Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive5

---

Polish Wikipedians Notice board
| Talk Archive 1 | Talk Archive 2 | Talk Archive 3 | Talk Archive 4 | Talk Archive 5

---

RfA

It may be of interest to some Polish Wikipedians to know that Alex Bakharev has been re-nominated for adminship. Please, participate.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Homolka = Gomułka

Dear established Polish editors!

Homolka is a Polish name because it’s similar to Gomułka. It’s a well sourced self-proving fact, and even the Bohemian Homolka dynasty cannot change it. Therefore a Karla Homolka – the Canadian serial killer is a 100% ethnic Pole. Aaron Kosminski, another serial killer though from England, born a Polish Jew somewhere in half of 19th century in the Russian Pale, was actually an ethnic Pole born to Catholic parents who baptised him Aaron, because… YES! because it was trendy in their neighbourhood. No less than 53 American boxers, wrestlers and American football players are all famous Poles because they have perfectly Polish sounding surnames. Andy Warhol was a Pole like every decent Ruthenian born in Slovakia. Those hateful people who didn’t have enough courtesy to choose names with “ski” suffix are no longer on the list. So Brzechwa, Tuwim, Leśmian had to go. But don’t worry, the list of famous Poles is today longer than ever, and every day more and more new pleasant Polish surnames comes. Those and many other awesome facts you can learn from the article List of Poles and it’s talk.

Now, if you think that I lost my mind, you’re probably right. So, please, save my sanity and VOTE!!! Talk:List_of_Poles#Voting.

To była reklama!

Seriously though, of course you’re welcome to vote as you wish. I just prefer to have a clear consensus whatever way than keep the senseless discussion there.--SylwiaS | talk 09:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ouch and tnx for spotting this. To all who have not yet visited this page: do so! We seem to have a 'hijacker' (troll?), going by User:Informationguy, who seems bent on, well, creating his own defintion of 'Pole'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Michel Foucault at Warsaw University

There's been a search on for a free use photo to illustrate our featured article Michel Foucault since last May. It strikes me that it might be relatively easy to find something from Foucault's brief stay at Warsaw University in 1958 published without a clear copyright notice; if so, then Template:PD-Poland would apply.--Pharos 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy to find it if someone republished one of the pictures lately, but I didn't find any. The only place which for sure has all the old newspapers is our National Library [1]. You can email them at the address: biurozam@bn.org.pl It would be good to know the exact date of his visit to help them find a relevant paper. They can make a digital photo at request for 7 złoty = about $2.--SylwiaS | talk 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing online - I searched the Polish net a few days ago and came back blank.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The number of Poles murdered by Soviet Union

Does anybody have an idea where I could find number of Poles that were murdered by SU during WW2 ? --Molobo 12:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting. --Ghirla | talk 13:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What so disgusting about it? The fact, that Soviets have murdered few hundreds thousand of Polish citizens?

Na Talk:World War II casualties Bernd122 podaje:

       Estimated losses -Soviet occupation-400,000 (including Poles in Soviet Army as
       well as Soviet terror) 
       
       Estimated losses -UPA terror-100,000-Poles massacred by Ukrainian forces.       

Opiera sie na: Both articles appeared in the Polish Journal Dzieje Najnowsze # 2- 1994

Czesław Łuczak - Szanse i trudności bilansu demograficcznego Polski w latach 1939-1945

Krystyna Kersten- Szacunek strat osobowych w Polsce Wschodniej Szopen 13:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Nawiasem mowiac starty podawane kiedys byly mocno zawyazone. Np dosc popularnie przyjmowano jeden milion deportowanych, co uleglo rewizji dopiero niedawno, po otwarciu archiwow w Rosji Szopen 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

North European Gas Pipeline

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/North_European_Gas_Pipeline It would be nice if somebody would look at this article.Explanations as to the nature of Central European objections to the projects are constantly deleted by users Ghirlandajo and Voyevoda(who declares his mission in Wikipedia is to correct the one-sided view of history maintained by Poles throughout the Wikipedia.) I don't want to violate 3RR so all help in making the article objective and presenting Central European opinion is welcomed. --Molobo 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, you've been told zillion times that invitations to revert warring are frowned upon. Please behave yourself. --Ghirla | talk 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Ghirlandajo do not assume bad faith, I am only inviting other contributors to work on the article for it to become objective. --Molobo 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Slavic mythology redux

There are some refreshing proposals on Talk:Slavic mythology. Everyone is welcome to comment. --Ghirla | talk 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, proposal is good, and what especially needed are now some volunteers with at least some knowledge of the subject to carry out the work. Unfortunately I know almost nothing about this particular area.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Tuchel heath

I just stumbled upon the (unreferenced, created by anon) stub Tuchel heath, which is supposedly "the scene of the Polish cavalry attack in which a mounted unit of the Polish forces rode its horses against German panzers in 1939". I was under the impression that was a myth. Could someone with more expertise in this area take a closer look at it? Appleseed (Talk) 16:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A Bogus. I've nominated it for deletion. --_Lysy^talk 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In an incident that has been alluded to ad nauseam for the past 67 years, a Polish cavalry unit entered German infantry positions and inadvertently found itself confronting German armor. When the Germans subsequently showed the aftermath to Italian journalists, the myth was born. It has ever since been exploited by those who wish to ridicule Poles and things Polish, especially in Germany and the United States. It definitely was not Polish military doctrine to send cavalry against tanks.

While we're at it, another myth: that the Polish Air Force was wiped out on the ground by the Luftwaffe in the first hours of September 1, 1939. The Polish Air Force existed until the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland on September 17, 1939. (Some pilots flew their planes to Romania.) logologist|Talk 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the article, it should be corrected and the fallacy explained. It still seems to be an unfortunately common belief, and the only way to disprove the myth is by explaining publicly why it is false. Olessi 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The myths are already explained in Polish September Campaign. Appleseed (Talk) 17:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No, what I meant is that this name seems to be completely out of the blue. I may be wrong, though. Anyone heard of it ? --_Lysy^talk 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon further research, "Tuchel Heath" is the same as Tuchola Forest (Bory Tucholskie, Tucheler Heide). The myth of the Polish cavalry charge at the Battle of Krojanty is already discussed at Polish cavalry#Cavalry charges and Nazi propaganda. I am not sure if Krojanty is considered part of the Tuchola Forest, but Chojnice and Tuchola look fairly close on a map. Based on this information, "Tuchel Heath" should redirect to "Tuchola Forest", and links to Krojanty or the Polish cavalry pages should be added to "Tuchola Forest". Olessi 18:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job, I think I was a bit too quick to jump with my VfD. Anyway, why would anyone want a link from Tuchola Forest to Battle of Krojanty ? It seems almost like making a link from Europe to Tuchola Forest. --_Lysy^talk 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If some people think that "Tuchel Heath" (Tuchola Forest) was the site of a Polish cavalry charge against tanks, then it seems a good idea to link to an article describing what actually happened. How expansive is Tuchola Forest? Would the Battle of Krojanty be considered as having been fought within its confines? Olessi 20:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather move the article to Tuchel heath myth or Tuchel charge myth or if they are invented, unused terms to Polish cavalry charging tanks myth (any other suggestions?), redirect Tuchel heath to Tuchola Forest and add a see also or para about this to the relevant articles that don't have a mention of this event yet (starting with Tuchola Forest probably).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO this article is just a poor cousin of the article on battle of Krojanty, not to be confused with the battle of Tuchola Forest that happened the following days. A mergeto and redirect seem a decent option to me. Halibutt 12:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Półkozic Coat of Arms

There is currently a link to Rawa at Półkozic Coat of Arms; would I be correct in assuming it should be linked to Rawa Mazowiecka? Also, you might want to take a look at the promising work of the new contributor Lucasm at Żnin. Olessi 07:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Polish friends! (about Jan Dlugosz)

I just want to notify you that I have purchased The Annals of Jan Dlugosz, in order to have access to the important sources on Romanian history, however, if someone is in need of sources on Polish history between 965 to 1480, let me know and I'll try to find out. The book is translated in English, which is great if you need relevant references. I will be busy for a few days with writing on Moldavian history articles, but I should be available for next week. --Anittas 11:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, my Romanian friend. You might have saved the expense you bemoaned, because Dlugosz is a very unreliable source who perpetrated a number of fantasies invented either by himself or others. See Lada and Lado for one thing. You'd better purchase some more recent and serious historian. Next time, before making such decisions, just ask me :) --Ghirla | talk 11:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, Dlugosz is not more or less reliable than any other XV century old historian. He has access to the sources we have not access to. He is quite reliable source, but you must remember he is not the oracle, he has made mistakes, but he is as reliable as any other XV century historian Szopen 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I needed the sources to enrich my articles on Moldavian history. Some of his writings are exclusive in history. Many sources from different chronicles are exagerated or fantasies, but one can try to seperate what is accurate from what is false. Herodotus is called the father of history, but he is also called the father of lies. He was ridiculous in his theories of the sun, but his content is, nontheless, priceless. --Anittas 11:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare Herodotus with Dlugosz. Just don't take everything he writes for granted, and everything will be OK. --Ghirla | talk 11:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't either. Herodotus traveled a lot and interviewed many people, while Dlugosz was more settled. And yeah, it's always best to compare different sources. --Anittas 11:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But you have just compared them :) sure, Herodotus is more famous, but Długosz is more important if one is studying Polish history. As Szopen writes, history then was not as reliable as today, as Ghirla notes it mixed with fables and stories. But for good or worse, this is the level of sources we get from that period - there is simply nothing better (in books). Anittas, I'd appreciate it if you could use the book you have now to expand the pitful stub on Długosz, and perhaps create an entry for the Annales themselves?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming

See Talk:Polish Biographical Dictionary for an ongoing book-naming discussion, and see Talk:Four Tank Men And A Dog for my related new question about tv series/films naming.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Timespan for Category:Polish nobility

I wonder if 12th century persona's like Agnes of Babenberg should be counted in that category. Especially as we seem to have a distinction between earlier Category:Polish knights and Category:Polish nobility, I'd rather see all personas from before 15th century moved to some other category then Polish nobility. Or perhaps we should go the other way around: move all 15th century nobles into a Category:Szlachta? This is a tricky question, related to the 'when did szlachta became a distinct class, and what were it's predecessors (możni?)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of creatin a Category:Polish royalty for wives of Polish kings, some elected kings and others who would not really classify as Polish nobility = szlachta but had equal status and lived in Poland? Like Agnes from the above para, or Cecylia Renata...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We already have Category:Polish queens consort and Category:Polish monarchs. Appleseed (Talk) 22:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid they don't solve majority of our problems. For convinience, I'll ist problematic entries below (I might have missed a few):--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Bezprym, Bogusław XIV of Pomerania, Boleslaus George II of Masovia, Bolesław I the Tall, Bolesław II the Bald, Bolesław II the Bold, Bolesław III Wrymouth, Bolesław IV the Curly, Bolesław V the Chaste, Casimir IV of Pomerania, Henryk I the Bearded, Henryk II the Pious, Henryk III the White, Henryk IV Probus, Kazimierz I the Restorer, Kazimierz II the Just, Konrad I of Masovia, Leszek I the White, Leszek II the Black, Mieszko III the Old, Mieszko IV Tanglefoot, Władysław I Herman, Władysław II the Exile, Władysław III Spindleshanks, Zbigniew of Poland - not kings, but not common nobles. I suggest moving them to Category:Rulers of Poland, and using a {{Euro-royal-stub}} instead of {{Poland-noble-stub}} (or we can create a {{Poland-royal-stub}} if you want. I don't think that Category:Polish heads of state would fit them (it contains Piłsudski only ATM).
• Family of rulers, they would fit really well into Category:Polish royalty:
  • Alexander Charles Vasa, Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Opole and John Albert Vasa - sons of Zygmunt III Waza. Need renaming. Together with Catherine Jagiellon, 16th centiry, daughter of Zygmunt I Old, married outside Poland (also consider if she should be renamed as per Talk:List of Polish monarchs).
  • Anna of Masovia - 16th century. Piast dynasty - are they nobility? Needs references, plus possible renaming to Anna z Mazowsza. Another candidate for Polish royalty category, I think.
  • Gertrude of Poland, 11th century, daughter of Polish king, married outside Poland - as above
  • Rikissa of Poland - 12th century, daughter of Bolesław III, married outside Poland
  • Cymburgis of Masovia 14th century, Piast line, married outside Poland
• Chościsko, Piast, Popiel, Siemowit, Siemomysł, Rzepicha - semi-legendary Piasts. Category:Legendary rulers of Poland for all of them perhaps? Saul Wahl could join them in that category as well. Note that the confusion here is caused again by the misuse of {{Poland-noble-stub}}
• Sigrid the Haughty - legendary 10th century possibly Slavic princes?? I am not sure what do to with her, but Category:Legendary people seems better for her then Category:Polish noblity, really
• consorts of Polish rulers (but not kings):
  • Agnes of Babenberg, 12th century, born outside Poland, married Łokietek (duke, not a king)
  • Elizabeth Lacković, 15th century, born outside Poland, married to some Dukes of fragmentation period
• Ruthenians and such - are they 1) Polish nobility 2) Polish rulers 3) Polish royalty 4) or not Poles at all?
  • Anna of Byzantium, 13th century, born in Byzantium, married to Kievan prince, I honestly don't see what's her connection to Poland is one way or another
  • Lubart - 14th century, King of Galicia, like Anna of Byzantium he seems more Ruthenian then Polish
  • Mindowhowna - another Ruthenian queen
  • Svarn - another Ruthenian
  • Jurij I of Halicz ?
• Germanized/Russified/other people who seem to have lost any connection to Poland beyond some of their ancestors being born there:
• Elfi von Dassanowsky/Robert von Dassanowsky - 20th century Germans, with ancestors in Poland...
• Ludwig zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg - Russian aristocrat of German descent - need more be said?
• Vladislav Khodasevich - Polish ancenstry, but was he Polish (nobility)?
• Trubchevsky/Trubetsky families:
  • Vladimir Waloc Trubetsky - while Trubetsky article states some members of the family lived in Poland in 17th century, it also states that by the end of it they have returned to Muscovy. Vladimir lived in 20th century - what was his connection to Poland??
  • Fyodor Nikitich Trubchevsky - same family as above, he died in 1608 before some of his descendants moved to Poland
  • Svyatopolk-Mirsky family
• Nikolai Ivanovitch Sviatopolk-Mirskii - 'considered himself a Russian'. Svyatopolk-Mirsky - were they really a member of Category:Polish noble families? This fragment After the Polish insurgents destroyed Sviatopolk-Mirskii estate (1831) really makes me doubht they were Poles..

They were Polish Szlachta that later found its Russian nobility more appealing (being granted a princely title), but they were certainly Polish szlachta. Interestingly, Mikołaj used the Białynia coat of arms which is Polish.--Milicz 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Other:

• Saint Casimir - should he be moved to Saint Kazimierz Jagiełło?
• Saint Hyacinth - should he be moved to Saint Hyacinth Odroważ?
• Stanislaus Kostka - another saint...

Shouldn't their naming convention not follow the same rules as that of Saint Raphael Kalinowski

I am still waiting for comments in this section... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent problems on Polish topics

It seems the user Jadger[2] is expanding his activity from Wola(where he kindly informed us about the fact that hospital patients murdered by Nazis were rebels).Anyway he now edits more articles concerning Poland.It would be nice for people to watch out for further cases. Also there is somebody using constant changing IP that edits Germanisation addding sentences like: As they can make a lot of money there, many Polish players run for Bundesliga-Teams nowadys instaed of playing football at home. The Polish contribuation is appreciated, as the Germans are amused by the pronouciation of the players' names. On the other hand Polish truckdrivers deliberately try to exterminate Germanic people by using the wrong side of the Autobahn as this happend yesterday in Hesse. Any help in protecting the article or trying to give sense to the person is welcomed. --Molobo 12:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The power of propaganda. First of all, of course, Jadger never ever claimed that "hospital patients murdered by Nazis were rebels" so don't throw that at him to play on the emotions of the users here. Except for you who accuses him of being a Neo Nazi, the discussion on Talk:Wola seems to be good. The funny fight you and the anon on Germanisation was started by you. You and another anon insisted on the sentence "Polish players in teams from Germanic countries face discrimination and insults as shown by the example of Dietmar Kühbauer who refused to hold an interview with Adam Ledwon, saying he "stinks of Poland"." for eight reverts. I told you twice that when you claim that sentence to be true, you also have to prove that every Polish player faces discrimination and that you're sillily generalising from one uncommon example that is even irrelevant to the context. Of course you didn't reply. Now the anon strikes back and makes fun of you insisting on the sentences about the road incident and "In 2005 the Germans persuad the Polish-born Pope John Paul II to die. In a quick reaction and by secret treaties the Germans have German-born Josef Ratzinger elected his successor as Benedict XVI. Another perfect example of Germanisation." It's interesting that you distorted the incident to the extent that you're the poor hero, fighting wholeheartedly against the vandalism of an anon, when in reality you injected nonsense into the article to push the POV and lead another person to do the same. If you don't believe me, check on it and try to stop the war. I won't have time for wiki right now anyway. Sciurinæ 11:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Official's naming

See Talk:Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - kanclerz or Chancellor (Poland)? Btw, for those opposed to voivodeship who want to change it into a province, how do you propose to rename voivode? :D Provincial? ;p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Kanclerz" translates into English as "chancellor"; "wojewoda" — as "governor." logologist|Talk 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Then what about "gubernator"?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Context? logologist|Talk 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Voivodship" is a common, accepted term--I'm surprised anyone wants to get rid of it. Although it may be equivalent to "governor", it has a different origin and history. I vote to keep it (along with "voivod", of course). Appleseed (Talk) 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody take some time and translate information from IPN

On Salomon Morel article ? http://www.ipn.gov.pl/odd_oboz_swiet_morel.html I don't have time.And the article was filled with bizarre statements.For example they named Armia Ludowa as Polish Police officers and fascists. --Molobo 01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

transport in Poland by foot

I've removed the text below from the transport section in the Poland article. While it is quite funny, I'm not sure that it is encyclopedic, and I think it probably reflects original research. It is however an entertaining read.

*Foot: The furthest distance between two points in Poland is between Świnoujście and a point 15km South-East of Wołosate. It is possible to walk this distance in 27 days, 8 hours and 15 minutes. A shorter journey time can be achieved by not taking a day off to purchase more durable clothing in Kalisz and by not being laid up with a stomach virus in a hotel in Frysztak for another day. It must be pointed out that the last 10km of the journey are not strictly speaking publicly accessible land, although it is possible to gain access to it subject to verbal authorisation from the border patrols. The consequence of this is that any two places in Poland are within walking distance if there is a month available for the journey.

-- Adz|talk 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And it's not the 1st of April yet... WP:BJAODN?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

yep, I've already put it there. see here -- Adz|talk 00:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Problematic user

We've got new Polish trouble making user, known for his "actions" also on pl:wiki. Take wach on LUCPOL/SZPANER (e.g. his behavior in Talk:Poland and article it self. Radomil talk 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I have to give a credid where due: [3]. As far as POV pushing goes, this is pretty good :) Lol. I suggest keeping it with a proper caption explaining the stereotype of a 'Polish horse agriculture'. Some statistics how many horses are used in Poland now comapred to some past data would be nice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments welcome

Polish-Russian dispute at Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dziwny user

[[4]]-koncentruje swoje edyty na Prusach zarówno państwowych jak i grupie etnicznej. Byłbym wdzięczny gdyby ktoś się przyjrzał-niektóre wyglądają na dziwny POV-jak na przykład że cała Polska była własnością Niemieckiego króla[5]. Mam też wrażenie że widzialem podobnego użytkownika kiedyś na wiki.Mógłby ktoś zerknąć okiem ? --Molobo 19:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Kochani, przecież to Helga, co nie poznajecie? Molobo, to było przed twoim przyjściem na WIKI, ale musiałeś chyba słyszeć o Heldze Jonat Hecht? Space Cadet 02:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Prawdę mówiąc to było i przed moim przyjściem. To ponoć jakaś super-pro-Niemiecka POV puszerka, zbanowana z en-wiki? Jakie są cechy charakterystyczne tego trolla?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Zbanowano ją bezsensownie, bo za Antysemityzm, co było nieporozumieniem i kretyństwem. Piotrusiu, przeczytaj dokładnie jej stronę, łącznie z jej wersją "historii" Prus i Polski [6], a będziesz miał wszystkie cechy charakterystyczne tej ciężko chorej (z nienawiści) osoby. Space Cadet 16:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Najnowsza

Perełka w kontrybucji o wspólnych dziejach na miarę artykułu o Woli

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wrzesnia Children that took part in the opposition were tried to be persuaded by Prussian teachers and punished as persuasion proved futile.

Ręce opadają...Ciekawe ile Polaków ukarano w GG za opór wobec perswazji... --Molobo 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, if you like to engage in a dialogue with me concerning this statement, just do it, for example, here. I'm sure that my summary is more accurate than yours. Not even the original text uses the word 'torture'. It makes me a bit sick that instead of trying to discuss, you've lately only tended to revert and get other persons (Space Cadet) to do the same. Sciurinæ 17:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How about the sentence by User:Sicherlich in the German-language Wikipedia: "Die zunehmende Germanisierung des Ortes stieß auf Widerstand der Einwohner. Großes Aufsehen erregte 1901 der Streik der Kinder gegen die Unterrichtung in deutscher Sprache. Der Streik breitete sich auf benachbarte Orte aus und führte auch zu Verhaftungen. Der Streik endete erst Ostern im Jahr 1904." (roughly translated as: the increasing Germanisation of the place met resistance with the residents. Great stir caused in 1901 the strike of the children against teachings in the German language. The strike spread over neighbouring places and also lead to arrests) ? Sciurinæ 18:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence speaks nothing about the brutal beatings and torture made upon the children.Or that parents trying to save their children were persecuted by Prussian officials. Molobo. Don't worry though I will simply translate information from the city's Polish homepage which has extensive description of the events. Molobo

W artykule o nazistowskiej organizacji Selbstschutz

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Selbstschutz Pojawiło się dwóch użytkowników z Niemiec usiłujących wykasować informacje o zbrodniczym charakterze tej organizacji. Proszę o pomoc. Molobo.

Suspicious Polish musical group

It was brought to my attention tht there is a large series of articles about a "Polish girl group" Nache. I noticed that 84.40.192.143 (talk · contribs) created a huge number of articles. Many of them look real. But "Nache" sounds really suspicious to me. Some of them, eg., Wokalistka grupy Nache Natalia claim enormous notability, but I failed to find any traces in the internet. One article says "Album have sell 700.000 copies" - it should be quite notable in Poland, then. Please verify. mikka (t) 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone sold 700,000 copies in Poland it would be called a miracle. There is 35,000 copies limit for Golden Album, 70,000 for Platinum one, and 350,000 for a Diamond one. Only 6 albums ever reached the Diamond level. Nache doesn't exist. Feel free to delete the series.--SylwiaS | talk 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest whacking the {{hoax}} tag on the article and questioning it's credibility on the talk page. If the author of the article doesn't substantiate their claims and provide sources then nominate it for AfD.

I googled it. I didn't check all of the hits, but over 100 first (about 20% of all). No mentioning about a group called like that. If they were at least a bit popular, they would have to be present on Polish websites. I also googled the word Nache together with Dziewczyny - the supposed bestseller, and checked all the hits. Nothing like that exists.--SylwiaS | talk 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nache. --Austrian 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy 200,000

Today Polish Wikipedia passed the 200,000 article mark. It is now the 4th largest Wikipedia, after English, German and French. Balcer 00:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Katyń FAC

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katyń massacre. I would expect this is going to generate some interesting discussion...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila vs. Jagiełło vs Jagiellon

Some renaming discussion has been going on at Talk:Władysław_II_Jagiełło#Jogaila_move, with one user moving the article twice (I proteced it from moves now until some consensus is reached). Please comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Rece opadaja. The guy is not listening to the arguments, he ignores the Wikipedia rules. And now he just said he wasted his time and withdrew. Perfect example of how to deal with Poles in action. Sometimes I though of mkaing the list of wikipedians, who adhere to this guide: I got three candidates already (and more, but I forgot the names of the others. Szopen 17:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is heating up, but perhaps something beneficial may come out of it. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers) has been reactivated, and see also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#.5B.5BJogaila_of_Lithuania.5D.5D.2F_.5B.5BW.C5.82adys.C5.82aw_II_Jagie.C5.82.C5.82o.5D.5D.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the guy will just go with anything which is not our proposal, so he's now ready to support Władysław II of Poland as a less polonocentric name! (sic!)

Piotr, could you propose one place for all the discussions and voting? I checked some of the ilinks, but they usually lead to others, and it seems that there are about 10 pages now where people discuss the naming of kings. I simply don't know where to comment now and to what, lol. Or maybe some pages should be simply merged, because there is your proposal on one talk page and the chart with various names of kings on another.--SylwiaS | talk 19:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

At the moment I think that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Polish rulers) is the place to propose and discuss old and new proposals for the entire naming scheme, and Talk:Władysław_II_Jagiełło#Jogaila_move is dedicated to the single, specific case of Władysław/Jogaila.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of anti-Polonism

There is a proposal to rename the article anti-Polonism to Polonophobia on the talk page. Please voice your support or objections. alx-pl D 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Democratic_peace_theory#Poland-Lithuania

A very interesting discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a recent, highly relevant article from Gazeta Wyborcza: [7] Balcer 18:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth

Seems like another hotspot: Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Other voices would be appreciated, as I don't want to revert Irpen, who is usually a reasonable contributor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)

Since the potential of this new discussion is to remove all diactrics (Polish letters) from the titles, I think it is something worth keeping an eye at.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ponowna próba

Wymazania informacji o zbrodniach popełnionych przez żółnierzy niemieckich podczas Kampanii Wrześniowej, tym razem w artykule: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/German_17th_Infantry_Division --Molobo 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been a recent attempt

To remove information about war crimes of Wehrmacht from the main article. I suggest moving it back again, you can discuss it here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Wehrmacht --Molobo 02:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1911 Britannica articles about Polish villages

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this, but I found some articles that need Polish editors: Siva1979 has been uploading lots of articles from the 1911 Britannica, including some on Polish villages that were written at a time when they belonged to Germany. These articles need to be updated (or better, rewritten from scratch). So far I found Sokolowsko and Szczawno Zdrój (well, I renamed that one, hopefully to the correct name). If I find more, what should I do with them? Kusma (討論) 04:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this matter to us, this is definetly the right place for such matters. You may report those articles here, or at Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements#Articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I took care of Sokołowsko. Maybe someone else can take Szczawno. Now it says: Szczawno Zdrój was formerly known as Salzbrunn, a watering-place of Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, at the foot of a well-wooded spur of the Riesengebirge, 30 m. S.W. of Breslau, by the railway to Halberstadt. LOL. Thanks Kusma!--SylwiaS | talk 06:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A general comment about the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: A few decades ago, it was sometimes described as the best edition of E.B. ever published. After 95 years, it is clearly often out-of-date. But what strikes me in the articles that have been imported from it into the Wikipedia is how opinionated — POV — it often is. It reeks of Edwardian smugness. If any of us wrote such an article today, it would immediately be challenged, thrown out or heavily revised. (I've done the latter in a number of cases, e.g. with "Stanisław August Poniatowski.") Material from the 1911 E.B. can be used, of course, but it must be done very judiciously. logologist|Talk 06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the prose in these real encyclopedias is very nice, and we would do well to emulate it. I hate to say it, but even many of the FA articles on WP sound like they were written by a high school student (or a committee of high school students :). Take a look at Columbia Encyclopedia's "Poland" article (especially the "History" section), and compare it to ours. Appleseed (Talk) 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

True. There seems to be a kind of "reverse snobbism" at work, whereby some feel that there is something precious or pretentious in expressing things precisely and concisely. It's often forgotten that there are differences between colloquial speech and formal written composition. logologist|Talk 15:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything as complex as this at works here - I'd rather bet it is a simple case of many people not being that fluent with writing, compounded by the number of people for whom English is not a primary language (like yours truly :).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A useful template in cases where information from 1911 Britannica is severely out of date is Template:1911POV. Balcer 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming mess

As we all well know, we have quite a few problems with naming. One issue which is fairly simple but will have a profound implications is whether we should use English or Polish names for non-geographical names and things. This bein English Wiki, I think it is obvious an English name is preferable to Polish. But what to do when English name does not exist or is rarely used? Should we apply the same rule of thumb as suggested in the discussed (please comment!) Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names? Consider a few examples below:--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Polish Biographical Dictionary or Polski slownik biograficzny?

2. Mold of the Earth or Pleśń świata?

3. Chancellor (Poland) or Kanclerz?

4. Council of Three or Rada Trzech?

5 Provisional Government of National Unity or Tymczasowy Rząd Jedności Narodowej?

1. Polski słownik biograficzny.

2. "Mold of the Earth."

3. Chancellor (Poland).

4. Council of Three (with parenthetical disambiguation, if required).

5. Provisional Government of National Unity (as in #4). logologist|Talk 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Logologist. I don't think we should translate Polish titles into English by ourselves. So if a book wasn't published in English we should stick to Polish title. One never knows what translators might do, like Die Hard = Szklana pułapka, so Polski słownik biograficzny might be Who is who in Poland. The same is with films on Imdb. They don't translate titles of Polish films if the films weren't shown in English speaking countries. The rest seems fine in English. I only never know what to do with names that have popular short forms, like KBW etc. BTW Are we going to vote on at least gmina vs. commune and powiat vs. county? Pleeeeease...--SylwiaS | talk 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then can we make our 'rule of thumb' being: if using English title, provide reference for where the title came from, otherwise use Polish name?

As for the gmina&friends vote, I'd suggest drafting a proposal (or several) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland and then inviting people from far and wide (including us) to vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we might make an official rule like that for titles of books, films, music albums etc. Does anyone know what people speaking other languages do in cases like that?--SylwiaS | talk 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). It allows for using both forms depending on what is more widely known in English. But I checked UK Amazon. There are 21 books [8] with Polski słownik biograficzny in their references. And the only one hit for Polish Biographical Dictionary gives the other book. Well, I would be surprised if scolars translated the titles by themselves just to give them in references, and they don't. So I assume that someone reading Davies' "Europe: A History" or Grell and Porter's "Toleration in Enlightenment Europe" will not be looking for Polish Biographical Dictionary, because how the person could know it's the title to look for? Unless we assume that all English speakers know Polish and can translate the title by themselves. Maybe you'd like to add the list of the books that use PSB as a reference to the article?--SylwiaS | talk 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Below is a list of more topics under Polish name that maybe should be moved to English, which I spotted when emptying Category:People's Republic of Poland (which is being replaced by Category:History of Poland (1945–1989).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• ZOMO (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_acronyms)
• Służba Bezpieczeństwa
• Ministerstwo Bezpieczeństwa Publicznego
• Milicja Obywatelska
• Korpus Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego
• Kopalnia Wujek
• Główny Zarząd Informacji Wojska Polskiego

Znowu smutny przypadek How to deal with Poles

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Bobby1011 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_deal_with_Poles Rule number six: As soon as discussion is started, ask them for sources. Don't worry when they will provide you sources, they will be most likely written by Polish authors. Tell them that Polish authors are known by their dishonesty and bias. Demand English sources. In most unlikely scenario when you will be presented with English sources, you still have a chance. If the dispute is about history of, say, Germany, demand German sources as they will most likely know about history of their own country (and Germans are not Poles, so they won't be biased). If this is dispute about history of Poland, demand a book written by some totally neutral author, say, Chinese. I piękny przykład.

• I already gave you a book published by Ministry of Education of the Republic of Poland. You are claiming it is original reasearch ?
• Of course I am

Eh...jak komuś się chce męczyć to zapraszam. --Molobo 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for the spelling of names of Polish rulers

It is a redirect page that is proposed to be deleted [9]. (Not the article, only the redirect.) I personally don't care, but if there are any reasons why it should stay or maybe be renamed, please, comment now.--SylwiaS | talk 22:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Powiat & Co Vote

Please, vote here [10]. BTW Where else I should announce it?--SylwiaS | talk 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (proposal section, and the talk page). Also, Wikipedia:Requests for comments or Wikipedia:Current surveys may attact more people.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks!--SylwiaS | talk 04:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus

We have a troll denying he was Polish. Usuall stuff, but some monitoring is needed before this vandal gives up and goes away.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Polszczyzna in Template:User pl

There is a dispute on which is the proper form of the text in the template. The options are:

1. Polszczyzna jest językiem ojczystym tego użytkownika.
2. Język polski jest językiem ojczystym tego użytkownika.

Here are the arguments in favour of the options that were collected so far:

1. Polszczyzna
   • In this way we avoid repetition of the word język which is considered to be a bad style.
2. Język polski
   • The word polszczyzna is a word from higer stylistic register which is appropriate in essays or novels, not for everyday informative language.
   • The short informative phrases, like the one in the template, tend to use "język polski" (in particular: none of the titles of Polish language dictionaries mentioned in the Merlin bookshop [11] category of Polish dictionaries uses the word "polszczyzna" whereas some use the phrase "język polski"; the subject in the Polish elementary schools is called "język polski").
   • The style guideline mentioned above is usually relaxed in texts of the technical kind so it is not absolute.
   • In the world of essay texts, the word "język" followed by an adjunct is very often used as repetition.
   • There are several cases where the word is used in a repetition even in texts in the higer register, see for instance some of them that can be found in Korpus Języka Polskiego Wydawnictwa Naukowego PWN: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

I would like to draw your attention to the matter as the template keeps changing since the first formulation "język polski" was changed to "polszczyzna" ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] - all consecutive edits). It would be really nice to fix the issue one way or another once and for good. Any additional remarks, arguments? alx-pl D 23:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that "polszczyzna" relates to the quality, rather than to the fact, of a person's use of the Polish language. Since quality is already addressed in the Polish-language template, the word "polszczyzna" constitutes a redundancy. In English, "Polish language" is an adquate and serviceable term for the purpose. Repetition is the lesser evil, and not uncommon in English, when clarity is at stake. logologist|Talk 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Polszczyzna" isn't maybe as often used as "język polski", but it's really nothing more than a synonym. I don't think it relates to the quality itself. There may be "piękna polszczyzna", "czysta polszczyzna", "łamana polszczyzna", "polszczyzna ludowa" etc. Similarly people speak "dobrze po polsku", "pięknie po polsku", or "kaleczą polski" etc. I personally like the word "polszczyzna" in the template, because I think we speak "coraz brzydziej po polsku". Anyhow, I used the link to Korpus Języka Polskiego from Alex and here are 96 examples of using the term "polszczyzna" [31]. Both sentences proposed above mean exactly the same, only that one of them breaks the rule of not repeating one word throughout three following sentences. We may simply replace it with Polski jest językiem ojczystym tego użytkownika., but I still like "polszczyzna" better.--SylwiaS | talk 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like 'polszczyzna'. My vote would be just for 'polski' as Sylwia suggested above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL I hope we're not going to vote over a sentence. Anyhow, if Alex is fine with "polski" instead of "język polski" then we can avoid the repetition and have a sentence in simple Polish :)--SylwiaS | talk 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Alx-pl! logologist|Talk 03:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, "polszczyzna" is a very beautiful higher register word (note the distinctive construction of the word, you cannot use the pattern to make up for instance Czech language or English language). The association with the higher register is so strong that whenever you use the word the message automatically becomes a message in the higher register (or the like) and this means that it is a bad style to use it in texts when the informative function is the primary function of the message. The use of "polszczyzna" in the template is more or less like the use of English tongue in the related "User en" template. The meaning is the same, but the register is different.

I think the solution with "polski" is very nice. Honours to SylwiaS. alx-pl D 08:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can use the pattern to form names of other languages, although it is not that popular as polszczyzna. My Czech language course used czeszczyzna a lot, same for my English tutor who used angielszczyzna. Also, Logologist is wrong in that polszczyzna is a purely informative term, without any meaning other than the name of the language. Otherwise the expression kiepska polszczyzna would mean bad good Polish language, which would be absurd. Anyway, I won't oppose polski, though I believe that such a change is for worse. Halibutt 13:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the point with "czeszczyzna" and "angielszczyzna" was wrong. Even the network dictionary of the Polish language mentions czeszczyzna and angielszczyzna. Still, the words are used rather rarely (czeszczyzna, angielszczyzna) compared to the forms with the word "język" (język czeski, język angielski). alx-pl D 14:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Request by Piotrus

Please guys, can you use the Portal:Poland/New article announcements? I find it really 1) helpful 2) interesting to know what has been created recently. I'd consider it a personal favour if you'd use that page...pretty please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Gdzie zgłosić

Używanie wobec mnie obrażliwego seksualnie języka? --Molobo 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to this? Personally, I would have never addressed you in this way; and I would't really agree with the rest of the first sentence, either. However, quickly deleting the question and rushing to your own folks lamenting about "sexual harassment" doesn't strike me as a very sovereign response, but as infantile, to put it mildly. It looks like you are accusing people of sexism as rashly as of anti-Polonism... --Thorsten1 22:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No not only this. --Molobo 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeśli ktoś

Działa na niemieckiej wiki, warto zmienić dość obrażliwy tekst o Polsce w artykule o Michniku: [32] Die zuvor sehr geschlossene polnische Opposition spaltete sich nach 1989 in zwei Flügel: Einen liberalen/intellektuellen pro-westlichen, für den Michnik, Tadeusz Mazowiecki oder auch Bronisław Geremek Symbolfiguren sind, und einen rechtspopulistischen, klerikalen, nationalistischen und tendenziell antisemitischen. Raczej dość niesłuszne dzielenie jest polityków w Polsce na tych liberałów podziwiających Geremka i Michnika i nacjonalistycznych antysemitów po drugiej stronie... --Molobo 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

English please. -Will Beback 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Even through this is a Polish notice board, I'd encourage everybody to follow Will's advice. Why exclude others?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This was Molobo's response to my hint that he can't really praise Józef Piłsudski's democracy and Wojciech Korfanty's heroism at the same time, considering their polar positions. Apparently he felt that denouncing me here was an apt response to this. I can't say I'm surprised. --Thorsten1 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not good at German and I find that somebody on German wiki claims Polish parties are divided between Mazowiecki on one side and nationalist clerical antisemites as disturbing.Hopefully some user with good German skills wil correct this. --Molobo 22:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody on the German Wikipedia is claiming this. The sentence says that Solidarity broke up in two groups shortly after 1989. It does not make the sweeping statement about "Polish parties", then or today, that you are reading into it. Whether this is something you accidentally stumbled upon while using the German wikipedia and misunderstood because of your bad German skills, or whether you were actively looking for stuff to denigrate me with and this was the best you could come up with, is anybody's guess.

Apart from that, de.wikipedia has many Polish contributers, some of them very active. The sentence you are referring to has been there since 2004, and so far none of them has found any fault with it. Which may not really prove much (as the long-lived Henryk Batuta hoax shows), but deserves being stated nevertheless. --Thorsten1 09:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Henryk Batuta

In case not everyone reads Wyborcza: [33]. The article Henryk Batuta in English Wiki is OK.--SylwiaS | talk 21:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - tnx :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting hoax, with a much more elaborate and affectionately created story than John Seigenthaler and the Kennedy assassination... Should such self-referential topics not be in the Wikipedia namespace, though? I feel that the article namespace should be about the "outside world", not about itself, although I would agree that the distinction is getting increasingly difficult to make. --Thorsten1 09:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Milionth topic

The millionth english wikipedia article is now less than 30 k away. The millionth article will probably get a lot of publicity so it would be a good idea if we tried to insert a well writen article on a polish topic as the 1 000 000 article. I know that the chances of achiving that are small but they are much bigger than during a lottery. Good luck Mieciu K 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I happen to be the surprized winner of the 500,000 article lottery. After learning about this I also learned that at this moment it was a period of frenetic activity: people were hastily dumping pokemon, towns, and other serial content in a semi-bot style. So the chances will be really slim, unless you stash a thousand of prefabricated article stubs, wait for the proper moment and dump them one per second. (I will no be surprized that this actually happened last time) mikka (t) 21:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to enjoy a good breeze

Of good old times:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/History_of_Poland_%281939%E2%80%931945%29

Among the points that will delighten you is the fact that Poland wasn't under Soviet control after 1945(it was an indepedent state), nor did she gain independence in 1989. I am waiting for the info about fascists AK... Cheers :) --Molobo 20:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate categories?

I am hard pressed to see the difference between Category:History of Poland (1939–1945) and Category:Military history of Poland during World War II. After some thought I think that 'Military...' should be treated as a subcat to History cat, and so anything military related should be moved from Hist cat to Mil hist cat. Does it sound good?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jan Pietrzak

This article is in Polish. Could somebody please have a look at it and comment at WP:PNT#Jan Pietrzak about this article? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Notable person. Unfortunately article is deteted per WP:CSD A8 (copyvio): a webpage dump. mikka (t) 22:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus

Due to an edit war, the article is now protected and a vote has been proposed on how to address the issue of Copernicus' nationality. I invite everyone interested to participate. Balcer 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As do I. Since the issue is pretty strenous, I encourage everyone to vote in democratic spirit, as the issue is pretty much only of an ethno-nationalist-historical significance. Ksenon 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Warsaw Uprising

I think I forgot to post it here :) Feel free to vote, comment and especially - address the objections.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wandal

Wandal w artykule http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/German_Eastern_Marches_Society ciągle kasuje informacje, linki, czyni to bez żadnego już uzasadniania swych kasacji i pomimo tego że na talk już sprawa została wyjaśniona. Proszę o pomoc bo nie chcę przekroczyć 3RR a wandal jest uporczywy oraz po prostu ignoruje żródła, dyskusje. --Molobo 19:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a pronunciation

Hello, I was wondering if anyone here is up to the task of recording a pronunciation of the name Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski for the Joseph Conrad article. The format should be .ogg, a good tool to use is Audacity --Obli (Talk)^? 15:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Request filled by User:Mieciu K. Thanks! Obli (Talk)^? 13:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Done, the recording of the pronociation, will appear in the near future in the Joseph Conrad article. Mieciu K 13:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Uršula Franciška Radzivił

Move comments welcome.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

German atrocities in region of Białystok Voivodship

I added a large section about History of the region, as to German atrocities during WW2. Anybody wishing to expand the information and the section is welcomed. Soon I shall add information about German atrocities in Mazury, Warmia,Greater Poland and Gdańsk as well. --Molobo 14:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Keeping TIME images related to Poland

If you want, take a look at User_talk:Piotrus#Image:Rydz-smigly_time_cover_September_11_1939.jpg_listed_for_deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2. We have already lost Wałęsa and Piłsudski's covers :( As much as this disappoints me, Ta bu is right that unless fair use are better described (see his reply to me on his RfC talk page) they should and will be deleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

County/Commune Vote

I closed the vote County/Commune on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland. I think we should start another one for "województwa" soon. Please, if there is anything more you'd like to say about it, do it now. How about a week for that, and also giving your propositions of the options the vote should include, like voivodship, voivodeship, province etc, so that they all would be there when the voting starts.--SylwiaS | talk 17:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Województwa vote for my proposal (please don't vote yet, just comment on it). I included 3 most often raised issues (after the English/Latin vs. Polish issue is settled there will have to be a more specific vote as well). Ausir 17:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no more comments, I think we can start the new vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#Województwa vote. Please tell us what you think. Ausir 12:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Current events in Poland

This current events page has been tagged to merge with Current events in the European Union. I updated it on 1 March, but as Polish news stories unfortunately do not receive much press coverage in the UK, it's really up to you if you want to keep it as a seperate page. Regards, Kurando | ^_^ 10:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Polish capture of Kiev (1018)

Guess who 'invented' this great title :> Should it be renamed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the article title is pretty weak. How is the event referred to in the historical literature? Appleseed (Talk) 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But, do you have any other ideas how to name this article, Polish capture sound "agressive". Was the siege and it's aftermath as bloody as the other "standard" medival sieges of that time, or can we name it in a more peacefull way like the "Polish rule of Kiev (1018)"? Mieciu K 20:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In Polish historiography it is usually called "wyprawa kijowska", i.e. Kiev expedition, or Kiev enterprise. So Polish Kiev Expedition (1018) sounds about right. It fits well with Persian Expedition, Sicilian Expedition, Walcheren Expedition etc. Balcer 21:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Polish capture" is too aggressive for Wikipedia (note, it used to be called "Polish plundering of Kiev") but Koniuchy massacre or List of Polish Martyrdom sites are neutral enough apparently as well as the Massacre of Lwów professors, Massacre of Poles in Volhynia and Katyn massacre (with a featured article prominence).

At the same time the article on Deportation of Ukrainians in Poland is called Operation Wisla, Suprression of the Ukrainian attempt for self-determination in Galicia is called Polish-Ukrainian War and the Polish invasion of Russia is called Polish-Muscovite War and "Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia" could not have existed even as a redirect and was deleted. This list of examples may easily be continued (Kiev Offensive (not capture), Massacre of Praga (now moved to battle) and so on and so forth) but I think the problem is already clear.

I say store all articles at neutral titles whether the Poles were perpetrators or victims. War, expedition, incident, event seem to me a better choice for titles. To set a good example, why not reconsider the titles of the massacre, martyrdom and murder articles and after that return to the capture of Kiev which is still by far less of a strong word than "martyrdom", "massacre" or even "murder". --Irpen 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any article in en-Wiki that begins with 'Russian capture of...'? No? Are you saying that Russians have never captured any city?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that the word capture is no more inflammatory than other words I gave above for which some users fought to keep them in titles. In terms of neutrality the "Polish capture" is just the mirror image of the "massacre of Poles". I commend the effort you seem to make to neutralize titles. I just suggest to neutralize all of them, making no difference whether this or that particular nation was a victim or a perpetrator in the events described in the article. BTW, a good question (Who invented this great title?) you asked. Correct me if I am wrong but that was supposed to be a rhetorical question implying that the author is the "favorite" (quotes are on purpose) wikipedian of many here. If I understood this irony correctly, than the answer is not what it implied.[34] --Irpen 01:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where's the fire. The current title seems acceptable to me, it's much better than Ghirlandajo's Polish plunder of Kiev (especially that many historians believe that the Poles never actually reached the city...). Perhaps the "expedition" version could be equally good, but I'm fine with capture. It seems as neutral as it gets.

Though on the other hand, judsging by the discussion at Talk:Lviv, we might want to rename it to Polish liberation of Kiev... Halibutt 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Capture" may be accurate, but it doesn't make for a good article title--it simply sounds awkward. You'll never see it used in a paper encyclopedia. I prefer Kiev Expedition (1018). I don't think sticking "Polish" in front of it is necessary (Sicilian Expedition and not Athenian Sicilian Expedition; Walcheren Expedition and not British Walcheren Expedition. Appleseed (Talk) 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have nothing more useful to do than move the articles about, take care of List of Polish Martyrdom sites first. I'm tired of pointing out that the title is not proper. In the light of your inaction, please don't blame me if I dispense with the article as I think best. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, your memory doesn't serve you well here. First of all, the earlier title was NOT "Polish" but just "Plundering of Kiev". It was you who added "Polish" to the title when you changed Plundering for Capture.[35]

Now, is my previous proposal to go over other titles while we are at it met without any support at all? Or does everyone think that those Martyrdroms and Massacres are fine titles to have? --Irpen 13:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, why this focus on Polish-related articles with "drastic" titles? Like it or not, it is quite common for Wikipedia to use "non-neutral" titles. Just for starters, take a look at List of massacres. If you think that the word "massacre" is just too loaded with POV and should never be used in a Wikipedia title, a good place to voice your concerns would be Talk:List of massacres, for example. Balcer 13:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we first finish what we started. Does Kiev Expedition work for everyone? Appleseed (Talk) 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Balcer 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I voiced it here, only prompted by a far less strong word "capture" considered too strong. So, I figured, I raise the issue once the topic of strong words is being discussed. I didn't have much hope to get much support here, but I still hoped to get some. OK, let it stay at bewildered titles if everyone likes it that way. When Poles where perpetrators, OTOH, that is of course a different story. But in any case, I will not be proposing to change wars, captures, battles, offensives and federations into invasions (e.g. of Ukraine) , partitions (e.g. of Czechoslovakia), massacres (e.g. Borisov), vandalisms (e.g. in Kiev) and "imperialist aspiration" (e.g. Miedzymorze). --Irpen 14:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have concerns with NPOV, the best place to voice them is on the pages of the individual articles that you have a problem with, since making sweeping allegations that many articles related to Polish history suffer from systematic bias is only going to create bad feelings. To illustrate the effectiveness of this approach, the move/rename/merge idea for the celebrated List of Polish Martyrdom sites article has been accepted by everyone involved on the talk page. In general though, the tactic of picking out one of the most controversial articles suffering from obvious POV problems and then insinuating "all others are just like it" is not very productive. Balcer 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that all articles are as POV as this one. Katyn massacre, as per its content, is much better than the others. I am saying that the titles are POV. It is easiest to consider them together because the problem is similar. Why can't we use less drammatic titles: Katyn, with the village article moved to Katyn (village), Koniuchy incident, Antri-Polish campaign in Volhynia, 1943-1944, Murder of Lwów professors, etc. Imagine someone writing of Volhynia events from the Ukrainian nationalist perspective and giving it a blasphemous title with the "revenge" or smth to see that emotions in both directions should be kept away from titles. --Irpen 08:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wenedyk

It's... hard to explain :) Enjoy :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Transportation in Poland - Comments requested

I have reworded the introduction to the Railways section at Transportation in Poland. It previously read like a travel guide. It is still focused too much on passenger transport. Would some people mind looking at it to see if a) it is accurate and b) whether it could be improved. Perhaps something mentioning freight. Is it a major form of intercity transport? It it really extensive? Also, is there an equivalent article in the Polish Wikipedia that a link can be provided to?... Thanks. -- Adz|talk 09:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kazimierz Pułaski move to Casimir Pulaski

Comment at Talk:Kazimierz_Pułaski#Requested_move, please. And think Teddy Kosciuszko...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

War of the Priests

Can someone take a look at this article? I expected all the Polish wars to be at least stubs by now, but this one was created recently. Googling "War of the Priests" returns some iffy sites. Appleseed (Talk) 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian hunter

Hi there, could you take a look at LDKmember (talk · contribs)? It seems he is someone's sock puppet currently on a Lithuanians' hunt spree. Halibutt 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Powstanie Wielkopolskie

We're trying to figure out whether the uprisings should be called Wielkopolska Uprising or Greater Poland Uprising. Please vote at Talk:Greater Poland Uprising. Appleseed (Talk) 14:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

meta:How to deal with Poles

I've notice that many of us gives that link in ours user pages. I have just noticed that it is candidate to speedy delete >:) What are we doing? Teraz po polsku jakby ktoś nie zrozumiał: co jest k*wa jego mać zasrana, jakiś rusek lewak czy nazi-szwab nas zaatakowoł za co mu musimy odpłacić chlebem i solą facką w pysk ;P D T G 21:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Artykuł ten aktualnie przechodzi procedurę Requests for deletion, jeśli tylko ktoś chce aby link ten, który często widuję na Waszych stronach osobistych był dalej aktywny proszę o wsparcie w głosowaniu za keep ;) Pozdrawiam, D_T_G (PL) 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

{{PolandGov}}

I have listed the image template {{PolandGov}} for deletion for a number of reasons (1. Noncomerical use only is not compatible with Wikipedias image licencing poicy 2. It is not clear that the government of Poland actually owns the image copyright anyway). Only 1 of the ~120 tagged with this tag had a source listed (also a big problem), so they have been tagged as unsourced and will be deleted in 7 days. Many don't appear to be included in articles but are used on article talk pages. I suggest that anyone that is interested locate the images that are used in articles source them and provide accurate copyright infoamtion (ie. fair use or PD). Thanks.--nixie 00:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to notify our small community here myself. There are several flaws in Petaholmes' reasoning above. The first and foremost is that all of the pictures from Poland.gov/ww2 are related to World War II. So far nobody ever invented a way to use them for commercial gain and I believe it's simply impossible. As to the source for the pictures - all of them have the source mentioned as all were uploaded from poland.gov/ww2, and the portal in turn got them all from the AAN and ADM in Warsaw (as stated by the tag on each and every image). Sure, it is not clear how the hell could the portal claim copyright to, say, pictures made during WWII by unknown partisans, but as they are a governmental institution we could as well take their claims for granted and simply abide by them.

Anyway, the pictures from their site are precious and I believe wikipedia cannot benefit from their deletion "just because" or "just in case". That's why I prefer to solve the problem rather than to delete the pics and forget the matter. I can think of two possible outcomes. Firstly, I contacted the webmaster of that page asking for some more specific instructions and whether we could use the pictures for commercial gain as well. As a stop-gap measure we could also tag the images with {{Non-free fair use in}} in addition to the {{PolandGov}} and move all of them to main namespace. Any other ideas? Halibutt 11:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The content of my letter to their webmaster:

Szanowni Państwo!

Jestem jednym ze współtwórców angielskojęzycznej wikipedii, pierwszej wolnej internetowej encyklopedii. Kilka miesięcy temu pozwoliłem sobie wgrać na nasze serwery około stu zdjęć z Waszego serwisu (pełna lista: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PolandGov&limit=500&from=0 ) związanych z polskim udziałem w drugiej wojnie światowej. Każde z nich zostało opatrzone stosowną licencją (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:PolandGov ) zawierającą źródło grafiki i informację o prawach autorskich zamieszczaną pod każdym ze zdjęć w Waszym portalu. Jako że nasza encyklopedia jest instytucją typu non-profit i jest tworzona przez wolontariuszy (do których sam należę), użycie tych zdjęć w artykułach o polskim wysiłku zbrojnym w drugiej wojnie mieściło się w granicach szeroko rozumianej promocji Polski. Polecam na przykład artykuły o wojnie obronnej ( http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Polish_Defensive_War) i powstaniu warszawskim (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising ), oba uznane za jedne z najlepszych w naszej encyklopedii.
 
W ciągu ostatnich kilku tygodni zmieniły się zasady na których możliwe jest umieszczanie zdjęć w naszym serwisie i podjęto decyzję o skasowaniu wszystkich zdjęć, których informacja o prawach autorskich nie dopuszcza użycia także do celów komercyjnych (choć trudno mi wyobrazić sobie komercyjne użycie zdjęć np. polskich żołnierzy Września). W związku z tym mam kilka pytań: 
 
-Czy możliwe jest użycie zdjęć z Waszego serwisu w Wikipedii pod inną licencją dopuszczającą ich użycie także do celów komercyjnych (Public Domain, GFDL lub inna licencja wzorowana na tej z Waszego serwisu)? 
-Czy, jako że prawa autorskie do większości z tych zdjęć jeszcze nie wygasły (70 lat od pierwszego rozpowszechnienia dla zdjęć nieznanych autorów), ale znajdują się one w archiwach IPN, AAN lub ADM, a więc instytucjach państwowych, możliwe jest ich użycie w zgodzie z artykułem 4 ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (jako "materiały, dokumenty i symbole urzędowe")? W tym przypadku można by użyć ich zgodnie z licencją Public Domain, z podaniem źródła grafiki (w tym wypadku linku do Waszej strony i Archiwum Dokumentacji Mechanicznej) 
-Wasza strona wyraźnie określa, że wyłącznym posiadaczem praw autorskich do zdjęć jest Minister Spraw Zagranicznych. Czy dotyczy to także zdjęć znajdujących się w polskich archiwach, a wykonanych na przykład przez niemieckie Ministerstwo Propagandy Rzeszy w czasie drugiej wojny? 
 
Pozdrawiam i liczę na szybką odpowiedź,
<Name Surname>
<telephone>
<town>

Please fix the intendation. Translation to English would also help.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, all materials on Wikipedia are already being used for commercial purposes, given that they appear on Wikipedia mirrors which also display ads, and hence make money. For a clear example, take a look at this article on answers.com about Jan Piwnik. That site even has the gall to include our Wikipedia tag in the picture description, which clearly states that commercial use is excluded. Balcer 15:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm looking for some more constructive solution that simply sitting back and waiting. So far I added exact source link (as a link to parent gallery was not enough apparently) to all the pictures linked at Talk:Polish Defensive War, Biuro Szyfrów and V-2 rocket. I also added some of them to other articles they would perfectly fit. Tomorrow I'll do the same for those at Talk:Warsaw Uprising. Halibutt 01:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I called the guy recently and had a friendly chat with him (check tfd debate for details). Halibutt 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep you informed, I called the guy three times in a row recently and sent him two emails. It turned out that he's been sick and is not getting back to work until after the Easter. I'll call him back ASAP. //Halibutt 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Cecylia Renata - move to Cecylia Renata of Austria

Personally I don't mind much, but more comments would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Matejko

I am trying to compile all of Matejko's works that appear on WP in his gallery. I'm still missing a few--mostly drawings of Polish monarchs that I thought I had come across before but can't seem to find now (e.g. Mieszko I). If you know what happened to those images, I invite you to add them to the gallery. Appleseed (Talk) 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression some of them may have been removed from articles when (sometimes better) contemporaneous oil portraits were substituted for them; possibly some were deleted as allegedly unsourced or otherwise in violation of copyright(!). But wouldn't Matejko's drawings and paintings then still be available in the Wiki iconographic depots? logologist|Talk 15:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually prefer the drawings over the paintings. Can you tell me how to find these depots? Appleseed (Talk) 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Check article's history, IIRC a few were deleted due to no image copyright tag or similar problem few months back. Remember to use {{pd-art}} now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Since it seems that more and more of our pictures is threatened (see: [36] [37]), I have a question, and maybe someone of you can answer it. Can the EU law change our laws from 1952 and 1994? And how do we determine if an author in unknown? If i.e. an old picture was published in a Polish book without the name of its author, is that enough to assume that the author is unknown? Well, I think it is, but it's questioned (see:[38]).--SylwiaS | talk 21:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that lex retro non agit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Renaissance in Poland

Comments appreciated (Ghirla content dispute).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another well sourced opinion explaining the POV tag

While contemporary Poland, before it brought in German settlers to urbanize it, could boast little more than a series of fortified cragie lumps with some mud-huts around them.

Is any comment needed ? --Molobo 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief! :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jedwabne Pogrom deleted?

Does anybody know who and why deleted the Jedwabne Pogrom article? Mieciu K 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's still there. Perhaps you got one of those weird database errors? Misza13 ^{T C} 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It must be it. Mieciu K 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikołaj Kopernik under attack

After a lengthy debate which showed that there is no reason to doubt his nationality and vote that confirmed this one of the most active users [39] started to delete every sentence that mentions Kopernik was Polish. He also claims that Gdańsk wasn't part of Poland but of Saxony hereDanzig Research Society --Molobo 02:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The same with Johannes Hevelius. mikka (t) 02:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes he also deletes any mention about Heweliusz being Polish. Also started to tamper with Marcin Kromer, August II Mocny articles. --Molobo 02:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does seem that User:Sciurinæ and User:Matthead have embarked on a campaign to eliminate "Polish POV" from Wikipedia (just two example diffs from only the last hour: [40] and [41]). Since they are doing this almost daily now, I invite the participants in this forum interested in Polish-German topics to have a look at their edits once in a while. Balcer 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)