Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Radeksz in topic Berling troops
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

names from 1938 part 2

Latest comment: 14 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

user:HerkusMonte is once again pushing the names invented by Nazi Germany in 1938 into the lead of Polish villages' articles and seems he is also ready to edit war over it.  Dr. Loosmark  15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't see what your objection is. If you think the information should be somewhere other than the first sentence (because it certainly is information that ought to be in the article somewhere), then perhaps you could demonstrate with a sample article how you think it should look.--Kotniski (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
My objection is it's improper to have names invented in the Nazi era in the lead of the article, it's insulting.  Dr. Loosmark  16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea whom it could conceivably insult (except the Nazis, as it shows them as would-be destroyers of the region's heritage). If not in the lead, then where and how? Can you demonstrate on one of the articles?--Kotniski (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this is highly inappropriate. All Polish locations had German names during Nazi period(for example Litzamnstadt for Łódż). First a request should be made for the source and the Nazi propaganda name moved from the lead to proper section. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, I think I have already given an example the last time. Let me repeat it: in 1953 Katowice was renamed to Stalinogród, the name lasted till 1956. The Katowice article simply mentions it. It's similar with the 1938 Nazi German names, those weren't some historical German names which would deserve to be in the lead, it was used only from 1938 to 1944/45.  Dr. Loosmark  16:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I checked some Polish articles on those locations and they mention changing of the name in germanization campaign-something that HK avoids mentioning in his edits.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
OK but Katowice is a fully-fledged article; the ones were talking about here are just stubs (which don't currently consist of much else except the lead). Can you show on Jeleniowo, for instance, how you think the German name information should be introduced into the article?--Kotniski (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. (There are million other ways to do it of course).  Dr. Loosmark  17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

ok it seems that Skaperrod opened a RfC here: Talk:Rumy‎.  Dr. Loosmark  17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as an example: In contemporary context the "Nazi names" are used in Poland too, all Polish sources, including the Rzeczpospolita[1], at Raid on Mittenheide use the post-1938 name "Mittenheide" instead of "Turoscheln" or modern Turośl. And mistakes like "Near the village of Turośl, Podlaskie Voivodeship they reached the Prussian border" [2] only happen because the author didn't know about the renaming of 1938. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a bit difference between a name of a village and a military operation.  Dr. Loosmark  11:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know the Nazi names aren't legal in Poland and they are "insulting" for many Poles. Possible ignorance of one Polish journalist doesn't prove anything. Opole region gminas use historical German names, not the Nazi ones. Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
pl:Rumy (and several other articles) provides "illegal" information ? HerkusMonte (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning current polish law is completely nonsense (And as far as I know, it's just not allowed to introduce them again, and nobody plans to introduce them :-o ), along the way the whole discussion is nonsense. Current law will not change historical facts and will not change names used from 1933 to 1945 in Germany post scriptum / retrospectively / after the fact. --Jonny84 (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said that the law wants to retrospectively change the names, claiming that would be stupid. The problem at hand here is simply that those Nazi names have to be put in their proper context. The pl:Rumy article does that in a correct way while on the other hand putting those names in the lead giving the impression those are some sort of legitimate alternative names is a definite no no.  Dr. Loosmark  15:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
So why Xx236 mentioned it, without any connection? About Rumy: It's embarrassing that the other german name Rummy don't appear a bit, especially after all these references. Beyond that people could believe this place was polish before 1945, no word about it that this place was in Germany. Besides calling this names "Nazi names" is simply POV - We also do not call the polish names introduced in the years of 1945 to 1989 by communist Poland "Communist names". About using of the names in the lead: User HerkusMonte included them with the years of use. He didn't let space for wrong impressions. In my mind this way isn't a problem. --Jonny84 (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Xx236 did not mention it without any connection, using a Nazi name for a Polish village can very well be illegal in Poland in some situations. Calling this(sic) names "Nazi names" is not POV at all, those names were indeed invented by the Nazis to make them sound more German. Finally I can't believe you compare the Nazi Third Reich with Poland from 1945 to 1989, seriously have smoked something or what? And yes user:HerkusMonte did the include the years of use but failed to explain those were Nazi invented names.  Dr. Loosmark  16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Once again: Current polish law will not change or delete history and facts. Maybe you shouldn't smoke too much and read accurate, 'cause "I" didn't make such comparisons. But besides there are some analogies: Communists invented polish names to make the place names sound polish and to hide the german history of these places. --Jonny84 (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Telling editors stuff like "Maybe you shouldn't smoke too much" is a personal attack (WP:NPA). In fact you should remove it yourself.radek (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Changing history and facts? What are you talking about? Nobody wants to change history, let alone Poland or its laws, the memory of the Nazis' folly has to be preserved for the next generations. The question here is only how to represent the Nazi invented Germanized names - the lead is not the place for it. After all this is Wikipedia not Nazipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  17:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have cleaned up the Powązki Cemetery article. Previously it totally messed up the Old Powązki with the Military Powązki, which are two different cemeteries, though located close to each other. The Powązki Military Cemetery has been created as a separate article. When dealing with the cemeteries in some biographies, please direct the link to the correct article to avoid further confusion and misinformation. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job. How about improving Powązki Military Cemetery to DYK quality? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiexpedition

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please note Wikiexpedition 2010 took place in July. About 15 Wikimedians were busy, taking pictures of items in nord-central Poland (From Słupsk to Elbląg). Here is description of Wikiexpedition 2010, and here is results: 2600 pictures (and continuously growing). If you need picture from area, look for it. Ciacho5 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying our project. It looks like you did a great job. I am sure we will gradually use many of these photos. - Darwinek (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiexpedition and other Polish WMF chapter activities have been briefly reported at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-16/News and notes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Polish monarch for deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi/Cześć! The want to delete: Template:Infobox Polish monarch

Schould you be interested in? Regards!

Wojgniew (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've noted that in my Tasks above; I think that's an ok maintenance deletion, but interested editors are welcome to look into it in more detail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Polish county articles needing coordinates

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nearly all Polish county articles now have geographic coordinates. (See Środa Wielkopolska County for an example of a Polish county article correctly marked up with its geographical coordinates.) It would be really useful if the last few remaining Polish counties without coordinates could also have coordinates added:

As of today, the remaining 24 uncoded articles are:

Can anyone please help add coordinates to these articles? -- The Anome (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just add the coordinates from their respective administrative seat. - Darwinek (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Tadeusz Adamowski

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

This is a request for help and a suggestion to those interested in the Poland project. If you go to the entry on Tadeusz Adamowski and the Discussion of that entry, you will see that I have tried to add information to Adamowski's bio. There is quite a bit more information in the Polish-language WP, as well as in an even longer bio by the Polish Olympic Committee. See the links that I provide on the discussion page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Tadeusz_Adamowski

Unfortunately I cannot read Polish, so I cannot draw out some of the detailed bio information from those two sources. But as it happens I knew both Tad Adamowski and his sister Helenka Adamowska Pantaleoni (whose parents were members of the Adamowski Trio -- there should be a WP entry on the Trio but unfortunately there is not). I also have some information that has come through my extended family about Tad's serving in the Polish artillery after 1939, being captured by the Germans in WW II, escaping from the camp in Poland, and somehow getting himself to Italy, from where, while in hiding he managed to get a cryptic message back to his sister in New York. The cryptic message was an effort to tell his sister Helenka where he was located. Through her own connections, Helenka (whose own husband Guido Pantaleoni had volunteered for service in the OSS and was killed behind enemy lines in Sicily in 1943) found someone (actually it was my future father-in-law) who figured out the meaning of the cryptic message: that Tad was hiding in Naples. The OSS then found a way to rescue Tad from Naples, and he then returned to the United States. Now I doubt that much, if any, of this is in the bio, and to be frank, I cannot formally document the story except from the telling of my mother-in-law. But Tad deserves a more thoroughgoing bio in Wikipedia than he has now, and I am sure somebody connected with the Wikiproject Poland can find useful information in the sources that I have referred to. Thank you for your attention to this request.~Mack2~ (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can translate some of the info from Polish wiki and a cursory look on teh internets confirms the basic outlines of the story so I'll see what I can get. There also seems to be an interesting story here about how hockey came over to Eastern Europe and how come the Czechs are so damn good at it (apparently it came from Canada to Czechoslovakia and then spread, with help from Adamowski, to Poland). Thanks for bringing it up.radek (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! My understanding of what happened after he was in the prison camp is vague. I wonder whether he was liberated from the camp by the Red Army, and then was trying to avoid the Soviets when he fled to Italy. I imagine one of his nephews (sons of Helenka) knows some of the details. BTW/ one of Helenka's granddaughters (and Tad's grandniece) is the actress Tea Leoni.~Mack2~ (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
More in this story including an old photo; can't read it well (I do know some Russian), but there's a bit at the end about how he got back to US (via Odessa? not sure this is actually true).http://dailysport.pl/index.php/2010/06/30/tadeusz-ralf-adamowski-%E2%80%93-pionier-hokeja-w-polsce/ ~Mack2~ (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
One thing - the sources say he was in the pl:21 Pułk Ułanów Nadwiślańskich which would be cavalry not artillery (though they might have been artillery transport or something). I haven't found anything about the escape and trip to Italy yet but I'll keep looking. Yes, the source says that he went back to US via Odessa together with American troops.radek (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, also seems he was a cousin of Paderewski [3].radek (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It's good you found stuff in the historical museum site. I'll add the fact the Paderewski connection to Helenka's bio. I think there were some intermarriages between the Adamowski's in the trio with Paderewski's in same music circls. Incidentally, Tad really disliked classical music (!) because his parents were always traveling. Except he loved Chopin. I will be surprised if you find anything about his escape. I am pretty sure it was in part an OSS operation to extract him from Naples and get him into U.S. hands. Also, I imagine, if you have the time, you could find information about the Adamowski Trio on the Polish site (is it there?) as well as about the Warsaw hockey club that he played with; so there are a couple more little projects perhaps.~Mack2~ (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
There is some sources on the Adamowski Trio although atm I'm not sure I have the time to work on the article (which, you're right, should be on Wikipedia). The Warsaw hockey club was short lived and it ended in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland - so the information is also scarce. But we'll see.radek (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This essay about Ignacy Paderewski was written by Antonina Adamowska, who was Tad and Helenka's mother: http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issue/4.2.01/adamowska.html. I haven't looked for more but I'm sure there is. I found this by just googling: paderewski adamowski. In this essay, Antonina says that her husband Josef was Ignacy's closest lifetime friend.~Mack2~ (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, perhaps some secondary sources mistook the close friendship between Josef and Ignacy for a blood relation. For now I'm gonna go with what the source says and stick with the "cousins".radek (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well they could be second cousins, or first cousins once removed (that would be my guess). I've also run into a reference to the Adamowski QUARTET ca. 1895. So One of them at least must have expired by the time the Trio played for a Polish Relief event at Harvard in 1916!~Mack2~ (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC): http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1916/1/17/adamowski-trio-to-play-for-polish/
Yeah I saw that one too, though it's more appropriate for a proper article on the Adamowski Trio rather than on Tadeusz.radek (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Folders 6 and 7 of the Paderewski Papers at the Hoover Institution have Adamowski names on them (one of them is Antonina (who also went by the name Antoinette} and Josef; the other is Gertrude and Tim [Timothee]). Available on Google docs: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vAm06JO4eSAJ:www.oac.cdlib.org/data/13030/gq/tf4779n6gq/files/tf4779n6gq.pdf+paderewski+adamowski&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiDbhVZdk8vVQDIvjQqbhusL0GZEj49a0XmQbs9QKnZ-DcHIkmXpI4Maw-vPR1gRGxVYit1C6FDPMwSEZJfhao3wI32w4qAdS8t8BsFBSPrM6B_mi4WqkBPmKa4V22FQRg9EM9v&sig=AHIEtbQ8-UGBeZTidcTiwcCdkHWjrXpCRw
Re Adamowski String Quartet: A WP entry attributes to Timothee Adamowski the creation of the Quartet in 1888, and renewing it in 1890. There appears to be a source for this but I didnt check it out. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Timothee_Adamowski
You're gonna have to give me a bit of time on the Adamowski Trio/Quartet; let me finish up couple other articles I'm working on first. But thank you for the sources.radek (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to inundate you, or obligate you. But I may collect a few more things or ideas here, which you may or may not choose to take up later. I find a fair bit via Google search on Timothee Adamowski, for example. His WP bio is very sketchy but there's more. When he started the Quartet he was the only Adamowski in it, I think. Thanks again for all you have done.~Mack2~ (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I found an article all about the Adamowskis, and relied on it to fix the Timothee Adamowski bio and provide a little detail about the Quartet/Trio. There is also more in this article about Josef and Antonina, about the links between the Paderewskis and the Adamowskis, etc. AND some about Helene (Helenka) and Tadeusz (Tad). BTW/ I see no evidence of any filial relationship between Paderewskis and Adamowskis but there were clearly strong ties of frienship. Can you get ahold of this? I was able to download from electronic sources at my library: Jezierski, Bronislas A. "The Adamowskis and Patriots," Polish American Studies, 5, 1/2 (Jan.-June, 1948): 14-32.~Mack2~ (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Resovia

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Somebody please merge Resovia Rzeszów and Resovia or just delete one of the two.  Dr. Loosmark  18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.  Dr. Loosmark  19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lithuanian problem editors

Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments10 people in discussion

I'm fed up arguing with them, but there are some editors on Lithuanian articles (such as Seredžius) starting again to actively remove information about Polish names for Lithuanian places - if anyone cares about preserving this information, they might like to keep an eye out.--Kotniski (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately their behaviour is unprecedented on the whole WP. Nobody guards the "purity" of own town articles like them. It is silly, since no respectable Polish editors had any problem with Lithuanian names for places like Sejny. - Darwinek (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
What else is new? This has been going on for years and nobody has done anything about it, even though it's a blatant nationalistic disregard of Wikipedia policy.radek (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Removing foreign language names for places sharing a history is a “blatant nationalistic disregard of Wikipedia policy” ?[4] [5][6]Oh, really? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a different case (and regardless, these aren't my edits) since you're talking about names that were made by the Nazis, not legitimate German names. The situation is rather analogous to continuously removing "Breslau" or "Danzig" and similar, from articles on Wroclaw and Gdansk, etc. So you're comparing apples and oranges (and did I mention those aren't my edits?)radek (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Any comparison witz Gdańsk is incorrect, because of Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The name Vilnius is used as the only one in the text, because "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". "The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323" - but what was the name of it? Letters of Gediminas are avialble in Lithuanian translation.Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If you had followed the links above you would have realized that these names were not "made by the Nazis" and if you had adressed your view of editors who revert foreign names to User:Loosmark, the discussion here would be more credible. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
And your claims would be more credible if at any point in time you have had something to say about the broad situation - particularly in regard to the subject that this section is about. (Some) German editors think that "Poles are nationalistic" because we don't want the articles on current Polish cities under German names, though mostly no Polish editor has any problems with having German names (or Lithuanian for that matter) in the articles themselves where such is appropriate (and I'm not sure that's sticking it into every small village in Poland is appropriate). And then Lithuanian editors pretend that "Poles are nationalistic" because Polish editors would like the Polish name to exist somewhere, just anywhere, in the articles on currently Lithuanian places that have a significant connection with Polish history - and they rabidly remove any such traces. So the end result is a plethora of German names in Polish place articles, with (some) German editors still complaining about Polish editors, and virtually no Polish names in any Lithuanian articles, with Lithuanian editors still complaining about Polish editors. Looking at the narrow space between these two (mis)positions, I don't think it's the Polish editors who are being "nationalistic" here.radek (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
And from what I can see, all three of the examples you give above still have the German names in them. So like Kotniski says, the problem has been resolved. This is a discussion about a problem that has not been resolved. For something like six years now.radek (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Most of Lithuanian cities do have name part, that does present names in four or more languages. It could be a solution, that would minimize the tension. As for problematic editors, one should not spill nats so easily, And the EE mailing list is still not forgotten. I do still remember what words User:Radeksz used to describe me. Let's leave it on his consciousness. Lokyz (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
How did I describe you? I can't remember. Probably as a Lithuanian nationalist or something. And hey, if you don't want to know what people really think of you, then you shouldn't be reading their private emails.radek (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Mailing list is not a private conversation, actually. I've already told you and the others - the name calling is on your consciousness.Lokyz (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It is if you're not invited. Which you weren't. And nationalism does appear to play a part in this blanket removal of Polish names from all Lithuanian articles; it's not exactly "name calling" if it's an accurate description.radek (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I do enjoy not being invited by people who do call names and violate multiple Wikipedia policies. And that was proven by Arbitration Committee. Consider this before going into another rant. And no, I'll not go into your baitingLokyz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
What "minimize tension"? Per Wikipedia policies relevant names should be in the lead. Countless Polish cities and towns have for example German and in some cases Lithuanian or Ukrainian names in the lead. As is normal. If a Polish name in lead of the Lithuanian city cause you tension then that's your problem.  Dr. Loosmark  12:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
this is not nice to say the least, calling others nationalists creating WP:BATTLE - one should note, that no information was removed by me, it was added. Loosmark did remove the multi-confession and multi national part:)Lokyz (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not have problem. The section name states that there is a problem with Lithuanian editors. And it is your problem. Not Wikipedia's. How many times there attempts to block multiple Lithuanian editors, call names, and what is the outcome - eventually you've lost one of the biggest asset of WP:Poland - an admin, and most of the Polish tag team got banned, and you've still learned nothing. And there are still editors who frivolously go into calling other's nats. Pathetic.Lokyz (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Loosmark is right, WP policies are right - you are wrong. What is pathetic is your perseverance in blanking the articles about "Lithuanian" towns. Wikipedia is not an arena for double standards. Poles, Germans, Czech, Russians, Italians and others have not any structural problems with names in other languages. Only Lithuanians do, and for that you are destined to fall sooner or later. - Darwinek (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:) I'll skip this proposition for WP:BATTLE. Although, I still want to ask: are you going for WP:POINT? My humble proposition would be to have a cup of tea. Have a good day.Lokyz (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Darwinek's "point" is simply that for some reason certain Lithuanian editors appear to believe that usual Wikipedia rules and policies don't apply to them or "their" articles. They completely ignore Wikipedia guidelines on naming, remove any trace of Polish names from Lithuanian articles, even when these have a connection to Polish history, and tag team revert (The combo is usually Dr. Dan, MK, Lokyz, then back to Dr. Dan; one of these times you guys should let Lokyz go first. Occasionally Novickas jumps in) to enforce their view which is contrary to Wikipedia's stated rules. This situation is unique to Lithuanian articles and editors (unlike Polish, German, Czech, Russian or Italian).radek (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Got to love seeing a member of the EEML complaining about tag-team editing. Varsovian (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
So your constructive addition to this debate is to argue that the existence of EEML makes it ok for everyone else to break all sorts of rules? And hey, I'm reformed. They're still tag teaming.radek (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you find Hitlersee to be "legitimate name"? Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, I consider the removal of German names from Polish place articles to be just as much problematic editing behaviour as the removal of Polish names from Lithuanian articles - however I believe the former problem has been resolved (right?), with acceptance that such names should appear in the articles, though not always in the first sentence. In the Lithuanian case, however, the editors in question are not even prepared to compromise that far - they insist on the Polish names being expunged from the articles altogether.--Kotniski (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
We have tried doing something about it, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution for example. Unfortunately, such attempts failed repeatedly :( After all those years, I still have no idea how this conflict can be solved if only one side is willing to talk :( Nonetheless, I would still suggest trying that - there is no alternative, really. WP:MEDIATION could work one of those days, if we get enough new editors who have not radicalized yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
True, but on both sides. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

bot edits

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know much about either bots or the "listen" thing that accompanies many articles but it looks like a bot is replacing blue-linked "listen" links with red ones: [7] [8] [9]

Like I said, I don't know much about this, but before I could click the link and hear the pronunciation and now I can't. Is this an automated bot error thing? Maybe a browser thing?radek (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that too. No, idea what's going on, but it doesn't seem good.  Dr. Loosmark  17:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Please report it to the bot's talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance on article - Tadeusz Markiewicz

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

I'm a member of Wikiproject Unreferenced BLP Rescue. We're working through the backlog of unreferenced Biographies of living persons and I came across an article on a Polish Sculptor Tadeusz Markiewicz which I am having some difficulty providing sourcing. I cannot find English language sources, and I have no capability in Polish beyond machine translation. I am hoping somebody from Wikiproject Poland could assist. What needed is some reliable sourcing establishing his notability, or a determination that he is not notable at which point it would go to AFD. Thanks. - Whpq (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe User:Radeksz has taken on himself to help out with Poland BLPs, you may want to drop him a note. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I can look into it.radek (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
He's not on Polish Wiki but there are some sources which mention him [10], [11], [12] and some photos of his work are on commons [13], [14] so he does appear to be somewhat notable.radek (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything published in magazines or books? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Not that I can find online. However he is mentioned in newspaper and there do appear to be some sources for the fact that he designed the "Polish Oscar" film award Zlota Kaczka, [15], [16]. I'll keep looking.radek (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The sources given in the article appear to be from a program for some exhibit held in Warsaw in 1973. One of the authors pl:Ksawery Piwocki has an article on Polish Wiki and was a History of Art professor who apparently died a year after the exhibit. There's probably no chance that this program can actually be somehow accessed. Best thing to do might be to just cut the article down to what can be supported by sources which can actually be located.radek (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance is needed to correct the Eastern Europe article

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Eastern Europe article is fraught with errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Poland is a Central European state rather than a Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. Gregorik (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

German names

Latest comment: 14 years ago67 comments10 people in discussion

Please, look at the history of Zabrze article. One German user pushes the idea that the only German name for this city was Hindenburg, though this name was used only in 1915-1945. - Darwinek (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, isn't that right? At least it's clarified in the lead; I see it is not even clarified on pl wiki. Unless somebody wants to split discussion of names to a separate section, the lead looks fine to me... or am I missing something? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well now it's ok but from what I can see the editor was trying to push Hindenburg as the only German name.  Dr. Loosmark  16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
He still is (someone could report him for 3RR if they wanted). He also appears to be running a similar campaign on German WP.--Kotniski (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Claiming that the (current) German name of Zabrze is Zabrze because or though it was used only until 1915 (besides just from 1905) is a falsifying of the article. It's like somebody would write the polish Name of Mrągowo is Żądźbork, because it was used once a day. In addition I will not agree with phrases like "in German: Hindenburg until 1945" because the name is still in use in German language. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I have heard people falsifying money but I have never heard of somebody falsifying an article, how does that work? Anyway, if you check the German wikipedia, the article is under the name Zabrze, so much for your theories. And frankly who cares what will you agree on or not.  Dr. Loosmark  17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh great argument! The article is under Zabrze because they use the polish name, if you didn't realised it until yet. Oh dear you make me smile. ...Like Gliwice and like Chorzów, but their German names are not Gliwice or Chorzów but Gleiwitz and Königshütte. ...And like Łódź, but the German girl don't sing "Theo wir fahren nach Lodz" but she sings "Lodsch". --Jonny84 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, okay "the German girl sings Lodsch". Anyway I won't enter into a debate on what name the German wiki uses and how and why.  Dr. Loosmark  18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"Hindenburg" belongs to German imperial culture, which lead to WWII and the Holocaust. Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we have some evidence of Hindenburg still being in use today (in reliable German sources referring to the modern context)? Certainly it wasn't used before 1915 or before 1905, so we mustn't imply that it was. Seems better to leave it like I've just done - say that the name (not the "German" name) from 1915-1945 was Hindenburg. Of course individuals may always have referred to it in whatever way they personally prefer, but I don't see any evidence that usage in reliable sources has ever deviated significantly from contemporary official name.--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
BdV certainly uses "Hindenburg". Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, they would, for political reasons (or simply because they're talking about the city pre-1945). How about mainstream books and media? I mean, here we have Der Spiegel referring to "Zabrze (damals Hindenburg)", implying that today's current name (even in German) is Zabrze. --Kotniski (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted, that Hindenburg was a name given for political reasons. In this way, it is the same as Litzmannstadt and other quickly invented German names for Polish cities. The only reason coming to my mind, why some people would still push (or prefer) Hindenburg, is that Zabrze sounds too Slavic for them. - Darwinek (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So Germans shouldn't use the name Hindenburg just because some Poles including Darwinek don't like it? That's a great argument!!! By the way the Name Hindenburg was introduced by it's own inhabitans! Why you don't use Vilnius? Maybe it's too Lithuanian for Poles? --Jonny84 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Zabrze wasn't exactly Polish.Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Vilnius ( [ˈvilnʲus] (help·info), see also other names)
  • Ivano-Frankivsk (Ukrainian: Івано-Франківськ; formerly Stanyslaviv[1] or Stanisławów see below)

Xx236 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I found this to be a very interesting discussion. Counterfeiting money. Singing of songs. BdV. But the the remark that takes the cake is ""Hindenburg" belongs to German imperial culture, which lead to WWII and the Holocaust." That's brilliant. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if I would go as far as calling it brilliant but I agree it's a good comment. All too often the German imperialistic anti-Polish culture is overlooked on Wikipedia. Just because the Nazis were so horrible it doesn't mean that what was before wasn't bad.  Dr. Loosmark  15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It smacks of Godwin's Law. I like Zabzre, have an Aunt in Zabzre, spent Wigilia in Zabrze. The name "Hindenburg" has nothing to do with the holocaust. Making that connection would really take a great effort and a kaleidoscopic way of thinking. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
True. But the point that the German imperialistic culture contributed to the rise of the NSDAP in Weimar Republic is a historical fact. - Darwinek (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Dan I thought you once told us your aunt was from Zimbabwe? Or was that another aunt? Anyway as Darwinek points out above, there is no direct connection between the name "Hindenburg" and the holocaust however the changing of Slavic names to the German ones was a clear sign of some sort of aggressive cultural imperialism.  Dr. Loosmark  15:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought Dan said his Aunt came from Cleveland. Zimbabwe, Cleveland... not sure which one I'd rather have an aunt from. But I agree that's it possible to have several aunts. A whole flotilla of them in fact.radek (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Loosmark, since you're pointing out Darwinek's opinion about "cultural imperialism", may I point out Darwinek's other point, "so let me give you some useful links, start with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. These are pretty basic WP rules." Dr. Dan (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Dan? What do you mean!? I always maintain the highest possible standard of civility.  Dr. Loosmark  16:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes and Friedland was changed to Korfantów to make the world smile and to help building a peaceful world - Oh, that lovely Poles.. Oh sorry, I forgot that Korfantów is a place name with a history of centuries invented in 11... oh sorry 1946. That's nothing new, that some Poles have a problem with the sovereignty o Germany, the name Hindenburg or especially with his patron. Just look here: http://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=10130. Quotation of Darwinek: "invented German names for Polish cities". My dear blinded friend, Hindenburg wasn't a polish city (besides it already wasn't a city) in 1915, so don't claim it was polish. Maybe you should take a book of history... --Jonny84 (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you are new at WP, so let me give you some useful links, start with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. These are pretty basic WP rules. Your sarcastic comments and disruptive editing (without providing any references of course) are not welcomed at WP, and you should be aware that many users were punished in the past for much lesser offences. Oh, and Zabrze IS Polish since 1945, maybe YOU should take a "book of history". - Darwinek (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you are a little little little bit confused in your head, but when the name Hindenburg was introduced, it was actually a German commune and it was in 1915 and not after 1945. Besides, i'm not new in Wikipedia. --Jonny84 (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It was a German commune situated in ethnically non-German (I don't say "Polish") area. Kind of Poles rename Tarnopol to Dmowski (with a radical difference between Dmowski and Hindenburg, who promoted Adolf Hitler. We all commit errors but the ones who commit the biggest ones should not be used as ethernal symbols). Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course I know that, I even referenced the fact of name change with a source. You, sir, did not provide any source for your controversial edits whatsoever. Besides, if you are not new at Wikipedia, you should know you should mind your language in discussions. - Darwinek (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Darwinek is correct about civility and personal attacks. That's unnecessary. Darwinek, what's your historical impression concerning Korfantów? As in a "book of history". Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why any of this relates to the matter at hand, but I know you guys are glad of any excuse to start at each other... The question is just how best to express the facts (which as far as I know are not in doubt, unless it's seriously being suggested that Hindenburg is how the city is called in modern German, for which we haven't seen any evidence as yet). I would say we don't have a German name and a Polish name here (it's not a Warszawa/Warschau situation) - we simply have a place which, regaredless of what language you speak, was called Zabrze before 1915 and after 1945, and Hindenburg between 1915-45 (obviously not all individual speakers would have kept perfectly in step with the official names). So we just say "Zabrze (1915-45 Hindenburg)" - further explanation is in the article, isn't this enough?--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no impression about Korfantów, never been there. I have no idea, what do you mean. If you ask about the name change, it is crystal clear what happened after 1945 with German placenames in Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries. I did not bring Korfantów to this discussion. - Darwinek (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
True Darwinek, you did not bring Korfantów into this discussion, but you did bring up Litzmannstadt and also mentioned that Germans invented names for Polish cities. Just wondered what your perspective was concerning the reverse action. Especially since you were suggesting to check out "books of history". Then again, others have brought up different issues here, e.g. Zimbabwe, the holocaust, Ivano-Frankivsk to name a few. And guys, my Aunt in Zabzre speaks Polish fluently. The other Aunt from Cleveland (not mine) did not. She spoke Polish like many Poles in Lithuania do. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It was Hans84 who was suggesting to use a "book of history" first, again it seems you read discussion at our WikiProject selectively. - Darwinek (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ivanek until now selecting is your big speciality and passion. What do you said about Hindenburg? That it was used until 1945. So Lwów was used until 1939. So I suggest the changing of the Article Lviv into: Polish: Lviv (Lwów until 1945). I know your way of play, so I will also play this game. Greetings. --Jonny84 (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I said Hindenburg name change was a political name change decision, as with Korfantów (the other way). There is not even a slight parallel with Lwów. I have no "way of play", sir. Your extensive incivility is atrocious. Be careful with it. - Darwinek (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So? It was a political name change? What made it political in contrast to other name changes? The only problem here is that you don't like it that it was named after Paul von Hindenburg. That is your personal problem. So it's POV and has no place in Wikipedia. And also if it was a political name change what has this to do with the usage? --Jonny84 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Jonny, the situation with Lviv is absolutely not the same as this one. Lviv is still called "Lwów" in Polish, as it always has been, just as Warsaw is still and always has been called "Warschau" in German. Zabrze has never has such equivalent names - it had its name deliberately changed at one point in history, and changed back at another point.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes it's absolutely the same. And I said it already many many times and I will not repeat anymore: Hindenburg O.S is also still in use. I'm a German speaking person and I (and not only me) use the name Hindenburg O.S. to descripe this city in German. So it's in use. Suggesting that nobody use the name Hindenburg O.S. in German is simply a lie. --Jonny84 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely you don't mean "it's absolutely the same" - the differences are so obvious that I'm sure everyone can see at least some of them. Can you provide sources to show that this place is still referred to as Hindenburg in mainstream German, in the modern context?--Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Jonny84 noone is claiming that nobody in German uses Hindenburg, right wing organizations probably use it. But the German wikipedia for example, uses Zabrze and that is much more important than you using it. In fact, to be honest, you using it counts for nothing. If you want to make your point please provide reliable sources that Germans still use Hindenburg.  Dr. Loosmark  12:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you are blind or (designedly) forgetful, but some hours ago I explained you, that the German wikipedia (By the way Wikipedia isn't a source for Wikipedia) uses the Polish names like Wałbrzych and Świętochłowice and the German name is mentioned in brackets. Maybe you will suggest that ę, ł and Ś are used in German language...?! And you're still repeating your nonsense... and writing personal attacks. So that's why I think it's senseless to discuss with and to explain something to a forgetful person like you. Hindenburg is used in German personal data, like identity card, so I'm not in the situation to prove anyting. Maybe the Bundesdruckerei is a subdivion of the NPD? So please save us the right wing shit. But I gladly refer you to the posting of Xx236, if you need any source of usage. --Jonny84 (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly have I written here about NPD? BDW NPD is a legal organization in Germany, (very visible to Poles pasing the border Polish-German border), what would be wrong with mentioning it as a part of German politics toward Poland and Poles? Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress

Is

  • [...] (German: Zabrze, in 1915 changed to Hindenburg) [...]

acceptable? Reasoning: The disputed issue (whether Zabrze or Hindenburg is the current German toponym) is left undecided (as opposed to using "prior to", "since", "between", "from ... to" or "until"). If current German usage can be sufficiently established (which I doubt), then the line may be changed to reflect that, but right now the proposed line would break the deadlock without anyone having to back up from their position. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but why should the older name mentioned in front of the newer name? --Jonny84 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Jonny, it would seem logical to put the older name before the newer name. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So we should start with Sadbre/Cunczindorf? --Jonny84 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of acceptable, but I don't really see the need to include the word "German" at all. We're talking official names here, not names in particular languages (except for the apparent Silesian name, which is also given in the lead). In fact this is a common issue that I may myself have contributed to in the past, for many ex-German-now-Polish places - we often say Cośtam (German: Etwasdorf) not entirely accurately - we ought to be making a distinction between the cases where the two languages have different versions of the name (Warsaw/Warschau etc.), and cases where the name actually changed, by decree, at a particular time (or times). --Kotniski (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Haha, that´s so typical: Now there's no need to mentioning German names. So wait in a minute I will delete Lwów because it's not the official name of this city and we're talking just about official names. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, of course I didn't mean that... In some cases (e.g. Lviv) we have alternative names in other languages, in some cases (e.g. Zabrze, and Lviv as well, of course) we have different official names in different periods. We should present the information in such a way as not to mislead the reader as to what type of case it is.--Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha, yeah, changing meanings like you need it. Poles never used Hindenburg in their language, so there was no period: There was a German name Hindenburg and a polish name Zabrze. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, do you have any sources for what Poles used when it was called Hindenburg? It might seem reasonable to assume that Poles would have gone on calling it Zabrze longer and more commonly than Germans would, but this kind of vague speculation isn't really something we would want to base encyclopedic statements on. --Kotniski (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, everyone, keep it cool and assume good faith about others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have quoted two examples:

  • Vilnius ( [ˈvilnʲus] (help·info), see also other names)
  • Ivano-Frankivsk (Ukrainian: Івано-Франківськ; formerly Stanyslaviv[1] or Stanisławów see below)

Why does Zabrze deserve another treatment? Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Fromde:Paul von Hindenburg: "Nach einer Umbenennungswelle in den Jahren 1945/46 diskutieren seit den 1970er Jahren Städte und Gemeinden über die Tilgung seines Namens. Dies veranschaulicht die zwiespältige Bewertung Hindenburgs: einerseits die charismatische Heldengestalt des Ersten Weltkriegs und der vom Volk gewählte Reichspräsident der Weimarer Republik, andererseits einer der Initiatoren der Dolchstoßlegende sowie derjenige, der Hitler zum Reichskanzler ernannte und mit seiner Zustimmung zum Ermächtigungsgesetz an der Beseitigung der Republik mitwirkte. Die letzte nach Hindenburg benannte Schule, das Hindenburg-Gymnasium Trier, legte im April 2009 seinen Namen ab." So Hindenburg isn't quite good for Germany but O.K. for Poland.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, the discussion is taking a very interesting trend: After I'm trying to prevent/protect the article of POV, you're now trying do delete the German name completely. Dear Xx236, I have some other examples for you: Lviv and Kaliningrad. Why should they deserve a entry of the Polish name? Especially Kaliningrad? But let me explain: First of all, this is the English Wikipedia (not the Polish) and English is a internationally used language. So there are also German-speaking readers. English readers could be also interested in different names of a place. And at least Upper Silesia is a bilingual region. There is no reason to privilege Polish anyway. Next: The Hindenburgdamm still exists in Germany, for now nobody renamed it. Quite bad for you, but not so bad for German-speaking Persons?! By the way we're not here to discuss about the person Paul von Hindenburg, so I will not in future. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop addressing me personally? I find your comments ad-personam. Maybe it's the matter of my poor language, but I don't understand your jokes, if they are jokes.

I have never asked to "delete the German name completely" from any article, I'm asking not to start with Zabrze, German Hindenburg, because there exists a context unknown to the majority of readers. BTW the name Königsberg is historical, the name Hindenburg was used only 30 years, 12 od them under Nazis. Zabrze is a Silesian city, the Silesians call it szl:Zobrze and the article starts with "Zobrze - (pol. Zabrze, mjym. Zabrze - do 1915, Hindenburg O.S - 1915-1945)". The Silesians aren't Polish nationalists.

de:Hindenburgdamm - the second part of the truth: "Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg stand der Name lange Zeit in der Kritik, da Hindenburg wegen seiner zögerlichen Haltung als Wegbereiter Adolf Hitlers gesehen wurde. Es gab zahlreiche Initiativen, den Damm umzubenennen. Vorschläge wie „Sylt-Damm”, „Friedens-Damm” und „Nordfriesland-Damm” konnten sich jedoch nicht durchsetzen."

Upper Silesia has two separate parts since 1950 - Opole region with 10% German minority and Katowice region with 0,67% and 148 500 "Silesians" consisting the second "nationality". Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all: Look into a dictionary, "You" can mean many persons. Secondly: What do you want to tell us with the Hindenburgdamm? Which truth? "konnten sich jedoch nicht durchsetzen" means "They couldn't prevail"... so it's still the Hindenburgdamm. Thirdly: You are mixing up incoherent contents and that makes me very tired. Fourthly: "was used only 30 years" should be an argument or a basis for a discussion? How many years Italian Roma was called Rzym? 5 years, 4 years or was it zero years? Fifthly: Königsberg? Ehhh? I was talking about Królewiec and the entry of it!? By the way: Silesians are also German-speaking persons, so why you are mentioning the Szlonzokian Name? You don't need to explain me Silesians, because I'm a Silesian :-o --Jonny84 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't understand you. An example: "How many years Italian Roma was called Rzym? 5 years, 4 years or was it zero years?" Is it a joke or a question or a way to humilate me as an ignorant? What is your goal?Xx236 (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah you are right, it was used 30 years, until 1945, until the Silesian inhabitants of this city were majoritarian thrown out and it was given (against their wishes in plebiscite) under Polish administration. ;-) --Jonny84 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It were Germans who were expelled after WWII. True Silesians could stay there in Zabrze. Many of them still speak German in everyday communication, many speak Silesian dialect of Polish language. It was a completely different situation compared to Lower Silesia were virtually all inhabitants were expelled. - Darwinek (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
True Silesians? Hahaha. Never heard something more misrepresenting like this. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick question, as an observer of this discussion... does anyone actually have a reliable source that states which name is official, and/or which unofficial names are used? This entire discussion seems to be focused on what each editor thinks, not what verifiable information might exist that would be useful to constructing an encyclopedia. --Chris (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. To answer quickly your question. There is only one official name - Zabrze (in Polish). The other names used in the lead represent historical official names (in German) and the name in Silesian dialect, since Zabrze is inhabited by a strong minority of so-called Silesians. The only question, still unsolved, remains. The question is, which name in contemporary German sources is used more frequently today - Zabrze or Hindenburg. That seems to be the only concern for all involved editors. - Darwinek (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
And that question should be answered with a reliable source. Other means of answering the question will undoubtedly be original research or synthesis. --Chris (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have some sources for present usage of the name Hindenburg OS, but so far I didn't saw a real interest in the clarification of the matter (Just take a look). But source no 1: The Federation of the German minority of Poland (VdG): [17]; and source no 2: The location groups on the website of the Organisation of the German minority in the Silesian Voivodeship (DFK Schlesien): [18]. These are two reliable/reputable sources. If required I will have other examples. Greetings. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The second appears to be only a directory, and I would therefore suggest that it is not a reliable source for deciding which name is more frequently used by Germans. I would lean towards that decision as well for the former article, since it does not indicate which name is used more -- it simply uses it. Referencing these articles to make such a statement would be OR. --Chris (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian Nazi Collaborators now "Polish"

Latest comment: 14 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion

user:Varsovian is back and he is trying to add the category "Polish Nazi collaborators" to the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators Jakiw Palij and Jaroslaw Bilaniuk.  Dr. Loosmark  11:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that both Palij and Bilaniuk were born in Poland (and referred to in the provided sources as being born Polish) and neither of them so much as set foot in a country called Ukraine, they are Polish (Polish nationals at least, their ethnicity would be something for which we would need to find further sources; if we can find sources which confirm that either or both were ethnic Ukrainians, I would very much favour adding the additional category "Ukrainian Nazi collaborators" to show that they were both Polish and Ukrainian). The simple fact is that these men were Polish citizens and were de jure Polish citizens at the time that they collaborated with the Nazi: they were Polish Nazi collaborators. Every country had its Nazi collaborators and, no matter how much some Poles wish otherwise, Poland is no different. Varsovian (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Polish citizens? Source? Never set foot in Ukraine? Source? Polish Nazi collaborators? Sources? As much as you'd love to invent Polish Nazi collaborators left and right, unless you provide "reliable sources" it's all your original research and wishful thinking.  Dr. Loosmark  11:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the incivil comment. Please note that there are sources given which state the place where both men were born and brought up: that place was in Poland. The sources also show that their fathers were from that same place. If you want to make them Ukrainian, I suggest that you find sources which explain how the place where they were born (and where their fathers were from) did not become part of Poland in 1918 and actually became part of an independent Urkainian state. They were Poles, just as Bronislaw Hajda was. Varsovian (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. It is funny how always everybody is accusing interwar Poland of mistreating its national minorities in the east, but the very same people suddenly selectively argue, that Ukrainians from eastern Poland were actually Poles. - Darwinek (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to be a Polish and Ukrainian. Just as it is possible to be Polish and Jewish or Polish and Lithuanian. Ask Pilsudski for details. The racist views of certain Poles (such as the ones who listen to Radio Maryja) no more mean that Ukrainians can not be Polish than that black people can not be Polish (although obviously nobody here would claim that blacks can not be Polish). Not that any of this is currently relevant, given that there are zero sources about the ethnicity of these two men. Varsovian (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point Darwinek, it's really comical how the same editors who whine that Poland mistreated the Ukrainian minority now try to make the Ukrainians - Poles. Comedy at its purest.  Dr. Loosmark  11:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please be so kind as to either explain how "editors who whine" and/or "Comedy at its purest" meet WP:CIVIL or refrain from making such unhelpful contributions in the future. If you don't want to co-operate, don't: but kindly do not attempt to obstruct those who do wish to work. Varsovian (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing uncivil in calling a duck a duck. Also since you have just accused the listeners of Radio Maryja of being racist, which in itself is worthy of a block, I think it would better for yourself if you restrain yourself from giving advices to other editors.  Dr. Loosmark  12:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I to conclude that you do not wish to co-operate? Could you please be so kind as to provide a diff where I accuse "the listeners of Radio Maryja of being racist" of being racist? If you feel that any of my statements are worthy of a block, you know where to report me. Shall I also report your use of a false edit summary? Varsovian (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: now Varsovian is trying to make Bohdan Koziy Polish. ROFL.  Dr. Loosmark  12:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion on the talk page shows, I am actually asking why a man born in Poland is not described as being Polish. The reply given contradicts the logic used in another article about a Polish-Ukrainian Nazi collaborator. I would be most grateful if you could be so kind as to refrain from lying about me and from wiki-stalking me. Varsovian (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Why? Because Bohdan was Ukrainian, that's why. Btw who is wiki-stalking you?  Dr. Loosmark  13:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Koziy was Polish. He was born in Poland and committed his crimes in Poland (de jure Poland). You have now followed me onto all of the pages that I have posted on or edited today: do you really expect us to believe that you had all of those pages on your watch page? Do tell. Varsovian (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Your WP:OR theories about Bohdan the Pole are really comical. As for the "stalking" theories I do not expect you to believe anything, I couldn't care less what do you believe.  Dr. Loosmark  13:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:CIVIL. Koziy was born in Poland and was a Polish citizen. He was a member of the Ukrainian ethnic minority but that doesn't make him a nationality other than Polish. Ukrainians can be Polish, just as Jewish people can Polish and black people can be Polish and Romani people can be Polish and Vietnamese people can be Polish. Or are black Poles, Jewish Poles, Romani Poles and/or Vietnamese Poles not Polish in your eyes? Varsovian (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree, Dr Loosmark try to be civil and polite to other people, even if you disagree with them. Malick78 (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, as I said recdently at (I think) Talk:Adam Mickiewicz, nationality descriptions are of necessity complex syntheses of various facts. We can perhaps try to understand why particular authors have reached particular conclusions based on particular facts, but we can't do our own syntheses. We can only report what sources say, and if there's a difference between what they say, report the differences.--Kotniski (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we simply remove nationality descriptions other than those explicitly given in reliable sources (in the same way that the Sawoniuk lede problem was finally solved)? If you are, there is certainly something in what you say. However, here we have the added problem of nationality vs ethnicity (and the potential problem that certain people (note I say people, not editors) will never admit that any of their nationality ever did anything wrong). Varsovian (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop beating a dead horse. He wasn't Polish time to move on.  Dr. Loosmark  14:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Sawoniuk was born in Poland to a Polish mother and fought in the Polish army: he is more Polish than Chopin (also born in Poland to a Polish mother, and possibly to a Polish father, but failed to join the Polish army when he had the chance to do so). If Sawoniuk isn't Polish, how come Chopin is? Varsovian (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop beating a dead horse.  Dr. Loosmark  15:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, I really would be interested in hearing your views about this if you have time. Varsovian (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we should be following what sources say explicitly. The difference between nationality and ethnicity is fairly blurred, I think, in the historical contexts we've been talking about - there's a difference between citizenship (a relatively recent concept anyway) and ethnicity, and the nationality descriptions we find in sources can follow either, depending on quite complex factors.--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

All of these individuals that Varsovian is trying to tag as "Polish Nazi collaborators" should be described as "<ethnicity> born in what was then part of Poland", which is the most accurate and precise way of doing it. The category of course obviously doesn't belong in there and should be removed.radek (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall we had this discussion in the past, as some editors seem to confuse ethnicity with citizenship. The case of Ukrainian collaborators is interesting. They were Ukrainians (members of the Ukrainian minority in Poland), born in Poland (Second Polish Republic), thus Polish citizens of Ukrainian ethnicity. With coming of WWII the situation is a bit more confusing - the issue of German attitude towards Polish pre-war citizenship should be looked into. Still, what Radek suggests is the common solution - mention ethnicity and citizenship separately.
The category question is more confusing; is Category:Ukrainian Nazi collaborators or Category:Polish Nazi collaborators better? Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany by nationality is not helping, as nationality can be seen as related both to citizenship and ethnicity. Consider: there was no Polish citizenship during the partitions period, but we call many people of that era Polish. Also consider: there was no internationally recognized Ukrainian state during WWII, so how come Category:Ukrainian Nazi collaborators is even in the Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany by nationality, as one could argue that Ukrainian nationality, understood as Ukrainian citizenship, did not exist? As such, I think that it is clear that nationality, in current Wikipedia use, means ethnicity more then citizenship. But we are known to respect the citizenship/nationality categories, too, consider Ignacy Domeyko, who obviously not of Chilean ethnicity is in the Chilean categories (and rightly so). The question is, usually: is the connection of person x to that country important enough to justify such categories? The connection, in my experience, is usually recognized as either the individual in question seeing himself as part of a certain group, or that certain group laying a claim to him. In the case of the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators cited above, their Ukrainian ethnicity is clear, and those categories seem justified. Their Polish connection is less clear: they were citizens of Poland, but did they claim to be Polish (as it is rather clear that Poles do not "claim them" as their own)?
I am a bit ambiguous on the entire issue, as seeing people lay claim to famous people but disassociate themselves with infamous ones is amusing, but perhaps not very encyclopedic. Frankly, this issue seems to require a wider policy discussion, IMHO (as in: do we need to distinguish in the category system ethnicity from citizenship?). Still, Stalin is Georgian, and Hitler is Austrian. Perhaps it is time to accept that that some Ukrainian or Lithuanian collaborators are as Polish, in the current category system, as Wilno or Lwów. Hmmm, but wait a moment here... :P --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. There is also a similarity with German Nazis, born or living outside Germany in interwar period. Karl Hermann Frank and hundreds other Nazis had Czechoslovak citizenship before World War II. Could they be therefore labelled as "Czech/Czechoslovak Nazis"? No, because they were ethnic German. Same applies for Nazis with pre-war citizenships of Austria, Slovenia and other countries with German minorities. - Darwinek (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. That's absurd, for instance they were Selbstschutz forces in Poland made from ethnic Germans who were murdering Poles and assisting German Invasion; if we used the logic presented by Vasrovian, they would be classified as Polish units.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)PS:Better-we could call George Washington a British politician going into that direction.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

About categories: generally speaking I think categories should tend to be interpreted relatively broadly - "Category:Polish Xs" should include all Xs who are Polish by whatever standard (born in Poland, Polish citizens, called Polish by some reliable sources), similarly "Category:Ukrainian Xs" etc., regardless of whether being a notable X is a good or a bad thing. (Of course, if it's a bad thing, then we have to be careful about labelling someone an X in the first place, particularly if it's a living person, but once they're definitely an X, it's not derogatory to label them a particular nationality of X.) We can't second-guess the precise reasons people may be using these categories to look for articles, so we should populate them generously. That's a quite different question than whether an article should include the unqualified statement "A was a Polish X". (Of course, ideally category asignments would be qualifiable too - so Chopin could appear under Polish composers with the footnote "sometimes called Polish-French" and under French composers as "usually considered Polish" - or something like that - but the software doesn't have such a feature.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This particular case is different for reasons best exemplified by the "Polish death camp" controversy. Polish nationals with the Ukrainian background can be categorized as Polish in the world of music. However, the word Polish has connotations that clearly extended beyond geographic context. Polish Nazi collaborators should also be ethnically Polish in order to be listed as such, because usage of the term can be condemned as "insulting". Hence the case of Андрэй Саванюк. Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany is highly politicized. It includes Category:Polish Nazi collaborators with a few odd surnames. I see a problem here similar to that of the "Polish Ghetto", the "Polish Holocaust", "Nazi Poland" and the listing of Auschwitz with Oświęcim being Polish by default. --Fixatif (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Meeting

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A small gathering of Wikipedians is being organized for this Saturday in Kórnik, near Poznań. For details see here. --Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Berling troops

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There seems to be redirect confusion between Berling Army, Polish First Army, People's Army of Poland and Polish Armed Forces in the East. As far as I can tell the Polish First Army was a branch of the Berling Army aka People's Army of Poland aka Polish Armed Forces in the East - the latter three should be merged, and the redirect from Berling Army to Polish First Army should be removed. I'm no expert so I'm requesting other opinions on how best to fix this. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The only quibble here is that "Polish Armed Forces in the East" is a bit broader than the Berlin Army; the article on it mentions Anders' Army, which was also created in the East (though it fought in the West). It's also possible - though I can't think of specific examples atm - that PAF in the East could also cover other Polish formations stemming from the Soviet Union, like say Soviet backed Polish partisans or something.radek (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
We also need an EngLang article for Berling's replacement, Władysław Korczyc.-Chumchum7 (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless it was Michał Rola-Żymierski who was Berling's replacement. SOmeone please advise.-Chumchum7 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Władysław Korczyc was the commander of the 1st Army, after Berling and before Poplawski. I've added him to my "to translate" list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Piotrus' to do list #1

Latest comment: 14 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion

So I am back, if in a limited fashion. Thanks to all who helped with that, and thanks to all who kept this project alive in the meantime. Over the next days I will be suggesting a bunch of edits here, for your consideration. Please strike them out if you carry them; or let me know if you think they are unnecessary/unhelpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Task 1

Task 1: rescue useful images listed at the bottom of User talk:Witkacy (User_talk:Witkacy#File_source_problem_with_File:Roman_Sanguszko.jpg and below) and User talk:Emax (User_talk:Emax#File_source_problem_with_File:Kazimierz_Poniatowski_.281721-1800.29.jpg and below) by finding sources. A simple way of doing this is to use Google Images search, try to find a source, and then replace the no source template in the image with the link to the source. Please let me know who is willing to do take care of that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back if in a limited way. I google Roman Sanguszko but with no luck. I found Kazimierz Poniatowski here [22] Jniech (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Task 2

Task 2: ~weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: French demonstration of 15 May 1848 started at 23:35, 28 April 2010 - Koralli started at 07:09, 5 May 2010)

Task 3

Task 3: varia

  • please remove the signature breaking assessment template at Talk:Polish Corridor
    • too much was removed, please replace it with {{WikiProject Poland|class=C|importance=mid}}

So... who is taking care of this? Don't be shy, post here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Task 4

Task 4: ~weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: Polski Izvor started at 11:57, 5 May 2010 - Bernardo Kliksberg started at 20:47, 6 May 2010)

  • PL-Grid - multiple copyedit issues, appropriate tags: {{notability}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{uncategorized}}, {{external links}} and {{Context}}
  • Mateusz Masternak - main article: {{Poland-boxing-bio-stub}}, talk: assess as stub and low importance for our project, add {{WPBiography|class=stub|importance=low||living=yes}}
  • Grzegorz Proksa - rate as stub for our project on talk
  • Military Ordinariate of Poland - add [[pl:Ordynariat Polowy Wojska Polskiego]] (if the bot hasn't), talk: tag with {{MILHIST}}. It is a borderline stub, consider adding {{Poland-mil-stub}} and {{RC-stub}}
  • Beauty Festival - main article, appropriate tags: {{unreferenced}}, {{uncategorized}}, talk: {{WikiProject Poland|class=start|importance=low}}, {{WikiProject Beauty Pageants|class=start|importance=}}
  • please welcome and invite to the project the following user(s): User talk:Henryk Borawski

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Task 5

Task 5: ~weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: Milan Vučićević started at 11:31, 7 May 2010 to List of military aircraft operational during World War II started at 03:10, 11 May 2010)

  • Polish Mexican (main: {{Poland-stub}}, {{Mexico-stub}}, talk: {{WikiProject Poland|class=stub|importance=low}) {{WikiProject Mexico|class=stub|importance=low}})
  • Józef Kowalczyk - please consider T:TDYKing it with {{subst:NewDYKnom | article=Józef Kowalczyk | hook=... that the latest [[Primate of Poland]], '''[[Józef Kowalczyk]]''' received a diploma of archivist of the [[Vatican Secret Archives]]? | status=new | author=Kpalion | nominator=Piotrus}}
  • Polish Festival @ Federation Square - main: {{notability}}, {{uncategorized}}, {{unreferenced}}

Comment

Comment: so... am I just creating a list of tasks for my self to do in x amount of time? Also, T:TDYK nominations are on timer, so if nobody is moving them, there is no point for me to come up with hooks here :( PS. Jniech - thanks for helping, I know you don't have much time, what you did is appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been keeping up with your suggestions, Piotrus, especially the DYK nominations. I'm afraid they're past the 5-day limit now. I'll stay on top of them in the future. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It has been my experience that DYK reviewrs are often lenient with the 5-day deadline. I'd suggest using the DYKs, just add a note for the DYK reviewer that they may be a bit older than usual - and let them decide if they are worth using. Thanks for the help, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  Done. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. As you know, reward for a job well done is... :) Expect more stuff around Sunday! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Task 6

Those are some of the gnomish edits I noticed need to be made as far back as in January. As always, those are suggestions, use your best judgment and start a discussion if you have any questions/comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. Mongol invasion of Poland - Update the following sentence with correct dates and requested reference: There were also later, smaller Mongol invasions of Poland (1259-1260 and 1287-1288).<ref>{{pl icon}} Jacek Kawecki, [http://www.futurum.pl/historia/najazd.doc Najazd mongolski na Polskę w 1287 roku]</ref>
  2. Ulryk Hozjusz - [[Category:1455 births]], [[Category:1535 deaths]], [[Category:Polish nobility]]
  3. Władysław Pobóg-Malinowski - [[Category:1899 births]], [[Category:1962 deaths]], [[Category:Polish Army officers]], [[Category:Polish historians]]
  4. Liuboml - add {{commonscat|Liuboml}}
  5. Ryksa - disambig - link Richeza of Lotharingia as this the person noted in the second disambig choice ("Blessed Rycheza or Ryksa (around 1063), Queen of Poland, wife of King Mieszko II (1025-1031).")
  6. Wacław Kostek-Biernacki - reassess as start, add File:Wacław Kostek Biernacki.jpg
  7. Minsk Ghetto - restore [[Image:Map of the Minsk Ghetto.jpg|thumb|300px|Map of the Minsk Ghetto by professor [[Barbara Epstein]]]] (OTRS permission received, see image's page)
  8. Workers Defense Committee - create redirect: #REDIRECT [[Workers' Defense Committee]]
  9. New Year's Day (song) - add [[Category:Solidarity (Polish union movement)]]
  10. create redirects: Wilenska Brygada Kawalerii and Wileńska Brygada Kawalerii to #REDIRECT [[Wileńska Cavalry Brigade]]
  11. add [[Category:The Enlightenment]] to Russian Enlightenment
  12. add [[Category:Christianity]] to Christ of Europe
  13. redirect Polish Embassy in Washington #REDIRECT [[Embassy of Poland in Washington, D.C.]]
  14. add interwikis: Battle of Ancona (Bitwa o Anconę); Arbeitslager (Arbeitslager), John Ward (RAF officer) (John Ward), Military Ordinariate of Poland (Ordynariat Polowy Wojska Polskiego), Second Infantry Fusiliers Division (2 Dywizja Strzelców Pieszych),
  15. assess: Christ of Europe (talk: {WikiProject Poland|class=start|importance=low}} {{WPReligion|class=start|importance=low}}
  16. Sondergerichte (main: {{wikify}} {{globalize}} talk: {{WikiProject Germany|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Law|class=start|importance=low}} )

Minor update. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. Władysław II the Exile - reassess to start
  2. Black Procession - assess as start
  3. Richeza of Lotharingia - reassess as start

Task 7

New batch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: List of military aircraft operational during World War II started at 03:10, 11 May 2010 to Poznan, Ohio started at 17:49, 17 May 2010)

  1. Stańczyk (painting) - main: {{Poland-stub}} ; talk: {{Visual arts|class=stub}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  1. Also add {{Poland-stub}} to Battle of Grunwald (painting)
  1. Electric power supply of Polish State Railways - main: {{notability}} {{Cleanup-link rot}} {{unreferenced}} and {{Poland-stub}}. Talk: {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  2. Maciej Kozłowski - Talk: {{WPBIO|class=Stub|living=no}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  3. Tomasz Dobiszewski - main: {{notability}} and {{Poland-artist-stub}}. Talk: assess as stub
  4. King Matt the First - please consider nominating at T:TDYK with {{subst:NewDYKnom | article=King Matt the First | hook=... that the 1923 [[Children's literature|children's novel]] '''[[King Matt the First]]''' is as popular in Poland as [[Peter Pan]] is in the English-speaking world? | status=new | author=Nbarth| nominator=Piotrus}}
  5. Kosciuszko Park (Chicago) - please inform the author (User talk:Orestek) that only a minor expansion is needed for T:TDYKing
  6. The Farm 51 - main: {{Poland-stub}}, {{Company-stub}}, {{notability}}
  7. PESA 120Na - main: {{Poland-stub}}
  8. Józef Śliwiński - talk: {{WPBIO|class=Stub|living=no}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  9. Maciek Fronski - move to Maciek Froński. Main: {{Poland-bio-stub}} , talk: {{WPBIO|class=Stub|living=yes}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  10. Please replace instances of use of File:Jerzy Ossolinski.jpg with File:Jerzy ossolinski.jpg.
  11. Please speedy delete File:Zygmunt I Stary.jpg - a better version is already on Commons under the same name: commons:File:Zygmunt I Stary.jpg
  12. Please speedy delete File:Zygmunt Pulawski.jpg - a better image is already on Commons under the same name: commons:File:Zygmunt Pulawski.jpg
  • DYK - is exactly on the 7 day deadline, so I say yes, go for it.
Regarding the file, we can wait - but I don't think anybody but me has ever provided a source for Emax/Witkacy's images so... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The DYK deadline is 5 days, not 7, but I submitted it anyway.   — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Ha, I always thought it was around 7. Anyway, as DYK does have a backlog (now, roughly 20 days) I tend to see adding things to the backlog as fine. That said, I may be wrong - I will raise this on DYK talk in the near future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Task 8

New batch, trying to keep them semi-weekly so they are not overwhelming (ha, you should try doing it every two weeks :D). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: Aleksandra Stadniczenko started at 20:06, 17 May 2010 to European Paralympic Committees started at 18:09, 19 May 2010)

  1. Aleksandra Stadniczenko - Talk: {{WPBIO|class=Start|living=yes}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Start|importance=Low}}
  2. all articles created by Starzynka need a WikiProject Poland project tag (stub) on their talk; here's a list:
  1. Jakub M. Godzimirski - as above, +{{Poland-academic-bio-stub}}
  2. Lower Silesian-Markish Railway - {{nofootnotes}}, please inform the creator (User talk:Grahamec) that if he were to add inline references, his article would classify for T:TDYK
  3. Ekstraliga Kobiet - talk: Poland and {{Football|class=stub|importance=mid}} WikiProject tags
  4. Hate speech laws in Poland - main: {{wikify}}, talk: {{WikiProject Poland|class=start|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=low}}
    Also, assess Talk:Law of Poland for WPLAW project as mid
    I hesitate to nominate this for DYK because of the glaring error in the first body paragraph. Polish constitution does indeed have a provision that protects the freedom of speech - Art. 54 ("The freedom to express opinions, to acquire and to disseminate information shall be ensured to everyone." and "Preventive censorship of the means of social communication and the licensing of the press shall be prohibited.", see [23]). This should be corrected in the article before it can be DYKed.
  5. Antoni Blusiewicz Haftka - restore hoax template, see AfD - deleted, all's fine now
  6. Jan Berdyszak - main: [[pl:Jan Berdyszak]], [[Category:1934 births]], [[Category:Polish artists]]talk: Poland project bio, start, also WP:BIO|class=start|living=yes
  7. Sławomir Rawicz - correct bolden name in lead; correct instances of Glinski to Gliński in text, add {{Refimprove}}
  8. User talk:OGUREK - please invite to our project

Task 9

Weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: Ernst Born started at 20:29, 19 May 2010 to Bárbara Leôncio started at 02:57, 23 May 2010)

  1. Voivodeship Road 430 (Poland) - {{WikiProject Poland|class=Start|importance=Low}}
    Roads and expressways in Poland, National roads in Poland and Voivodeship road - assess as start
    Expressways of Poland - reassess as start, more than just a list
  2. Tadeusz Jasiński - main: add [[pl:Tadeusz Jasiński]], {{Poland-bio-stub}}, [[Category:1926 births]], [[Category:1939 deaths]]. Talk: {{WPBIO|class=Stub|living=no}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  3. Dorota Nieznalska - Talk: {{WPBIO|class=Start|living=yes}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}. T:TDYK: {subst:NewDYKnom | article=Dorota Nieznalska | hook=... that works of the Polish artist '''[[Dorota Nieznalska]]''' stirred a religious controversy and charges of [[blasphemy]] in Poland? | status=new | author=Zloyvolsheb | nominator=Piotrus}}
  4. Mariusz Adamski - T:TDYK: {subst:NewDYKnom | article=Mariusz Adamski | hook=... that Polish aerial photographer '''[[Mariusz Adamski]]''' is known for shooting aircraft from unusual perspectives? | status=new | author=Starzynka |author2=Morenooso | nominator=Piotrus}}

Small batch, this time, but two DYKs on a timer! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Task 10

Weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: Verbuendungshaus fforst started at 13:13, 23 May 2010 to Reichswerke Hermann Göring started at 05:50, 25 May 2010

  1. Teodor Jeske-Choiński - Talk: {{WPBIO|class=Stub|living=no}}
  2. Squadron 303 (book) - Talk: add MILHIST template
  3. German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - please update all project assessments to B, per MILHIST assessment
  4. Silesian Uprisings - same
  5. Gambling in the CIS - add {{uncategoprized}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}
  6. The night of culture - add [[Category:Lublin]] [[Category:Festivals in Poland]], {{refimprove}}. Talk: Poland wikiproject tag, assess as start
  7. Moshe Flinker - add {{uncategorized}}, {{notability}} (shouldn't this be just merged with the book?), also, {{bio-stub}}
  8. Young Moshe’s Diary: The Spiritual Torment of a Jewish Boy in Nazi Europe - as above + {{unreferenced}} and the stub is {{nonfiction-book-stub}}
  9. 1997 Oder Flood - consider moving to Millennium Flood or proposing such a move on talk
  10. RosaSport Radom - main: [[Category:Radom]], talk: Poland and basketball wikiproject tags, stub
  11. Casimir Zagourski - please move to Kazimierz Zagórski; add the iwiki link to pl wiki [[pl:Kazimierz Zagórski]], add a photo from pl wiki, talk: WP Poland and BIO projects (living=no)

Another small batch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland/Archive_5&oldid=1137368551"