Talk:Silesia/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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:

  • Turn Silesia into a stub and work from there
  • Create an alternate stub, like Silesia (moderated)

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)

Click here to see the map uploaded by Caius2ga


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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/l/Talk%7ESilesia_Archive_8_8054.html"