Talk:Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II/Archive 1

Old talk

 * Previous deletion debate

I can't even begin to think about how this article could be made NPOV. Even the title is inflammatory. The whole situation should be discussed in another article, but don't ask me which one. DJ Clayworth 18:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I shan't even start on the outrageous errors of fact. First country occupied? Does Czechoslovakia ring any bells? Morwen 19:03, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't rewritten this is that it should really be deleted. The information exists in other articles (User:Cautious copied it to several places, and was only prevented from copying it more times because some Polish history pages are protected). On reflection though I think the easiest way is to make this a redirect to History of Poland (1939-1945) and then get the redirect deleted. Comments? DJ Clayworth 19:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is all very nice, but really, when we have an NPOV version, it should be merged into the main article. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And User:Cautious should be told he will be banned if he goes on creating spurious and blatantly propagandistic articles. Adam 22:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm becoming convinced that this article subject is important enough for its own article, now it has a neutral title. DJ Clayworth 22:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But not if Cautious is going to write it. It will just become another Polish nationalist battlefield. Adam 22:47, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I told you (votes for deletion) that I'm reworking this artcle to contain info on the whole "betrayal phenomenon" and to explain how the whole idea evolved snce 1939. So far it's far from being ready, but you can see an early sketch at User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. Feel free to add comments to the User talk:Halibutt/Western betrayal, but note that I will mercilesly delete all comments close to "this all sucks/is POV/propaganda/whatever". Please be contructive.Halibutt 23:23, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will mercilessly revert any attempt to mercilessly delete people's legitimate comments. Adam 04:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On VfD page
This page is now up as a procedural listing (seemed to be orphaned vfd request): Votes for deletion/Revision of borders of Poland (1945). Samaritan 22:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merge
Shouldn't it be merged with Oder-Neisse line? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not merged but integrated. Perhaps a navigational template with links to Oder-Neisse line and Curzon Line would be in place? Halibutt 21:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger Discussion November 2021
Request to merge articles: Recovered Territories into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II; dated November 2021. Rationale: While the Recovered Territories article is larger, it refers to specific changes of Poland's territory after WWII, as there were others. I beleive the Recovered Territories article would have a better fit under this name, as the requested name is much more descriptive of the article and one that English speakers might search for. "Recovered Territories" is a translation from Polish and is too generic of an article title in English to be specific. Additonally, the Recovered Terriotories name for the lands was intentionally chosen to be inflammatory, and may still push a POV to some. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * quote from above --> name for the lands was intentionally chosen to be inflammatory says who? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See this article.Invinciblewalnut (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not base Wikipedia around tourist guides.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me go dig through their sources and use them instead. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose You unsuccessfully tried to make the article Recovered Territories disappear by merging it into Former East Germany article which was opposed overwhelmingly by a vote that ended a couple of days ago. This seems like a second attempt to carry out this action and to circumvent around that vote result.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * MyMoloboaccount I didn't try to make the article "disappear," I'm just trying to improve this website by consolidating information. I also didn't go ahead and merge the articles as you claim; instead, I'm following well-established rules and procedures for merging articles. I also wouldn't call three votes "overwhelming." If you didn't notice, I'm the one that closed the discussion. The article I was trying to merge to isn't East Germany/DDR, it's the former eastern territories of Germany. I am only reproposing the merger because of what PBS said on the original discussion page about how this is a better target article. Given your strong activity with the Poland WikiProject and hobby of creating articles documenting Nazi war crimes and other horrible atrocites, I'd hardly say you're viewing this proposed merger with a neutral POV. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @MyMoloboaccount Considering that the principal motives behind repeated merger proposals published by Invinciblewalnut are to improve this website by consolidating information, let's go ahead and merge Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II into Recovered Territories instead. Are you okay with that merger Invinciblewalnut? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella No, as there were other territorial changes done to Poland after World War II not included in the Recovered Territories (land east of the Curzon Line from decisions made at Tehran). Invinciblewalnut (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Invinciblewalnut - Let's see what others have to say. If nobody else comments and @MyMoloboaccount agrees, we might just somehow merge Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II into Recovered Territories to address your concerns of consolidation. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella Again, I would object to that. I don’t think you understand that the merger can only go in one direction (my proposal) since there were other changes not included in the Recovered Territories. Including those in an article about the recovered territories would be improper and quite unencyclopedic. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t worry, consolidation can go either direction ultimately. We'll additionally adjust the title to Recovered Territories and other territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II to make sure it is proper and encyclopedic. Would that please you? GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You know that's not a solution. Quite frankly, you are acting quite chidlish about the whole matter right now and haven't even given a proper explanation of your merger proposal opposition. If I need to, I will get higher-ups involved. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Look @Invinciblewalnut - You favour merging an extensive article into the short article - I'm opposing that. Okay? Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II is a tiny article as opposed to the long Recovered Territories article. However, I attempted to accommodate your concerns about article consolidation by proposing the new title, and possible merger. Your response to my proposal is troubling. I left you a message on your talk page regarding WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS to which you responded with a revert . This is also troubling. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you are offended by my statements; but, the replies to my posts (at least my interpretation of them) appeared to intentionally contradict what I had said multiple times and sounded like I was being treated as a toddler. Additionally, the new proposed merger title is unnecessarily long, clunky, and not at all WP:PRECISE. I read what you had to say on my talk page, noted it, and discarded it as I keep my talk page as I wish. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, let’s leave that behind us then.
 * Coming back to the issue at hand, if the new title is going to be too clunky, then I think we will have to leave the article Recovered Territories intact. The article illustrates explicitly the term recovered territories and where that official name originated from. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - that again as the last time around - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "Recovered Territories" is not a good article title in English because as a translational of a Polish phrase it misses out the implied state that gained the recovered territories. Without "of Poland" postsctipt, or "Polish" prescript, the title is unlikely to be one English monoglots will search for, because many states have recovered territories at one time or another. Also no doubt Poland has lost and recovered teritories many times, so why capitalise in the English language article this post WWII recovery of territories? PBS (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge at better title I see that the two articles represent unnecessary forking and "largely" cover the same matters. One only has to look at the first image to see the overlap (though that image isn't as clear as it might be). I agree with that Recovered Territories isn't a good title for en WP. However, I am not convinced that we can't find a more WP:CONCISE title than Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support They clearly overlap and should be covered under a single, neutral title that avoids supporting the historical or political claims of any one state. Recovered territories very much reflects a Polish national perspective. That perspective should still be included after the merger as a separate section. Like I would also support a shorter title e.g. Territorial changes of Poland after World War 2. Bermicourt (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I could live with that, though perhaps it should be "to" instead of "of"? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That also sounds good. Bermicourt (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. I was hoping to close this, since I see it has been open for 6 months and I was uninvolved until a few minutes ago. But while reading up on this topic, I came to form an opinion. There is a complex interplay here between this article, Recovered Territories, and Western Borderlands. I don't think it makes sense to merge RT into this but not WB. They are both chunks of territory that changed hands during the formation of Poland's post-WW2 borders. And I oppose merging them both, especially since RT is so big. I think a reasonable path forward might be merging this article into another article that isn't RT or WB. But that should be a topic for a future discussion. For now, I think we should leave everything alone and close this merge request as no consensus. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)