This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Voting closed.
:Oppose. It should be moved to
Military of Poland for consistency:
Military of the United States,
Military of Greece etc. "Polish Army," while literally correct, is misleading, because when English speakers hear "army" they immediately think "land forces." So it should look something like this: The Military of Poland (
Polish Wojsko Polskie, literally translated as "Polish Army") is comprised of the...etc. Any redirect pages should make sure that people know that "Polish Army" can refer to more than just the present
Land Forces of Poland. --
Jpbrenna 1 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)
Polish Army ( Polish Wojsko Polskie, by Jpbrenna called Military of Poland)?
Right, well it's gone on for over a month and it really needs deciding. Please choose which of the following you would find acceptable (you can have more than one). Voting closes towards the end of the 9 July 2005. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
Voting closed.
#
Alai 8 July 2005 12:21 (UTC) Choice of last, rather desperate, resort. Removed to facilitate 'count', as above.
Alai 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Voting closed.
The Wojsko Polskie name was clearly unfavoured in the final approval vote, so the article was going to be moved to one of the other name proposals. As Polish Armed Forces has a small lead it has therefore been moved there. violet/riga (t) 10:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
::The matter is pretty clear to me. We have several names here.
Well, I definitely do not want you to be forced to defend the honour of the land of your ancestors (though if you needed any help, just let me know).
As to the matter itself - there is one serious flaw in your reasoning. In the Anglo-Saxon world (notably the US of A and the UK), the armed forces indeed consist of several almost separate branches. Technically speaking, the US (for instance) have five completely different military forces, often even conflicted with each other. They are all subordinate solely to the Secretary of Defence and the President, but have separate logistics, separate commands, separate tasks, equipment, scientific institutes and so on.
In Poland it's a tad different. All the branches of the military are subordinate to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, who in turn is subordinate to the Ministry of Defense, the President and the Sejm. However, all three branches have one joint military commander (currently Czesław Piątas), who controls the commanders of the three branches. So, in other terms, in Poland we have a single military force consisting of several branches.
Anyway, I don't really see the problem here. The Polish Army is the term used both in Poland and in the English-speaking countries for ages. I still do not see why the hell should we invent a new name when there already is a perfect name in use. Of course, we can move the article to Military of Poland and promote such a descriptive term over the actual name, but then we should also move Richard Nixon to Thirty-seventh President of the United States and the article on Queen Victoria to That Fatty Old Lady Who Ruled the UK Prior to 1901. Bizarre? Yup...
If we were to use your example with languages: most of them have their proper names in English and those are used in Wikipedia. For instance język polski (lit. Polish tongue) is called Polish language here. Similarily, some military forces have their proper names in English and those should be used. Royal Navy is not called Navy of the United Kingdom, eventhough such a name would be much less ambiguous (what about navies of Holland or Spain?) and much more correct. Luftwaffe is not called German Air Force. Ditto for Aeronautica Militare Italiana, Botswana Defence Force Air Wing and many more articles in English wiki. Why should we break that rule in case of the Polish Army? Halibu tt July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC)
Halibu
tt July 5, 2005 09:03 (UTC)
Definetly, Wojsko Polskie is problematic as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states: Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.. Polish Army indeed is more general, and should describe the Polish Armies through our history - from Piasts to present. Then it can have subarticles about armies in that period. Now we need to check if Wojsko Polskie (and Wojsko Ludowe, etc.) is more often used in English then its translation or not (see Talk:Voivodships of Poland ad User:Wahwah page for how this can be done). An example of Polish army that should not be translated would be wojsko kwarciane. What do you think about Chorągiew and Poczet? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 5 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
So what is the official name of the Polish Land Forces branch? — Michael Z. 2005-07-5 11:37 Z
I vote for Polish Armed Forces. Not really new reasons other then the ones mentioned already earlier in this page, mainly ambiguity. Well, my granddad was in the Polish Navy, so perhaps I'm not completely objective :-) Also, I think at various times the Polish Armed Forces were called "Polskie Sily Zbrojne", like during WW2. Finally, if I'm correct, since Poland's membership to NATO, the structure and organization of the Polish military have been adapted considerably to a NATO style organization, incl. making all the 3 services equal in status, so for example the head of the defense staff (the highest military commander) can also be now an admiral or an Air Force general, much like in other NATO countries. In fact, wasn't some years ago an admiral the chief of staff?
Pkmink 6 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)
This actually a really small thing but concerning the 1 million men strong during the outbreak of the war there where only half a million moblized. this is dur to england telling poland not to mobilizes all her force because this would be seen as an act of war
Zapraszam do wypelniania Timeline of the Polish Army-- Witkacy 11:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Long discussion, voting, and... nothing. The current name Wojsko Polskie has no majority and I defintely agree it is wrong. What are we going to do? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Polish Armed Forces ( Polish Polskie Siły Zbrojne) was the official name of the Polish Army formed in exile in France and United Kingdom during the World War II.
==See also==
{{mil-stub}} {{poland-stub}}
[[Category:Polish Army|*]]
We need first to agree on structure and names of the related subarticles. We need 1) the name for a historical overview article on entire Polish military, from Mieszko tribe warriors to today's army - which I think should be Military history of Poland 2) the name for current, post 98 Polish military 3) the names for Polish militaries in the past. Then we need to fix some redirects. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Polish version of this template: pl:Szablon:WP.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The pictures dont work 130.111.98.131 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The 2003 figure is blown way high (demographic surge), any newer and more accurate ones? Ksenon 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of the most important Armies. i.e. French Army; German Army; Italian Army I also want to make a graphic of the structure of the Polish Land Forces, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as there is no information how the units are structured (i.e. What Regiments/Batallions belong to which Divisions/Brigades, what type the units are; and so on) Does anyone have this information- and also the Regiments/Battalions names and/or numbers and where they are based? Thanks noclador
there's basic information on this page: http://www.army.mil.pl/eng/eng.html. Maybe you could try emailing them for details. 87.207.175.246 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. A wikipedia user from Slovakia is translating the ORBAT of the Polish Army and sending it to me in the next days- when i have it, I will make the graphic. noclador 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I found more info if you need it:
each of four divisions has article on polish wikipedia http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Lubuska_Dywizja_Kawalerii_Pancernej#Struktura_11_DKPanc http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Warszawska_Dywizja_Zmechanizowana http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Pomorska_Dywizja_Zmechanizowana http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Dywizja_Zmechanizowana
This site also has some information about organisation, including territorial defence forces: http://www.wp.mil.pl/strona.php?idstrona=9&idn=1_3_2_1 unfortunately, the english version of this page is screwed, and i could find this info in english 87.207.175.246 19:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:PZA Loara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to expand the Nangar Khel incident article. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Poland First To Fight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
this article needs fixing and i shall be conducting this in the near future with accordance to MoD websites and NATO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barciur ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Issues with the latest edit.
The new edits done on 11:34, 22 October 2010 are creating an impression as if the wiki page on the Polish Armed Forces was an advertisement. If I'm correct this "WP" logo is used more for public relations than to represent the actual armed forces. Also, regarding the new photo that was added... to follow the template of other wiki pages on polish military branches we try to avoid adding pictures in the "Infobox".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.242.110 ( talk) 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the reason for the clean-up edit was due to a number of new entries on the page that are not up to Wiki standards.
These edits have cluttered the page, and created duplicate entries such as the "History" section which in detail describes the history of the Polish Armed Forces, and in the process totally disregards the fact that there is an entire wiki page devoted to this subject ( History of the Polish Army, and Polish contribution to World War II). (On a page such as Polish Armed Forces only short general sections should be created that in turn link with other pages that cover a specific subject in greater detail.)
Also, not only is the page full of duplicate material it is also poorly edited, and has numerous factual errors. This in turn has created an unfriendly overall impression of the subject matter making it difficult for the reader to get a clear understanding of the material covered. In the "Modernization" section military equipment that has not even been purchased by the military is now listed as being part of the new inventory. Also, the poor choice of pictures included in the new section does not depict the Polish military in a proper light, and only invites negative perceptions.
In the end, the recent edits seem very amateurish and lack clear structure. As one of the original contributors to the page I ask that the recent editors reconsider their entries and refocus their contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 ( talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems that this image is causing a bit of an issue. Can editors explain why it should/shouldn't be removed? At this point I am not seeing much problem with it... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
[2] 72 Mechanized Regiment marching on the streets of Gubin.
[3] (Disputed photo)] Microedt, do not remove this image from the talk page -- you are censoring AGAIN. I do not agree with your edit summary stating that the only image in dispute was the photograph of the two generals in Warsaw. The photo of Polish troops in 1951 is also under dispute, since you insist that somehow its purpose is to defame the Polish military. That is your assumption only -- and there are others who do not agree with your assumption. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
June 1974, Oath taking ceremony of junior medical officers [7]. noclador ( talk) 09:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
[8] Oath ceremony, 2007
I'm not sure why user SojerPL, hid a couple of the equipment images on this page... so, the file text still showed-up on the edit page, but the pictures themselves were not displaying on the actual article page. In the future please refrain from hiding images, or article text. -- 192.250.112.200 ( talk) 20:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
something went wrong. These topics are about the POLICE of poland, not the ARMED FORCES.
89.247.233.26 ( talk) 13:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)akindiana
I would recommend that we remove the various galleries on this page, and replace them with and individual images for each of the sections. This article is not the place to showcase the equipment of the military, infact there are already two pages devoted to this topic Equipment of the Polish Army and List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces. So, we don't need another page that has pictures of the hardware it's just too much. -- Factor01 ( talk) 10:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of the re-organisation - which saw the CNAVY et al being dismissed - see http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131219/DEFREG01/312190024/Polish-President-Names-Top-Military-Chief Gbawden ( talk) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been checking cited sources, and it seems like every single number in this wiki page, for troops, equipment, money spent, etc... didn't match the cited source. I've fixed a couple of things, but there's still plenty left that needs fixing. It looks like some people have also been just changing numbers at random. Needs some major fixing. Hammerfrog ( talk) 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does this article have so many galleries? There are already pages on List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces and Equipment of the Polish Army, this is way too excessive, just plastering the entire article with galleries all over the place. -- E-960 ( talk) 09:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The article incorrectly lists the Territorial Defence Force as reserve personnel, while at the same time counting them as active personnel. The TDF is a full fledged service branch. Poland doesn't maintain an active reserve force as evidenced by the provided source. Reserve personnel should be removed from the infobox or set to 0 Cuteandfunny ( talk) 17:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Voting closed.
:Oppose. It should be moved to
Military of Poland for consistency:
Military of the United States,
Military of Greece etc. "Polish Army," while literally correct, is misleading, because when English speakers hear "army" they immediately think "land forces." So it should look something like this: The Military of Poland (
Polish Wojsko Polskie, literally translated as "Polish Army") is comprised of the...etc. Any redirect pages should make sure that people know that "Polish Army" can refer to more than just the present
Land Forces of Poland. --
Jpbrenna 1 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)
Polish Army ( Polish Wojsko Polskie, by Jpbrenna called Military of Poland)?
Right, well it's gone on for over a month and it really needs deciding. Please choose which of the following you would find acceptable (you can have more than one). Voting closes towards the end of the 9 July 2005. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
Voting closed.
#
Alai 8 July 2005 12:21 (UTC) Choice of last, rather desperate, resort. Removed to facilitate 'count', as above.
Alai 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Voting closed.
The Wojsko Polskie name was clearly unfavoured in the final approval vote, so the article was going to be moved to one of the other name proposals. As Polish Armed Forces has a small lead it has therefore been moved there. violet/riga (t) 10:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
::The matter is pretty clear to me. We have several names here.
Well, I definitely do not want you to be forced to defend the honour of the land of your ancestors (though if you needed any help, just let me know).
As to the matter itself - there is one serious flaw in your reasoning. In the Anglo-Saxon world (notably the US of A and the UK), the armed forces indeed consist of several almost separate branches. Technically speaking, the US (for instance) have five completely different military forces, often even conflicted with each other. They are all subordinate solely to the Secretary of Defence and the President, but have separate logistics, separate commands, separate tasks, equipment, scientific institutes and so on.
In Poland it's a tad different. All the branches of the military are subordinate to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, who in turn is subordinate to the Ministry of Defense, the President and the Sejm. However, all three branches have one joint military commander (currently Czesław Piątas), who controls the commanders of the three branches. So, in other terms, in Poland we have a single military force consisting of several branches.
Anyway, I don't really see the problem here. The Polish Army is the term used both in Poland and in the English-speaking countries for ages. I still do not see why the hell should we invent a new name when there already is a perfect name in use. Of course, we can move the article to Military of Poland and promote such a descriptive term over the actual name, but then we should also move Richard Nixon to Thirty-seventh President of the United States and the article on Queen Victoria to That Fatty Old Lady Who Ruled the UK Prior to 1901. Bizarre? Yup...
If we were to use your example with languages: most of them have their proper names in English and those are used in Wikipedia. For instance język polski (lit. Polish tongue) is called Polish language here. Similarily, some military forces have their proper names in English and those should be used. Royal Navy is not called Navy of the United Kingdom, eventhough such a name would be much less ambiguous (what about navies of Holland or Spain?) and much more correct. Luftwaffe is not called German Air Force. Ditto for Aeronautica Militare Italiana, Botswana Defence Force Air Wing and many more articles in English wiki. Why should we break that rule in case of the Polish Army? Halibu tt July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC)
Halibu
tt July 5, 2005 09:03 (UTC)
Definetly, Wojsko Polskie is problematic as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) states: Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.. Polish Army indeed is more general, and should describe the Polish Armies through our history - from Piasts to present. Then it can have subarticles about armies in that period. Now we need to check if Wojsko Polskie (and Wojsko Ludowe, etc.) is more often used in English then its translation or not (see Talk:Voivodships of Poland ad User:Wahwah page for how this can be done). An example of Polish army that should not be translated would be wojsko kwarciane. What do you think about Chorągiew and Poczet? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 5 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
So what is the official name of the Polish Land Forces branch? — Michael Z. 2005-07-5 11:37 Z
I vote for Polish Armed Forces. Not really new reasons other then the ones mentioned already earlier in this page, mainly ambiguity. Well, my granddad was in the Polish Navy, so perhaps I'm not completely objective :-) Also, I think at various times the Polish Armed Forces were called "Polskie Sily Zbrojne", like during WW2. Finally, if I'm correct, since Poland's membership to NATO, the structure and organization of the Polish military have been adapted considerably to a NATO style organization, incl. making all the 3 services equal in status, so for example the head of the defense staff (the highest military commander) can also be now an admiral or an Air Force general, much like in other NATO countries. In fact, wasn't some years ago an admiral the chief of staff?
Pkmink 6 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)
This actually a really small thing but concerning the 1 million men strong during the outbreak of the war there where only half a million moblized. this is dur to england telling poland not to mobilizes all her force because this would be seen as an act of war
Zapraszam do wypelniania Timeline of the Polish Army-- Witkacy 11:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Long discussion, voting, and... nothing. The current name Wojsko Polskie has no majority and I defintely agree it is wrong. What are we going to do? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Polish Armed Forces ( Polish Polskie Siły Zbrojne) was the official name of the Polish Army formed in exile in France and United Kingdom during the World War II.
==See also==
{{mil-stub}} {{poland-stub}}
[[Category:Polish Army|*]]
We need first to agree on structure and names of the related subarticles. We need 1) the name for a historical overview article on entire Polish military, from Mieszko tribe warriors to today's army - which I think should be Military history of Poland 2) the name for current, post 98 Polish military 3) the names for Polish militaries in the past. Then we need to fix some redirects. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
|
Polish version of this template: pl:Szablon:WP.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The pictures dont work 130.111.98.131 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The 2003 figure is blown way high (demographic surge), any newer and more accurate ones? Ksenon 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of the most important Armies. i.e. French Army; German Army; Italian Army I also want to make a graphic of the structure of the Polish Land Forces, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as there is no information how the units are structured (i.e. What Regiments/Batallions belong to which Divisions/Brigades, what type the units are; and so on) Does anyone have this information- and also the Regiments/Battalions names and/or numbers and where they are based? Thanks noclador
there's basic information on this page: http://www.army.mil.pl/eng/eng.html. Maybe you could try emailing them for details. 87.207.175.246 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. A wikipedia user from Slovakia is translating the ORBAT of the Polish Army and sending it to me in the next days- when i have it, I will make the graphic. noclador 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I found more info if you need it:
each of four divisions has article on polish wikipedia http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_Lubuska_Dywizja_Kawalerii_Pancernej#Struktura_11_DKPanc http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Warszawska_Dywizja_Zmechanizowana http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Pomorska_Dywizja_Zmechanizowana http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Dywizja_Zmechanizowana
This site also has some information about organisation, including territorial defence forces: http://www.wp.mil.pl/strona.php?idstrona=9&idn=1_3_2_1 unfortunately, the english version of this page is screwed, and i could find this info in english 87.207.175.246 19:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:PZA Loara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to expand the Nangar Khel incident article. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Poland First To Fight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
this article needs fixing and i shall be conducting this in the near future with accordance to MoD websites and NATO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barciur ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Issues with the latest edit.
The new edits done on 11:34, 22 October 2010 are creating an impression as if the wiki page on the Polish Armed Forces was an advertisement. If I'm correct this "WP" logo is used more for public relations than to represent the actual armed forces. Also, regarding the new photo that was added... to follow the template of other wiki pages on polish military branches we try to avoid adding pictures in the "Infobox".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.242.110 ( talk) 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the reason for the clean-up edit was due to a number of new entries on the page that are not up to Wiki standards.
These edits have cluttered the page, and created duplicate entries such as the "History" section which in detail describes the history of the Polish Armed Forces, and in the process totally disregards the fact that there is an entire wiki page devoted to this subject ( History of the Polish Army, and Polish contribution to World War II). (On a page such as Polish Armed Forces only short general sections should be created that in turn link with other pages that cover a specific subject in greater detail.)
Also, not only is the page full of duplicate material it is also poorly edited, and has numerous factual errors. This in turn has created an unfriendly overall impression of the subject matter making it difficult for the reader to get a clear understanding of the material covered. In the "Modernization" section military equipment that has not even been purchased by the military is now listed as being part of the new inventory. Also, the poor choice of pictures included in the new section does not depict the Polish military in a proper light, and only invites negative perceptions.
In the end, the recent edits seem very amateurish and lack clear structure. As one of the original contributors to the page I ask that the recent editors reconsider their entries and refocus their contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 ( talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems that this image is causing a bit of an issue. Can editors explain why it should/shouldn't be removed? At this point I am not seeing much problem with it... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
[2] 72 Mechanized Regiment marching on the streets of Gubin.
[3] (Disputed photo)] Microedt, do not remove this image from the talk page -- you are censoring AGAIN. I do not agree with your edit summary stating that the only image in dispute was the photograph of the two generals in Warsaw. The photo of Polish troops in 1951 is also under dispute, since you insist that somehow its purpose is to defame the Polish military. That is your assumption only -- and there are others who do not agree with your assumption. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
June 1974, Oath taking ceremony of junior medical officers [7]. noclador ( talk) 09:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
[8] Oath ceremony, 2007
I'm not sure why user SojerPL, hid a couple of the equipment images on this page... so, the file text still showed-up on the edit page, but the pictures themselves were not displaying on the actual article page. In the future please refrain from hiding images, or article text. -- 192.250.112.200 ( talk) 20:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
something went wrong. These topics are about the POLICE of poland, not the ARMED FORCES.
89.247.233.26 ( talk) 13:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)akindiana
I would recommend that we remove the various galleries on this page, and replace them with and individual images for each of the sections. This article is not the place to showcase the equipment of the military, infact there are already two pages devoted to this topic Equipment of the Polish Army and List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces. So, we don't need another page that has pictures of the hardware it's just too much. -- Factor01 ( talk) 10:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of the re-organisation - which saw the CNAVY et al being dismissed - see http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131219/DEFREG01/312190024/Polish-President-Names-Top-Military-Chief Gbawden ( talk) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been checking cited sources, and it seems like every single number in this wiki page, for troops, equipment, money spent, etc... didn't match the cited source. I've fixed a couple of things, but there's still plenty left that needs fixing. It looks like some people have also been just changing numbers at random. Needs some major fixing. Hammerfrog ( talk) 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does this article have so many galleries? There are already pages on List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces and Equipment of the Polish Army, this is way too excessive, just plastering the entire article with galleries all over the place. -- E-960 ( talk) 09:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The article incorrectly lists the Territorial Defence Force as reserve personnel, while at the same time counting them as active personnel. The TDF is a full fledged service branch. Poland doesn't maintain an active reserve force as evidenced by the provided source. Reserve personnel should be removed from the infobox or set to 0 Cuteandfunny ( talk) 17:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)