Talk:Poland

Lede has to change

It's currently both too long (too many paragraphs) and too poor. This was a good proposition deleted without thorough discussion:

Poland (Polish: Polska [ˈpɔlska] ), officially the Republic of Poland, is a country in Central Europe. It extends from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Sudetes and Carpathian Mountains in the south, while its longest river is the Vistula. Poland has a temperate transitional climate and is the fifth-most populous member state of the European Union, with its sixteen voivodeships having a total population of over 38 million and covering a combined area of 312,696 km² (120,733 sq mi). It is bordered by Lithuania and Russia to the northeast, Belarus and Ukraine to the east, Slovakia and the Czech Republic to the south, and Germany to the west. The nation's capital and largest metropolis is Warsaw. Other major cities include Kraków, Wrocław, Łódź, Poznań, and Gdańsk.

Prehistoric human activity on Polish soil dates to the Lower Paleolithic, with continuous settlement since the end of the Last Glacial Period. Culturally diverse throughout late antiquity, in the early medieval period the region became inhabited by the tribal Polans, who gave Poland its name. The process of establishing proper statehood, which began in 966, coincided with the conversion of a pagan ruler of the Polans to Christianity, under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church. The Kingdom of Poland emerged in 1025, and in 1569 cemented its long-standing association with Lithuania, thus forming the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the time, the Commonwealth was one of the great powers of Europe, with a uniquely liberal political system which on 3 May 1791 adopted Europe's first modern constitution.

With the passing of the prosperous Polish Golden Age, the country was partitioned by neighbouring states at the end of the 18th century. Poland regained its independence in 1918 as the Second Polish Republic and successfully defended it in the Polish–Soviet War from 1919 to 1921. In September 1939, the invasion of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union marked the beginning of World War II, which resulted in the Holocaust and millions of Polish casualties. As a member of the Eastern Bloc in the global Cold War, the Polish People's Republic was a founding signatory of the Warsaw Pact. Through the emergence and contributions of the Solidarity movement, the communist government was dissolved and Poland re-established itself as a democratic state in 1989.

Poland is a parliamentary republic, with its bicameral legislature comprising the Sejm and the Senate. It is a developed market and a high-income economy. Considered a middle power, Poland has the sixth-largest economy in the European Union by GDP (nominal) and the fifth-largest by GDP (PPP). It provides a very high standard of living, safety, and economic freedom, as well as free university education and a universal health care system. The country has 17 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, 15 of which are cultural. Poland is a founding member state of the United Nations, as well as a member of the World Trade Organization, OECD, NATO, and the European Union (including the Schengen Area).

References

• This lede is akin to ledes from other country pages. The current lede is bizarre—both too long and too poor at conveying information. And unlike ledes for other countries (Germany, France etc.)

FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw I remembered the MoS recommends 4-paragraph ledes FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not against either, but the 5 paragraph one is more on point with a distinguished separate geo paragraph and MoS is just a guideline. Unfortunately, this is not a GA article. Merangs (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No other country page does a "distinguished geo paragraph" though. The Germany page is Featured, we oughta take an example from it, shouldn't we? FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? @Piotrus MoS recommends 4-paragraph ledes. I want this article to be Featured quality, like Germany. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau If nobody replies, be bold and change it as you see fit. I do not have the time & will do review things at the moment (things being, compare both leads word by word), but feel free to ping me if there is any specific element or elements (sentences, phrasing, etc.) that folks want to review. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ps. I did have time to review the lead. I think this can be cut: "the Polish People's Republic was a founding signatory of the Warsaw Pact"; I think it is of trivial importance, and anyway, only USSR was the founding member that matters, every other country was a puppet state anyway. Instead, I'd suggest adding a few words about 19th century uprisings (January Uprising, November Uprising) which IMHO are much more relevant to the Polish history than the Warsaw Pact. Similar to the above, I have my doubts whether " Poland is a founding member state of the United Nations" is relevant - being a UN member is trivial, and being its founding member seems like trivia, IMHO. WTO and OECD are, I guess, symbol status in the international arena, and EU and NATO of course matter from geopolitical perspective, so they are fine. Final comment about the proposed lead: it should include word (and link) for 'Slavic' somewhere. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's OK to mention it because the Warsaw Pact was signed in Warsaw... which is a fact of some significance. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that would be good for the Warsaw article, you can say Poland was a part of the pact. O.maximov (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus} is right, be bold. O.maximov (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

What are your suggestions? O.maximov (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@O.maximov Feld... is now indef blocked. (Tip: enable seeing if a user is blocked in the preference settings by having them displayed as crossed out, together with making redirects green and disambigs orange :P). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. Good to know. O.maximov (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Meellk: @Piotrus: - Instead of West Slavic in the lede can we utilise the term "Lechitic" as the previous is more generic/ethnic and the latter refers particularly to Poland and closely related cultures/language/tribes and how they stood out across the early medieval period. Of course, one does not exclude the other but Lechitic is more on point in terms of terminology. Merangs (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

So in one instance (Polish-Soviet war) you prefer a more generic descriptor (emerged victorious in several wars yada yada). In this instance you prefer a more precise descriptor. It seems you're just hell-bent on reverting my edits, no matter if they were even inspired by me or by a much more experienced editor than either of us. I oppose, Lechitic is obscure to a general reader, whereas West Slavic is clear. Meellk (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I support Piotrus's proposition for including the word Slavic somewhere in the lede, if that wasn't clear. Meellk (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024

The following sentence misrepresents the cited article 158

"As with other post-communist countries, Poland suffered temporary declines in social, economic, and living standards,[157] but it became the first post-communist country to reach its pre-1989 GDP levels as early as 1995, largely due to its booming economy.[158]"

What the source actually discusses is not a booming economy, but an increase in unemployment. The article does support the claim of Poland reaching pre-1989 GDP levels as early as 1995, but the characterization associated with source 158 is misleading if not misinformed.

The author of the cited articles writes: "unemployment increased steadily except in the period 1996-1998 when the economy recovered growth. Meanwhile, real wages declined and the trend did not entirely reverse when growth returned."

This is does not support the claim made by the Wiki's author that the economy was "booming", and it certainly isn't explained in the source cited. The cited article is a good reference, but the sentence should remove the "largely due to its booming economy" and replace it with a reference to unemployment and wage declines in the Post-Communist economy. Maybesyd (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Maybesyd I suggest not using the number of the reference when you are referring to it. The number can change if someone adds a reference somewhere before it in the article. Shadow311 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What are gold standard sources for Polish history?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.250.115 (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:History books about Poland; in particular stuff by Norman Davies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Poland a parliamentary republic or a semi-presidential one?

Over on the talk page for List of countries by system of government, there was a debate going on about whether Poland was parliamentary or semi-presidential. Before, the consensus was that it was de jure parliamentary, but de facto semi-presidential. However, some people have argued that even de jure it is semi-presidential, and that ended up being the new consensus taken. For making things consistent and not confusing, I wanted to open up the discussion here too, and have people debate whether we should change it from parliamentary to semi-presidential. ICommandeth (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Essentially, according to this source, the word "executive" is used explicitly to refer to the President's role, which fits in with the definition of a semi-presidential system, where the head of state is in charge of the executive and the head of government is in charge of the legislative branch. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

See also:

Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive And Mixed Authority Patterns (Shugart, Matthew Søberg)

"Even if the president has no discretion in the forming of cabinets or the right to dissolve parliament, his or her constitutional authority can be regarded as 'quite considerable' in Duverger's sense if cabinet legislation approved in parliament can be blocked by the people's elected agent. Such powers are especially relevant if an extraordinary majority is required to override a veto, as in Mongolia, Poland, and Senegal. In these cases, while the government is fully accountable to parliament, it cannot legislate without taking the potentially different policy preferences of the president into account."

LVDP01 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the presidential veto wasn't enshrined in the Polish constitution, since as far as I know, that's part of the reason it was considered de jure parliamentary for as long as it was, since the presidential separation of powers was supposedly constitutional convention rather than binding law. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The veto is mentioned in the constitution in Article 122, section 5:

"If the President of the Republic has not made reference to the Constitutional Tribunal in accordance with para. 3, he may refer the bill, with reasons given, to the Sejm for its reconsideration. If the said bill is repassed by the Sejm by a three-fifths majority vote in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of Deputies, then, the President of the Republic shall sign it within 7 days and shall order its promulgation in the Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland (Dziennik Ustaw). If the said bill has been repassed by the Sejm, the President of the Republic shall have no right to refer it to the Constitutional Tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed in para. 3." HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 17:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A presidential veto is present in several parliamentary republics. Meellk (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Presidential and semi-presidential systems have popularly elected president with one of significant executive powers listed above. If a president isn't popularly elected or doesn't have significant executive powers, it's parliamentary system. -- Svito3 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Czechia has a popularly elected president with the exact same powers as the one in Poland 83.6.206.183 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Czech Republic has started electing president relatively recently starting with 2013 Czech presidential election. President of Czech Republic has much weaker veto power than president of Poland and it requires separate discussion if it qualifies as semi-presidential system. President of Poland can veto any bill for any reason, and that veto requires extraordinary majority to overcome. On that reason alone it's semi-presidential republic. For Czech Republic we need to find out if majority required to overcome veto is higher than one needed to pass the bill. It would of course fall under semi-presidential system if that's true on that feature alone. But that's for another discussion. Svito3 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Presidential veto in Czechia is bypassed with 50% of the vote in the lower chamber, and in Poland 60% (not even 2/3). Not a big difference. Check out articles 133 and 146 of the Constitution of Poland. The executive lies squarely with the Council of Ministers. It's a parliamentary system where parliamentary elections matter most. The current PM of Poland wasn't even selected by the President but by Parliament 83.6.206.183 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't refute my point that president is popularly elected and has significant powers according to academic definition. -- Svito3 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no single academic definition of a semi-presidential system. The official encyclopedia of Poland, Poland's Britannica, states that Poland's system is parliamentary. Likewise so do all the other secondary academic sources in Poland. Or are Polish sources considered inferior and unreliable as pertains to... the system in Poland? A semi-presidential system is characterized by the co-existence of President with Prime Minister, whereby the President appoints the Prime Minister and is clearly above the presidentially-nominated government, see France. Au contraire, the current Polish government for example, wasn't even appointed by the president, but by parliament, independently. The president served a ceremonial role - swearing-in. 83.6.206.183 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is 60% vs 2/3 relevant here? They're both above 50% (the minimum to pass legislation normally) Czechia's veto is suspensatory, it just forces parliament to re-read the proposed legislation, the parliament can pass it again if the governing parties have even a single-seat majority. Poland's (under some circumstances) requires parliament to alter the legislation to appease non-government parties represented in the Sejm to support it unless the governing party/coalition has a supermajority. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not 50% of the quorum though, but 50% of all seats i.e. absolute majority. The vast majority of bills pass without an absolute majority but rather with just a majority in the quorum (present deputies). It presents a stopgap. The Czech president can also refer a bill to the constitutional tribunal all the same. It's called checks and balances, having it doesn't mean it's a semi-presidential system though, that's asinine. A semi-presidential system is characterized by the co-existence of President with Prime Minister, whereby the President appoints the Prime Minister and is clearly above the presidentially-nominated government, see France. Au contraire, the current Polish government for example, wasn't even appointed by the president, but by parliament, independently. The president served a ceremonial role - swearing-in. 83.6.206.183 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

CONSTITUTION OF POLAND

Chapter VI

THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION

Article 146

1. The Council of Ministers shall conduct the internal affairs and foreign policy of the Republic of Poland.

2. The Council of Ministers shall conduct the affairs of State not reserved to other State organs or local self-government.

3. The Council of Ministers shall manage the government administration.

etc. Meellk (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The Polish term for the structure of government in Poland is system parlamentarno-gabinetowy (cabinet-parliamentary system). The Polish equivalent of the Britannica, Encyklopedia PWN, describes the system such (Google translation):

parliamentary-cabinet system, a set of political and constitutional principles defining the mutual relationship between parliament and the executive (head of state and government) in such a way that the government headed by the prime minister is appointed and dismissed by the head of state (monarch or president), and is politically accountable to parliament through a vote of no confidence; the executive has the right to dissolve parliament; the government is appointed from among the representatives of the party (or coalition) with a majority in parliament; the head of state is not politically accountable to parliament, but is accountable to members of the government who countersign his official acts.; the parliamentary-cabinet system was formed in the 18th century in Great Britain; it is currently found in Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries, among others; it dominated the Polish constitution of March 1921.[1] In other words, a parliamentary republic, like Italy. Meellk (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

What matters is whether the President holds executive power or not and whether it's the President or the Parliament that names the head of government/the cabinet. We also have reliable sources and a consensus on another page that agree the country is semi-presidential. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Another page is another page. Too few users edit List pages to be relevant.

As for the executive, as article 146 and article 133 demonstrate, it lies chiefly with the Council of Ministers (which conducts both the internal and foreign affairs). The presidency is a mostly representative role, with the other role being that of a check&balance. The system in Poland is almost exactly the same as the one that formed in the Czech Republic, with the exception being that the presidential veto can be overridden with an absolute majority (50%) while in Poland - 60%. Meellk (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the article of the constitution that initially changed my mind to support semi-presidential (Article 10), I see that the executive is not solely vested in the hands of the President, but simultaneously in the President and the CoM, I'll change my support to "parliamentary" in that case. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't refute points from Søberg cited by LVDP01 above. -- Svito3 (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore-

CONSTITUTION OF POLAND

Chapter V

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND

Article 133

3. The President of the Republic shall cooperate with the Prime Minister and the appropriate minister in respect of foreign policy. Meellk (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Is nobody concerned with how reliable secondary sources describe Poland? That should be what is discussed here, rather than Wikipedia editors' own interpretations of the constitution. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The official encyclopedia of Poland, Poland's Britannica, states that Poland's system is parliamentary. Likewise so do all the other secondary academic sources in Poland. Or are Polish sources considered inferior and unreliable as pertains to... the system in Poland? 83.6.206.183 (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

They are still secondary sources, created by authors with an academic background. You cannot dismiss them simply because they are not Polish. To put words into our mouth that make it sound like we regard Polish sources as "inferior" is not constructive, and if anything this (along with creating another thread down below to demand for PavKIs's edit to be reverted, and calling our point of view "asinine") comes over as needlessly passive-aggressive.

PavKIs has correctly pointed out that the President of Poland has some genuine power that a regular parliamentary president would not, including that to ininitiate legislation, as confirmed by a Polish government website. Note how this list of official acts the president can do on his own also includes, I quote, "Designating and appointing the Prime Minister", as well as independently choosing and appointing members of several other offices (like those of several courts and of the National Monetary Council). Furthermore, while the Czech president's veto requires a regular majority to overcome (and thus, in practice, is largely a symbolic veto), the Polish presidential vote can only be overcome by a three-fifths supermajority. This effectively stops the bill dead in its tracks (those who voted against will do so again), unless it is modified to convince more parliamentarians to vote on it. This gives the President of Poland – popularly elected by the people – direct power to counteract the legislature.

You mention France as a consistent example of what a "real" semi-presidential republic should be like, but miss the fact that Portugal, Romania, Mongolia, and several former Portuguese colonies (East Timor, Cape Verde, São Tome and Príncipe) are also semi-presidential republics in spite of having a weaker presidency in comparison. Their presidencies do not have some of the powers that Macron has, such as to initiate legislation or to choose a PM freely, but they can still provide a direct check on the influence and will of parliament, such as by dissolving it (out of their own volition; in Portugal this is called "the nuclear bomb") or by issuing a veto that requires a supermajority to overcome. Not every semi-presidential system has to be a replica of the Fifth Republic. LVDP01 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Czech president can also initiate legislation. It's mmeaningless, the bill can be "frozen" in a Sejm committee forever, parliament and government sets the domestic and foreign policy. Citizens themselves can also initiate legislation, and they're just as "powerless" as the president. Your claim that Poland is a semi-presidential systeem is disproved by empirical observation of the events in Poland - the president is powerless and does not affect neither domestic nor foreign policy in the slightest. The PM was not appointed by the president and is in direct opposition to the political movement he stems from. In fact the president himself was handpicked by Jarosław Kaczyński the leader of the PiS political party, and has never been a strong political figure. The fact that there are a few descriptions of Poland as a semi-presidential system isn't a consensus, as there is a whole consensus in Poland that it's a parliamentary system, so at best there is no general "international" consensus and we have to defer to the de jure status set in the Constitution - and it's quite explicitly put there that the President's role is to represent the state internationally, while it's the Council of Minister's role to conduct the executive role in domestic and foreign policy. The president does not own the executive as it happens in semi-presidential systems like France - he partakes in the executive merely as a check&balance 83.6.206.183 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

PM of Poland not even appointed by President - system is parliamentary not semi-presidential

Kindly requesting any auto-confirmed user to correct a mistaken edit by user PavKIs. How can a system be semi-presidential when the PM wasn't even appointed by the president? And the constitution highlights that both foreign and domestic policy are matters of the PM and the President's role is to represent the state of Poland internationally... this is what the constitution says. The official encyclopedia of Poland, Poland's Britannica, the Encyklopedia PWN, agrees, and this is a reliable source, as well as all secondary academic sources in Poland agree that Poland is a parliamentary system. The system is alike that in the Czech Republic, where the president too is the commander in chief - but this is just a ceremonial position. Compare to France, where President is kingmaker unwaveringly. 83.6.206.183 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox | start of Polish statehood 966

The official start of Polish statehood was in the year 966 with the Baptism of Poland. This is an undisputed fact stated in virtually all mainstream history books, so why did someone add "Duchy of Poland c. 960"? I guess that editor is either advocating revisionist history or is anti-Christian and can't get over the fact that Poland's acceptance into the Christendom marked its formal beginning. There is 0 historical basis for this claim. 94.172.109.57 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No mainstream historical book claims that 966 is a start of Polish statehood. This is impossible, Mieszko I was a ruler for couple years before his baptism and the state existed also before that. According to archelogical findings nowadays we date start of the Polish statehood at least at the 3rd-4th decade of the 10th century. Marcelus (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Marcelus your not even serious... read the article Millennium of the Polish State and all the sources cited there. Also, Britannica says "Mieszko accepted Roman Catholicism via Bohemia in 966. A missionary bishopric directly dependent on the papacy was established in Poznań. This was the true beginning of Polish history, for Christianity was a carrier of Western civilization with which Poland was henceforth associated." Great... we have revisionists writing this article now. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Now you and user:FeldmarschallGneisenau who added this bogus claim will argue ad nauseam that the sky is red not blue and up is down. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is PDF from the Institute of National Remembrance and guess what date it uses as the start.. 966: https://ipn.gov.pl/download/2/43696/PrzewodnikpohistoriiPolski.pdf --94.172.109.57 (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the early history of Poland so I'm not going to get involved too much in the discussion, just wanted to leave a link to a previous discussion on the topic in case it's useful Talk:Poland/Archive 6#Formation date. Suonii180 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources that confirm 966:

• "The year 966, when Mieszko was baptised, is regarded as marking the origin of Poland as an independent, Christian, centralised state, following the model set up in Christian Europe." https://www.visegradgroup.eu/basic-facts-about/poland/brief-history-of-poland
• "966 - Duke Mieszko I, the historically recognised founder of the Polish state, adopts Catholic Christianity." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17754512
• "In the year 966, Duke Mieszko I (Mye-shcko), who ruled several Western Slavic tribes, decided to consolidate his power by being baptised in the Latin Rite and marrying Doubravka, a princess of Bohemia. This is symbolically regarded as the creation of the state of Poland." https://culture.pl/en/article/learn-the-history-of-poland-in-10-minutes
• "966 Prince Mieszko adopts Christianity; traditional date of origin of Polish." https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/frd/frdcstdy/po/polandcountrystu00curt_0/polandcountrystu00curt_0.pdf

User:Marcelus you are dishonest and manipulative when you say that: "No mainstream historical books claims that 966 is a start of Polish statehood." There are multiple sources that say otherwise. But unfortunately there are deniers of Christianity and it's role in history. Editors like you damage Wikipedia's reliability because they push their revisionist fantasies instead of verifiable facts. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is what the source currently attached to "Duchy of Poland c. 960" says in order to falsely back up the year in question: "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 organization into a territorial unit." How, does that remotely support the year c. 960? Complete BS is being pushed onto Wikipedia. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Previously used sources for Poland's supposed semi-presidentiality - removable

Poland did not strike me as a semi-presidential country. I thus went over the several sources supposedly backing Poland being a semi-presidential system. I found what follows:

• 1st source is just a link to the constitution, without any commentary - not only a primary source, it doesn't support the statement at all.
• 2nd source is outdated and comes from before the current Constitution went in force.
• "3rd" faulty source is the same work (same title) by the same author, re-published, cited twice.
• 4th source only academically discusses the features of semi-presidentiality in Poland, does not conclude Poland is semi-presidential, in fact clearly states the parliament (Sejm) picks the Prime Minister and most heavily weighs on government.

In view of this, I removed these citations whose source material either is faulty or deviates from the original statement. Comparing with the nation's page on its own Wikipedia (the Polish Wikipedia) I found a source that backs the country being a parliamentary system. Going over the discussions in this Talk section, I found more sources for this. Having done my homework, with this research, I applied the edit. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

May someone point me to where this user consensus is supposed to be? And on what sources is it based, since these have been discarded. I don't see any consensus here. Was there some RfC that was archived? Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Those sources weren't discarded by anyone else but you. You have swapped all of those sources to push your POV. -- Svito3 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna pull the people who took part in the discussion on Talk:List of countries by system of government and the previous discussion on this page in here to discuss this. I think I've stated before that I have no strong preferences towards either label, as long as it's consistent and the articles don't contradict each other, but just in case, I want to reiterate. Either label is fine as long as it can be backed up by secondary sources, I only want to stop any edit warring that leads to the two articles having conflicting information from different sources.

Users: @Svito3, @Moxy @Wtmitchell @ICommandeth @LVDP01 @Meellk. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thinking that we need to see all the sources that have been discussed in one place (here) so we can evaluate them with others input. Moxy🍁 04:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe these 5 are the main ones that were used on both articles, but someone please correct me if there were more.

– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

the now used 4 sources are (for posterity):

2A00:F41:1CE5:603F:5997:40B1:4CCD:5EAC (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It's late here and I do not have the time to discuss the "faultiness" of these sources, nor the energy to immediately inspect them. Until further discussion can happen though (to which I would like to invite to Svito3, since they could explain fairly well why they believed Poland to be semi-presidential), I did find this: as reported in this article (which described events of barely a year ago), the President of Poland can designate the prime minister. This PM must survive a confidence vote within two weeks of being chosen; should they lose, parliament decides the PM. The President generally invested the leader of the winning party for much of Polish history, but this seems to be entirely by informal convention; the President is clearly capable of designating someone else, and even if he ultimately chose not to, Duda seems to have at least considered to designate a PM from the second largest party instead, bypassing PiS in doing so.

The Constitution of Poland corroborates this:

---

Article 154 [Nomination of the Prime Minister]

(1) The President of the Republic shall nominate a Prime Minister who shall propose the composition of a Council of Ministers. The President of the Republic shall, within 14 days of the first sitting of the House of Representatives (Sejm) or acceptance of the resignation of the previous Council of Ministers, appoint a Prime Minister together with other members of a Council of Ministers and accept the oaths of office of members of such newly appointed Council of Ministers.

(2) The Prime Minister shall, within 14 days following the day of his appointment by the President of the Republic, submit a program of activity of the Council of Ministers to the House of Representatives (Sejm), together with a motion requiring a vote of confidence. The House of Representatives (Sejm) shall pass such vote of confidence by an absolute majority of votes in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of Deputies.

(3) In the event that a Council of Ministers has not been appointed pursuant to Paragraph (1) above or has failed to obtain a vote of confidence in accordance with Paragraph (2) above, the House of Representatives (Sejm), within 14 days of the end of the time periods specified in Paragraphs (1) and (2), shall choose a Prime Minister as well as members of the Council of Ministers as proposed by him, by an absolute majority of votes in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of Deputies. The President of the Republic shall appoint the Council of Ministers so chosen and accept the oaths of office of its members.

---

It clearly says that the President gets to choose a PM (1) and that the ultimate choice only falls to the legislature should the President's candidate lose a confidence vote (3).

A directly elected president with the ability to choose a PM and block legislation (through a veto that requires a supermajority, preventing the law from simply being passed again) is textbook semi-presidential. LVDP01 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The same rights are bestowed upon the presidents of Austria and the Czech Republic - both widely designated as parliamentary systems. 2A00:F41:1C37:C415:B9E9:8DAB:6953:1091 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

just copying what was written above (in support of Poland being a parliamentary system):

• CONSTITUTION OF POLAND

Chapter V

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND

Article 133

3. The President of the Republic shall cooperate with the Prime Minister and the appropriate minister in respect of foreign policy.

Chapter VI

THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION

Article 146

1. The Council of Ministers shall conduct the internal affairs and foreign policy of the Republic of Poland.

2. The Council of Ministers shall conduct the affairs of State not reserved to other State organs or local self-government.

3. The Council of Ministers shall manage the government administration. 2A00:F41:1C37:C415:B9E9:8DAB:6953:1091 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that article List of countries by system of government , and showing it to me. The same faulty sources are copied there, so it clearly needs to be changed just as this page was. Mr. Maralago pawn (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Søberg source at least defines what semi-presidential system is and how it's different from both parliamentary system and presidential system. Even if Poland has changed since then argument and definitions apply unless you can find better and similarly comprehensive source for distinctions between those systems.

Encyclopedia PWN simply says Poland is parliamentary republic with no explanation of neither what semi-presidential system is nor why Poland is parliamentary republic. It's not a subject of Encyclopedia PWN articles to even study these systems, nor we have any idea from their article if their writer is aware of these concepts. -- Svito3 (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Polland not Poland

The name of the Polish state was incorrectly translated into English as Poland, long time ago. The correct name should be Polland with double "l" because it's the land of the Polish people, not the land of a "Po" people. Similar to that, the following names were created: Finland Fin + land Holland Hol + land Switzerland Switzer + land and so on A big mistake was made long time ago. Poland should change its name into Polland. 49.190.246.76 (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not our job to change that, even if what you say is true. See WP:RGW. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Take it up with the United Nations and the Republic of Poland, if they agree to change the country's official English name, the same can happen to this article. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)