Talk:United States missile defense complex in Poland

Neutrality

I'm pretty sure this article is just a single view point... I'd recommend this article get noted for a discussion on neutrality. 130.85.225.32 (talk) 17:12, December 10, 2008 (UTC)

There should be a neutral description, history, and some reaction (positive and negative). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But since when was including sensationalist, attention grabbing headlines in an article considered neutral? Politicians and government responses of the parties involved are necessary, but randomly selected attention grabbing headlines aren't informative, and only represent the opinion of an individual news outlet, which doesn't seem like a good criteria for inclusion. Would you agree if we removed that, and included the Polish and Czech leader's responses? LokiiT (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The 'discontinuation' section seems to be two things. First, its part of the history of the project. Second, political analysis. I vote that end dates for the defense complex be put back into the history section. Secondly, it makes sense to split out the response to the end of the project into its own section. I also agree with the headline removal.(Javacodehead (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

I've taken your suggestions and tried to sort it out a bit better, but if you have any further suggestions or improvements you can feel free to be bold. And again regarding the newspaper headline, I just don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. It makes no sense to add a single attention grabbing headline to the article. It's not informative and it doesn't represent the views of anyone other than that single news outlet. The last thing I want to see on wikipedia is media sensationalism. LokiiT (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

17 september

17 September 1939 USSR invaded Poland, with no reaction from the west. Exactly 70 years later, 17 september 2009 USA announces that they give up to Russian demands and resigns from shield. Great symbolic value. It's impossible that Americans were so stupid to not to know this. 150.254.130.180 (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, are you sure it was 17 September in Washington? Second, it's quite possible that no one in the Obama Administration looked up some obscure [in American eyes] date in Polish history before they decided to put the announcement on that day. They work off DC imperatives, not Warsaw ones, and may not have consulted the Embassy in Warsaw, who would (should?) have been aware of the significance of the date. Buckshot06(prof) 08:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The harsh sounding headline is unusual. Even in the US healthcare debate, the New York Times does not say "Obama lies" or "Anti-Obama thug shouts during Presidential speech". However, there must be balance so two newspapers are mentioned. Look at the results that I am adding to see how it looks. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me a single instance of a high-quality article on wikipedia that mentions the headline of an article as a thing in of itself? It simply doesn't happen, because headlines are meaningless on an educational basis and their only purpose is to attract attention. The fact that it's an "odd" headline is irrelevant. You can perhaps mention that it's an "odd" headline in that newspaper's article. It certainly doesn't deserve prominence here. LokiiT (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The anniversary is mentioned in the article. According to the references, both the Polish and Czech governments were informed in the dead of night; the reason the Obama Administration felt the notification couldn't wait until morning isn't stated and without a reference we can't speculate as to why they set up the timing as they did. The interpretation of some in Poland was that the timing was intentional: a case of Putin duping the US diplomats into salting the wound. Others in Poland disagreed. As far as I know, the Obama Administration didn't comment on that aspect of it. All this is reported already in the article.

Defending or attacking any of the players in this dispute isn't our job. Any attempts by one of us to come up with nefarious or charitable interpretations of this would be Original Research. Our job is to report what happened and any published, reliable third party interpretations. Wellspring (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

balancing the article

The extent of the discussions in this article on the political significance of the cancellation of this event (especially so close to the its occurrence) feels out of place for Wikipedia. The discussion about the discontinuation has taken up about as much room as the history of the plans itself. (Javacodehead (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

That's one of the bad things about Wikipedia - we're too recent-ist. Nobody's working though the newspaper headlines of the declaration of the Duchy of Warsaw, are they? Buckshot06(prof) 05:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The response section does seem disproportionately represented, but I think that just means we should be expanding other parts. This article was underdeveloped to begin with. Any suggestions on how to improve other parts of the article? If someone who knows a thing or two about the system itself could make a section about the details of the project, that would be helpful. There's nothing I would want to remove from the response section though, none of it is irrelevant. LokiiT (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Being a dictatorship is not wikipedia, let's not be a mouthpiece of politicians

There are a number of reactions to the decision. However, they are all politicians. Wikipedia shouldn't be a mouthpiece and propaganda office of national governments. Therefore, I have included two newspaper citations, one pro and one con. Both are Polish. This is to be fair to both sides.

The dramatic headlines shows that the issue is very controversial. This is encyclopedic. Most issues do not generate such dramatic headlines. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Politician's statements are considered official representation of their nations. That's why their statements are important. I've reverted back to Java's version because it represents both the favorable and unfavorable side of the press (which is what you seem to want) without unnecessary sensationalism and ridiculous headlines. I've already explained why this is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and you haven't responded with an argument. You've added that content to this article numerous times despite it being removed by multiple editors and despite everyone else disagreeing with its inclusion. This is bordering on edit warring. Please stop. If you really want to help improve the article, you could think about expanding other sections which was being discussed above. LokiiT (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Politician's statements are considered official representation of their nations" is just another way of saying that Wikipedia should be the mouthpiece and tool of politicians. This is against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia uses newspaper references all the time. It's the most commonly used reliable source, even more reliable than a government's propaganda press release. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I promise you that there is absolutely nothing about an "international government responses" section that violates wikipedia policy. This is common in many articles. And yes, wikipedia uses newspaper references all the time, but it does not use newspaper head lines as the main point of focus. The actual content of the newspaper is what's important, and when it's an opinion, that opinion must be attributed to its author directly. LokiiT (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Extra article for you guys

On the reason why this scheme was scrapped, people might wish to take a look at [1] - hope that's helpful. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

This is an encyclopedia, not a Forum or Soapbox. Removed as unconstructive and violating Talk Page guidelines.104.169.26.177 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

B-class review

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} 15:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

copyediting summary

Top section:

• US > U.S.
• 2 spaces between sentences > 1 space
• "with an US" > "with a U.S."

Development section:

• "United States administration" > "United States government"
• template:citation needed (end of first sentence)
• "it" > "Russia"
• "received opposition from some groups within Poland and the Czech Republic, including some protests" > "received opposition from some groups within Poland and the Czech Republic. Opposition activity including protests" (shorter sentences; conciseness; easier to read)
• "On September 17, 2009, Obama administration" > "On September 17, 2009, the Obama administration"

History section

• "Since 2002, US" > Since 2002, the U.S."
• "In February 2007 US" > "In February 2007, the United States"
• italicized Washington Post

Across article:

• "US" > "U.S." or "the United States" (for variety)
• other small punctuation such as commas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanrolsen (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible Polish Error

The article may have misquoted the Polish magazine Fakt, writing "...i wbily name noz w plecy" instead of "...i wbily nam noz w plecy" (emphasis mine). Can any native Polish speakers confirm or debunk my suspicion?

Duxwing (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States missile defense complex in Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080820204020/http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/aug/108659.htm to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/aug/108659.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090105205507/http://www.msz.gov.pl/Agreement,regarding,the,placement,in,Poland,of,anti-ballistic,defensive,missile,interceptors,20825.html to http://www.msz.gov.pl/Agreement,regarding,the,placement,in,Poland,of,anti-ballistic,defensive,missile,interceptors,20825.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Both links work and seem useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

badly needs updating in light of the Trump administration scrapping Obama's plan

U.S. $10.5 billion dollar upgrade, now to be finished in 2020. 50.111.3.17 (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source and tell exactly what needs to be changed. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)