This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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 historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
I am puzzled as to how this article meets the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. This question arises because we see, on this talk page: This article must present the German side of facts and opinions and, in an edit summary focus on the German viewpoint[1] Both of these suggest an intention to step away from one of Wikipedia's 3 policies. I appreciate that there may be an argument that a related article features a different point of view, but that is totally invisible to the encyclopaedia user. Because the requirements of the reader must always be considered before the opinions of editors, the structure of 2 different articles to represent 2 sides to a story is surely not permissible. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I apologize, I do stick to WP:NPOV. My points are presented above. The current text has Polish bias. I should have told: "Moving away from Polish bias" --Tino Cannst (talk)
Hey account with like a dozen edits. You're editing in violation of the 500/30 restriction imposed by the ArbCom. I won't bother linking it because I'm pretty sure you're already aware of it. Volunteer Marek 17:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Request received to merge articles: Recovered Territories into Former eastern territories of Germany; dated: October 2021. Proposer's Rationale: While the former eastern German territories refer to more than just what is part of modern Poland (e.g. Kaliningrad/Königsburg), I believe the article on the now-Polish territories would be better as a section or part of this article. There is already substantial overlap between the articles anyhow, both in their content and presentation. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are two different terms and describing Polish territories as German would push POV advocating one of the claims, mainly that they were indeed German.Also would be incorrect as current Recovered Territories are still Polish.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is as "snow" close anyway. So use the the templates {{Discussion top}}, {{Discussion bottom}} to make it clear that this proposal is closed. Also remove the templates from article space. Then if you think that the other merge is more appropriate then initiate another merge proposal on the appropriate talk page (which is not this one).-- PBS (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... to put it mildly. "former eastern territories of Germany"... That makes it sound like this is some overseas territory, Samoa or something. It distracts from the fact that this is indeed German territory since Roman Times, which was added to Germany as a political unit during the Middle Ages. The occupation by Poland was/is rather dubious... It gets its appearance of legitimacy from Germans either being murdered, expelled or gaslighted in to silence. Articles like this really need to be cleansed from the twisted fantasies of Polish Chauvinists as well as Post-German historians for German descent. 105.0.3.191 (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t say the name necessarily evokes the idea of colonial territory, that might just be you; and while I don’t think the transfer of the territories was fair, your comment about how the Poles weren’t entitled to this land isn’t really fair either, as it had been part of the historical Duchy of Poland and portions were ethnically Polish. —TwinBoo (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
