures of both ... I don't know. --_Lysy^talk 06:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As for Łódź, any picture of any palace at Piotrkowska would do. Poznański's palace (or here, with a rag of factory visible), Heinz's, Schweikert's, Jarisch' or the small Poznański's perhaps? Alternatively we could add some pretty industrial pic as it is also quite nice. Grohman's factory comes to mind... Halibutt 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, IMO GOP it is important part of Poland (mayby not from Tourstiv POV, but it is). Perhaps e should put Łódź picture in place of one of "Village photos"? Radomil talk 23:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need

time line

There already is a Timeline of Polish history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There should be more pictures on this page...

[edit] In total, there are around 91,000 scientists in Poland today.

I believe that the Polish word "uczony" cannot be translated as "scientist", because "science" means "nauki scisłe". Xx236 11:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What about social scientists then?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A list of Poles

How about a list of Polish Americans, I would like to include my Wife randazzo562-28-06

Well, is your wife famous? We can't add all Polish-Americans, there are probably several million.Cameron Nedland 18:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large credits?

"and the government had large credits" - does it sound OK? I mean, it's probably supposed to mean that the Gierek's government took large loans (which they did). "Credit" is ambiguous IMHO but I'd rather some native speaker spoke out. Zbihniew 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Debts, perhaps, will be the best solution?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

why it is not mentioned that Reymont has got Nobel prize? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.98.19.137 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It may not have been added by other people. Feel free to add it if it can be confirmed. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Maryja/Corrupt Church

Reported by the BBC, the church has abused their power. Churches are constantly being built, and priest buy luxury cars, while Poland suffers extreme poverty. THe Government has recently been criticized by the E.U. for their extremist religious views.

Certainly Radio Maryja deserves its own article. Whether it's important enough to be linked from this article, though, I am not sure. Btw, if BBC reported something, could you give us the link?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Separation of Church and state

The Polish government is a fundamentally catholic. The church has large say in affairs within the nation. The government forces children from as early as kindergarten (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/45622.stm) (as signed with the Vatican) to have Christian classes (in Public, state funded schools). But sectarianism is not the only issue.

Clarification - it is true that "religion" (in fact Christian clases) is thought in public schools but is not mendatory. One can opt-out from it. There is no "formal" pressure to attend such clases but for sure there may be "social" pressure to attend. (I did not have any citations if such "social" pressure is present or how widespread it is but personally I did not experienced such pressure but for me it was 4 last years of primary school and whole secondary school and I live in large city which may be significant factor ...). 83.25.80.206 22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Corrupt Church

The Polish church has been many time criticized corruption (although some can be jailed for this, as under polish law a person who criticizes the government can be jailed, and as the Polish church holds a tight grip on government, a person who criticizes the church may be jailed). Many Poles probably know a lot of the corruption allegations. One is that the church does not have to pay VAT (taxes). In the early 90s the church would purchase large trucks of beer, and other suppliers for large events and then sell them to make large profits. The church has also been criticized for its extravagance. In a nation were the unemployment/poverty I very large, priest/bishops buy themselves expensive cars, build many church, and build their living quarters with supplies such as marble. The church has also been involved with many enterprises and profiting from the no tax. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/363004.stm).

1) there is no law that sends to jail for cricicizing goverment, but there is controversial law that make defamation of certain people (incuding head of the state and heads of foreign states !!!) general offence pursued by public presecutor but it is rearly used and AFAIK no one have actually gone to jail because of it. 2) - AFAIK there is no law sentensing for jail for criticizing church. Mayby you are mentioning "offence against religious feelings" (this is direct translation of "obraza uczuc religijnych") law? The most notably case that i know (and basicaly only case) when it was used was in artist Dorota Nieznalska case - as an "artistic instalation" she put photo of man's penis on cross ... She was convicted for (i think ...) 2 years in probation (so she did not go to jail + there is appeal going on) 3) - the "thigh grip" you are talking about if one can say is real came from two sources - concordad (agreement between Poland and Vatican state) giving church relatively big priviliges (but still whitin european standards IMHO) and soft power over politicians (on the left wing - no one oppose church not to offend voters and on the right wing people actually support view of church and church hierarchy is natural political allay and role model -> but again it is not that simple as for example PiS and LPR follow o. Rydzyk not bp. Pieronek. 83.25.80.206 22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There is much speculation that the Polish church is trying to become a political power, rather than a religious institution.

I do not know if one can say about church as a whole but some part of it have such ambitions (like o. Rydzyk) 83.25.80.206 22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism

In 2000, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/692586.stm) the polish parliament wanted to implement a bill that banned all pornography (even soft core), with penalties of jail term up to two years (which would be the toughest law in Europe). Kwasniewski, President at the time, did not ratify it.

The church is highly vocal on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage. They have often persuaded the public to vote against candidates that support these issues (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3631707.stm). The church has criticized the EU for not allowing “God” to be mentioned in the constitution, having un-Christian morals, and not allowing the church to play a larger role in European affairs.

Abortion laws in Poland are the strictest of any nation in Poland. There has been a recent case where a women, that has three children already, would go blind if the abortion is not allowed. The government has not allowed her to go ahead with the abortion. This has sparked much criticism in the EU. The women receives state welfare, and is disabled as well. She would not be capable of supporting the next child as she is single (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4691192.stm).

The nation has seen a rise in radicalism as well (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1565094.stm), both in government and in the public. With the party “league of Christian families”, there have been many “skin head” groups that have risen.

Please do remember that there were always conservative (+ some rasist and xenophobes) people in Poland. For some time their voice was completely unrepresented and now is IMHO is overrepresented. After some time (probably) everything will go back to normal (after new elections?). Please do remember that current economic situation (uneployment and transitions of the last 16 years) also fuels conservative attitude but you are right that it seems that church fits into the trend of rise of the conservatism 83.25.80.206 22:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the goverment is not responsible for everything that is happening in Poland. Nor is the Church. (Yes, there are some municipal authorities, NGOs, political parties, pressure groups, media, trade unions, and even individuals that exist in Poland).

Second, The Church is not a monolith. There are some priests that support Radio Maryja, but many other oppose it (including the primat and many bishops). You can be a catholic and disagree with RM policies.

There is a no "rise in skinhead groups". This is plain rubbish. The "Ligue of Polish Families" (which - BTW - is nationalistic, but quite moderately) support in the poles is currently at about 2 or 3%.

The only person sentenced for "offending religious feelings" was Dorota Nieznalska. She was sentenced to 6 months of community work (under appeal). The only person sentenced fot "offending a foreign head of state" was Jerzy Urban. He was sentenced to pay a fine.

The Church does have some tax privileges - as it does in many other states - including the US.

Some priests in the 1990s (not "The Church") have in fact discouraged their congregations of voting for certain candidates . But the effect was completly the opposite. So they ceased doing so.

The abortion laws in Poland are not "the strictest" that you can imagine. In the case of Alicja Tysiac (the woman that was supposed to go blind unless she had an abortion - actually it did not happened) it was her doctor (not "the goverment") that had not allowed an abortion.

P.S. The above quotations from the BBC are "a little" outdated. Furthermore, BBC is vary poorly informed about polish politics. --Barry Kent 00:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Radio Maryja

This radio station (which has a TV program as well) has come across much critics, even sometimes from the catholic church. It is blamed for fueling anti-Semitism, and xenophobic anger (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2758795.stm). The station has approximately 6 million listeners in Poland alone. -- GPRIEST --Gpriest 14:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Area of Poland

The correct territory of Poland: 322575 km²
include:

• land area (including inland waters: rivers and lakes) – 311889 km²
• territorial sea (internal sea watres) – 8682 km²

The total area of the country according to the administrative division amounts to 312683 km² and includes a land area (including inland waters) of 311889 km² as well as a part of internal sea waters — 794 km², i.e.: Wisła Bay, including ports, Szczecin Bay, including: Lake Nowowarpieńskie, Lake Wicko Wielkie, Kamieński Bay and ports as well as Gulf of Gdańsk ports and border ports.
Source: CONCISE STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF POLAND 2006
Aotearoa from Poland 22:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia Encarta 2006 (and all earlier versions), the total land area of Poland is 312,684 sq km (120,728 sq mi). I think that Encarta is very good in gathering correct data and it is very important to use an internationally verifiable source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.112.65.82 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

According to the Central Statistical Office of Poland [1] the total land area of Poland is 312685 km². This is the most reliable source.--Thomaspca 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the reference [2] to the intro section. --Thomaspca 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The area of Poland is 312,685 km². There is no any Polish Law that states otherwise. This is factual data and no law can change it. According to the Central Statistical Office in Poland (See References) the total land are of Poland is 312,685 km². The text in bold below is copied directly from CONCISE STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF POLAND 2005 - PAGE 25 (Polish): "Powierzchnia ogólna kraju przyjęta według podziału administracyjnego wynosi 312685 km² i obejmuje obszar lądowy (łącznie z wodami śródlądowymi) - 311904 km² oraz część morskich wód wewnętrznych - 781 km²". So, the area including all inland waters (311904 km²/land/rivers/lakes + 781 km²/internal-sea-waters) is 312685 km² but not 322577 km²!

• Don't change information if you havn't got correct sources. If you look on Polish Wikipedia site pl:Polska, or on CONCISE STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF POLAND 2006 publised by Central Statistical Office, page 25 (see website: [3] - fool yearbook in PDF) you can find that area of Poland is 322,575 km² Aotearoa from Poland 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I see that User:Aotearoa / User talk:Aotearoa from Poland / User:Aotearoa from Poland continues to vandalize the English version of the introduction section of POLAND. The changes that he makes do not make any sense, they confuse people, and they do not look good! I redesigned the Introduction part and the Culture section of POLAND and now they still look good but I am not sure for how long the sections will stay that way. Unfortunately, due to the constant vandalism by User:Aotearoa from Poland and others, I decided that all of the improvements are not worth my valuable time that is why I wont do them anymore! --Thomaspca 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  So, in my opinion, edition by Thomaspca should be classified as vandalization. I have given actual and official sources in support my editions. Thomaspca has reverted my edition without any logical substantiations – he has changed because he “know better”. I see that Thomaspca is new user, and maybe he don’t know rules of Wikipedia. Aotearoa from Poland 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the total area of Polnad is 312,685 sq km => Link: [4]

[edit] Stop Changing the Land Area of POLAND

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the total area of Polnad is 312,685 sq km => Link: [5]

I agree with someone who posted the area of 312685 sq km earlier today. I went to see both sources mentioned by you User:Aotearoa and User talk:Aotearoa from Poland and User:Aotearoa from Poland as well as the TABLICE by Central Statistical Office of Poland (see references; Page 1)) and I have to conclude that we should consider the land are of Poland as 312685 sq km! Did you ever see any country's area posted in any media that would include external sea or ocean area! Please take a look around the internet and you will never see such things posted anywhere! Even though the area of Poland including the external sea is 322575 sq km, the land area including inland sea area in only 312685 sq km and this number should be posted to not confuse other users! Please come to Talk:Poland section to discuss this further. Once again, please do not confuse readers with your version of information (322575 sq km). The Central Statistical Office posted the total land area of POLAND on many of their documents as 312685 sq km. So, please stop damaging my work! Do not change the land area with your info! The area posted now, 312685 sq km, is the correct total land area referenced here by 3 sources and there are many more sources to support this fact out there! Thanks! --Thomaspca 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

322575 sq km is area of territory of Poland - land area (311 889 sq km) + internal waters (area of Gulf of Gdańsk, Gulf of Szczeciń and some harbours - 2004 sq km) + territorial sea (8682 sq km). 312683 sq km is administrative area of Poland (area of administrative divisions) - land area (311 889 sq km) + part of internal waters (794 sq km). So, if you need corret area of Poland, you must know witch are you want. If you want land area of Poland (corresponding to others country's area) - the correct value is 311889 sq km. But if you want area of land and internal waters - value is 313893 sq km. Administrative area (312683 sq km) is only statistic area and don't correpond with ares of others countries sown in Wikipedia. In remark: there are new values of area of land and area of internal waters in new official ststistic yearbook (by Central Statistical Office) - area was changed after new surveys by Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography. Aotearoa from Poland 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

PAX. Aotearoa is definitely right - we must know what we want. And what is enwiki standard for this? Total areas are included, covering land and inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, rivers). Marine internal waters, territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones are not included. See List of countries and outlying territories by total area, the areas are (and should be kept) consistent with this article. So the correct value here is 311889+794=312683. We may add info about teritorial waters somewhere with an explicit explanation, but it is evident that the "oficial area" should be set to 312683. --Beaumont (@) 12:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the 312685 standard has been accepted in other ecyclopedias: Britannica [6] or Polish PWN [7] (rounded). --Beaumont (@) 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote that “Total areas are included, covering land and inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, rivers). Marine internal waters, territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones are not included”. But administrative area of Poland include same of marine internal waters (39,6% of Polish internal waters (794 km²), i.e. Zalew Szczeciński and Zalew Wiślany; total area of Polish internal waters is 2004 km²). In my opinion this is a problem, because administrative area of Poland (312 685 km²) doesn’t correspond with areas of other countries (i.e. only land areas). And administrative area of Poland isn’t “official area” – it is just statistic area of Polish communes (see at Polish Wikipedia pl:Powierzchnia Polski). Aotearoa from Poland 17:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not just a statistical number. There are two issues to consider.

• The point is that your source defines explicitely the coast line. And according to this some waters are inland waters. This should be taken into account (and in the source you have detailed explanation what kind of waters is taken into accout: lakes, ports, rivers are a great part of it). Then you arrive at the number I have indicated.
• The problem is that we deal with a primary source, which is not recommended. Actually, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research (see WP:RS). IMHO, you isert your OR - the way you understand the primary source. If I objected on the same basis, this would be no better. But we are supposed to use secondary sources or tertiary sources. Another relevant quotation from WP:RS: Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. And virtually all secondary and tertiary sources give 312685, some links above (It is reasonable to correct it slightly according to the newest stat. survey). Now, in my version everything is consistent - the natural interpretaion of the primary source and what we see in the sencondary/teritiary sources.

I hope this clearly justifies the number (and some corrections that I make to the article). Best regards, --Beaumont (@) 13:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I completely agree with Beaumont and Thomaspca! Unfortunately, Aotearoa reads too much into his sources, which also state that the total area of Poland including internal waters is 312685 sq km. As Beaumont said (and I completely agree), there are many other sources that cite the area of Poland as 312685 sq km! Why Wikipedia should be differrent from other well known sources? This will make users feel as there are many errors at Wiki! I vote for the area of Poland as 312685 sq km!

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the total area of Polnad is 312,685 sq km => Link: [8]

It looks like this can of worms has been reopened, just read that Poland's area will now expand as a result of the Czech Republic returning some land because of border adjustment. [9] Good luck to anybody attempting to figure out what the area is now. JRWalko 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

Is not the agricultural sector just 10% of the economy (and thus a problem)? This should be noted in the sentence about agriculture. Also, the figures from this article might be useful: http://www.ce-review.org/01/19/cave19.html --Vegalabs 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo

I would just like to note this little bit of praise. The Poland related topics are some of the most well written and detailed, interesting entries on Wikipedia. I seriously had never had any interest in Poland, but after about a thousand good articles on the history, politics, great figures and a billion mathemeticians and scientists, I find myself very interested. There seems to be a consistent interest in this topic, and it is well attended too. Bravo. Thanks to these articles, my trip to Europe this summer will most definitely include Poland.

--L.A.F. 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A mistake

I'm afraid that the cathedral in Stargard Szczecinski is also at the list of UNESCO Heritage in Poland but there is nothing about it in the article. It's one of the oldest and most beautiful gothic churches in Poland.

This entire section should be split into its own subarticle, especially as we already have a Category:World Heritage Sites in Poland. We don't have an article on Catherdal in Stargrard Szczeciński yet, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lechery and Lechia–any connection?

I am posting this here because I don't know where else I can get this question answered. Does anyone know whether there is a connection between the English word lechery and the old name for Poland, Lechia?–Clpalmore 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe not, judging by the different pronounciation. Cosmi 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume that "Lechia" came from the legendary "Lech" (brother of "Czech" and "Rus"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.144.228 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] see also

This may be trivial, but I removed a link to a Wikipedia article entitled "You forgot Poland" under "see also." That article has absolutely nothing to do with a study of Poland and is somewhat offensive. - Adam

It's you're problem, if you are offended by facts.AchtungAchtung 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name of the country

I have removed the text below from the article. While I think it is partly correct, it isn't entirely correct, and it should be re-written, and possibly either referenced, or be confirmed by several people. The "Pol" possibly comes from the Polish word "pole" meaning field or plain, although I believe that I read somewhere once that it actually derives from an onld Slavic word which means something slightly different. The Polish word is 'Polska', which doesn't contain the word 'land' at all, so the second part of the explanation below appears a bit nonsensical. It may be that Polska does mean 'land of the plains dwellers' or something similar, but it needs to be explained differently. Perhaps it should say that the English word 'Poland' is derived from the Polish word 'Polska' - which means land of field dwellers. Or it needs to say that it is an anglicised form of the word. And it should possibly be sourced. -- Adz|talk 13:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

==Meaning of country's name== Poland's name means 'land of the field-dwellers', from Slavic pol 'field' and land 'land'. This meaning is borne out by the amount of wooded/fielded areas.

It derives from Pol, whatever it originates from, and Germanic 'land', which is present in all Germanic languages including English -- see England, Holland, Finland, etc. Ameise -- chat 05:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that only English name, which is Germanic language, is Pol-Land. Polish name is "Polska". And early recorded names were "Polonia", with explanation presented by some medieval monk already that it means quasi campania.Szopen 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poland's population

I found something a bit strange in Poland's population figures. If I go to the Demographics of Poland, I see that Poland's population is doubtfully increasing, and when I take a look to country's profile, I see a low decrease from 38 230 000 to 38 123 000. Can someone give me an answer is Poland's population is really increasing?. Thanks, Arthur 13 August 2006

Population estimate from July 2006 is 38,536,869 people (this number is constantly growing).--Thomaspca 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many pictures

The article is full of pictures that are not really necessary, just pretty. It might be better to remove them or at least put them into a Gallery. Kusma (討論) 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a matter of the screen resolution I use, but to me all pics fit perfectly into the article. //Halibutt 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many photos... As a start I have removed the explicit pixel size on the photos (such that the thumbnails are displayed using the users preferred sized) and the single fair-use image. I think I number of photos could be removed:

(not a great photo)	(squint, what's the relevance?)	(keep either this or the night shot of Warsaw, no need for both)	(oh please)
(nothing of relevance to Poland as a whole)	(no context)

But hey, if you want more: http://www.pbase.com/wangi/poland ;) Seriously, do you agree we should remove at least the photos above? Thanks/wangi 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep at least the pic of that brick factory in Łódź. It's really how that city looks like. //Halibutt 01:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else has opinions on removing these photos. Regarding your message on my talk page about my photos — if you let me know which photos you'd like to use I can upload them to commons so they can be used here (and on other language versions). Thanks/wangi 08:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, I don't see why the pictures are disturbing you? If There's a picture in a section that has no repport with, there's no matter. The pictures are to better creating an image about Poland to the reader. Regards, Arthur 18 August 2006

Far too many- this isn't a travel brochure. Removing the ones suggested would be a good start. Henry^Flower 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all above except the Lodz one - any more to go? Thanks/wangi 03:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forced Migration

"The shift forced the migration of millions of people – Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, and Jews"

Since the list of resettled ethnicities is not sorted alphabetically it can lead to the wrong assumption that the mentioned ethnicities are sorted by some other criteria like the number of people who were forced to migrate. That ain't the case though since there i.e. were only 1.2 million Poles resettled versus 9.8 million Germans. I therefore propose to either sort the list aphabetically or add a remark like "in no particluar order" to the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.178.88.73 (talk • contribs) & 84.178.120.49 (talk • contribs) between 22:32, 27 August 2006 & 21:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC).

• • The new Poland emerged 20% smaller by 77,500 square kilometres (29,900 sq mi). The shift forced the migration of millions of people – Poles, Germans, Ukrainians, and Jews.

It seem sto me that Poland has one of the most rubbery borders in Europe. It could not have emerged 20% smaller, because it actually gained territory in the East (considering it was forced to recognise the Curzon Line, and it gained a lot of territory in the West, including territory which had never been Polish, like East Prussia). Ukranians were able to return to their homes after leaving following post WW1 temorary existence of an independednt Ukraine (although there was a minority of Ukranians in Poland also). Jews were not able to return, and there are recorded murders of Jews who tried to return to their homes by Poles. By and large the displaced population was German.

[edit] Anti-Polonism alert

It is concerning to see some editors recently adding inflammatory remarks accusing Poles of being the major accomplices in the extermination of Jews during World War 2, e.g [10]. While some Poles were undoubtedly traitors, other Polish Gentiles risked their own lives saving those of Jews, which is why the greatest number of Righteous Among the Nations are Poles, at 5 941. In other words, just like any other race, there were good people and there were bad people. Let's stay vigilant to ensure that the article remains free of anti-Polish bias. Brisvegas 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

German gentiles risked their lives as well to save Jews, but they are still branded terribly; why should Poles get different treatment? Ameise -- chat 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons would be that it wasn't the Polish state who orchestrated the Holocaust... Miki 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Antman, you simply prove my point. It is wrong for any race to be categorically branded due to the actions of a few, since there are both good and bad people involved. Since this is the Poland article and the attacks were made on Poles, that's why I mentioned Poles in particular. I would oppose any anti-German bias on that country's article as well. Do you see my point? Brisvegas 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Wouldn't it be logical and helpful to include a map delineating the border changes in 1945, perhaps with arrows showing major population shifts? I realize the article contains separate maps of prewar and postwar Poland, but the type of composite map I'm suggesting — which I've seen in numerous books — informs the reader more clearly about the westward shift.

Sca 19:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, for that class of an article perhaps we should try to make a map outlining all the borders of Poland, from 10th century to the 20th. Halibutt, would you be up for a challenge?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish territory annexed by Nazi Germany

Germany annexed Polish territory with an area of 82,800 sq Km and a population 9.7 million which was well over 90% ethnic Polish. The territory Germany lost in 1919 to Poland had an area of 49,300 sq km and had a population of 4.5 million which was about 80% ethnic Polish in 1920. Under Nazi occupation over 900,000 Poles were expelled from their homes in this annexed region so that folks like Erika Steinbach's daddy in the Luftwaffe could have a home out of the reach of Allied bombers.--Woogie10w 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but... sources, sources. And the point anyway would be...?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources of data for annexed territories- 1910 German Census population 3.831 million 36% German; 1920 Polish census 3.853 million 35% German. 1939 data from Statistical Handbook

prepared by Polish gov in London 1941- Total annexed territory 9.698 million 6% German. The number of Poles expelled is from Ted Pitrowski's- Poland's Holocaust
My point was simply that the Germans annexed a much larger area that they lost in 1919 and that it was predominantly Polish. Erika Steinbach's family had no roots in the region, the Germans expelled Poles in order to resettle her parents
--Woogie10w 10:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps should rise this point at Talk:Erika Steinbach instead of here?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entire Opening Section Vandalized

Vandalism
This page has been vandalised. Looks like this edit is the culprit:

cur) (last) 20:04, 21 September 2006 83.31.214.254 (Talk)

I am not a registered user, so cannot revert. Can someone please do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.219.221 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Could we please get someone who's an expert on this subject to delete the entire opening section of this article and replace it with serious information? Also note that the information in the sidebar is also incorrect.

I recommend that this page be restricted by Wikipedia to prevent further vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gfdumas (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism fixed.

Ok, so I decided to RTFM and learned how to revert. The recent vandalism has been undone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.219.221 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

• Few days ago, I took some time to redesign the opening section of Poland by adding some important information that was omitted before. I also fixed some important data, including population, the total land area, and so on, which varied between different sections. I think that the opening section of Poland looks great now. --Thomaspca 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Opening Section Fixed

I updated the Opening Section and other data in this section. I added some important and significant information that someone omitted before. I also added a new and important section about world famous people who were born in Poland. This information is true and correct according to many well respected and internationally verifiable sources, for example Encyclopedia Encarta 2006 and all earlier versions, and well as Wikipedia itself and hundreds other sources.--Thomaspca 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that there was some dispute about the place of birth of Copernicus on Wikipedia. Hundreds of sources including Encyclopedia Encarta 2006 and all earlier versions, state that Copernicus was born in Poland. The fact is that Copernicus was born in Toruń, the Kingdom of Poland (at that time period) and his city of birth, Toruń is located in Poland today. --Thomaspca 02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi everybody, I would like to point out that I redesigned the CULTURE section (a while ago) by adding/moving there the info about the "world famous people" from the opening section. I hope that everyone is fine with this. --Thomaspca 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

In the demographics section, it says 32,500,000 (1.23%) declared another nationality. 774,900 people (2.03%) didn't declare any nationality.. How is 32.5 million 1.23% but 775 thousand 2.03%? -Branddobbe 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this was vandalism by 68.187.110.234 (talk • contribs). --Aleph-4 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powiats and gminas

This words are weird. Normal is powiaty i gminy or counties and commons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skurwiel (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry. I didn't know how Polish plural forms worked. I would revert my own edits but I'm not sure whether we're supposed to Anglicise foreign words or not. Although I do have a habit of changing "concertos" to "concerti"… — $PЯINGεrαgђ 17:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I update phones info

source: http://finanse.wp.pl/POD,15,wid,8542763,prasa.html?rfbawp=1160385195.730&ticaid=12783

[edit] Christianisation date

Hi. I notice that the Christianisation date has been placed back again. I have nothing against the inclusion of this date, but I think it should be explained more clearly. Lysy said that it marks "the official beginning of Polish statehood". In this way, wouldn't it be better to rename it "Official foundation"? In this context, the event is not notable because of Christianisation, but because it marked the beginning of the Polish state. Also, the caption "The adoption of Christianity in Poland is seen by many Poles, regardless of their religious affiliation, as one of the most significant national historical events" does not justify the inclusion of the event. If it marks the official foundation of the state, it should be included, definitely. But if, as the caption says, it's only seen by "many Poles" to be a "significant" date, then it shouldn't be included. Many Romanians see Michael the Brave's union of the Romanian principalities as a very significant event, but it's not included in the infobox. "Many poles, regardless of their religious affiliation" also sounds very weasel-wordish to me. I'm saying this because Poland is not a Christian state and the inclusion of that event, in its current form, tries to make it seem that it is. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The updated version is a little bit clearer, but it still doesn't justify the inclusion of the date. This needs to be approached like this: why is the year 966 significant for Poland in the context of the infobox? I would argue that it's not because of Christianisation per se, but rather because (according to Lysy), it's "the official date of begining of Polish statehood" - that is, the Polish state was officially founded in 966. That merits the inclusion of the date, even if it's called "Christianisation date" (though as I mentioned above, "Official foundation" would be a bit better, with Christianisation mentioned in the footnote rather than vice versa). In any case, at the moment, the article doesn't state that 966 was "the official date of begining of Polish statehood" , but only says that the date is "significant" because many Poles see it as such, and then attempts to explain why (because Christianity was used in the process of nation building). If that's all that 966 means in the context of Polish history (and I repeat, I personally have no idea what happened in 966 in Poland, so I'm only using what other people have given me), then it shouldn't be included. I would change it, but I don't know enough about the subject. At the moment, however, it's POV. UPDATE: I have read Baptism of Poland, and nowhere is it mentioned there that 966 was somehow the official beginning of Polish statehood. I'm not questioning that it was, but if indeed it was more than just a "Christianisation date" and actually has political significance, then this should be mentioned. And this should be official - frankly, it's not enough that most Poles romantically consider 966 to be important in the formation of the Polish state, but rather the present Polish state and/or historical opinion should consider it as such. Ronline ✉ 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the correct wording to express that, but the millennium of Poland was officially celebrated in 1966 (watch the militaristic Communist parade of 1966 in Warsaw here). As you can see even the Communist authorities recognised the Baptism date as the beginning of Poland's statehood. The Christianisation date was of course also recognized as the beginning of Polish state internationally, e.g. see this US poststamp confirming that. --Lysy^talk 11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish government vs. Evolutionism dispute

I read this information in Le Monde, the leading French daily newspaper. It's about Miroslaw Orzechowski saying that the theory of evolutionism is a lie, Roman Giertych asking for the removal of evolutionism from school textbooks, and a professor not being able to show a poster where man appears to evolve from ape. I'd like to know if it's true. If yes, the information is important, because it marks an important Polish specificity on the European continent. Where should this info go? Dpotop 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this news Roman Giertych said that he 'wasn't going to forbid teaching Darwin's theory of evolution'. He also 'thinks that curricula must simultaneously include other theories of scientists who are opposed to Darwin'. Jacek Kendysz 17:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but still, this is very different from European mainstream. I believe Polad is the only European country even considering introducing Scientific Creationism in schools. Dpotop 16:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was not Roman Giertych, but his father Maciej who had this idea [11], then a gossip developed and Roman had to respond. I'd suggest to wait a few days and see how it develops. I'm not sure if in a week anyone will remember about this news item. If a dispute develops then I agree it would be notable but not until then. --Lysy^talk 16:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Today, as Polish news agencies reported, Maciej Giertych (member of UE Parliament, father of Roman Giertych – Minister of Education) said, that dinosaurs had existed at same time as Homo Sapiens. In his opinion stories about Nessie from Loch Ness, Smok Wawelski (Polish Dragon of Wawel Hill), St. George & Dragon, etc are proofs for this coexistence. Mr. Giertych said that if dragons hadn’t lived with peoples, the peoples wouldn’t have remembered its. In his opinion this is one more proof against Darwin’s theory of evolutionism. Aotearoa from Poland 17:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume this is a joke, or that Polish news agencies are even less reliable than Romanian and British ones. However, few news make it to the front page of "Le Monde". Dpotop 18:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is today's news [12] from Gazeta Wyborcza. Jacek Kendysz 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it's probably a pamphlet. Still, I have quite heavy feelings about these "scientific creationism" guys. The problem is that they purposefully exploit the fact that few people know what experimental science is in order to promote an anti-scientific stance. They say "current theories are not complete, so science is bad, God is the only solution". Dpotop 18:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any English/French/German translation available for this article? I presume it's quite funny. Dpotop 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is a tongue-in-the-cheek relation of Gazeta Wyborcza from Maciej Giertych's lecture at "Academy of Eagle" of All-Polish Youth. --Lysy^talk 20:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] phones info

http://gielda.onet.pl/0,1423546,wiadomosci.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.89.227.119 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Poland's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Poland deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state, and is now spamming this message on every talk page. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries-- discussion continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starym Blonowie

Does anyone have any information about a place that was called "Starym Blonowie" in 1924? anything would be greatly apreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corky butchick (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Try looking for Stary Błonów.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, try looking for "Stare Błonowo": http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_Błonowo Barry Kent 02:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "World-famous people"

I for one support the removal of this paragraph from the lead. It already fits in the Culture section, and "famous people from [xxx]" isn't something that is generally put in the introduction of other geography articles (especially not countries). Quarma 19:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Every country is the birthplace of many famous people. If it is not done in other country articles, no need to make Poland an exception.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as well. -- Zanimum 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I moved this info to the Culture section. I hope that it is okay with everybody. --Thomaspca 10:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New grey-red flag instead white-red flag

Polish flag is white-red not grey-red. Look here for example http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=70
KRID —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.153.29.142 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, not so clear, see Flag of Poland for more details. The question is - should we stick to the law or to the common usage, the president webside included? My preference is for the latter (i.e. "white"). That's less surprising. However, the Flag of Poland article, which discusses the matter in details, should present the correct ("grey") color (or both). Comments? --Beaumont (@) 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The matter is under discussion at Talk:Flag of Poland. The fact is that at pl.wiki decided to change the flag, modifying the flag on Commons; this change had effect on all wikipedias, but at least here, it has not been discussed. My opinion is that the colour conversion was done wrongly, so the new image should be reverted.--RedMC 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, plwiki has not decided yet. Actually, there is a proposition to make it white and at the moment a majority (7:3) supports it, see here. Of course, we are independent, but I guess that many editors would like to follow the consensus reached on plwiki (if any). --Beaumont (@) 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that they have already decided: in the same moment the new version was uploaded with the name of the old one, actually overwriting it, all en.wiki pages were updated with the new version. And no, I would like the opportunity to discuss the matter in a cross-wiki place, as I do not want to be bound by the decisions made on a forum I have no access to.--RedMC 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections Revised

I revised the Introduction section of Poland as well as the Culture section and I think that they look okay now. I spent considerable amount of time on doing this so I hope that it will be appreciated otherwise I will stop improving the Poland's page on Wikipedia. If anyone has any comments about the changes I have made or have anything against the changes than please post your thoughts here. I want to know what all of you think about my contributions. Thanks! --Thomaspca 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

I redesign the entire culture section of Poland. I think that it looks good now. --Thomaspca 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I also made few additional minor changes to the Culture section of Poland. --Thomaspca 20:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I added few pictures to the Culture section. --Thomaspca 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fryderic Chopin or Szopen

• FRYDERYK CHOPIN: According to the Polskie Centrum Informacji Muzycznej, the correct spelling of FRYDERYK "SZOPEN" is FRYDERYK CHOPIN. --Thomaspca 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• The real spelling of FRYDERYK SZOPEN is FRYDERYK CHOPIN due to the fact that FRYDERYK's original personal signature is written as FRYDERYK CHOPIN but NOT FRYDERYK SZOPEN. Prof. Mirosław Bańko, simply wrote in his article that the original spelling is CHOPIN and the spelling based on the Polish language prenaunciation is SZOPEN. --Thomaspca 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not change the name Chopin to Szopen! The correct and original spelling of Fryderyk Chopin's last name in any language is Chopin! Once again, the spelling of his last name in his original signature is Chopin but not Szopen. Please discuss this in this section! Prosimy nie zmieniać nazwiska Chopina! Thanks --Thomaspca 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention - Vandalism

Someone is constantly vandalizing the Introduction section of Poland. I wonder who can write such unintelligent comments about Poland or any other nation. Only some brainless and ill-mannered people would do such nasty things! I am going to fix the intro section. --Thomaspca 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please keep this section on top so everyone can see it, especially the juveniles who make unintelligent comments. Thanks. --Thomaspca 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Someone continues vandalizing the Introduction section of Poland. --Thomaspca 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I revised the "Introduction" section of Poland as well as the "Culture" section and I think that they look okay now. I spent considerable amount of time on doing this so I hope that it will be appreciated otherwise I will stop improving the Poland's page on Wikipedia. If anyone has any comments about the changes I have made or have anything against the changes than please post your thoughts on Talk:Poland, User talk:Thomaspca, or User:Thomaspca. I want to know what all of you think about my contributions.

The fact is that someone constantly vandalizes the Introduction section of Poland. I wonder who could write such unintelligent comments about Poland or any other nation from time to time. I really believe that only some brainless and ill-mannered juveniles would do such nasty things! If you are feeling guilty or offended in any way by reading these comments than maybe you are little guilty of making any unintelligent changes to the pages of POLAND on Wikipedia.

Once again, please refrain of doing any unintelligent changes to Poland's section of Wikipedia! Thank you very much! --Thomaspca 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 2006 vandalism

Someone has vandalized this page again. Could someone who can edit locked pages please fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.24.94 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Polish and Monagesque flags

Minor question - are they mirror images (ie are they in the same proportions)? Jackiespeel 16:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Poland. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Europe vs. Central Europe

It could be noted in the article that depending on the definition Poland is part of both Eastern Europe and Central Europe. –Zinjixmaggir 09:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime border of Poland

"It (Poland) also shares a maritime border with Denmark and Sweden."

If we consider Polish territorial waters, this statement is false. Polish territorial waters are 12 nautical miles wide, which makes the maritime border of Poland rather far away from Sweden's or even Denmark's...

It is true that Polish maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ) borders Sweden's and Denmark's respective EEZs. EEZs are part of international waters and not territorial waters. States to which they are affiliated have many economical rights there, but still EEZs don't belong to their territory.

Therefore, to avoid confusion, I suggest removing the above statement. If we change it to EEZs border, I don't think that that information would be important enough to be placed here (maybe it should be put in the Geography section).

Myszodorn 19:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Polish Republic

There is not explicit use, or explanation of this term! Is it the same as the P-L Commonwealth? If so, the article should say so. But also, the was a Polish Republic, or the term is used that way, to describe the Republic of its nobility or princes. Please, someone, develop these issues --Ludvikus 03:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Polish Republic

It appears that the previous writers of this article on Poland have neglected to include the above designation. Rarely thought is might be used, clearly the Second Republic came to an end with the Greman invasion under Hitler, and subsequent domination under the Soviet-imposed system, Poland now is a republic for a THIRD TIME. That should be inluded at the top, with an explanation of its scarce use. I have done this today. --Ludvikus 04:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ludvikus: The term "third republic" is used about as often in Poland as it is in France. While it is uncommon to hear "third republic" in reference to Poland in English, in the Polish press this is quite common (as "III Rzeczpospolita," especially in articles related to politics). I have modified the parenthetical statement to reflect this usage within Poland. -- Michal from Warsaw

Note however that, unlike in France, the numbering of republics is not official and is used almost exclusively by the press, as sort of a shortcut. Legally, we're still living in the same state that emerged in 1918 (some also argue that, since Poland of 1918 was the legal successor of the obligations of the pre-partitions Poland, we're still living in the state founded by certain Mieszko some 1000 years ago).

Anyway, because of that I'm kind of anxious to use the numbering too much. We should stick to encyclopedic language as much as we can and prefer official names to unofficial ones. //Halibutt 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, no. The phrase "Trzecia Rzeczpospolita" (capitalized) appears in the preamble of Polish constitution [13]. So, I guess, it's one of official names of our country.

Yes, it appears exactly once in all Polish official document - out of purely stylistic needs I guess. And the same constitution sets a completely different name for our country - and it's not the Third Republic. Besides, note that the term is being used by journalists in Poland and Polish, not in the UK or US of A. I'd say let's not force the English speakers to adopt all Polish words when they apparently don't need it. //Halibutt 09:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The "External links" section was well on its way towards the spam event horizon, so I took the liberty of pruning it drastically. Some of the links removed could be included on other articles to which they are directly relevant, such as Government of Poland, Tourism in Poland, Economy of Poland, Geography of Poland or History of Poland. Please keep WP:EL in mind, however. Demiurge 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of Independence to EU

Why does this get removed? Independence was lost to the European Union. This is a significant event and needs to be noted. 70.19.189.106 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Look here: [[14]] Note: Poland can leave the EU at any time - so it remains sovereign. Barry Kent 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name

how did poland get its name

From Polans (western), I believe. I thought we had an article on names of Poland, alas, I can't find anything except Rzeczpospolita.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Update: so we (me and Kpalion) wrote that article, enjoy! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] welcome

--82.6.21.42 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poland, Central or East

Can Poland be described as being in Central Europe, Eastern Europe or both. The UN describes Poland as being in Eastern Poland [15] and Geographical centre of Europe describes Poland being in Central Europe. AxG ^(talk) _{(guest book)} 14:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all fluid, you know. The UN does not recognize the idea of Central Europe at all, which is why Poland for the UN is part of Eastern Europe despite being in its very centre. On the other hand to some people here calling Poland an Eastern European country along with Russia and Kazakhstan, might sound a tad offensive. Anyway, basically both are correct and it all depends on the writer. And especially so if we describe Eastern and Central Europe in terms of culture. Then one could wonder how is that possible that I'm a Central European (I drink beer and coffee), while my neighbours are definitely Eastern Europeans (they prefer tea and vodka)... //Halibutt 16:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And if one drinks all four of those beverages? Appleseed (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere than in Wikipedia it might depend on the writer, but here it is worthy to note that the issue depends on the definition and thus interpretation of the term used. It must be stated in the article that both expressions are valid. –Zinjixmaggir 23:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a note on that, please expand and add citations for both POVs if you can.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Geographically is Poland in Central Europe. For this look at Geographical centre of Europe. Politically Poland was in Eastern Europe (when Europe was split by the Berlin Wall in east an west). But if someone says that Poland is now in Eastern Europe, than he has to say, that Greece is in Western Europe and not Southeastern Europe. Look at this Image and you will see how central of Europe Poland is. Eastern Europe is more orthodox christian, but Poland is roman catholic. In the end I am really sorry for my very bad english. I hope you can understand me a little.--Plk 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that it is not our duty to define Central Europe or Eastern Europe. Different definitions exist and there is little we can do about this. No such official definition exist that would describe Greece as Western Europe. When it comes to Poland, however, the UN quite frankly cannot be ignored as a source of definition. It would be censorship. –Zinjixmaggir 23:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In all Wikipedia's Poland is in Central Europe. The UN have no "Central Europe". Wikipedia have "Central Europe". Other states like Slovakia, Czech Republic or Hungary have not this discussion. For me it is wrong to say that a state is in "Eastern Europe" when this state is western from the geographical centre of Europe. --Plk 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the other articles should address the question of definition as well, unless the practice currently in use has been previosly agreed upon in Wikipedia (which I am not aware of). –Zinjixmaggir 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

From official site of Poland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs ([16]): Poland lies in the central part of the European continent, the geometrical centre of which is near Warsaw. . -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a footnote describing that different interpretations to the matter extist? –Zinjixmaggir 12:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Added it. –Zinjixmaggir 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not important to have this footnote. Geographical is Poland in Central Europe. The UN has no "Central Europe". The UN definition has only Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western Europe. And that is not the fact of the geographical position. The articles Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Romania, Portugal, Andorra, Ireland and United Kingdom have a different definition in the article as the UN definition. All this articles have the geographical position and no footnote how the UN define the position.--Szkopski 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before I'm ready to take back my stance if this practice has been agreed upon, in which case please do point it out to me. I still believe the footnote or some other remark should be made in each of those articles to avoid confusion. Please also bear in mind that I could have made the note to all of the articles you mentioned should I had had the vigor to ;) But I want to discuss this on a general level first. So if these are all the arguments I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. Futhermore, Poland has been part of the East Block and a great many sources describe it as part of Eastern Europe rather than Central Europe no matter what the geographical definition – a dab heavy of you to claim this is of no importance. –Zinjixmaggir 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What a argument. Poland has been part of the East Block. The East Block is not equivalent to Eastern Europe. Why do you want to use old and geographically wrong definition only in this article? In the Cold War political Greece belong to Western Europe. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this kind of contention.--Szkopski 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We can disagree as much as you like, but that won't change the fact that to many, East Block does pretty much equal Eastern Europe in everyday use – and this is reflected in media and language. More than political, the UN definition is geographical. And if you did get the impression that I only want to change this article I would recommend you to actually read my reply. :) –Zinjixmaggir 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Europe 1 730 000,[17] Central Europe 1 230 000.[18] –Zinjixmaggir 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ups.. Sorry, my fault. If you think that this kind of note belongs to the article and you will simulate the other articles. Than all articles will be equalised. Than I will agree with this footnote. I don't want to say that this footnote is of no importance but if just this article ought this note and all the other articles don't have any footnote to that, then it will be unimportant. Your Googlefight doesn't mean a lot. If you look for the result of that without "Poland" than you will see that "eastern europe" has 56,500,000 [19] and "central europe" just 7,250,000 [20]. So if "central europe" has generally lesser results than "eastern europe" than it be reflected to your result.--Szkopski 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, most bi-lingual Americans of polish decent, and Polish citizens living in the Greater Metro-Detroit area, see Poland as part of Western Europe. In a cultural sense, not geographical. The difference being, Poland was converted to Christianity from the Rome (Roman Catholic) like the rest of Western Europe, as apposed to Eastern European countries that received Christianity from the Eastern Roman Empire (Orthodox).

Przepraszam za mową rodzimą, ale kiepsko radzę sobie z dłuższymi wypowiedzami po angielskiemu. Nie rozumiem czemu upieracie się przy wyborze między Europą centralną a wschodnią, odrzucając termin "Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia". To najlepszy jakim dysponujemy. Odróżnia nasz region od Europy Wschodniej i od Niemiec. Większość z was (a zwłaszcza ci, którzy nie rozumieją tego co piszę) opiera się na znajomości dziejów dwudziestowiecznych, czasów zimnej wojny, która przecież na kilkadziesiąt lat zniszczyła tradycyjny układ na kontynencie. Ale tradycyjna struktura została przywrócona po upadku bloku wschodniego. Z jedną podstawową różnicą - jednością francusko-niemiecką. W historii naszego kontynentu, która na poważnie zaczyna się w średnioweczu, można wyróżnić kilka podstawowych regionów:

1.Europę Zachodnią - dawne Cesarstwo Rzymskie 2.Europę Środkową - Święte Cesarstwo Rzymskie, czyli w przybliżeniu ziemie niemieckie 3.Europę Środkowo-Wschodnią - tradycyjnie ziemie królestw - polskiego, czeskiego, węgierskiego 4.Europę Wschodnią - Ruś 5.Europę Północną - Skandynawię 6.Europę Południową - dawne Cesarstwo Rzymskie

Mocarstwa europejskie, co naturalne, z reguły utrzymywały sojusz z sąsiadem sąsiada. Tradycyjnie - Francja z Polską i Szwecją, Niemcy z Rosją. Pierwsza Europa z trzecią, druga z czwartą. Także ze względu na różnice kulturowe wyróżnienie takich regionów Europy wydaje się szczególnie historycznie uzasadnione. Termin Europa Centralna zmusza jednak do uwzględnienia Niemiec, które w sensie geopolitycznym zawsze były położone centralnie - na włoskim bucie, pod duńskimi cieśninami, na wschód od Francji, na zachód od Polski. I one stanowiły główny łącznik między Europą Wschodnią a Zachodnią. Z kolei termin Europa Wschodnia jest kompletnie pomylony, gdyż do jednego worka wrzucałby mongolsko-bizantyjską Ruś, która z Europą niewiele już ma wspólnego (i której współcześni mieszkańcy w większości nawet - jak wskazują sondaże - nie czują się Europejczykami) i państwa, które kulturowo zawsze należały do szeroko rozumianej Europy Zachodniej. Wikipedystom z Europy Zachodniej należy wytłumaczyć, że ich popularne spojrzenie na kształt naszej części kontynentu nie jest najbardziej wiarygodne, tak jak choćby nasze widzenie Afryki. W Europie Zachodniej z reguły znajomość historii szeroko pojętych ziem wschodnich zaczyna się na XIX wieku, kiedy trzecia Europa poddała się już naporowi rusko-niemieckiemu i po prostu czasowo zniknęła. Kiedy Rosja, zeuropeizowana przez Piotra i jego następców nabrała takiej mocy, że stała się istotną częścią polityki Zachodu. Europa na wschód od Niemiec to dla nich Rosja i satelici, którzy po obaleniu muru przyłączyli się do lepszych. Większość z nich nie ma pojęcia, że są to od wieków ziemie polsko-czesko-węgierskiej Europy, z punktu widzenia Rzymu - tzw. (np. przez Jerzego Kłoczowskiego) - Młodszej Europy. Ekhem, sorry za wenę, mam nadzieję, że termin Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia nie został wykluczony np. jako niegeograficzny, a ja tu niepotrzebnie klawisze ścieram. Dobranoc.

[edit] national motto "Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna"

In the ceremony 2005 this national motto also was used. The motto of Poland is Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna. Without "i". If a national motto need to be in the constitution, than neither Germany and many other nations have no national motto.--Plk 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See Unofficial mottos of Poland.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If we are to adopt all texts frequently written on the military banners, then why don't we call the "1 Dywizja Zmechanizowana" as the national motto of Poland? ;) //Halibutt 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Because no soldiers would shout "Dywizja Zmechanizowana" while going into battle or swear by it, or consider loyalty to a single army division more important than to "God, Honour, Country" ;) --Pitdog 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

By your criteria, "Sanitariusz!" or (excuse my French) "Zajebać ich!" should also be considered as official national mottos of Poland. Miki 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, Miki :D Besides, as far as the Polish Army oaths are concerned, nobody swears by the God Honour and Fatherland. At least not in Poland and not in the last 300 years. //Halibutt 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL folks this is getting really silly, I see no point to discuss those kind of arguments like "Zajebać ich!", just one word: tradition. That's it from me on this subject. And to swear by God, or by the Homeland was and is nothing unusual in certain areas. "Przysięgam na Boga, przysięgam na moją Ojczyznę...". Regards. --Pitdog 15:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, in certain areas. But neither in the military nor in public service. Besides, I never heard of anyone swearing by the Fatherland. God - sure, Mother - sure, but Fatherland? Anyway, this is getting really off-topic. Future and progress - we have nothing of that sort. //Halibutt 16:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't heard.. well, that must mean a lot :). Just off the top o my head one example - our brave AK soldiers. But anyway - lets not quarrel and lets just agree to differ. "National motto"... - for me it could be just a saying that means a lot, from a historical point of view, not a "national motto". Like the English, let us cherish our history, it might help us the future. Regards. --Pitdog 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

[edit] Is Poland stuck in the 19th century?

I currently count seventeen picutres that display Polish architecture and yet only two of them feature structures built after the turn of the century. The two that do are the Warsaw and Katowice shots which are both distant night shots and do not do justice to either city. I perfectly understand that Poland's historic architecture is important but to someone unfamiliar with this country it appears as if there is no sign of modernization or progress.

Warsaw has a financial district full of skyscrapers (some of the tallest in Europe) yet it's nowhere to be found. The wikipedia article on Warsaw features no less than three pictures of Warsaw's high-rises in daylight, any of which would be a better fit. I feel the current set of pictures shows a survey of turn of the century city planning and not Poland's modern international look. I see there has already been a discussion regarding pictures in this article but in my honest opinion I'd rather see some of the special things about Poland and not the same three-story houses that are found in six thousand other European cities.

Please provide your input regarding this issue. JRWalko 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

how are called the inhabitants of poland?

The inhabitants of Poland are Poles. Harmattan 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Culture" section

There is a list of Polish authors and Nobel Prize winners, but someone forgot to mention that Władysław Reymont is the 1924 Nobel Prize Winner. I guess that should be corrected.

Harmattan 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provincial Map Wrong

If I am not mistaken, the provincial border between Warminsko-Mazurskie and Podlaskie has been drawn wrong. The one posted follows the old East Prussian border whereas Podlaskie in fact took in a chunk of the annexed East Prussian territory after 1947. Landau7 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)