Talk:Poland/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 History 2 Unexplained 3 Population 4 Demographics and Culture 5 I added phones info 6 Motto 7 The most popular Polish web-portals 8 Poland's GDP 9 Recent 'President' Reverts 10 Vandalism 11 Geography 12 Llist of cities 13 English City Names 14 Link to website inappropriate for the article

History

The "History" section of this article suffers from what I call the "exponential effect"--an increasing amount of space is devoted to events as the dicussion moves from Polish prehistory to the present. While it's true that we know more about recent events than past events, this is not an issue at this high level of detail. I think the section should be rewritten in a more uniform level of detail. I'll try to get around to it sometime if no one else does. Appleseed 17:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC) This horrible article does not mention one word about Polish collaberation with the Nazis in the Holocaust. Please refer to the book Neighbors!!!!! The article also doesn't mention that unlike any other nation in Europe the Holocaust continued in Poland even after Germany lost the war. Polish anti-semitism made possible genocide of Jews until at least 1950.

Unexplained

The are a few aspects of the history of Poland which are left unexplained on the article. Now unless they are given coverage here thern there is probably no article which will do so, and in any case, they do actualy belong here. Poland as a name reflects a power more than a person. Polish identity is primarily based on Slavic descent like many others around them, but there is no one single Polish subgroup. Historically and even today to a lesser degree, Poland is made of numerous communities such as Masovians, Mazurians, Silesians, Slovincians, Kashubians, Pomeranians etc. some extinct, others still there... now Poland as a national power has long been succesful in a way that Yugoslavia was not. The Belgrade based federation fell into disrepair in the 90s because for the entire period of the state's existence, the government failed to silence the clerics crying from greater privileges in the name of the republic (people's local name) which in the long term is a recipe for disaster. The Polish government has at different times had problems with the minorities but have done well to silence them and lure them into accepting the Polish flag whilst isolating itself from the policies of the Greater Slavic national ideas which bordered them. At present, the simmering is mainly in Silesia. Traditionally, all the little communities, as well as having had their own dialects, had their own local flags, customs, desire for autonomy, structuring of society, and continued existence alongside those related to them. Warsaw failed to extend its borders to incorporate German administered Lusatia. If they did, then Upper and Lower Sorbian would be two more Polish dialects spoken by Western Poles. If Pomerania had steered clear of Warsaw rule then it may have been a seperate state with an administrative seat in Gdansk and then it is highly unlikely that the Pomeranians would class themselves as Polish subnationals when in fact they are already a Slav subnation. My question to any Slavic historian is, how did these communities originally form and how did they get the name 'Poland' when the only Slavic subnation to use the term 'Pole' is the Poleszuk/Tutejszi people of the Polesie? They are now situated between Belarus and the Ukraine, a clean Slavic zone but outside of the political influence of modern Poland. How did Kashubians become Polish, but Polesie end up Ukranian?! Please write to me, any expert. Celtmist 24-10-05

The comparison with Yugoslavia s only partially valid since you are comparing modern Yugoslavia (from 20th century) with early mediaeval Poland, from the times of Mieszko I. Ten centuries is quite a long time.

As to dialects, you fail to distinguish separate Slavic languages (Sorbian, for instance) with dialects of the Polish language (like Lesser Polish, Greater Polish or Mazovian). While during the regional division of Poland many regions were ruled by autonomous rulers, I doubt any of them had a dream of a separate state. Instead, most of the dukes wanted to reunite Poland under their own rule.

Now, on to the pre-historic times of Poland. There are several theories on how was Poland created. My personal favourite is that Poland was formed just like most other states of Europe, as a federation of tribes. There were two major tribes gaining the upper hand, with one centre of power in Kraków and the other one in Greater Poland. Eventually those from Gniezno and Poznań (Polanie - hence Poland) gained an upper hand and finally Mieszko I of Poland became the first historical ruler, while the history does not even mention those from Kraków. Halibutt 10:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Not bad, I think you answered my question without seeing that you did. For you however, you've probably only created more confusion. If each community was represented by a duke, be it elected or that he had acquired power via some other source, and of course those dukes had wished to unite, then naturally a new nation is born. So the comparison with Yugoslavia was partially valid indeed, but it's that 'partial bit' that is of interest to me. Even Poland had to once pass the hundred year stage; even their people had to get used to no longer being Masovian, but now united with Kashubia aswell. Of course, if they had done, then after a thousand years there would not be the linguistic diversity that there is now, nor the frequently modified flags to represent each community. Under the surface of Poland is just like any other modern European country, if Germany gives Bavaria more autonomy then Bavarians will cry even more for a seperate state, if they get that state and award autonomy to the Swabs who are a subdivision of an established subnation, the Bavarians - the problem starts again! I won't tell you about Yugoslavia because this is not the correct page but there are administrative reasons that Poland has survived and that country didn't, but even they started the same - a desire to create a new state and overturn the existing Austro-Hungary (this the Yugoslavs I mean). Now let's go back to the Lusatian Slavs. Today they are in Germany because of how the borders were drawn, are you really going to tell me that if Sorbia were in Poland, that their language would still be seperate from Polish and that Sorbs would still not be Polish, but everyone else does speak Polish and IS Polish? Upper and Lower Sorbian differ in exactly the same way that the adjacent regions in Poland and the Czech Republic do linguisticly. Lower Sorbian, like Polish has a tendency to use the Slavic 'G' where-as Upper Sorbian in words such as 'Hlej' (Look!) use the 'Ch' of Scottish loch for the same reasons. The fact is that Sorbs are at one extreme on an ethnolinguistic continuum which encompasses Poland's entire principle population and the Slavic states around them. For being Slavic remains the underlying principle on which Poland is founded. Inhabitants of Poland not to speak a Slavic language as a first language will not declare themsleves Poles and nor will they be seen to be Polish by any Slavic Pole, whether or not Poland's governing figures opted to stay out of an enlarged Slavic state. Now on this premise, you can see something else, the Polish inspired name Bielsko-Biała is one of Poland's border towns. The people of this town have traditionally had stronger cultural links with the Slavic people living in Ostrava than with those in Koszalin. Linguisticly, the speech of the Bielsko people closer resembles the speech of people in Ostrava than Koszalin, and let's face it, you know this - I don't - but if it weren't for a standard Polish language, people from Koszalin and Bielsko wouldn't understand a word the other was saying. Traditionally, the older folk of Bielsko still speak the town dialect. That dialect is a part of the chain which includes Koszalin but is closer to Ostrava, BUT there is one problem. Ostrava is in the Czech Republic, not Poland - if Ostrava had been incorporated into Poland, would they still be Bohemians/Czechs? Probably not. They'd have their custom and dialect but for the dialect part, their speech would also be influenced by Standard Polish, so even if Sorbian of Lusatia is not a dialect of Poland, the western Poles nearest Lusatia speak much closer to Lusatian than Standard Polish. Sorbian DOES form a part of the continuum, and so if Sorbian isn't a Polish dialect, nor is that along Poland's border with Germany. It is not clear where one nation begins and the other ends, my only interest was that of how and why all these communities united. To establish this, one needs to understand how they were established before this happened; under the rule of whom did they live? And what were the circumstances surrounding the events which led to the state's creation. Maybe it is not a good idea to answer this because like with Krakow - history may not have the answer, that is to say that the answer is burried in prehistory. I'm always interested. Celtmist 25-10-05

Historical correction - almost all Polish historians do not belive in "federal theory" (it is very unlikely). Most of them thinks that between many Polish tribes two were very expansie: Polanie in Greater Poland and Wiślanie. Both tried to form own state by subordinating neighbours. But Wiślanie were conquered or subordinaed in other way by Great Moravia. Polanie had much more luck. They formed own state, conquered or subordinate in other way Polih tribes. They also take lands of Wiślanie (in 10th century Great Moravia was defeted by Hungarians).

Now language - You should remember that Polish langage stated to form in 10th century! Before tribes of modern Poland, Czech Republik, Slovakia and Eastern Germany used common language of Western Slaves in many local variations. Polish language was effect of seperate state that needed some unficating factors (other was new, common faith - christianity). In 12th century were wrote first known words in Polish.

You can ask - what is it "Polih language" - it's a mixture of two main dialects of "proto-Polish": Greater Polish and Lesser Polish. Why those two? - because, after raid of Bohemian duke Břetislav I political center was moved from Poznań, Gniezno, Giecz and Ostrów Lednicki to Cracow. There are also major influences of Masovian. Why those? After division in 13th c. provinces of early Piast state had different history:

• Greater Polan and Lesser Poland formed reunited Piast monarchy
• Masovian Piasts were semi-independent
• Silessian Piast were vassal of Bohemian rulers
• Tribes of Western Pommerania were subordinated by Brandenburg
• Tribes of Eastern Pommerania and Masuria were conquered by Teutonic Knights

Why dukes of those provinces wanted to reunite country? - All of them were colse related - as descendents of Boleslaus III and his testametnt every of them feel that he has right to be overlord of Poland. Idea of reunated country had strong support in catholic hierarchy (common for all lands of Piast's) and new part of society - citizens of towns (they were in large art merchants - so in their interest was country without borders)

Poland was again partitioned in 19 c. In western and northern part Poles were under Prussian/German domination, they had to fight in defence of own language (Kulturkampf, Strike of children of Września in 1901). Simillary was in eastern part, ruled by Russians. Only in southern area, in Habsburg Monarchy Poles had right to culitvate own language. Common fight in defence of language prevents divisions.

Now look at map of modern Poland and Poland in 1939. Wast areas of modern state (western, and north-eastern part) is inhabited by mixture of people from many regions. In fact piervous provinces with own dialects are:

• Greater Poland
• Lesser Poland
• Masovia (with Podolia, Podlahia)

In those three people thinks that they are cardle of Poland - in Masovia there is capital - Warsaw, in Lesser Poland - Cracow, capital of country for most time of it's history, andin Greater Poland - here are roots of Piast Dynasty, oldest capitals, firs bishoprisc and archibishopric...

• Eastern Pomerania - You have Kashubians with their own language
• Upper Silesia - some of people want to proof that there is Silesian language, but after Industrial Revolution, since this area was main industrial area of modern Poland, also in post-ww2 era (with all symptoms of industrialisation like migration of many People from other provinces...), people of Upper Silesia are also mixture of People from all provinces.

In fact there are no such big difference between language used commonly in Bielsko-Biała and in Koszalin, Poznań or Lublin - it's effect of unification policy started after 1918 and practicly continuated till 1989

Radomil talk 17:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• There is nothing fundementally wrong with anything that you have stated. In fact much of it was quite clear in the first place; perhaps you totally misunderstood the message I was getting accross. I wish to make one corretion to your statements and that because what you said was simply erroneous; the speech of Bielsko and Koszalin not being much different. If you speak to university students from both towns, naturally their speech will lean towards the standard language of Poland as is today. The people of both towns however, have it within them to revert to a digloss system, why in a country of 40 million it would be ridiculous to assume that they all speak the same; that doesn't happen anywhere. If the people of Bielsko were to speak in their own dialect totally decentralized from the standard language, then their speech is very different, and closer to the Czech spoken in Ostrava. In true Bielsko dialect as is still heard in many quarters, if not in the town then certainly the surrounding villages, there is often an absence of the 'G' sound of standard Polish and it its place is 'H', so hour might be 'hodina' or 'hodzina' in Bielsko - if he speaks with the 'g' of Masovia then he is not speaking in Bielsko dialect. In all languages, all regions have a long term tendency to yield towards standard but that doesn't change tradition, even if that tradition is confined to the lower working classes, the peasants etc. Remember, before a dialect can be chosen as standard, many more have to exist in the first place, all developing through time to suit the needs of the local people, regardless of whom they serve politically. Now IF any of you who wrote to me are suggesting for one minute that traditional speak in Bielsko is closer to that of Gdansk that Ostrava although all are Slav descended, then you are also automaticly insinuating that the inhabitants of Bielsko OR Ostrava only inhabited their settlements later AFTER having established a language type somewhere else, because wherever you go in the East/West Slavic zones, there is an ethnolinguistic traditional continuum which changes only slightly village by village and town by town, and Poland is NOT switched off from this phenomenon. If of course, Bielsko came to be inhabited only 200 years ago with its settlers originally living in Pomerania, then there is that chance that their speech will be closer to Gdansk speak: apart from that, the thought is inconceivable. To paint a clearer picture: Supposing the modern people of Bielsko did descend from northern settlers to the south. Who is to say that they ALL would have stopped in Bielsko and nobody would have shifted to the surrounding area either side of Poland's current boundry? What of the people who were already living there? Those traditionally settled would speak a language similar to the Ostrava Czechs whilst Ostrava itself may well have welcomed some of these northern migrants. An example is in Southern Denmark: there are towns where Danish is used by some people and Low German dialects by other people. Danish and German are both Germanic languages but they each belong to a seperate continuum, Danish being North Germanic and German, West Germanic; this reflects different plights in earlier adventures by the descendants of these people. When after so long, descendants of the Proto-Germanic speakers finally reunited in the same towns, their culture had developed in various directions and as a result, the Danes from the same towns as the Germans will have more in common linguisticly, geneticly and even culturally with the Icelandics than the Germans (who in turn have more in common with the Dutch for the same phenomena). Now about the rest of the paragraphs, all of that only explained Poland as a power! Or rather, a Pole is simply one who finds himself under the rule of the state. Historically Polands borders have chopped and changed, so has the centre of power for that matter. Poland once even held a joint union with Lithuania with covered an enormous region, yet modern Lithuania only presides over a few thousands square kilometres by the Baltic Sea which were not even included in that colony!!! All this still begs the original question, how did these communities become 'Poles'. Members of the Kociewiacy are already a subdivision of a greater Pomeranian nation who have a history of being independent but not a part of Poland, but having united (be it by choice) with the rest of the people to create a larger state then they become Poles despite being Pomeranians. Why then don't Poles attach their name to ALL Slavic peoples? Polonie is Polish territory outside of Poland - the word 'Pol' forms the root of the nation currently along the Belarus and Ukranian frontier, so they are Poles - Pomeranians live in Poland but use another name to describe themselves - so they are Poles, but Sorbs are outside of Poland and do not use the term Pole of any kind, so they are not Polish. One must make up his mind! Either the Poles are those who refer to themselves as something with a 'Polish' root whether they live inside or outside of a country that calls itself Poland, OR they are simply ALL the people inside a designated national territory where-by names such as Silesians and Kashubians are inapplicable, with no claim to anybody else outside of the territory who otherwise have no reason to call themselves Poleszuk or something similar! Where does hunger for power actually end? Poland as a nation did not want to form a greater Slavic state but did very well to unite as many Slavic communities as it could under one government, and I still say, would they have rejected Sorbia if Lusatia fell into that sphere of influence? Would Sorbs still not be Polish? Would their speech not show signs of eventual yielding? Not even by students who studied in Krakow? Think about it before writing back in anger

Celtmist 26-10-05

Population

I added population 2002 census data (38,230,080). However, it may create a false impression that the population of Poland is increasing because the given estimate of 2005 (38,635,144), taken apparently from CIA World Fact Book, is higher. In fact, Polish Central Statistical Office estimates the population at the end of 2004 as 38,175,000. Other data from Demographics of Poland (again apparently from CIA World Fact Book) have also discrepancies from Central Statistical Office data.

I think the Central Statistical Office data are more reliable and I propose to use them instead of CIA ones. Any objections? Poszwa 22:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Demographics and Culture

Has anyone else noticed that the Demographics and Culture sections are basically identical? What gives?

I added phones info

Telephones - mobile cellular: 25,3 million (Raport Telecom Team 2005)
Telephones - main lines in use: 12.5 million (Raport Telecom Team 2005)
source: http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1161177,10,item.html (in Polish)
The information CIA World Fact Book is often very outdated or simply ridiculous

Motto

There is no official motto. Neither in the Constitiution, nor in any other document. Please do not insert it again and again. Poszwa 02:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the motto not "Honor i Ojczyzna" (Honor and Fatherland)? I have this on many of my flags, both military and civilian.--Gpriest 15:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's not a national motto. "Honor i Ojczyzna" or "Bóg, Honor i Ojczyzna" are slogans frequently featured on many (mostly military) banners and could be considered an (unofficial!) motto of the army, but not the state. Especially that the modern state is neutral when it comes to God's existence so it couldn't adopt such a motto anyway. Halibutt 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have cuted my changes until the end of discussion at polish wiki.MaLu 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The most popular Polish web-portals

I removed this part because it is of no use to non-Polish-speaking readers and was constantly attracting spam links. Poszwa 13:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Halibutt 15:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Poland's GDP

Is Poland's GDP really $512.9 billion?

Yes, this is the 2005 GDP (PPP) value according to the International Monetary Fund. The estimation for 2006 is $546.5 billion. Here is the link:

IMF

Recent 'President' Reverts

I cannot beleive how silly the recent reverts regarding the presidency have been. Kwasniewski will remain president until the end of the year when Kaczynski is sworn in. Kaczynski is the President (elect) until that time, and Kwasniewski is still the president. Encyclopedias are supposed to refect fact. - not fantasy. It seems obvious that the solution to this problem is to insert a line into the table to reflect that Kaczynski is President (elect) - (despite the fact that some may not like it). I'm not good with tables but I'll try to change it. If it doesn't work perhaps somebody with a mature approach to editing might want to make the change. Adz 12:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don’t think that adding ‘President-elect’ and 'Prime minister-designate' is necessary. This is a short and strict table and IMHO should only contain info about current officeholders.

--Myszodorn 15:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Well, I don't understand why some vandalism that I thought I'd reverted still persisted. Odd. Maybe I did click the wrong link. It's possible. But this is the second time this has happened. Oh well. I'll give the Wikipedia software the benefit of the doubt once more. --A bit iffy 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Geography

Could someone add a better map for this country? This seems to me to be a problem for most country and city entries throughout Wikipedia, there are no decent maps. The "administrative map" given here shows very few cities and no detail. Location maps for cities within Poland often show just a silhouette of the country with a dot giving an approximate location of the city. These lacks of detail make it difficult for anyone to get an idea on geography. DJProFusion

Since it is more diffucult to create a graphical image then to write text, we have fewer images then we would like. Feel free to create one or search for one that is available under open licencse (or ask owners of those which are not to change their license).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Llist of cities

I think the detailed list of 40+ cities is unnecessary and makes the article messy. Lets keep only the small table with the voivodships and their capitals and if someone wants to see a more complete list of cities, they can visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Poland

Any comments? MD

English City Names

Why are you using the Polish city forms in the English names, and reverting changes? I don't care for your blind Polish nationalism imposing things on the English language. Here is how I see it:

1, The English language lacks the special characters in use in the majority of those names.
2, The English language lacks the basic SOUNDS as in Szczecin, and we say it as 'Stettin'. English IS a Germanic language, you see.
3, I have never seen the Polish city forms used in English atlases, only German or English-modified German forms (IE, Dantsic).

So stop trying to impose your versions of city names on the English wiki. Antman 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

List:

Szczecin is pronounced 'Stettin' in English, and most Atlases use 'Stettin'.
Gdansk USED to be used as 'Danzig' in English, but after the Cold War we began to use Gdansk (no accent).
Wroclaw, we can't really make those sounds, most people I know who come from there who aren't Polish (German-ancestry or people referencing it) say Breslau.

We also don't use accented characters because our keyboards cannot easily make them. Antman 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well British Embassy in Warsaw and US Departament of State has different opinion about those names than You. I belive them. Radomil talk 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you even editing here; this is an English Wiki. Antman 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No arguments? Is it so painfull? Radomil talk 23:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I realise rationality may be misplaced here, but... Antman's argument that Standard German forms should be used, since English is a Germanic language, is so specious as to be frankly laughable; one point does not follow from the other. Suffice it to say that modern English doesn't even use the German forms for all German cities --- often it's anglicised French (Cologne for Köln, Vienna for Wien, Munich for München). As for the cities we're actually dealing with, I think it would be fairest to say that there are no English words for these cities, because people without some personal connection to them or the country they are in (unlike, say, Paris, Rome or even Warsaw) are unlikely to have even heard of them, much less know what to call them. There are two Polish cities which have clear, well-known English names: Warsaw and Cracow (and even the latter you see written more and more as "Kraków" nowadays). As for the rest, people who don't know anybody from the region will go by local usage, however hard it may be to pronounce. Incidentally, English speakers are perfectly capable of making every sound in the word "Szczecin" on its own, they're just not used to the spelling or order. Oh, and any claims along the lines of "most atlases use..." will be ignored without citations. ～J.K. 00:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No. It is more often "Krakow" than "Cracow", and more often "Cracow" than "Kraków", in English. But that's just part of a general getting away from changing K to C, in both personal names and place names, though nobody ever complains yet about noisy krikitts outside of Wikipedia. Both Cracow and Krakow deserve mention as English spellings; nothing is added by throwing in a Polish spelling. Krakov also has a fair amount of use, but Cracov and Krakóv are much rarer. Gene Nygaard 08:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this issue is resolved by the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. In the modern, post 1945, Szczecin is Szczecin, not Settin.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Questioning people's right to contribute to Wikipedia is not civil and doesn't help wikipedia. Anybody with any level of competency in English can, and should be encouraged, to contribute to the English Wikipedia. A diversity of sources provides a much richer diversity in information that can be contributed and shared. It also contributes to a greater number of perspectives. Apart from the fact that wikipedians in various parts of the world are able to contribute various types of information by virtue of the fact that they are located closer to alternative (non-English) information sources, and that they can translate those sources, wikipedians from non-English speaking backgrounds contribute to countering systemic bias, ethnocentrism, and consequently a less WP:POV Wikipedia. Wikipedians from various backgrounds are valued and are to be encouraged!

I don't support either side of nationalist disputes. I think they are embarrassing and there are often a simple NPOV solutions if only cool minds prevailed. It's unfortunate that on some issues it seems all too difficult for people to work together. I think it wouldn't hurt to read the WP:CIV and Wikipedia:Etiquette pages from time to time.

-- Adz 07:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Link to website inappropriate for the article

Hello .

I will add something else :

Who is the naughty people who each time delete my site, located in "English-language websites on Poland" : "Worldwide polish communauty forums"

Should I create a robot program so as to be sure that this link will be present every minutes on this page on wikipedia.org ?

I am just able to think that the stupid person who is doing that is just somebody really narrow minded.

Besides : if you find any problems so as to edit this page, contact me throught wikipedia, my account is krystiandl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krystiandl (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 October 2006.

Please see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided (7th point). Jacek Kendysz 13:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So you just need to follow the same article "unless mandated by the article itself" the article "English-language websites on Poland"

_ 1 english-langage 2 website 3 on Poland ( about Poland, talking about this country ): 3 observed criterrions—Preceding unsigned comment added by Krystiandl (talk • contribs)

• Wikipedia is not a web directory. Your webpage is minor and does not provide any crucial information. In other words, it's a spam. Please don't spam articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello my friends ;) !

Hello. I am not using wiki project like a directory, and no more so as to spam it. I thank you to let this link here if you want to put it in the discussion page. I think and I invite people to see it and to judge by themselves if it is really spam. Greetings ;)