Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:47, 19 February 2007

Welcome to the Poland-related notice board!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Jagiełło/Jogaila odyssey cnt.

See Talk:Jogaila for newest RM and User:Angusmclellan/Jogaila mediation for related mediation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the mediation request is now at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Jogaila. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And there is also the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jogaila for a different take.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

The unreferenced article Father of the Nation lists Piłsudski for Poland. Is this accurate? Appleseed (Talk) 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, opinions on Pilsudski differ, but if there is a personality who can be regarded as Father of the modern Polish Nation, I do not see anybody else but him. I think most of my fellow countrymen will agree Tymek 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but for balance with regards to the length of Polish history, I have added Mieszko I who was the founder of the historical Polish state. Deuar 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There was actually a dispute about this but the person adding the category to Piłsudski article declined to take part in the discussion. I am neutral on this issue - we need references.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well mayby Piłsudski is considered to be father of Polish nation in former Kongresówka or Galicja, bu in ex-Prussian Partition he is surely not. Here he wasn't (and still isn't) popular person. Radomil talk 18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays we call it Greater Poland. :-) Why isn't he liked there? Appleseed (Talk) 19:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only in Grater Poland, also in Eastern Pommerania and Silesia. Here as fathers of independence are known persons like Dmowski (for his work during wwI, and vision of national state), Haller, Paderwski, Korfanty, Taczak, Dowbór-Muśnicki and so on. Piłsudski is seen as person that doesn't care of Kresy Zachodnie. In our POV he was only interested in conquering "wild fields" of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine instead fighting for Silesia or Gdańsk. He is also disliked for his May Coup d'Etat. In Western Poland much more preferable was democracy, and apolitical army - model of state promoted by Haller and Dowbór-Muśnicki. Radomil talk 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. While personally I tend to have "Galician-like views" on him, I remeber some of these controversies. Generally, Endecja, one of major political forces then, didn't like him very much, so to speak. I do not think the label "Father of the nation" applies. The definition of the latter implies some kind of national consensus around the man in question (and it was not really the case, as the opposition was quite strong). Maybe Casimir the Great is a better candidate?--Beaumont (@) 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Other candidates could be: Bolesław Chrobry, Kazimierz Odnowiciel, Przemysł II (I know, not well know, probably this eliminates him from list), Władysław Łokietek and Tadeusz Kościuszko Radomil talk 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize - I wrote that Pilsudski may be considered the father of MODERN Polish Nation. As far as times before II Polish Republic, there are several important personalities worthy mentioning Tymek 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

II RP had many fathers, Piłsudski IMHO is too controversial to be the one in this list. Beter to leave him... On the other hand Kościuszko could be good candidate for father of Modern Polish nation, he started, during insurection, to build nation of all citizens, not only nobles. Radomil talk 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, do we have to stick to one person? The Germans have a whole bunch of them as Fathers of the Nation. Why don't we chose say 5 of them? Tymek 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not consider to this... Look at Iran, many controversial notable figures in very long hitory, like Khomeini, but only Cyrus as father of nation. Radomil talk 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So, if we are supposed to choose only one, I will cast my vote on Mieszko I Tymek 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too Radomil talk 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too --Beaumont (@) 10:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mieszko has a very distinct advantage − uncontroversial ;-) Deuar 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for him too, but we need references. Appleseed (Talk) 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Congress of Gniezno

Are there any paintings representing the Congress of Gniezno? I googled for images in English and Polish (zjazd gnieznienski) but found nothing. Appleseed (Talk) 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing comes to mind, nor were my search useful. A trip to Gniezno with a camera may be in order, and a local guide would be invaluable. I'd bet there are some semi-forgotten paintings, sculptures and similar objects, for example at Gniezno Cathedral.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I'm surprised at the dearth of artwork related to this event, especially since the article declares it "one of the more important events in Polish history". Appleseed (Talk) 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So... would anyone like to volunteer to take some photos in Gniezno? Appleseed (Talk) 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Czechoslovakia

Can someone find a citation for this (mine) claim? It would be good if someone would write a short article about the Polish territorial acquisition (1938) to get rid of the misconception that the aquisition of the dispiuted teritories was done "together" with the III Reich. Mieciu K 11:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on Border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia; unfortunatly it's unreferenced.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that article needs to be renamed. How about Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts? Appleseed (Talk) 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. And while we're on the subject of renaming, perhaps someone can think of a better title for The first game: December 18, 1921. Hungary - Poland 1-0. Appleseed (Talk) 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Talking to yourself, Apple? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

qp10qp said that replying to oneself is the first sign of madness. Should I be concerned? :-) I only wish I could reply in the affirmative to my Congress of Gniezno question. Appleseed (Talk) 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to rename The first game: December 18, 1921. Hungary - Poland 1-0, you can do it, but I do not know what better title you can come up with. Tymek 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Poland v Hungary (1921)? Appleseed (Talk) 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it would suggest that it was one of many friendlies. We have to emphasize this was the very first international of Poland. Otherwise there will always be someone wanting to delete it, just like Poland v Brazil (1938) Check out discussion on this page, I had a lot of problems with some users Tymek 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The significance of the game should be emphasized in the body of the article, not the title. Appleseed (Talk) 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As a person from Zaolzie, I can say following. Argument of Polish-German cooperation in 1938 is bulshit. This argument was spread by Czech propaganda before the war and during the Communist era until 1989. Often "nicely" said as "fascist Beck's Poland" etc. Fact is that Poland didn't give a fock about Germany, they just took their chance - Munich Agreement. In Polish view Zaolzie should have been Polish already in 1920. - Darwinek 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone who reads this board knows this. However, it's important to be on the lookout for articles that spread such old propaganda and misinformation. Not too long ago we saw WWII myths presented as fact (see the history of the "Tuchola Forest myth" redirect). Appleseed (Talk) 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Watts in his book "Bitter Glory" accurately described all ins and outs of Polish-Czech conflict for Zaolzie in 1920s and 1930s. Should I put down some quotes from this book? Tymek 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would very much apreciate that. Mieciu K 20:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I have some time, I'll do it Tymek 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I checked the "Bitter Glory" book. He gives a very interesting insight about ways in which the Czechs gained control over Zaolzie and their tricks (they acted in a very dirty way). But before I add it - a question about copyrights? Anybody would answer? I do not want to waste my time, cause there's a lot of stuff on it. Tymek 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright? The Polish Copyright Law Act of February 4, 1994 should answer some specific questions, in general if you are copying text as a means of scientific studies and as long as you reference it properly, keep the quotes at reasonable lenght nobody should complain. Mieciu K 15:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Quotes are always OK. Publishing long parts (~chapter+) is usually not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Voivodeships 1921-1939

I am working on Polish Voivodeships in the interwar period,

Should anybody have some more info about them, share it

Tymek 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out Category:Polish_historical_voivodeships_(1921–1939).

To keep things manageable, how about we create Łódź Voivodeship (1921-1939) and Lublin Voivodeship (1921-1939), so that information about historic voivodeships is kept separate from information about present day Łódź Voivodeship and Lublin Voivodeship ? Balcer 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I have already put down some info on Lodz Voivodeship 1921-1939

Anyway, as soon as I started, user LUCPOL deleted my works on Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship, removing some important info and adding some curious facts e.g. claiming that Silesian Language was one of official languages back then (never heard of it). Tymek 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not completely. See: and diff. LUCPOL 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question: why 1921-1939 and not 1918-1939?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Per pl-wiki, the first five (among them Lódź and Lublin) were created in 1919, with others added in the following years. Maybe a better way to go then would be to have Łódź Voivodeship (historical) and Lublin Voivodeship (historical), which would address all the past voivodeships with that name? Balcer 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Map of Poland was not fully completed until 1921, after adding Wilno and Upper Silesia. I guess this is why it is 1921-1939 (I did not come up with this span of time). Anyway, we should cooperate with each other, otherwise there will be a conflict. I mean LUCPOL and his edits, he destroyed all my work. Seeing this, I start to think it does not make sense to do anything Tymek 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Read above. LUCPOL 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, your work is not destroyed, it is still sitting in the history of article and can be restored. What is the issue with User:LUCPOL, anyway? Balcer 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think LUCPOL's contributions deserve some scrutiny. Despite my objections, he created many categories related to the dubiously named "Metropolis Katowice" (I can't find them now; hopefully they were deleted). He also seems to think Silesia is its own country or some sort of subunit of the EU (see this). I tried to discuss these issues with him but was unsuccessful. Appleseed (Talk) 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tymek trochę przesadził. Za bardzo nerwowo i panicznie się tym zajął. Tu jest toczona dyskusja pomiędzy mną i Tymkiem na temat autonomicznego województwa śląskiego (oraz jego i moich zmian): . Najważniejsze by nie przesadzać w słowach. Appleseed - ty również trochę przesadziłeś tą opinią i tym linkiem. Przeczytaj sobie mój opis zmian w tym linku, on wyjaśnia wszystko. LUCPOL 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As we all know, Silesia is not well-defined, and it is divided among several countries. As I wrote on your talk page, "I think the only solution is to avoid creating subcategories for regions. It doesn't make sense to create categories such as 'Universities and colleges in Silesia' that will include schools from three countries. We would have the same problem if someone created a category such as 'Universities and colleges in Galicia'." And yet you created all these categories. Appleseed (Talk) 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will remove this category. LUCPOL 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't just referring to Category:Education in Silesia, but to every subcategory of Category:Silesia that implicitly requires Silesia to be a well-defined region, which it is not. The only categories I can think of that should remain there are Silesian culture, Dukes of Silesia, and the two voivodeships. Appleseed (Talk) 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They should be definitely nominated at WP:CFD. - Darwinek 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not about being panicky, nervous or exaggerating. LUCPOL made changes which deleted important and true facts, this should never happen:

• population of counties was removed - why?

• several counties were removed - why?

• population of cities was changed, without providing source

• Swietochlowice was added to cities even though it was not a city then and LUCPOL knows it

• Siemianowice was a city not an urban commune

• Zaolzie cities were removed, plus Frysztat county - wouldn't it be better to leave them adding note "since October 1938"?

• Silesian as an official language - how did you come up with this?

Anyway, LUCPOL is from Silesia, I will leave it to him. Please work it out, otherwise we will provide wrong info Greetings to all Tymek 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Widzę Tymek, że jednak zamierzasz tu prowadzić dyskusję, więc proszę - czytaj chociaż odpowiedzi bo powtarzasz ciągle te same sprawy:

"Dlaczego zmieniles zawartosc artykulu o Autonomicznym Wojewodztwie Slaskim w latach miedzywojennych?"

Misplaced Pages opiera się na tym, że można stale poprawiać i zmieniać hasła. Artykuł starałem się jak najbardziej upodobnić do artykułu w polskiej wersji językowej.

"Zachowales sie nieladnie, tak sie nie robi, usunales sporo wiadomosci ktore sa istotne i jak najbardziej prawdziwe"

Początek zdania zostawiam bez komentarza. Jeśli chodzi o drugą część tego zdania: nie usunąłem sporo wiadomości. Prawie nic nie usunąłem. Głównie dodałem infobox i zrobiłem zmiany redakcyjne (zamieniając nieczytelne dane na tabele z polskiej wikipedii). Przypatrz się dokładnie moim zmianom.

"usunales tez powiat frysztacki ktory nalezal do tego wojewodztwa w okresie jesien 1938-wrzesien 1939"

Ja w artykule przedstawiłem dane z 1929, wtedy nie było tego powiatu w województwie. Po za tym, z twojej wersji wynika, że Chorzów (pop. 128 900) był większym miastem od Katowic (pop. 126 200) co nie było prawdą. LUCPOL 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wedlug spisu powszechnego Polski z 1931 roku Chorzow byl wiekszy od Katowic"

Czy aby na pewno? PS. Zobacz też tu.

"Powiat frysztacki nalezal do tego wojewodztwa od roku 1938, ale nie rozumiem dlaczego calkowicie go usunales, skoro istnial (wystarczylo napisac, ze istnial w latach 38-39)"

Tu się z tobą zgadzam. Ale o tym później.

"A co z tym jezykiem slaskim? Gdzie to znalazles?"

Dane przeniosłem z pl.wikipedii. Wiem, że ten język był nieoficjalny, lecz infobox ma w kodzie wpisane "Official" (czego nie ma na pl.wikipedii) i stąd te komplikacje. Nie mniej jednak poprawiłem - wpisałem adnotacje Non official. PS. Czeski również wtedy nie był oficjalnie uznawanym językiem w województwie.

Mam do Ciebie propozycję, utwórz proszę tabelę z miastami i powiatami tak jak jest w artykule lecz z twoimi danymi. Dane są znacznie bardziej czytelne dzięki tabeli. Tabelę wprowadź w brudnopisie lub w mojej dyskusji lub po prostu w dyskusji artykułu. Jeśli będzie wszystko OK to podmieni się tabele w artykule na twoje dane. Nie mam nic przeciwko. LUCPOL 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It must be said that Czech language ceased to be official in Zaozie area after 1938 annexation of Zaolzie by Poland. It was forbidden to use it officially. - Darwinek 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

LUCPOL I said I would leave it to you, so please... Just remember - use some brains while editing Tymek 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tymek. Wpisz swoje dane w tabelki "miasta" i "powiaty" tak jak jest w artykule. Dla mnie wszystko jedno czy to będą dane z pl.wikipedii czy twoje, byle by były to dane uporządkowane w tabelach. LUCPOL 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wszystkie dane sa w tym materiale ktory usunales. Nie widze sensu szukac w Roczniku Statystycznym i wklepywac to od nowaTymek 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nie zrozumiałeś mnie. Chodzi o to, aby te twoje dane wpisać w tabele: "miasta" oraz drugą tabelę "powiaty". LUCPOL 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

LUcpol prosze Cie... w jaki sposob Austria dostala po 3. Powstaniu Slaskim czesc Gornego Slaska? Skad bierzesz takie rewelacje? Tymek 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Racja, mój błąd. Mój angielski nie jest biegły, myślałem że chodzi o to, że tereny Górnego Śląska były cały czas podzielone pomiędzy kraje (i dlatego dopisałem Austrię), teraz rozumiem że w tekście chodzi tylko o autonomiczne województwo śląskie. Mój błąd już poprawiłem. LUCPOL 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Zrobiłem tabele według twoich danych. Tabele (moje i twoje) oraz dyskusja ich dotycząca jest tutaj. LUCPOL 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wprowadziłem dane Tymka do tabel i zapisałem w artykule. Choć istnieje mały bałagan dotyczący dat (1931, 1939) to jednak ustępuję Tymkowi. Tu jest nowa wersja artykułu: . Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL 10:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

LUCPOL to nie sa moje dane, to sa oficjalne dane z Rocznika Statystycznego za rok 1939. Nie chodzi o to zeby mi ustapic tylko aby podawac informacje mozliwie 100% prawdziwe. Akurat w tym wypadku zrodla z ktorego cytuje nie mozna podwazyc. Balagan bierze sie stad ze drugi i jednoczesnie ostatni spis ludnosci Polski ogloszony zostal bodaj 9 grudnia 1931 r. Po tym czasie az do wojny zadnego spisu nie zrobiono, tak wiec dane demograficzne oparte sa na nim. Dane dotyczace obszaru powiatow i miast podane sa za rok 1939 poniewaz jak wiadomo po aneksji Zaolzia powierzchnia tego wojewodztwa zwiekszyla sie o powiat frysztacki plus znacznie zwiekszono cieszynski Tymek 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As Balcer has suggested, I am going to seperate some voivodeships, to emphasize the span of time (interwar period only). I started off here Pomeranian_voivodeship_(1919-1939). Please check it out and let me know what you think of it. Also, add any stuff which I have not included Tymek 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I need someone to help me out and create a map of Polesie Voivodeship. Tymek 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish minorities

We could use a naming convention to unify the articles about Polonias who currently use two naming conventions: Polish-somethings and Polish minority in...

• Polish American (note singular)
• Polish Australian (note singular)
• Polish Brazilian (note singular)
• Polish Canadians (note plural)
• Polish Germans (note plural)

vs

• Polish minority in the Czech Republic
• Polish minority in Lithuania
• Polish minority in Romania
• Polish minority in the Soviet Union
• Polish minority in United Kingdom (or should it be Polish minority in the United Kingdom?)

I'd suggest renaming all articles from the first group to 'Polish minority in...' variant, or consider renaming all of them to Polish Misplaced Pages style 'Polonia in...'. Also, personally I think that the term Polish-something - like Polish American - can and is also used to people of American descent living in Poland, or at least is close enough to be confusing. PS. There are some interesting articles missing about Polish minorities numbering 100 000+ (according to pl:Polonia: Polish minority in Argentina (450 000), Polish minority in France (1 050 000), Polish minority in Italy (100 000), Polish minority in Russia (300 000), Polish minority in Ukraine (900 000), Polish minority in Belarus (900 000), Polish minority in Kazakhstan (100 000)...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as for the RC, the name I used here is used officially by both sides. Also, if you would call the Pole from the RC "Polish-Czech" (polski Czech) you would be probably punched in the face by him :). I support the idea to rename it to "Polish minority in ...". - Darwinek 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deutschland

Our German "friend" is back. Check out his latest wise move: . - Darwinek 10:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Catherine Karina Chmiel

This article (about a painter) is currently on VfD. Could someone take a look? TIA Pavel Vozenilek 11:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Magdalena Trzebiatowska - one more painter on AfD.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

More: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jacek Yerka, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Katarzyna Kozyra. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Polanski?

A few days ago, the article on Roman Polański was moved to Roman Polanski after a discussion in which no Polish editors took part. I wish to call your attention to this fact and to state that I strongly believe it should be moved back to Polański (unless it can be shown he has legally changed his name). What say you? Biruitorul 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was a discussion on that... at least I thought I asked somewhere somebody for sources on n vs ń in this case. In either case, I suggest comparing popularity of those two variants, as well as which is preffered by the subject, and acting on the basis of hard data.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

There is currently a project designed to change ugly and monumental infobox for Polish cities. See talk page here. Your ideas are welcomed. - Darwinek 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hussars

I would like to direct the attention of this notice board to the Hussar article. As I have mentioned several times in its talk page, the article is in a state of disarray, due to the fact that it describes two vastly different formations, with different equipment and tactics - which have the misfortune of sharing the same name in English. I propose to split the article, perhaps with cross references. However, I have both little experience in Misplaced Pages and little knowledge (not to mention little time) to conduct this correctly. Anybody up for this?

PS. Thanks for the notice, Appleseed :). Miki 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree tbat this page needs attention, and the cavalry and modern hussars should be split. Also, I believe we should work on the Polish Hussars which I believe presents a notable enough distinct formation to deserve its own article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Montelupich prison

Can you help me with this article? --Umedard 21:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For starters, is pl:Dom Włoski w Krakowie the same as Montelupich prison?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of control list

After more recent additions (such as Scarlett Johansson, Richard Feynman, and Adrian Brody), it has come to my attention that List of Polish Jews has gotten completely out of hand. I had tried to add warning notices and they have been removed. Can somebody please open up a vote for inclusion type thing like was established ] on List of Poles and participate in it? LeszekB 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Be bold. Since the article is already semi-protected I propose the deleation of all unsourced "polish-jews", and asking some administrators to take care of this list so that unsourced "jews" are not added again. Unfortunatly this list is a honeypot for all people with a WP:POINT to make. Mieciu K 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not anonymous users who keep adding these names with poor excuses. It is registered users. I don't think there's any way to break through. A small group of them have a virtual monopoly on the list, and it's growing with constantly more ridiculous additions with either poor sources, no sources, or sources that just say some ancestor of the person was from Poland and Jewish. LeszekB 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Talking about lists, list of Poles is a giant mess, too. I once suggested it should be burned, salted and replaced with User:Piotrus/List of Poles, and we should have strict criteria what other publications (other than Polski Słownik Biograficzny) guarantee inclusion in that list (personally I find such list useless, categories do a better job anyway).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, burn it down. - Darwinek 20:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Even if it's accurate, a list like that is too big to be useful. Appleseed (Talk) 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, AfD consensus? I can see a point in smaller lists, or lists with clear criteria (list of Poles according to PSB like mine) but this... brrr. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems we have already reached the consensus, so screw AFD. - Darwinek 20:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I am afraid we need 1) more time - 3 people in few hours is not a consensus yet and 2) AFD is the procedure, unless you can think of a good reason to speedy this... Plus if we can AFD this maybe we can afd similar monstrosities related to other nationalities (or ethnic groups, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too. IMHO we should make something similar to Lists of Jews. Jacek Kendysz 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Or just a category would do? I'm all for that. But how can we justify having a massively messy List of Polish Jews and no List of Poles? LeszekB 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Polish Jews is less messy than List of Poles :) For that list my vote is 'delete all non-referenced entries, live referenced ones'. Although honestly it is a good candidate for catetorization and deletion, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not that simple though. Some of them are sourced, but sourced with a link saying someone's grandmother was a Jew from Poland and that somehow legitimatizes the addition because a small note on the list is interpreted as meaning "This list can have everyone with some Polish-Jewish heritage." At least List of Poles consists of people actually BORN in Poland and knowing the Polish language (save maybe some overlooked additions). Look at the politicians section of List of Polish Jews. LeszekB 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as List of Poles is concerned, there should be some criteria upon which this list should be based. I wrote in comments to this article that adding such world-renowned personalities as Natalia Kukulska simpy does not make any sense (unless we want to end up with a list consisting of, say, 5,000 names). If Natalia (or Kasia Kowalska) is there, how about adding all football players of Arka Gdynia, all musicians of Papa Dance and all politicians of Platforma Obywatelska. After all, they are all Poles Tymek 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. As far as I am concerned the only reasonable solution is to rely on some external criteria 'notable because noted in a publication', and we have a rather perfect solution for that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we can get this established pretty easily by holding an RFC or something, and getting a consensus on it. From the looks of it, everyone here would probably support the use of the Polski Słownik Biograficzny as the only standard by which to define someone as a Pole. Open up a RFC and lets have a vote. Only thing is, it needs to be made very clear that if someone is not in the Polski Słownik Biograficzny they cannot be added to any list that includes Poles or "Polish" in the title --- including List of Poles, List of Polish writers, List of Polish Jews et c. LeszekB 12:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Playing the devil's advocate, there are few issues to consider. First: PSB is not complete (up to around Sz) and it is not supposed to be complete for about 20 years (sic!). I'd think we can solve this by agreeing to include entries from recognized encyclopedias (we should have a list) that mentioned somebody along with his (Polish, obviously) nationality. Second, we need to discuss whether this criteria should apply to other Lists of Polish whatevers and Category:Polish people with its subcats (I'd tentativly say yes).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree, generally, lists like these make a problem. On a related note, there were some Polish names on List of Ukrainians that did not really belong there (BTW, a user was blocked for pushing that). Now we had another one who apparently likes lists and e.g. added Adam Rotfeld (born 1938 in Lviv, then Lwow). I found it offending the common sense (see his bio or the related talk page). I spent several kB to argue for more accuracy and I have enough (for the moment Rotfeld is not there; I withdraw anyway). Probably we need there more eyes, since it is possible that there are a few more inaccurate entries. --Beaumont (@) 10:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there's too much talk and way less do. The following 9 points of criteria were taken from an old vote on inclusion for List of Poles. Now, we can vote to apply certain ones for all lists and categories of Poles associated with the country of Poland (meaning anything from Category:Polish logicians to List of Polish painters to List of Polish Jews, but not Polish-American or Polish-Brazilians because they are associated with another country). If anyone wants to add another criteria or adjust one, do so. Vote Support or Oppose for each. This vote can be used as evidence of consensus. LeszekB 06:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1. People born in Poland or immigrants to Poland’s territory including periods when Polish territory was occupied by other countries – Partitions and wars.

2. People born in current Polish territory in times when the place was not in Poland in relevant period. E.g. Wrocław or Szczecin in times of Partitions.

3. People born to Polish emigrants – at least one parent of Polish ethnicity, but without any evidence that they spoke Polish etc.

4. People born to Polish emigrants – at least one grand parent of Polish ethnicity, without evidence as above.

5. People who have any connection to Polish ethnicity, even one ancestor many generations back, or only alleged connections. E.g. Friedrich Nietzsche, John Kerry.

6. People whose connection to Polish ethnicity is not confirmed but they have Polish surnames, or whose surnames may seem Polish. E.g. Howard Scott Warshaw, Andy Warhol, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Paul Mazursky, Adrien Brody, Robert Siodmak, Zeev Suraski, Sergei Sakhnovski, and all the list of American football players, and wrestlers with Polish surenames .

7. Anyone who is widely recognised by majority of Poles as a famous Pole.

8. Anyone listed in the Polski Słownik Biograficzny

9. Any naturalized citizen.

T-26 FAC

This article is currently a featured article candidate (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/T-26), could someone write a (sourced) paragraph evaluating the use of these tanks during the Polish defensive war (1939), the author somehow belives that soviet campaign was a failure(?) and T-26 tanks were in part somehow responsible for that. Mieciu K 17:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I raised those issues in the FAC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Koziegłowy

I've moved town Koziegłowy to Koziegłowy (Silesian Voivodeship). It is only town with that name, but it has only 2,493 inhabitants. Village with that name, in Greater Poland (the biggest village in Poland) has 10,755 inhabitants, so its ca. 4 times biger. Radomil talk 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good move, I had no idea about the relative significance of these places. Balcer 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Name of powiat?

Could someone assist me with the name of the powiat directly East of the Warszawski Zachodni powiat? Thanks! Rarelibra 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the city of Warsaw. See Masovian Voivodeship. Olessi 20:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking HERE and it wasn't too helpful. Rarelibra 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion and repatriation

There is a strong pressure to describe the Expulsion of the Germans as a crime. At the sama time some poeple promote the idea of the Repatriation of Poles from Wilno region as an act of historical justice. I believe that this Misplaced Pages should be integral, ie. either all forced expulsions after WWII are wrong or all forced expulsions are good. Now I'm bashed both by Germany fans and Lithuania fans. Xx236 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

An example: removed from this board by the original poster

Let everyone read the text, why to be ashamed? Xx236 15:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the text is worth reading http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html as an example of Lithuanian academic quality. The problem is, that many Germans also opted for repatriation, many of them weren't allowed to emigrate. It wasn't always simple to be expelled. Xx236 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Repatriation as we all know means "returning to one's homeland". I cannot comprehend why some people up to this day call expulsions of Poles from Lwow or Wilno "repatriation". Homes of these unfortunate beings had for hundreds of years been in Eastern Borderlands, so theoretically speaking, if some of them now return from Wroclaw to their hometown of Lwow - now this is repatriation Tymek 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Poles were forced to leave Kresy (includiing Wilno), there are plenty of refs for that. I agree with Xx that both of these events should presented as without trying to 'whitewash' them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The original poster accuses me of spreading lies. One should prove first, that the expulsion was a repatriation, which is rather impossible. Is there a serious Lithuanian here, to explain to the original poster that he could be more polite? The shouting doesn't make him more right. Xx236 13:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I told that you were lying about: At the sama time some poeple promote the idea of the Repatriation of Poles from Wilno region as an act of historical justice. Could you support this great accusation of yours with any diffs, or would you be willing to apologize?

As about repatriation you might read the article, link to which I did provide. If you do not like what is written there, please provide any academic sources disputing this event or proving that repatriation/evacuation/moving of those people was done by force. And please be specific - we are talking about Lithuanian SSR - not the whole Kresy, not Ukraine and not Belarus. Academic sources please, not newspapers or some website by patriotic authors.--Lokyz 13:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming that the Poles were repatriated. I haven't started the discussion and I haven't accused you of spreading lies, rather of lack of knowledge and radical nationalism. A reader can check the Vilnius University talk page. Xx236 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps

Welcome, on Commons (here) are good location maps of cities in Poland. It will be great to change current maps in enWiki to these. Regards. Yarl.pl talk 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also the rather interesting commons:Atlas of Poland. Also, it would be a good idea to move all maps from Category:Maps of Poland to commons.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ponary massacre carried by... Poles

If we were to believe some users, yes. Please see Talk:Ypatingasis būrys#Poles and Russians in YB?, and if you can read Lithuanian, please help verify and translate the source used to back up this preposterous claim.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Things not always were as you would like to see them. And your tendency to use fancy words won't help here. Here is exact line, and translation . Have good day.--Lokyz 15:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jan of Ryczywol

Anyone know who this medieval person is? I have a WP:RS I've been using from 1903 for anti-Judaism which mentions that "in Poland Pope Gregory XI stopped the crusade of Jan of Ryczywol." But I can't find a mention of this person anywhere else in English. Are there perhaps alternate spellings I'm missing? -- Kendrick7 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Are you sure that person is notable? The only Jan Ryczywół I could find is a person linked to the legend of the stolen chastices from Poznań.Mieciu K 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Possibly not, the author may have been grasping at straws. Pope Gregory XI had a fairly short reign to begin with. I'll probably end up removing it as spurious. Just wanted to make sure this Jan wasn't someone infamous in the Polish realm. -- Kendrick7 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Um, a 1903 source is not the one I'd think of as reliable... I cannot find any reference for that, neither, and besides, in 1903 there was technically no Poland... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This would have been the 1300s, when the Kingdom of Poland existed. It's just odd as the source has been otherwise perfectly reliable, but any fuller history here seems to have fallen thru the cracks. -- Kendrick7 02:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I was under the impression we were talking about a person from 1903, too. I will look into that, but I think the pl link Mieciu found is most useful. Note it is a legend... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)