This article iswritten inBritish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour,travelled,centre,defence,artefact,analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPoland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theEuropean Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcountries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
Other : add{{WPCountries}} totalk pages of related articles, andassess.
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates tothe Balkans or Eastern Europe, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
The Duchy of Poland c. 960 in the information box should be removed. There is no reference source to confirm such a claim; someone just added it based on their own interpretation of history, also Poland became a European nation with the Baptism of Poland, before that it was a Slavic tribal state. Also, why the date 960? It's a made up date, and there is nothing attached to it to bolster the claim that around this time Poland became a so called "duchy". Please remove if you can't produce a reference source to back up such a fundamental claim.84.40.153.19 (talk)14:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that arguably retrospective national foundation events should be considered for exclusion from this part of the infobox for nation-states—the current presentation ofIsrael is the model here, imo. We should probably follow state continuity backward and think really hard about our sources before going farther. I don't doubt here that sources see the 10th-century duchy as a progenitor of modern Poland, but scrutiny is often needed.Remsense 🌈 论15:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Remsense, indeed, this needs to be scrutinized. The reference source for 966 in the information box reads: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 civilisation with which Poland was henceforth associated. What's there for c. 960? it's a completely made up date that someone added to the information box and it has no event (or historical record) attached to it... it could just as well be "c. 950" or "mid-10th century." --84.40.153.19 (talk)16:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the "c. 960" was given based on the belief thatMieszko I rulled hisDuchy from around 960. TheHistory § Kingdom of Poland subsection determins that "Poland began to form into a recognisable unitary and territorial entity around the middle of the 10th century (...)" and this statement is referenced. In my opinion, the 10th century should be given as a date of the origin of the Poland as a duchy, if we decide to keep this information in the Infobox. However, I think it is not necessary to include this, nevertheless we should be careful when assigning dates, decade or even century to the events so far in time. Perhabs further dig into sources should be made. About the source cited, let's apply due weight to Britanica which is a tertial source and does not provide detailed reasoning—the stance "This was the true beginning of Polish history (...)" is an oversimplification to say the least. —Antoni12345 (talk)20:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user:Antoni12345, this may me the case but this date is totally made up ---THERE IS NO SOURCE FOR IT, AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CLAIM, IT NEEDS A REFERENCE SOURCE IF IT IS TO BE ACCEPTED... IF NOT REMOVE---. There is no historical record of when Mieszko came to power and why him becoming a tribal chieftain of the Polans turned his tribal state into a "duchy" recognized in Europe. Simpy put, this is an unsubstantiated claim and original reserch that needs to be removed.--84.40.153.19 (talk)10:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not as bad as you're making it out to be. "Around 960" is a different form that might be better replaced by a direct example in a source, but the meaning of it is totally in line with when Poland became a duchy, was Christianized etc. If we take it out, then since we're not total dipsticks we have to reconfigure the entire infobox section. It's better as it is in lieu of site policy than if one overreacted and snipped only the earliest date in the infobox.Remsense 🌈 论10:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Remsense, I think you are not realizing what the underlying issue is. It is accepted that Poland became a European state within the Christendom, when it was recognized by the Papacy before this it was a chiefdom not a duchy. This is the long held historical view cited by chroniclers and historians. In the year 1966, the then Communist government of Poland held celebrations of Poland's 1000 years as a nation state. Now, someone jumped in and added "c. 960" into the information box and we can't even get a source which proves the claim. So, it is bad because someone added a bogus date with no sources to back up its validity. Please, notice how the date 966 comes up:
No, I don't presently understand the issue, I'm afraid. There's nothing meaningfully misleading about the present dating, it just might be unnecessarily vague.Remsense 🌈 论13:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you get when you have someone that is not familiar with a particular country history stonewalling something on Wikipedia. If I'm providing you with several quick reference sources which say 966, and you come back to me with an irrelevant response it unfortunately shows a lack of knowledge about Wikipedia rules, because here you add facts not your general interpretations of history. --84.40.153.19 (talk)13:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In connection to the above discussion, should the information box in the Poland article start with"Baptism of Poland 14 April 966" or"Duchy of Poland c. 960"?PJK 1993 (talk)09:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
966: as shown above, there are multiple reliable sources that reference 966 and theBaptism of Poland as the formal and widely accepted beginning of Polish statehood. The c. 960 date hasno sources to show its validity (the date isWP:OR that someone just added in). Before the year 966, the tribal state of the Slavic Polans was a pagan chiefdom not a "duchy". The designation "duchy" is a latin word connected withfeudalism andchristendom, and the Baptism of Poland marked the formal recognition of the early Polish state by the Latin Church and otherChristian states of Europe. That's why the overwhelming majority of historians accept 966, and not some vague, undefined, and inconsequential date of c. 960. Also, looking at the history of the Poland article, the change to "c. 960" is relatively recent and before that for many years the dates in the information box started with 966.PJK 1993 (talk)09:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source for "Duchy of Poland c. 960" (otherwise remove the dubious claim)
Can someone actually provide a reliable reference source that validates the claim that the historically accepted formation start date for Poland is "Duchy of Poland c. 960". This is quite outrageous that such a false claim is being kept since it was added in last year. The editors who up to this point did not present a source to show there is merit to this claim yet continue to stonewall it in place, are flagrantly undermining Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility by pushing their own POV.PJK 1993 (talk)19:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave my position why it's not unverified, why it's not a real problem presently, and why it would be if this removal was done slapdash. I don't really have anything else to add—it seems others are presently going out of their way not to understand what the aforementioned points are, and sorry, I sense that there's some tendentious, nationalistic currents motivating why folks are up in arms. (If that's egregious for me to say, then genuinely, please hit my ignorant American head with a mallet. It just comes from a bit of genuine confusion.)
Since I may have to say it explicitly lest I be misunderstood:I oppose removing the present date and doing nothing else – given it's not unverified in any meaningful sense, only potentially a bit vaguer than it need be. If one would like to fix that, then they can potentially replace the cite with a more precise dating. That and status quo are the two choices that are acceptable to me.Remsense 🌈 论20:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, ohhh... I would not go there with language of this kindtendentious, nationalistic, because someone could just as well say that your POV is 'tendentious and anti-christian' for stonewalling such an obvious case ofWP:OR. Like I said, you want to be academically honest then provide a source which cites c. 960 (but I know there is not one that exists) as the start date for Polish statehood (those are the Wikipedia rules, not mine, see:Wikipedia:Verifiability).SOURCES PLEASE notred herrings accusations. --PJK 1993 (talk)21:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't think I've stated this explicitly, so let me try at least once. The reason it's not OR is because it'saccurate, just not precise. If the preferred date is966, thenc. 960 is just as accurate as, but is more precise than,10th century. If 966 is considered more correct, then no one needs my permission to specify and cite 966.Remsense 🌈 论21:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think you are familiar with Polish history, the 966 date was always accepted, even the Polish Communist Government in 1966 celebrated the 1000 years of Polish statehood. So, when someone adds in some idiotic and made up date of c.960 it is really misleading and quite frankly false. --PJK 1993 (talk)21:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point this entire time has been thatc. 960 is needlessly imprecise, and even potentially confusing in so being, but it's not OR, just a poor presentation of what is verifiable. I'm sorry if there's something I'm not explaining well, but it wouldn't be right of me either to pretend I agree the issue is something that it's not.Remsense 🌈 论21:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: OK, I DO understand your point and I agree that by the inclusion of the Baptism of Poland as the first point in time in this infobox summary this may mistakenly imply that the Polish history started at this very event, which would be false. I just don't see alternative cause I doubt it is possible to assign dates to the earlier history of the ancestors of the Mieszko's statehood and to indicate development points of the political structure. But as I've mentioned earlier further research for sources is definately needed and Britanica is not a good one in this particular case. However, in the meantime in my opinion the article should not include unreferenced claims. —Antoni12345 (talk)21:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica points to statehood before baptism, see the quote in the footnote: "The dukes (dux) were originally the commanders of an armed retinue (drużyna) with which they broke the authority of the chieftains of the clans, thus transforming the original tribal organisation into a territorial unit."
Where do you get the c. 900 date? Not only are you misrepresenting the source because it clearly does not say anything of the sort. You, fail to realize that 4 editors generally agree that the 966 is the date which is backed up by reference sources. So now it's not c. 960 it's c. 900, are you pushing theGreat Lechia myth as fact? --PJK 1993 (talk)05:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please just stop andWP:DROPTHESTICK, there are several reliable sources now that say 966. One is a Polish parliament legislative bill, which actually states just that:Law of 22 February 2019 on the establishment of the Polish Baptism Day, in order to commemorate the Baptism of Poland, dated 14 April 966, taking into account the significance of the decision of Mieszko I, considered to be the beginning of the Polish State. --PJK 1993 (talk)07:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'reWP:BLUDGEONING on the other hand, overusing WP links. Obviously there was Polish statehood before the baptism, Mieszko's state, and the infobox reflects that. Restore the infobox as you have not stated properly your reasons for deletion.PahlaviFan (talk)09:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the source is Britannica--"transforming the original tribal organisation into a territorial unit" "Mieszko battled the expansive tendencies of the former—a record that dates from 963 refers to a struggle with the German dukes"
Please understandWP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusionnot explicitly stated by any of the sources." Does your source say "c. 10th ct."? No. Does your source say 963 is recognized as the formation start date? No. --PJK 1993 (talk)12:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not arbitrarily delete reliable reference sources just because they don't fit your quesionable point of view. The one that says[1]:Poland’s history as a nation and a country commenced in 966 when she became Christianised. and this one[2] that reads:Law of 22 February 2019 on the establishment of the Polish Baptism Day, in order to commemorate the Baptism of Poland, dated 14 April 966, taking into account the significance of the decision of Mieszko I, considered to be the beginning of the Polish State.--PJK 1993 (talk)18:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
In the "Government and politics" section, change "The current president is Andrzej Duda and the prime minister is Donald Tusk." to "The current president is Karol Nawrocki[1] and the prime minister is Donald Tusk."Blocklaker (talk)09:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
^"Conservative Karol Nawrocki wins Poland's presidential election". AP News. 2 June 2025. Archived from the original on 3 June 2025. Retrieved 2 June 2025.
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Change the People's Republic by adding that this was: a soviet occupation, with clear distinction on Stalinism and such, as people on the west tend to think this was a free choice (please also mention the falsified elections & propaganda for the election in 1946)Thank youPanna Joanna Malgorzata (talk)09:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody change type of government of Poland from semi-presidental, to mixed, because Poland has mixed system, it cannot be clearly attributed to the parliamentary system or to the semi-presidential system83.11.87.78 (talk)13:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, before anyone tries to delete my edits, PLEASE, I beg you, PLEASE read this and hear me out
I, as an Orthodox Christian, believe that Mary survived as a saint past death so this is not taking a jab at catholics, Im referencing this to be a necrocracy as the Virgin Mary isnt physically alive on this Earth, and next, the reason I mentioned the Holy Virgin to be the Queen of Poland and labeled Poland to be under a Theocratic Crowned Republic is because of the fact that this is a venerated religious figure (not in the sense of a priest or a pope but I mean as a saint) and that albeit this was declared by a resolution in the Sejm, she doesnt hold any legal or political power and her title is purely symbolic, therefore my definition aligns completely and this comes from a neutral perspective, and another reason why this edit should be kept as well is because of how much spiritual and cultural importance Mary has in polish culture
Checked it, difference between my one and the Jesus one is that my one is a legal resolution passed in the Sejm and albeit it is not recognised in the global community all that much it is an extremely important Marian devotion for the Poles and as such she indeed is honoured by a very large number of Poles as the Queen of Poland.Aahhspiderrrr (talk)18:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merangs, you need to stop being aggressive towards me. I made one non-controversial good faith edit here[4], and off you go with this comment:"no reason for change. Aim of edit warring again?" Can I edit Wikipedia or am I not allowed by you? Can I change a picture of a train (a non-controversial thing, not related to history or politics - just what I though is a better pic), without being accused of wrong doing? If you continue to intimidate me with this kind of accusatory language because I made a simple edit, I will report you. You stepped out of bounds with this comment. There is no justification for how you responded.PJK 1993 (talk)19:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry but I am not being aggressive in any written communication, though I did outline that pastWikipedia:Edit warring did exist. Thank you for outlining Good Faith, agreed this time, but can we remain with the current neutral image showing a countryside background, or return to Wroclaw Glowny image (which is the busiest railway station in Poland as of 2023)? Also, is there a more recent density map that can replace 2016 data placed by you in demographics? Still don't understand why both metropolitan area images of Katowice and Tricity were deleted, but oh well.Merangs (talk)21:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we can restore the previous picture of Wroclaw Głowny, the current image makes the Pendolino look like a local commuter train. As for the metro pictures, I can understand Katowice, but the tri-city is not not that big and to omit Warsaw is not accurate at all. --PJK 1993 (talk)06:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@NeonFor:, I saw that in one of the edit summaries you mentioned that there are sections in this article where images should be updated or replaced. Can you please identify these?Merangs (talk)18:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PJK 1993:, is there a better representation of Warsaw for the Demographics section? The image you added is blurry and cropped, even though it's in the Warsaw page. Also, we are missingGdańsk from being mentioned/imaged in the article, and it is an important metropolitan and port hub.Merangs (talk)19:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.PianoDan (talk)15:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectPoland. has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 27 § Poland. until a consensus is reached.ArthananWarcraft (talk)18:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your edit request should also be clear about why this change is needed.Slomo666 (talk)17:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
