Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Category:Immigration to Poland and Category:Immigrants to Poland

I just created those two new categories. Especially Category:Immigrants to Poland could use some population. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Few tasks

There are still some articles I prefer to avoid, at least till this is resolved:

• Dmowski's Line - needs tagged as Poland-stub, and Poland project, stub class, low importance, added to talk
• Silesian Separatist Movement - Category:Social movements (also add this to Silesian Autonomy Movement ), talk: start, mid importance

Please post here when you address those issues, or just strike them out. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Severo^TC 21:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Y Content update in progress ==> Dmowski's Line - translated and added material. Need to write a short passage for Paris Peace Conference, 1919 to provide a suitable link to article. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice job expanding DL, with a little more content it could qualify for a DYK! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD Nomination process

Could they make the AfD process more painful? Is there a tool out there to put the right bits in the right templates?Ajh1492 (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Give Twinkle a try, I find it makes deletion process much easier. Severo^TC 13:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You can activate Twinkle by clicking a box in your Preferences, on the Gadgets page. Highly recommended! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Italy–Poland relations, Category:Poland–Spain relations - please help populate

I've just created Category:Italy–Poland relations and Category:Poland–Spain relations. Please help populate! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Italy–Poland relations needs some checking and rewriting, eg. the Marigold legende.Xx236 (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I see there is a discussion at Talk:Italy–Poland relations, probably a good idea to keep it there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Poland - to be checked

Poland contains errors and unsourced POV statements. I don't know how to correct the GDP misinformation and I'm not able to rewrite the "Kitchen" section. Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If you were to list them, we could discuss them. What's wrong with GDP? If you tell us that and provide (updated?) sources, we (I) can fix the problem. There is no "Kitchen" section; do you mean the "Cuisine" section? I tagged it with the unreferenced-section. The sentence about French and Italian cuisines is a bit strange, could be removed if there are no objections... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:PolandXx236 (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Poland

The article presents only "good Poles" POV. Several articles prefer "bad Poles" POV. It would be better to coordinate the articles.Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide more specific examples from that article and others (?), we could start a more detailed debate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the real issue is the cottage industry sensationalizing the degree to which local Eastern European populations actively collaborated with the Nazis. In Latvia, for example, it was in the hundreds, yet an entire people are branded Nazis (per Liz Holtzman, hearing it from the proverbial horse's mouth). Responsible scholarship is that there were collaborators (on all sides), but that those collaborators neither defined nor represented the general state of relations between peoples.

Unfortunately, the meme that the peoples of Eastern Europe bludgeoned their Jewish neighbors to death with blunt objects, the blunter the better, then sat on their still-warm piled-up corpses to drink a few beers and sing is a Nazi manufacture; it's well documented that pictures of such "atrocities" were staged, based on accidentally including those orchestrating the scene in some of those pictures, and on reports not in the "official" archives. For some reason, however, people are inclined to believe anyone from Eastern Europe is fully capable of such unspeakably barbaric behavior, never questioning such allegations, while if you said an American, Frenchman, or even German did it, there would be howls of moral outrage. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please compare Poland and History of the Jews in 20th-century Poland, they describe two totally different worlds.Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is an obvious difference in scope between those articles. The latter one does need a lot of work, IIRC it was a fork... tag it with neutrality template and other applicable ones if you think it merits it. At some point we will get around to fixing them, although don't ask me when :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Curzon Line contains lies

The lord "found" that Wilno region didn't have a Polish majority.Xx236 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing the word "found" in the article. If there are problems with it, please describe it in more detail. Note that for some periods and places, sources can be contradictory. If such a problem arises, citing one's sources (or requesting that somebody does so) is usually a good practice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

But it contains "The line was based on Curzon's findings of ethnic composition - areas west of the line contained a Polish majority and areas to the east did not". Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, isn't it true? I mean, this does represents Curzon's argument, right? Note I am not saying it was correct, but IIRC this is what he argued... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No it's not true. What was able a lord to "find" in Eastern Europe after WWI and Soviet Revolution living in London and using tsarist Russia statistics? Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not much; I haven't researched this issue much but from what recall his "findings" were politically motivated. The article should clearly state his soruces (or lack of it), and provide their critique; but at the same time it is true that he draw his line based on "something". Perhaps the word "observation" would be better, as Ajh suggests below. I suggest we use some referenced wording, and make sure that the quality of those findings/observations is clearly noted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

How about just use the word "observations" instead of "findings" if you think the word is loaded contextually - based on Curzon's findings of ethnic composition changes to based on Curzon's observations of ethnic composition. I agree he was quite off-the-mark, but those where HIS observations - don't put your words in HIS mouth. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A new/old Polenexpert

A German editor has an alternate name to "correct" and "explain" artcles as Curzon line, Expulsion of Germans after World War II and Oder-Neisse line.At first I assumed it's a new editor. Xx236 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying it's an old editor? If so who? Volunteer Marek  17:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Being cryptic is amusing only up to a point. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If I can find an information you can do it, too, in a shorter time than writing the sentence against me. Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I have no idea what information I was supposed to be looking for, yes, I failed. Please be more informative next time; your threads so often require clarifications that editors may start ignoring them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Noone is oblidged to like me.Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but it is you who come here for help, right? And we would like to help you, but that requires that you make your request clear. It's "please help us help you" kind of a situation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of information regarding voting in Silesian Plebiscite

A German user has been deleting information why Katowice were attached to Poland(due to fact that majority of voters voted for Poland). I am afraid I don't know how to convince him not to engage in blanking, perhaps somebody else will be more persuasive [1] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just a reaction to your blind reverts of informations about the German minority in inter-war Poland in several Polish towns/ districts[2][3][4][5]. Please don't use different standards for informations you like and those you don't. I suggest to use such informations in both directions. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? You didn't enter information about town's populations. You entered information about counties German population into town's articles making them all look like being dominated by overwhelming German population, in fact a population dwarfing town's real figures for population. Please put proper demographic info into proper articles. It has nothing to do btw with voting information-again I urge you not to claim ethnic groups have specific voting preferences.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would hope no-one is deleting sourced information that they simply don't like - particularly if it's in reaction to someone else's deleting other sourced information that they don't like (that's a very poor excuse).--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you should not be deleting each other's sources passages. I took at look at the referenced passage in question from Katowice,[6] and I concur that the deletion is improper. The content is adequately sourced and is neutral in presentation. I then looked at the other four articles, [7][8][9][10], and I would suggest modifying the initial sentence to read

A large number of Germans left the area after the First World War (see Exodus of the German Population). This led to a significant decline of ethnic Germans, ...'


The referenced article section has more in-depth discussion of the context. I have no axe to grind in this argument, so that's my 2 cents on a solution. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a town's article the right place to mention information about the surrounding district? Yes or No? I would suggest "Yes", but if we follow Molobo's logic, we should do that without exceptions and different standards. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to delete the demographic information if it is in proper place. Right now Hercus is presenting the information on wide, far larger areas in articles about small towns and citeis in such way that it serves to present the number of Germans as dwarfing those who remained in the cities. He is free to add this information in Leszno County for example. Of course such information can't be given without context-mainly the previous raise of German population through Germanization measures in Prussian annexed Poland. Also I noticed that Herkus has been inserting unsourced claims that that those who left did so because they could become Polish citizens or were forced to leave-this is not in the source he gave which is just a table of data. In fact available sources(which I am in possession of) speak of other reasons for Germans leaving-for instance military and clerks went back to Germany(in some cases 20% of German population was made out of state officials, this was a policy of German Empire to Germanize the area), other rasons include nationalistic resenment against Poles and fear of reprisals after centuries of opression. Last but not least, the first to leave were members of colonists settled by Prussian Settlement Commission. So in conclusion-data about county demographics given in articles about counties, and with context(reversal of forced germanization)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I congratulate HK on making right steps into good direction. However he asked to restrict the information to the interwar era, so we can't have 1910 data in areas which didn't exist then. A better solution would be to move the information into Germanization of Poles during Paritions article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it really NPOV in entry Mława pogrom ?

I've suggested to remove the entry Mława pogrom instead of renaming it. The talk-page is here. --Robsuper (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - PL:WP refers to it as Pogrom_mławski as do contemporary reports in Gazeta Wyborcza.
Ajh1492 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The event seems notable, and this is the most popular name. Perhaps adding a note explaining the definition of pogrom would help? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Connotation and meaning of the word pogrom is very, very bad. This term, particularly in conjunction with the name of the city where these events took place is a juicy morsel for the backgrounds of the ongoing, incomprehensible war to the knife with the Polish raison d'etat. Best regards. --Robsuper (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary REDIRECT: Polska Roma

I believe that this page redirect is linguistically redundant, as it introduces unnecessary confusion around the name "Polska" on Wikipedia. The talk-page is here. --Robsuper (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In Poland the terminology is Romowie. I've corrected the entry to reflect proper usage and provided an interwiki link. Submit a deletion request for the article.
Ajh1492 (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. 'Polska Roma' is commonly used in English, and this is the English language Wikipedia. RashersTierney (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It does seem that this weird piece of Polgrish (?) is acceptable in English. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly even Polskish? RashersTierney (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard the term before and if I'm not mistaken the use of the word "Roma" in Polish, at least among people studying the subject, predates its usage in English. However, again, if I remember correctly, "Polska Roma" or "Polski Rom", refers/referred to a specific group of more general Roma even within Poland - again, going by memory, mostly those who arrived in 16th century, rather than later - hence they were the Rom that had been in Poland the longest (and to a significant degree "assimilated" or at least in relative terms). See also [11]. So I don't think it's Polskish.

BTW, the equivalent for Spanglish, would be Polpanish ;) (Like "chocho" or "ciocio" for "uncle") Volunteer Marek  22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Polska Roma are a subgroup of Polish Roma, they are not the name for the whole Roma population in Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

's what I meant by "a specific group" within the more general Roma population in Poland. Volunteer Marek  22:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

See here for groups(in Polish): [12] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that you are correct, and this should be made clear where any ambiguity might arise. On the other matter, I hope my attempt at levity above hasn't caused any unintended offense. RashersTierney (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done See Talk:Polska Roma. It seems that the Polska Roma is the most sense. That's all. By the way, my wife's name is Roma, and of why I started this thread. This all happens by women. --Robsuper (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems it is Polglish ([13]). I'll add it to my articles-to-do list, seems notable :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My favorite piece of Polglish, reported in a British newspaper: "Let me animal to you" for "I'll tell you the truth". Volunteer Marek  20:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, now that I think about it I think Nihili Novi was working on something about this. Volunteer Marek  21:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Here Poglish. Volunteer Marek  21:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought we had an article on that. Which name is the most popular one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical location maps for Poland needed

I've added a map to Battle of Grochowiska, but as you can see, it is the wrong map - modern. However, we only have three maps for Polish locations: modern, and two for interwar period (plus a bunch for voivodeships and such, see commons:Category:Location maps of Poland). We could use locator maps for Congress Poland, Duchy of Warsaw, and various stages of the PLC and Kingdom of Poland. Is there anybody who could work on those maps? Since they are just blanks, they should not be overly complex. PS. For the use of locator maps on en wiki, see for example Template:Location map Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The location map project just managed to create maps of all present countries (and is still busy to create regional location maps). I agree that it would be nice to have some location maps showing historical countries but first of all we haven't got enough mapmakers to do that medium term. And I am not sure that the reader of an article really knows where all that historical countries were. Then it would be senseless to have such a map. Until we have more maps you could write Location of the battle (map of modern Poland) so that the discrepance between 1863 and today's map is underlined and no one is irritated. NNW (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A good temporary solution; I asked some mapmakers I know of to see if they can add those maps to their queues. I'll post here if I get any (positive) replies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it tomorrow.--Jacurek (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of ethnic parishes in U.S.

I invite everyone to share your point of view on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Notability of Ethnic parishes in U.S.. --WlaKom (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of a bunch of redirects on the 7th largest structure in Poland

Any comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 31#FM- and TV-mast Krynice would be appreciated. There are 5 spurious redirects that are either a misspelling (by me), some partial translations from Polish, or an odd name that isn't referenced anywhere. Thx! Ajh1492 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Automatic tagging with project templates

I think a bot could help us a lot, see my comment here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lesser Poland Province of the Polish Crown

I tend to look favorably upon creation of stubs with potential for growth, but just forking lists without adding any meaningful content is perhaps not helpful. I am speaking of the Lesser Poland Province of the Polish Crown, a notable subject, but currently just a list copied from Crown_of_the_Kingdom_of_Poland#Lesser_Poland_Province. Do you think we should redirect it back to the Crown article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say so, unless someone's got a lot of specific information about that entity that they have immediate plans to add.--Kotniski (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)