Jump to content

Talk:Poland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. The real JustSomeoneNo (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Age and ethnicity chart

[edit]

Can a registered editor remove the section titled "The Golden Age", and stop with the pompous and overly grandiose presentation of Polish history. Every country had an golden age so we don't need to get carried away and emphasize it here. It's like some kid who had his grandpa tell him about Polish history editing Wikipedia. Please restore balance to this article. Sections titled Piast Dynasty and Jagiellonian Dynasty were way more objective and accurate then some ridiculous term like "The Golden Age", which is not even a proper historical period as described in Polish history books. So, annoying... grow up.

Polish history books delineate this period as a "Polish Golden Age". However, I have placed the title for the sole purpose of splitting the large "Kingdom of Poland" section into two. Merangs (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why do we have some mega chart that does not fit on my monitor about ethnicity in Poland? Do we have similar charts about other things in this article, if not why this one????? 84.40.152.248 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and raised this as a separate topic so that other users can share their opinion. Merangs (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Merangs, why do you keep changing out pictures with new ones that have a sharp view angle? Can you have normal pictures of castles and Sejm, or will in a few months time everything going to have that far-out look???? Stop trying too hard to make this country article look super cool, this goes for the earlier point with the Golden Age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.152.248 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with perspective. The old picture was about 15 years old from what I remember. Time for a change. Regarding [a] castle image, I have no idea what you mean. I did not alter any images with castles (yet). Merangs (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the last several weeks or so, a number of changes were made to the article that are making the it look obnoxious, so I had to write something on that.

I don't see how quality can be obnoxious. Moreover, everything in the article is sourced. I see a problem here and it is not the article. Merangs (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merangs, don't turn the article in to a cliche. Even in Poland, there are historians critical of this Golden Age terminology, because it was really only the Golden Age for the szlachta, the peasants were getting poorer and the towns folk were being stifled. I would agree that this was the height of Poland's power, however it was no paradise, and I would stay away from such a grandiose terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.152.248 (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been outdated re military and foreign policy

[edit]

Merangs the article seems outdated given the enormous changes Poland is facing right now.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: - The information you added is not encyclopedic, nor is it written in an academic manner. It is more media-driven aimed at causing a sensation. Euronews and POLITICO are generic news outlets. Let's focus on what has happened, especially regarding the military. I will re-add mentions about the the firearms training and American troops stationing in Poland with a better reference. Merangs (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added the information with correct government sources. The information about the acquisition of nuclear weapons is speculative so it should be avoided (at least until it happens). Merangs (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopediyc ? why? well, I see that you re added troops and firearmtraining but not Tusks plans. Correct source? News are just as "correct", be careful in your judgement. You added a Polish reference, I will re add the English language reference I chose. Politico and Euronews are WP:RS.I think there is nothing sensational about what I added. you seem unaware of what teh latest developments are and they were not reflected on this page. PLease avoid ownership behavior and editwarring.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying your sources were incorrect, I just improved the refs by replacing them with an official government website and PAP, which are better than foreign news outlets repeating the same story. Is that bad? I don't understand this negative judgement as I try to be constructive and maintain the article's better quality with good faith. Regarding Tusk's initiative, these are only plans as of now. Time will tell if these will come into effect. There is no need to add this right now and cause a sensation (this is what I referred to earlier as "unacademic"). I think I am being misunderstood here. Merangs (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic chart

[edit]

I would like to bring up a topic that was recently raised by an IP regarding the ethnic chart in the article. Is it really necessary, as other country articles do not have that section? What is the justification for it? It simply clogs the article and the demographics section. Such information confirming Poland's homogeneity can be either avoided or summarised in one-two sentences, if deemed necessary. Merangs (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this chart overemphasizes the issue of ethnicity (this is a chart for a separate article on demographics or something), just a couple sentences is enough to sum up what that big charts depicts in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.152.248 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The demographics section is present in several country articles, in the articles in which it's not present it's because of statutory customs not wishing to emphasize the ethnic/racial differences in their countries.
--Heinrich-- 79.191.244.118 (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree like Heinrich, I'm restoring the ethnic chart. It does not take up much space. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. Please seek consensus. No need to place such a large ethnic spreadsheet in an article that summarises information. Such tables could be placed in separate dedicated pages about the population and ethnic make up of Poland. Just like there was no need for a massive ethnic chart in the history section for Poznań. Merangs (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree... no to raw data dump as outlined at WP:COUNTRYCHARTS. Country articles ( parent article ) have child articles like Demographics of Poland for raw data dumping of this type as per Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:DETAIL) as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS. Moxy🍁 23:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poland has 37,6 m of people right now, decreasing.

[edit]

In the first few sentences is said that it's the fifth most populated country in UE, having over 38m people. According to Rocznik Demograficzny p.26, GUS, 2024, (https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/rocznik-demograficzny-2024,3,18.html) there is roughly 37,6 m people by the end of 2023, with that number fast decreasing. Duumpkin (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a snapshot estimate. On Wiki we prefer the most recent census data for the infobox pop. figure.
--Heinrich-- 79.191.244.118 (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement regarding Poland's size in Europe does not align with the data provided in the link.

[edit]

The statement describing Poland's size is not aligned with the data provided under the link it points to.

In the excerpt: 'and the fifth largest EU country by land area, covering a combined area of 312,696 km²,' the link under 'the fifth largest EU country' shows that Poland is the ninth largest country on the list.

Please either correct the statement or provide a valid link to support it." Kacper Gierycz (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New 2025 GDP estimates

[edit]

The current GDP estimates on the page are outdated. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/april/weo-report?c=964,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2023&ey=2030&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 Youlol7331x (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, per request. Thanks for pointing this out. Merangs (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

President 2025

[edit]

Todays president of Poland is Karol Nawrocki https://www.wybory.gov.pl/prezydent2025/ Ohhtermij (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He will be in office in August 2025 Ohhtermij (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2025

[edit]

President Andrzej Duda • Prime Minister Donald Tusk Legislature Parliament • Upper house Senate • Lower house Sejm Since the 2025 election, the president of Poland is Karol Nawrocki. Source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Polish_presidential_election 2A00:F41:908C:764D:EC64:F300:86C1:BB15 (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Nawrocki is still just president-elect. His presidency will begin on August 6. Day Creature (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Poland c. 960 in the information box

[edit]

The Duchy of Poland c. 960 in the information box should be removed. There is no reference source to confirm such a claim; someone just added it based on their own interpretation of history, also Poland became a European nation with the Baptism of Poland, before that it was a Slavic tribal state. Also, why the date 960? It's a made up date, and there is nothing attached to it to bolster the claim that around this time Poland became a so called "duchy". Please remove if you can't produce a reference source to back up such a fundamental claim. 84.40.153.19 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that arguably retrospective national foundation events should be considered for exclusion from this part of the infobox for nation-states—the current presentation of Israel is the model here, imo. We should probably follow state continuity backward and think really hard about our sources before going farther. I don't doubt here that sources see the 10th-century duchy as a progenitor of modern Poland, but scrutiny is often needed. Remsense 🌈 论 15:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Remsense, indeed, this needs to be scrutinized. The reference source for 966 in the information box reads: Mieszko accepted Roman Catholicism via Bohemia in 966. A missionary bishopric directly dependent on the papacy was established in Poznań. This was the true beginning of Polish history, for Christianity was a carrier of Western civilisation with which Poland was henceforth associated. What's there for c. 960? it's a completely made up date that someone added to the information box and it has no event (or historical record) attached to it... it could just as well be "c. 950" or "mid-10th century." --84.40.153.19 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like these it's obviously prudent to stick to the dating given by the sources. Remsense 🌈 论 16:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the "c. 960" was given based on the belief that Mieszko I rulled his Duchy from around 960. The History § Kingdom of Poland subsection determins that "Poland began to form into a recognisable unitary and territorial entity around the middle of the 10th century (...)" and this statement is referenced. In my opinion, the 10th century should be given as a date of the origin of the Poland as a duchy, if we decide to keep this information in the Infobox. However, I think it is not necessary to include this, nevertheless we should be careful when assigning dates, decade or even century to the events so far in time. Perhabs further dig into sources should be made. About the source cited, let's apply due weight to Britanica which is a tertial source and does not provide detailed reasoning—the stance "This was the true beginning of Polish history (...)" is an oversimplification to say the least. — Antoni12345 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user:Antoni12345, this may me the case but this date is totally made up ---THERE IS NO SOURCE FOR IT, AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CLAIM, IT NEEDS A REFERENCE SOURCE IF IT IS TO BE ACCEPTED... IF NOT REMOVE---. There is no historical record of when Mieszko came to power and why him becoming a tribal chieftain of the Polans turned his tribal state into a "duchy" recognized in Europe. Simpy put, this is an unsubstantiated claim and original reserch that needs to be removed.--84.40.153.19 (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia rules, a statement in order to be accepted and trusted needs Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia:No original research. This claim of c.960, is made up and that's why there is no source that says that is the start of Polish statehood. --84.40.153.19 (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not as bad as you're making it out to be. "Around 960" is a different form that might be better replaced by a direct example in a source, but the meaning of it is totally in line with when Poland became a duchy, was Christianized etc. If we take it out, then since we're not total dipsticks we have to reconfigure the entire infobox section. It's better as it is in lieu of site policy than if one overreacted and snipped only the earliest date in the infobox. Remsense 🌈 论 10:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Remsense, I think you are not realizing what the underlying issue is. It is accepted that Poland became a European state within the Christendom, when it was recognized by the Papacy before this it was a chiefdom not a duchy. This is the long held historical view cited by chroniclers and historians. In the year 1966, the then Communist government of Poland held celebrations of Poland's 1000 years as a nation state. Now, someone jumped in and added "c. 960" into the information box and we can't even get a source which proves the claim. So, it is bad because someone added a bogus date with no sources to back up its validity. Please, notice how the date 966 comes up:
Here are other sources which say 966: *https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17754512
--84.40.153.19 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't presently understand the issue, I'm afraid. There's nothing meaningfully misleading about the present dating, it just might be unnecessarily vague. Remsense 🌈 论 13:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Remsense, ok, I'll get to the point, if you have trouble understanding, SOURCE PLEASE. YOU DON'T ADD UNSOURCED NON-SENSE INTO WIKIPEDIA. --84.40.153.19 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you get when you have someone that is not familiar with a particular country history stonewalling something on Wikipedia. If I'm providing you with several quick reference sources which say 966, and you come back to me with an irrelevant response it unfortunately shows a lack of knowledge about Wikipedia rules, because here you add facts not your general interpretations of history. --84.40.153.19 (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Information box dates

[edit]

In connection to the above discussion, should the information box in the Poland article start with "Baptism of Poland 14 April 966" or "Duchy of Poland c. 960"? PJK 1993 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 966: as shown above, there are multiple reliable sources that reference 966 and the Baptism of Poland as the formal and widely accepted beginning of Polish statehood. The c. 960 date has no sources to show its validity (the date is WP:OR that someone just added in). Before the year 966, the tribal state of the Slavic Polans was a pagan chiefdom not a "duchy". The designation "duchy" is a latin word connected with feudalism and christendom, and the Baptism of Poland marked the formal recognition of the early Polish state by the Latin Church and other Christian states of Europe. That's why the overwhelming majority of historians accept 966, and not some vague, undefined, and inconsequential date of c. 960. Also, looking at the history of the Poland article, the change to "c. 960" is relatively recent and before that for many years the dates in the information box started with 966. PJK 1993 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for "Duchy of Poland c. 960" (otherwise remove the dubious claim)

[edit]

Can someone actually provide a reliable reference source that validates the claim that the historically accepted formation start date for Poland is "Duchy of Poland c. 960". This is quite outrageous that such a false claim is being kept since it was added in last year. The editors who up to this point did not present a source to show there is merit to this claim yet continue to stonewall it in place, are flagrantly undermining Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility by pushing their own POV. PJK 1993 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Population density is wrong

[edit]

I think this is the latest but I can't find a rating.[1] Doug Weller talk 16:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poland&oldid=1303542118"