Talk:History of Poland during the Piast dynasty

Title

I think this should be under History of Poland during the Piast dynasty. After all, this is a history article, it doesn't describe society, economy, geography or other topics... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

German and Jewish settlement

This a general, relatively short article. It already deals with German and Jewish settlement in a brief manner, in line with a general nature of its subject. More on Jewish settlement can be found in later articles of the series, for example the last paragraph of the History of Poland during the Jagiellon dynasty article. A contributor who wishes to provide a detailed presentation of specific ethnicities that he is interested in should write an article on that particular subject. Here the detail and size of the section disrupts the balance of the article. Orczar (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason the material was originally removed was that it is for the most part unreferenced. It appears to have been taken from some text, but there are only a couple of references to God's Playground regarding the Jews. A lot of other unreferenced material was also not kept at the time of the merge. This reason for removal was stated in a talk with Piotrus at that time. Orczar (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone help me?

On the start, I'm not good at editing or stuff, anyway from what I see even if so it would be deleted by this guy, who keeps posting lies on this site. I mean the map of Poland in X century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland#mediaviewer/File:Polska_960_-_992.svg). As for example this site (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolica_Polski) says "W połowie X wieku dominującą rolę w państwie Piastów zaczęły odgrywać Gniezno i Poznań. Ostatnie badania archelologiczne prowadzone na Ostrowie Tumskim wskazują na szczególną rolę Poznania jako czołowego ośrodka sprawowania władzy[6]. Niemniej jednak, zgodnie z dokumentem Dagome iudex z ok. 991, stanowiącym regest dokumentu, którego wystawcą był Mieszko I, za jedyną formalną stolicę państwa polskiego uważano wówczas Gniezno." Trying to translate in short and simple version it means "In the middle of X century, in country of Piasts (Poland) Poznań and Gniezno started playing dominant role. Last reserch in Ostrów Tumski shows that Poznań was very important city, prince/king was there often. However, document Dagome Iudex from anno domini 991 says that one and only capitol of Poland was Gniezno." And that's what any official source says (even books to history for kids in elementary schools) I was trying to make changes in polish wiki, but I think the only person, who checks there is that lier. His nick is "Poznaniak" that means he comes from "Poznań" city he is trying to make capitol from. As you can see in history of that picture on the start he even tried to remove real capitol, to make his city capitol, it took him some to time to add one and only real capitol in that time. :) It's not a mistake, it's intendend lie and this guy (I don't know is he some kind of admin or something) stops anyone who tries make this map real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exocet158 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope too broad, should be cut and new articles written

It's unencyclopedic for e.g. "Duchy of Poland" to refer to this broad article. Each polity should have its own article (Kingdom of Poland A and Kingdom of Poland B being one article), for example:

1. Duchy of Poland (960-1025)

2. Kingdom of Poland, A (1025-1031)

3. Ducal Poland (1031-1320)

4. Kingdom of Poland, B (1320-1569)

5. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795)

and so on.

If no one wants to chip in, I will try to solicit this proposal myself, but my attempts might not be perfect as I'm not a seasoned Wikipedian, and I thus request someone with more skill and experience to try to do this work. LordParsifal (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Request move: History of Poland (1989-present) to Third Polish Republic and so on

See:

• First Polish Republic
• Second Polish Republic
• French Fourth Republic
• French Fifth Republic

Similarily, articles History of Poland (1918-1939), History of Poland (1939-1945), History of Poland (1945-1989) etc. should be moved into articles named: Poland in the Interwar period, Poland in WW2, Poland in the Cold War etc. or perhaps one big "Poland in the 20th century" article should be created along with one for the Third Polish Republic, describing the current regime, how it formed etc. See: France in the 20th century. History of Poland during the Piast dynasty should either be merged with History of Poland during the Jagiellonian dynasty as "Poland in the Middle Ages" or "Medieval Poland" OR moved to Piast Poland/Poland under the Piasts

79.191.227.130 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Some of the information is completely unsourced I have some concerns about the article Koncerz777 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete anything unsourced and compare it to the GA version linked in the heading which was fully vetted. It’s best to nip this kind of thing in the bud as there’s a tendency for articles to seriously degrade over time if someone isn’t watching it closely for unsourced additions. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

History of Poland during the Piast dynasty

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: There seems to be a consensus that this article needs work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Article has degraded since its original review in 2010. Concerns about unsourced content have been expressed on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the un-sourced stuff, but I will read the whole article in a moment and maybe I will find more errors such as lack of sourcing or poor encyclopaedic content because yesterday I joined wikipedia and read the rules and instructions all the. Koncerz777 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I have found a few not to tighten up already with the beginning missing a better sentence completion or missing something:

The tribe of the Polans (Polanie, lit. "people of the fields") in what is now Greater Poland gave rise to a tribal predecessor of the Polish state in the early part of the 10th century, with the Polans settling in the flatlands around the emerging strongholds of Giecz, Poznań, Gniezno and Ostrów Lednicki. Accelerated rebuilding of old tribal fortified settlements, construction of massive new ones and territorial expansion took place during the period c. 920–950. The Polish state developed from these tribal roots in the second half of the centuryhere. ^{Here there is a need to clarify for what reason it ceased to be a tribal state, because it is true that in the middle of this century it ceased to be but it had many factors that would be worth taking into account}. According to the 12th-century chronicler Gallus Anonymus, the Polans were ruled at this time by the Piast dynasty. In existing sources from the 10th century, Piast ruler Mieszko I was first mentioned by Widukind of Corvey in his Res gestae saxonicae, a chronicle of events in Germany. Widukind reported that Mieszko's forces were twice defeated in 963 by the Veleti tribes acting in cooperation with the Saxon exile Wichmann the Younger. Under Mieszko's rule (c. 960 to 992), his tribal state accepted Christianity and became the Polish state. ^When? Koncerz777 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please also compare with the last reviewed version linked at the top. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Koncerz777 and Viriditas: where does this GAR stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the version I passed in 2010, and this is the current version. The lead is different, as someone added sources to it for some strange reason. There's also been significant changes. I can't vouch for the current version. However, Koncerz777 does seem to have made some improvements by removing unsourced info that was added since 2010.[1] So perhaps this current version should be passed given those changes. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the article could benefit from more eyes before keeping or delisting. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky to get a detailed handle on as all the sources are offline and the main editor does not really seem to be active anymore. There might be an MOS:OVERSECTION issue, but that was there in the original version too. From a general historical note on broadness, this is mostly a political history without much on other aspects, but it does at times devote isolated subsections to other history, even if does not weave it into the narrative. CMD (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally do not think that this article deserves it yet, due to some parts just seeming way too small, especially the "Feudal fragmentation of Poland" part.

Apart from that though, I think this article could become GA-class. I just think the Feudal fragmentation of Poland part needs expansion as a lot happened in that time and whatever is in this article barely covers it. It's especially an issue because this is the main article that covers the topic. Setergh (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.