Talk:Treaty of Bromberg

POV problems
The article needs to be rewritten to reflect a more NPOV position. Dr. Loosmark 10:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More or less everywhere. For starters the number of non-German sources has to be increased dramatically. Dr. Loosmark  13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please outline where WP:NPOV is violated. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole article is written using almost exclusively German sources, as such it represents a German POV rather than a NPOV. Dr. Loosmark  13:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV. The language of a scholar is irrelevant. Besides that, most sources are in English. Please outline where you perceive what POV to be misrepresented. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need to read WP:NPOV but perhaps you should take a look at it, especially this part: Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. Dr. Loosmark  14:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the policy. Which POV in which debate is misrepresented where in this article? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not said that a POV is misrepresented but rather that we only have one POV here, a German POV. Dr. Loosmark  18:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Then please outline: what is a "German POV"? Where in this article is any debate where some "German POV" is unfairly presented as opposed to what other POV? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Polish POV is complete lacking, the Treaty of Bromberg is usually considered as a big mistake. Dr. Loosmark  19:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is a "Polish POV"? What mistake are you talking about? Where is the POV issue? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In most Polish sources the signing of the Treaty of Bromberg is considered as a mistake by the Polish diplomacy. This is the Polish POV which is completely missing from the article, the article only has the German POV, from countless German sources. Dr. Loosmark  20:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you finally adress a concern, though it seems to have nothing to do with a "German POV", but with an information you feel is missing. Unfortunately, you did not say who regards what as a mistake. That information would be vital as a base for a discussion. If that information really is included in "most Polish sources", it should not be that hard to bring them up here for discussion. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you have not put up a source, I have removed the tag. It is impossible to assess the POV of a source that is not mentioned. I have created and expanded a section "Impact and assessment", where you can add your source once you found it. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: I see there's a 3O pending for this page, but it seems as if it's been taken care of. For what it's worth, I agree with Skäpperöd that the article isn't particularly POV. Using German sources does not necessarily mean that it's a pro-German POV. There seems to be space for how the Polish view this, and the Assessment section Skäpperöd created would be a good place for that. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "using German sources does not necessarily mean that it's a pro-German POV." yes the German sources are famous for presenting a pro-Zimbabwe POV. seriously: by the nature of things the German sources present a German POV. also the Polish sources won't be dumped into just Assessment section created by Skapperod, they will be used throughout the article just like the German ones. Dr. Loosmark  19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

POV
The article is completely skewed towards pro-Prussian view on the treaty, and presents it as neutral and internationally recognised. This is made by solely cherry-picking selected information and avoiding critical sources. In fact the treaty was according to many historians enforced on Poland and not binding due to that(of course scarce mention is made of that here, and when it is than to criticize those historians). Until more diverse sources are used and the article will present several viewpoints the POV tag should stay. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)