Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
== [[Polish Righteous among the Nations]] == |
== [[Polish Righteous among the Nations]] == |
||
This article is now at Good Article Review. Interested editors are asked to help address objections [[Talk:Polish_Righteous_among_the_Nations#GA_Review|at talk]].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
This article is now at Good Article Review. Interested editors are asked to help address objections [[Talk:Polish_Righteous_among_the_Nations#GA_Review|at talk]].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
== strong tradition of antisemitism in Poland == |
|||
Read all about it in increasingly destabilized [[Żydokomuna]] article... see talk for relevant discussions. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 05:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:22, 5 October 2008
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Useful templates
Please note we have two functioning userboxes:
This user is a participant in WikiProject Poland. |
This user is a member of the Polish military history task force of WikiProject Military history. |
{{User WPMILHIST Polish military history task force}}
There is also a Portal:Poland/Welcome message that can be used to notify users about this noticeboard and our related projects. Just slap {{subst:Portal:Poland/Welcome}}--~~~~ on their usertalkpage - it has its own heading.
History of Jews in Poland FAR
History of Jews in Poland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Grammar - Article Zygmunt Kurnatowski
Article Zygmunt Kurnatowski, Major General of army of Polish kingdom, is needing immediate attention. Please correct Grammar, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.173.19 (talk • contribs) 16:09, March 31, 2008
Since March Joseph Conrad was a Polish writer. I have restored the previous version and realised that the article doesn't inform about JC attitude toward Poland. It would be good to add one-two sentences.Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- What JC attitude toward Poland are you talking about? Can you be more specific? I didn't even know he had an attitude. Please provide a citation for clarity. I'm looking forward to it. --Poeticbent talk 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Just to be clear, I don't consider JC to be a Polish novelist since he did not write his prose in the Polish language (a defining factor). What I'm curious about is only his attitude at this point. --Poeticbent talk 18:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wonder what you'd think about Johan Ludvig Runeberg, then;) (Finnish national poet who wrote only in Swedish). I agree Conrad wasn't a Polish novelist, though not because he didn't write in Polish, but because his nationality wasn't Polish. --Kotniski (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Molobo for the link to The Project Gutenberg eBook: Notes on Life and Letters, by Joseph Conrad. I had fun scrolling through it. Here’s something I picked up from the chapter called "Poland Revisited":
"Cracow is the town where I spent with my father the last eighteen months of his life. It was in that old royal and academical city that I ceased to be a child, became a boy, had known the friendships, the admirations, the thoughts and the indignations of that age. It was within those historical walls that I began to understand things, form affections, lay up a store of memories and a fund of sensations with which I was to break violently by throwing myself into an unrelated existence... I was pleased with the idea of showing my companions what Polish country life was like; to visit the town where I was at school before the boys by my side should grow too old... the memories of that corner of the Earth where my own boyhood had received its earliest independent impressions." -- Joseph Conrad, "POLAND REVISITED", Notes on Life and Letters
--Poeticbent talk 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Constitution of May 3, 1791 up for FAR
Constitution of May 3, 1791 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Essentially what a reviewer has requested is sources. I've provided those for the hardest part, the "Features" section. All that's needed now is for someone to provide sources for the general-history parts. It would be a shame to lose Featured-Article status over something as relatively trivial as that. Any takers? Nihil novi (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What's going on?
When I edit this page I get an "Attention" notice at the top saying it's very unlikely that anyone will view this page and respond. Presumably this now appears at the top of all "Portal talk" pages. Any way we can get rid of it?--Kotniski (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I traced it back to {{visibility}} and left a note there - this indeed is some new and uncalled for feature. Миша13 22:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. We could technically move our portal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page (as WikiProject redirects to our noticeboard) if all other recurse fails... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Might be a good idea anyway - I've seen people get confused by the positioning of this page in the past.--Kotniski (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, any administrators watching might like to consider (one way or the other) my editprotected request at {{visibility}}.--Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Might be a good idea anyway - I've seen people get confused by the positioning of this page in the past.--Kotniski (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. We could technically move our portal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page (as WikiProject redirects to our noticeboard) if all other recurse fails... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
A request for move was initiated to move Settlement Commission from current name to Royal Prussian Settlement Commission in the provinces of West Prussia and Posen [2]
Interested editors are welcomed to engage in debate and discussion.--Molobo (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Remember Alexander Newski cathedral ? I found a great source-Architecture in Polish-Russian relations
See here [3] --Molobo (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
A user has, at the head of the "Chopin" article, replaced the elegant portrait of Chopin by Delacroix with a very primitive one by Ary Scheffer that makes the composer look like Pinocchio. If you wish to express your view regarding this substitution, there is voting underway here. Nihil novi (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- My preferred solution is: keep both, we have space. Honestly, I haven't yet seen a portrait of Chopin I like (see others here).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the question. The point is, which portrait will be in the lead?
- A good choice might be the watercolor portrait that was done around 1835 by Chopin's fiancee, Maria Wodzinska, but it is not now available in the Commons. (Could someone place a photo of it there?) Nihil novi (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Central Europe
Main article: Expulsion of Germans after World War II
I have removed the German POV, but without a result. What to do now? Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Try more discussion, ask more contributors for input (WP:DR, try also German noticeboard).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You only deleted any information that Poland was involved (somehow), is that what you call NPOV? 84.139.205.167 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dear IP user, please log in first. Than we will discuss POVs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Regency Kingdom - part of Polish statehood series or not?
See [4], and discuss on talk if interested. I am currently thinking about who is right :) What about your thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Group of WPP:Poland members accused of "unhelpful" edits
See, [5]. - Darwinek (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was going to inform about some outrageous remarks made there as well as the whole initiative of some users, whose aim is to get rid of Piotrus, one of the most creative members of the whole project.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2, which started as a series of complaining about User:Piotrus (whom you I am sure all know), has now expanded ([6]) with claims that our Project/Noticeboard is a "cabal" and that all Polish editors are biased and likely support Piotrus in some terrible plan to undermine Wikipedia. Example arguments include: "...there is a small group of Polish nationals on Wikipedia"..."It has been happening all over Polish articles, with topics that they never edited before suddenly being besieged by Polish editors, and rules everyone else follows being swept aside by their block voting"..."Since Piotrus has a vast array of IRC and IM friends, happy to blindly revert to Piotrus's edits I doubt that it would work, but we can try"... Among other things, Gadu-Gadu is portrayed as a vehicle for cabalism :) It looks like about half of members of this Project/Board are mentioned there as contributing in some shape and form to the Piotrus-led Polish cabal - if you've ever interacted with Piotrus, you may find that and other diffs presented there as proof you are a member of his cabal. This would be funny if it wasn't serious (some editors who have been harassing Piotrus, and to a lesser extent, me and other members of this project) want to ban Piotrus and portray our WikiProject as an evil cabal. I hesitated to bring this issue here since at first it was about Piotrus, not our WikiProject, but now I think the line has been crossed. I am not very familiar with ArbCom, but I believe good places to post are:
- offer an outside statement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
- present evidence and/or defend against evidence of others at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence
- comment on proposed decisions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop; in particular, Piotrus proposals at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Workshop#Asking_for_input_is_not_canvassing_or_forum_shopping and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Workshop#There_is_no_Polish_cabal_or_tag_team are very relevant to our WikiProject. Tymek (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
An anti-Polish witch-haunt. Who will be the next after Piotrus? Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Witch hunt ?
- People, shouldn't we take it easy ? They have read that Poles are evil and someone told them that GG was a tool of Satan so all is quite understandable. ;-) Kpjas (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- User:Halibutt. User:Lysy. User:Balcer. User:Appleseed. All gone, because editors who now harass me have targeted them and they couldn't take it. It's not a witch hunt. It's a long term campaign of character assassination, targeting editors who dare to stand up to certain tag teams. PS. Don't confuse ArbCom party with ArbCom. The request might have been bad faithed, but ArbCom is composed of smart and neutral editors who have seen such tricks in the past and have seen through them, assuming they are shown the correct, unbiased evidence and background. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was away for quite a while. This is very saddening to see such things happening in Wikipedia and such outstanding users like Halibutt harassed and driven away by despicable maltreatment. If this is an organized and orchestrated campaign we should stand up and resist in a calm but steadfast manner. You have my full support for responsible and coordinated action that you deem necessary. Kpjas (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly responsibility and consideration is important. A lot of what have happened since you were gone was radicalization. Your input, comparing what's going on now with how it was in the beginning, would be priceless. If you have time to read through the ArbCom, I am sure many would love to hear your thoughts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was away for quite a while. This is very saddening to see such things happening in Wikipedia and such outstanding users like Halibutt harassed and driven away by despicable maltreatment. If this is an organized and orchestrated campaign we should stand up and resist in a calm but steadfast manner. You have my full support for responsible and coordinated action that you deem necessary. Kpjas (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- User:Halibutt. User:Lysy. User:Balcer. User:Appleseed. All gone, because editors who now harass me have targeted them and they couldn't take it. It's not a witch hunt. It's a long term campaign of character assassination, targeting editors who dare to stand up to certain tag teams. PS. Don't confuse ArbCom party with ArbCom. The request might have been bad faithed, but ArbCom is composed of smart and neutral editors who have seen such tricks in the past and have seen through them, assuming they are shown the correct, unbiased evidence and background. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Because slandering accusations have been brought against users of the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board I think we might consider making a statement to the ArbCom and the Board. Kpjas (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have also noticed this new phenomenon. Piotrus calls it radicalization of users, but I think there's something more sinister taking place here. When Wikipedia was new, many users from similar backgrounds were editing at random, because they didn't know each other. It is only recently that many returning users finally got to know and trust those with similar views. They’ve learned who is who, which in turn enabled them to form a kind of Einsatz Gruppen for political and moral assassinations, and successful enforcing of extreme prejudices. I read about this worst case scenario online long before now, but it is only now that this scheme finally became possible. I’m not sure what is going to happen, but personally, I’m beginning to seriously worry about the outcome. --Poeticbent talk 23:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing new for me. Many places in this Wikipedia stink, some nations and some views are better than others and Poles are frequently underdogs. Very Christian Gazeta Wyborcza model of admitting all possible crimes doesn't work here, probably other nations don't have their Gazeta Wyborczas. Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
prohibition to speak Lithuanian (...) on phone until in the fall of communism in 1990
Poosible under martial law, but not till 1990. Xx236 (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Uh. Isn't this something to raise on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania instead? And what article are you talking about - if any? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Lithuanian minority in Poland. Do you know a cooperative Lithuanian editor? I don't.Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- User:Renata3 is, while not friendly, usually neutral in content matters. I am afraid I don't know of any others. PS. You can also post a general notice/question/link to this discussion at WikiProject Lithuania I linked above and see who replies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that both of them were imprisoned, now only one article informs about it. Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no article about them. LINK articles you are discussing, please.Wouldn't this belong on Lithuanian noticeboard? I've never heard of them... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
They have a Polish father, which started several disputes, also around Poles in Lithuania.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
FAR: Virtuti Militari
Virtuti Militari has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there an official position in relation to this kind of wording?
From the Białogard article:
The Red Army occupied the town on March 4, 1945. As a result of the Potsdam Conference following World War II, Belgard was placed under Polish administration in 1945; its German population was expelled and replaced with Poles, many themselves expellees from Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union.
This is a jarring style to me I'd re-phrase that as integrated into Poland's territory in 1945. Uncontroversial and neutral.
I'd also prefer removed to expelled and populated to replaced. Kpjas (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- See my changes to the article; not quite what you suggested (I think integrated implies too much, and I don't see anything wrong with expelled), but hopefully an improvement.--Kotniski (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Official reaction? Other than us finding such non-neutral wording, restoring NPOV, and often fighting for years with certain POV pushers bent on stressing some POVS... no, not really.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
To answer the question raised in the section's title: Yes, there is an official position in relation to this kind of wording:
The phrase "placed under Polish administration" is the (almost) exact phrase used in the Potsdam Agreement where it reads "shall be under the administration of the Polish State". A re-phrasing should thus not be necessary, eg "integrated into Poland's territory" would be a more troublesome wording as this could be challenged, you all know that the de facto status was quiet clear after the war, but the de jure status was not, and there are different POVs about whether or not it was "Polish territory administered by Poland" or "German territory administered by Poland" back then. What was and is unchallenged is "only" the "territory under Polish administration" (isn't that sufficient?). Given the scope of the article, it would be best to follow the phrasing of the Potsdam Agreement instead of using the "Polish territory" term, that way one must not further debate that issue getting forced by WP:NPOV to represent the different POVs. The phrase "expelled" is also the widely accepted term for the removal of the former German population, so why change?
Now what I don't get is what you mean by POV-pushing and non-neutral wording. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Would Postdam wording be superceeded by later treaties (Treaty of Zgorzelec, Treaty of Warsaw (1970), Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, German-Polish Border Treaty (1990))? It seems to me that insistence on 60-year old wording is a bit... outdated, at the very least, and borders on border revisionism (questioning the stability of modern borders). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Skäpperöd, Looking back and pasting literal phrasing from various non-effective treaties concerning European history into Wikipedia articles is not obviously the right thing to do. We are here to write the best possible encyclopaedic articles - Wikipedia's good is our goal not creating justifications for political decisions of superpowers from over 60 years ago. Kpjas (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Well we were talking about 1945 events, and about the official wording for these events, weren't we? And until the various border treaties that Piotrus mentioned were drawn, the Potsdam Agreement was the only legal basis. Border revisionism? Justifications for political decisions of superpowers? Calm down, what are you talking about in the first place? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- When we write about the Bible, we don't use original statements from few thousand years old. In article about the Postdam Agreement, original quotes may be acceptable (if clearly marked as such). When we write about German invasion of Poland in 1939, we go beyond original German justifications for it, even if we write about the days before Polish or Western commentators issued their counter-justifications. In that case, just as when we write about modern Polish-German border, wording accepted by most modern scholarship should be used.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is now at Good Article Review. Interested editors are asked to help address objections at talk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
strong tradition of antisemitism in Poland
Read all about it in increasingly destabilized Żydokomuna article... see talk for relevant discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)