Talk:Germany–Poland border

Oder-Neisse line

The claim that the border follows "mostly" the Oder Neisse line seems dubious to me. Though the border is not completely congruent with the course of the river, the term Oder-Neisse line is ususally used as a synonym for the modern border (e.g. "The Polish—German border that was devised by the Allied powers at the end of World War II is known as the Oder—Neisse Line.", "ODER-NEISSE LINE, western border of Poland on the Rivers Oder (Odra)* and Neisse (Nysa) established after World War ...", "The Oder-Neisse Line was the name given to the Polish-German border by the Allied Powers at the end of World War II.").

The sources provided for the claim, that the border just follows "mostly" the ONL do actually not support that claim. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Strange. Is it the "mostly" that is dubious?--Wetman (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Wetman: For context, you should know that User:HerkusMonte has been arguing in the past discussions that this article is a fork or Oder Neisse line, something I strongly disagree with (as historic border did not always flow along that line, for example). I believe that the current refs, independent of simple look at the map, are sufficient for the word mostly. [1] notes that describes the flow of the border, and notes that the border diverges from the line at the very north, where it encompasses Swinoujscie, and at the very south, were it connects to the Czech border. I would be fine to add that some sources use the name Oder Neisse line synonymously with the Polish-German border. https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=ugeMgomY7hAC&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q&f=false is even better, as it clearly states that the border will run from Baltic Sea and thence along the rivers to the Czechoslovakian frontier. I believe there's no valid justification to call the word "mostly" dubious. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The point is that you are defining the ONL strictly as the course of these two rivers, while in fact the ONL is a political term to describe the Polish-German border. Contrary to your claim, "your" source does not support your view, instead it states explicitly:"The Oder-Neisse line was the name given to the Polish-German border by the Allied Powers at the end of world War II. (..) The exact location of the Oder-Neisse Line remained a matter of contention .."

The exact location of the Oder and the Neisse rivers has never ever been a matter of contention, only the exact course of the border. There are not "some" sources using the Oder-Neisse line as a synonym, all of them do. At least you might just show one single source explicitly saying that the modern border and the ONL are divergent terms and please quote the part you are referring to. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You keep misunderstanding that the political term for the modern border is not the same as the border itself. Two related, but different and separately notable topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You keep misunderstanding that the modern political term for the modern border is a synonym for the border itself.

I have already provided several sources which are clearly using both terms absolutely synonymously. I'm still waiting for a source using the term "Oder-Neisse line" in a different way or supporting your claim, that the border follows only "mostly" the ONL. Currently you are just using your own definition (WP:OR). HerkusMonte (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The concerns you raise should be discussed at WP:AFD. I suggest you nominate this article for deletion as WP:POVFORK and see what other editors think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a deletion, we're discussing the term "mostly" and your claim, that the modern border and the ONL are not completely congruent. Your definition of the ONL is only based on your own OR and the misconception of the term "Oder Neisse line" as the course of the rivers. You refuse to provide a single source supporting your view. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Piotrus explained it quite nicely and I support his position. As an interesting trivia-the claim that Oder border wasn't exactly defined and doesn't follow Oder was used by revisionists in Germany to push territorial demands towards Szczecin postwar, perhaps should be added to the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you find a source for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

But we're not using the definitions/claims of German revisionists, do we? HerkusMonte (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC

We have a disagreement on whether the sources support the claim that the Polish-German border "mostly" follows the Oder-Neisse line as indicated by the inline tags here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• My view. "Oder-Neisse line" is not the same, definition-wise, as the river itself. "Line" is a very funny word to use to describe a watercourse, and in any case no source has been presented that would support such a viewpoint. The current border, according to sources, is commonly described using the synonym "Oder-Neisse line" (you might call it a metonym). Therefore, it seems to me to be most accurate to say this in the second paragraph of this article: "Currently, the border follows what is referred to as the Oder-Neisse line, which (roughly?) follows the path of the Lusatian Neisse from the border with the Czech Republic as it flows northward into the Oder, and thenceforth following the Oder northward until ?? (I have searched both articles and have yet to find any explanation for why the border deviates from the Oder right before it hits the Baltic Sea)." Only a relatively small amount of further information about the current border should be at this article, with the rest being at the Oder-Neisse line article.

The information about the historical borders and the reasoning thereof, on the other hand, should mostly be in this article, and summarized briefly in the Oder-Neisse line article. I'd copy all the information from the second paragraph of that article until the Tehran Conference and put it in here; I'd leave a brief summary there. I think we can and should keep both articles. Red Slash 05:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Red Slash: Regarding north of the map, see File:Oder-Neisse_line_between_Germany_and_Poland.jpg and this ref: "a line extending south from Swinoujscie on the Baltic Sea TO THE ODER RIVER, PASSING WEST OF Szczecin" (where the Oder River enters the Baltic Sea). Clearly, O-N line is a simplification of the border, as it deviates from it at the very beginning and at the very end (north and south). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it seems that O-N line is synonymous with and identical to the current border; it is true, however, that the O-N line deviates from the rivers. Red Slash 22:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for the current border

We should mention that the reason for current border was attempted genocide of Polish population in WW2 by Germany which classified Poles as subhumans meant for extermination.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a "reason" for this historic border,--Wetman (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. In the WWII context the only thing I'd add would be a discussion of the border of General Government, if anyone can find good sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing of the border in the 1980s

Currently the article states that the border was closed in the early 1980s "primarily due to economic pressure on the East German economy from Polish shoppers". I think the Solidarność movement and the attempt of the East German government to "protect" themselves also played a significant role. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable. Could you find a source for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's already in one of your sources (Paulina Bren; Mary Neuburger): "Most historians explain this decision as the GDR's desire to contain Solidarity..." HerkusMonte (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And it's already there: " and the desire of the East German government to diminish the influence of the Polish Solidarity movement on East Germany". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, probably because I have added that part[2]? HerkusMonte (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Germany–Poland border → German-Polish border – This is clearly the most common name in English sources. In fact, according to ngram viewer it is about 60 times more common than the current title. Polish-German border is also widespread, but not as common as German-Polish border. Bermicourt (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the hyphen: If moved, this seems like it needs an en-dash, not a hyphen. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • BarrelProof, the hyphen is correct as proposed because "German-" is a combining form. See MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. @BilledMamma: --В²C ☎ 07:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @Born2cycle: But the first example at that link is "an Italian–Swiss border crossing". Isn't this directly analogous to that? "German" is different from "Franco", isn't it? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support, with en-dash not hyphen, per WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for consistency with pretty much every other article in Category:International borders. We shouldn't have a mismatch of country names vs demonyms here, it should all be one way or the other. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Elli, current title is WP:CONSISTENT with other articles. Vpab15 (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)'
• Support, per COMMONNAME and nom. Note: I've just reverted my Moved close when someone suggested they thought it looked like a supervote. My close was: "The consistency argument was soundly refuted at the very similar RM at Talk:Franco-German border (closed by Yours Truly) where it was pointed out that a recent RFC failed to establish the existence of a relevant consistent naming convention here. Furthermore, the "60 times more common" COMMONNAME argument is arguably strong enough to trump even a sound consistency opposition." I disagree that that's a supervote but recognized I might be biased. In any case, no one can deny that the recent RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(country-specific_topics)#RFC regarding the title format for articles covering bilateral relations found no consensus regarding the existence of a common naming convention applicable for titles like this. In fact, the close said this about using consistency specifically as it's used by those opposing here: "The inability of the community to reach a consensus on a naming convention indicates that there is no community consensus that claims of consistency should be the sole reason for naming a bilateral relations article a certain way." Opposition here has nothing but "consistency" to rest upon; it is exactly the sole reason for opposing. The bottom line though is COMMON NAME. 60 times more common than the current title. 60 times! Come on! If that's not a slam dunk, what's a common name for anything? --В²C ☎ 07:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: For more time to evaluate the former closing comments. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per User:Elli above. There are HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of articles that all follow this EXACT same article-title format in Category:International borders — with that magnitude of articles, WP:CONSISTENT can't be simply dismissed without discussion. (Also, not gonna lie, Born2cycle (talk · contribs), I know that wasn't the intention, but I agree that that did seem a liiiiiiiiittle bit of a supervote. Like, I know that Requested moves aren't just a matter of simply "which one has more votes", but only 25% of participants (1 person) had voted for Support by that point in time. Still, I know that wasn't the intention — just wanted to state that I see where that other user's [comparison to a supervote] is coming from.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per User:Elli. Introducing inconsistencies in article titles on a case-by-case basis is a time-wasting endeavor when virtually all articles follow the same format. As a sidenote, I have asked User:Born2cycle to reopen and relist the two hastily-closed RMs on their talk page, mostly because I find it dubious (1) whether that is the correct reading of the RfC close (2) whether the RfC applied to border articles (3) whether a no consensus RfC can cut a finger off WP:AT policy. Pilaz (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC) last edited by Pilaz (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT. A change could possibly occur if it was determined that, in general, one form is more common than another but this shouldn't be discussed on an individual article. Super Ψ Dro 14:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose See Category:International_borders. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - see Category:International_borders, per In ictu oculi (no relation). Oculi (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

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.