Talk:Economy of Poland

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economy of Poland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Poland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

In the right-hand table, the figure for people in agriculture is 16%, vs 27% in text.

Public debt Is the 231 billion the right number? On the Finance Ministry page states that public debt is 461 160,5 mln PLN which is equal to 146 billion US dollars.

It is likely that the article uses outdated info - feel free to be bold and correct the article (and please cite sources like you did above).--[[User:Pio

trus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^Talk 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I severely doubt the validity of the statement "Poland has steadfastly pursued a policy of economic liberalization throughout the 1990s and today stands out as the greatest success story among the former communist states." Besides the fact that it's unsourced, it also seems very POV. Firstly, other post-Communist economies are better off than Poland, including virtually all of the new EU member states (particularly Czechia and Hungary). Also, Poland does not do astoundingly well at any other indicator, such as foreign investment, to make it "the" greatest success story. In fact, even though the region as a whole can be seen as a success story, I'd say Poland, particularly in the last few years, has done less well than could've been possible. Countries such as Slovakia and Estonia are more potent "success stories", as are the Czech Republic and Slovenia. Sure, Poland has come a long way, and has often been a pioneer in economic liberalisation in the region, but that alone does not warrant it being called the greatest success story in the region. Ronline ✉ 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any other post-soviet block country reach GPD top 20. Poland did. enough said.

Indeed, see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. -- Beland 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ronline

Also This is dubious: Poland is the only member of the European Union to have avoided a decline in GDP, meaning that in 2009 Poland has created the most GDP growth in the EU --Polysophia (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1990s GDP of Poland after 10 years of economic crisis was at the level of Romania or Bulgaria at that time. After the fall of communism Poland experienced uninterrupted economic growth which is in relative per capita terms higher than of any other post communist eastern European country (counting 1990-2015). IMF data is easily available. Furthermore I dont see what is dubious about the 2009 GDP creation sentence. The first part of it is a fact and the second part is just a logical conclusion drew out of the first part of the sentence. The fact that former Czechoslovakia and Slovenia are still better off isn't questioned anywhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.247.41.30 (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please see the talk page for more information.

The contribution of agriculture is given variously as 2.8% and 3.8%, and neither instance has a citation. -- Beland 05:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Union has countries ranked by per-capita GDP. It would be interesting to see the history of Poland's per-capita GDP to judge the influence of various political changes. -- Beland 05:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the text has been copied verbatim from another source (in example, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2875.htm). Could you please specify as reference the site from where the text was taken? The article is currently listed at Suspected copyright violations, and it would help to know exactly the source. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on the Poland Page under economy that seem to go further than what is written here? Is a extension of this article necessary?

What about recent reforms? Wasn't there a change in income tax brackets? 90.190.225.121 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The government promises to lower income tax rates beginning with January 2009 (from 19/30/40 to 18/28). This year, only social insurance rate has been lowered. Sliwers (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does poland have negative taxes? :D TyronX (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.191.140 (talk) [reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.76.168.10 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

It is not true according to this -93.125.67.187 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exporter is not the same as producer what your link suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.129.185 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2012 the top ten largest economies in Europe, excluding Russia and Turkey, from the 10th to the 1st are:

Poland POL GDP 4.89795E+11

Norway NOR GDP 5.0003E+11

Sweden SWE GDP 5.23942E+11

Switzerland CHE 6.31173E+11

Netherlands NLD 7.7006E+11

Spain ESP GDP 1.32211E+12

Italy ITA GDP 2.01338E+12

United Kingdom GBR 2.47578E+12

France FRA GDP 2.6112E+12

Germany DEU GDP 3.42593E+12

Source: World Bank Development Indicators.

So as long as we're not counting Russia, Poland does have the largest economy in Eastern Europe. The closest Eastern European country is the Czech Republic with 1.96446E+11 in GDP (at 18th place).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if we don't count other countries its position would be even higher.However, these countries won't cease to exist in the real world.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. What other countries? Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this source [1], Poland's economy is 6th largest in EU, not 10th as I have it above. This probably has to do with whether the GDPs are compared at market exchange rates or adjusted for price differences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source, from 2013, says "The Czech Republic, Central Europe's third biggest economy after Poland and Austria," - so the ranking among Central European countries (which here doesn't include Germany) is Poland, Austria, Czech Republic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes by excluding different countries we get different results. But I am sure these countries do continue to exist in real world.

MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only country we're (or actually, sources) excluding is Russia, since it's, well, Russia.

Last time I saw, Russia still existed.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And last time I checked, the sources don't include it in the definition of "Eastern Europe" when discussing economic size.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously false. Russian economy is larger.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Of course you're right that Russia's economy is larger. But lots of sources consider Russia as its own "region" rather than part of "Eastern Europe".Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be simply clarified by a note. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you used does use a different phrasing and doesn't say Poland is the biggest economy in Eastern Europe actually.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it largest in ex-communist EU Europe as well? [2] MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link broken, or at least id doesn't work for me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, Poland's unemployment rate is below the EU average (about 9.7% vs 12%). It's about at the median [3] From among the post communist states Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Slovakia all have higher unemployment rates.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Overall, Poland's unemployment rate is below the EU average (about 9.7% vs 12%)." Polish unemployment is 13,5% according to Polish government though, not 9%. It is possible to calculate the average unemployment rate for the past two decades after implementing reforms recommended by the West using data here[4], and it should be done. Interestingly both Belarus and Russia have lower unemployment than Poland, with Russia having higher GDP per capita as well.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are differences between countries in how they measure unemployment. So the 13.5 vs the 9.7 numbers reflect the fact that Poland measures unemployment differently than other countries. In order to make any kind of international comparisons, you need to measure something in the same way, otherwise it's like comparing someone's height in centimeters to someone's height in inches. So we can only make these kinds of statements based on reliable sources which measure things the same way, not by comparing individual governmental statistics (which is WP:SYNTH).

Also, in regard to this source [5]. You simply cannot use editorials - which is what this appears to be although I'm having trouble accessing it - for factual information. We need to use hard data and scholarly sources, not the scare mongering of some opinion writer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you will be able to find Dziennik Gazeta Prawna in a library. And I am sure that many countries use different methods of measuring unemployment, perhaps Polish one would be over 20% if we were using their methods. And no Marek, government sources are not WP:SYNTH and are actually reliable sources. And no, not confirming to image of Poland being a success story is not scare mongering MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be "over 20%" if we were using their methods, it would be 9.7%, like in the source I gave above, which actually does use the same definition. And yes, taking different government sources to put together international comparisons IS WP:SYNTH (which is a different issue than reliability) since they do not all use the same methodology. And yes, it is scare mongering in an editorial.

Data and scholarly sources, not editorials.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be "over 20%" if we were using their methods, it would be 9.7%, like in the source I gave above

Please don't pursue Original Research.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no original research on my part here. You're the one violating SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the issue with the editorial from Dziennik Prawny mentioned above, we have this source being used to support this claim:

Despite its GDP growth, Poland faces numerous economic issues; it has chronic high unemployment, low wages despite significant increase of productivity, massive flight of educated population abroad, low level of innovativeness and highest number of people working for minimum wage in European Union

What the source actually says is "But challenges loom on the horizon, including high unemployment, rising inflation, and growing fiscal deficits. ". That's different. Yes Poland has high unemployment, just like rest of Europe. But the source doesn't say anything about "chronic". There's nothing in there about "low wages despite significant increaese of productivity". Nothing about "massive flight". Nothing about "low level of innovativeness" and nothing about "highest number of people working for minimum wage" - which doesn't even make sense. There is no "minimum wage" in Europe. They all have different (if any) minimum wages. That claim is just nonsensical.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source also doesn't support the claims. First it's talking specifically about the situation in the summer of 2012. Second what it says is that unemployment fell, but not as much as in the summer 2011. Third it actually supports the contention that unemployment rate in Poland is below the EU average. It also discusses the fact that unemployment rates have to be calculated according to the same methodology. The source is good, it's just not being used in a good way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How large percentage wise was the rise of Polish public debt after 1989? I am looking for figures.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Around 1995 the debt-gdp ratio was about 50%. Currently it's about 55%.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is source for current levels in Europe [6]. Poland's debt-gdp ratio is very much below European average, which is above 90%.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I am asking about. How much has the value of Polish debt increased since 1989? How much did Poland owe in 1989 and how much does it owe now?MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for 1989 are crap. It would take some more involved research. Also, that kind of statistic is essentially meaningless, due to inflation and economic growth. If you owe 10000$ when your annual income is 500$ that's a lot worse than when you owe 1000000$ when your annual income is 1000000%. Hence the practice in scholarly and reputable reputations is to use the debt-gdp ratio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also 1989 is a weird year because there was debt default (essentially) in that year and a debt forgiveness program (as part of the economic reforms). So it depends whether you're talking beginning of 1989 or end of 1989.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Marek, if you don't know, that's not a problem, I already found sources.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did find data for the debt-gdp ratio here [7]. In 1989 it was 62%. It fell to about 39% in 1998. Then it rose again to the present day value of 55%. All of it is much less than European average.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to my question I am afraid. But thankfully I have the answers now.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Economy of Poland's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "eurostat":

• From European Union: "Population on 1 January". Eurostat. Retrieved 23 October 2010.
• From Economy of Italy: "Regional GDP per capita in the EU in 2011" (PDF). Eurostat. 27 February 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
• From Economy of Bulgaria: "Research and development expenditure". Eurostat.
• From Economy of Belgium: "GDP per inhabitant in 2006 ranged from 25% of the EU27 average in Nord-Est in Romania to 336% in Inner London". Eurostat.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously considering removing the Businessweek article.I read it, and it presents such a distorted, completely false image of Poland that I have trouble accepting it as a reliable source.As a person living in Poland all my life, I can assure that you are more likely to see people trying to scavange food from trash cans(in fact I can see them every day in my home town) and lines of people in tattered clothes lining up to unemployment office with despair in their eyes rather than people driving in Ferrari's. This article isn't even a fairy tale, it's complete fantasy. MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN, WP:OR, WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In order to learn how poverty looks like in leading world economies, for example in Canada and the U.S., one needs to travel the world, and stop aggrandizing his own sorry ass. See also: dumpster diving. Poeticbent talk 15:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source [8] is from 2006. Yes, at that point the unemployment rate was at 17.7% and yes, it was one of the highest in EU (this was before crisis). However, you can't use that to source the statement "Polish unemployment remains one of the highest in EU" since that is no longer true. The claim is also blatantly false, per the source I've already provided. Currently, the unemployment rate in Poland is below the EU average.

This is POV pushing, plain and simple.

The claim that "(unemployment in) Poland and has been growing since years" is also misleading. It is based on this source which is probably not reliable. Putting that aside, the source actually says: " The unemployment rate has been growing successively in the recent years: in 1998 it was 10.6 %, and in 2002 almost 20%. That unfavourable trend changed in 2003. The biggest drop of the unemployment rate took place, however, in 2006 when the unemployment rate fell below 15%, reaching 8.9% in September 2008. It was the effect of an economic boom which brought more work offers and the growth of the number of working persons. In January 2012 the unemployment rate amounted to 13.2%. In an analogous period of the previous year the unemployment rate amounted to 13.1%.". If you look at the trend [9] (that's a quick source) then yes, it's increased slightly since 2008 (you know, there was a big world wide financial crisis and all). But that's after a huge drop in 2006-2007. Without the context the claim simply misrepresents actual data.

Again, this is just POV pushing.

That's just for starters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Unlike in the rest of Europe, during and since the global recession of 2009, Poland's economy continued to expand" was changed to "Since the global recession of 2009, Poland's GDP continued to grow." The edit summary claimed: "removing false information that is unsourced".

The source actually says "Poland was the only country in the union to see its economy grow, by 1.6 percent. The EU economy as a whole remains smaller than it was at the beginning of 2009 and isn’t expected to recover its losses until the end of next year. In that same period, Poland is projected to enjoy a cumulative growth of more than 16 percent. “Poland didn’t feel the crisis, really,” says Ringer.".

Hence this is sourced. Please refrain from using false edit summaries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sentence in your quote saying "unlike in the rest of Europe". You are engaging in Original Research.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Poland was the only country in the union".

"The EU economy as a whole remains smaller than it was at the beginning of 2009 and isn’t expected to recover its losses until the end of next year. In that same period, Poland is projected to enjoy a cumulative growth of more than 16 percent"

Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again nothing in the text that would support the sentence that you tried to push through.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Poland was the only country in the union".

"The EU economy as a whole remains smaller than it was at the beginning of 2009 and isn’t expected to recover its losses until the end of next year. In that same period, Poland is projected to enjoy a cumulative growth of more than 16 percent"

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting the same sentence several times won't change the fact that nothing in it supports you false claim Marek.Please try to find a source that you can use to support the claim, this one doesn't.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please articulate how the above sentences do not support the claim, because I have no idea what you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GDP growth is just one indicator of economy and currently too much is spent on it in the article. Other economic values like unemployment, gdp per capita, inequlity need to be expanded in the article. Otherwise we get a very misleading view that Poland is somehow economically in good condition.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since population growth in Poland is essentially zero, the GDP growth figures and the GDP per capita growth figures are pretty much the same. And we already talked about inequality at the other article. I have no objection to including info on it here, but based on reliable sources, not some made up impressions and prejudices.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sources show that Polish GDP per capita is one among lowest of post-communist states in EU. I will add them, don't worry.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[10]. Czech Republic and Slovakia have higher GDP per capita (PPP). Estonia and Lithuania about the same. The rest is below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is false, which can be easily demonstrated. According to this list of countries by real GDP growth rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate Post-Soviet states such as Turkmenistan, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan have much, much higher GDP rate than Poland. I will thus remove this false claim.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use Wikipedia as a source. But of course you know that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be used as source of articles, but can be used in discussions on topics on discussion pages.

Anyway here you go[11], I will now delete this sentence as it is false.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of deleting it, you add the clarification "Europe's" as in the source. That'd be constructive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be false,since Moldova,Azerbaijan,Armenia and Latvia are in Europe.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the source says: "Poland will post the fastest growth this year among the European Union’s largest former communist members as falling unemployment and slow inflation fuel domestic demand". That's what the article should say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there's a serious dispute here between User:MyMoloboaccount and User:Volunteer Marek. I'd like to help you mediate and reach and agreement. Here's my analysis of sources and facts:

1. the reviewed edits were at first highly constructive, with informative edit summaries reflecting the spirit of WP:BRD
2. regarding [12], I agree with VM that it is not a source sufficient for the lead, however I think such opinion pieces can still be discussed in the text, where they should be properly attributed (to the author or newspaper). The unemployment issue is certainly worth discussing, and with this source I think it may be included in the lead (through in a shorter version, most details and refs should go into their own section).
3. [13] this edit was not good, as I don't think that it's fair to summarize the 1989 changes as directly leading to incrase of debt]. The sentence would be more neutral if it said "the debt increased from x in 1989 to y in 2014. A graph would be nice. And are we sure this is the best section for this sentence?
4. [14] this new section by VM seems well referenced, and does discuss the raising unemployment rate
5. [15] while the removal of this by VM was not discussed in the edit summary, removing unreferenced and potentially POV/promotional info like this is good policy
6. new content added at [16] and [17] by VM seems fine
7. regarding this edit by Molobo, he is right that the source did not justify the assertion that the unemployment rate started to raise in 2012. The source mentions a raise in 2012, yes, but the accompanying graph at [18] suggest it was raising at least since 2011. The source added by Molobo - [19] - seems reliable and pretty good for expanding on the trend. However, the statement that "Polish unemployment remains one of the highest in EU" sourced to [20] is problematic. The source is from 2006, and so the sentence should be clarified with "as of 2006". [21] seems an ok source for the argument that high unemployment rate is a problem, despite high growth GDP wise.
8. [22] this is fine, the source states " The policies left millions out of work"
9. [23] is a good clarification for why our two statistics differ
10. [24] ok source for 2 millions who migrated, but I am a bit uneasy using this for the "expected to cause trouble". We should attribute this (to Polish Radio 1 journalist, Sylwia Zadrożna), otherwise it's somewhat of a journalistic editorializing.
11. [25] seems like a valid fact to add
12. looking at the source, [26], the figure 46% is correct, but which part is used to justify the claim "especially problematic in Poland"? Compared to what?
13. [27] comparing purchasing power parity seems reasonable, through as I noted earlier this source should be attributed. I am having trouble accessing the article, can anyone post a working link?
14. [28] attribute. It's possible some content should be split off into subarticles. We really need unemployment in Poland. And perhaps labor market in Poland?
15. [29] correct
16. [30] hmm, I think VM phrase proposed at the end of #Another_false_sentence_in_the_text-.22making_it_the_fastest_growing_out_of_all_the_former_Soviet_bloc_states.22 seems fine
17. image seems fine

1. [31] Captions should not be used for unreferenced information
2. [32] image seems fine

Overall, I really don't see what you guys are quarerling about, you are expanding this article in a good way. What's the problem with [33]? I agree the caption should have remained as it was, but the discussion of junk contracts seems relevant to that of minimum wage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that nobody has replied here, despite the ongoign disputes and edit warring (here and on Poland) is discouraging :( Ping User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Volunteer Marek,User:Poeticbent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can reply to the points which are relevant to my actions. Most of the above points I agree with, so I didn't find it necessary to reply.

On #3, the basic problem is that this is classic WP:SYNTH. You're taking two sources and putting them together to draw a conclusion that neither makes. In particular, you can't take two numbers from two different sources and pretend they measure the same thing. They might, they might not. Are these numbers in constant inflation adjusted dollars or current dollars? If the former, are they constructed from the same base year? Or chained? Is "external debt" defined in the same way by both sources? There are several different possible definitions, and what is included and excluded can vary. And anyway, why should anyone care about external debt? Germany's external debt is 5546 billion (compared to Poland's 365). Does this mean Germany is poorer than Poland? United States has external debt of 17755 billion. Does this mean United States is poorer than Poland? If anything the relevant statistics would be the *ratio* of external debt to GDP but even that doesn't really matter except in extreme circumstances.

On #8 I disagree with that one. If you have an economy of tens of millions of people, and you have a positive unemployment rate, as virtually all economies do, you're going to have "millions left without work" (actually for Poland, these "millions" is more like 1.7 million) I'm sure China, one of the fastest growing economies in the world has not millions, but "billions left without work". This is just unnecessary rhetoric. If anything, give a precise number.

On #11, what does this really mean? Average reader is not going to get anything out of this (and frankly I don't quite get it myself). The source is a professor of... philosophy, I think, not an economist and this is a... blog or something. Not necessary, at best borderline reliable.

On #13 part of the problem is *exactly* that it doesn't compare purchasing power. Wages in Poland have different purchasing power than wages in United Kingdom due to the difference in prices. Basically need a better source for this, one which knows what it's talking about, and knows how to make the appropriate comparison. Having said that, there is an important point here - productivity growth has outpaced wage growth in the last decade+. Just need to find a better source for that fact.

On #17 The image is redundant with another, more detailed image but whatever. The caption is just editorializing.

 Volunteer Marek  05:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 Marek's response is just cherrypicking, if he wants more data, then fine we can give more data. It is one of the rhetorical manuevers to demand more and more data, until the issue is bloated. There are many other figures in the article which we do not dwell upon or analyse in every detail possible. As to "why is debt important" that is a very weak argument. Obviously debt is bad(for both countries and people) and should be avoided at all costs, especially for extremely poor country like Poland with which doesn't have even tiny percentage of the means of repaying its colossal debt like Germany does. Comparisons with Germany and United States are flawed, as these are rich western countries, not impoverished regions like Poland.

"On #8 I disagree with that one." It is absurd to argue that persistent double digit unemployment for 20 years is something normal and your personal opinion that it doesn't matter is in contrast with economical analysis by World Bank and other institutions and economists. Unemployment in Poland is well above 1,7 million as huge chunk of unemployed are not registered and the figure would be higher by around 2,3 million if not for the opening of EU job market(before which the unemployment rate in Poland was around 20%). Issues again noted by financial and economical analysts.

" "Wages in Poland have different purchasing power than wages in United Kingdom due to the difference in prices." Prices of basic items in western EU countries like UK or Germany are lower than in Poland, so that is a flawed argument. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #8, let's just use a precise number, whatever a reliable sources say (and clarify whether it's a number of registered unemployed, or estimated number of all). PS. Molobo, I am tired of fixing the formatting of your posts. You've been here long enough, learn how to indent them properly, will you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On #3 my response is NOT cherrypicking. What am I cherry picking? It's just pointing out that the text is a classic example of WP:SYNTHESIS. Not even good synthesis but bullshit, nonsensical, synthesis based on a very very basic ignorance of basic economic concepts. It's two different sources, two different numbers, which are simply not comparable. How can I make it clearer?

And no, it is not true that "debt is bad". It can be, but often isn't. It should certainly NOT be "avoided at all costs". Again, basic economic ignorance. Every damn country in the world has debt. If it wasn't for debt, I wouldn't have been able to get an education. If you don't have debt then you can only invest out of your own domestic saving, which means you ain't going to invest a lot. And if you don't invest a lot, you wind up dirt poor. There's a shitload of reasons for why debt can be useful. What is this, middle ages? What's next, economic prosperity is determined by how many gold dubloons our elites can horde in picturesque castles? Poland is NOT an "extremely poor country". You've obviously never been to an "extremely poor country". Trust me on this, it's a different, shocking, experience. You have no idea of what you are talking about. And having "means of repaying debt" (which is NOT by any stretch "colossal", that's more economic nonsense) is *precisely* why the relevant statistic is NOT the absolute value of debt (if Poland's 320 billion is "colossal", then what is US's 17755? Uber-super-mucho-absolutely-fuckin'-crazeeeee-colossal?). It's the debt/GDP ratio. And for Poland, that's pretty low compared to rest of Europe. I've made this point several times, but the only response was WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

On #8. What is a rhetorical maneuver is saying "millions". Give the exact number. Spain's unemployment rate is 24.5%, more than double that of Poland. France's is 10.5%, comparable to that of Poland. Portugal's 14%. Greece's is 28%. Italy's 13%. Lithuania's 12.4%. So yes, double digit unemployment - and here's we're talking closer to 10% than 20% - is somewhat normal in Europe. Your original research about what the unemployment rate "would be" in some counterfactual world is noted, and ignored.

"Prices of basic items in western EU countries like UK or Germany are lower than in Poland, so that is a flawed argument" - complete nonsense and more ignorance. Polish prices are 56.5% of EU-28 average. German prices are about 102% of EU-28 average. UK prices are about 113.5% of EU-28 average. That means that Polish prices are about 55% of German prices (45% lower) and about 50% of UK prices (half). Source [34]. I've pointed this out repeatedly, and all I got in response was some sketchy ass sources, some personal opinions, and a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Look. Let me try one more time. Yes, there are certainly economic problems in Poland. Long term unemployment *is* in fact one of them (debt, or high prices, no). But you're taking what is an actual problem and turning it into an exercise in hysterical hyperbole. Does Poland have some economic problems like a significant amount of long term unemployment? Yes. Is Poland "extremely poor", "impoverished", "collapsing under colossal debt", etc. etc.? No. It's a upper middle income country which given the fact that it got fucked up by communism for 45 years, is actually doing pretty well - pretty well, not perfect - all things considering.

 Volunteer Marek  02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First

• " but bullshit"
• "basic economic ignorance. "
• " What is this, middle ages?"
• "You have no idea of what you are talking about"
• "Uber-super-mucho-absolutely-fuckin'-crazeeeee-colossal"
• "complete nonsense and more ignorance."
• "sketchy ass sources"

I would recommend stopping with the snarky comments, personal attacks and offensive language. We are here to create an encyclopedia and your language is highly unprofessional, unecyclopedic and offensive. It does not contribute to the spirit of good cooperation and editing.If you could re-write your comment without vulgarisms and all the above, it would really go towards good faith and spirit of cooperation, instead of inflaming the discussion.

"On #3 my response is NOT cherrypicking." You are focusing on one data you don't like and demanding more and more details, until it is impossible to end, there are other statistics and data which you do not focus on.

"Every damn country in the world has debt". Incorrect.There are countries without external debt for example.Before you start throwing accusations of ignorance, please research the subject first.

"On #8. What is a rhetorical maneuver is saying "millions". Give the exact number. Spain's unemployment rate is 24.5%, more than double that of Poland. France's is 10.5%, comparable to that of Poland. Portugal's 14%. Greece's is 28%. Italy's 13%. Lithuania's 12.4%. So yes, double digit unemployment - and here's we're talking closer to 10% than 20% - is somewhat normal in Europe." You are not responding to what I stated "It is absurd to argue that persistent double digit unemployment for 20 years is something normal and your personal opinion ". It is pretty clear what I wrote. Instead of responding to my argument you have went around the subject and cited results for one year only. Now, nobody denies that Spain for example due to crisis has recently had large unemployment. But this is not connected to what I stated, these countries due to recession had large unemployment in crisis times, not for 20 years. Poland has continued large unemployment since 1992[35] which has not been reduced to pre 1992 levels.

"Polish prices are 56.5% of EU-28 average. German prices are about 102% of EU-28 average. UK prices are about 113.5% of EU-28 average."

Again you are using the same method. You are not responding to my statement. Here is what I stated "Prices of basic items in western EU countries like UK or Germany are lower than in Poland". You are giving overall prices, which include luxury goods, housing(although in case of Germany its sometimes actually cheaper than in Poland). Price analysis of foodstuffs, detergents, cosmetics-goods of basic use used everyday show that they are cheaper in the West than in Poland(although it also includes luxury items such electronics for example) "Is Poland "extremely poor", "impoverished", "collapsing under colossal debt", etc. etc.? No." That is your own private opinion. In contrast OECD named Poland as a country with one of the worst working conditions in the world, and other economical papers have pointed enormous inequality that is increasing in Poland as well. Neither it is difficult to find economists pointing out catastrophic debt situation of Poland. "Now, as to the last part, your personal opinions and statements about your life. t can be, but often isn't. It should certainly NOT be "avoided at all costs". Again, basic economic ignorance. Every damn country in the world has debt. If it wasn't for debt, I wouldn't have been able to get an education. If you don't have debt then you can only invest out of your own domestic saving, which means you ain't going to invest a lot. And if you don't invest a lot, you wind up dirt poor. There's a shitload of reasons for why debt can be useful. Spending money that isn't yours is obviously wrong, there should be no need to explain that. Your views on spending money are noted but I believe not important for discussion. As a note, despite me and my family being extremely poor, I have managed to complete several studies using my own and my family's means, without ever taking any debt, nor any debt was ever taken, perhaps being indebted to banks is more culturally accepted in USA or the West). Of course as I live in a country that "is actually doing pretty well - pretty well" I like millions of other Poles am unemployed and likely will be so forever.

"upper middle income country which given the fact that it got fucked up by communism for 45 years" Poland has one of the worst inequility in wages and worst working conditions-according to OECD. Whetever previous system that provided job, healthcare, housing and education to everyone in need was worse, that is a subject of another discussion and not related to the topic.

"You've obviously never been to an "extremely poor country". Trust me on this, it's a different, shocking, experience." As I am from Poland, I indeed don't have the money or privilege to travel abroad like most of Poles who are impoverished.However I will reserve my trust to reliable sources, economists, scholars and analysis rather than a private opinion of a user on Wikipedia. I believe however that this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.I suggest we discuss the topic of economy instead.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comments get the response they deserve. One more time.

On #3 I am NOT cherrypicking. I am NOT demanding more and more details. I'm saying it's pure SYNTH and ORIGINAL RESEARCH and really bad original research at that. There's no "impossible to end". It doesn't even start. It's wrong. It's original research. It's not encyclopedic. It doesn't belong here (or anywhere else for that matter).

"Incorrect.There are countries without external debt for example.Before you start throwing accusations of ignorance, please research the subject first." - oh please. There's 3 or 4 tiny little city states that that might be true for. Please stop playing semantic games. What does this have to do with the general point? The statement that "obviously debt is bad" and "should be avoided at all cost" is still an example of fairly basic economic ignorance.

On #8 I did respond to your claim. That's the "is somewhat normal in Europe" part. Comparing unemployment pre-1992 and post doesn't make sense either for reasons which should be obvious.

On the question of prices, this has been already discussed and I already pointed out that you are simply wrong. The fact that average prices in Poland are lower than in UK and Germany has virtually nothing to do with prices of luxuries. You are again referring to that tabloid scare-story. Not a reliable source.

On the last part "enormous inequality" is more wrong headed hyperbole. Poland has a level of inequality comparable to Switzerland. It's something like 45th out of 160+ countries. I seriously doubt OEC named Poland as a country with one of the worst working conditions in the world. You don't know what "worst working conditions" involve. Nor are "economists pointing out catastrophic debt situation of Poland" - quite the opposite, most economic analysis emphasizes the fact that Poland has relatively low debt is why it has done relatively well during the last recession. Volunteer Marek  22:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poland has one of the worst inequility in wages and worst working conditions-according to OECD Source please. If you're talking world wide, that's obviously nonsense. If you're talking within the OECD (i.e. among the club of rich countries, which Poland is a part of)... it's still nonsense. According to the OECD inequality in Poland was below the OECD-30 average [36]. I will correct myself on one thing though. Before I said Poland was an "upper middle income country". I was wrong. It's a high income country.

As I am from Poland, I indeed don't have the money or privilege to travel abroad like most of Poles who are impoverished. Unlike those 2+ million migrants that you complain about? "However I will reserve my trust to reliable sources, economists, scholars and analysis rather than a private opinion of a user on Wikipedia." - yes, but the whole problem is that you *haven't* provided reliable sources by economists and scholars. I have provided such sources, and they directly contradict your original research and cherry picked scare stories from tabloids. Volunteer Marek  22:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Spending money that isn't yours is obviously wrong," - that statement right there, in relation to debt, clearly illustrates that you shouldn't be editing any article with the word "economy" in it. If a bank loans me money to buy a car, then I'm supposed to what... keep it in my pocket the whole time because "spending it would be obviously wrong", and then pay'em back with interest? If I take out a mortgage to purchase a home, then I'm acting immorally? If I loan a friend ten bucks cuz he forgot his wallet and he buys a meal with that, then I should dump him as a friend because they acted "obviously wrong"? And this is a claim that "there should be no need to explain that"? You complain about my quip about middle ages, yet here we are in the land of economic theory straight out of circa 1050 AD. Volunteer Marek  22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the whole problem is that you *haven't* provided reliable sources by economists and scholars":If any of the sources I have provided are in your view unreliable, please discuss this on WP:RSN. However I am pretty certain that World Bank, OECD or Warsaw Business Journal will be defended as reliable sources. I am quite perplexed how you managed to claim WBJ or Gazeta Prawna are tabloids. As to the rest I will answer later after editing some articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "Source please. If you're talking world wide, that's obviously nonsense. If you're talking within the OECD (i.e. among the club of rich countries, which Poland is a part of)... it's still nonsense" You will have to tell this to OECD then. 5 reliable sources confirming this coming right up.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these sources? Neither WBJ nor GP are very reliable, so let's see the WB and OECD. Volunteer Marek  22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Warsaw Business Journal and Gazeta Prawna are reliable. If you believe otherwise, please start a discussion on WP:RSN.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prices in Poland vs. Germany [37], [38]. Xx234 (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC616%7cPoland&source=1%7CITC Market Access Map) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Poland. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Poland by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I don't have a problem with including this in ELs. Volunteer Marek  05:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Public debt is released annually on 20th January each year by the NBP - but the figures weren't released this year. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained previously, the GUS is a different measure of unemployment then the one usually used internationally. The Eurostat data is a harmonized measure which makes cross-country comparisons possible. Basically the GUS numbers provided without context (i.e. it's not really the unemployment rate) are meaningless. As such, while the GUS numbers should be mentioned in the article, they shouldn't be overemphasized.

Also, claims from 2004 do not belong in the article, especially not if they're worded as if they were current.User:Volunteer Marek 16:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this source is being misrepresented in the article. It's from 2006, but the given refs pretends its from 2014. The text also pretends that this is discussing current situation, rather than the situation from 2005. Please don't do that.User:Volunteer Marek 16:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But about GDP of Poland only. It should be re-written to actually describe correctly economy of Poland including inequality, unemployment and junk contracts and so on.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's true the lede is currently inadequate. But you shouldn't try to use this as an excuse to push your POV. The lede should be expanded to be similar to articles on other countries "Economy of XYZ". That means that it should give a bit of history, describe major industries and probably place the performance of the Polish economy in the context of both EU and the recent financial crisis. At one point it did that [39] but then it got moved, some of it inappropriately, to the History section.User:Volunteer Marek 22:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

probably place the performance of the Polish economy I am all for describing junk contracts and unemployment among other issues.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop trying to twist my words? Unemployment should probably be in there, though with DUE WEIGHT, the junk contracts are not significant enough ... for the article (which is a general level article) as a whole probably, nevermind the lede.User:Volunteer Marek 22:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the 9.7 come from? This still has October's 9.6 in there. And the increase/decrease is reported as on year earlier (it'd be silly to report it month to month), so it's still a decrease from 11.3 (Oct 14) or 11.4 (Nov 14).

Also, please stop removing the Eurostat number. If anything that one is the more relevant one as it conforms to the standard definition of "unemployment" as commonly used. GUS's number doesn't.User:Volunteer Marek 21:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit misrepresents the source. Pretty blatantly. For example it doesn't mention the "latent unemployment" mentioned in the source.

This edit probably misrepresents the source. The source is about increasing inequality in ... the OECD. So if in Poland inequality remained constant that's a relatively good thing. You can't present only a small portion of the source out of context.

This is also a blatant misrepresentation of a source (putting aside that it may not be a high quality source). The text insterted into the Wikipedia article reads " According to study by Credit Suisse inequality in Poland has increased in the years 2010-2014". According to the source we actually have the all important qualification "Według niedoskonałego metodologicznie" - "According to a study with a flawed methodology". How in hell can you omit that when quoting the source on the study????? Good faith allotment is out.

Also, in regard to the same edit as above, you can't just say "inequality increased". Inequality in what?

This edit claims in the edit summary that Source doesn't say anything about 8% removed the rest per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The fact that the rate fell below 8% is sourced elsewhere in the article, but sure we can add an inline citation here. WP:CRYSTALBALL is inapplicable here - that policy states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". And here it is indeed verifiable, seeing how the title of the source is "Poland facing risk of labor force deficit in 2015". WP:CRYSTALBALL is about preventing Wikipedia editors from trying to predict the future, it is NOT about excluding verifiable economic forecasts from reliable sources from articles (which would be silly).

This edit - it's not clear when is this from. Also, these kinds of contracts exist in a lot of countries. And this is essentially an editorial. User:Volunteer Marek 22:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This edit misrepresents the source. Pretty blatantly. For example it doesn't mention the "latent unemployment" mentioned in the source.

There is nothing wrong about this, the source says clearly that unemployment has risen in Poland. If you are not happy with this source, others can be brought. If you are claiming that unemployment in Poland hasn't risen dramatically since 1990, I am afraid you are going against every mainstream source.

• This is also a blatant misrepresentation of a source

Not at all. It clearly says that Credit Suisse had a report showing rising inequality in Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:EurWork.I got no problem with the source. I got a problem with you misrepresenting it. The source says "Officially, unemployment did not exist in Poland before the transformation of the political system in 1989. There was, however, latent unemployment, but it is difficult to assess its size." You left that out. The source says (unemployment) "developed in three phases, growing rapidly over 1990-3, then declining in 1994-9, only to rise again in 1998-2002". You left that out. Note that also this doesn't say anything about what has happened since 2002. Your edits pretend that it does.

Please stop. It's not like we are unable to read the source.

Re:Rynekpracy.org. Ummm, the source says "according to a flawed study" and you're going to leave that out and claim that the source says this????? Seriously. Keep going this way, by all means.User:Volunteer Marek 22:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the source says "Unemployment emerged and grew rapidly in Poland as a result of the transformation of the political system in 1989" Enough said.I will reinsert this information, as it is clear that you are wrong about source not saying this. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting the source and please stop misrepresenting me. It's a bad habit. I did not say that the source didn't say this. I said you omitted crucial info from the source. To push a POV. I provided the text you omitted. And it's not "enough said". You have to accurately represent the source, not cherry pick just the parts which match your POV.User:Volunteer Marek 22:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Economy of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wprost.pl/ar/269239/Belka-polskie-banki-znow-powinny-byc-polskie/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Florio has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The article would need to discuss the macroeconomic and structural conditions of the country in a more organized way, it now presents some useful data but it lacks a framework of analysis on structurale change

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Florio has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Massimo FLORIO & Emanuele OZZIMO, 2006. "Innovation strategies for SMEs and clusters: the challenges of a globalised Europe," Departmental Working Papers 2006-16, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Universita degli Studi di Milano.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economy of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106185805/http://s2.manifo.com/usr/f/f0b13/97/img/0beksport-europa.jpg to http://s2.manifo.com/usr/f/f0b13/97/img/0beksport-europa.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704214536/http://www.ey.com:80/Publication/vwLUAssets/Attractiveness_survey_2010_EU/$FILE/Attractiveness_survey_2010_EU.pdf to http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Attractiveness_survey_2010_EU/$FILE/Attractiveness_survey_2010_EU.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131011091725/http://www.ceeitandtelecom.com/CEE_ICT_data.shtml to http://www.ceeitandtelecom.com/CEE_ICT_data.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economy of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130416150135/http://www.intur.com.pl/warsztat.htm to http://www.intur.com.pl/warsztat.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Poland classified as a mixed-economy when there's overall less state intervention and welfare than in countries like the UK or France? 2A02:A31E:4127:8200:44F3:EE9E:DE62:C504 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlink for the company Cersanit opens up a page about a Polish billionaire, not the company in question. Hypern0vaX (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hypern0vaX: The link should lead to the Michał Sołowow#Business empire section, but it was edited with 'Empire' instead of 'empire', so the destination page opened at its top. Fixed: Special:Diff/1115675483. --CiaPan (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the GDP rank of Poland for it’s PPP it says 23th rather than 23rd. 2A02:C7C:2E57:A400:8857:A512:A48C:4CD7 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why poland is still listed as developing country despite being developed feel?2404:8000:1027:85F6:6060:11EC:92CF:A117 (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check the source and where Poland is listed: [40]https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/October/groups-and-aggregates JorisLTU (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Poland Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]