Talk:Poland

let'sd start this one fresh without Wikipedia Richard Jensen 20:50, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Flag removed

The flag was removed in this edit. Any particular reason? Kjetil Ree 01:37, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

I dropped the infobox (with flag) that was copied from Wikipedia, so that we can have a fresh non-Wikipedia article. Richard Jensen 10:52, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

But I added the flag (from the CIA World Factbook) and the native name ([1]); We can certainly have a country's flag and native name without being Wikipedia. --Kjetil Ree 14:59, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

My apologies! Kjetil Ree is of course right and it should be fixed (but I don't know how). Richard Jensen 15:35, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

No problem, I put the flag back in. --Kjetil Ree 16:00, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Question by a non-native speaker. Is it correct to say that Poland is a nation? Aleksander Stos 09:23, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

yes, it's standard usage. Poland has been a "nation" for 1000 years, but for a while (1815-1918) was not a nation state. see [2]Richard Jensen 13:27, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

credits

the policy here and in history articles is to not give secondary attributions to artwork. That duplicates information on the image page and can only confuse users. It is NOT done in World Book, Encarta encyclopedias. Richard Jensen 18:44, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

I very seriously doubt someone is going to think that ABC Museum is the author of an old art piece. Any confusion is easily dealt with by wording, naming the author in the description with Image: Chicago Art Museum on a new line at the bottom. This is completely standard practice.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:59, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

The difference here is the NY Times article deals with an image that has a copyright - hence the need to attribute both the photographer and the book/magazine it was published in. What this article has in it is public domain - and while I can see the importance of displaying the primary source in the article, I don't see the importance of crediting all those who have come along and reposted it. Anyone who is seeking further information about where an image came from can simply click the image, and find out the source as well as the license. The are still getting credit for their work in reproducing it, it just shouldn't be center stage.

Is there a CZ Policy in place that dictates attributing secondary sources for images within the articles? --Todd Coles 20:36, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

See Help:Images#Attributing_media_within_articles.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:59, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

the confusion to users is how THEY should cite the item. The Chicago Manual of Style is clear: reference the original source, not the chain-of-links that brings it to 2007. The Supreme Court has made it clear that purely mechanical operations without a spark of creativity (like retyping, scanning, xeroxing, posting to www) do not create rights for the technician who did it. Traditionally these technicans are not given credits, only artists like writers and photographers. see [3]Richard Jensen 20:53, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Please do reference the original author. Please do attribute the entity (e.g., museum, library, etc.) who digitized and made the image available to you, especially when they ask.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:59, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

we have in fact referenced google on this page (in the footnote) and on the image page (in detail), clearly meeting Google's reasons....which have no legal force. We will not credit everyone in the chain of ownership over 150 years that made the image possible---such as the publisher or the University of Michigan Library which bought and preserved the book for a century. Richard Jensen 01:13, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

This is a major discussion, which should be undertaken generally not on an article Talk page. I have started a thread on the Forum: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1172.0.html --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:06, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Polish History

Perhaps we should create articles for the major movements in Polish history, and then have a general summary as opposed to the bulk we have now. I think it would be best to have all the country articles streamlined for clarity purposes. What do you think? Denis Cavanagh 04:51, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree that this should eventually become a separate article on Polish history. Keeping it together for now makes it easier to move sections (like demography) Richard Jensen 12:54, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

That sounds ok. Denis Cavanagh 09:49, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Spelling

Let's use American spelling here not British. Richard Jensen 03:31, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

WW2

I added material I wrote for Wikipedia on April 1, 2007. Richard Jensen 05:03, 31 August 2007 (CDT)