Talk:Silesia/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State of the debate (list of issues)

I think this topic holds the record for "most archives of a talk page". Isn't there any area of argeement? Please, someone just list all the disputed points. Then we can go through them one by one. I can help, if people want me to. --Uncle Ed 18:28, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(That was fast! It only took 14 days for an answer to appear to my question... ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion there are 2 main areas of the dispute: the intro paragraph and the history section.

  • (1) Should this article and the introduction paragraph be focused on modern or historical Silesia
  • (2) The boundaries of Silesia: is Silesia part of Poland and Czechia only, or Germany too.
  • (2a) Is the Goerlitz area part of Silesia or part of historical Lusatia and Saxony now
  • (2b) Are the historcial duchies of Siewierz, Oswiecim, Zator and Zywiec part of Silesia or not. This is imprortant because they were part of Poland since the 15th century
  • (2c) Is the Czech Silesia: Ostrava/Opava/Karniow/CeskyTesin area part of Silesia?
  • (2d) Is the Klodzko area part of Silesia?
  • (3) Were the ties of Silesia with Poland, Czechia, Austria, Germany decreasing/increasing? What are these ties (political, eclessiastical, economic, ethnic, cultural)?
  • (3a) What was the ethnic majority of Silesia in various times (prevailing ethnic ties)?
  • (3b) What were the prevailing political belonging of Silesia in various historical periods?
  • (3c) What were the prevailing eclessiatical (also educational/religious) ties?
  • (3d) What were the prevailing economic ties of Silesia?
  • (3e) What were the prevailing cultural ties of Silesia?
  • (4) Should the Silesian name (Ślunsk, Ślonsk) be also mentioned?

I think that everybody should answer these questions before we can proceed. Caius2ga 19:37, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The discussion is held in

are also below


Vote: Silesia introduction

Current state of Silesia

Should it be said that parts of Silesia are now in Germany?

Yes

  • Because the Britannica Encyclopedia (2002 edition) and other encyclopedias does. Nico 21:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delirium, appears to be accurate
  • The corresponding German region calls itself "Silesian Lusatia", so that should not be ignored. Baldhur
  • Space Cadet

No

  • That's just plain false. River Kwisa is the Western border of Silesia and you can do nothing about that. I don't care about any voting, facts are facts. Taw 22:34, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Kwisa and Bobr rivers are the boundaries of historical Silesia. Nysa Luzycka is the western boundary of the modern Silesia. No part of Silesia lies in Germany today -- Caius2ga 17:47, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Silesian Name of Silesia

Should the Silesian dialect/language name of the province be mentioned a) with the other names; b) somewhere else in the introduction; c) not at all?

Nico thinks that From a linguistical point of view, it does not exist a "Silesian" language. The dialect which uses Slonsk and Slunsk are spoken by 70,000 people, according to caius2ga. Silesia has 10 Million inhabitants. Second, "Silesian" may refer to German (Lower Silesian) as well, and the name "Silesian" is very misleading. Third, no other encyclopedia (including the newest edition of Britannica) mention these names.

? If we should simply have "Silesian", it should be: "Silesia (Polish: Slask, German: Schlesien, Czech Slezsko, Silesian: Slask, Schlesien, Slonsk and Slunsk)" (in the article about "Silesian" language, Germanic Silesian is mentioned as well). That's quite long.

Or how about: "Gdansk (Danzig, Gdunsk, Gyddanyzc, Gyddanyzc, Kdansk, Gdanzc, Dantzk, Dantzig, Dantzigk, Dantiscum, Gedanum) is a city on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea..."? It sounds not good. I think Wikipedia not should be a dictionary, and only names with relevance for English readers should be mentioned in the introduction of articles. Other encyclopedias mention the Polish, German and Czech name of Silesia.

with other names

somewhere else in introduction

  • Nico / but: there doesn't exist any other English language encyclopedia which mention these names at all.
  • john (I don't feel especially strongly on this -


not at all

in what is now

Should the article say that Silesia is located in Poland and the Czech Republic, or that it is located in what is now Poland and the Czech Republic?

in what is now Poland and Czech Republic

  • john (I don't feel particularly strongly about this one, though)
  • Nico Because the Britannica Encyclopedia and most other English language encyclopedias does.
  • Delirium, makes sense when discussing a region that has changed hands many times

in Poland and Czech Republic

  • Space Cadet "what is now" unnecessary complication, sounds like smuggling hints between the lines.
  • szopen I agree with space cadet
  • Right term, no offensive wording -- Caius2ga 17:49, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Current or Historical Silesia?

Should the article begin with a discussion of the geography and political divisions of present-day Silesia, following this with a brief discussion of the history, or should it be the other way around?

History First

  • john (just to note that I support Nico - Geography, history, political divisions)
  • Delirium, but need to mention both briefly in intro.
  • Nico, the article should begin with geography, then an outline of the history and then the contemporary (complicated) political divisions.
  • Space Cadet
  • Lirath Q. Pynnor
Silesia (Polish Sl`ask, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, bounded by the Sudeten mountains to the southwest, by the Beskid range to the south, and by the Kraków-Wielun plateau to the northeast, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the northeastern Czech Republic. It was originally a Polish province that became a possession etc.


Geography First

Nazi Atrocities

Should Nazi World War II atrocities be discussed in the introduction to the article?

Yes

Yes, if the expulsion of the Germans is mentioned in the intro. The expulsion of the Poles by Bismarck should also be mentioned. -- Caius2ga 17:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No

No, if the expulsion of the Germans is not mentioned here (it may go into the history section) -- Caius2ga 17:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Expulsions

Should the expulsion of the German population in 1945 be mentioned in the introduction to the article?

Yes

  • Delirium, important for understanding of demographic shift


No

  • Baldhur
  • I'm not sure. Maybe it would be wise to describe this in the history section? -- Nico
  • Space Cadet ditto
  • john (changing vote to support emerging consensus)
  • szopen but i wouldn't mind if the mentioning it would be in introduction.
  • Caius2ga 17:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC) - Too difficult to explain in just a few words in the intro, it should be discussed in the history section fully

German majority

Should it be stated that there was a German majority in Silesia prior to the Second World War?

Yes

  • Delirium, if this is in fact factually correct
  • szopen Yes but it should be made clear that Germans were majority in "German" part of Silesia
  • Lirath Q. Pynnor Why should it be in the introduction, tho?

No

'Polish majority

  • There was no German majority in Silesia (all 3 parts) prior to the Second World War. -- Caius2ga 18:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Polish majority

Should it be stated that there was a Polish majority in Silesia prior to the Second World War?

Yes

No


Silesia, Lower Silesia just like Saxony, Lower Saxony

I make a formal proposal to erase the contents of this page and replace it with information about the modern province of Silesia (curently at Silesian Voivodship), at the same time the page called Lower Silesia should about the Lower Silesian Voivodship. If there are articles called Saxony and Lower Saxony about modern provinces of Germany, Silesia and Lower Silesia should also be about modern provinces of Poland~. This will end all these stupid edot wars -- Caius2ga 22:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. Look, if you're so confident that you're right about everything, why don't you just vote on how you think the article should look, and try to enlist others who might support your version of the article? If it appears that a wide consensus of users support your version, then your version (or some variant of it) presumably wins out. If a significant minority supports your version, some consensus acceptable to everyone might be able to be worked out. If not, well, then, tough luck, you don't get to destroy the whole article because you dislike it. john 22:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A lie repeated 1000 times becomes a truth. Dr Goebels

Because I don't like Dr Goebels quotes. -- Caius2ga 23:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


You continue to wow us, caius2ga. Misspelling not only Goebbels, but "truth," as well. At any rate, I agree with you that Goebbels was wrong. So why don't you explain to us where exactly there are "lies" involved here? And vote on how you think the article should be, with explanations? In terms of my questions,

  • "current state of Silesia" seems to be a matter of interpretation - does the fact that Görlitz was part of Silesia, for a while in the 19th and 20th centuries, but not before that, mean that it can still be considered a part of Silesia?
  • Silesian name of Silesia: this is not a question of fact, but of what information should be included in the article
  • "in what is now" is a stylistic question. Neither statement would be factually in error, so far as I can tell
Not for us. Poles considered Silesia part of Poland from the ... times inmemorial.
  • "current or historical silesia" is a question of how the article should be organized
  • "Nazi Atrocities" is not a question of fact, but of whether said facts should appear in the intro to the article.
  • "Expulsions", so far as I am aware, is not disputed in terms of the facts, but simply whether it should be mentioned in the introduction of the article (unless you'd like to argue that Germans weren't expelled from Silesia?)
  • "German Majority" might be considered a question of fact. It is obviously hard to determine what the exact ethnic make-up of the population of Silesia was at any time. German censuses certainly show a German majority, both before and after the detachment of Upper Silesia. I guess changes in the population of Polish Upper Silesia after 1920 could have led to a Polish majority in the whole of Silesia (especially if you include Auschiwtz and Zator) at some point between 1920 and 1939, but I really have no idea. At any rate, I was not here assuming that the German majority was in existence. I was asking whether it should be said that there was a German majority. And you'll note that I did not vote in either that question or the one about whether part of Silesia is in Germany. john 23:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So you are going to make a vote that some expulsions are important and should be mentioned in the itro, while the other expulstions are not important ans should be kept out of the intro. And you will call this a Neutral Point of View??? -- Caius2ga 00:59, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The expulsion of Germans permanently changed the ethnic make-up of the province. Nazi atrocities did not. john 01:30, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My cousin was permanently killed during WWII. Do you assume this did not change the ethnic make-up?? -- Caius2ga 01:32, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It didn't make Silesia any less Polish after the war. The basic fact is, in 1933, Silesia (or, at least, German Silesia) was mostly ethnically German. The cities all had German official names. And so forth. After the war, the region was (almost?) entirely Polish. This was due to the Soviet/Polish expulsion of the German population after the war. Your cousin's fate was tragic, and Nazi crimes should certainly be mentioned in the history section of the article, but the expulsion of the German population is one of the defining parts of the history of the province, while Nazi crimes simply are not. Of course, if the consensus of other users should disagree with me, I'll accept whatever is agreed to. john 01:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So you think that killing 6 million of Poles (some 20% of population) didn't make Silesia any less Polish?? Interesting idea, isn't it? -- Caius2ga 05:30, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Given that Silesia is currently predominantly Polish, apparently the answer to your question is "no, it didn't." It may have for a brief period in the 1940s, but it apparently had no permanent demographic effect, as Silesia could hardly be more Polish today than it is. --Delirium 05:31, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

They certainly didn't kill 6 million Silesian Poles. 6 million is the total number of Poles killed. john 05:44, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this discussion is on the sandbox level and is leading to nowhere. Kpjas 08:27, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes...certainly. I should not have become engaged in this.

I think, that after two months of discussing points of view and exchanging hurtful comments everything has been tried to achieve a consense here. Obviously the main problem is the inability of some people to listen to other people's opinions. Everytime we return to the same arguments or fruitless "sandbox level" discussions, as Kpjas rightly pointed out. I would rather suggest to leave the article protected and wait until January, when the arbitration committee is established. This was merely born out of frustration, I should not have said this. -- Baldhur 12:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, John.

  • "...Poland annexed..." - Poland had neither the will, nor the power to annex anything. The discussed lands were given to Poland supposedly to compensate for the eastern provinces annexed in 1939 and again in 1944 by Soviet Union. Poland was the country that suffered the most as the result of WW II, both from Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, therefore any comment hinting that Poland or Poles might be even partially responsible for any consequences of the War is absolutely unacceptable.
  • A mention of the Duchy of Swidnica, and it's ruler - Bolko's loyalty to Poland, would be nice.
  • More about the diversity in the region across the ages.
  • Autonomy of the Polish language speaking people during the Bohemian and Austrian rule, as opposed to the forced germanization after prussian takeover, through the ban of Polish (or Silesian) language, and oppression of the catholic faith - Kulturkampf, is worth mentioning.
  • Discrimination of the native Silesians by the Polish government, taking place both right after the war and now, is a must.

What are the specific issues, that I'm supposed to vote on? -- Space Cadet 15:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See above - Baldhur 15:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Space Cadet, I think all those things should certainly be talked about in the article - I'm not sure how much of it should go in the introduction - Swidnica would make sense, and certainly the diversity in the region across the ages (caius2ga had a paragraph on that in his version, which I objected to, but mostly on the grounds that it was poorly written). I'm not sure if the other stuff is necessarily for the introduction, though, although some issue of the question of Silesian/Polish nationality might be worth discussing there. As far as the issue of annexation goes, it certainly wasn't my intention to imply that Poland was responsible, although I can see how it might seem that way. Would changing it from "was annexed by Poland" to "became part of Poland" be more acceptable? john 20:28, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thank you John, for getting involved. Although I have tried earlier to help resolve the problems here, I am not too familiar with the subject of Silesian history. After reading through the questions above, I have come to the conclusion that they are not extremely relevant (however, the vote above seems to help providing arguments). While facts should of course never be voted upon, vote results may help convince some people that they might reconsider their views.I believe that the problem with Silesia is not so much what facts are presented where and how, but a lack of good will on the part of some, and an unwillingness to improve their social skills beyond sandbox level.Kosebamse 16:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Offer of Mediation

Hello, everybody! :-)

My name is Ed Poor, and I usually sign my comments as Uncle Ed. I am a member of the newly-formed Wikipedia Mediation Committee.

If anybody would like me to take a look at the article, or help resolve conflicts about it, please list your names below. Or if anyone wants me to butt out, say that instead! ;-) --Uncle Ed 17:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, you ten, I'm sure we have a quorum. Wik and Taw are welcome any time. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, get involved

No, keep away

Options for getting started

  • Keep article as is, and tweak any parts we can agree on
  • Start fresh

If we start fresh, we can:

I would suggest this, if we try the stub option:

  • Silesia is a region in Europe. -- I'm pretty sure everyone will agree that these six words are accurate and neutral. --Uncle Ed 15:49, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but apparently most disputed is the introduction of the article, and the following parts (name of the region, history) are less contentious. So it might be advisable to rewrite the introduction and leave the other sections as is, with only minor fixings afterwards. For the introduction your stub should indeed be accepted as least common denominator. -- Baldhur 16:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With Baldhur on this one!

Space Cadet 16:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ed, could you please teach us, what the next step should be now? Shall we continue the discussion right here or on Talk:Silesia (moderated)? Shall we wait for your questions, or begin ourselves? - Baldhur 16:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Either way works for me. However, if all are agreed, it might work even better if only those people in the "mediation group" made comments at Talk:Silesia (moderated) while others confined their comments to talk:Silesia. Bear in mind that I'm probably going to do quite a bit of refactoring at Talk:Silesia (moderated)... --Uncle Ed 17:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Of course I agree. So talking will go on here. -- Baldhur 17:20, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what is best. This is my first formal attempt at mediating. I've already erased some comments and started over a couple of times!

Two things come to mind now:

  1. define everyone's win conditions
  2. build on what we all agree on

For example, I will consider this mediation to have succeeded if the result is:

  • the article tells me something interesting about Silesia
  • it's not changing radically several times a week, due to edit wars

Someone else's win conditions might be:

  • that the article highlight the atrocities suffered/caused by ethnic group X
  • that the article clarify what country/countries Silesia "belongs to"

Write comments anywhere you want. If I can find them, I'll reply to them! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)




I dispute this version already. It is not just a "historical" region. --Wik 19:31, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
a "historic" region would be better - historic means "important in history" while "historical" suggests that it's a region only existing in the past. john 19:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I can't think of any references to the region except in a historical context, but that's just my experience. Maximus Rex 19:41, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can we have this: Silesia is a geographical and historical region in Poland and Czech Republic (both countries in Central Europe). -- Caius2ga 19:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Type of region

Good points all around!

  • It is not just a "historical" region.
    • historic means "important in history" while "historical" suggests that it's a region only existing in the past

Hence:

  • "geographical and historical"

Comments?

I agree with geographical and historical region. The mention of East-Central Europe is fine as well. I won't agree with Poland and Czech Republic. It should be Poland, Czech Republic and Germany. I would agree to a version mainly in Poland, with tiny parts in the Czech Republic and Germany.
I know, why the German part of Silesia is not accepted by some. It was added to the Prussian province of Silesia in 1815, but it was no part of Silesia before that date. We have different definitions of what Silesia is, but IMO we do not have to decide which definition is right. We may model this article on the example given in the Westphalia article: Westphalia is roughly the region between the rivers Rhine and Weser, located north of the Ruhr river. No exact definition of borders can be given, because the name "Westphalia" was applied to several different entities in history. For this reason specifications of area and population are greatly differing. Something similar may be applied to the Silesia article. -- Baldhur 21:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I generally agree with Baldhur. I think it would be wrong for us to state that the Görlitz region is simply not part of Silesia, in particular. The specifics of the dispute should be discussed elsewhere in the article. john 21:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)



I maybe have a better idea. People not involved in the conflict, like Ed, should read similar articles in other encyclopedias (e.g. http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=403975 (Britannica Concise) and http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s/silesia.asp ) and write a new introduction based on that. Nico 22:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question to Grzes! Would something like this be satisfactory: http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/Silesia/Silesia.html (it's the full article from Encylopedia Britannica 2002, everyone should read it) Nico 22:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you all for participating this first day. I feel like we've made a lot of progress already! Not measured by the number of words in the finished article, of course ;-)-

We've found some common ground, and discovered where and why there are some differences. And we've already begun - in a cooperative way - to address some of those differences.

See you all tomorrow! --Uncle Ed 22:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry to report that Nico has turned to Germanising the Lower Silesia page. He becomes too annoying for me -- Caius2ga 04:49, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry to report that caius2ga "seems to have picked up where User:Taw left off in changing Oder to Odra etc". [1] At Talk:Oder River he has now declared: "It's a matter of honour to erase any German names from Polish territories. You can convince, chase away, or ban the current editors, but others will come and change Oder to Odra". With that attitude any progress here will be impossible. He also tries to delete the reference to the Prussian province from Lower Silesia, and information about the German parts of the region (Görlitz, Rothenburg and Hoyerswerda areas). Additionally, he continues to call his opponents "Nazis" and has recently compared me with Hitler ("Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Nico") [2]. He is also posting messages like "WARNING. Nico the Silling" different places [3] (as he previous also did on my user page before John protected it). I feel his behaviour is inappropriate -- Nico 04:57, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Considering that the same issues are being discussed with respect to numerous cities and regions which, while formerly part of Germany, are now Polish. And since the same kind of issues would also be of note in, say, articles about former parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Perhaps some sort of general policy page ought to be worked out for such things. For instance, it seems to me that formerly German cities (such as Kaliningrad, Gdansk, Szecsin, Wroclaw, and so forth), ought to have the former names, which were in exclusive use in English until 1945, and are still used to refer to those cities before that time, bolded in the first line of the article (i.e. Königsberg, Danzig, Stettin, Breslau). But many Poles seem to object to such...I think some sort of forum where we can try to work out such general issues might be useful to resolving specific issues, and to ending all these multiple edit wars that are ultimately going to result in any article dealing with a location in east-central Europe being protected. Very little seems to have been done to determine a general policy on such issues. For instance, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) has no discussion of this issue at all. john 05:19, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, Danzig was used by Germans and Gdansk by Poles from medieval times. So, both names are HISTORICAL. Therefore, how to choose "proper" historical name? I was discussing that with one person already, but he quit without answering... szopen

Well, the question is not what Germans called it, or what Poles called it, but what English-speakers call(ed) it. English-speakers have always used "Danzig", at least for the early-modern and modern periods up to 1945. As such, this is what should be used. This is not to say that it's more correct, just that it is the more commonly used, which the basis Wikipedia is supposed to follow. (If you can find an English source before 1945 that primarily refers to the city as "Gdansk", I suppose I might withdraw the objection, but I'd be seriously doubtful that you could. There are some post-1945 English-language historians who like to use the current names instead of the old ones, but I think this is a distinctly minority position.) But this discussion would be more appropriate somewhere else, I think. john 09:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In modrn times yes, but before that English name was Dantzk, Gyddanzyc etc. Again, do you suggest we should use that names in appriopriate periods? szopen
Both Danzig and Gdansk are in common use in English, and Danzig is almost as popular as Gdansk. See [4]. Gyddanzyc is not in common use in English. We should stay to the facts. Nico 21:13, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We are deviating from the subject. I suggest to postpone the place name discussion and continue debating about this article. Afterwards we may go on with the next issue. I also suggest, that people involved here stay away from similar articles like Lower Silesia, Upper Silesia and Eastern Silesia. Cooperation here will be difficult, if we continue edit wars at other places. -- Baldhur 09:42, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It seems that the form of the English names for Silesian geographic features is a crucial issue for some of us. As I recall, the name of that river which flows northward from the modern Czech Republic and modern Poland, touches the eastern border of modern Germany and empties into the Baltic Sea -- I recall that the name of this river has long been a point of contention. I found an old map of Silesia on-line yesterday, and as I gazed upon it I imagined that I could feel the accumulated pain of centuries of human suffering weighing upon my chest :-( Uncle Ed 14:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Material Transferred from Talk:Lower Silesia: No part of Germany belongs to Lower Silesia (historical or modern). Historical boudary of Silesia were the Kwisa and Bobr rivers, Today the western boundary of Silesia is the Nysa Luzycka river -- Caius2ga 04:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Nico 05:03, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Clearly, between 1815 and 1945, the Görlitz region was part of the Prussian province of Silesia. As such, it continues to still view itself as "Silesian". Are all these people simply wrong? I think it's absolutely ridiculous to say that. john 05:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The ridiculous thing is your idea that every article about a city or province must begin with a statement when and why it belonged to the the Prussian/German states. The boundaries of both historical and modern Lower Silesia are known very well, and they do NOT contain any modern parts of Germany. I my opinion the Goerliz article should mentioned its previous belonging, and this article should mention it boundary changes in the history section, but it's ridiculous to mention the German times in the intro. Your agressive editing techniques are unaccetable and annoying. You are destroying every article you touch.

I consider it vandalism that Nico has erased the picture of modern Lower Silesia, providing no other picture. And I consider it vandalism that the link to the Prussian province of Lower Silesia is provided three times in this short article. -- Caius2ga 21:37, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah, straw men. Look, the Görlitz issue is one that is clearly far more complicated than you are willing to admit, and I don't think there's a right answer. Clearly, before 1815, it was considered a part of Lausitz/Lusatia. But after 1815, it was attached to Silesia, and continues to call itself Silesia. If it is commonly known as "Silesia", then I don't see how it's Wikipedia's duty to say "no, you're wrong, it's not." The picture (map?) thing I'm not familiar with. But certainly this article is dealing with Lower Silesia as a general entity, while the Lower Silesian Voivodship deals with the contemporary Polish province. And it's ridiculous to say that it's vandalism to have three links to the prussian province. Perhaps it's overkill, and unnecessary, but hardly vandalism. john 21:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are one link in the introduction, one in the history section and one in the "See also". But there are also a large number of links to Lower Silesian Voivodship, at least three: In introduction, history and see also Nico 20:20, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a response to my suggestion of how to circumscribe, where Silesia is. Caius2ga wants a version "in Poland and Czech Republic", while John and I would like to see the Görlitz area in Germany mentioned. If this is such a problem, we might add a note in parentheses: Due to different definitions of the Silesian territory some exclude the Lusatian part from Silesia. Any comments? -- Baldhur 07:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Moderation Needed?

Well, it's been two days, and no one has stated their "win conditions" or basically responded to anything I've said (except Wik, who didn't even sign up for the mediation).

So shall I declare my effort a failure and bow out now?

Or is there still something I can do to help? --Uncle Ed 19:55, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be very helpful if caius2ga told us if he thinks this Britannica article also is biased: [5] (so that his goal with the article becomes more clear), and eventually which changes to the previous majority proposal he actually wants. In my last proposal, I've tried to remove most of the sentences he didn't like, e.g. expulsions, "Ties with Poland gradually decreased" etc. [6], but he has not replied. -- Nico 20:07, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I want an introduction that defines the geographical region, and that gives the basics of the history of Silesia (i.e.Poland in the middle ages, ties to Kingdom of Bohemia from late middle ages, Austrian from 16th century, Prussian from 18th, Polish since 1945). I tend to think it should mention that a small part of Germany is considered, by the people who live there, at least, to be part of Silesia. I think the article should not mention Nazi atrocities in the introduction. It should be well written. Beyond that, I don't care. john 20:56, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I want Silesia article fairly presenting Silesia's history. Therefore, it should avoid "Polish from thosuand years" or "German for 700 years" wordings, since they create false impressions. It should either only list political belongings, or - if general German influences are mentioned - it should be balanced by similar sentence about existing Polish influences. It should provide also info about current Silesia szopen


I think, defining win conditions is somewhat contrary to what we should do on Wikipedia. Editors must realise, that there can't be a victory for them, but just a compromise. But if you ask that way, my main concern is, that editing this article (and many others) should become possible again without the danger of every word misinterpreted as an offense. I want, that the editors of this page talk with each other and try to understand each other's opinion, without saying "That is a blatant lie." I do not care too much about what is mentioned in the article and what is not, with one exception: not mentioning the German parts of Silesia would greatly dissatisfy me.
Now I asked the faction opposing the mentioning of the German part twice to state their position. I also made two different proposals for this introduction. I still think, that a reply to these proposals would help to get on. -- Baldhur 22:32, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Boundaries of Silesia

Can we settle the Silesian boundaries question: -- Caius2ga 14:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Map of Silesia divided between Prussia, Bohemia-Austria and Poland after the Peace of Wroclaw 1742 ending the first Silesian War.

  • Red line show the historical boundaries of Silesia that were stable for some 1000 years.
  • Grey colour area show the major part of Silesia acquired by Prussia from Austria-Bohemia in the Peace of Wroclaw (1742), as a result of the 1st Silesian War;
  • Yellow colour area show the remainder of Bohemian-Austrian Silesia. It was called the Czech/Bohemian Silesia upto 1849, and then the Austrian Silesia. The map show the cities of Opava, Karniow and Cieszyn;
  • Red/Orange colour area show the Polish Silesia: duchies of Oswiecim, Zator, with Biala, later Bielsko-Biala - all shown on the map; and also duchy of Siewierz.

Outside of Silesia:

These boundaries were stable in most of the Silesian history, and these historical boundaries are still valid today with some small modifications. In various times of history the dukes of Silesia posessed temporarily various territories outside these boundaries. In various times of history the rulers of Silesia has joined various border territories to the Silesian province(s), but these were only temporary and did not change the frontries of the historical region. -- Caius2ga 14:26, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I think we all understand that. But a bit of Lusatia was attached to the Prussian province of Silesia in 1815, and still considers itself to be a "Silesian" area today. The basic fact is, it's pretty much impossible to strictly define a region like this, and there's no reason not to include this area. Furthermore, if the boundaries of the historical Silesia are so strict, why do you, at the same time, insist on defining Silesia as the three current Polish voivodships, which do not exactly correspond to the historical region? john 17:53, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the map. Actually I did not doubt that Lusatia was no part of Silesia in the 18th century. In 1815 the Prussian government had the idea to add the Görlitz area to its province of Silesia. Before that date it was indeed a part of Saxony. Do I understand correct, that in Poland the borders of Silesia are defined as the borders prior to 1742? That is a possible viewpoint, but it is not the only possible viewpoint. Someone else might define the borders as exactly the same as in the Prussian province existing from 1742 to 1918. And I would argue, that we do not have to decide, who is right. We may say, that Silesia is located mainly in Poland, with a tiny part in Czech Republic, and, depending on the definition of borders, another tiny part in Germany.
Look, this is a rather abstract discussion. We have an administrative subdivision of Saxony, that is today actually called Lower Silesian Upper Lusatia. So, if some Germans believe to live in a part of Silesia, don't you think, that this should be stated in the article (even if they are in your opinion wrong)? -- Baldhur 20:52, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Comments from 14 Dec look good. Shall we continue with 'borders' as common ground? If so, perhaps we can add a "history" of the borders of Silesia to Silesia (moderated). --Uncle Ed 19:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, we should move forward. I fear, that there is no consensus about this question yet. In the border question we all agree about the following:
  • Silesia is mainly located in Poland (some of us want to add "in what is now Poland", but I don't know, if this is really important)
  • A tiny part of Silesia is located in Czech Republic
What we disagree about, is the westernmost portion of Silesia, because it was added to Silesia in 1815, and Caius2ga wants to define Silesia as of 1742. (See my comment above.)
A "history of borders" section may place emphasis on the impossibility to define exact borders. I quote myself from above: We may say, that Silesia is located mainly in Poland, with a tiny part in Czech Republic, and, depending on the definition of borders, another tiny part in Germany. -- Baldhur 20:04, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Caius, can we say that in 1742 Silesia's borders ended at XYZ, and in 1815 blah blah blah happened? --Uncle Ed 20:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How to proceed

Whats the problem with adding German names to a topic on a Germanic region? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Because in view of many of us it's Slavic region? But seriously, I dont mind as long as this names are not primary versions. szopen
Because its not a germanic region and never really was. 24.2.152.139 03:22, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That way we won't get anywhere. "Yes it was. No it wasn't. Yest it was." Ad mortem defecandum. It's a bit childish. AFAIK, there are only two naming conventions to consider: basic names reflecting the present state with the former names as a redir (if we really need a page about, for instance, city of Sagen (Zagan in Polish) or previous names with their own articles containing only history from the times when the name was official and links to the present-name.

The latter idea seems slightly difficult to implement and definitely would introduce too much mess. How about a compromise? I suggest we used both names, with the present-day name as the basic title of the article and the earlier name in brackets. If it is decided that the former names need their own link, they could either lead to the basic name or to a list of Polish/German toponyms, similar to a list in german wiki. How about that?Halibutt 23:49, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd say we should only have one article, under the current name, with redirects, but the city should be referred to by its older name for the appropriate part of the history section. john 00:07, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It's fine with me. However, I fear that not everyone will accept this...Halibutt 10:12, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Accept, and city should be referred e.g either as "Danzig (Gdansk)" or "Gdansk (former Danzig)". Not "NOW Gdansk", sicne most Polish names are not inventions of modern times, but were used in forms similar or identical earlier. Which form is choosen may depend on historical context. And this should be made into wiki standard. szopen

Just a note: for few weeks i will have less time - first the hollidays, then few deadlines in my real life. but you already know my opinion: the intro should mention that ties to Poland in Silesia were present not only in medieval times, that it should be mentioned that Silesia was mostly German (but not whole) before WWII (but parts were Polish or Czechs, including e.g. Siewierz which was Polish to partition). "What is now Poland" is, frankly, awkward sounding to me and should be avoided. Instead of it it woulc be described as region between (names of rivers), now mostly in Poland. szopen

What do you think about the above problem (mentioning of the Görlitz area as a part of Silesia), Szopen? What do other editors think about this question? -- Baldhur 16:29, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No problem to me, as long as it's mentioned that it was attached to Silesia in XXXX and previously was part of Lusatia.
Szopen, "now mostly in Poland," is good, I think, better than either "in Poland" or "in what is now Poland". A fine compromise, I think. All of Szopen's suggestions sound fine. john 18:34, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

All, I'm fine with "now mostly in Poland". I'm also fine with the "Görlitz area as a part of Silesia".
I'm not fine with Szopen's suggestion "city should be referred e.g either as "Danzig (Gdansk)" or "Gdansk (former Danzig)"". I thought that the aggreed convention was: Oder and Neisse to be used even when discussing pre-German times and Gdansk, even when discussing Prussian times. "Former Danzig" sounds even worse than "NOW Gdansk". It would work for Kaliningrad, because nobody ever heard of that name before 1945, but not for Gdansk, where the Polish name is couple centuries older than the German name and it's an undisputed fact. Therefore Free State of Gdansk.
Space Cadet 20:00, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If I may inject a minor point into yet another silly endless discussion: Where the history says"a little part of Silesia surrounding the city of Görlitz became a part of the German Democratic Republic and is now part of the of in the Federal Republic of Germany," it should mention the (incontrovertible) fact that when the annexations (Poles may read:" recovery of lost territories" if it makes them feel better -- Ha!) took effect, Görlitz, being divided by the Western Neisse (yes, yes, Nysa) River, was divided into Görlitz on the German side and Zgorzelec on the newly (for Poles "once again") Polish side.

As an aside, it seems that Poles will have to read different history books than those the rest of the world reads, in order to maintain their "honor." A note from personal experience: The all-night bus from Warsaw to Vilnius says "Wilna" on it to this day. User:sca 13sep04

That was not an "agreed convention", but only my proposal. Many people around here disagreed with it. What if we omit the "former" and write either "Danzig (Gdansk)" or "Gdansk (Danzig)"? Most important is that both variants are mentioned, and it should be less important, which one is the first one. I think, Space Cadet is right insofar as you can't compare these Polish city names with Kaliningrad, Chemnitz or St. Petersburg; the latter cities have fixed dates for the changes of their names, while Polish and German names were always (or most time) used in parallel. However, I would consider it best, if people around here won't dedicate their time to change the order in which the city names appear. That will just lead to edit wars and annoy the other party involved.
About Silesian boundaries, we apparently all agree with "Silesia is a geographical and historical region in {east-}central Europe. It is now mostly located in Poland, with small parts in the Czech Republic and (since 1815) in Germany." Any objections? If not, can we move this to Silesia (moderated) and continue with the next issue? -- Baldhur 20:33, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Two points: Firstly, I agree that the best way to deal with the name of city issue is to use both names, at least for the period when the city was commonly referred to by its German name (I think just Gdansk, or what, is fine for post-1945 discussion). And not to worry too much about which name comes first. This would hopefully lessen conflict and resolve that issue. Secondly, I don't quite like Baldhur's current formulation. Specifically, the "(since 1815) in Germany". Basically, that implies that parts of Silesia have been in Germany since 1815, which doesn't make any sense. Can't we just say in the introduction that parts are in Germany, and then later on explain the whole deal with the Görlitz region only being attached to Silesia in 1815? john 20:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are completely right. I wrote that too hastily and did not think about it enough. "Since 1815 in Germany" is absurd. I would prefer your last proposal, too, but there was strong disagreement by some (Taw, Caius2ga), although I understood that Szopen and Space Cadet apparently don't have a problem with a mention of the Görlitz area belonging to Silesia. This is complicate. Should we add a sentence about the difficulty to define exact borders? -- Baldhur 23:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I see no need to mention the dificulties. After all how big part of historical (?) Silesia lies in Germany nowadays? 2%? 5%? IMO writing several lines just about the fact that some consider it Silesia proper and some don't would be complicating the matter too much. When it comes to nuances, there are some who consider Klodzko (Glatz) Valley to be part of Silesia as well, but I see no problem in leaving this part without mentioning. Otherwise, we'd have to write twenty pages just about every single piece of land that used to be considered part of Silesia. However, if someone thinks it indeed is a problem, then I don't see a problem either. A short note in the way john proposes (see below) seems just fine for me.Halibutt 10:14, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, we should certainly say that. Hmm...Considering that Caius2ga seems to have withdrawn from the project, and that Taw has made practically no comments on this page, I think we should proceed with what everyone who is participating in the discussion agrees on, rather than worrying about the opinions of people who haven't said anything. This is, however, a tricky issue, since it's a case where explaining fully doesn't seem appropriate in an introduction, while it's hard to devise an acceptable shorthand way of explaining it. Anyone want to take a gander at a better short way to say it? Something like "Silesia now lies mostly in Poland, but with a small part in the Czech Republic, and another small region, which only became part of Silesia in 1815, part of Germany." ? john 23:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that they will become active again as soon as the article is unprotected. I would agree with the statement that we should only worry about people involved in the discussion, but my agreement won't be of any use if one of the partisans reverts the article one minute after its unprotection. By the way, I like your last suggestion. It should be acceptable to everyone. -- Baldhur 23:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

European names for the region

The so called "Silesian" name should not be mentioned before the Polish and German name. Only 0,7 % (Sic!) of the inhabitants of Silesia speak this dialect, and there does not exist any other encycklopedia which mention that name at all, so I would rather have deleted it or moved it to the demographics section. -- Nico 21:40, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, or how about mentioning the 4 non-English variants in alphabetical order? Like Czech, German, Polish, Silesian? --Ed
I think the name "Silesian" is misleading, so it shouldn't be mentioned in that way. "Silesian" could also refer to German as well as Polish. And according to the Britannica is that "language" only a Polish dialect. The issue could be described in the demograpics section. That would be far more simple. In any event, the Polish name should be mentioned first, not the Czech. -- Nico 21:50, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we just keep it as it was before, with the alternate name mentioned at the end of the first paragraph? As far as order of the names within parentheses, I think it should be Polish, German, Czech. Certainly Polish ought to be first. john 00:45, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And Silesian should definitely stay. The question whether it's a separate language or a dialect of Polish hasn't been solved since 19th century. For the Silesians themselves the case is very similar to the status of Catalonian before 1975 or even after that. The Kashubian language shares the same fate. Halibutt 12:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is it really the same as Catalan? That seems questionable to me - the Catalans have always been around. Certainly Catalan national questions were important during the Second Republic in the 30s, and probably before that. It seems to me that it's probably a lot more like the langue d'oc or like the various German dialects. Especially since so much of Silesia is now inhabited by Poles who had no connection at all to the region before 1945.john 17:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if the Bavarian nationalists insisted that their language be called Bavarian instead of German. However, the resemblance to Catalunya seems valid since the authonomy of Polish Silesia has been an issue ever since Poland regained independence in 1918. AAMoF the Silesian voivodship even gained some authonomy following the WWI and present-day Silesian nationalists propose the same.
I know that those issues are really tricky since most of the times they are resolved by politicians rather than linguists. Catalan was declared a dialect of Spanish by Franco, and even foreign publications often shared this view. Yet, today less people are willing to admit that the Catalan language does not exist. The same happened to Kashubian language: it was declared a dialect of Polish long ago in order to promote national unity. This attitude was strenghtened by German Kulturkampf and later the policies towards non-Germans during the occupation. Communist regime shared this view since it promoted a strange version of communist nationalism (Some sort of One Poland, One Nation, One Language, although expressed with different words). And now finally the language studies in Poland reached the times, when noone is finally banning the scientists from expressing other views on the language/dialect issue. That's why nowadays increasingly less people state that Kashubian, although practically impossible to understand for most of Poles, is a dialect of Polish.
The same, although to a lesser degree and on a much slower rate, happens in the case of Silesian. That's why I think that wikipedia should not take sides in this dispute that is still raging on in Poland and should not promote any views. Both concepts should be explained at the Silesian language page. However, since there are people, who call their language a Silesian language, we should accept their views here. After all it's them who live there.
P.S. I was obviously referring to the "Slavic Silesian", not to the various dialects of Czech, German or Polish spoken in the area at different periods in history. Halibutt 19:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Silesia after 1740

I've just found interesting page, where it is written, that in 1764 Landowners were forbidden for hiring people not knowing German, in 1765 it was forbidden to hire Polish teachers (but that decret had to be translated into Polish, because nobody had understood it), that he (Fryderyk The Great) even forbidden marriage between people not knowing German.. is it ubran legend or true? He also settled there 61.000 German settlers. Should we enter it into article or it would be onlu cause of revert wars? Szopen 10:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

No, it's probably not only urban legends. It reflects ideas of that time. Sweden-Finns had their own experience of similarly enforced assimilation, although the state of Sweden for all of the 17th and 18th centuries was a relatively modern country. ...but unless your source is either water-proofly credible, or available in English and highly credible (that is not quite as much as water-proofly ;-))) then I think you should be very careful to make too much out of it in Wikipedia, as it might act as a stimulus for people less interested in the authority of Truth and more of the Gloire Nationale of their favorite régime. /Tuomas 10:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

There was no "peace treaty" among the Soviet Union, Britain and the U.S. in 1945 giving the Oder-Neisse line definitive legal status. The Potsdam Declaration of Aug. 2, 1945, placed under Polish “administration,” but not sovereignty, Silesia east of the Oder-Neisse Line, but said “final limitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement,’’ which never occurred. The two western members of the Big Three did not formally accept the Soviet formulation of the border until decades later. West Germany agreed to it in principle in 1971 and Germany formally ratified it in 1990.

User:sca 10dec04

SCA, one question relating to "The Germans numbered 4 millions before 1939". Are you referring to total of Silesia population or to ethnic Germans? As you know, about million of German citizens declared themselves autochtones (almost all in Warmia, Mazury and Silesia) and stayed. Before 1939 different estimates were showing similar number of Polish minority. If your 4 million refers to citizens, I will remove it since it would be incorrect. Szopen 17:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Szopen, the prewar population of Silesia within the 1937 borders of Germany was 4.7 million. My reference to "about 4 million Silesian Germans" is an estimate, based in part on the impression from readings that most of the Polish Silesians were in eastern Upper Silesia, which had been part of Poland since 1921.

I don't know the details about the "autochthones" but again, based on readings, my impression is that most of them were in Upper Silesia, had to some extent been bilingual before the war, and declared themselves "autochthones" in order not to have to leave their homes, i.e. suffer expropriation and expulsion (not to mention violence).

The only sizeable German minority in Poland today, as you know, is in Upper Silesia. These people have surfaced (and been allowed to speak German in public) only since the collapse of Communism. As a Pole who is interested in these topics, you may perhaps remember their appearance during Kohl's visit in 1990 with a sign that read, "Helmut, du bist auch unser Kanzler" ("Helmut, you are our chancellor, too"). My impression is that these people are the descendents of the "autocthones" mentioned above who remain ethnic/cultural Germans.

User:sca 12dec04

Major cities

I have added Görlitz and Opava to the Major Cities section. Opava was the capital of Austrian Silesia, while Görlitz is part of the small section of Silesia in Saxony. It is arguable that Ostrava should be included as well, because part of the current city was once known as Silesian/Polish Ostrava. However, the more important part of the city, Moravian Ostrava, was part of Moravia. Olessi 01:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Eckersdorf in Silesia

An Indonesian public figure Franz Magnis-Suseno (born Franz Graf von Magnis) is said to have been born in Eckersdorf, Silesia. Someone told me once that this village is/was located in Glatz/Kłodzko but he was not sure. So can anybody please tell me where it is? Thanks. Meursault2004 09:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There were several places named Eckersdorf. If you mean Grafschaft Glatz/Kotlina Kłodzka: the Polish name is Bożków (See Polish Wikipedia: Bożków) http://www.grafschaft-glatz.de/bilder/neurode/eckers.htm http://www.zlb.de/digitalesammlungen/SammlungDuncker/14/828%20Eckersdorf.pdf

Do you think this person comes from Bożków? Because I see some mentions about Ekkehardisdorf and von Magnis. Many thanks man! Meursault2004 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The original entry Franz Magnis-Suseno contains the name Eckersdorf (Neurode), which is Bożków now. Xx236 08:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I did that :-) But I also wrote as a footnote that the present name is Bożków, Dolnoslaskie, Poland. Meursault2004 09:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Bluffs/2868/Rodokmeny/Magnis.txt The comments are unfortunately in Czech. 

 1.1.3.1.6.6.4.1.3.2.7.1.   MAGNIS, VON Maria Franz Anton Valerian Benedictus Ferdinand, (son of MAGNIS, VON Maria Ferdinand 
Constantin Stanislaus Anton Valerian Johannes and LÖWENSTEIN-WERTHEIM-ROSENBERG, ZU 
Maria-Anna Josepha Sophia Katharina Walburga Aloisia Antonia) born 26 May 1936 in Bozków 
(=Eckersdorf). 

knìz Societas Jesu - Pater Franz von Magnis

Xx236 09:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's him! Once again thanks! Meursault2004 10:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW what kind of website is this? He has lists of many families. Meursault2004 11:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's genealogy of the author. Xx236 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Arms and flag

Firstly it must be said that Silesia as a historical region hasn't an official coat of arms or a flag. Neither Image:Flagge Preußen - Provinz Oberschlesien.svg (reversed flag of Upper Silesia; it should be yellow-blue), nor Image:Flaga slaskie.gif (arms of the Voivodeship) are the right flags of this region. The flag of Silesia was white-yellow, Upper Silesia introduced the yellow-blue flag, as it became a province in 1919. The coat of arms used in the article was copied from the Czech coat of arms, but as it shows the right picture I think this isn't a problem, as long as there isn't a better version. --PetrusSilesius 19:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Better to remove with article the flag and coat of arms. OK. I deleted. LUCPOL 11:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In accord with the Munich Agreement that surrendered Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany.

The Munich Agreement didn't "surrender Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany". Xx236 10:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it did not.81.131.16.68 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

League of Nations plebiscite

The plebiscite, organised by the League of Nations, was held in 1921. The outcome was 706,000 votes for Germany and 479,000 for Poland, according to Polish estimates. German sources, and those of the League of Nations, give a wholly other impression.

If it was organised by the League of Nations, why aren't the League of Nations figures listed first? Whose Polish estimates? Wladyslaw Gomulka's? 136.186.1.117 04:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the League of Nations figures are the internationally accepted correct figures. Neither Germany nor Poland had any input. The Plebiscites were carefully monitored and published by the Allies. 81.131.16.68 16:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Groß-Rosen concentration camp

The article about the camp is Gross.... So eventually that article should be moved to Groß.... Xx236 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be moved to Groß. Ameise -- chat 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Government" site

Instead of citing "government" sites can you cite some historical sites? But anyway, even this site says that the lands inhabited by Polish tribes were united. Archeology says that they were reunited after over 100 years of separation. Space Cadet 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Lower Silesia vs. Upper Silesia

I don't know, but i think it's somehow misleading *not* to differ between Lower and Upper Silesia especially in the history section of the article. Although both a part of the same historical entity they vary greatly in the way they developed. The Piasts of Lower Silesia for example founded their monasteries with monks from Germany and Bohemia, whereas the Piasts of Upper Silesia called them from Poland. This had a HUGE impact on the developement of the country, since the monasteries were the centers of the colonisation and somehow illustrate the affiliation to a certain culture area. We can see the problems that arise when we not differ between Upper and Lower Silesia in the talk pages too. Nationalists from both sides (Poles and Germans) use either the upper or lower part of Silesia to push their agenda. It's confusing to find out which part some users mean when they talk about polish or german majorities in the late middle ages or something. For example, a user on this talk page points out that "polish scientist dr Alina Kowalska demonstrated that city and vilage people at silesia in XVI and XVII century know how to speak only in polish". Question is: in every part of Silesia? Which is somehow difficult to believe given the fact that many lower silesian towns or villages were founded by germans or switched to a german name in the middle ages because of the majority of germans there. A good source for it is this book, a collection of documents mainly of Lower Silesia and Upper Lusatia: http://www.literature.at/webinterface/library/ALO-BOOK_V01?objid=19012

I think at least a part of the history section should be splitted in Upper and Lower Silesia to better illustrate the different direction these two regions took. 84.181.107.43 09:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you! Lower Silesia didn't have any relevant Polish-speaking minority. In Upper Silesia, some German people spoke a certain "Polish dialect" but this didn`t bother that people to avow that they are Germans.

Actually, after WWII, many of that "Polish-speaking" Germans had to leave Upper Silesia, too. Some remained for doing forced labor.

Wikiferdi 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Peace conference

This Wikipedia article about Silesia states:

"Under the terms of the agreements at the Yalta Conference of 1944 and the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, German Silesia east of the rivers Oder and Lusatian Neisse Rivers was transferred to Poland (see Oder-Neisse line)."

In my opinion is this wrong. - Both (!) conferences (Yalta and Potsdam) demanded that the demarcation between Poland and Germany should be implemented by a forthcoming peace conference. You can read this clearly in the documents of that conferences.

Also James L. Gormly writes regarding the establishment of the Oder-Neisse Line: "The president (Truman) complained that there were now five occupation zones because the Soviets had turned over the area extending along the Oder and western Neisse to the Poles. This was in violation of the Yalta agreement. The president did not see how economic controls or reparations could operate if Germany was thus broken up." (p. 49)

James L. Gormly: From Potsdam to the COLD WAR. Big Three Diplomacy 1945-1947. Scholarly Resources Inc. Delaware, 1990 (ISBN 0-8420-2334-8)

James L. Gormly was educated at the University of Arizona and the University of Conneticut, from which he received a Ph.D. in history. The author of numerous articles on U.S. foreign relations, in 1987 he completed The Collapse of the Grand Alliance, 1945-1948.

He is currently a professor of history at “Washington & Jefferson College” in Washington, Pennsylvania.

Wikiferdi 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that peace conference never took place, so the demarcation lines decided at Potsdam became de facto borders. The peace conference could have overturned them, but there was no peace conference so they were never overturned. What is exactly the point you are trying to make?. Balcer 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The sticking point is, that the Allies didn't decide a border between Poland and Germany neither in Yalta nor in Potsdam. In Yalta Churchill opposed vehemently the Soviet proposal of a frontier at the Oder-Neisse Line. The U. S. in Yalta supported only a separation of East Prussia from Germany in favor of Poland. This is well-documented at the FRUS (Foreign Relations of the United States) [7]. And in Potsdam they couldn't imagine more territory given to Poland than to the eastern Neisse river (Glatzer Neisse / Kłodzko)[8]. The demarcation line drawn in Potsdam should have been just a temporarily one because the Soviets and their Polish Allie had already pegged out this line before the Potsdam conference. Potsdam decided that the border between Germany and Poland should be decided on a forthcoming peace conference (cf. Article IX). Potsdam acted clearly on the background of Germany in her borders of 31 December 1937. Silesia etc. were de facto annexed by the Soviets/Poland in violation of international law and not even "under the terms of Yalta and Potsdam".
This is what I am maintaining when I am criticizing the formulation as aforementioned.
Wikiferdi 00:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There was wide concensus among all the Allies that Poland had to be compensated for the territory it lost to the Soviet Union, and this was to be achieved by giving it German territory, not only a portion of East Prussia, but considerable areas in the west as well. There were some arguments over where precisely the new border would run (i.e. which Neisse river would the border etc.), but the general idea of extending Poland to the line of the Oder River was pretty much universally accepted (drawing a border along that major river was considred essential, to give Poland defensible borders with Germany). Restoring Germany within the 1937 border was not an option seriously considered. I think that your attempts to expand minor disputes over the detailed location of the border line into a full-blown claim that the Western Allies did not want to give Poland any German territory (except East Prussia) are totally unreasonable. Balcer 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"The U. S. in Yalta" - this is what I have written. Please read exactly. Well, during those other conferences they changed their mind in a certain way - just because Stalin (and his Polish cronies) leaned on them. - I didn't say that the Allies wanted to keep Germany in her borders of 1937. But in Potsdam they didn't decide any border. In "Article VI - CITY 0F KOENIGSBERG AND THE ADJACENT AREA" (cf. Potsdam Agreement) they declared:
"The Conference has agreed in principle to the proposal of the Soviet Government concerning the ultimate transfer to the Soviet Union of the City of Koenigsberg and the area adjacent to it as described above subject to expert examination of the actual frontier.
The President of the United States and the British Prime Minister have declared that they will support the proposal of the Conference at the forthcoming peace settlement."
Something similar they hadn't declared concerning the Oder-Neisse. In admitting that there were two Neisse rivers in consideration you shouldn't ignore that by "choosing" the eastern Neisse a large territory would have remained in Germany. And this was supported clearly by the western Allies - maybe just of economical reasons, because they didn't want to provide so many expected expellees with food... At least this was what Churchill said. - Wikiferdi 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A map isn't good

Where is Cieszyn Silesia? This is a part of historic Silesia! And a Lusatia isn't part of Silesia!! It was part of Silesia only 50 years - in Provinz Schlesien! --83.29.246.133 13:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC) wir

Zielona Gora in Dolny Slask? Maybe 50 years ago, but today it's called Ziemia Lubuska, especially by most inhabitants.. I came from Swiebodzin which formally was part of Silesia, but I always called this area "Lubuska land" and never felt any ties to Silesia.. Szopen 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The map is just fine

The boundaries shown on it match the ones in the external link, and also jibe with the text in the article. Kelisi 02:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The external map depicts the borders of the Prussian province of Silesia as of 1871. It does not take into consideration "Teschen", Hlučín, or Opava (the later Moravian-Silesian Region), all of which were in medieval Silesia. I'm not positive, but Ostrava could also be possibly included. The first Wiki map depicts Silesia within Germany in 1871, while the second Wiki map presents the medieval boundaries of Silesia (but without the later addition of parts of Lusatia). That is why I had changed the caption from Historic to Medieval. A proper "Historic Silesia" map would depict all of the territories that have been considered "Silesian". Olessi 08:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you know a source for that? I'd like to do it properly. Kelisi 19:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC).........Never mind. I've found one. Gimme a while and I'll change the map...........There you go. The new version still hasn't appeared, but I gather it will within a few minutes. There are now two Silesias outlined. Kelisi 04:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I was gathering these links while you were preparing that new map (which hasn't appeared yet). Shepherd's historical atlas has a few maps depicting Silesia: 1378 (notice Silesia extending into the Schwiebus area north of the Oder), 1477, 1547, 1648 (notice the enclave of Schwiebus in the north), 1786 (divided between Prussia/Austria). This 1378 map from the external link seems to depict Silesia at its furthest extant: the "middle" yellow color depicts the medieval Silesian duchies including Schwiebus/Świebodzin, the red depicts the Principality of Glatz/Kłodzko, and the light yellow within the red border to the left depicts the Upper Lusatian area added during the 19th century. I think it best to inquire with a Czech speaker whether or not Ostrava was ever Silesian. The town really only started to develop in the 19th century, and thus wasn't important enough to include on historical maps relating to medieval times. However, part of the town is "Silesian Ostrava". Olessi 04:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been able to get the thumbnail of the new map to work, but not the full image. It looks good to me so far, with the exception of the Schwiebus region presented on the 1378 maps. Olessi 04:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This detailed 18th century map shows Ostrava (Ostrau) on the border between Moravia and the Duchy of Teschen. Olessi 05:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Having looked at the 18th-century map, I see that Silesia's borders as defined thereon match the cyan border already on the map in the article, except for the Schwiebus exclave. I have therefore added that, and I would further suggest that we desist from adding any further lines to the map lest it become an indecipherable tangle of borders. The caption is already a bit tangled. I really only meant the map to be used as a locator so that readers could see just which part of Europe the article was going on about. Showing Silesia's limits at various times in history isn't a bad idea, but I would suggest separate maps for that. Kelisi 18:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for working on the maps. Olessi 18:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Did someone delete the map? It seems to be missing today. Lusanaherandraton 04:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking on Wikipedia to see if there were any pages written in Silesian vernacular, instead I found this. I have to say it's a disaster, Wikipedia will never work on subjects apparently so controversial as this one. I did not read everything in detail (emotionally destructive waste of time), but it seems to me that everybody has to say something on the subject except for Silesians themselves. A Silesian would never call himself either a German or a Pole. He would call himself a Silesian (Ślonzok), and he would call somebody like Nico (the Gentlemen of clearly German point of view) a "Dojcz", and somebody like... I forgot his name (the person with the Polish view) as "Gorol" - meaning a non-Silesian Pole (don't confuse with "Góral"). An ethinic Silesian is referred to by Germans as "a Pole" (unless of course he's a German speaker), and by Poles as a Silesian. He will plea his allegiance to either Poland, or to Germany depending on Political circumstances, but he will not and cannot reject neither. To use a term "German Piasts" is simply historical manipulation in the extreme akin to saying "Polish Hohenzollerns" when talking about the rulers of Ducal Prussia, because they paid tribute to a Polish King for a while. At the same time claiming exclussive Polishness of the region is ridiculous, even the Silesians themselves don't believe in it. I think the problem lies in this: who do you call a Silesian. It looks like according to Nico, only a German speaking inhabitant of Silesia, or a descendant of such has the right to call himself a Silesian. At the same time, any sign of Silesian ambiguity about it's relationship with Germany is seen by Poles as treason, and their language ridiculed. I think the best example of the problem is the person of Lukas Podolski, the recent hope of German soccer national team. Born in Gliwice/Gleiwitz, he is seen by (many) Poles as turncoat, and by Germans as a Pole who had a fortune of being granted German citizenship. I'll bet your house Nico, that the lad feels a part German and a part Pole. He is simply Silesian. With regards, Faustus.

You mean a part of Upper Silesians. The majority of Lower Silesians run away or were expelled 1945. Later totally new Polish community was created, with a number of Polish immigrants from France, Bosnia, Romania. Xx236 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

German names

German names of places are generally (very) old. There are however many names imposed in Germany since 1936 and in Poland since 1939. A reader should be informed if a name is 500 years old or was imposed by a Nazi administrator during WWII. Xx236 13:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a standard in most articles where cities had two names (German and Polish). The fact that the German name is in parenthesis should insinuate that they are no longer used -- I wouldn't say that most of them are 500 years old... Germany lost Silesia in WW2 (though they lost Upper Silesia in WW1). Ameise -- chat 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
...and gained Silesia in 1871. Space Cadet 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How did Germany "gain" Silesia in 1871, other than "gaining" its own existence as a country? Silesia had officially been part of Prussia since the end of the 7-Years War (1763) and de facto since 1742 or so.RogerLustig 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Germany lost a tiny bit of Silesia (Hlučin) directly after WW I and a more substantial portion a few years later. But most of O/S (as it was abbreviated then) remained German until 1945.RogerLustig 05:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The longest historical period of Silesia was under Polish and Bohemian kingdoms. Thus conversation is over, but according wiki policies other names should be included in the parenthesis alphabetically. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tulko, I am glad the conversation is over. But, before you unilaterally conclude for all, can you please tell us where you source your "longest historical period..." information from? Thanks--Agrofe 02:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish merchants in the cities

Although part of the Holy Roman Empire, Silesia continued to have strong economic ties, especially through the Jewish merchants in the cities, with the neighbouring Kingdom of Poland during the Renaissance period and beyond.

This is a little misleading. By ca. 1500, Jews had been expelled from most of Silesia; the imperial expulsion of 1582 allowed them to reside only in two cities: Glogau in Lower Silesia, Zülz in Upper Silesia. Brilling estimates the total Jewish population of Silesia in 1600 at 120 people. (Die jüdischen Gemeinden Mittelschlesiens, p. 4.) Not until the end of the 17thC did Breslau start to have a Jewish community again.

To be sure, the Jews of Glogau and Zülz were important for trade, and the Zülz Jews served as "local Jewish merchants" for Breslau, Oppeln and elsewhere. But most of the Jewish merchants who kept the economic ties strong were from the Polish cities.RogerLustig 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Casimir III

There is no reliable source why Casimir III should have been "forced" to renounce definitely to Silesia (1335). Therefore I have deleted this word in the article.

Wikiferdi 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Plebiscite in Upper Silesia

Under the section “Interwar period” I replaced the phrase “according to the right on self-determination” with “contrary to the stipulations of the referendum and therefore contrary to the right on self-determination”.

Reason:

Before the referendum was held it had been clear that if the majority of the voters in Upper Silesia votes for Poland Upper Silesia comes to Poland. Otherwise, if the majority votes for Germany Upper Silesia shall remain in Germany. So these had been the stipulations for this plebiscite.

The decision of the League of Nation to split the region by applying now another standard was contrary to the stipulations and contrary to the right on self-determination of the Upper Silesians!

Wikiferdi 02:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for that, otherwise it's original research. —AldeBaer 12:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Roma

Are there no Roma (gypsies) in Silesia?

In Czech part I´m sure, that many Roma living in Ostrava. Yopie 22:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

New changes

Dear LUCPOL, please clarify your POV. I don´t understand you (I assume, that you are voter for Bros. Kazcinski). Silesia was integral part of Crown of Bohemia and thus all treaties were between King (Queen) of Bohemia and King in Prussia and this was under ratification of Bohemian Diet. For reasons for Czech military operations in 1919 please see article "Zaolzie"(Its not edited by me). Yopie 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

repeat request for discourse on POV charges
Silesia/Archive 8 (edit talk links history)
  • Ditto, as per this at Talk:LUCPOL, regarding his reverts of my and Yopie's edits... All resulting from an edit by me attempting to polish the English up to a more readable form. // FrankB 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Think per moment. It is straight line here to find out about what it walks. PS. Very curious me - that two persons is not come from Silesia, they introduce identical information to article Silesia. LUCPOL 14:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
LUCPOL, why author of article about Silesia must be from Silesia? That means, if I want write about ancient Egypt, I must be Egyptian? Secondly, I´m from Silesia, my family was lords and princes in Silesia and I own very nice castle in Czech Silesia. I can prove that my ancestors were in Silesia for 900 years. If you want play with this, you cannot win :-) Yopie 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hehehe ;) PS. It walked me about this - that two persons is not come from Silesia, they introduce identical information to article Silesia". This be suspicious ;) Not important. Let's finish this discussion. LUCPOL 15:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's curious I admit (But my grandparents were likely peasants, alas! Such things don't count here in America, thank the Lord! heh heh Damnit! heh heh heh heh--it would be nice to have an estate and not have to work!), but all I added was well known information to history buffs like myself and tidied up the structure of the sentences so the links weren't overwhelming—I've no idea of the timeline between the two of you or your interpersonal history, but as I recall, I was link checking from Polands' Vasa Monarchs and one page lead to another, and here I was. I do a lot of what I call "Integration edits"—making sure links make sense in their context and fixing up this and that when I see something that strikes me as needing work; which is usually a phrasing change such as this. Shrug.
The thing which REALLY REALLY bothers me is your readiness to revert, and concurrently claim pov without (even now) justifying your edit summaries of that accusation. Reverting is a last resort, not a way to control content or settle disputed wording, but should only be used to combat vandalism. Any other use is shear laziness and an abuse of the capability—that's how edit wars start. By my standards, you owe both of us an apology and certainly need to stop reverting and charging pov, unless you can back it up. Since I gave you templates to use for that, please do so from now on. I consider the matter settled, so good luck. Best wishes to all. // FrankB 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Should a fringe movement be in the lead ?

Should Silesian Autonomy Movement be in the lead ? It is a fringe movement similar to Bavaria Party, which isn't in the lead about Bavaria. In failed to get into parliamenent, is limited to Upper Silesia and doesn't involve Lower, German, and Czech Silesia. In elections in 1991 it out of circa 9.000.000 population living in Silesia it received 26,357 votes. I really don't think such marginal movement that even doesn't deal with the whole Silesia should be in the lead. What do you think ?--Molobo (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

While it can be mentioned somewhere in the article, including it in the lead does seem imbalanced. Olessi (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless it can be shown that this is an extremly numerous and popular organization, I agree with Molobo it is fringe (and as somebody who grew up in Katowice and almost never heard of it, I think he is quite right it is rather fringe).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I restored the piece at the end of the "history" section. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some remarks

First of all, I'm new here and since this is a rather delicate topic i prefer to start on the discussion page. ;)

1) Etymology
- "Archaeological finds from the 7th and 8th centuries have uncovered former largely populated areas"
Really? I would love to see a source for this. Maybe my knowledge is outdated, but from what I know the finds from the early slavic period are rather limited.
BTW: most of these archaeological finds were lost after the war (the Sielsian Museum of applied arts and antiquities in Breslau/Wroclaw for example) and it's therefore difficult to pass a judgement.

2) Protestant Reformation
- This section is misleading. The Silesian Protestants received help from many countries, not just the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Brandenburg and Saxony did the same, especially Brandenburg, which was devastated after the Thirty Year War and needed skilled people. They also built around 150 Protestant "Grenzkirchen" (border churches) next to Silesia.
- The utterly important "Friedenskirchen" (churches of peace) and "Gnadenkirchen" (churches of mercy?) aren't mentioned at all!
- The role of Prussia as the liberator of the Protestants and the force which finally brought religious freedom to Silesia isn't mentioned either. And I miss the "Bethauskirchen" too, a type of church which was built in almost every village right after the Prussian conquest, many times directly opposite the older Catholic churches.
- Maybe it could be also mentioned that the mix of Protestants and Catholics, which was pretty unique in Europe, came to an end after 1945.

3) Thirty Years' War
- the paragraph about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Polish szlachta is completely unnecessary. It is a minor episode without any consequence for Silesia or the Thirty Years War.
Silesia was a Protestant region within the Holy Roman Empire and therefore, like Bohemia, an important scene in the war... yet this article tells me exactly zilch about it. Where is Waldstein/Wallenstein, where is Mansfeld, where is, for instance, the defense of Protestant Breslau against the Catholic Emperor?

4) Kingdom of Prussia
- the claim that German had become the only popular language in Lower Silesia by that time is of course correct, but a nice twist of facts. The switch from Latin (Polish was never widely used in documents) to German in documents took place between 1300 and 1400, and by 1500 Lower Silesia was as German as Saxony or Brandenburg. More then enough records, for instance about the revolt in Breslau/Wroclaw in 1420 or about local crimes in Schweidnitz/Swidnica from 1315-1378, proof this. Small linguistic enclaves however remained until 1945 (Czechs were expelled too).

5) Napoleonic Wars
- Nothing about it! Silesia was a centre of resistance against Napoleon. The Lützow Free Corps (and other Freikorps), the Landwehr, Blücher, the connection to German Romanticism (Eichendorff, Körner) etc.. Karasek (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. Make edits you think are appropriate and see what happened. None of this seems unreasonable to me. john k (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Silesia

The history section should be split into subarticle, per WP:SUMMARY.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. There should be a separate, more structured, history section. The current section could be shortened and new sections, like economy or arts (literature, architecture) could be added. Karasek (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical region

I agree with Darwinek, that Silesia is historical region of Poland, Czech lands, Germany and Austria. Yopie 09:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I don't know why people keep deleting these categories.--Kotniski (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest using the German names for the historically "German" periods of history with contemporary Polish or Czech names second. For most of the region's history these names applied. It seems strange and revisionist to use the contemporary names when the historical names could be employed here first. An example being Breslau and the modern Wroclaw... etc.

Not for most region´s history were used German local names. From beginning till 1742 they were Polish and Czech, and this is circa 800 years, from 1742 till 1945 German (203 years) and now Polish. Of course, in Austrian / Czech Silesia is situation little different. Yopie 12:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
You claim that the German Ostsiedlung actually didn't happen in Silesia and the region was Germanized after the Prussian takeover? And you can prove it, right?
These states weren't modern nation states with official languages, and just because Silesia was part of different states the people living there didn't suddenly became ethnic Czechs, Poles, Czechs again, Hungarians(!), Austrians and Prussians. At first they were Slavs/Poles, and between the 12th and 15th century they became Germans. This is easily comprehensible by old documents, which switch from Latin to German between 1300 and 1400. It is rather odd to call a Silesian city in a historical context by it's modern name when the city itself used the German name since the Middle Ages. There are a few series of transcription books of old Silesian documents and records which cover this topic pretty well, for instance Scriptores Rerum Silesiacarum and Codex Diplomaticus Silesiae.
To me it's quite simple: Polish names until 1163. Polish and German names during the time of the independent duchies to reflect the impact of the Ostsiedlung, German names after the takeover by Bohemia and again Polish names after 1945.Karasek (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
So, you claim, that medieval states don't have official language? BTW: Silesia was not part of Hungary, Corvinus ruled here as king of Bohemia. --Yopie 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Corvinus is more complicated, I just wanted to illustrate my point. ;)
About the official language: to be honest, I have no idea. But I think it's all a bit more complicated then we like to think. Bohemia was part of the HRE. Does it mean we have to use German names for all places in Bohemia? No, because the HRE was a multi-ethnical entity and Bohemia was not a German country (even though there was a growing German influence over the centuries). Silesia was part of Bohemia. Was Silesia Czech? No, at that time it was already predominantly German, and because of this the entire Bohemian realm (with it's possessions Lusatia and Silesia) was multi-ethnical too. The choice of names should somehow reflect the ethnical and cultural belonging. Andreas Gryphius born in Glogow sounds as wrong to me as Bedrich Smetana born in Leitomischl probably to you. Karasek (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems that editing out the German or the historical names of the 18 duchies exposes the Polish revisionist at work in this site! Since the majority of Silesia became ethnically German by year 1300! The Piasts while Polish converted to use German (see Ostsiedlung above!) the whole nonsense of trying to portray the entire medieval history of the region like this is a throw back to the days of the Communists and their revisionism in the Peoples Republic... I thought people had gotten over this pretending that Silesia was Polish for most of its history! REVISIONISM is not good history. oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.192.49 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

People in Territory of and around Slesia Silesia on Historical Maps

1. GERMANIAE VETERIS Map by W.J.Blaeu 1634 Tribes in Ancient Germania

2. Germania 1493 Map incl Slesia (Silesia) Hartmann Schedel

3. Silesia in (Holy Roman Empire] Germany on Map 1634] W.J. Blaeu (70.133.74.161 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

german names of cities in city list

Hi i dont understand why the german names may not be mentioned in italics in the city list with the biggest cities. I wrote all the names in the list, but all the time, my version is being deleted. Mentioning the german names of the cities just enriches the article and gives more information at a glance. Jadran91 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If it's felt there's too much in that table, I suggest taking out the coats of arms.--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. The German names are quite commonly encountered in English, so it's very useful for readers to be able to see them at a glance. john k (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In 1905, a census showed that 75% of the population was German and 25% Polish.

Population of German Silesia. Xx236 13:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite your sources please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If it is true it deffinitely regards only to Prussian Silesia, not Austrian Silesia (Opava and Cieszyn Silesia) with Czech population... D_T_G (PL) 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think he is talking about the whole Silesia - 25% Poles in whole Silesia seems totally correct, since most of them were in Upper Silesia and Opole region, while elsewhere were almost absent..Szopen 12:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
What a dazy :O So I live at the part of Silesia where had never lived Czech, and what is ever more pert here didn't lived Poles cause inherently it's not Upper Silesia in my point of view :P So maybe I'll repeat: what about Czechs, Jews and others? This article is about whole Silesia - not only Prussian/German... D_T_G (PL) 15:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Census" - probably a German one, so only in Prussian Silesia. Xx236 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This contradicts several other, better cited articles in en wikipedia. Please add some fitting template to make people know that this paragraph is not of best quality, and perhaps rework it. I suppose you could find a lot of good and cioted informations in Silesia and Silesian Uprisings. Really, this seems like anti-polish propaganda. Thanks, bye. 11:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)62.61.58.183 (talk)

Military occupations and liberations

I would think that terms like (military) occupation and liberation are best avoided in the description of the recent history of Silesia. It rather apparent to me that they depend on the point of view in an area such as Silesia. There are other terms in the English language that can be 

used to describe the facts in more NPOV, e.g., take, acquire.  Cheers.  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


The map is okay but could offer a chronolgical look at the region in history. German names are very useful and ommision smackes of the ueber-nationalism that led to the ethnic bloodshed between the the people of the region in the first place be it German or Polish. The area spent most of its history as an integral part of the German speaking world. Deal with it! That also means that Upper Silesia is a kind of crossover rgion with a wonderful mix of many different cultures and a language of its own! wondering why no historical arms or flags are not present?

Afterall since they polish authorities went to the extent of removing german tombstones and graves after the war, lets not let this mindset of historical revisionism pollute and otherwise good page! peace my european brothers! It is all Europe and one planet in the end!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silesia/Archive_8&oldid=1142319055"