Jump to content

Talk:Poland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Boraczek (talk | contribs) at 00:25, 9 October 2004 (→What's this?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Early discussion

1. Could somebody please update party leaders ?

2. Could somebody please tell me how to use things like html ć in wiki ?

in re: #2: generally you just paste in the code; acceptable characters, characters not allowed, others not universally supported etc. are discussed at Wiki special characters.

Did Poland sign an agreement to allow German language to the native population of Pomerania , Silesia , West and East Prussia and for them to be able to change their names back to their original German names again ? ? ? .

Okay, I'm just wondering how the heck I'm able to edit your web page. For some reason it just doesn't sound like very good planning to have your web-page open to editing by the pulic. Anyway, have a nice day!

~Squirrelboy~ 8/24/02

Huh ? There are two-language town names in Opolskie. Are you talking about this ?

German native population (living before World War II in Pomerania, Silesia etc.) of western and northwesternparts of Poland was mostly deported to Germany after World War II. Very few German-speaking people live in Poland nowadays (less than 1 %). According to Polish law everyone has right to change her/his name if she/he proves that she/he has important reason to do so - for example if he wants to have German name. In Poland everyone has right to speak in his native language, every ethnic minority has right to establish their schools, there are also schools for German minority. Poland has signed many international treaties which guarant human rights, including rights of ethnic minorities.

Now I understand libertarians - one of my best friends is a serious one, but 'slave' and 'conscript army' are not synonymous unless conscription is for life or until you literally pay your way out. Please don't think I'm defending conscript armies, by the way! I think they're appalling social tools. I'm just asking for a considered rewrite.

"Conscription" is kind of slavery. You are denied all liberty, taken from home, forced to do things you don't want to, and they can send you to death if they want to. If it's not slavery, then what is ? In some countries it is just for a year or two, but in many countries in history, most of slave soldiers never returned home.

The very definition of slaves is that they can be sold -- they're property. Conscript soldiers can't. -- Paul Drye

re: comparative area of late C16 Poland-Lithuania and Russia: I checked this on a map before amending it, szopen, and it looked clear to me that European Russia under Ivan IV and his immediate successors ruled a larger area than Rzeczpospolita at its height (1.2m sq km?). I'll try to get hold of some figures, but it's worth remembering how vast (2-3m sq km?) the Russian area is, even when limiting oourselves to Europe. User:David Parker

Thank you. That would be interesting. "Poland greates state in Europe" is so often repeated in bunch of books, newspapers and so on, that i've never tried to validate that claim.
However territorial peak for Poland was, IIRC, in early 17 century.
Anyway, i will try ti search in my own reliable books szopen

What happened to the list of international organizations -- Interpol, the Zangger Committee, and so on -- that Poland belongs to? Has someone unilaterally decided that that list is boring and deleted it? --the Epopt

The article now has the template from WikiProject Countries placed on it. I hope it is to everyone's liking, and feel free to add to it, but there's one detail that may need some attention. We've generally used English names, where available, for political entities such as provinces or in this case voivodships. Currently the voivodships we have articles on use Polish titles, instead of English ones, though they do mention them in their text. In some cases the voivodship mostly corresponds to a region that has a separate article, but does have the same name, such as Greater and Lesser Poland. Corresponding articles are listed next to each other in the subdivisions section and I would like to ask the Polish Wikipedians if they can assist in either converting and merging these articles to their English names, or to make clear if this is not at all possible. Thanks. -Scipius 00:33 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

I suppose this voivodship issue is a little confusing. IMO the corresponding articles should not be merged. Masovia and Mazowieckie are quite different things the former is geographic and historical entity that roughly corresponds, if territory is concerned, to the latter. Masovia has always been there and Mazowieckie is a rather recent political phenomen that can go away with the next government in office. On the other hand I wonder if there are common naming conventions for voivodships in the English speaking countries.
--Kpjas Sun, 8 Dec 2002 10:57:22 +0100
Thanks. I suppose this means we should therefore better move "Mazowieckie" to "Masovia Voivodship", as well as the others, or do you think just "Masovia (voivodship)" would be enough? I take it the -kie suffix somehow denotes the voivodship element, so we need to represent that in English via a full word. -Scipius 19:29 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)
To clarify a little these convoluted matters of Polish voivodships. To be honest Mazowieckie and friends are plain misnomers that were put into Wikipedia carelessly by someone. Mazowieckie is an adjective derived from Mazowsze and it is additionally an ellipsis it should read Voivodship Mazowieckie (mind, Polish word order) to be precise. At least it is used this way formally in Polish.

Ideally and quite consistently it would be to follow your proposal and move them to Masovia Voivodship etc but not all have these historical-geographical regions to let us form titles like in the Masovia example. All in all, though it is rather ugly I'd vote for Mazowieckie (voivodship in Poland). I think it would be consistent and clear for speakers of English. What do you think ?
--Kpjas Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:34:24 +0100
Well, I did notice that Lodzkie refers to Lodz. Don't cases that do not currently correspond to a historic region perhaps correspond with a city or something else? In that case we could call them after that, <object> Voivodship, for consistency with the others. Normally, we should use English terms, and when none are available we use the native ones, but since the -kie titles are only adjectives, we may "anglicise" them a bit further and make it <city/region> Voivodship. I would not use your last suggestion as a title, for the simple reason that the English (or rather Latinised) region names are more familiar to non-Polish speakers. I assume the voivodship names are meant to invoke an association with the regions in Polish, so why not preserve that in English? "Greater Poland" certainly was a lot clearer to me than Wielkopolskie. -Scipius 20:53 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)
My voice is not by any means decisive but I would agree with your line of thinking that the article names about Polish voivodships should be as much understandable as possible to speakers of English. We ought to leave all polonisms behind. Please make your list of the articles about voivodships and post it here.
--Kpjas Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:46:08 +0100

It mostly like it is now in the article, but here a full proposal (not all of them have articles at the moment, of course):

If you could fill in those with a ?, if possible. If not, then we'll just have to use the Polish name, no problem. -Scipius 20:30 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

To complicate matters even worse see :
http://directory.google.com/Top/Regional/Europe/Poland/Voivodships/
Kpjas Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:27:35 +0100
  1. Lubelskie > Lublin Voivodship
    1. OK
  2. Lubuskie > Lubusz Voivodship
    1. No
  3. Podkarpacie > Podkarpatian Voivodship
    1. Subcarpathian is better
  4. Podlasie > Podlasian Voivodship
    1. No
  5. Pomorskie > Pomeranian Voivodship
  6. Swietokrzyskie > Holy Cross Voivodship
    1. No,no,no
  7. Slaskie > Silesian Voivodship
    1. No let's be consistent -> Upper and Lower Silesia
  8. Warminsko-Mazurskie > Warmio-Masurian Voivodship
    1. No
  9. Zachodniopomorskie > West Pomeranian Voivodship
    1. seems to be nice but Western Pommerania might be as well
  • Ad 2) this one is tricky because this historically Polish region takes it's name from the city of Lubusz, which is currently located in Germany under the name "Lebus", but "Lebusian voivodship" ain't gonna fly.
  • Ad 5)and 9) changed "Pomerania" to "Pomeranian" and "Western" to "West".
  • Ad 7) Upper Silesia exists as a region but not as a voivodship, so it's a Silesian Voivodship.

These are propositions. Feel free to comment, or change.
SC

Kpjas! I am being consistent. But there is no such thing as Upper Silesian voivodship. Just like in USA there is no state of "East Virginia". I know, there is a region called Upper Silesia but part of it lies in the Opolskie voivodship! Subcarpathian is cool, but if you want to be consistent, you would have to call Podlaskie - "Subsylvanian" - and nobody would recognize it then!
SC

I'd like to thank you both for your suggestions, I've learnt a bit more Polish ;). As for my view on the proposals, Kpjas, I don't think we should use the "in Poland" bit in the title. As far as I know, a voivodship is already most commonly associated with Poland, so it's a little redundant. I quite like the idea of making the region names into adjectives themselves (Pomerania > Pomeranian), since that seems to be the case in Polish as well (likewise Masovian Voivodship). As for Slaskie, it does appear confusing. The Polish name obviously doesn't contain an "Upper" part, but one look at the region/voivodship homepage makes clear the two concepts are somewhat mixed together. I would slightly prefer "Silesian Voivodship", because it is a more accurate translation.

As for the others, I see that a literal translation may create some potentially unwanted unclarity. How's about we use "Subcarpathian Voivodship" for Podkarpacie because it refers to the Carpathians, which people may know and also locates the province in the south, but use the Polish names for Swietokrzyskie and Podlasie, since they do not refer to regions with a common English name and the direct translations completely disassociates them from their Polish names. I would also go for "Lubusz Voivodship", given the history of the western voivodships and, finally, I would like to know whether Warminsko-Mazurskie should perhaps be "Warmian-Masurian Voivodship". -Scipius 20:40 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

OK on all! 22:15 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
SC

OK. It seems all reasonable but this task of choosing names is a little tricky. I hope we've managed to avoid making confusion in minds of those poor English speaking folk ;-)
Kpjas Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:36:59 +0100

I'd say we're good to go. I'll start work on moving the articles and editing their articles. If you have any comments on my edits, don't hesitate to tell me. -Scipius 22:56 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)
Well, done. There are likely many references to the Polish names in other articles dealing with Polish affairs which need to be changed. Given they are now redirects there's no hurry, one could also do this should there be a need to edit such an article for a different reason. -Scipius 00:15 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts in making Polish voivodships at least slightly more understadable for the English speaking audience. BTW History of Poland article is also a mess ;-)
Kpjas Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:21:21 +0100
You're welcome, Kpjas. As for the history article, I'm sorry, but my work on the WikiProject Countries is currently on hold while we discuss a new direction, which may mean restructuring that article. -Scipius 13:57 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

82.82.118.163 in a change log said 'My grandfather i. e. was allowed to leave Poland in 1959. He had to stay, because there were no mining experts in West Poland. He was not allowed to settle to West Germany.'

While I don't deny that some Germans were forced to labour in Poland, I can't allow such statements as many Germans being forced to labour in Poland. Many in context of milions Germans expulsed must mean about 100 thousand of Germans doing forced labour. You are quoting anectodal evidence and hearsay. Point me to a book or official webpage. Also, I believe, if your grandfather were force to stay in Poland until 1959 it is almost sure that he was a Polish citizen (although of German of Slezian ethnicity), and as such could be not allowed to leave Poland. Przepla 17:45, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Another thought. Why don't you write about yours grandfather in German expulsion after World War II, and make a link to it Poland? Przepla 18:02, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

@przepla many does not mean minimum 100.000 or more. Who told you that ? Also, why "as such [polish citizen] could be not allowed to leave Poland" cant, even if he was a polish citizen which is not proven (hearsay, guess etc, you know) he be allowed to leave poland ? So what - is this something obvious and natural not to be allowed to leave a country, evene mor IF he was a citizen of that country ? Dont think so.

CHris

You didn't understood me. I wrote: "Many in context of millions Germans". The word many means something like 30%-50% of total value. Even if about 10000 Germans were forced to labour in Poland it does not constitute many when talking about millions. And yes, it was something obvious and natural in Poland during communist government (1945-1989) to not to be allowed to leave country, if one was Poland's citizen -- Lech Walesa was not permitted to leave country to receive Nobel Peace Prize, John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) had problems leaving the country to Rome. Basically until 1989 Poland was a country occupied by Soviets. I don't oppose the fact of Germans forced labour in Poland -- I know nothing about it. I oppose using the word many. I should also for the sake of NPOV insert fragment about literally millions many of Poles working in Germany to the Germany main article, since 82.82.118.163 want to insert it to Poland main article. Naturally I won't do that since that fact belongs to Nazi Germany article. Przepla 23:11, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why Warsaw is the largest city of Poland

Okay, I put Warsaw as the largest city because it is the largest city proper. Katowice may have a larger metropolitan area (and even then, that is debated), but individually, Warsaw is the largest city WhisperToMe 04:10, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Edits by Fvincent

<< "Rzeczpospolita" is the exact translation from latin res publica (republic): "rzecz" -- thing, matter, concern, affair, "pospolita" -- common, i.e., "common matter", "common thing". >>... The immediately following piece <<"Common" is as in House of Commons vs. House of Lords; pospolstwo -- common people.>> was deleted. After this the preceding sentence becomes unclear. Today it is not immediately seen why "publica" --> "pospolita" is the exact translation, because in modern Polsih language the predominant meaning of "pospolity" is "ordinary", "commonplace". So I added this (deleted) sentence because I felt some clarification is due here. How about restoring it or supplying a better explanation, if you don't like mine? Mikkalai 19:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

National motto

As far as I know there is no national motto in Poland. Bóg, honor, ojczyzna used to be somehow popular as a banner motto for many WWII military units, but there is no reference to the slogan in any post-WWII polish law or decree. And, as Poland is not a theocracy, I doubt anyone would put God in any official motto these days. I suggest User:Cautious stopped editing it.Halibutt 15:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur. There is no such law that making this motto by any means legal and official. Bóg, honor, ojczyzna should be placed in neglected Military of Poland or perhaps creating Polish military traditions would do. National motto in this place of the article should be defined in constitution, and it is not I am reverting to previous. Please do not insert it anymore, Cautious. Przepla 15:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Never mind, Halibutt already removed it. Przepla 15:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Prime Minister

The article at Leszek Miller says that he is no longer Prime Minister. So, who is, then? RickK 23:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to what I found on google, Miller has resigned but the new PM has not been appointed yet. Andris 23:15, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Should we list the Prime Minister position as vacant, then? RickK 23:17, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would wait for a day, in case if someone from Poland responds on this page. They might know it better. If there no response by tomorrow, list as vacant. Andris 23:22, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Acc. to http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,53600,2051856.html Miller is still the PM and will remain in the post until 14:00 02.05.2004. Marek Belka will then officially become the new Polish PM.
--tsca 23:28, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the letter of resignation is currently at President's desk, who will accept this resignation later today. Polish constitution says that until next PM is appointed the previous one is still exercising his or her duties. So PM's post in almost never vacant. Przepla 23:49, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Christianization -- POV?

Isn't mentioning christianization date in country table POV? Przepla 11:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In what sense? IMO the christianization in our cultural area was more of a political fact than a religious statement. As such it was equal to entering the community of modern states. Also, take note that all European countries were christianized so there's not much place for any hidden agendas. Halibutt 16:57, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
That's reasonable. Thanks. Przepla 20:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Although the issue's settled, I feel like adding that it is treated by the Polish as a key date in the founding of their country as a nation. Krupo 00:23, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sad about Culture/ buildings etc.

It is a bit sad that there is a link under Culture of Poland with nothing in it. The history and politics are all very well but some good pictures of architecture and countryside and something about the cultural heritage would make the article much better...can anyone help? --BozMo|talk 09:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I edited Politics part correcting a few errors. The members of Sejm are elected by a proportional vote (not majority). The members of Senate are elected in a different way but is not strictly by majority, either. The constitution does not stipulate about 5% limit (it's in a separate election law). There are no guaranteed seats for ethnic minorities (they are excempt from 5% limit but they must pass the regional vote). Poszwa 20:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Polish Voivodships

I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Polish Voivodships some time ago to settle the naming conventions for Polish Voivodships, powiats/counties and gmina/communes. Please participate. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:13, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

It is strange that no history is given from the 10th century to the 16th century. Nothing happened in Poland during this period? User:sca 24 Sept 04

What's this?

"Poland used to be a communist country, but democracy was introduced when the country became independent of Russia (the Soviet Union) in 1990."

I think this is the most NPOV I ever saw in Wikipedia. Wether you think that communist Poland was really democratic or not, it was a republic, so "democracy was intruduced [...] in 1990" is not objetive.

The other part, "the country became independant from Russia (the Soviet Union)" is even worse. Poland was already an independent country, although it was under the soviet sphere. It is just like saying that latin american countries aren't independant because they are controlled by the USA.

Apart from that, it is unprecise: Russia or the Soviet Union? The SU was formed out of 15 states, not only the Russian SSFR.

Dear anon, I guess you meant POV rather than NPOV. Anyway, the matter is more complex than you depict it. According to international law Poland was indeed fully independent. However, one can also say that it was fully dependent of the Soviet Union and even under military occupation. Also, one cannot call a country in which there are no democratic elections for 45 years a democratic country. The concept of democracy was perhaps re-introduced and not introduced (first european country to have its constitution and so on..), but the fact remains that Poland under communist rule was everything but a democracy. Technically it was not a republic either, since the power was held not by the teoretically electible Sejm but by the communist party. For most of its existence the PRL was a communist dictatorship and not a republic. For some time it was a military dictatorship. It was never a republic.
Other than that you're right: it needs clarification and slight correction. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:23, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)


Even if it was under military occupation, it was 'legal' as they were Warsaw Pact troops, and Poland -all of this, supposedly- a volunteer member of it. I know, 99,9% of Warsaw Pact troops were Red Army ones, but that is not the point, I think.
Taking out the military occupation, Poland was an internationally-recognized independent State. An encyclopedia, specially one that wants to be neutral like this one, must speak coldly and in precise terms. You may think it wasn't really independant in all the possible aspects, but saying that "it became independant from the SU" is terrible deviated.
About the ellections, the Sejm, as you say, was teoretically electible, so in fact it was a republic. Also it called itself a republic, remember. The fact that only one party was allowed and that politics were controlled exclusively by the CP, can be added as an extra point, but previously deleting that "democracy was introduced".
It indeed needs to be clarified, but speaking of Poland as a democratic republic would be a step too far. Writing only about the theoretical aspect of the politics in Poland would be equally misleading. Just like writing an apologetic article on North Korea in which only the official truth is presented would be equally POV - just from the other side. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:26, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that that was the most NPOV I ever saw in Wikipedia ;) The argument that Poland was democratic before 1989 is an obvious nonsense and it is not even worth commenting. The argument that Poland was independent is more substantiated, because it was formally independent. But actually, it was undoubtedly dependent on the Soviet Union. So the statement "it became independent from the SU" is correct. The comparison with Latin America is not fully justified, because the control the SU exercised over Poland was considerably more strict than the control the US exercised over Latin America countries. The statements like "99,9% of Warsaw Pact troops were Red Army ones" show how little the anonymous writer knows about the history of Eastern Europe. Boraczek 06:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Speak about your Poland only, Boraczek, mine has always been in Central Europe, not Eastern :D But seriously, perhaps what needs some explanation is that "independence from the Soviet Union". It needs to be clarified because the way it is now this sentence could be used for description of former Soviet Union republics as well. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
That phrase was indeed awkward, but I'm guessing the original intent may have been that Poland regained democracy it lost in WWII. ... that part sounds better, but the independence thing needed a little more - added "sphere of influence" to try and make that sound less ambiguous. What do you think? Krupo 19:42, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think now it is a bit better, but the phrase still has to be removed or completely rewritten, as it continues being biased.
Boraczek shouln't bet let to impose his anticommunism as a "neutral" point of view.

What does it have to do with anticommunism? 8-o

If someone believes that there was democracy in Poland 1944-1989, they either have no idea what democracy is or have no idea what happened in Poland in that period (or maybe both). If it is the former, I suggest reading R. A. Dahl's On Democracy. If it is the latter, I suggest reading N. Davies's books on the history of Poland. Anyway, it's a matter of ignorance and not a matter of "different point of view". So there's no room for discussion here.

As for independence, we can try to rephrase the sentence to avoid misunderstandings. Anyway, it's important to have a notion of the connection between the events - the transition to democracy in Poland was possible because the Soviet Union leaders gave up sustaining communism in Poland. I'm afraid the current phrase is not linguistically correct, but I'll leave it to native speakers to deal with that. Boraczek 20:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear, that might be R. A. Dahl's, N. Davie's and yours point of view on eastern communist governments and how democratic they were. As you may infere, other people may have a completely opposite view, or one in the middle.
Others might think that you are the ignorant, and that what you understand for 'Democracy' is NOT what they understand for it. Democracy comes from the Greek Demos (people) and Cratos (government), and thus means "people's government". Given that, it was normal for communist countries to call themselves "democratic", as they possibly didn't understand it as "capitalist predecided ellections".
Apart from that, there were ellections. Capitalist countries may try to hiden it and even dress it up, but political control occurs everywhere, no only where the U.S. dennounces it. So, I think that a neutral point of view should be like your beliefs or like communist's beliefs, but neutral. That is, not mentioning things that people with other beliefs might be able to discuss.

Briefly, the anonymous writer keeps presenting ignorance or propaganda as "a different point of view", presenting facts as "my beliefs" and showing his/her lack of orientation in political science and history. So as to clearly express my standpoint: if someone believes that Poland is 10 times bigger than the US, it is not a reason to remove the information about the area of Poland; analogously, if someone believes that communist Poland was democratic, it is not a reason to remove the information about the democratic transition in Poland. Boraczek 22:12, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please, don't make stupid comparisons, it only reflects that you haven't uderstood me, or directly don't want to understand me. You cannot say your beliefs aren't your beliefs, and instead presenting themselves as facts. That is the result of a closed mind.
I am not saying that Poland was democratic in the way you understand the word, but that what you understand for democratic are not all its possible and valid interpretations. Anyway, saying that democracy was introduced in 1990 continues being POV,as the world "introduced" gives certain connotations. You could equally say "free ellections were held in 1990", and it is NPOV, as it just reflects reality, without giving place for misunderstandings or offences.
About the other part, the one about the independance from the Soviet Union, that is completely erroneous. You can say that free ellections were only possible once the Soviet Union stopped supporting communist governments in it's neighbour states, which is an explicit phrase that also don't lets place for confussion or politial deviations.
If by elections we understand "the society choses its representatives in a popular vote" then no, there were no elections in Poland after WWII. These could be called show elections at best since both the candidates and the results were pre-defined by the party, without the society having any influence over it whatsoever. In this very case it's not about two contracting POVs, it's the case of truth vs. lie. One cannot say that there were free elections in Poland prior to 1990. So, if there were no free elections - how come the country is a democracy to you? It might've called itself a democracy, but it doesn't mean that it truly was a democracy.
I'd agree on some softened wording though, something along the lines of "The first free ellections in Polish post-war history were held in 1990". How about that? As to the relations with USSR: I'm afraid that we'd have to be more elaborate here. There's no chance to describe the level of dependence by using one frase only. Any proposals? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:08, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

what you understand for democratic are not all its possible and valid interpretations

Of course, my personal view on democracy is not the only possible interpretation. There are different ways of understanding democracy. Barry Holden classified all theoretical approaches describing democracy by distinguishing five types. I'm listing them below, with names of some prominent representants:

  1. radical democratic theory (ancient Greeks, Rousseau)
  2. new radical democratic theory (Bachrach, Baratz, Marcuse)
  3. pluralist democratic theory (Dahl)
  4. elitist democratic theory (Schumpeter)
  5. liberal-democratic theory (Locke, Tocqueville, Mill)

The point is that communist states were not democratic in any possible sense of the word "democratic", not democratic according to any formulated theory of democracy, not democratic even according to the communist way of defining "people's democracy". And this is a fact, not a belief. If we refrain from using the word "democracy" just beacuse the communist propaganda used it to describe communist states so, we only loose a useful term. This is Wikipedia, not an official Soviet Union site, so let's use the word "democracy" in its proper sense. Boraczek 14:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like you say, I believed this was Wikipedia, not an official CIA site.
Listen, just dont shut your eyes, this is not neutral: "Poland used to be a communist state, but democracy was restored in 1990". It is making a parallelism between communism (the ideology, no the soviet interpetation) and absence of democracy, don't you think it is POV?
A communist state is by definition a state monopolized by a communist party, hence not a democratic state. Boraczek 00:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Was Nazi Germany "socialist" because NSDAP was by name a "socialist" party? Space Cadet 21:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is not the issue right now, but anyway what you say is wrong. It defined itself as "nationalsocialist", which contains "socialist" in its name but is a composite world meaning someting practically opposed to socialism.
Of course, Space Cadet is right. "National socialist" contains "socialist", so NSDAP called themselves "socialist". This is obvious. So as not to see "socialist" in "national socialist", one has to have their eyes very shut. The anonymous writer's eyes seem indeed very shut, because he/she doesn't see that he/she runs counter his/her own argument, the one that communists considered communist states democratic. It's enough to change some names and what we get is: it defined itself as "people's democracy", which contains "democracy" in its name but is a composite world meaning someting practically opposed to democracy. Boraczek 00:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Nazionalsozialistische" is a composite word only in German, not in English. Socialism in Nazi Germany was as "socialist" as democracy in Communist Poland "democratic". Do you actually know what the so called "elections" looked like? Did you know that untouched ballot was a valid vote for the selctions made by the "Front of Nation's Unity"? Anybody who did not turn in his ballot right after receiving it, got a mark next to his name. In stalinist times the mark meant Siberia, prison or death. In more recent times it meant your kids wouldn't get to college, you wouldn't ever get a raise or promotion anywhere you work and you wouldn't get a passport even to go to lousy Bulgaria. Space Cadet 00:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poland&oldid=6440767"