Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany

Polish bias

The article just reproduces the "recovered territories" -- NONSENSE. This article must present the German side of facts and opinions. --Tino Cannst (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected the inconsistent labelling on one of the thumb-insert maps. But otherwise, the article does not (to my mind) misrepresent the 'German side' at all. The classification of part of these lands as 'Recovered Territories' is clearly stated as a specifically Polish perspective. But that does not necessarily conflict with the current 'German' perspective; that as the resident populations of the eastern territories incorporated into the unified Germany of 1871 - including some parts which had been considered 'German lands' before that date - are not any longer national 'Germans'; then consequently the lands they inhabit can no longer be considered to be 'separated' parts of Germany. The Federal Republic has repeatedly maintained this since 1990; has amended its constitution to state this, and has successfully defended this view in cases before the Federal Constitutional Court. TomHennell (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The article appears to me to have been subjected to a large amount of censorship of simple facts - presumably because these are unwelcome to one pro-German-viewpoint editor. I would hope an independent editor with a good grasp of the subject could undo some of this nationalistic damage.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

'simple facts' are not really the currency of Wikipedia articles; rather the article should report current notable scholarly opinions. So if there is a stream of current historical scholarship on the history of how these territories first came to be included in a united Germany, and subsequently came to be excluded from a re-unified Germany, then that scholarship should be in the article. TomHennell (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Slightly strange that User:TomHennell feels that an encyclopaedia should not contain "simple facts"! However, looking further at this and related articles, it seems that the problem is the complicated distribution of information between those inter-related articles. The result is that it is difficult for the reader to find information that they may be looking for. Consider the question "where did the post WW2 population of the Former eastern territories of Germany come from?" Before recent edits[1] this information was in the article. After some research, it is clear that this is in Recovered Territories. However, this is not at all clear from the Former eastern territories of Germany article. Yes, there is a link to Recovered Territories in the lead, but the section "Expulsion of Germans and resettlement" directs the reader to Polish population transfers (1944–1946), which does not contain the information from the post-war census.

The disappointment is that whilst there is clearly a lot of material on these various related subjects on Wikipedia, it seems to require a large amount of determination for the reader to actually find it. I understand how this might arise, as the editors who work on these articles know them in every detail. My remarks are an attempt to provide a reader's eye view of this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair points ThoughtIdRetired. On the issue of 'simple facts' I am reflecting the standard guidance Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Wikipedia is intended as a source of current published scholarly opinions. In general, the current range of scholarship may be expected to assert the 'facts' somewhere amongst them; but it is scholarly notability of the published cited sources that is the key criterion for inclusion or exclusion from Wikipedia; even where the opinions cited include material that you are confident is factually 'incorrect' or dubious.

I agree that there could well be better signposting from this article to the counterpart article on Recovered Territories (and vice versa); but the general principle that this article relates more to the history of these various territories before 1945, and the other to their history after 1945, appears sound to me. Once all national Germans had been removed from these territories, the subsequent chronicles of their people's circumstances and events has ceased to be 'German', so is not properly the subject of this article. Whereas the subsequent chronicles of national Germans expelled from these territories likely is. TomHennell (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits by IP-hopping edit warrior

It is possible that the Polish history of the area should have a more prominent place in the article, and it is also possible that it should be mentioned in the lede. However, the suggested addition here of It should be noted that ... (in reality synonymous with "I insist that it is important to mention that ...") is a clear example of WP:EDITORIALIZING. Any addition about this should be suggested in the talk page and discussed before adding.

Labels like "Eastern Europe", "Central Europe", "X-ern Europe" are a well-known area of dispute. I am not surprised that the formula The expansion of the European Union to Eastern Europe ... is met with "Poland etc. is Central Europe". That is, however, hardly the point here. Changing "Eastern" to "Central" in this edit creates the absurd claim that the EU expanded to Central Europe in 2004. As if Germany and Austria are not in Central Europe. The point of the sentence is that EU expanded towards east, so the simple solution is to say just that.

These edits were first Boldly added 26 March and Reverted by me shortly after. Per WP:BRD the next step should then be to open a Discussion in the talk page. Instead the IP has reinstated the edit with the edit summary "Take your concerns to the talk page." This "reversal of responsibility" is not a coincidence, but is a well-known trademark of this editor (beside an obsession with "Poland is in Central Europe" among other things). This editor is currently long-time range blocked in two different ranges here and here as well as blocked for the second time here and earlier here in another range (from the same geographical location).

I am removing the WP:EDITORIALIZING and rephrasing the eastern expansion. --T*U (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Maps of ancient tribes

The two maps in the 'Antic, Medieval and early modern era' section should not be there, for several reasons:

• Trying to link 19th/20th territorial claims with ancient past is ridiculous and borders on propaganda, given that the ancient peoples frequently moved and did not stay permanently in the same place (southern Poland was inhabited by the Celts at one point, eastern and central Poland by Iranian Scythian and later Samaritans, should we also use that as basis form modern territorial claims?
• During the Migration period Germanic tribes moved west leaving Central Europe, see here [2]. So, there is a clear break with the region, later German settlers would migrate eastward invited to settle by the Polish Piast dukes (during the middle ages), but at this point the tribes ceased to exist, and a new reality was formed, for all practical purposes this issue only goes as far as the middle ages, and goes hand-in-hand with Christian Europe, Feudalism and most importantly simple economics.
• Finally, not sure if a map of Germanic "dialects" is the proper item here.

--E-960 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

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[3]
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)

Yes, these are against Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)