Talk:Prehistory and protohistory of Poland

	Prehistory and protohistory of Poland was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 18, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 6, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed January 24, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

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

Poland High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Given the absence of written records, the ethnicities and linguistic affiliations of the groups living in Central and Eastern Europe at that time are speculative—there is considerable disagreement." < That makes zero sense. There is this thing called paleontology. Are there no paleotologists in the Baltic Sea region to actually examine skeletons of the earliest found inhabitants of the Baltic region? And, no one smart enough to try to extract DNA? How exactly could it be impossible to know about the oldest found peoples in these areas when science has given us various ways to know this? Frankly, I think either this stuff is known and someone is lying on wikipedia, or the qualified peoples are avoiding the subject because the Nazis would get ticked if someone would point out their propagandas about race were all wrong (they are in fact wrong). Even just for someone to describe skull differences, like they do about Amerindians, Asians, Africans, etc. would be nice. Is there really no effort going into this highly important subject, or is there an information cover up going on to protect non-natives of the Baltic regions self-delussions of being as native as the true natives? Frankly, I am tired of all my efforts to learn about where my matriline comes from being halted with blatant ignorance and a lack of care to research archeology or paleontology before feigning expertise in the subject. Frankly, I think people are keeping this information lost on purpose to protect Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.14.86 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time "experts" stop obsessing over language, written claims of how things were, etc. and start actually using science. It's also time to stop obsessing over modern inhabitants (many of which not of the original inhabiting groups), and start actually examining the ancient remains, like archeologists are supposed to. Archeology and paleontology are being tossed aside in favor of mythology, and that is not okay. We are not creatures of mythology, we are real life human beings. We have gone through various languages, cultures, etc, but blood does not magically shift just from changing language... All this pro-Nazi, pro-Slav, pro-Christian propaganda needs to stop. Real science is all that matters, not propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.14.86 (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland/Pre-history of Polish lands and its to do list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-The legend about founding town of Gniezno is not related with the legend of three Slavic brothers. Futhermore town Gniezno was not any major centre until the end of the legendary dynasty of Popielids, who ruled over Greater Poland and were from the tribe of Goplans, which was neighbour of the tribe of Polans from which Piast dynasty originates. Dynasty of Popiel is an earlier legendary dynasty then dynasty of Piast, which is not legendary, but historical. Many believe Kruszwica (burned and rebulded couple times in changing locations) which suppose to be the legendary place for Popiel's tower and located near lake of Goplo was the primary power centrum of Greater Poland in prehistoric times. Also not Gniezno until dynasty of Popielids died out and dynasty of Piast took over. Pan Piotr Glownia 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire sections are singulary referenced by qoutes form "U źródeł Polski" new - not academic German capital publisher Wydawnictwo Dolnośląskie; perhaps representing traditionaly puched by Germans allochtonic view.

Nasz 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the sections should be separated .

Evident archeological cultures should be described as archeological cultures.

The speculative, we do not have writen sources in earth, ethnic afiliation scould be in the separated sections.

Othervise is imposible to give the presentation of conflicting argumentation betwen diferent views linking elements of archeological cultures with proposed ethnic afiliaion.

Scholarly archeology do not speculte on ethnic afiliation, the archeological culture may be absorbed by any ethnic group of people as we can observe today by trade atrefacts or migrating material culture.

Nasz 04:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This (unfinished, as of the last May 13 version) article attempts a to give a semi-historical presentation, not to technically follow scholarly archeology. Although partially differently organized, it follows its main source, a popular book written by prominent Polish archeologists and historians. The Slavic section hopefully will be worked on further, but it already correctly identifies the majority scientific point of view. Wikipedia is not a place for ideological or nationalistic considerations or sloppy, semi-coherent and disruptive writing.

Orczar 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is certainly improving and approaching a WP:GA level, but 1) there are many unreferenced statements that need attribution per WP:V and 2) with over 150kb it is too long, and some parts should be split to subarticles, per WP:SUMMARY. Below I paste some bot suggestions, some may be worth considering.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 meters, use 50 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50&nbsp;meters.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 200 kg.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armor (A) (British: armour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), fiber (A) (British: fibre), saber (A) (British: sabre), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), catalyze (A) (British: catalyse), traveled (A) (British: travelled), cosy (B) (American: cozy), jewelry (A) (British: jewellery), mold (A) (British: mould).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that the article is ready for review, the last section has no references yet etc. Other sections are reasonably referenced as I see it (not every sentence can or should be referenced), but I could provide additional references as needed. Several issues need attention indeed and I intend to work on it. Obviously I decided to sacrifice brevity for a comprehensive treatment of the subject not treated in depth in the English language so far. The reform should start I believe from splitting the article into two parts, e.g. Prehistory of Poland through late Antiquity and Poland in early Middle Ages. Then, gradually as I have time, I could work on further restructuring and bringing the article in line with Wikipedia standards and practices.

(Orczar 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The above review is not final, it's just something I hope will help you keep on track with our Manual of Style. Do note, however, that per WP:V every sentence should be referenced, otherwise - unless its really obvious knowledge - it may be challenged as OR/false and removed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This series of articles on Poland's prehistory is for an encyclopedia purpose basically complete.

Orczar (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no logical bases for attaching the "Polish" designation to the lands of present day Poland throughout most of the prehistory of the area, the practice of doing so may seem wholly artificial. Such an approach however is favored by the following practical considerations:

1. The territory of Poland is the principal area of interest and investigations of Polish archeology, and is described by Polish archeologists and historians in various monographs, research publications and books, most often in the Polish language, with Polish place-names and terminology. It is therefore practical and convenient to deal with the subject as a "prehistory of Poland".

2. The area of the modern Polish state is of natural historic interest to the Poles and others with related interests, who are curious to know what happened in the past in what is now Poland, and how the Polish nation and state came into being.

Such considerations, which may apply equally well to other countries and areas, would seem to justify summarizing efforts such as this one. They should be seen (and make sense only) as a part of the historically and geographically larger context, as described in works appropriate to that more general level, and in works dealing with various historic phenomena in their more fundamental sense, that is without regard to the present day borders or situation.

Orczar (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Russian (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Zazaban (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Russian statehood was formed early than polish statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.205.125.110 (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prehistory of Poland (until 966)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article needs significant work before meeting the good article criteria and has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include:

• References needed:
  • "Stone Age" section
  • "The Iron Age archeological cultures described i..."
  • " Antiquity" section
  • "Early Middle Ages" section
• Paragraphs in the lead should be merged.

Gary King (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for a general article of this sort, in the enWP, there should be numerous sources in English. There is quite a lot available on the area. (Not that the Polish ones should be removed, but English ones are always preferred--and for a general article they should be the bass of the referencing.DGG (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article's name is somehow wrong. Use something like Poland before/until the Middle Ages. Nergaal (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the name is not right. I think may be "Prehistory and early history of Polish lands" would do. Orczar (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

prehistory implies before there are written sources at all for the area, not just until the Poles used writing themselves. Is thedate given accurate forthat (there is also a term: protohistory, for a transitional period.). DGG (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved to Prehistory and protohistory of Poland to address this concern.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prehistory of Poland (until 966)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Notes on article

1. Title: Prehistory of Poland (until 966 of what? chickens?)

1. The lead seems choppy, see prose review below.

1. Stone Age section seems way to short, especially considering the whole other article about (Note: Stone Age Poland is also on GA Review)

Review by ErikTheBikeMan

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Main problems:

   "Although it spans at least half a million years, there is only a very limited amount of information accessible." This section confuses me.

   "on the not very numerous written ancient and medieval sources, once they become available" Perhaps "the few written...sources"?

   " involved three different human species" First, I believe you mean "subspecies." Second, which three?

   "Other groups were no doubt also present" Which other groups?

   "Short of using written language, many of them developed advanced material culture and social organization. " Why wasn't there written language? Also, elaborate on the "advanced material culture" and explain how that was possible without writing.

   "According to the currently predominant opinion..." Which would be proposed by whom?

   "They went through a period of accelerated building of fortified settlements and territorial expansion beginning in the first half of the10th century, and the Polish state developed from their tribal entity in the second half of that century." Which century? What kind of building? Examples. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead needs expansion. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Some English language references would be nice for verifiability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Lead is entirely uncited. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Per notes above, along with problems raised in the prose review section. Also, a nice explanation of why writing doesn't make it to Poland until exactly 966 AD would be nice. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Focused:

   This article does seem to never drift off topic. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Quite stable. No edits in two days prior to my review (and two minor edits on grammer, etc.)ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Are there images?

   B. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   C. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The first image doesn't seem to fit the "Prehistory" bit. Also, the map is a bit difficult to read. Perhaps the author could make one themselves? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1. On hold for seven days for editors to address issues. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The large Jan. 7 edit does not fit well into the subject of this article, as it invokes various extraneous notions. I've ordered David Anthony's book, to investigate its possible relevance to this article's subject matter. Orczar (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]