User talk:Kamil993eu

LLM

Hello there. Have you been using an LLM for your edits here on Wikipedia recently? If so, could tou WP:LLMDISCLOSE:

What tool(s) you are using, and which versions.
What prompts, features, etc that you are using.
What review, if any, you are doing of the LLM generated output text.

Thank you, --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 12:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for remind. Do you want me to provide this information to "talk" section? Kamil993eu (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add it here? --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 12:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Hello, I'm Gurkubondinn. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Silesian language, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 12:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about literature and sources provided in talk section? Kamil993eu (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on the sources that you have posted to Talk:Silesian language, I have not read them and I can't comment on their reliability or accuracy. I am merely pointing out that if you want to include those two statements in the Silesian language article, then you need to source them with inline reference to reliable sources. Just having posted the to the talk page at some point doesn't count. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 12:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sources are from University and international documents Kamil993eu (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! On a surface level, they sound like pretty decent sources. So assuming that you've read them yourself (and that they were not produced by an LLM), then I suggest that you add them as inline references for your edits on the article. To do that you can use

{{Cite web}}: To reference webpages
{{Cite news}}: To cite news articles
{{Cite book}}: To reference published books (remember to check that the ISBN is correct, you can use Google Books for example to do that).
{{Cite journal}}: To reference academic literature. Published and peer-reviewed works are preferred, if you're citing a preprint then make sure to mark it as such or use {{arXiv}} for example.

Citing sources is tedious and time consuming, but it is really important to do. You can look at WP:CITE to learn more about how to add citations. Remember that you cannot do any original research, meaning that you can't deduce or infer anything from a source. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 12:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im really beginner with IT stuff and wikipedia editing. Is there any option for more expierienced user of wikipedia to read sources and edit it correctly? Honestly I thought that whole point of talk section is to provided good sources and discuss about this, but nobody is discussing just arbitraly editing. Check language family for example, someone add old polish but its incorrect according to international classification. Kamil993eu (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--that's one of the purposes of the Talk pages! :) So you are using them correctly. But claims that something is "for political reasons" really can't be added to an article without a reference accompanying them.

We're all beginners at some point. Which source do you want to cite for the "for political reasons" claim? --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 12:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.prawo.pl/samorzad/ustawa-o-mniejszosciach-narodowych-i-etnicznych-oraz-o-jezyku-regionalnym-senat,526852.html

The President, "acting out of responsibility for the state, believes that it is not possible to approve demands to include certain linguistic dialects within the provisions of the Act on National and Ethnic Minorities and on the Regional Language, in the absence of clear substantive and legal grounds for doing so, especially in the current social and geopolitical situation."

"Hybrid actions that cannot be ruled out — which may be undertaken against the Republic of Poland in connection with the ongoing war beyond the eastern border — require special care for preserving national identity. The preservation of national identity, in particular, is served by nurturing the mother tongue," reads the justification of the veto.

Analysis of quote by chat gpt-5 flagship model, prompt: "translate into english explain how this quotes show potical aspect of case"

These quotes reveal that the President’s veto was not based on linguistic or legal reasoning, but rather on national security and ideological concerns. Here’s why this is significant:

Shift from linguistic to political framing

The justification explicitly references “responsibility for the state”, “geopolitical situation”, and “hybrid actions”.

None of these are linguistic or constitutional criteria for recognizing a regional language.

Instead, they introduce a national security argument — suggesting that recognising Silesian might somehow weaken Polish identity.

Implicit association with disloyalty or separatism

The phrase “special care for preserving national identity” implies that granting regional language status could endanger national unity.

This frames Silesian not as a cultural-linguistic issue, but as a potential threat — a political construct often used in post-communist nationalist discourse.

Instrumental use of war context

The mention of “the ongoing war beyond the eastern border” (i.e., Russia’s war in Ukraine) links an internal linguistic issue to an external military conflict.

This is a rhetorical strategy to securitize the debate — turning recognition of the Silesian language into a matter of “national defence” rather than human rights or cultural policy.

Violation of proportionality and neutrality principles

The President’s reasoning refers to “national identity” and “the mother tongue” (Polish) as elements of protection.

But in legal and linguistic terms, regional language recognition does not threaten the national language — it coexists within the framework of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML), to which Poland is a party.

Conclusion: Political, not scientific decision

By invoking hybrid warfare and geopolitics instead of linguistic evidence or constitutional analysis, the veto reflects a politically motivated stance that equates regional identity with disunity.

It therefore shows the political dimension of the Silesian language issue — where decisions about language classification are influenced by ideology and national identity politics rather than by linguistics or law. Kamil993eu (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Polish, so I think you might need help from WP:POLAND with this. I've created this thread and pinged you: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland § New editor in need of help. Hopefully someone there can help you out. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 13:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These two claims really need to be supported by inline refs in the article:

Diff/1321748135: That Silesian is considered a dialect "for political reasons".
Diff/1321748519: That Silesians are a "national minority in Poland recognized by" the ECtHR.

As a friendly note, the court's name is European Court on Human Rights. Please also refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS in your edit summaries. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 12:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about inforamtion and links provided in talk section?. Could you repair Language Family? I provided whole section about this family language problem in talk section Kamil993eu (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I picked the Slavic Prosody book as an example, and looked it up on Google Books to find the ISBN, publication year and etc (the whole book is also available to read there).

{{Cite book|title=Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory |first=Christina Y. |last=Bethin |year=1998 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9780521591485 |access-date=12 Nobember 2025}}

You should also add a |page= attribute to indicate what page you are citing in the book. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 13:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks now its clear. Kamil993eu (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]