Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Poland/Periodization

Discussion

I added my dwa grosze (literally :D) and made some minor modifications to the table. I like the basic concept, epsecially that the table could be also split onto several parts for use on respective pages. That is the full table could be used on main pages while a shortened version with a link to the main page of the project (that is History of Poland) could be placed on other (shorter) pages.

Also, I understand that this table is to replace the old Template:History of Poland. Am I right? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:39, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, compare: Template:Polish Underground State sidebar with Template:Polish Secret State small. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep this page from getting cluttered with discussion and use it to show projects only. Let's talk in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History_of_Poland/Periodization --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like it very much :) Somehow I cant reply on the main page, so let's use discussion for discussion and project page for displaying the current consensus. I propose we discuss it in the relevant sections.

Polish statehood

I suggest it is moved to the top of periodisation table. It is missing several important statehoods, I suggest we use this (updated with Free City of Kraków) list: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Polish states series
Kingdom of Poland (Piasts) Kingdom of Poland (Andegawen) Kingdom of Poland (Jagiellon) Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Duchy of Warsaw Kingdom of Poland (Congress) Free City of Kraków Kingdom of Poland (Mitteleuropa) Second Polish Republic Polish Government in Exile (Polish Secret State) People's Republic of Poland Third Polish Republic

I agree with Halibutt that articles like "Kingdom of Poland (Piasts)" or "Kingdom of Poland (Andegawen)" would look like "there was no Poland before 1989 and those were just different states that occupied roughly the same area", and obscure the continuity of Polish history. Besides, it would probably double the content in the history series. So I wouldn't expand this section. --Kpalion 17:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Political and military history

I have no problems with the periodic division, but perhaps we can work on a bettle title? This will be a general history section and I think it will always have some referecnes to all the others. Perhaps it should be just 'General history' or 'History of Poland'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update. We may want to consider a pre-Poland section in there, dealing with anything related to civilisation in future Poland regions before Mieszko I. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Technically, this would be prehistory, not history, but I'm OK with it. --Kpalion 17:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Demographic and economic history

Demography is part of economy (as are many things). Suggest changing it to just 'economic history'. Also, the distinction between Early Modern and 19th century is much too small. I think we should have after Middle Ages: Commonwealth and Partitioned Ecomonies. Mind you, I dont think there is a single article about Polish economy before today's RP (Economy of Poland)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to renaming it to "economic history". As to periodization, I think the differnce between economic conditions before and after the partitions are ennormous. Besides, the 19th century means beginning of industrialization, a totally new process, at least in some parts of Poland. That there is not a single article on the subject yet is no argument to me; they will be written sooner or later. --Kpalion 17:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural history

No objection here. This would include scientific achievements as well, right? Seems fine to me. Well, needs writing, obviously :) ATM there is no Culture of Poland at all, just a list at Poland#Culture --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should include all that belongs to culture in the wide, anthropological sense, i.e.:

ways of life,
tradition,
arts,
science,
philosophy,
religion,
entertainment,
sports,

etc. It should also mention the cultures of ethnic minorities that used to live in Poland. --Kpalion 17:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other

While we are working on periodisation, I think it would help if we worked a template for the state article series. I looked at Poland, USA, France, Germany articles to see what divisions they had. My findings and recommendations - I think it should be divided into following sections:

lead & name & box & map/picture
history (general)
economy
politics & state/government organisation (ministries, officials, etc.) & foreign relations
culture & science & religion
geography & province organisation (aka political division - voivodships, etc.)

I am not sure if we should have those additional sections or should they be merged with existing?

military (none of the state articles I liiked at had it)
social issues (not sure if we need a separate one, like USA#Social_issues, I'd have it merged with culture and/or general history, note that UK does not have it)
demographics (I think this should be merged with economy as far as pupulation number and growth goes, while ethnic divisions should go into culture) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We have to decide. Either we name the article "Economy and demographics of blah blah blah" and put all the relevant info there, or we simply exclude the demographics part and distribute it among all relevant articles. We can go either way here, but let's be consistent. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:58, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think nobody has so far objected to scrapping separate demographic section, so I say - scrap it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noble democracy name change

Let's decide on new name for Nobles' Democracy. This article should have a diffrent name. Noble's democracy is confusing, it may be used for discussion of PLC political system but not as a general description of the historical period - to my knowledge, this name was invented on Wikipedia. And besides, we have an article on szlachta, which is making term 'noble' even more confusing. Setting aside proposed split and merges, which nobody seems to be interested in doing ATM, I suggest moving the article to History of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795) - or do you have any (shorter) name suggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with History of Poland (1569-1795). Is it the fact that it doesn't include Lithuania? If so, then History of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795) works for me. Appleseed 02:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization with the rest of Europe

There have recently been attempts to make the various European history series more two dimensional, i.e. France in the Middle Ages is both part of the chronological history of France series and the geographic Europe in the Middle Ages series. It seems like there might be some chance of integrating some of the Polish history series into this. For instance History of Poland (966-1320) seems to be 90% Poland in the Middle Ages and with only slight restructuring could be added to the Middle ages by region template. If the Prehistory of Poland page gets written it could be linked to still mostly empty Prehistoric Europe series. - SimonP 17:21, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Any detailed sugggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In terms of History of Poland (966-1320) maybe move the "The Origins of Poland" section to serve as a stubby start to the missing Prehistory of Poland (until 966) and then History of Poland (966-1320) can be added to the Medieval Europe series. You might also consider renaming the page as we have Italy in the Middle Ages, France in the Middle Ages, Britain in the Middle Ages, and Spain in the Middle Ages. I realize that the current system has a high level of consistency, but having articles with real names rather than just dates has many advantages for the reader.

Another idea is that History of Poland (1945-1989) could be linked with Communist Romania, History of the German Democratic Republic, and the three article series on the History of communist Czechoslovakia to create a series on the history of Communist Eastern Europe. If the Hungarians, Bulgarians, and others get around to making a history series they can be encouraged to follow the same model. There could also be a post-1989 series, a during WWII series, an interwar series, a prehistory series etc.

In general the best way of linking such pages together is by templates. Since all these pages already have templates at the top right the Medieval series and general History of Europe series both use templates at the bottom of the page. (See France in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Europe for examples). Such templates would not interfere with any of the existing formatting. Having a common naming pattern is also useful, but I'm not sure if your willing to give up the naming pattern that already exists for the Polish history series. - SimonP 01:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we have to give up the name style. As long as perdiods fit, we can have the Poland in Middle Ages redirect to History of Poland (966-1320), and problem fixed :) We can be both in the 'world history period' template and in our current one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Periodization issue

Hi everyone, I've been thinking about the way the Polish history articles are divided. The fact that the early history article (i.e. Polska Piastów) ends in 1385 (unia krewska) and not 1370 (death of Kazimierz Wielki) doesn't sit right with me. If you think about it, the Andegawen dynasty isn't really the end of the Piast dynasty--it's more of a lead-in into the Jagiellonian. The 1385 date is also inconvenient because it falls in the middle of Jadwiga's reign, but before her marriage to Jagiełło.

I believe Jasienica divides his books along the 1370 date.

If this has been discussed before, I apologize (maybe you could give me the link to that discussion). Let me know what you think. Appleseed 16:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no perfect solution. I see no point in changing our current system, but I won't object if you do so - but properly, ensuring all ilinks/double redirects are corrected. I had already done it once and I know its quite a lot of work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]