Talk:1921 in Germany

Would you please introduce some headlines in order to make the text readable ?

I'm sorry if you can't read text without "headlines". But the problem is on your end. --Wik 11:00, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think that the chpter about Upper Silesia is POV. The Silesian sqads are called bands, as the example. Cautious 15:57, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done! Cautious 11:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cautious, why don't you quit with the reversions? As it stands, however justified your concerns about POV in the current article may be (and I think that an article based largely upon contemporary material is likely to be at least somewhat POV) what it looks like now is that you're taking a well written, detailed article and cutting out detail and making it poorly written. As long as it continues to appear that way, you're probably going to get reverted. What are your specific concerns about the article? Perhaps you can enlist someone who is more gifted with the English language to help make changes. john 22:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"However, most of area of Upper Silesia voted for Poland." That's wrong, as mentioned some lines above in this article. Most regions in the plebiscite area had a majority for germany, although some of them had a large polish minority. Interesting: Some parts with german majority (the industrial region) were transfered to poland, while some other parts with polish majority (more rural region) remained in germany. Somebody should fix this here. Nankea from german wikipedia 07:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Cautious keeps mucking up the text with poorly written POV inaccuracy. I've reverted to an earlier version. Cautious, please don't make major changes to the article and disguise them with the summary "more copyediting". john 07:39, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, you also reverted my changes. Do you consider links to the cities cited in the article POVed? The present version is defintely POV, the only difference is that it's the German POV. The article is filled with sentences like:

The result of the plebiscite was a great surprise for Poland and her friends. - friends? Why not complices?
The insurrection began on the date planned early in May, after the population had already been terrified by many acts of violence. - it suggests that it were the Poles who formed the Grenzschutz.
The Inter-Allied Commission, in which General Henri Le Rond was the most influential personage, waited a long time before taking any step to oppose the campaign of robbery and devastation which Wojciech Korfanty's bands had set on foot. - any prove? Any reference? Anything that could prove ths right? I love the bands part the most, it definitely is objective...Halibutt 14:35, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The original article is from a contemporary account of some sort. I agree that it has serious problems. I am sorry that I reverted your links to cities, as well, but they were piggybacked on Cautious's changes. There needs to be a thorough review of this article, but Cautious is absolutely not the person to make changes, and I think the changes ought not be based on massive deletions and poorly written POV replacement text. I'll try to make some changes. john 16:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, please don't call my changes vandalism. I'm sorry I removed your addition of links, but I was mostly reverting Cautious's version, which he has been attempting to push on the article for a while, and been repeatedly reverted (mostly by Wik, who has generally favored the Polish POV more than I have). At any rate, I'll try to fix up the text to make it less obnoxious to Poles. john 16:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you. However, your action perfectly fits my definition of wikipedia vandalism: senseless reverting of someones' version wthout paying attention to what he or she actually wrote. Let's just forget it and try to be more constructive next time, shall we. Halibutt 18:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your definition of vandalism is a rather idiosyncratic one. I would agree that I should have made sure to save the links you had made when reverting, but that doesn't make it vandalism - it was thoughtless, though. At any rate, how do you find my edits to the page? Does it lessen the problems? john 19:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Indeed it's much better now. However, the whole article needs more attention.Halibutt

Hmm, probably. I kind of feel like the old school, utterly POV, English kind of writing has its charms, as long as the POV isn't offensive (as the stuff on Silesia certainly was). john 00:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"However, most of area of Upper Silesia voted for Poland." That's wrong, as mentioned some lines above in this article. Most regions in the plebiscite area had a majority for germany, although some of them had a large polish minority. Interesting: Some parts with german majority (the industrial region) were transfered to poland, while some other parts with polish majority (more rural region) remained in germany. Somebody should fix this here. Nankea from german wikipedia 07:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suppose that I am right, but I don't have a proof. If the major cities voted by some majority for Germany and rural areas for Poland, most of area of Upper Silesia must have voted for Poland. If you try to balance pro-German votes of some dense populated areas with pro-Polish votes of some rural areas, you need to have much more area voting for Poland. However, most regions (meaning combined cities + rural areas) could have voted for Germany. Do you have some more specific data, separating also Silesian emigrants (voting mostly for Germany, but at the time of plebiscite lliving outside the area?

By the way, in history of autonomous Silesian Voivodship, Germans never got more then 33% of votes. Somebody can try to explain the difference between the plebiscite and later elections? I suppose that the plebiscite was performed in the atmosphere of violence and mostly from German side... Cautious 16:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Although only 40% had voted for Poland in the plebiscite, by the decision of the Council of the League of Nations Poland obtained almost exactly half of the 1,950,000 inhabitants, viz., 965,000, but not quite a third of the territory, i.e., only 321,426 ha (1,255 sq mi) out of 1,095,089 ha (4,265 sq mi). "

This full of grievance sentence is POV. Why? German majority in the plebiscite was made up by emigrants, that didn't actually live in the province. If you give 48% of population living there to Poland and from results of the plebiscite is clear the similar number people voted for Poland, it is fair I think. What a problem for a men from Bochum, that Chorzow was given to Poland? If the regions voting for Poland in majority only were given to Poland, most Poles would remain in Germany, despite their voting. The next point is that the eventual division was prapared by some comitee of neutral countries. This way is fair I think, but it is omitted in the text.

Another POV of the text is that clear conclusion is that Grenzshutz was formed by the volunteers from outside and it is why this was banned. The ban however was not equally placed on Silesian troops, and an inteligent reader can find out why. Simply it was not a problem. However, the text reverts this and makes impression of not fair treating of Germans. From the text it is not clear, that taking part in the fighting by Brits and Italians was breaching neutrality.

Another point: taking into account Prussian census and the results of the plebiscite, it is clear that at least some group of Poles voted for Germany. The secret is why?

The result of the plebiscite was a great surprise for Poland and her friends. Simply this is POV statement based on some kind assumptions. It is assumed that Poles expected better result and Poles failed. The sentence makes Poles loosers. The whole text is aimed to make impression, that they were loosers, but unfair decisions of foreign powers made them partly winners without their own achievements. This is clear POV. Why don't we state, that for few centuries Germans believed that Silesia is German, and suddenly the guerilla army rises against them, half milion voters against. I am sure they were surprised! It is better to remove such a clear subjective "POV-builders" and talk about facts.

The whole text is German plebsicite propaganda. I think that we cannot avoid POV, but at least try to make some balance. Cautious 17:07, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One example Tost-Gleiwitz: one of the kreise that wasn't eventually given to Poland. According to statistics, out of 100 places, merely 10 voted for Germany. Yes, those 10 were cities and it gave German side a lot of votes. What I said is true: most of area of voted for Poland. http://www.oberschlesien.de/Abstimmung/tostgleiwitz.html Cautious 17:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As someone 'new to this page' I will rewrite it - long sentences etc. Is there a standard layout for this topic/area?

Jackiespeel 17:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

References[edit]

As part of the Cleanup Project, I am heavily editing this article. I see absolutely 0 citing of sources. So I am removing anything that is real specific in terms of numbers. If someone wants to restore that stuff, that is fine, but PLEASE cite some references. --Woohookitty 05:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)