Talk:Polish withdrawal from the European Union

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge?[edit]

Since there isn't yet much to discuss, maybe this could be merged to Poland in the European Union. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except the topic is the opposite of being in the European Union, it's about an exit. I think the article is fine to remain standalone. There are political parties advocating the position and then in turn other parties opposing the idea. And it's being discussed in newspapers etc. That makes it noteworthy enough to have its own article. Oska (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur the notability of this is not clear yet, and merge makes sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to lead: Bold, revert, discuss[edit]

AARSOMEONE added this sentence to the lead: It is believed that Polexit may occur because of Poland's nationalist political party the PiS which has been affecting Poland's role in the EU. Ferret reverted it, giving as reason "poorly written". DeutschlandHelfer reinstated and now I have reverted again. It is time for a WP:BRD discussion.

IMO, there are two problems with the sentence as written, the first major, the second minor:

material in the lead should succinctly summarise the body text: this does not summarise the section "October 2021 Constitutional Tribunal ruling", which indeed should be summarised. Can anyone do better?
"it is believed" is a classic WP:OR and WP:WEASEL red flag. Who believes?

Good faith is evident but meanwhile I agree with Ferret's implied "no summary is better than a poor summary". Can either or both of the proponents draft something better? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really to add here. The core meaning of the sentence is, perhaps, already sourced. The prose does suggests that actions by the PiS are the reason that "Polexit" *may* occur. However, the sentence as written is simply terrible English. This revert was part of a general review of AARSOMEONE's edits. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I just thought it was good, I don't know why there is so much collective criticism DeutschlandHelfer (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above is a sockpuppet of AARSOMEONE and is now blocked. -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]