Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:40, 7 July 2005

Template:Moveoptions

Requested move

See the new approval vote below.

• Rationale: while there are some armies in the world that are usually referred to in English under their native names (most notably the Wehrmacht), I believe it is not the case of the Polish Army. Halibutt 21:40, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Support —Michael Z. 2005-05-29 19:26 Z
• Oppose. Using the title of Polish Army is ambiguous in that it could refer to any of the different armies under Polish leadership (see History of the Polish Army), whereas the Wojsko Polskie article is only about the modern Armed Forces of Poland. BlankVerse ∅ 09:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the term wojsko polskie was in use at least since late Middle Ages and means, literally, Polish army. So, it can equally mean any armed force under Polish command. The only difference is that the English term is English. Halibutt 10:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: How about Military of Poland (the most common form for the military articles) or Polish Armed Forces? -- Joolz 16:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a better name given the names of most of the articles in Category:Militaries in which this article is included Philip Baird Shearer

I agree and will move it there soon, unless there are objections. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I like the idea. If we can have either the original name or its translation, themn why should we chose a descriptive name? Also, Polish Army is just as good as the Military of Poland, with the difference that it actually is the name of the armed force. Halibutt 20:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "Polish Army" is just as good. In english Army generally does not refer to the Navy, Air Force, and land forces, but *just* the land forces. Regardless of whether they themselves choose to call themselves "Polish Army" for english translations we should call them by a name which isn't so confusing. -- Joolz 23:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support. Should clearly be the "most common English language term"; am open to argument as to what that is, precisely. Alai 00:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The English version of the official website seems to call them the "Polish Armed Forces". Proteus (Talk) 22:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, you must've found the web page of the land forces only, or the English page of the Ministry, which tends to use all possible variants, depending on the mood of the translator, apparently. Check out this site. Also, why don't you reply to my questions you-know-where? Halibutt 20:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that Polish Armed Forces is the best place and will move this page there tomorrow, unless I can be persuaded otherwise. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't. Exactly why that name is better than the official name used by the force itself ()? Creating a new name solely for Misplaced Pages would probably fall under WP:NOR, especially that the name of Polish Army has been in use in English for ages. Halibutt 01:58, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wojsko Polskie is not appropriate because it is in the Polish language and (as far as I am aware) is not the commonly-used name in the English language - unless a name in a foreign language is common, the English name should be used. Although Polish Army may be the obvious translation, it would be misleading since the Wojsko Polskie comprises naval and air force units too. Polish Armed Forces is an obvious choice; alternatively, Military of Poland would suffice - see Category:Militaries. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think Wojsko Polskie is fine. Antares911 13:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: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)

I hereby change my vote to Support. Halibutt has convinced me. I still think that little uppity Polak fish-out-of-water should be pickled like a herring and served up on a silver platter with a lemon wedge, but he has a point here. Military of Poland should redirect. The article should be entitled Polish Army with a note that because of its command structure, the entire military of Poland constitutes one large "Army" with land, air and naval components. (Like the Cypriot National Guard). --Jpbrenna 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Then why not

Polish Army (Polish Wojsko Polskie, by Jpbrenna called Military of Poland)?

The matter is pretty clear to me. We have several names here.

1. Wojsko Polskie - used officially, Polish
2. Polish Army - used officially, English, used in English since times immemorial, unambiguous
3. Polish Armed Forces - same pros as above, with the difference that it doesn't sound
4. Military of Poland - not used officially, not used in English outside of wikipedia, ambiguous

Halibutt July 1, 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Final vote

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)

The matter was already decided above. Why should we have this voting again? Halibutt July 5, 2005 05:48 (UTC)

I really don't think it was, and the best way is to have this vote. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty simple: 3 supports, 1 opposition. Halibutt July 5, 2005 09:00 (UTC)

Doesn't really look that way below though, does it? violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)

Well, after this voting is finished we can hold two more and the effects will differ as well. Nothing really strange in that. Halibutt July 5, 2005 11:48 (UTC)

There are too many variations in the pseudo-vote above. The only appropriate method of coming to a decision is through an approval vote. What appears above is not clear enough to make a choice. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

Its a bit late in the day to trounce in and say this, but "Wojsko Polskie" literally means "Polish Military" (not "Military of Poland", and certainly not "Polish Armed Forces"). Since the closest alternative, however, to "Polish Military", being offered is "Polish Armed Forces", I've gotta vote for that. It's too bad, however, that "Polish Military" was not offered as an option from the outset. Tomer July 7, 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Wojsko Polskie (current name)

1. Halibutt July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC) (Weak, though I still find it much better than Military of Poland.
2. Jpbrenna 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC) (Weak, because it's not as commonly known in English as Luftwaffe)
3. --Witkacy 5 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
4. Antares911 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Polish Army

1. Halibutt July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC)
2. Jpbrenna 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC) (Strong, Military of Poland should redirect.)
3. Michael Z. 2005-07-5 11:40 Z
4. --Witkacy 5 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
5. Antares911 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
6. Pibwl ←« 5 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
7. Przepla 6 July 2005 10:43 (UTC) Halibutt's arguments below are quite convincing.
8. Pkmink 6 July 2005 14:00 (UTC) (Weak, because it's ambiguous for non-Poles)
9. Reisio 2005 July 7 18:40 (UTC) (lose accuracy in translation, so may as well stick with what they use officially)

Polish Armed Forces

1. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
2. Proteus (Talk) 4 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
3. Joolz 4 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
4. Pkmink 6 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)
5. Tomer July 7, 2005 18:11 (UTC) It doesn't encompass just the Wojsko Lądowe (the real Polish army). Army means something more specific than "Armed Forces". Historical incarnations can be discussed in History of the Polish Military.
6. AlexR 7 July 2005 18:27 (UTC) seems to be the most reasonable one considering the "English names" rule
7. Mike H (Talking is hot) July 7, 2005 18:38 (UTC)
8. Jayjg 7 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)
9. Briangotts 7 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

Military of Poland

1. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
2. Proteus (Talk) 4 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)
3. Joolz 4 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
4. For sake of consistency. Wojsko Polskie is not English; Polish Army is misleading; Polish Armed Forces is also apparently misleading (see below). -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Discussion

::The matter is pretty clear to me. We have several names here.

1. Wojsko Polskie - used officially, Polish
2. Polish Army - used officially, English, used in English since times immemorial, unambiguous
3. Polish Armed Forces - same pros as above, with the difference that it doesn't sound
4. Military of Poland - not used officially, not used in English outside of wikipedia, ambiguous

User:Halibutt July 1, 2005 11:23 (UTC)

But #2 is ambiguous, because "Army" in English means a primarily land-based force --- which is historically what most military forces were. If we're talking about medieval, Wojciech Kossak subject matter, then it's pretty clear what "Polish Army" means. Poland didn't have an air force, blue-water capable navy etc. in that era. Now it's a bit more prolematic. A literal translation of Wojsko Polskie leads to a confusing situation in English. Aside from that, there are consistency issues. Every other article (except Canada) is titled "Military of X." I can't find any official Iranian websites using the term Military of Iran (which the Iranians call Artesh in Persian), and ditto for Military of Greece, but maybe that's because their staff have better things to do than write Misplaced Pages articles.

What this issue really boils down to is the problem of literality in translation. If I were to translate the native name for the Greek language (η Ελληνική Γλώσσα) liteally, it would be "The Greek Tongue." If I translated the colloquial name for the language, the neuter plural Ελληνικά, it would translate as "Greeks." Both look bizarre to a native English speaker, which is why we translate it as "Greek language" instead.

Slippery slope: Calling the armed forces of Poland together the "Polish Army" will lead lead to a perception of cluelessness and, inevitably, to dumb Polak jokes. Suppose there is a Wikimeet and someone brings this up, saying "Can you believe those dumb Polaks?" I, being partly of Polish descent, will be forced to demand satisfaction for this insult, and could be drawn into a fistfight or duel over the issue, which could lead to mine or another's death or a prison sentence. Is that what you want Halibutt? No, of course not. So change your vote! --Jpbrenna 4 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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? Halibutt July 4, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

As to the term Polish Armed Forces - there is a slight problem: in Polish it is Polskie Siły Zbrojne and is used in 90% of cases to denote the Polish Army units fighting alongside the Western Allies in World War II. It has little usage for earlier periods and is rarely used for later periods.

It would be like calling the article on a 1000-years old town with the name used by those, who occupied it for 5 years. Halibutt July 5, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Well, the english language wikipedia is mostly read by non-Poles and for the them the main connotation with the Polish military is in fact the PSZ fighting during WW2, if any connotation at all. Pkmink 6 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

Halibutt July 5, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Definetly, Wojsko Polskie is problematic as Misplaced Pages: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 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

Wojska Lądowe Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, or The Land Forces of the Republic of Poland. In short it's Wojska Lądowe (lit. Land Forces) or Wojska Lądowe RP. The commander of that branch of the Polish Army is Edward Pietrzyk. Similarily, the Polish Navy is called Marynarka Wojenna Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej or MW RP in short. Halibutt July 5, 2005 11:58 (UTC)

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)

Army means only land forces, as opposed to Navy and Air Force. Jayjg 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Great. This article is clearly about all the Polish military forces. "Wojsko Polskie" literally means "Polish Military". There should be no question. Tomer July 7, 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Wrong, Jayjg. Or not 100% right. What about the US Navy that has its own aviation and infantry? Or what about the People's Liberation Army, whose structure is somehow similar to the Polish one? Should we rename it to People's Liberation Military? Or perhaps Military of People's Liberation?

Whichever way we turn the cat... the name is still the same - and it is used both in Polish and in English. And much more frequently. Compare 74 400 for Polish Army with 1 070 for Military of Poland, 532 for Armed Forces of Poland and 14 700 for Polish Armed Forces. Halibutt July 7, 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Oh, and yet another example: why don't we move the article on Red Army to Red Military Forces or Red Armed Forces. Alternatively, we could move it to Military of the Soviet Union or Armed Forces of the Soviet Union. After all the "Red Army" name is wrong since, as we all know, an Army is land-only.... Those darn Russkies simply did not speak English well enough to name their armed forces properly... Halibutt July 7, 2005 19:40 (UTC)

Timeline of the Polish Army

Zapraszam do wypelniania Timeline of the Polish Army--Witkacy 11:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)