Talk:Bogaczów, Lower Silesian Voivodeship

Section on "The region was part of Germany until 1945"

The issue isn't whether or not "This is very recent history, fresh in this generation's mind" - that's basing inclusion on WP:OR, and completely inappropriate. Instead, we should consider whether any reliable sources have written up this information about this village, and why. It would not make sense to go to the thousands of articles on every village in Poland that used to be part of Germany and add information that "it used to be part of Germany." If you do that, where do you stop? Every village and town in Europe would have to have an extensive section on all the nations they had been part of throughout their entire history. That wouldn't make sense; it's why we have the requirement of reliable secondary sources raising the issue in order to gauge whether it's significant enough to include in the article. Another issue is the language stating "ethnic cleansing" has taken place; that tidbit was added to over a thousand Polish village pages by an IP-hopping anonymous editor; that wording is extremely POV (coincidentally, the IP addresses all originated in Germany).

As for the former German name, that would be completely appropriate (and actually required, if I'm not mistaken) to include, if we can find a reliable source for it. My initial 5-second Google search did not turn up anything, but I will look again. Rockypedia (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaborate reply. To keep the discussion short, I got a few remarks. 1.I still think it is relevant to include this kind of info about Polish villages in particular, since it is living history. 2. That being said, we indeed need relevant sources for such info. And in this case, finding such sources turns out to be a nightmare. All kind of sites talk about these borders, both related to WWI and WWII, and it is real mess. If anyone has enough time, he/she may try - but we can only include this bit of info if and when such a source has been found. So until then, remarks of the kind can be deleted indeed. 3. Finally, I must ask you to include reasons whenever you delete chunks of text from Wikipedia. This is normal practice, so why did yo leave out the arguments? Omitting reasons for deletion makes the life of vandal fighters difficult... Greetings, Super48paul (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand the need for edit summaries, but in this case, I'm undoing damage that an IP-hopping anon editor did to over a thousand village and town pages, and it gets very tedious to type a summary each time. As you can see in this edit, he didn't leave an edit summary either, and the "ethnic cleansing" language he introduced was decidedly POV, so I've been removing that unsourced German-nationalist garbage for a while. I assure you that that user is the vandal in this case, not me. For larger cities, where there are sources that describe the post-WWII changes due to the Potsdam agreement in the specific cities, a description of those events is appropriate, and it's in them. But unsourced vandalism like this went mostly unnoticed until I started hunting it down. Thanks for your understanding. Rockypedia (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)