Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 5 August 2008

Welcome to the Poland-related notice board!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Useful templates

Please note we have two functioning userboxes:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Poland.

{{User WikiProject Poland}}

This user is a member of the Polish military history task force of WikiProject Military history.

{{User WPMILHIST Polish military history task force}}

There is also a Portal:Poland/Welcome message that can be used to notify users about this noticeboard and our related projects. Just slap {{subst:Portal:Poland/Welcome}}--~~~~ on their usertalkpage - it has its own heading.

History of Jews in Poland FAR

History of Jews in Poland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Grammar - Article Zygmunt Kurnatowski

Article Zygmunt Kurnatowski, Major General of army of Polish kingdom, is needing immediate attention. Please correct Grammar, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.173.19 (talk • contribs) 16:09, March 31, 2008

Isaac Babel

Poland (allegedly fought wars) with Czechoslovakia over Cieszyn Silesia, with Germany over Poznań and with Ukrainians over Eastern Galicia (Galician War).

I don't remember such war with Czechoslovakia, it was an annexation without Polish defence. An article about Babel should rather contain a list of wars fought in Russia.Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a weak Polish defence in Cieszyn Silesia. Weak, because Polish forces were concentrated on the conflict with Ukrainians. Only local people defended themselves with guns in the initial stage of the invasion. Funny is, that Czech historians call it "seven-days war", Polish just a conflict over Cieszyn Silesia. It demonstrates the difference between Czech "fighting" and Polish Fighting. In Czech historiography a conflict which lasted seven days and claimed just several lives is called a "war". I can hardly imagine similar situation in Poland. - Darwinek (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignacy Domeyko now Lithuanian

User M.K now removed info that Ignacy Domeyko was Polish without any discussion and added Lithuanian site as reference he was Lithuanian and claimed he always will be Lithuanian. As multiple reliable sources exist that describe Ignacy as Polish I don't think this is appropriate. --Molobo (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a good proof that nationalism is doing well. I've replied on the talkpage, and added some good sources to the article, including ones that argue for Domejko being called a "citizen of the world." It sounds good to me... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Congress Poland - related mass moves in early July

I need additional opinions on the mass moves for the Template:Administrative division of Congress Poland and the related pages. It appears that an editor made some significant movement of articles (approximately 11 15 articles) to unsupportable english-language names on EN.WP, ex. Avgustov Governorate vs Augustow Governorate / Augustów Governorate on 2 July 2008.

Affected pages / templates & moves made include -

• Template:Administrative division of Congress Poland ‎
• Administrative division of Congress Poland
• Congress Poland
• Sandomierz Governorate → Sandomir Governorate
• Podlasie Governorate → Podlyase Governorate
• Chełm Governorate → Kholm Governorate
• Suwałki Governorate → Suvalki Governorate
• Kielce Governorate → Keltse Governorate
• Siedlce Governorate → Sedlets Governorate
• Piotrków Governorate → Petrokov Governorate
• Łomża Governorate → Lomzha Governorate
• Płock Governorate → Plotsk Governorate
• Kraków Governorate → Krakov Governorate
• Kalisz Governorate → Kalish Governorate
• Augustów Governorate → Avgustov Governorate

I reference the following documents to support my claim:

• The Map of Europe by Treaty, Edwart Hertslet, C.B. 1875
• Century Dictionary and Cycloepia, 1902

I have put a request onto WP:RM asking to have the pages rolled back to the prior state before the edits.

I don't have an axe to grind here, I just want the EN.WP historical names to reasonably reflect maps of the era and general usage in English-language sources.

Ajh1492 (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the exact WP:RM request.

Ajh1492 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Google doesn't support Keltse Governorate, OR?Xx236 (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Move. Unless someone produces good sources for the Russified names, their use is simply confusing. (I've notified the editor who made the changes.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, per WP:NC, and per WP:RUS, per your logic one could suggest that Nowogródek Voivodeship needs be moved to Navahrudak Voivodeship, same way that Lwow Voivodeship to Lviv Voivodeship. Note that I kept ENGLISH titles such as Warsaw Governorate when making my moves. Fact is that all of that territory was part of the Russian Empire, moreover here is a 1920 map showing Russified names. Here is another one --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much persuaded by old maps one way or the other (particularly since none of those cited seem to name the governorates) - it's modern English usage that we should be following (if we can find any of significance). It was de facto the Russian empire, but de jure Poland was a separate state, so it seems perfectly reasonable to give the governorates Polish names, particularly since those names will be more likely to make sense to today's readers. Can you point to what specifically in WP:NC you are relying on?--Kotniski (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second, de jure Congress Poland was a separate state (protectorate) only up to 1837, afterwards it was made an integral part of the Russian Empire as Vistula land. Russian was not even official language then. So for the same logic that we have Chernigov Governorate (NOT Chernihiv Governorate), we should have one standard applied universally wrt territory that was formally administered by a different country. There was a Gdanzk/Danzig vote, and its terms can be applied here. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The sad excuse for discussion, Gdansk vote, should not be evoked anywhere else.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this discussion should be moved to a general interest article - I'd suggest Talk:Administrative division of Congress Poland - and I'd suggest notyfing editors of Russian noticeboard of it, and perhaps filling a formal WP:RM.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The WP:RM request has been submitted already. With the discussion pointed here.

Looking to modern english usage, Genealogy sites, dealing with the era in question (1831-1915), refer to anglicized spellings.

• Ancestry.com / Ancestry.co.uk ( Augustow, Augustow, and Augustow )
• JewishGen.org (Augustow )

Ajh1492 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The new names are either vanishingly rare or never used in English; the Google results refer only to Misplaced Pages mirrors. Misplaced Pages is not here to establish neologisms or prescribe usage in the English language - the names are completely unsuitable; ones from English-language texts should be found and used. Knepflerle (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is how I see it. First of all, apart from some maps, neither side can back up either spelling (Russian-based or Polish-based) with sources. Second, we have equal number of maps of comparable quality supporting either spelling, which tells us that a) both spellings are (or at least were) used in English at one time or another, so both are correct, and b) neither variant is/was dominant. Thus, unless further sources of better quality surface, the decision to move or not to move the articles boils down to which one of the two equally correct variants we are to choose. In cases like this Misplaced Pages guidelines kick in, and the guideline applicable in this particular case is, of course WP:NC. The most important part of WP:NC is #Use English words ("ame your pages in English"). As we have already established that, given the sources presented so far, it is impossible to determine "the most correct" English names of the governorates in question, we should look at how the rest of the articles on the Russian governorates are named. For those governorates which were named after their seats, the naming scheme is "seat name in English"+"Governorate". For the governorates named after the territories etc., the naming scheme is "name of the territory in English"+"Governorate". Now, it should be remembered that "English name" here means the English name used during the appropriate historical period (so, yes, Gdanzk/Danzig analogy is of use here), as it attested by the existing practices for naming other governorates of the Russian Empire (cf. Archangelgorod Governorate (1708) and Archangel Governorate (1784), not "Arkhangelsk Governorate"; Chernigov Governorate, not "Chernihiv Governorate"). However, even with that in mind, the situations where for some smaller towns serving as seats or even the territories there was no clear preference in English (just as with the names of the governorates themselves), is not at all uncommon. In such cases, WP:NC advises to fall back on "local version", which, in this case, would be the Russian-based names, which were "local" at the time the governorates existed. All in all, my recommendation would be to sack this RM and take a look at each governorate individually, bearing in mind the points raised above. Also, of course, if any additional sources come into light, then the articles' titles might need to be reviewed once again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My comment above was made to try and encourage finding new sources to determine the English usage (and help the articles), rather than trying to pick between just these two alternatives per se; I still think that should be the first task. I agree with your interpretation of the guidelines and how you apply it, but I'm still very wary of applying conventions in such a way that we then invent usage, which is what keeping the status quo would mean. Knepflerle (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily accept that "the Russian-based names were local at the time the governorates existed". Since Congress Poland still maintained a paper existence, I think it would be more or less equally reasonable to say that the Polish-based names were the local names. And in the continued absence of evidence from solid sources, it seems more reasonable to use the Polish ones rather than the Russian because (a) the few mentions of these governorates we can find on Google etc. tend to use the Polish names; (b) the "Russian" names are really only English transcriptions of Russian adaptations of the Polish names; (c) the Polish names of the towns at least will be familiar to many readers, whereas the Russified ones will be familiar to virtually no-one.--Kotniski (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, many of the towns you are reffering to are small ones, for example Suwalki, so their mention in general English history and press is scarce to today and will be even less common previously. The only exception is Warsaw Governorate (note neither Varshava or Warszawa here). A similar analogy is Kiev Voivodship, not Kijow, Kiyev or Kyiv. However the rest of the places you for example have Lwow Voivodship, not Lviv or Lvov. Also like I said before Congress Poland's existance was official only up to 1837, what about the rest from 1837 to 1918, or what about places like Kholm Governorate which was not even part of Vistula Land? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does this date of 1837 come from? I don't claim to be particularly knowledgeable on the subject, but the Congress Poland article doesn't mention that year at all - it implies that it ceased to be an entity in stages, starting in 1831, but Polish remained the official language until the 1880s. And sure, most English speakers will have no idea where or what "Suwałki" is, but many of those seeking information on this topic are likely to, in any case far more than are likely to have met "Suvalki". Kiev and Warsaw, exceptionally, are well-established English names which do take precedence over the local ones; Lwów is used presumably because it is the only tenable "local name of the time" for a city which does not have a single well-established English name. I agree that some of these points seem marginal, but I think it can be seen that the various cases you mention are different.--Kotniski (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Ezhiki that English names are the most important, I certainly object to the complete censorship of Polish names; and since Chełm Governorate was mentioned, I also object to sneaky censorship of well referenced and important info. And yes, you are right - if the Russian Empire had its way, there would hardly be a trace of Polishness left in that governorate. Puzzling, how you can stress that here - and remove that argument from the article... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow, the article has not a single refrence, and the uniate church ceased to exist in 1839 following the Synod of Polotsk in the Russian Empire. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ceased to exist - a masterpiece of propaganda. BTW, not all believers shared your view Podlachian martyrs.Xx236 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

1875 was when it was also disbanded in Vistulan land, you are right, my mistake, but still that does not make any uniate present in 1912. No propganda here. Interesting article btw. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lviv Civilian Massacre (1941)

The article contains a number of misinformations. Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As if I have a team of experts to fix tens of dumb articles about Poland.Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jagiellonian University

Category:Alumni of Jagiellonian University is terribly underpopulated (only 7 articles now). Many, many people who have articles on EN Wiki graduated or studied there, so please help populate it or at least remember such category exists, so you can use it in the future. - Darwinek (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

POV template

Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after World War II
(demographic estimates)
Background
1944–50 flight and expulsion of Germans German–Soviet population transfers Potsdam Agreement
Wartime flight and evacuation
German evacuation East Prussia
Post-war flight and expulsion
Czechoslovakia Poland (incl. former German territories) Netherlands Romania
Later emigration
Refugees in Schleswig-Holstein Emigration from Poland
Other themes
Wolf children
v t e

This template imposes German POV. The same a Polish victims of WWII template should be imposed in almost any WWII article and Expulsion of Poles in many articles. Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no POV, its common to have such a template for a series of articles exclusively dealing with different aspects of the same story. I wonder what Polish (or eg Darfur) expellees have to do with this. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust template doesn't contain any picture. Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust - different story. Godwin's law? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You have your German POV. You are a German so you may have a problem to understand a non-German POV.

If such important subject as the Holocaust doean't use any picture, why do you introduce a relatively big picture in your template? It's not any Godwin's law, but pushing your POV.

If any nation exterminated by Germans introduces its big template with a big picture, you will see what I mean. It's a Misplaced Pages, not a Germanopedia.Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the Holocaust template does not contain a picture, no other template should? Are you sure?

Because you guess I'm German, I push a German POV by adding a template? Maybe I am a Jew? What a POV would that be? What is a German POV in the first place? What would a Jewish POV on German expellees be? Would that also be POV-pushing if a Jew adds a template to an article series?

If any nation exterminated by Germans introduces its big template with a big picture, I would have absolutely no problem with that. As long as there is such a nation and the articles are part of a series. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That template has an obvious German POV; that however doesn't make it wrong (see WP:NPOV - neutrality means not taking sides, BUT it does mean showing their POVs). Of course, as Xx236 noted, we should have an equivalent Polish template for similar Poland related events. That's all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly all.

• The template doesn't allow to be edited, at least not obviously. The Holocaust one (and many others) can be edited by anyone.
• I don't know rules of designing templates here, but there has been recently a similar discussion about some Polish cities template, eg. pl:Szablon:Wrocław.
• My statement was partially ironic, I expect a Template War of WWII victims which will have to lead to some rational rules. Isn't it better to set the rules befoere the Template War?Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigation templates confirms some of my former critics. Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Which critics are how confirmed? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you design a template, it's your task to learn the rules.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you make serious accusations like violation of WP:NPOV you should back them. Otherwise it's nothing but an offensive behavior. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Template:Warsaw Uprising - no picture, small template, This box: view • talk • edit
• Template:Expulsion of Germans - big picture, big template, agressive colors, no obvious editing.

Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

None of this backs a POV claim, it's all about your esthetic view. How is a picture and the use of color in a template related to a POV? Other templates include pictures. Eg Assyrian people template. Most people consider green to be relaxing. Territorial changes of Poland template is red. How can a color be a POV? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again: Which critics are how confirmed? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment by user:Piotrus That template has an obvious German POV Would you please explain what POV is expressed by that template? Noone did that so far. The template does nothing but to guide the reader through closely related articles, that cover information that as well could all be included into one article if that wouldn't make that article too large. It is dealing with a "German" issue, that is not a POV. I would agree with the template being inadequate when added to all articles somehow related to the expulsions (eg WWII, Pomerania, Silesia, articles on former German municipalities or expulsions of other peoples). That is not the case. All the articles connected by the template exclusively deal with the expulsions. A background and see also section links the "bigger picture" (while the template of course is not introduced to these articles) as it is common usage (see eg the Territorial changess of Poland series template - that by the way is also introducced to articles not exclusively dealing with the territorial changes of Poland, eg Oder-Neisse line). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment by user:Piotrus we should have an equivalent Polish template That is a completely different issue. If an article series exists for Expulsion of Poles after World War II noone opposes that to have a template. As far as I overlook this matter, so far there are the 2 Repatriation of Poles articles, one of which is a stub and could as well be merged into the other. (By the way, the use of Repatriation in the title looks like a remnant of post-war propaganda, it makes these expulsions and resettlements look like a voluntary call-back of Poles that did not actually belong to the territories they were expelled from, thus it gives that issue a positive touch - that is a POV) Skäpperöd (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Expulsion of Poles by Germany and Massacres of Poles in Volhynia.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Generalplan Ost. Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Would a template of them Germans not be "POV" if us Poles have a similar one? Is it all about sorry that? In this case, go ahead write a series, create a template for that, (optional: apologize for accusing me of "POV"), and noone needs to waste further time with this thread. By the way, the articles you collected are not part of a series and do not deal exclusively with the expulsion of Poles and - last but not least - are not connected to this thread. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Polish Gents-you have fallen into a trap by the German nationalists. To present population transfer of largerly pro-Nazi German population that in majority voted for a certain guy(the one screeming exterminate the Jews and Poles !) with the planned extermination of Polish and Jewish nations(named by the German state "untermenschen") is one of the cornerstones of modern German nationalism. Please don't fall into the trap. Neither were the Germans "untermenschen", neither were they to be exterminated, and can't be compared to their victims. The template is worthless, at best the demonstration of German nationalists mindset.--TheNoiseBringer (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Future victims choice:

--TheNoiseBringer (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Legality of Repatriation of Poles (1944–1946)

The legality of the expulsion (repatriation) of Poles (1944–1946) is comparable to the one of expulsion of Germans. I have copied a text. Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

One million Polish collaborators in the Holocaust

If anybody can provide information on the estimated number of Polish collaborators in the Holocaust, please do so - it is being discussed here (after recent edits in history of Polish Jews and Holocaust in Poland claimed that there was one million of Polish Holocaust collaborators).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate; what was stated is ""Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators vary from seven thousand to about one million." A broad range is given, not a claim that "there was one million of Polish Holocaust collaborators." Boodlesthecat 14:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed a broad range. Both 7 thousand and one million seem to be the extremes. We should avoid giving extremists' claims in an article on a general topic unless they are clearly attributed. Who is the author of the 1 million figure ? --Lysy 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

See the article's talk pages for attributions. Boodlesthecat 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that you don't know the answer. But what do you think about my opinion on not presenting such obviously extremal figures in an article on a general topic. Do you have any more realistic estimates ? --Lysy 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I do know the attributions; I suggested going to the article talk page because that is where a discussion of the sources is underway already. I posted here only to clear up the mistaken impression given above that the articles "claimed that there was one million of Polish Holocaust collaborators," which they don't claim. Boodlesthecat 15:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeking a better file of an image

Does anyone have access to a better image of this spectacular location? Either new photography or historic public domain material--I'll restore the latter if it's sufficient quality. This would be the perfect topic for a featured picture, if only we had an image worthy of the location. Please leave me a note at my user talk to follow up. Best wishes, Durova 19:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bochnia.jpg any better? Needs categorization on Commons (and I have to go offline now).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the image. Although it doesn't have the potential for FP it does help. I've been thinking of doing another Poland-related restoration for FPC. The high resolution files about Poland at the U.S. Library of Congress are mostly old photochroms. So if I worked from them, it would help to know the names of a few famous sites that existed in 1890-1900 but didn't survive the world wars. For instance, Image:Nurembergsynagoguec.jpg recently got featured for pretty much that reason. I'd be glad to look for Poland-related images of that sort if I had some direction of what to search for. Best wishes, Durova 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

commons:Category:Art lost in Poland during World War II is an interesting cat. As for architecture, nothing specific comes to mind, but a lot got destroyed and only partially restored (look no further than most of Warsaw, really...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish war crimes during WWII

A relevant discussion, concerning whether the main article should or shouldn't mention claims about in September '39 "The mutilations included stab wounds to the eyes and missing limbs... The dead in Bydgoszcz included priests, pregnant women, children and the elderly..." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)