Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive 11

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Do we have anything about this? Szopen (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Help is much appreciated with this freshly created article, see Raids on communist prisons in Poland (1944-1946). Thanks in advance. Tymek (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish to thank all editors who supported me during the blockade. While I don't see myself engaging as much as I did before, at least untill certain issues on Wikipedia aren't dealt with-be certain that I will continue to provide needed information and historic data as well as consult possible improvements to all articles.

Thank you once again.

--Molobo (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Tymek (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that Wikipedia did not have article on this person, anyway, better late than never. Please help out, as this is a very interesting and talked about topic. See Stanislaw Pyjas. Tymek (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ajh1492 seems to have made a unilateral decision (citing official sources) to rename Podlachian to Podlaskie Voivodeship, and is amending numerous articles accordingly. Are people happy with this?--Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have really no opinion on Podlachia vs. Podlaskie, but there is an annoying lack of consistency in the naming of voivodeship articles: Why do we have the Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship (rather than "Holy Cross"), but Subcarpathian Voivodeship (rather than "Podkarpackie") etc.? I'd say we should either "translate" all names (as difficult as that may be), or none. Not translating at all would also avoid some translation pitfalls regarding "Silesia": Unlike in Polish, where Śląsk (without any qualifiers) is generally understood to mean Górny Śląsk, the term "Silesia" in English normally refers to the whole of Silesia, i.e. Lower and Upper Silesia. Thus, the correct "translation" of województwo śląskie is "Upper Silesian Voivodeship". However, the translation problem also extends to other Poland-related articles, such as political parties; e.g. titles like REASON of Polish Left or Right of the Republic sound pretty strange... --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, a large chunk of Śląskie isn't even part of Silesia... But I don't think we can be too imaginative in our translations - either we use an established translation from the real world, or if there is none, use an absolutely straightforward translation or else not translate at all. I believe that was the strategy adopted for the voivodeship names, a long time ago (well, before my time). I don't object to their being changed if there's a compelling reason, as long as we bear in mind how much work is going to be entailed (they appear in lots of articles). I certainly agree that those political party names sound weird though - I would move them to their Polish names, unless the translations are established in the English-speaking world (which I greatly doubt).--Kotniski (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I already moved REASON of Polish Left to the Polish name once, but this got reverted. --Thorsten1 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

English usage is inconsistent - we are not here to impose on it consistencies it doesn't have. "Holy Cross Voivodeship" would be a practically en.wiki-only affectation - the second link on Google for that is a quote from a Wikipedia discussion "I am surprised that your creativity stopped one step before "Boat Voivodeship" or "Holy Cross Voivodeship" [1]. We have the same "inconsistencies" in Category:States of Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern not Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, but Rhineland-Palatinate) and Category:Provinces of the Netherlands (Zeeland not Sealand, but North Brabant not Noord-Brabant) because they reflect the inconsistency of actual English use. The "incorrect" translation of Silesia to represent Upper Silesia is unfortunate, but we must reflect what English-speakers use and read elsewhere - we are not here to right the wrongs of English usage, just to record them and make sure that the inconsistency is accurately and neutrally pointed out in the text itself.

At a quick glance, Podlachian Voivodeship also seems to be almost an en.wiki invention - Podlachia is used to refer to the historical area but not the modern-day voivodeship, apart from one atlas. This looks like a case where the indigenous use has become the English use - but that is not to say that Silesian Voivodeship should be moved to a polonized title either.

I agree that the naming of the political parties seems incorrect - someone should look into the usage in English-language texts, as I doubt the names will be translated in that way. If there's good evidence that the Polish name is used in English, then move it or go through WP:RM. Knepflerle (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the case of this Polish province ("voivodeship"), I would use the actual Polish name, "Podlaskie." (I would also call such an administrative unit a "province" — the 18th-century Polish-Lithuanian "provinces" ("prowincyje") would be better rendered in English as "Regions.") Nihil novi (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

From my post on the Podlachian Voivodeship talk page where there was an extensive, multi-year discussion on the name through 1 AUG 2007 with no consensus.

(quote)

Checking the following official Polish government english websites:

• Federal Government - Poland Investment and Foreign Investment Agency - Podlaskie
• Federal Government - Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Podlaskie

We should respect the Polish Government and use their translation to English - Podlaskie.

Plus, as mentioned above, the EU uses Podlaskie - European Commission - Rural Development

(/quote)

We should be using the official english translation as defined by the Polish government. I just don't see where extra discussion is needed.

Ajh1492 (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OFFICIALNAMES; en.wp does not use translations merely because they are official. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The name was determined after a long discussion at now inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland (see its talk). Unfortunately, I believe that all editors involved in this discussion - Balcer, Lysy, Appleseed - are now retired :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

@Knepflerle: "English usage is inconsistent - we are not here to impose on it consistencies it doesn't have." Absolutely, but neither are we here to impose on it random inconsistencies according to our very own liking. Or is there any evidence for the present, seemingly accidental mixture of translations and non-translations being in use in English? One way or the other, we're imposing something here. ""I am surprised that your creativity stopped one step before "Boat Voivodeship" or "Holy Cross Voivodeship". This statement (not yours, noted) lumps two things together: There is a case for "Holy Cross Voivodeship" indeed, "Holy Cross Mountains" being the traditional English name [2] for the utterly unpronounceable Świętokrzyskie Mountains (also used by Britannica). On the other hand, I suppose no one has ever referred to Łódź as "Boat" in real life. (On Wikipedia, it wouldn't surprise me that much, after I just had to remove "Shouts" as a "translation" of the name Krzyki [3]... "The "incorrect" translation of Silesia to represent Upper Silesia is unfortunate, but we must reflect what English-speakers use and read elsewhere - we are not here to right the wrongs of English usage, just to record them." I couldn't agree more with this premise, but it leads me to the opposite conclusion: When English speakers speak of "Silesia", they mean the whole of it or even only Lower Silesia - hence Śląsk should be translated as Upper Silesia, because that reflects what English speakers use. The current situation just transfers the usage of Polish speakers into English (Śląsk = Silesia), regardless and in spite of actual English usage. Note that I'm not saying we need to change this; I'm just using the example to point out how difficult all this really is. And to keep things in perspective, most native speakers of English have no clue where Silesia is, most won't even know the name. That's the crux of the matter, anyway: There hardly is any reliable English usage that we could follow. This also extends to the parties: Groups that are obscure even by Polish standards, such as "RACJA...", hardly get discussed outside Poland.

Ultimately, I see no better way than the one suggested by Ajh1492: Let's just stick to the Polish names found here and here. Sure, some of those names will drive English speakers nuts. But then, we wouldn't really use "Wschodnia Saksonia Południowa" in Polish, either, would we? --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there's two separate, competing articles: Podlaskie Voivodeship and Podlachian Voivodeship... :o --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Podlachian Voivodeship was set to redirect to Podlaskie Voivodeship.

On use of "Wschodnia Saksonia Południowa", It's the same reason why it's hot dogi and not gorący pies in Polish . . .

Here's a solution. Wikipedia should use the English translation for proper place names in a country as defined by the Foreign Ministry / Department of State of that country. Simple solution.

en.wp does not use translations merely because they are official. Huh? I think that train of thought would just lead en.wp to irrelevance.

Ajh1492 (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that has been the practice up to now at en.wp - you can judge whether it has lead to irrelevance or not. If you disagree with the current practice, start a discussion at WT:OFFICIALNAMES and achieve a general consensus there first.

Please also note that this is a discussion about what we call the current modern-day administrative unit - this does not say anything about previous incarnations and does not support edits such as this one [4]; I doubt there were any proclamations of the voivodeship's official English name between 1513 and 1795, and the usage of Podlachia for this timeframe in English is fairly standard.

Most importantly, please do not copy content from one page to another and making a redirect at the first page - this is called a "cut-and-paste move" and causes problems with copyright issues - please use this page for move requests. Reading WP:How to fix cut and paste moves and WP:MOVE will give you all the guidance you need. Knepflerle (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Podlachian Voivodeship" does not redirect to "Podlaskie Voivodeship" now. The former article should be deleted (after incorporation of any useful material into the latter). Nihil novi (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will finish merging the pages. The Podlaskie page was originally a copy of the Podlachian page, but I have updated it with additional material and references.

Ajh1492 (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Universities in Lithuania | History of Lithuania | Education in Vilnius | Educational institutions established in the 1570s | Education in the Soviet Union | Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour | 1579 establishments

No cathegory informs about Polish past 1920-1939. An example of Soviet language in the article: the Polish inhabitants of Lithuania were given a choice to leave for Poland. Xx236 (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Try adding Category:Defunct universities and colleges in Poland. Same for the Lviv University, I guess. But the problem is that in is incorrect, of would be better. Or perhaps we need to create some other new category... Consider that Immanuel Kant State University of Russia does not have any category indicating it had a German history... There is however an article on the former University of Königsberg, with its own category, which does use the "Defunct universities and colleges in Germany" category. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I did it in March and got comment looks like someone is using a grossly outdated map.Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz keeps to write his version of history. Germans were expelled from Lithuania, the Poles had a choice. Poor Germans and happy Poles. Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To deal with such users one has to provide a reference which makes it clear they are wrong. If you have a refernece that states Poles were expelled, please use it, and it is unlikely you will be reverted.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I am particularly interested in the last days of the Second Polish Republic, I have started this article 1939 in Poland, help will be appreciated, as there is a lot of stuff to be added. Tymek (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at the 'Early History' section of Szczebrzeszyn? I'm trying to copy-edit this article but due to less-than-desirable understanding of Polish history, I am unsure how to write a good transition between trade rights (paragraph 2) and familial ownership/rule (paragraph 3). I'm unsure if a good transition would even be possible, but the sudden discussion of familial ownership/rule is jarring as it has no explanation what-so-ever. Thanks for your assistance! --gardsmyg (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The following statement has been included in Talk:Kraków, under Notable residents? Make sure to check it out.

There’s a continuous, unremitting problem with the so called notable residents of most Polish cities. The choices are always arbitrary and suspiciously selective. The names are added by chance and equally quickly removed and than reinserted. The "section" idea poses unnecessary challenges for metropolitan cities such as Kraków, where notable residents would count in thousands. The problem with smaller cities is even worse, where red links and attempts at self-promotion abound. Various special interest groups often use this channel to prove a point about their own ethnic presence ahead of everybody else. The question is, should we continue with this practise, or perhaps aim at creating sub-articles for those cities, and call them "Notable residents of such and such city" instead? The section is widely discouraged by the League of Copyeditors and absent in practically all quality articles on world cities anyway. --Poeticbent talk 18:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First choice: Burn, salt and remove. Second choice: create an article on notable residents of Polish cities, based on reliable works on that subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The possible creation of a series of new articles about notable residents of various Polish cities would have to be followed by a creation of a new category, i.e. Category:Notable residents by city in Poland | Wrocław#Prominent residents | Poznań#Notable residents | Zielona Góra#Famous residents | Toruń#Notable residents etc. The category template would have to be added at the bottom of every new article (created fairly easily by cut-and-paste method). The idea would take a huge load of never-ending reverts off our shoulders. On the other hand, if we remove these sections from all city articles in one sweep (without new articles created on their basis), there will be an outcry among a variety of editors from right across the board. --Poeticbent talk 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My preference is to continue along the lines of Category:Lists of people by city, i.e. List of people from Poznań, a subcategory of Category:Lists of people by Polish cities / Category:Lists of people by place in Poland / etc. Note that List of people from Gdańsk already exists. Olessi (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland - this once good article has recently became subject of edit wars, in which some users try to hide unwanted facts and promote their particular agendas. And please do not delete this topic. Tymek (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I need this title translated [5] --Molobo (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do know Latin. The page is an early example of German imperialism, of course. ;) I'm just wondering why you're asking this here, of all places, instead, for example at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome? Is it because Poland is the unofficial last bastion of Latin Christianity? Or do you simply prefer to talk to your own folks? --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thorsten, please be civil and do not provoke Molobo. This is not nice, keep your personal opinions to yourself. He asked a question, either answer it or refrain from commenting. Tymek (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly civil, Tymku. I'm just curious why Molobo turns to the "Poland-related" board when he is looking for someone to translate a Latin text into English, and am trying to find answers. Those two were the only ones I could come up with on my own. If there is another answer, I'd be curious to learn about it. Hope that's OK with you guys. Dobranoc! --Thorsten1 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am curious why you keep on writing stuff unrelated to the question. Either help Molobo or stop provoking him. Tymek (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion apparently took place without seeking input from this project, and was decided for deleting the "Polish Americans" category, though the comments were 6 to 4 against such a deletion. Badagnani (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, no single member of this project voted. However it seems like it was already changed. - Darwinek (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

According to an alleged expert in Polish matters she was a Polish novelist and politician. She played an important role in the formation of communist government in Poland. After World War II she lived in Moscow. Almost every word here is false or unprecise. Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in Wanda Wasilewska, join the editing.Xx236 (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[6] Comments ? --Molobo (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy doesn't believe that there's a problem with the phrase Polish death camp and started an edit war.[7] Please intervene? --Poeticbent talk 22:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruption for sure, the article looks fine and is well referenced. You may want to ask this user to elaborate his edits on talk page. -- Darwinek (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

He already expressed his opinion in talk: I fail to see anything wrong with the phrase "Poland concentration camps"... Anyway, thanks for the input, Darwinek. --Poeticbent talk 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. In the past, Captain has shown to be a reasonable editor.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and I decided to dive right into translating :) Łyse into English, but how do I know when I'm done? Does everything need to be translated? For example, on the Polish page there's a reference to a new sports complex? being built -- should that be translated as well? I'm just wondering if that information is relevant to Wikipedia. Also the Polish page doesn't have any references... for example, the unemployment rate seems like a high claim --JanKokular (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What you've done seems to be great. You aren't of course obliged to translate anything - if you think certain information is likely to become outdated, or is dubious and unsourced, then naturally you can leave it out. I've just made a few minor additions, and I've also moved the page by adding a disambiguation tag, since there is another Łyse in Poland which will also get an article sometime soon (probably created by a bot). Keep up the good work:)--Kotniski (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Some parts of the article are biased. Sometimes stereotypes are quoted.

Can someone check, what Dr Libionka writes in his article? Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, 6687 articles are assigned to this project, of which 478, or 7.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Poland (allegedly fought wars) with Czechoslovakia over Cieszyn Silesia, with Germany over Poznań and with Ukrainians over Eastern Galicia (Galician War).

I don't remember such war with Czechoslovakia, it was an annexation without Polish defence. An article about Babel should rather contain a list of wars fought in Russia.Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a weak Polish defence in Cieszyn Silesia. Weak, because Polish forces were concentrated on the conflict with Ukrainians. Only local people defended themselves with guns in the initial stage of the invasion. Funny is, that Czech historians call it "seven-days war", Polish just a conflict over Cieszyn Silesia. It demonstrates the difference between Czech "fighting" and Polish Fighting. In Czech historiography a conflict which lasted seven days and claimed just several lives is called a "war". I can hardly imagine similar situation in Poland. - Darwinek (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User M.K now removed info that Ignacy Domeyko was Polish without any discussion and added Lithuanian site as reference he was Lithuanian and claimed he always will be Lithuanian. As multiple reliable sources exist that describe Ignacy as Polish I don't think this is appropriate. --Molobo (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a good proof that nationalism is doing well. I've replied on the talkpage, and added some good sources to the article, including ones that argue for Domejko being called a "citizen of the world." It sounds good to me... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Alumni of Jagiellonian University is terribly underpopulated (only 7 articles now). Many, many people who have articles on EN Wiki graduated or studied there, so please help populate it or at least remember such category exists, so you can use it in the future. - Darwinek (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The article contains a number of misinformations. Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As if I have a team of experts to fix tens of dumb articles about Poland.Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after World War II
(demographic estimates)
Background
1944–50 flight and expulsion of Germans German–Soviet population transfers Potsdam Agreement
Wartime flight and evacuation
German evacuation East Prussia
Post-war flight and expulsion
Czechoslovakia Poland (incl. former German territories) Netherlands Romania
Later emigration
Refugees in Schleswig-Holstein Emigration from Poland
Other themes
Wolf children
v t e

This template imposes German POV. The same a Polish victims of WWII template should be imposed in almost any WWII article and Expulsion of Poles in many articles. Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no POV, its common to have such a template for a series of articles exclusively dealing with different aspects of the same story. I wonder what Polish (or eg Darfur) expellees have to do with this. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust template doesn't contain any picture. Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust - different story. Godwin's law? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You have your German POV. You are a German so you may have a problem to understand a non-German POV.

If such important subject as the Holocaust doean't use any picture, why do you introduce a relatively big picture in your template? It's not any Godwin's law, but pushing your POV.

If any nation exterminated by Germans introduces its big template with a big picture, you will see what I mean. It's a Wikipedia, not a Germanopedia.Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the Holocaust template does not contain a picture, no other template should? Are you sure?

Because you guess I'm German, I push a German POV by adding a template? Maybe I am a Jew? What a POV would that be? What is a German POV in the first place? What would a Jewish POV on German expellees be? Would that also be POV-pushing if a Jew adds a template to an article series?

If any nation exterminated by Germans introduces its big template with a big picture, I would have absolutely no problem with that. As long as there is such a nation and the articles are part of a series. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That template has an obvious German POV; that however doesn't make it wrong (see WP:NPOV - neutrality means not taking sides, BUT it does mean showing their POVs). Of course, as Xx236 noted, we should have an equivalent Polish template for similar Poland related events. That's all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly all.

• The template doesn't allow to be edited, at least not obviously. The Holocaust one (and many others) can be edited by anyone.
• I don't know rules of designing templates here, but there has been recently a similar discussion about some Polish cities template, eg. pl:Szablon:Wrocław.
• My statement was partially ironic, I expect a Template War of WWII victims which will have to lead to some rational rules. Isn't it better to set the rules befoere the Template War?Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates confirms some of my former critics. Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Which critics are how confirmed? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you design a template, it's your task to learn the rules.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you make serious accusations like violation of WP:NPOV you should back them. Otherwise it's nothing but an offensive behavior. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Template:Warsaw Uprising - no picture, small template, This box: view • talk • edit
• Template:Expulsion of Germans - big picture, big template, agressive colors, no obvious editing.

Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

None of this backs a POV claim, it's all about your esthetic view. How is a picture and the use of color in a template related to a POV? Other templates include pictures. Eg Assyrian people template. Most people consider green to be relaxing. Territorial changes of Poland template is red. How can a color be a POV? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again: Which critics are how confirmed? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment by user:Piotrus That template has an obvious German POV Would you please explain what POV is expressed by that template? Noone did that so far. The template does nothing but to guide the reader through closely related articles, that cover information that as well could all be included into one article if that wouldn't make that article too large. It is dealing with a "German" issue, that is not a POV. I would agree with the template being inadequate when added to all articles somehow related to the expulsions (eg WWII, Pomerania, Silesia, articles on former German municipalities or expulsions of other peoples). That is not the case. All the articles connected by the template exclusively deal with the expulsions. A background and see also section links the "bigger picture" (while the template of course is not introduced to these articles) as it is common usage (see eg the Territorial changess of Poland series template - that by the way is also introducced to articles not exclusively dealing with the territorial changes of Poland, eg Oder-Neisse line). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment by user:Piotrus we should have an equivalent Polish template That is a completely different issue. If an article series exists for Expulsion of Poles after World War II noone opposes that to have a template. As far as I overlook this matter, so far there are the 2 Repatriation of Poles articles, one of which is a stub and could as well be merged into the other. (By the way, the use of Repatriation in the title looks like a remnant of post-war propaganda, it makes these expulsions and resettlements look like a voluntary call-back of Poles that did not actually belong to the territories they were expelled from, thus it gives that issue a positive touch - that is a POV) Skäpperöd (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Expulsion of Poles by Germany and Massacres of Poles in Volhynia.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Generalplan Ost. Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Would a template of them Germans not be "POV" if us Poles have a similar one? Is it all about sorry that? In this case, go ahead write a series, create a template for that, (optional: apologize for accusing me of "POV"), and noone needs to waste further time with this thread. By the way, the articles you collected are not part of a series and do not deal exclusively with the expulsion of Poles and - last but not least - are not connected to this thread. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Polish Gents-you have fallen into a trap by the German nationalists. To present population transfer of largerly pro-Nazi German population that in majority voted for a certain guy(the one screeming exterminate the Jews and Poles !) with the planned extermination of Polish and Jewish nations(named by the German state "untermenschen") is one of the cornerstones of modern German nationalism. Please don't fall into the trap. Neither were the Germans "untermenschen", neither were they to be exterminated, and can't be compared to their victims. The template is worthless, at best the demonstration of German nationalists mindset.--TheNoiseBringer (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Future victims choice:

--TheNoiseBringer (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The legality of the expulsion (repatriation) of Poles (1944–1946) is comparable to the one of expulsion of Germans. I have copied a text. Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If anybody can provide information on the estimated number of Polish collaborators in the Holocaust, please do so - it is being discussed here (after recent edits in history of Polish Jews and Holocaust in Poland claimed that there was one million of Polish Holocaust collaborators).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate; what was stated is ""Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators vary from seven thousand to about one million." A broad range is given, not a claim that "there was one million of Polish Holocaust collaborators." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed a broad range. Both 7 thousand and one million seem to be the extremes. We should avoid giving extremists' claims in an article on a general topic unless they are clearly attributed. Who is the author of the 1 million figure ? --Lysy^talk 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

See the article's talk pages for attributions. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that you don't know the answer. But what do you think about my opinion on not presenting such obviously extremal figures in an article on a general topic. Do you have any more realistic estimates ? --Lysy^talk 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I do know the attributions; I suggested going to the article talk page because that is where a discussion of the sources is underway already. I posted here only to clear up the mistaken impression given above that the articles "claimed that there was one million of Polish Holocaust collaborators," which they don't claim. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A relevant discussion, concerning whether the main article should or shouldn't mention claims about in September '39 "The mutilations [of German by the Poles] included stab wounds to the eyes and missing limbs... The dead in Bydgoszcz included priests, pregnant women, children and the elderly..." In a more reasonable debate, there is a request for reliable info on German civilian losses in Poland at Talk:Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#Civlian_losses. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to a better image of this spectacular location? Either new photography or historic public domain material--I'll restore the latter if it's sufficient quality. This would be the perfect topic for a featured picture, if only we had an image worthy of the location. Please leave me a note at my user talk to follow up. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 19:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bochnia.jpg any better? Needs categorization on Commons (and I have to go offline now).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the image. Although it doesn't have the potential for FP it does help. I've been thinking of doing another Poland-related restoration for FPC. The high resolution files about Poland at the U.S. Library of Congress are mostly old photochroms. So if I worked from them, it would help to know the names of a few famous sites that existed in 1890-1900 but didn't survive the world wars. For instance, Image:Nurembergsynagoguec.jpg recently got featured for pretty much that reason. I'd be glad to look for Poland-related images of that sort if I had some direction of what to search for. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

commons:Category:Art lost in Poland during World War II is an interesting cat. As for architecture, nothing specific comes to mind, but a lot got destroyed and only partially restored (look no further than most of Warsaw, really...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This one wasn't fully rebuilt after the war. Think it would be a good choice? Durova^Charge! 22:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've missed this, yes, it looks good. User:Halibutt should be able to suggest many historical images from Warsaw.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, should have this shaped up for tomorrow's nomination. Thanks for the input and referral. Durova^Charge! 08:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A Ukrainian Wikipedist, Galassi, has introduced allegations into the "Chopin" and "Mickiewicz" articles that it has been proven that Chopin's and Mickiewicz's mothers were descended from Frankist Jewish families. He cites as evidence for both these assertions "M. Mieses, Polacy–Chrześcianie pochodzenia żydowskiego, I–IV vol., Warszawa, 1938," giving no specific volume or page numbers. In the same "Chopin" article he makes an analogous assertion concerning the ancestry of Countess Skarbek, merely citing a Russian newspaper, Kaskad.

I've read of hypotheses that Mickiewicz's mother might have been of Jewish ancestry — just that, unproven hypotheses. I've never before, however, seen allegations that Chopin's mother was of Jewish ancestry.

I don't care whether Chopin, Mickiewicz or Skarbek were descended from Jews, Maoris or Eskimos. But I do care about the truth. Can someone shed light on these allegations? Nihil novi (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1938 source is not that reliable. I don't recall any modern research repeating it... Note on the author - he is mentioned in PSB as Mateusz Mieses d. "1942?" judaista; filolog; publicysta. User:Picus viridis can likely send you the bio of the author if you ask him, he has access to all of PSB and is willing to help fellow editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It surely would be interesting to learn something about Mateusz Mieses. But even more useful, perhaps, would be to obtain a copy of what he wrote on this subject; and to obtain access to any other serious publications touching on the ancestry of Chopin, Mickiewicz and Countess Skarbek. Nihil novi (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you ask Galessi for direct quotation from the source he is using. I do believe if the claims are not present in modern works, we should not rely on 1938 work (see also WP:FRINGE).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left on Galassi's talk page a request for exact source information and for pertinent quotations. Nihil novi (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in) "I don't care whether Chopin, Mickiewicz or Skarbek were descended from Jews, Maoris or Eskimos. But I do care about the truth". Same here. I've commented on the talk page at Adam Mickiewicz (which I had watchlisted) and restored the article to a more neutral version. It is by no means a "reasonable certainty" that AM's mother was of Jewish descent, it's merely speculation and some (including Weintraub and Milosz) are sceptical. --Folantin (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added some other citations other than Mieses.Galassi (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all without page numbers or quotations. Any evidence that you've actually looked at any of these "sources" (as opposed to finding them mentioned in other publications) and that you haven't distorted their views the way you have Czesław Miłosz's concerning Mickiewicz's alleged Jewish roots? Nihil novi (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Boris Kleyn is a reputable scholar, also of genealogy. I think he was the one who established POlish roots of Dmitry SHostakovich.Lute88 (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give us some details about Klein's findings about Chopin's and Countess Skarbek's Jewish roots? Nihil novi (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

According to a more recent than 1938 article by a Belarusian archivist Mickiewicz's mother had Tatar roots.Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Polish death camp controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish death camp controversy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

• This is just a notice for members of the Polish wikiProject here since no one has listed it on any Polish related topics/forums. I assume you may know more about the matter than me in North America. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I recommend all members of this project watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this concept is notable enough to be a stand-alone article? I have just written pl:Grupa pułkowników, I am thinking about translating it and merging Piłsudskiite into it. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The article in its current form is just a poor stub but piłsudczycy were really a powerful and most importantly victorious fraction of Polish politics of the interwar period. The article should be expanded and referenced. Piłsudczycy were most notable for their course of politics after Marshall's death. More, we have here many articles about similar "political-spiritual" factions from the whole world, e.g. Venizelist, Peronist or Gaullist. The piłsudczycy faction is even more notable when looking at the whole political spectrum of Poland of that period, there is nothing like dmowskiści etc., making piłsudczycy faction unique in this sense. - Darwinek (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Dmowski's faction was named endecja... So do you guys oppose the merger? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are "Piłsudskiites" and "Piłsudski's colonels" synynyms?

If not, both should be kept.

If they are synonyms, I vote for "Piłsudskiites," because a) the term is used in Polish sources (piłsudczycy); and b) it is more succinct than "Piłsudski's colonels." Nihil novi (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger. Both terms are independent and should have own articles. Btw. Dmowski's faction wasn't Endecja in the strict terms. Dmowski was surely the leader of Polish National Democracy but still wasn't placed in a "saint" position as Piłsudski was. For example, Dmowski was widely criticized by many factions of the National Democracy, Piłsudski was untouchable. More, Dmowski pull out the public life during the interwar period. Piłsudski wanted to control everything he could as long as he lived. Guys from ONR surely acknowledged Dmowski's heritage but in the National Democracy there wasn't such a widespread cult of personality as with the piłsudczycy. - Darwinek (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Than please, could you guys help expand the Piłsudskiite article, while I stub the colonels' group? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, just give us some good references. :) There is also a question what should be included in this article. To avoid some duplications. - Darwinek (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am done with the colonel's article. I trust you guys can find the refs and expand the Piłsudskite article; if it stays in the current form I am afraid a merger will be proposed by other editors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Exec (talk · contribs) who in late 2005 made a brief appearance with heavy anti-Polish pro-German POV (ex.) has now reappeared with a dubious map of 1912 Polish population, adding it to several articles. Please consider commenting at commons:Image talk:Polska-ww1-nation.png; I wonder if the map is reliable enough to be kept or should it be removed? A major problem with the map is that it classifies Polish minority as 40-50% and thus territories with less than 40% Polish minority are colored as "non-Polish minority"... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Map also added by 80.219.104.11 (talk · contribs) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

... and where they should (not) be added is discussed on Portal_talk:History#Wehrmacht_warcrimes. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

... is discussed at both template talk:German borders and template talk:borders of Poland. The merged template is used already in:

1. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
2. Potsdam Agreement
3. Treaty of Versailles
4. Yalta Conference
5. Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919)

...and would look like this:

German border template	+ Polish border template	= merged template (?)
Territorial evolution of Germany in the 20th century Pre-World War II Act of 5th November proclaiming Kingdom of Poland (1916) Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Ukraine (1918) Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Soviet Russia (1918) Treaty of Versailles (1919) German–Polish Convention regarding Upper Silesia (1922) Return of the Saar Basin (1935) Remilitarization of the Rhineland (1936) Anschluss with Austria (1938) Munich Agreement (1938) Seizure of Czechoslovakia (1939) Treaty of the Cession of the Memel Territory to Germany (1939) Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (1939) World War II Großdeutschland Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany General Government Zone interdite German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement (1941) Tehran Conference (1943) Moscow Conference and Declaration on Austria (1943) Yalta Conference (1945) Potsdam Conference (1945) Post-World War II Berlin Declaration (1945) Potsdam Agreement (1945) Luxembourg's annexations (1946 and 1949) Saar Protectorate (1947) Paris Protocol (1949) Dutch annexation of Elten and Selfkant (1949) Belgian annexations (1949) Esrablishment of East and West Germany (1949) Treaty of Zgorzelec (1950) Minor territorial exchanges between East Germany and Poland (1949 and 1951) Bonn–Paris conventions and de facto return of Heligoland from the UK (1952) Return of Kehl from France (1953) London and Paris Conferences (1954) Austrian State Treaty (1955) Saar Treaty (1956) "Little Reunification" with Saarland (1957) Belgium–Germany border treaty and return of the majority of annexations (1958) Return of Kammerwald from Luxembourg (1959) Ausgleichsvertrag (1960) Return of Selfkant (1963) Polish–East German Baltic Continental Shelf Delimitation Treaty (1968) Treaty of Moscow (1970) Treaty of Warsaw (1970) Four Power Agreement on Berlin (1971) Basic Treaty (1972) Treaty of Prague (1973) United Nations Security Council Resolution 335 (1973) Polish–East German Maritime Boundary in Pomeranian Bay Delimitation Treaty (1989) German–Polish Border Treaty (1990) Two Plus Four Treaty (1991) Treaty of Good Neighbourship (1991) Areas and issues Alsace–Lorraine Former eastern territories of Germany German question Hallstein Doctrine Drang nach Osten Lebensraum Ostpolitik Adjacent countries Territorial evolution of France Territorial evolution of Poland Territorial evolution of Switzerland v t e		Germany and Poland border changes in the 20th century Accords Versailles and Saint-Germain, 1919 Riga, 1921 Molotov-Ribbentrop, 1939 Yalta, Berlin and Potsdam, 1945 Zgorzelec, 1950 Warsaw, 1970 Two Plus Four and German–Polish Border Treaty, 1990 Current countries Belarus • Belgium • Czech Republic • Denmark • France • Germany • Lithuania • Poland • Russia • Ukraine v t e

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Against I think you're trying to be too minimalist. If you take the thought to a logical conclusion then there should only be one for Border Changes in Europe - 20th Century. My 2 cents would be to leave the two separate ones and not combine them. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I support use of merged templates in topics related to both Poland and Germany. In topics not related to both of those countries, of course, a single-country template should be preserved. I also think that the template should link in see also to the country's templates.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge since that differently from other European states, the border history of Germany and Poland are deeply intertwined (mainly during the 20th century), and they are between the main factors and later settlements and accords during and after World Wars I and II.--MaGioZal (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, User MaGioZal is the author of the proposed template.

border history of Germany and Poland are deeply intertwined So are just about all the borders in that part of Europe. I could easily say the same about Poland-Soviet Union, Poland-Ukraine, Poland-Lithuania, Poland-Belarus, Poland-Czechoslovakia, but that doesn't mean that they should all get lumped together into a single template. A better thing to do would be to use a common format (colors, width, layout, etc.) for Country-specific templates. Ajh1492 (talk)

Neither did I create the merged template nor did I intend to have the discussion or even a vote here. I simply wanted to draw some attention to this matter and linked the resp discussions; it is am interesting approach to reduce the enormous space consumed by adding two templates to articles concerning German-Polish border change related articles. Another approach would be to reduce the "old" ones or even have all three, but then at least some must have navbar style if we want the article's text still to be visible between all these templates. Probably, we could go on at the merged templates talk page instead of starting multiple redundant threads? That would be Template talk:Germany and Poland Border Changes 20th century. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not support having a merged template. The merged template does not talk about Russia and the Kresy. It is better to have the templates stay on a per country basis. Maybe have the templates be able to hide their sections linke the navboxes 199.243.154.132 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Zaolzie, an article tagged by this project, has been placed on hold following its GA Sweeps Review, pending a few relatively minor issues being cleared up. The review can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have upgraded Template:Borders of Poland to use Template:Navbox with collapsible groups to try and cut down the amount of screen real estate used. Ajh1492 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The title presents only Lithuanian POV. A war about Wilno region isn't a Lithuanian War of Independence.Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you raise this issue on talk of that article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have but I believe that the majority of Polish readers aren't aware that such article exists.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there any proves he used such name?Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This was extensively discussed on talk of that article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Without any result.Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Anybody would like expand this important article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A number of Polish history articles has been corrected recently in a specific German way. The expulsion starts with Magna Germania, many reverts. Much fun. examples:Wolf children,Daniel Gabriel FahrenheitXx236 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the edits of this IP Special:Contributions/71.137.197.97? In that case, why not try discussing issues with him first of all - his talk page has nothing but a welcome on it. Going from the similarity of the IP address is the same editor, and from the talk-page there it is clear they are open to discussion, even if they have quite a bit to learn about article sourcing. Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wa sjust about to suggest getting in touch with Skäpperöd - looks like you beat me to it. Knepflerle (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• 71.137.197.97 was a short time contributor, he called himself an observer.
• He doesn't care about other editors, he has edited and run away, no talking, explaining. Some of his editions are vandalism.Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So talk to him. He's been on the same IP for the last week, he'll get any messages you send. If he doesn't, start voicing your concerns on the article talkpages. If he then continues making controversial edits without explanation, then we have a problem, but let's do things in the right order. Knepflerle (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have voiced my concerns about radical editings by Skäpperöd and the answer was Holidays? Hmmm .Xx236 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What issue do you want to discuss here? That an IP asked me on my talk page not to "clean up" his/her edits? To answer this: I do not feel responsible for another one's edits, and at the pages mentioned here I am not even involved (And what did you mean by "the expulsion starts with Magna Germania? I missed that point). Or rather my response cited above? You stated "Radical editing during holidays may be regarded as POV pushing." which I answered with "''Holidays? Hmmm ". That only meant I was not aware of wiki "holidays" (still I am not), and was not in any way offensive. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II - German settlements of Magna Germania predate for a thousand years the establishment of the first state of the [[Polans] shortly before year 1000 at Gniesno. It's a vandalism for me, in an article radically edited by you. You have been informed by the author about his activities.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I finally saw what you meant. These changes took place after I "radically" edited the article. You should know by now from watching my edits that these changes contradict my efforts to get an informative, neutral and sourced version without statements that do not really belong to the issue and only trigger edit wars. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believed that many editors weren't present. The mentioned article was edited almost only by you in August and I was afraid of angry comments later.

Evacuation of East Prussia starts with two big templates and a picture of mutilated bodies. I find such form of this article unacceptable. Wolfskinder belong to the evacuation/expulsion series, I don't know if the article should be integrated with an another one or the expulsion template should be included.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking on German noticeboards for active users to police the IP themselves. Disruptive edits from 70s... are nothing new. User:Space Cadet I believe is habitually cleaning up vandalism from that range.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

All editors writing on military-related issues are encouraged to announce their creations/improvements at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to upload this useful atlas ? It contains many interesting maps of early XX century Poland and its resources, people, administration. The atlas is fully available here: [8] --Molobo (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be in public domain, I believe. See Polish copyright law for details. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's surely interesting to see a map of Jewish saving deposits, or average savings of Poles and Ruthenians compared to those of Jews. Or Czechy within the greatest expansion of Poland, due to the extended period 1003-1004 [9]. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I ain't surely interesting to see you commenting the Polish history, again and again. - Darwinek (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czerlejewo - Darwinek (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Either we use historical names Danzig - Gdańsk and Wilno - Vilnius or contemporary ones Gdańsk and Wilno. The current situation - Gdansk vote and Vilnius - is incompatible.Xx236 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guys, it seems things are bit off with this subject on WP. There is a good reference book available at google books Herbarz polski Kaspra Niesieckiego, s. j By Kasper Niesiecki Published by Waif, 1846 that seems to be very good source giving a comprehensive overview that includes all administrative divisions, bishoprics etc, of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Please comment.--Termer (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few old books, fully scanned on Google Print, that provide some interesting data (note: they may not be available to editors outside US... ask me if you're curious why, long story). The subject of administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth is a complex one, and the article could use major update - unfortunately I am a little busy with other things and can't prioritize it now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you can't see the book? maybe anybody who can could help? It has all coat of arms of the Voivodeships , all leaders listed including Polish kings and Lithuanian dukes , Bishops ; it includes the Russian territories etc, basically everything about the subject imaginable. I was planning to add the missing coat of arms to relevant articles but since the Administrative division template is a bit off compared to the book. Like I asked about Duchy of Warmia, I got stuck with it. So it would be nice to get the book checked out by someone who's fluent in Polish. The bottom line, What I don't want to do, start fixing the subject without consulting with you guys first. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see since I am in US. But a lot of editors outside US will not be able to access google print public domain books..--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is biased, it doesn't mention Ukrainian victims of Ukrainian terror, Soviet and Nazi influence, situation of Ukrainians in other countries (SU, Czechoslovakia).Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Any experts here?Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since March Joseph Conrad was a Polish writer. I have restored the previous version and realised that the article doesn't inform about JC attitude toward Poland. It would be good to add one-two sentences.Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What JC attitude toward Poland are you talking about? Can you be more specific? I didn't even know he had an attitude. Please provide a citation for clarity. I'm looking forward to it. --Poeticbent talk 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just to be clear, I don't consider JC to be a Polish novelist since he did not write his prose in the Polish language (a defining factor). What I'm curious about is only his attitude at this point. --Poeticbent talk 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what you'd think about Johan Ludvig Runeberg, then;) (Finnish national poet who wrote only in Swedish). I agree Conrad wasn't a Polish novelist, though not because he didn't write in Polish, but because his nationality wasn't Polish. --Kotniski (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes he did write in Poland in letters and essays. He opposed Panslavism movement for example. I don't have time for that now, but if you remind me I will try to find something.--Molobo (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See his notes from Gutenberg: [10]

And chapters :

1. THE CRIME OF PARTITION—1919
2. A NOTE ON THE POLISH PROBLEM—1916
3. POLAND REVISITED—1915

He also wrote about his ancestors fight against Russian occupation of Poland in autobiography. --Molobo (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Molobo for the link to The Project Gutenberg eBook: Notes on Life and Letters, by Joseph Conrad. I had fun scrolling through it. Here’s something I picked up from the chapter called "Poland Revisited":

"Cracow is the town where I spent with my father the last eighteen months of his life. It was in that old royal and academical city that I ceased to be a child, became a boy, had known the friendships, the admirations, the thoughts and the indignations of that age. It was within those historical walls that I began to understand things, form affections, lay up a store of memories and a fund of sensations with which I was to break violently by throwing myself into an unrelated existence... I was pleased with the idea of showing my companions what Polish country life was like; to visit the town where I was at school before the boys by my side should grow too old... the memories of that corner of the Earth where my own boyhood had received its earliest independent impressions." -- Joseph Conrad, "POLAND REVISITED", Notes on Life and Letters

--Poeticbent talk 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3, 1791 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Essentially what a reviewer has requested is sources. I've provided those for the hardest part, the "Features" section. All that's needed now is for someone to provide sources for the general-history parts. It would be a shame to lose Featured-Article status over something as relatively trivial as that. Any takers? Nihil novi (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

When I edit this page I get an "Attention" notice at the top saying it's very unlikely that anyone will view this page and respond. Presumably this now appears at the top of all "Portal talk" pages. Any way we can get rid of it?--Kotniski (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I traced it back to {{visibility}} and left a note there - this indeed is some new and uncalled for feature. Миша13 22:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We could technically move our portal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page (as WikiProject redirects to our noticeboard) if all other recurse fails... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be a good idea anyway - I've seen people get confused by the positioning of this page in the past.--Kotniski (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, any administrators watching might like to consider (one way or the other) my editprotected request at {{visibility}}.--Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A request for move was initiated to move Settlement Commission from current name to Royal Prussian Settlement Commission in the provinces of West Prussia and Posen [11]

Interested editors are welcomed to engage in debate and discussion.--Molobo (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See here [12] --Molobo (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

History of Jews in Poland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Article Zygmunt Kurnatowski, Major General of army of Polish kingdom, is needing immediate attention. Please correct Grammar, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.173.19 (talk • contribs) 16:09, March 31, 2008

A user has, at the head of the "Chopin" article, replaced the elegant portrait of Chopin by Delacroix with a very primitive one by Ary Scheffer that makes the composer look like Pinocchio. If you wish to express your view regarding this substitution, there is voting underway here. Nihil novi (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My preferred solution is: keep both, we have space. Honestly, I haven't yet seen a portrait of Chopin I like (see others here).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the question. The point is, which portrait will be in the lead?

A good choice might be the watercolor portrait that was done around 1835 by Chopin's fiancee, Maria Wodzinska, but it is not now available in the Commons. (Could someone place a photo of it there?) Nihil novi (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe

Main article: Expulsion of Germans after World War II

I have removed the German POV, but without a result. What to do now? Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Try more discussion, ask more contributors for input (WP:DR, try also German noticeboard).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You only deleted any information that Poland was involved (somehow), is that what you call NPOV? 84.139.205.167 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP user, please log in first. Than we will discuss POVs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See [13], and discuss on talk if interested. I am currently thinking about who is right :) What about your thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Poosible under martial law, but not till 1990. Xx236 (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh. Isn't this something to raise on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania instead? And what article are you talking about - if any? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian minority in Poland. Do you know a cooperative Lithuanian editor? I don't.Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Renata3 is, while not friendly, usually neutral in content matters. I am afraid I don't know of any others. PS. You can also post a general notice/question/link to this discussion at WikiProject Lithuania I linked above and see who replies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that both of them were imprisoned, now only one article informs about it. Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no article about them. LINK articles you are discussing, please. Wouldn't this belong on Lithuanian noticeboard? I've never heard of them... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

They have a Polish father, which started several disputes, also around Poles in Lithuania.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Virtuti Militari has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is now at Good Article Review. Interested editors are asked to help address objections at talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Read all about it in increasingly destabilized Żydokomuna article... see talk for relevant discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

From the Białogard article:

The Red Army occupied the town on March 4, 1945. As a result of the Potsdam Conference following World War II, Belgard was placed under Polish administration in 1945; its German population was expelled and replaced with Poles, many themselves expellees from Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union.

This is a jarring style to me I'd re-phrase that as integrated into Poland's territory in 1945. Uncontroversial and neutral.
I'd also prefer removed to expelled and populated to replaced. Kpjas (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

See my changes to the article; not quite what you suggested (I think integrated implies too much, and I don't see anything wrong with expelled), but hopefully an improvement.--Kotniski (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK looks quite acceptable now, there's however some discrepancy with the Polish Wikipedia version which says that Belgard was conquered by Russian-Polish troops on the March 5, 1945 (no verifiable source given though). Kpjas (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Official reaction? Other than us finding such non-neutral wording, restoring NPOV, and often fighting for years with certain POV pushers bent on stressing some POVS... no, not really.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question raised in the section's title: Yes, there is an official position in relation to this kind of wording:

The phrase "placed under Polish administration" is the (almost) exact phrase used in the Potsdam Agreement where it reads "shall be under the administration of the Polish State". A re-phrasing should thus not be necessary, eg "integrated into Poland's territory" would be a more troublesome wording as this could be challenged, you all know that the de facto status was quiet clear after the war, but the de jure status was not, and there are different POVs about whether or not it was "Polish territory administered by Poland" or "German territory administered by Poland" back then. What was and is unchallenged is "only" the "territory under Polish administration" (isn't that sufficient?). Given the scope of the article, it would be best to follow the phrasing of the Potsdam Agreement instead of using the "Polish territory" term, that way one must not further debate that issue getting forced by WP:NPOV to represent the different POVs. The phrase "expelled" is also the widely accepted term for the removal of the former German population, so why change?

Now what I don't get is what you mean by POV-pushing and non-neutral wording. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Would Postdam wording be superceeded by later treaties (Treaty of Zgorzelec, Treaty of Warsaw (1970), Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, German-Polish Border Treaty (1990))? It seems to me that insistence on 60-year old wording is a bit... outdated, at the very least, and borders on border revisionism (questioning the stability of modern borders). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Skäpperöd, Looking back and pasting literal phrasing from various non-effective treaties concerning European history into Wikipedia articles is not obviously the right thing to do. We are here to write the best possible encyclopaedic articles - Wikipedia's good is our goal not creating justifications for political decisions of superpowers from over 60 years ago. Kpjas (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well we were talking about 1945 events, and about the official wording for these events, weren't we? And until the various border treaties that Piotrus mentioned were drawn, the Potsdam Agreement was the only legal basis. Border revisionism? Justifications for political decisions of superpowers? Calm down, what are you talking about in the first place? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

When we write about the Bible, we don't use original statements from few thousand years old. In article about the Postdam Agreement, original quotes may be acceptable (if clearly marked as such). When we write about German invasion of Poland in 1939, we go beyond original German justifications for it, even if we write about the days before Polish or Western commentators issued their counter-justifications. In that case, just as when we write about modern Polish-German border, wording accepted by most modern scholarship should be used.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand you mistaken the Potsdam terminology for a unique historical phrase only used in this agreement meaningless to all further phrases used. That is not the case, this wording was and is used to describe the 1945+ events (see eg Condi Rice et al, 1997, find others via web searches), and no this is not used in a POV sense but merely to most accurately describe the situation without an interpretation. The rendering of the term to express a certain POV was done by (a) attributing the term "temporarily" (West German government POV) or (b) basing a final territorial claim on the Potsdam agreement ignoring the explicit postponing of this matter to a "final peace settlement" which never was drawn (Polish government POV), and that was only substituted by the 2+4 treaty prior to German reunification and the respective PL-GE-border treaties. I am not interested in using only contemporary phrases to describe historical events, which indeed would not make sense, but instead I am interested in proper adressing historical issues.

You see I am trying to be most neutral, and I am astonished of you not bothering to study the matter first and instead yell POV and border revisionism at me. For the controversity I mentioned above, see eg Ryszard W. Piotrowicz et al, 1997 who gives a small overview stating a little more detailed what I summarized above, there are other books going into much more detail if you really are interested. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Purely from a language point of view, "placed under Polish administration" implies to me that it wdidn't become part of Poland, just that Poles were acting as the authorities there (as in certain parts of Iraq and Afghanistan recently). It may have been the language used in the original treaty, but the facts of the matter result from much more than just that treaty. Unless we are going to go into great detail about the circumstances of the border change in every article about a town in these territories (which seems undesirable, when we can just link to a general article), we should summarize the facts as the reader will best understand them. For me "became part of Poland" does that best - maybe someone can do better. One thing to avoid is giving the impression (as some articles of this type do) that the town or village in question was a specific issue in the post-war negotiations, rather than just a part of a much larger region that changed hands.--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the Potsdam Conference following World War II, Belgard (Białogard) became part of Poland. - for me mentioning and linking to the Potsdam Conference is enough as a historical/political background. It'd be going overboard if we had to give more detailed explanations in every article about a town or village in these territories. Kpjas (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To go into much detail is just what I want to avoid, we have consensus on that. The aim is to find a terminology that does not express a POV and is immune against challenging, so we have a stable, NPOV version without detailed information that would violate WP:UNDUE. I think we have consensus about that, too.

@Kotniski: "Purely from a language point of view, "placed under Polish administration" implies to me that it didn't become part of Poland, just that Poles were acting as the authorities there" That is exactly what happened. And after the administration was turned over to the Polish authorities by the Red Army, the Polish authorities did integrate Belgard into the post-war Polish state, unlike the situation in eg Afghanistan today. Yet it is questionable if they were legitimized to do so by the Potsdam Agreement, there we have different POVs (in literature as shown above, please don't make that a personal issue). So either we let out the Potsdam Agreement as the cause of the integration into Poland, or we mention the Potsdam Agreement as a cause but let out the "part of Poland". Or we mention the Potsdam Agreement saying it placed Belgard under Polish administration, which it did (no more no less). The current (?) terminology used in the article, "became Polish", is also perfectly alright, yet you asked for the "official" one. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we'd do better not to mention the Potsdam Agreement specifically, since that was just one part of the process by which these regions became Polish. Maybe it would be better to say something like "as a result of the post-war boundary changes B. became Polish/part of Poland." Then readers know where to go for full information, and are not misled in any of the various ways that they might be when we say that it happened "because of Potsdam".--Kotniski (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said above that's one way to do that. "Post-war boundary changes" is a good choice, it combines all changes de facto, de jure, by force, by treaty, without going into detail about that or mentioning actual dates for which the situation would have to be described more accurately. The question is whether to wikilink that to Territorial changes of Poland after World War II as this seems to be a low-developed merge candidate, or rather to Oder-Neisse line which bears much more information, but is not in best shape either. (Maybe it won't really matter to which article we link at all because all the respective articles are interlinked...) Skäpperöd (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Because there has been no further input, I assume consensus and changed the line in the article accordingly, linking this discussion in the edit summary. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was asked in my discussion to translate this into English (it's now in Polish), but I checked on the wikipedia-pl on IRC, and admins there were not overly enthusiastic. He is not in the pl wiki or referenced there. The opinion (to be fair, of one Silesian admin) was that the biogram was unlikely to pass muster on the English Wikipedia as notable.

So I punt this project over to you. :) --Mareklug ^talk 14:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

if he really has an entry in Polski Słownik Biograficzny as one of the ref implies he is notable. A few users from the Polish Wikipedia could look it up. Kpjas (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For now, I suggest moving it to pl wikipedia. It can be copyedited there, and translated later to en.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done :) --Mareklug ^talk 04:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you find a standard behaviour to declare that an editor confirmed his nationality with a DNA testing? I find such statement racist and totally unrelevant to editing this Wikipedia. In this case it was allegedly a non-Polish DNA (what is it a Polish DNA ?), but I wouldn't like any such declaration about any nationality. Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Such statement looks like nationalistic (or racist) and very close to hate speech, so not a good thing to the Wikipedia community. However I suppose that from scientific standpoint it is completely senseless - it is impossible to claim that you are 100% Polish, German, French or whatever. What is the nationality after all ? One can say that his/her genetic makeup is in, let's say, 70% concordant with DNA shared by a population consisting of nationals of a given country. Kpjas (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In what context was such a statement made? Diffs? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See, [14]. - Darwinek (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to inform about some outrageous remarks made there as well as the whole initiative of some users, whose aim is to get rid of Piotrus, one of the most creative members of the whole project.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2, which started as a series of complaining about User:Piotrus (whom you I am sure all know), has now expanded ([15]) with claims that our Project/Noticeboard is a "cabal" and that all Polish editors are biased and likely support Piotrus in some terrible plan to undermine Wikipedia. Example arguments include: "...there is a small group of Polish nationals on Wikipedia"..."It has been happening all over Polish articles, with topics that they never edited before suddenly being besieged by Polish editors, and rules everyone else follows being swept aside by their block voting"..."Since Piotrus has a vast array of IRC and IM friends, happy to blindly revert to Piotrus's edits I doubt that it would work, but we can try"... Among other things, Gadu-Gadu is portrayed as a vehicle for cabalism :) It looks like about half of members of this Project/Board are mentioned there as contributing in some shape and form to the Piotrus-led Polish cabal - if you've ever interacted with Piotrus, you may find that and other diffs presented there as proof you are a member of his cabal. This would be funny if it wasn't serious (some editors who have been harassing Piotrus, and to a lesser extent, me and other members of this project) want to ban Piotrus and portray our WikiProject as an evil cabal. I hesitated to bring this issue here since at first it was about Piotrus, not our WikiProject, but now I think the line has been crossed. I am not very familiar with ArbCom, but I believe good places to post are:

• offer an outside statement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
• present evidence and/or defend against evidence of others at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence
• comment on proposed decisions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop; in particular, Piotrus proposals at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Workshop#Asking_for_input_is_not_canvassing_or_forum_shopping and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Workshop#There_is_no_Polish_cabal_or_tag_team are very relevant to our WikiProject. Tymek (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

An anti-Polish witch-haunt. Who will be the next after Piotrus? Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Witch hunt ?

People, shouldn't we take it easy ? They have read that Poles are evil and someone told them that GG was a tool of Satan so all is quite understandable. ;-) Kpjas (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Halibutt. User:Lysy. User:Balcer. User:Appleseed. All gone, because editors who now harass me have targeted them and they couldn't take it. It's not a witch hunt. It's a long term campaign of character assassination, targeting editors who dare to stand up to certain tag teams. PS. Don't confuse ArbCom party with ArbCom. The request might have been bad faithed, but ArbCom is composed of smart and neutral editors who have seen such tricks in the past and have seen through them, assuming they are shown the correct, unbiased evidence and background. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was away for quite a while. This is very saddening to see such things happening in Wikipedia and such outstanding users like Halibutt harassed and driven away by despicable maltreatment. If this is an organized and orchestrated campaign we should stand up and resist in a calm but steadfast manner. You have my full support for responsible and coordinated action that you deem necessary. Kpjas (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly responsibility and consideration is important. A lot of what have happened since you were gone was radicalization. Your input, comparing what's going on now with how it was in the beginning, would be priceless. If you have time to read through the ArbCom, I am sure many would love to hear your thoughts.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Because slandering accusations have been brought against users of the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board I think we might consider making a statement to the ArbCom and the Board. Kpjas (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed this new phenomenon. Piotrus calls it radicalization of users, but I think there's something more sinister taking place here. When Wikipedia was new, many users from similar backgrounds were editing at random, because they didn't know each other. It is only recently that many returning users finally got to know and trust those with similar views. They’ve learned who is who, which in turn enabled them to form a kind of Einsatz Gruppen for political and moral assassinations, and successful enforcing of extreme prejudices. I read about this worst case scenario online long before now, but it is only now that this scheme finally became possible. I’m not sure what is going to happen, but personally, I’m beginning to seriously worry about the outcome. --Poeticbent talk 23:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new for me. Many places in this Wikipedia stink, some nations and some views are better than others and Poles are frequently underdogs. Very Christian Gazeta Wyborcza model of admitting all possible crimes doesn't work here, probably other nations don't have their Gazeta Wyborczas. Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh people, didn't you noticed that there is a new phase of Wikipedia and it is already being edited by special interest groups (i.e CAMERA), movements and influenced by intelligence community ? The days of enthusiast editors are mostly gone in areas of interest to politics. --Molobo (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but I'd still hope that such real cabals/tag teams are a small minority, not a rule. But then, I was always an optimist... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Special interest groups... Quite interesting, I have always been wondering when that will start. As some influential person said on April 19, 1996: Poland will be publicly attacked and humiliated. Tymek (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like, if I may, to put in a request for a translation of pl:Kościół św. Rocha w Białymstoku - I fell in love with it when I was in Poland, but alas my knowledge of the language is so poor as to preclude any decent attempt at translating on my own. Also I'd like to see an article on the priest who served there, if possible.

Dziękuję! --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to get a copy of the current "Polityka" weekly magazine. There is a very interesting article about hunger in post-WWII Poland. This article is very interesting in the context of Polish post-war antisemitism (for eg Kilece Pogrom could be explained as baisicly a food riot.) and the failior of post-war anti-communist resistance can be viewed as a result of apathy caused by hunger. Mieciu K (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Franek Dolas (talk · contribs) seems to be engaging in creating a series of Sołtanowicz family hoaxes similar to those of the blocked Potocki (talk · contribs). I've left him a message on his user talk; how long should we wait before mass revertions and blocking? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For hours at best. He can always request an unblocking. Mieciu K (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, will you do the revert/delete/block honors, where appropriate? Or shall I? :) The user is inactive since Oct 5 and has not replied to my message on his talk (and his email is inactive). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those articles have no relaiable sources and their notability is doubtful. He should start by adding such semi-notable characters to Polish wikipedia first, only if they are notable to stay there should they be included into English Wikipedia. I'm not an admin (on en wiki) and the deletion process on en wiki is long and complicated so could you just speedy delete those articles? Mieciu K (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like proof of vandalism [16]. Jan Ocieski existed [17]. Mieciu K (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I thought you were an admin here. Have you considered applying? Speeding them now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I will apply in the future. Mieciu K (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard#Bishopric_of_Ermland.2FWarmia: IP wars in progress, input from experienced editors needed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a new article on Czeslaw Lejewski. Trying to find related sources, I saw the given name spelled somewhere with a Ł. Is it always the case? Is it in his, anyway? If it is correct, the article should be moved. trespassers william (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed always the case (some non-Polish sources will omit the diacritics, but our convention is to use them). I've moved the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Polish-Jewish_ethnicity_in_lead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please update with important anniversaries. I took the liberty of removing some entries such as June 11, 1952: birth of Bronislaw Wildstein, Polish journalist. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate some expert feedback on Talk:Pomerania#Terminology_of_the_Pomeranian_regions - the current English naming of the Polish parts of Pomerania. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ethnic conflicts in western Poland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic conflicts in western Poland. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. In the future, you may want to use DELSORT outlets, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany in addition for such announcements.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, nice feature. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Nationalist Polish newspapers for discussion of whether certain Polish newspapers are reliable or not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-Poland (on commons, commons:Template:PD-Polish) was updated to reflect that it is based on 1926 law. Btw, should we move one so their names are the same? Any suggestions? For the record, I don't have the priviliges to move the commons one, but I can move the one here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article Gross Aktion is being disputed by two users - myself (as 74.15.29.56 and 76.64.212.106) and The PiedCow). In short, while we agree that the subject was a grossaktion, it is not known to English-speakers as ‘’the’’ grossaktion. We have suggested “Gross Aktion in the Warsaw Ghetto “and “Grossaktion in Warsaw” as possible alternatives. Poeticbent, the creator of the article, disagrees. The issue is discussed at Talk:Gross Aktion. 76.64.212.106 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you asked at German and Jewish noticeboards? Also, try registering and asking at WP:RFC.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion - I've just made a request at WP:RFC. Requests for comment were already posted on the other noticeboards featured on the Gross Aktion talk page. 76.64.212.106 (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Afternoon,

I am trying to find some information on my husband's uncle, Michael Solanik. Michael passed away in Scotland around 10 yrs ago. We have inherited Michael's art collection and we are now looking at selling, if there is a market for his work. Our email address is ...

sikorsk@tpg.com.au

Kind regards,

Lynn & Joe Sikorski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.180.137 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently worked on the Treaty of Stettin articles. The Treaty of Stettin (1570) is categorized a Polish peace treaty, yet I cannot find sources for Polish involvement (and if, what kind of an involvement that would be). Can you? Skäpperöd (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on pl wiki, Polish side was the mediators. I am not sure if this is enough to classify this as a "treaty of Poland"; it is classified as such on pl wiki as well. PS. I suggest linking this discussion from Talk:Treaty of Stettin (1570).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't intend this to become a discussion, rather a call for sources. Meanwhile, I looked up a lot of sources myself, and yes, a Polish delegation was among the mediators. I inserted a ref but another one would be fine. Everything else may indeed be discussed at the article's talk page. Skäpperöd (talk)

Lots of names waiting. Milczanowski, Cielecka, Myśliwski, Skrzynecka, Morgenstern.

Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biographies#Poland

--Revery (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See also User:Piotrus/List of Poles :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:BIO Dariusz Ratajczak isn't notable.

The Political activity section informs Ratajczak was considered as a candidate to sejmik. It's not nottable to be considered a candidate.

right-wing links to Right-wing politics, which discusses mostly economic freedom. The LPR wasn't a right wing party, rather a nationalistic one with a leftist economical program. Dariusz Ratajczak isn't a place to discuss LPR's program. Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

He is notable as a historian.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? You mean any Polish doktor of history being notable here? Where are their biographical articles? Doktors are removed routinely from Polish Wikipedia. No English language book in the article.Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC) No book has its ISBN mentioned here. So either the article is far from being complete, or these are no books but rather leaflets.Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No SDU have taken place on pl wiki. You can start WP:AFD on en wiki anytime. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The English Wiki isn't a sum of all Wikis. A person notable for Polish language readers isn't always notable for English langauge readers, especially if the person doesn't write, sing in English. It's not the matter what I can (I have put "notability", removed - because "BBC mentioned him once". Is any peson mentioned by the BBC notable?), but what to do with this poorly edited article. Any nation has a number of Ratjczaks, unfortunately some Poles seem to be proud of him, like in the WWII joke - We are the best, we have the biggest bed-bugs. Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Either improve the article yourself, tag it with a maintenance tag (examples at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup or take it to WP:AFD. Any option is more productive than complaining about it here. Knepflerle (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

anyway, the English wiki covers the world and tries to cover all of it on the same basis; the limitation is the extent to which we have writers who are able to handle the topics. True, different WPs have different standards of notability, but for any given topic it applies equally to people and things of all nations. For the relevant standards here for academics, see WP:PROF. DGG (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have heard about him, and I read some interviews about him. Mostly because he is controversial (the Irving issue et al). Don't know if this (known and controversial) means "notable". Szopen (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A series of articles was written about the spouses of various Polish noblemen. Based on the very sparse information give there, & the equally sparse information in the Polish Wikipedia, they probably cannot stand on their own. (Personally, I am usually reluctant to invoke NOT#INHERITED, but it does seem to fit for these.) they were prodded. As reviewing I decided to redirect them when possible rather than delete. I did this for Zofia Zamoyska; but others among them were married successively to two different noblemen such as Róża Potocka, Konstancja Potocka & Maria Zofia Sieniawska. There's no way I know of for doing an appropriate redirect in this circumstance, unlike, say, when the same man had several spouses not themselves significant. QA proper database should have such a way, but we don't seem to. I have therefore considered this a situation not provided for, and appropriate for IAR, and left the articles,though I anticipate some trouble defending them. This isn't unique, and has occasionally arisen in other contexts also. How shall we handle this? It would be better to centralize the discussion at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#spousesDGG (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There's an ongoing discussion about the deletion of article "Towns in the Former RSK " [18]. The article is a list of Croatian towns that were occupied by greaterserbianists during Serbian aggression on Croatia in 1990's; direct occupation and rule from Serbia was hidden by self-proclaimed (and internationally unrecognised) para-state RSK.
Keeping this article would be a precedent for cases like "Towns in former Third Reich". Please, give your opinion. Kubura (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

After years of lobbying, the survey is finally here. Please take a few minutes and participate in it. As a research of Wikipedia myself, I cannot stress the importance of this project. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

i started an article about the chessplayer Grzegorz Gajewski who is the member of the Polish team at Dresden chess olympiad which is in progress at the moment. unfortunately somebody tagged the article for speedy deletion due to lack of notability!?!? Loosmark (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Solution: remove tag, expand. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The category seems to be dominated by WWII events. Should we create a subcat Category:Germany–Poland relations during WWII? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This new article by Poeticbent has been tagged as a possible copyvio. Please help to rewrite the article and offer comments on talk in the ongoing discussion. Personally I don't think it is a copyvio, but input from others will be certainly appreciated - and the article does need some further expansion and rewriting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

the article might also benefit from a change to the NPOV title: Treatment of .... DGG (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

why is the current title not NPOV? Loosmark (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Among other things (such as lack of balance) because the article does not describe "Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust" but instead gives a hodgepodge of individual examples culled from a single unreliable source. It lacks any reliable sources that verify what the title as it is now conveys. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

i understand the article is in the process of being rewritten or improved. probably the authors will add aditional sources. but how do you propose to describe the rescue of Jews by Polish communities if not by giving examples? i see no better way than that. the title seems correct to me. Loosmark (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is a collection of stories of aid to Jews (all lifted from the single compilation cited above), most if not all of which are by members of communities, and not whole communities. Hence the title is misleading and POV. There are instances where there were mass executions by Nazis and local collaborators of Polish villages charged with aiding Jews, which in no way definitively meant these were cases of "Rescue of Jews by Polish communities"--it could mean collective punishment for the acts of a handful of people, and generally it was Nazi terror tactics because there was partisan activity in the region. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ok i read the pdf document, the "unreliable source" as you call it, and to me it looks credible. but of course if more sources are found the article will benefit. i don't understand very well your point about the title but if you have a better one i suggest you propose it on the talk page of the article. Loosmark (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliability is discussed here; the source seems relatively reliable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No it doesnt. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article, now Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, includes several doubtful or wrong informations. Xx236 (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The List of communities is a disaster, it doesn't inform about anything.Xx236 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think in this particular matter that a collection of anecdotes proves nothing, and is not encyclopedic.. There were thousands of Jewish communities, and published and archival documentation is available, in at least one language, for almost every community. There are similarly tens of thousand of published and recorded and archived individual memoirs, also in various languages. Many of them will show the rescue or attempted rescue of Jews; many of them will show various degrees of acquiescence, or cooperation with the Nazis in their murder. Often the same village will have evidence of both--indeed, the very same person may have at different times done both. Prominent instances cases about which accessible books or films have been written can be discussed individually, whether for the village or the individual. (Actually, going village by village would probably be the best way to add such accounts, provided it was done in NPOV terms as treatment of... rather than limiting it to one half of the issue. The sources I am familiar with try to give both--the survivors were at least as anxious to perpetuate the memory of the rescuers as of the murderers.)

Most of my experience here in dealing with anecdotes has been for purported cures or harms in alternative medicine--where they are scrupulously removed, and for the good reason of not necessarily being representative. DGG (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All the stories in the article are cited and verifiable. The article includes both specific stories (by no means all of them) as well as more discussion of general research. Just like books written on the subject matter do. The list at the end of the article definitely belongs there. I note that Xx236 doesn't bother to offer an argument or evidence but seems to believe that a strongly worded assertion is a sufficient substitute for such.radek (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to read the Talk page of the article? I have quoted plenty of doubtful informations and precise data, coming probably from the IPN. Ukrainian nationalists murdered Poles as Poles, not because the Poles were helping Jews. If I'm wrong - give verifiable sources. Łomża diocese prints are hardly available. Xx236 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding you - is it about specific cases?. But if you're right and have sources then yes, by all means, go ahead and change/delete it.radek (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that individual stories, little different from anacedotes, are of little use. But there is also quite a lot of research aimed at drawing more general conclusions, and that should be separated. And of course both should be separated from some heavy POV-pushing from both sides... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lower Silesia also became a Polish war aim, as well as the Baltic coast west of Stettin as far as Rostock and occupation of the Kiel Canal - I don't know anything about such war aims, even German sources don't confirm it. The source is allegedly a Naimark's book.Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The source is (not allegedly but definitely) this one: Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Harvard University Press, 2002, ISBN 0674009940, p.123, confirmable online (e.g. here), written in English. The sentence is referenced by this book in a citenote, please confirm before starting multiple threads. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Xx236, it would make it much easier for uninvolved persons if you link the article in question

(i.e. Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II#Polish_interests).

If I had not introduced that sentence and source myself, I would by no means be able to figure out what exactly you are talking about (without doing a web search). You asked for the credibility of Naimark at the respective talk page. N. is a contemporary expert on the subject, Stanford professor, the book was published in Harvard, it's almost impossible to be more credible. I guess it would be better to continue this discussion at the article's talk page, so others won't need double post everything.

( Talk:Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II#Naimark.27s_credibility)

Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you accept Naimark's anti-Polish POV. [19] Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And don't call me dear, I don't like you because of your agenda.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Czech opinion about NN's book [20].Xx236 (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The source does not claim Rostock was Polish goal; it state that it aimed for occupation rights of Rostock. Szopen (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please have this discussion in one place only. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Would there be interest in resurrecting Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/PLCOTW? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about the exact correct translation of the full name of Solidarity/Solidarność. On the article's talk page an editor asked: What does "Niezależny Samorządny Związek Zawodowy Solidarność" mean precisely? The reply was: The Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union ‘Solidarność’.

What I would like to know is whether the English word "Trade" is a literal, exact translation of the Polish word. In other words, in Poland, are workers' unions referred to as "trade unions" or as "labor unions"? (Or is that distinction even made?)

Thanks in advance! Cgingold (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The literal translation of związek zawodowy would be professional union, but it is never translated that way. I am not aware of difference between trade union and labor union. Trade union seems more popular in translations: 80 vs 20/5 (although we should have all possible redirects if we don't have them yet).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. In light of your explanation I'm persuaded that the article should remain at its current title. There are, however, two closely related Categories (Category:Solidarity & Category:Solidarity activists) that do need to be renamed for clarity of meaning. Generally speaking, categories are given the same name as their main article (if there is one), but in this case I'm thinking it might be better to use a somewhat different formulation, as follows: Category:Solidarity (Polish movement) & Category:Solidarity (Polish movement) activists. What are your thoughts on this? Cgingold (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are not moving the main article, what's the point? Solidarity (social sciences) is an important concept, but would it ever have its own category? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the word "Solidarity" has multiple meanings, and we go out of our way to avoid ambiguity in Category names. Trust me, the current name will have zero support at CFD -- so the only question is what the new name should be. Secondly, in the global context the term "Solidarity activists" is also ambiguous -- and it's much more widely understood as referring to activists in solidarity movements, rather than to Polish trade union activists. So again, the question is what the new name should be. I just thought I would run it by you (and anyone else who cares to comment) first, and try to come up with a well-thought-out proposal. Cgingold (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

While expanding Province of Pomerania, I added a paragraph about the fate of the Jewish Pomeranians. They were all deported in February 1940 to a "reservation" near Lublin in what was then Nazi-occupied Poland. I did not however find an article on wiki about this reservation (which was more like a giant open air concentration camp comprising several villages), nor did I find an article that mentions this reservation. Does anyone here know if such an article exists (maybe I searched for wrong titles) or if an article with a broader topic covers this reservation, too? (cross posted from Jewish history portal talk) Skäpperöd (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are talking about the Nisko Plan. The reservation is reference in several articles but not seen anything more detailed than that. Jniech (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's exactly what I've been looking for. I will link Nisko plan from the Province of Pomerania article. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A number of Polish politicans' articles contain old data.Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardly surprising, consider how undermanned we are... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I just found this: "In 1939, the German Wehrmacht invaded Poland. Atrocities were committed on both sides during and after the invasion.[3][4][5]" From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pomerania_(1933-present) To me this is unacceptable take on history. You can express your comment here[21]

--Molobo (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take note of this event. Voting ends in mid-December.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have several times protested against the anti-Polish propaganda idea of the Polish Corridor. The Polish name was Pomeranian Voivodeship. Please don't support German nationalistic (even Nazi) POV. Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Polish Corridor is certainly a very common term in English, and has its well-known Polish equivalents (korytarz polski/gdański) - AFAIUI it dates from the time of the Versailles negotiations and has nothing to do with German nationalism (at least, originally it didn't).--Kotniski (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way would you like us to "not support the German POV"? Not edit the article? Delete it and pretend the concept never existed? Ignore English usage and use only Polish terms to refer to the area?

In the meantime, feel free to edit the article yourself to add reliably sourced material as to the term's usage in Poland, Germany and the outside world. Knepflerle (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I hardly can oppose all editors. I ask them to read and to reflect.

A number of concepts existed, but aren't described in this Wikipedia or are described as POV. Masters' opinions about former colonies aren't generally quoted as academic. Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

pl:Korytarz polski quotes Józef Beck and informs about an academic book, using "korytarz" in parantheses. Xx236 (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of the term being used by the NYT in early 1919.--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I bet that many US newspapers used to write N* about Afroamericans, but they don't anymore. So please don't write N* about Poles.Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if you think this makes the NYT an irreparably biased source on all topics (and this a ridiculous assumption), it is still the definitive source as regards its own editorial viewpoint ("Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact", WP:RS). Knepflerle (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A more academic explanation you can find in texts by Norman Davies and Ewa Thompson.Xx236 (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly comparable with the N* word (which in any case does have its own article). Do Davies and Thompson not refer to the Corridor? In any case, I'm not sure exactly what changes you're proposing - can you be specific (or be bold and make them)?--Kotniski (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

They refer to Western/Russian imperialism oriented against smaller cultures and Thompson refers to people (e.g. Polish ones), who accept cultural imperialism.Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Once more, with feeling: in the meantime, feel free to edit the article yourself to add reliably sourced material as to the term's usage in Poland, Germany and the outside world. Looks like you've got sources and have read them. Nothing's stopping you adding the material. Go ahead. Knepflerle (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish (Gdansk/Danzig) Corridor and Pomeranian Vovodeship are two different concepts. Yes, the first one is a creation of German Nazi propaganda. So? It is still notable and deserves its own article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Untermensch is an example of an article about German propaganda idea. The Polish Corridor is about the legitimate Polish territory from German POV. Symetriclaly we need an article about German Upper Silesia or Ziemia Złotowska as potentially Polish areas.Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes you so sure about the "Nazi propaganda term"? The article states:"The term was first used by Polish politicians and came into international use, but was later criticised by Polish politicians as a German nationalistic term.[2]" Also, Kotniski provided an example of usage in the Anglo-Saxon world in 1919, which obviously excludes the possibility that the term was coined by Nazi propaganda. All in all, I'd really be interested in understanding why "corridor" is regarded to be that offensive here. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but the ref is hard to verify (offline German book?) Who is Hartmut Boockmann? Further, the term was predominantly used by German/Nazi propaganda, even if it had originated and/or been used by other parties. After all, the term was most popularized by the fact that it was an integral part of the German ultimatum to Poland, just before the invasion, isn't that right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bookmann was a professor of history with an excellent standing. The "offline German book" is most likely "Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas, Ostpreußen und Westpreußen, Berlin 1992 ISBN 3-88680-212-4" (German history in the East of Europe, East Prussia and West Prussia), published under his name. I don't think the term really was made popular only by the ultimatum two (one?) day before the invasion, that ended the very existance of the corridor. What mattered much more was always Danzig and a passage through the corridor, not its annexation (although one might of course argue how honest that was, and that's afaik why the Polish officials kept rejecting those requests). Skäpperöd (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bookmann or (as in the article where he is cited) Boockmann? Could you stub an article on him? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My spelling error, it's of course Boockmann. I can give you a google book snippet for now from the page cited in the article (I have looked, it is indeed from the book cited above). The snippet is of course in German, but it is at least verifiable that the source really states that it was first used in Poland, and then became adopted elsewhere ([22]). Skäpperöd (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(update:) I stubbed Hartmut Boockmann from de-wiki. I saw the russian wiki has an article on him that seems to contain even more information than the german one. You are still pretty young, but maybe you remember some of the Russian lessons of your first grades? Or did you not have to learn Russian in Poland? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the stub. FYI, I mine was the first school year that canceled previously obligatory Russian classes. Instead, I know French (and English).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

New York times wrote

• on March 18, 1919: POLISH "CORRIDOR."; Paris Paper Sketches Proposed Strip to Danzig.
• on August 16 ,1920: Russians Hoist the German Flag Over Soldau; Say Polish Corridor Will Be Returned to Germany
• on March 17, 1919: Plan to Give Germany Land Communication Across Polish Corridor to the Baltic
• on November 16, 1930 EUROPE SOREST SPOT: THE POLISH CORRIDOR.; THE OLD GERMAN PORT OF DANZIG
• on August 17, 1932 GERMANS UNITED ON POLISH CORRIDOR

and you will find plenty of more examples like that. I don't think NYT was influenced by Nazis in 1919. 84.139.227.188 (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Logical fallacy: we use this term and I hope none of us here are Nazi propagandists :) The point is that the term was most often used and valuable to German propaganda - although granted, this assertion requires citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "Polish Corridor" was not only used in Germany and not only by the Nazis. A Danish translation of the term is "(den) polske korridor" and this term is used e.g. in the 1930 edition of Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon (Denmark's largest encyclopedia ever). Of all places, in the article about railways.("the German railway network was reduced due to [Germany's] territorial concessions following the [first world] war and is cut in two separate parts by the Polish corridor.")[23] The same expression can be found in Danish newspaper articles from the 1920s and e.g. in the same encyclopedia's article about Poland [The same expression can be found in Danish newspaper articles from the 1920s. It also appears in the same encyclopedia's article about Poland itself [24] and that volume dates from 1924. ("A first subdevision of this region is the Polish corridor which now essentially is part of the Voivodie of Pomorze which forms Poland's only access to the sea") 83.89.16.138 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Xx236 started this discussion by protesting against "the anti-Polish propaganda idea" and the support of "German nationalistic (even Nazi) POV". In fact it was simply the term everybody used in the 1920s and 30s, even General Sikorski, Polish Minister of War, did in 1925 here and Sikorski wouldn't use an anti-Polish propaganda term, would he?. 84.139.218.64 (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I inserted a terminology section in the article and felt free to start this section with the sourced information given here. Everyone welcome to expand. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

pl:Korytarz polski quotes minister Józef Beck's opinion. The region had official and academic Polish names and such names should be preferred. A Polish academic text uses "korytarz" (in parantheses). Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Sikorski talked to French journalists, using their ideas. Xx236 (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"official and academic Polish names ... should be preferred" - wrong. Read WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:UE. We do not base our naming on notions of "official-ness" or because they are autochthonous. The most common name is used for the title, then other names can and should be mentioned, and their origin and usage explained and sourced in the text. Feel free to edit the article yourself to add further reliably sourced material on this matter, if you feel it is necessary. Knepflerle (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Does Beck even represent modern Polish historiography? All the quote does indicate is that he (and presumably interwar Polish diplomacy) disliked the term. A fact certainly worth mentioning in our article, but this is not Beckpedia :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the Beck speech of May 39 is not an indicator for Polish interwar diplomacy - in that speech, Beck wanted (and succeeded) to swear in the parliament in an emotional way to reject any of the Nazi German offers concerning Danzig and the corridor. This put an end to the Nazi's diplomatic attempts, from that point, the military invasion was scheduled and prepared. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In Communist Poland Józef Beck was also a subject of jokes, on one picture he rode a goat, who bleated Beck, Beck. Funny those Poles, aren't they?Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No capital C?

I'm not sure where the above discussion is supposed to be going, but it occurs to me that "Corridor" oughtn't to be capitalized. Anyone for a move to Polish corridor?--Kotniski (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article, I introduced a list of similar corridors (one of the last sections). Some have the c capitalized, others have not. I guess no general rule applies. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Check Google Print for which variant is more popular here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it about time to continue at the article's talk page?

I linked the discussion here from the article's talk page already a while ago, and a divirging discussion evolved there already. I'd really prefer to have this all in one place and the proper place is the article's talk page, not a noticeboard. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dar%C5%82owo&diff=254788752&oldid=254785533 Mysterious for me changes, regarding the Potsdam conference.

The first lines in the History paragraph present radical German bias. Rügen doesn't confirm that Wizlaw IVth was a German duke.Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the Wizlaw sentence. Wizlaw was of course a Danish prince and not a German duke. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For the Potsdam sentence, I introduced the Belgard formulation Kotniski and I worked out as the most neutral earlier. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We still lack a article on Ukrainians in Second Polish Republic-it is an interesting history, and should cover attempts to reconcile in Volhyn area by Polish authorities as well as pacification of Ukrainian villages by Polish police before the war as well as attempts to colonise Ukrainian territories by Polish settlers.--Molobo (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is History of Ukrainian minority in Poland, and osadnik.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

User Skäpperöd has started to remove information in regards to Polish topics from a town's page, claiming that official authorities are not reliable source of information. He additionally asked the reliable noticeboard if official authorities of Polish administration are to be used on Wikipedia as source of information. As the result of such decision could limit our sources and result in deletion of countless information about Polish history in several cities I am engaged the discussion, noting that official authorities of locations are notable enough that their stance should be presented regarding their locations. You are welcomed to express your opinion. I believe this is a important subject: [25] --Molobo (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda pictures have been recently included. It's a part of thousands of Nazi pictures from Bundesarchive. Nazi propaganda was very good. Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they can be kept, if clearly labeled as part of Nazi propaganda.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the source and context of the image description in German should be clarified, with some urgency. Of course it is a reliable source of the producers of the picture at the time and useful historical data. However it should be made crystal-clear that this is the case, and that the text is neither representative of modern scholarship, nor a text written by Wikipedia consensus, lest some extremely unfortunate misunderstandings occur. Knepflerle (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're on to the case at commons.wm here and this template is being added to some items. As always, feel free to contribute to the discussions there. Knepflerle (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing any relevant discussions in English. I've seen this template and it seems useful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to explain my point. An influential media person has a conflict with Knepferle. Media cover the problem using pictures on which the media person looks good and Knepferle doesn't. 20 years later a journalist writes about the same story using the biased pictures. On the last page of the paper in small letter you can read The pictures may be biased.Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I made some work on Polish corridor but more is needed. Layout improvements, more info on usage by German propaganda, the intelligence and sabotage role of German minority organisations against Second Polish Republic Polish state and so on needs to be covered more in the article. Also correction changes in grammar, spelling would be appreciated--Molobo (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review the co-existence of Piotrowskis - Tatar knezes and Piotrowski. NVO (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jan Pawel Pietrzak, a Polish-American Marine Corps Sergeant. Murdered together with his wife in October 2008. Interestingly enough, for some mysterious reasons, U.S. mainstream media wrote very little or nothing about him. Those interested are asked to help out with the article. Tymek (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remove entirely the section "Polish reactions to alleged complicity" from "Extermination Camps" article which is about extermination camps and not about misleading term Polish camps used by some media. Please comment. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the section could be renamed (e.g. Selection of sites for the camps) and altered to explain why the camps where located in Poland? e.g. Remove the first two paragraphs. Replace with a statement like “The Nazi Germans selected occupied Poland for a number of reasons”. Then remove everything after “The level of antisemitism in pre-war Poland had no influence on the German decision.” That way the information is not about the media problems, Polish resistance and Polish collaboration but the selection of location for the camps. Jniech (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This would work.--Jacurek (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please revue. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it alright but see what other editors think. Jniech (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost all Kreis articles present Prussian POV. They don't inform about Polish population, frequently a majority. They don't inform about Nazi occupation. I have modified the lead, but there are tens such articles. I believe that names of cities and villages should be linked, when possible.Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi occupation happened a century later, so it should be clarified that this district existed in 19th century and was recreated in the 20th. I agree about the need for other improvements.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear All: I thought it would be a good idea to have a category to link all the Katyn Massacre articles. What I done is started Category:Katyn Massacre with two sub-categories Category:Katyn Massacre Memorials and Category:Katyn Massacre Victims. Hopefully I done it right ((any advice is welcome)). Assuming members here think it is a good idea, my plan is to complete these sections and start others e.g. perhaps one for Individuals connected to the Katyn Massacre such Zdzisław Peszkowski, Andrzej Wajda, Vasili Blokhin and Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff. Anyway if you hate the idea I will removed the categories already created otherwise once indications of support here will work on expanding the material. Jniech (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is one on pl wiki. There should be a Category:Katyn massacre victims as well.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good idea, and let me remind you of another freshly created WW2-related category, [26]. Tymek (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--Jacurek (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To Tymek: I have added Pawłokoma, Brzuska and World War II crimes in Poland to the Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Is it worth adding 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army? Jniech (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, as the UPA was the main perpetrator of the genocide and the 14th Waffen SS took active part in some of killings in Eastern Galicia. Tymek (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: You tagged Category:Katyn Massacre Victims for renaming which I support. My mistake. Should I correct the 13 articles already linked to it? The parent category Category:Katyn Massacre has 3 more articles. The other sub-category Category:Katyn Massacre memorials has another 3. I want to create at least one more sub-category with Individuals connected to the Katyn Massacre as one and maybe another called Katyn Murders. What do you think? Jniech (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Jniech: you don't have to retag the articles, a bot will do it soon, barring any unlikely opposes (see WP:CFD for details). I am not sure if the other categories are needed. Usually it helps to think: what similar categories I can base this one on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and all: Thanks for the help. Hopefully it won’t be too long unstill I stop making basic mistakes and having to ask questions. I was wondering if it was worth starting a list of all the victims of Katyn as a Wikipedia page. The idea is to list the thousands who were murdered with reference sources for each but are not famous enough for a page of their own. Do you think it worth the effort? Jniech (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

List and categories are somewhat overlapping. I am not opposed to such lists, but I am not a big fan of them either. Let's see what others think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jarosław_Kaczyński#Controversial_incidents. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as controversies go, Lech_Wałęsa#Alleged_cooperation_with_communist_security_service is also worth a look.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between importance of the information placed in the controversies section. With Kaczynski, there was some weird unenyclopedic info about him being gay, or that he sings terribly (sic!) Walesa's cooperation with security services has been described in several articles and books, by professional historians. This is worlds apart from statements that Kaczynski doesn't know how to sing. Tymek (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Imagine if somebody created a section "Controversial incidents involving Walesa" in the Walesa page and started quoting Walesa or what "others have said that Walesa said" or what Walesa did etc. There would be a lot things to quote, right? Would be that appropriate? I don't think so :) Why it is all right on Kaczynski's page then ? I'm aware that Polish electorate is deeply divided into people who either love Kaczynski or hate him but please take a "step back" and think about it...--Jacurek (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Should this be a disambig? Currently it's a redirect to Invasion of Poland (1939).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. There have been several invasions of Poland, and right now, it looks like the 1939 was the only one. Tymek (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:First_Partition_of_Poland#Corwin_and_exile_of_senators.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On 25th November on the Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles discussion page I raised the question why the redirect was to that page rather than the World War II crimes in Poland. No-one has replied but reading the previous discussion my impression is that there were problems with World War II crimes in Poland which lead to merger suggestions. Recent changes to World War II crimes in Poland mean it now covers crimes by various parties (e.g. Germans, Ukrainians, Soviet Union, Poles). The World War II crimes in Poland needs more work which I am hoping to do over the Christmas break but suggest the redirect for World War II atrocities in Poland goes to World War II crimes in Poland. Any comments from the rest of you would be appreciated. Jniech (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

World War II atrocities in Poland should redirect to World War II crimes in Poland (simple). Neither article is high quality, and they need improvement, although I object to the merger of Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles and World War II crimes in Poland (subjects seem notabe and ditinct).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that this football player was often known only as "Deyna"? I was trying to find him on Wikipedia but could not remember his first name. Deyna is a redirect to a fiction character in a book and there was no other link.

I look at stats.grok.se, and the Polish footballer is more popular; he gets 1942 views in November 2008 compared to 270 for the redirect. I think Deyna should redirect to the football player, and at the top of the page we should say "for the character, see..." with a link. But I want to know first if I am right about his name. Bedankt, Zuiver jo (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In the UK they generally use the surname for footballers hence here he is known as Deyna ((on a personally note I actually got to see him play in his first ever match for Manchester City)). I fully support the suggestion that Deyna deserves to be ahead of some fictional character. Jniech (talk)

I would never say that he was often known as Deyna only, without mentioning his first name. He was known as Kaka, and it was his nickname. As supporters of Legia Warszawa often sing Deyna Kazimierz, do not touch Kazik or else you will die (Deyna Kazimierz, nie rusz Kazika, bo zginiesz). Tymek (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Presidents Lech Kaczyński page needs serious attention and should be improved. Right now some sections lack neutrality and the president is portrayed as a "homophobic potato". Please compare it to the Polish version or the pages of the other presidents such as Valdas Adamkus for example. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That page is trash, and your changes won't stay. There is no use trying to improve anything. Hopefully everyone will look at that page, laugh, and realize what a terrible resource wikipedia really is. That article cited a website that call the Kaczynskis "vengeful yokels that don’t understand modern Europe." Its hopeless. Ostap 01:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A while ago I expressed my concerns at this board of having the expulsions of Poles named "repatriation" not only by the post-war Communists, but also in 2008 wikipedia. I'd also like to merge both articles on this topic because the article on the second wave is only four sentences long. Please discuss at Talk:Repatriation of Poles. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While repatriation of Poles vs. expelling of the Germans creates some POV issues, we should keep in mind WP:V and WP:NC (common names). Both repatriations are notable as different events, and both have separate articles on pl wiki, hence I object to a merger.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A beautiful Polish Christmas carol, the article I have just created Bog sie rodzi. Those interested are welcome to help with expansion of it for future DYK nomination. Tymek (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an ongoing problem stretching over a number of articles about Polish-Jewish history, i.e.: personal memoirs of Holocaust survivors, so eagerly quoted here by some editors. The diaries often contradict the evidence collected over the following decades by professional historians. Aside from the detailed description of individual experiences—which can be considered accurate—personal memoirs written by contemporaries usually include a barrage of normative opinions written without any historical perspective. It looks like, each and every one of those articles featuring quote-farms of normative statements needs to be dealt with separately.

Take as an example, the following Google copy-paste job in the article Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust.[27] Polish-Jewish contemporary historian, Emanuel Ringelblum, wrote in 1943, clearly unaware of how little was being done in the West to save the Jews from the Holocaust: "…Polish people. It is they whom we blame for the fact that Poland has not taken an equal place alongside the Western European countries in rescuing Jews." Ringelblum surviving in the Warsaw Ghetto could not have been aware of what the West was doing, nor did he know about the clandestine work of people such as Jerzy Jan Lerski or Stefan Korboński. Korboński “sent many telegrams to London to alert the world about the destruction of the Jews, telling that 700 daily were being loaded into freight wagons and dispatched to Treblinka where they were all gassed. But the BBC was silent, nobody abroad believed it: neither the [Western] Jews nor the British authorities. London was flooded with telegrams about Jews being brought from the Balkans, Hungary, Holland to Auschwitz. Even Jews being thus transported from abroad in trains with suitcases and valuables and told by Germans that they are transferred for work, did not believe when some Polish railway men whispered them the truth.” (Anna Poray) Ringelblum’s statement therefore, is an expression of his depth of despair. It is NOT a statement of historical fact and therefore cannot be quoted in Wikipedia for informational value. But it is...without as much as a footnote.

There are other, endless examples of how selected quotes from individual memoirs are being taken out of personal context and copy-pasted here for the shock value of their normative statements. I wrote about this already during the latest ArbCom case against Piotrus. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go over every article featuring these sort of misrepresentations of facts. The restoration of balance is going to take joint effort and so, I’d like to appeal to editors interested in this subject to please consider helping out as part of your New Year’s resolution maybe. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 21:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. -- Poeticbent talk
• Note: This debate has been included in the Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. -- Poeticbent talk

Selective quoting out of context to promote certain POV is certainly a problem. I suggest centralizing the discussion on one of those three pages, modifying the above post with a clear indication of which page is preferred, and copying - or even cutting - and pasting any comments made on the other two so far (WP:REFACTOR seems possible here).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish people, individually and nationally, have suffered considerably from deliberate fakes such as the "The Painted Bird". And Wikipedia does a poor job of informing people, our article on that book merely calls it "controversial" in the lead - the damning problems with it are not noted until the 5th paragraph and the 3rd section. "Fragments" by Wilkomirski is another fraud that got a lot of profitable attention (for some reason, we have no article on this book, though it must be much, much more notable than, say, Ouze Merham).

The "author" of "Painted Bird" (Jerzy Kosinski - his article also needs work to make NPOV) probably didn't write the book himself, yet for the next 24 years he made a lot of money and gained national acclaim from it and from more books he also didn't write and/or were not very good. Note, both these authors were undoubtedly traumatised as children, but Wilkomirski wasn't Jewish and spent the entire war in Switzerland. Kosinksi didn't wander alone amongst Polish sadists, instead, Polish peasants took him and his parents in and saved them from the Holocaust. (I must add that the son of real Holocaust death-camp Survivors, Norman Finkelstein writes in "The Holocaust Industry" in a footnote p56: To his credit, Kosinski did undergo a kind of deathbed conversion. In the few years between his exposure and his suicide, Kosinski deplored the Holocaust industry's exclusion of non-Jewish victims. ... He also paid tribute to the "bravery of the Poles" who "sheltered" him "during the Holocaust" despite his so-called Semitic "looks." Angrily asked at a Holocaust conference what the Poles did to save Jews, Kosinski snapped back: "What did the Jews do to save the Poles?"). It's puzzling that the Holocaust Industry failed to expose these fakes ... instead, it promoted them strongly - and even continued to defend them after the truth was known! If I were Polish (which I'm not) one of the articles I'd be trying to improve is Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. PR^talk 13:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added the Infobox Former Country to November Uprising. The box actually seems useful, but perhaps not necessarily where it is know. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

hi everyone,

I saw this template Template:WikiProject Poland here, which shows an image of today's Poland with the Polish national colours. I have a slight problem with that, because the historical Poland was much bigger than today. By showing only today's borders, it would imply that the project only concern what happened in today's borders, which is not case though. I was thinking about replacing the image File:Poland map flag.svg with File:Herb Polski.svg instead, since it has more of a historical dimension. Also the user boxes already feature the Polish eagle. sincerely Gryffindor 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The coat of arms would also present similar, if less obvious problems, as the current design is has changed through the ages (just as borders had).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

historical Poland was much bigger than today - let's be careful, there existed Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but the current Polish map only shows the present Polish area, when in reality Polish topics cover by far more than what is just inside Poland today, that's what I meant with maybe using a more representative image. Gryffindor 16:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish borders changed a lot, but so did those of other countries. I think it is a convention to use modern borders in logos. Perhaps WikiProject History of Poland may use a different map, but I think the current one is fine. WikiProject United Kingdom does not use a map, but... if it did, which map should it be? Somehow I don't think the one with Ireland, Eastern US, India and so on would pass... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see recent changes to Gallus Anonymus. In addition to removal of the Polish name, the article now reads as to suggest he never existed. I will do some more research on this, but more input is appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)