Talk:Polish culture during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Polish culture during World War II has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 27, 2008.
Poland Portal
Polish culture during World War II 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!
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
talk 05:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] works of art ?

TV series and rock belong rather to pop-culture. I'm not a native speaker - works of art mean rather pictures and sculptures, don't they?

I have replaced one instance of the word artists by writers, but I have realised that it was a general problem. Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Work of art is anything. I started the list there with few positions; of course more are needed. While writers were the most prominent, there were other artists. Song composers, for example; theater artists, scene performers, and so on.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"formal publication of any Polish language book, literary study or a scholarly paper was forbidden" - so what is this: [1] and items no. 2, 120, 134, 147, 163, 181 here: [2]? MCiura (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

At least some books were published, I don't know the rules. certainly books for children. Johanna Spyri is a German-language writer, very popular in Germany. Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Some of the latter positions may have been published underground. As for the others, I guess there may have been some exceptions, certainly more can written about them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cinemas

Movies were working and Poles visiting them, even if forbidden by the underground state. BTW - the article is Movie theater, not cinema.Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

This could be GA quality but we need to overhaul it to get there.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    This is the first portion I'm uncomfortable with. In addition to some minor flaws throughout, there are two glaring instances of prose in need of work. The first is the lede: it's too short and it inadequately summarizes the article. The second is section of WWII's effect on Polish culture. The works listed there should not be in a bullet point format; please prose-ify them with proper citations. In addition, the section on Polish emigration should either be expanded or merged into another header, since one sentence a section does not make.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The sources are mostly in Polish. I have concerns with the NPOV problems inherent in using Polish sources in an article about Poland's suffering during World War II, but I'll deal with that later. The aftermath and emigration sections have no sources, which is a big problem - please find some.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    No major issues here aside from the NPOV problems I will tackle elsewhere.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    This is my primary area of concern. It is difficult to write about Nazi atrocities in an NPOV manner, but we have to do it. Reading the article I get the sense that the article is not really about Polish culture during this time period, but instead about what the Nazis and Soviets did to Polish culture during this time period. I would suggest a different manner of approaching the topic. First, split off the Nazis and Soviets into two overarching sections - figuring out who did what was confusing at times. Second, separate out the types of culture: the Nazi handling of paintings and sculptures was undoubtedly different than their handling of academic publications and newspapers. Third, put greater emphasis on what the Polish did culturally themselves - what plays, movies, books, etc. were produced during this time period? And fourth, expand the aftermath section and show what the long-term cultural effects were.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    No issues here.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    No issues with image usage. Normally for a topic of this scope and time period I'd prefer more images, but given the extenuating circumstances of Nazi looting and being under an occupation, the lack of representative images is understandable for a GA level rating.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good luck, and please contact me if you have any questions or when you've finished and would like me to look again. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I am not a native English speker, there is little I can do to improve the prose. I have listed the page with League of Copyeditors; do note that (based on my experience) their backlog is about half a year...
Polish sources are completly acceptable per WP:RS; my count shows that 19 out of 22 sources are English in any case. I have added more sources - I agree the last section was missing them (it is no more).
I don't think we need to split of Nazi and Soviet into sections, as we have only a para about the Soviet actions. I do think it could be expanded eventually, and when it is, I would have no problem with such a split; currently it does not seem necessary.
Changes since your review: [3]
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: more changes include a c/e by User:Nihil novi.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Great changes, I just have one final request...any chance you could expand the introduction a bit? It's currently just two paragraphs that I can barely call paragraphs. A little meat to them and you're good to go! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Lead expanded.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Promoted. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Caskets

What is the connection between Queen Bona's 16th-century Royal Casket and Izabela Czartoryska's Royal Casket of 1800, to which it is now linked in the caption? Nihil novi (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this seems to be an error. The 19th century item should be mentioned only, as it is an example of a looted item that is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Both caskets were destroyed by the Germans in World War II, but only Queen Bona's is mentioned in this article — while being unaccountably linked to Izabela Czartoryska's Royal Casket, which is the one that has its own article. Nihil novi (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Could you correct it, as you seem to have more knowledge of this issue than I? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you're only using a photo of Queen Bona's Royal Casket, with no reference to it in the article's text, and since you don't mention Izabela Czartoryska's Royal Casket in the text either, simplest thing would be to simply de-link "Royal Casket" in the caption. Nihil novi (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not link them both, since we discussed them here? Also, perhaps we should move the Czartoryska's casket, and create a disambig if more Royal Caskets are notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Is there an article on "Queen Bona's Royal Casket"? Nihil novi (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Is it notable for us to create it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you spoke of "linking them both," I understood that either there was a "Queen Bona's Royal Casket" to link to, or that you thought there should be. As to notability... Wikipedia is not paper... Nihil novi (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about Russian role

The article goes so far as to say that the Soviet zone was little better than the German occupation - yet also quotes reviews describing commitment to Polish culture as stronger than ever before after 1945, and limits this period of discussion to the period between wars. Was the treatment of Poles by Russians during the war much harsher than the Warsaw Bloc status afterward, and if so, how and why? Wnt (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Long story short, after Barbarossa desperate Soviets realized they need every straw (read: Poles) to help them stop and defeat the Germans, and later, even with the relative indifference from Western Allies they could not justify such open hostility to Polish culture (plus they needed to promise that Poland would be a state, not a Soviet republic, and a state had to had a semblance of sovereignty and uniqueness); thus a new policy - "eternal communist Slavic brotherhood" - was chosen. PS. You may want to ask User:Molobo, I believe he knows many relevant Polish publications on the related subjects.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)