Tu banner alternativo

Talk:Poland

In today's world, Talk:Poland is a topic that has gained relevance in different areas. From education to technology, through politics and health, Talk:Poland has captured the attention of various actors and has generated a wide debate in society. As time progresses, it becomes evident that Talk:Poland is an issue that cannot be ignored, as its impact is increasingly palpable in people's daily lives. In this article, we will analyze different aspects related to Talk:Poland, in order to understand its importance and the implications it has in our current reality.

Tu banner alternativo


RfC - Information box dates

In connection to the above discussion, should the information box in the Poland article start with "Baptism of Poland 14 April 966" or "Duchy of Poland c. 960"? PJK 1993 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  • 966: as shown above, there are multiple reliable sources that reference 966 and the Baptism of Poland as the formal and widely accepted beginning of Polish statehood. The c. 960 date has no sources to show its validity (the date is WP:OR that someone just added in). Before the year 966, the tribal state of the Slavic Polans was a pagan chiefdom not a "duchy". The designation "duchy" is a latin word connected with feudalism and christendom, and the Baptism of Poland marked the formal recognition of the early Polish state by the Latin Church and other Christian states of Europe. That's why the overwhelming majority of historians accept 966, and not some vague, undefined, and inconsequential date of c. 960. Also, looking at the history of the Poland article, the change to "c. 960" is relatively recent and before that for many years the dates in the information box started with 966. PJK 1993 (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a source for "Duchy of Poland c. 960" (otherwise remove the dubious claim)

Can someone actually provide a reliable reference source that validates the claim that the historically accepted formation start date for Poland is "Duchy of Poland c. 960". This is quite outrageous that such a false claim is being kept since it was added in last year. The editors who up to this point did not present a source to show there is merit to this claim yet continue to stonewall it in place, are flagrantly undermining Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility by pushing their own POV. PJK 1993 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense and PJK 1993: OK let's remove then this claim from the infobox as there are no actual arguments to keep it in. And in my opinion the Baptism of Poland can be the first point in time here. Antoni12345 (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I already gave my position why it's not unverified, why it's not a real problem presently, and why it would be if this removal was done slapdash. I don't really have anything else to add—it seems others are presently going out of their way not to understand what the aforementioned points are, and sorry, I sense that there's some tendentious, nationalistic currents motivating why folks are up in arms. (If that's egregious for me to say, then genuinely, please hit my ignorant American head with a mallet. It just comes from a bit of genuine confusion.)
Since I may have to say it explicitly lest I be misunderstood: I oppose removing the present date and doing nothing else – given it's not unverified in any meaningful sense, only potentially a bit vaguer than it need be. If one would like to fix that, then they can potentially replace the cite with a more precise dating. That and status quo are the two choices that are acceptable to me. Remsense 🌈 论 20:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Remsense, ohhh... I would not go there with language of this kind tendentious, nationalistic, because someone could just as well say that your POV is 'tendentious and anti-christian' for stonewalling such an obvious case of WP:OR. Like I said, you want to be academically honest then provide a source which cites c. 960 (but I know there is not one that exists) as the start date for Polish statehood (those are the Wikipedia rules, not mine, see: Wikipedia:Verifiability). SOURCES PLEASE not red herrings accusations. --PJK 1993 (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Look, I don't think I've stated this explicitly, so let me try at least once. The reason it's not OR is because it's accurate, just not precise. If the preferred date is 966, then c. 960 is just as accurate as, but is more precise than, 10th century. If 966 is considered more correct, then no one needs my permission to specify and cite 966. Remsense 🌈 论 21:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
No, I don't think you are familiar with Polish history, the 966 date was always accepted, even the Polish Communist Government in 1966 celebrated the 1000 years of Polish statehood. So, when someone adds in some idiotic and made up date of c.960 it is really misleading and quite frankly false. --PJK 1993 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
My point this entire time has been that c. 960 is needlessly imprecise, and even potentially confusing in so being, but it's not OR, just a poor presentation of what is verifiable. I'm sorry if there's something I'm not explaining well, but it wouldn't be right of me either to pretend I agree the issue is something that it's not. Remsense 🌈 论 21:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability: 'In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources.' Where is the source to verify that claim, so please don't stonewall anymore Remsense, see: Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. --PJK 1993 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
@Remsense: OK, I DO understand your point and I agree that by the inclusion of the Baptism of Poland as the first point in time in this infobox summary this may mistakenly imply that the Polish history started at this very event, which would be false. I just don't see alternative cause I doubt it is possible to assign dates to the earlier history of the ancestors of the Mieszko's statehood and to indicate development points of the political structure. But as I've mentioned earlier further research for sources is definately needed and Britanica is not a good one in this particular case. However, in the meantime in my opinion the article should not include unreferenced claims. — Antoni12345 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, if others think the easily citable 966 is superior, I do not oppose that whatsoever. Remsense 🌈 论 21:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
The EB article is a source, and Civitas_Schinesghe#History is pretty clear and well-sourced, and both seem to support 966. User:PJK 1993, if you could stop yelling at people that would be great. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Ok, at this point I think that there is consensus for 966 date. --PJK 1993 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Britannica points to statehood before baptism, see the quote in the footnote: "The dukes (dux) were originally the commanders of an armed retinue (drużyna) with which they broke the authority of the chieftains of the clans, thus transforming the original tribal organisation into a territorial unit."
There isn't consensus for your changes! PahlaviFan (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Where do you get the c. 900 date? Not only are you misrepresenting the source because it clearly does not say anything of the sort. You, fail to realize that 4 editors generally agree that the 966 is the date which is backed up by reference sources. So now it's not c. 960 it's c. 900, are you pushing the Great Lechia myth as fact? --PJK 1993 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Not c. 900 but c. 900s i.e. the 10th century. Britannica is the source. PahlaviFan (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Please just stop and WP:DROPTHESTICK, there are several reliable sources now that say 966. One is a Polish parliament legislative bill, which actually states just that: Law of 22 February 2019 on the establishment of the Polish Baptism Day, in order to commemorate the Baptism of Poland, dated 14 April 966, taking into account the significance of the decision of Mieszko I, considered to be the beginning of the Polish State. --PJK 1993 (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
You're WP:BLUDGEONING on the other hand, overusing WP links. Obviously there was Polish statehood before the baptism, Mieszko's state, and the infobox reflects that. Restore the infobox as you have not stated properly your reasons for deletion. PahlaviFan (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Still no reliable reference source provided for your claim. --PJK 1993 (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
the source is Britannica--"transforming the original tribal organisation into a territorial unit" "Mieszko battled the expansive tendencies of the former—a record that dates from 963 refers to a struggle with the German dukes"
hence, there was clearly statehood before 966 PahlaviFan (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Please understand WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Does your source say "c. 10th ct."? No. Does your source say 963 is recognized as the formation start date? No. --PJK 1993 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Also, please do not arbitrarily delete reliable reference sources just because they don't fit your quesionable point of view. The one that says: Poland’s history as a nation and a country commenced in 966 when she became Christianised. and this one that reads: Law of 22 February 2019 on the establishment of the Polish Baptism Day, in order to commemorate the Baptism of Poland, dated 14 April 966, taking into account the significance of the decision of Mieszko I, considered to be the beginning of the Polish State.--PJK 1993 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It appears that user PahlaviFan has been blocked, as a sockpuppet. --PJK 1993 (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2025

Change the People's Republic by adding that this was: a soviet occupation, with clear distinction on Stalinism and such, as people on the west tend to think this was a free choice (please also mention the falsified elections & propaganda for the election in 1946) Thank you Panna Joanna Malgorzata (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

"Poland." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Poland. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 27 § Poland. until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2025

Change "World No. 1 Iga Świątek, winner of five Grand Slam singles titles" to "World No. 2 Iga Świątek, winner of six Grand Slam singles titles" 120.29.72.93 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your edit request should also be clear about why this change is needed. Slomo666 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Political system

Can somebody change type of government of Poland from semi-presidental, to mixed, because Poland has mixed system, it cannot be clearly attributed to the parliamentary system or to the semi-presidential system 83.11.87.78 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

This. In fact I've checked the edit history and this page listed Poland as a Unitary parliamentary republic for YEARS. It was only changed exactly 1 yr ago and stayed that way due to edit-warring and/or conspiracy, I've just found! Mrgoodboss (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
I've made a new topic focusing this discussion at Poland is a parliamentary republic Mrgoodboss (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

New economic data

The information about GDP, GDP per capita and GDP PPP may be updated https://data.imf.org/en/Data-Explorer?datasetUrn=IMF.RES:WEO(9.0.0) Youlol7331x (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland

Ok, before anyone tries to delete my edits, PLEASE, I beg you, PLEASE read this and hear me out

I, as an Orthodox Christian, believe that Mary survived as a saint past death so this is not taking a jab at catholics, Im referencing this to be a necrocracy as the Virgin Mary isnt physically alive on this Earth, and next, the reason I mentioned the Holy Virgin to be the Queen of Poland and labeled Poland to be under a Theocratic Crowned Republic is because of the fact that this is a venerated religious figure (not in the sense of a priest or a pope but I mean as a saint) and that albeit this was declared by a resolution in the Sejm, she doesnt hold any legal or political power and her title is purely symbolic, therefore my definition aligns completely and this comes from a neutral perspective, and another reason why this edit should be kept as well is because of how much spiritual and cultural importance Mary has in polish culture

please keep this edit. Aahhspiderrrr (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Ill reword the necrocracy bit it feels too morbid Aahhspiderrrr (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I renamed the necrocracy part it felt too morbid Aahhspiderrrr (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Oops double posted couldnt see the replies mb Aahhspiderrrr (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
pls review Talk:Poland/Archive 10#Jesus being the king Moxy🍁 12:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Checked it, difference between my one and the Jesus one is that my one is a legal resolution passed in the Sejm and albeit it is not recognised in the global community all that much it is an extremely important Marian devotion for the Poles and as such she indeed is honoured by a very large number of Poles as the Queen of Poland. Aahhspiderrrr (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

cast aspersions and status quo stonewalling

Merangs, you need to stop being aggressive towards me. I made one non-controversial good faith edit here, and off you go with this comment: "no reason for change. Aim of edit warring again?" Can I edit Wikipedia or am I not allowed by you? Can I change a picture of a train (a non-controversial thing, not related to history or politics - just what I though is a better pic), without being accused of wrong doing? If you continue to intimidate me with this kind of accusatory language because I made a simple edit, I will report you. You stepped out of bounds with this comment. There is no justification for how you responded. PJK 1993 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but I am not being aggressive in any written communication, though I did outline that past Wikipedia:Edit warring did exist. Thank you for outlining Good Faith, agreed this time, but can we remain with the current neutral image showing a countryside background, or return to Wroclaw Glowny image (which is the busiest railway station in Poland as of 2023)? Also, is there a more recent density map that can replace 2016 data placed by you in demographics? Still don't understand why both metropolitan area images of Katowice and Tricity were deleted, but oh well.Merangs (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, we can restore the previous picture of Wroclaw Głowny, the current image makes the Pendolino look like a local commuter train. As for the metro pictures, I can understand Katowice, but the tri-city is not not that big and to omit Warsaw is not accurate at all. --PJK 1993 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Images

Hi @NeonFor:, I saw that in one of the edit summaries you mentioned that there are sections in this article where images should be updated or replaced. Can you please identify these? Merangs (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@PJK 1993:, is there a better representation of Warsaw for the Demographics section? The image you added is blurry and cropped, even though it's in the Warsaw page. Also, we are missing Gdańsk from being mentioned/imaged in the article, and it is an important metropolitan and port hub. Merangs (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello @PJK 1993:? Merangs (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Poland is a parliamentary republic

User:Svito3 Did you have any personal agenda, when you changed Poland's political system from the established long-standing consensus of it being parliamentary to semi-presidential, pretending like Ukraine is in any way similar to Poland? Ukraine is well-known as a semi-presidential system, whereas in Poland the power of the president is incomparably weaker, and the power of the prime minister incomparably greater. The Prime Minister sets policy, appoints ministers, the president is but a stop-gap and figurehead. A veto power does not a semi-presidential system make, when you look at actual such systems like in France or Ukraine, you'll see that there politics revolves around the President, he sets policy and appoints government ministers and the prime ministers & so on (of course the parliament elected in separate parliamentary elections has to approve the President's propositions in such a system).

I'm totally befuddled why you would liken Poland to Ukraine in this regard. In any regard! Mrgoodboss (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia