Jump to content

Talk:Poland: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Poland/Archive 10) (bot
Tag: Reverted
Line 122: Line 122:


These stats are detailed and accurate as well? [[User:Solidarityandfreedom|Solidarityandfreedom]] ([[User talk:Solidarityandfreedom|talk]]) 07:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
These stats are detailed and accurate as well? [[User:Solidarityandfreedom|Solidarityandfreedom]] ([[User talk:Solidarityandfreedom|talk]]) 07:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Poland|answered=no}}
poland [[Special:Contributions/171.33.200.173|171.33.200.173]] ([[User talk:171.33.200.173|talk]]) 09:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:49, 6 July 2022

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Vital article

DNA studies

Merangs, can you point me to the exact text in the sources, which unambiguously backs up your statements that say: "They were predominantly Slavic in origin, but also comprised assimilated ethnic groups" and "Those earlier tribal communities may have been associated with the ancient Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures.". The problem with this is that the sources talk about evidence of DNA mixing, in pre-history and medieval periods. However, they do not specifically say what you wrote. So, when you say "they were predominantly Slavic in origin", it is not correct. The Polish tribes were all Slavic. In this case, we do not have the same situation like say in Sumer where two separate ethnic groups created one culture (in the north Semitic peoples, and in the south the indigenous non-Indo-European peoples). You need to be careful in how you present the sources, DNA mixing does not automatically imply large scale assimilation. Tribe identity is not the same as DNA studies - The Polish tribes of Polans, Mazovians, Pomeranians, Vistulans, Silesians and Lendians were all Slavic tribes in origin. --E-960 (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is neither wrong nor truly accurate. Moreover, nobody is claiming that DNA and tribe identity are the same. Nobody is questioning that the Polish tribes were West Slavic, but there was much more to it. It is important to highlight that these tribes encompassed other assimilated groups (or individuals) which inhabited the region long before Slavs migrated and mingled. By stating "predominantly", we are being more accurate, factual and thorough. There are plenty of Polish-language sources which state so and I don't understand how it can be questioned:

Merangs (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merangs, the problem is that that modern Slavic gene pool also contains traces of Iranian and Mongol DNA due to invasions (Sarmatians and Mongols). Also, if you look at R1A gene you will notice that after Poland and Ukraine the second biggest concentration of it is in Afghanistan - you may have seen this map:[1], which suggest that Slavs may have originated from there and migrated to area between Vistual and Dnieper rivers some time before the 1st century AD, then spreading out in all directions across the eastern half of the European continent during the 5th century AD. In short, that's why I'm not a fan of highlighting one particular DNA branch within a gene pool. --E-960 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Second Polish Republic Interwar map

Germany only regained the Memel territory in 1939. So they did not have it from 1921. Can correct this small error and also it should say Map of Poland during the Interwar period, 1923–1937. When Lithuania in 1923 got the Memel territory and before the Munich agreement in 1938 when Poland got a small part of Czechoslovakia. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article trim

Thesickreservoir and Merangs, I think that at this point the trims are starting to become detrimental to the overall content of the article, and we are starting to remove some key pieces of information and pictures. At this time I don't think we need to chop the article any further. --E-960 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Japan and Germany articles. These are GA and FA standards. This article is still much too large and also with the pictures, hence why I introduced the concept of multiple image template. I'd like to see Kościuszko in the "era of insurrections" section but I just don't see the space, unless the map of the partitioned territories is shifted to the "partitions" section and Poniatowski is removed entirely. Merangs (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet[reply]
@E-960: The trims were necessary to push the article towards GA status, and obviously, to reduce its large size. In my opinion, the trims haven't in fact harmed the article's quality, but have rather improved it significantly. The article's biggest issue is currently the economy section, which is mostly underdeveloped, and backed by very old sources. Major changes can still be done in the article, such as in the culture section, where the media and cinema section, and the art and architecture section could be merged—as done in GA and FA class articles such as Germany or Russia. The tourism section looks bloated, which is unusual for GA or FA class articles. It can be also reduced and improved if a sentence is put to list the most popular tourist attractions, instead of a large para. Thesickreservoir (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC) strike sock puppet[reply]
@Thesickreservoir: I agree with you on all points, except for the merging of art and architecture together. It would become too clustered and both are notable in their own right. I will trim the art part and provide sources for the Economy section as well. Merangs (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I guess you don't understand WP:BRD, Saturdayopen. You removed a few templates, which were status quo for the article, I reverted, and now you want to edit war over them instead of having a discussion. The normal expectation for editors is that if you are reverted, you take it to the talk page, as the edit is obviously contentious. Now do the right thing, self revert and start a discussion instead of trying to communicate via summaries or edit war. Dennis Brown - 00:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what are you talking about? Saturdayopen (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and POV push

Merangs, you need to stop Germanizing this article, it's a POV push to remove the fact that Polish cuisine has Slavic roots. Also, you are blatantly misrepresent the sources, as oftentimes they do not say what you then write in the article... like this source says "Polish cuisine displays its German-Austrian history in its sausages", but you write "Poland is eclectic and shares similarities with other Central European cuisines, especially German and Austrian". Same here, "but also encompassed assimilated peoples who previously inhabited the area." where does your source actually say that??? --E-960 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another great example of this is you going in and Germanizing Polish names of some of the rulers.. so stop it. It's a blatant POV. --E-960 (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to stop "Slavicising" where unnecessary and denying certain facts. And since when is Boleslaus the German version? It's Latin. I have not been altering any names whatsoever after the revert. Merangs (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to break it to you, but Polish is a Slavic language, and Poland as a nation originated from Slavic tribes. Also, I'd like to ask you to provide the quote which backs up this statement "but also encompassed assimilated peoples who previously inhabited the area" I tried to find this conclusion in the two sources you provided and I'm not seeing it just some stuff about DNA tests. If you can't provide a clear statement which backs this up, I'll ask you to remove this statement or I'll start a RFC. --E-960 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merangs, same here you include kaiser roll instead of bread rolls. Kaiser roll is just one type, but you have to highlight it as it was the be all end all bread roll in Poland. --E-960 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not contributed to this article at all in order to make it GA. You only engage in disruptive edits, image and content change. "But also encompassed assimilated peoples who previously inhabited the area is a sourced fact. I suggest you do start an RfC. Merangs (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the current version of the cuisine section is fine and neutral so thank you. I just added mushrooms to the food staples and sourced it. Merangs (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merangs, pls consider that I contributed a lot to this article well before you became involved, and fixed a lot of the text and images beginning in 2014. You want to improve it further I have no problem with that, but adding your personal slant to the article and misrepresenting sources is nothing but a POV push. This section is a great example of this because to argue that Polish cuisine has all this German influence and not say that it's Slavic in so many ways is simply omitting obvious facts. --E-960 (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@E-960: - Please understand that I am attempting to make strong differences between Polish [culinary] culture and that of other Slavic countries as well as that of Germany. That is my agenda and I did not intend to Germanise anything. The truth is that Polish cuisine by today's (not 1000 year ago) standards resembles Central European cookery over than any other region. I never stated it is not similar to that of other Slavic countries, although I must say that the term "Slavic" is much too broad, for instance the cuisine is hardly similar to that of Macedonia. Moreover, you say about omitting facts, but the earlier statement about assimilated peoples is a fact and it is sourced. Why would I push for something that isn't. I do not base my beliefs or writings on POV, only on sourced content. Merangs (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for example polish cuisine especially in Małopolska has a very strong Hungarian influence, so it makes it rather note worthy, however when you don't include that, but have Austrian it's a stretch. --E-960 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Merangs (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
E-960 is only trying to erase everything about Germany in Polish articles for years. Nothing new.. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonny84 You were warned and asked [2] to talk about the content not editors? Didn’t you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I do. I'm just talking about content, like this on [3]. It's not my fault, that there is always the same editor who erases content like this. --Jonny84 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jonny84, again very selective analysis. You claim POV against me, but you did not look at this earlier edit I made [4], where I kept the reference to the German influence on Polish cuisine and also added a note referencing that many Polish dishes have a Slavic background. It was reverted, and a more neutral sentence set in its place (the one you referenced as an example of bias). I think that you will agree that it's very odd to say that Polish cuisine is similar to German, but make no reference of its Slavic ties... I'm not sure how many pierogis or borscht do Germans eat, but you can't argue those are German dishes, and Poland is famous for pierogis... a very Slavic dish. --E-960 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All European-style dumplings, including pierogi, can be traced to China so we should avoid the details. Plus, the ethno-linguistic term "Slavic" cannot be imposed on cuisine. Guys come on let's be civil. The issue has been solved and currently the section looks appropriate. Merangs (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merangs, please note Category:Slavic cuisine [5] — btw, pierogis are a specific type of dumpling, just like spaghetti is a specific type of noodle, with both having ascribed roots in Asia, yet both having a specific place of origin within Europe. In case of pierogis, they are a staple dish in many Slavic countries of Europe. --E-960 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

Poland is an eastern European country. 91.192.199.12 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you wish to add into the article or you just expressing the opinion. Please clarify. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use more updated demographics?

https://stat.gov.pl/en/infographics-and-widgets/infographics/infographic-religiousness-of-polish-inhabitiants,4,1.html

 Catholicism (92.9%)
 Eastern Orthodoxy (0.7%)
 Jehovah's Witnesses (0.3%)
 Protestant (0.2%)
 No religion (3.1%)
 Unanswered (2.7%)
 Other religion (0.1%)

I don’t think jehovah witness, orthodox, and Protestant should be grouped together since they both have unique and separate histories while also having deep roots in Poland (less so Jehovah witness though) Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information is based on the very detailed, accurate and official census from 2011. There hasn't been one since. Merangs (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These stats are detailed and accurate as well? Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022

poland 171.33.200.173 (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]