Talk:History of Wrocław

Some "to do"
The History of Silesia, Silesia and Lower Silesia articles seem to have a 'cleaner' feel to them. Perhaps it is worth reading and comparing, and seeing what content and what organization they have, if any, that can be used to improve this article. Jd2718 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not Germans?
"A different thesis is presented by Norman Davies who writes that it is wrong to portray people of that time as Germans as their identities were those of Saxons and Bavarians."

Since when are Saxons and Bavarians not Germans? Digestible (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Mr. Davies wrote a book about the city on behalf of the city council, which lately adopted a new view on the history of the city. ;)
 * Of course we can add a huge number of sources which calls them German, but I doubt that Mr. Davies view will disappear. Karasek (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Polish prisoners ... were executed by guillotine
Only the ones from annexed lands, not the ones from GG or East, who were murdered in many ways.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jews under the Nazis
The Jews were robbed and expelled: Stefanie Zweig (see Nowhere in Africa), Walter Laqueur. The New Synagogue (Wrocław) was destroied during the Kristallnacht - both articles should be linked.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Poland

 * POV, all Poles did was allegedly wrong. But it was much better than in Russia and in many aspects better than in the GDR.
 * The part about post-war migrations (The population of Wrocław was soon ...) misinforms.Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. "I don't like it" is not enough. 93.220.169.46 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Evacuation 45
The evacuation could not possibly have taken place in March as the city was cut of in mid-Feb.Citylane (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) January and FebruaryXx236 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Norman Davies
Currently Norman Davies is cited with the claim that "German historiography portrays the Mongol attack as an event which eradicated the Polish community". I know a few modern German books, and not a single one claims this. Pre-war publications sometimes did. Most modern German and Polish sources I know agree on the issue.

The second citation of Davies is equally strange. The city was Germanized, but the people were no Germans but Bavarians or Saxons? Did they speak Bavarian and Saxon? Does the fact that these people maybe didn't identify themselves as Germans (how do we know?) change the fact that a Polish-speaking city turned into a German-speaking city? The claim moreover contradicts with 1, 2 and 3.

The first claim by Davies in my view was solely added to construct a conflict here, since nowhere in the article a German source actually states that all Poles were killed in the attack (why then add Davies?). And Davies' argument that "Polish settlements remained, and Polish names appear on regular basis, including among Wrocław's ruling elite" simply describes the nature of the Ostsiedlung in Silesia. I don't think German historians disagree here. The second claim by Davies is simply confusing to the reader and conflicts with other Wiki articles. 93.220.169.46 (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted these claims by Davies now to make the article more readable. The remark about the German historiography doesn't belong here since no such German source is used here anyway, and I deleted the Bavarians and Saxons since they contradict other Wiki articles.93.220.177.247 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see No Original Research. Davies is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly is original research for you? Could you please at least answer my questions before you restore Davies?! Just for you:
 * 1. Davies claims German historiography portrays the Mongol attack as an event which eradicated the Polish community. Is such a German source used in the article? Does any source in the article state this? Or is this article about German historiography? So, why is Davies' statement needed here?
 * 2. did you notice that Davies' claim that medieval Bavarians and Saxons weren't Germans is not supported by other relevant Wiki articles like 1, 2 and 3? Should we add that medieval Poles weren't Poles either (I happily provide a Czech source if needed) but Polish-speaking Slavs and create a battlefield about something which is absolutely irrelevant to the article? 93.220.177.247 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Original research: your contention that "I know a few modern German books, and not a single one claims this.". Maybe, just maybe, Prof. Davies is familiar with a wider range of books than yourself. With regard to the second point, you're obviously committing the fallacy of equivocation. They weren't Germans in the modern sense, which is what I believe he's saying. And consider that it might be other Wikipedia articles that got it wrong (particularly the Ostsiedlung one) rather than this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But you still didn't answer my question: there is no (German) source in the article that states that all Poles were eradicated by the attack, and this article isn't about German historiography either. So, why is Davies' claim needed?
 * And the second point: Poles weren't Poles in the modern sense either. Back then the Polish and Czech language were almost the same, and in medieval times the modern concept of nationality didn't exist. For the sake of understandability we call medieval speakers of the German language Germans, and speakers of Polish Poles. If we draw such a fine line here we have to add that medieval Poles in the city were actually not Poles but Slavs who spoke proto-Polish and could be considered Czechs too. Do you want that? I don't, since the article will become a big mess.
 * And btw.: Davies is a respected expert on Polish history, but not on Silesia and German historiography. 93.220.177.247 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It describes the German historiography in regards to the history of the city.
 * On the whole Bavarians thing let me look up the exact quote to see what exactly he's saying.
 * He's respected enough on Silesian and German historiography.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Polish Piasts - disputed quote
"The Polish Piast dynasty remained in control of the region, however their influence declined continuously as the self-administration rights of the city council increased."

This quote is misleading. After 1200 Poland fragmented into five principalities, later Silesia fragmented even more and didn't return to reunited Poland. These Piasts didn't rule Poland but smaller independent duchies, and the Piasts who ruled Silesia are known as Silesian Piasts. The source for this quote was moreover published in the PR Poland, a state whose historiography was controlled by the Communist authorities, which propagated the Piast concept as the reason for the present Polish borders. No sources published in German and Polish authoritarian regimes should be used here. Karasek (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Silesian Piasts were Polish Piasts. Some of them were even High Dukes of Poland.
 * We've been through the question of pre-1990 Polish sources many times on WP:RSN before, as you are well aware since, IIRC, you participated in those discussion. You can't remove the source or tag it frivolously simply out of a IDON'TLIKEIT.
 * Also, how about providing some quotes to support/verify the text you've pushed into the article recently?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. No, we usually use the term Silesian Piasts for the Piasts who ruled Silesia here. Přemyslids were high dukes too, which didn't make them Polish. Polish has a ethnic connotation here, something which was intended by the Commie source.
 * 2. if Polish Commie sources are OK I can use some older German sources too. Good to know.
 * 3. the text I "pushed" into the article was a compromise to end this stupidity about Germans being no Germans. Looks like some people are more interested in battles though, which make parts of this article almost unreadable. I only follow the examples of others now. If you need quotes please add a tag. Karasek (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "we usually use" We? What group are you talking about? Scholars often use the term Polish dynasty of Piasts or Polish Piasts.
 *  if Polish Commie sources are OK I can use some older German sources too. Good to know. I see no source of Polish Communist Party inserted. The debate about using pre-89 sources was made several times, and they are perfectly fine.
 * No sources published in German and Polish authoritarian regimes Please don't compare Poland to Nazi Germany which was totalitarian racist state engaged in unparalleled genocide of other nations.If you are talking about German Empire than sources from that period are regrettably indeed used by some editors regarding Polish topics, despite the racist climate and attitude of that authoritarian state towards Polish people.
 * was a compromise to end this stupidity about Germans being no Germans. Please don't insult scholars like Norman Davies.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, we usually use the term Silesian Piasts for the Piasts who ruled Silesia here - uhh, no, we usually don't. Who is this "we" you're talking about? Using "Silesian Piasts" in this context would be very much like using "Mazovian Piasts" to refer to somebody like Władysław I the Elbow-high (he was a "Mazovian Piast" - but that's not the main thing he was, he is known for being King of Poland, as these "Silesian Piasts" are known for being High Dukes of Poland and the like). Since the historical subject is the feudal fragmentation of Poland yeah a lot of these guys ruled regional principalities so you can get quite particular about it. I guess this kind of sub-sub-sub-categorization would make sense for somebody who ruled a town or two, but here we are talking about Dukes who were also considered "Senior", i.e. as having at least de jure feudal rights for all of Poland. The fact that some editors have been pushing this completely anachronistic and irredentist POV line that "Silesian Piasts" were not "Polish Piasts" during this time (go forward 200 years or so and you might have an argument here - but Wikipedia is not a time machine to rewrite history) is a problem, not something to emulate. Hell, that's part of what got some of these editors banned here - and then when that user got banned you showed up restoring his edits (for the record, I do not think in any way that you two are the same person - you just seem to be supporting him all of sudden, shortly after his ban, for some reason).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the essence of POV:
I mean this edit. Yes, the information is in the given source (in fact, it's a quote). But NPOV requires the presentation of all relevant, non-fringe viewpoints. As can be seen from the article on the book Microcosm: Portrait of a Central European City, "The majority of reviewers were very positive about the book.". If you don't like that sentence, then the examples of English Historical Review and of Antony Beevor should be sufficient to establish that what we have in THIS particular case, is one particular review of the work - the Loew and Irgang one - being cherry-picked out of all the possible existing reviews that could be included in this text. Searching around the web, it's not that hard to find many other positive reviews. Cherry picking sources is in fact a form of POV pushing.

Now, in these situations there's two things that can be done. One is to include the other legitimate opinions - which here would entail listing all the other, positive, reviews. Or to just remove the cherry picked review as undue. Which one should be done depends on the article topic. THIS particular article should NOT be a place to hash out the merits of the book - it has its own article for that. Otherwise we'd pretty much have to create a special section just devoted to Davies' and Moorhouse's book. It has had A LOT of reviews and has been very popular. So, since this isn't the place for this kind of thing, I suggest just removing these cherry picked statements.

Proceeding to do so...

 Volunteer Marek  11:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You use a source extensively, omit any criticism and call that neutral? That's funny HerkusMonte (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What's funny about it? It's a notable, widely praised source on the topic of the article. Pretty much EVERY source on EVERY topic in the world has had been criticized by SOMEONE. The source is RS, non-controversial and has had lots of positive reviews. You cherry picked one review which is critical and unrepresentative because you personally dislike the Davies source, it seems.  Volunteer Marek   17:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about what I dislike. "Neutrality" doesn't mean to erase critical views and praise selected works. (BTW, it's not just one review) HerkusMonte (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, where do you see "praise" of this particular "selected work" in this particular article? The article simply uses the text as a source, and even attributes the opinion to the author (which, honestly, is probably not even necessary). "Neutrality" does mean not presenting a skewed view of a particular reliable source simply because one dislikes what it says.  Volunteer Marek   17:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

More recent history
Worth adding is stuff from the first Solidarity period, martial law and afterward: Orange Alternative, Fighting Solidarity, Tymczasowa Komisja Koordynacyjna (needs an article) and probably several other things I'm forgetting about...  Volunteer Marek  19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am working on history, but understandably that will take some time.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits of user MyMoloboaccount
User MyMoloboaccount used Davies' "Microcosm" as the primary source for his edits. Strangely Davies' statements and user MyMoloboaccount edits rarely match.

1. the statement "However, in light of historical research this is doubtful, as many Polish settlements remained, and Polish names appear on regular basis, including among Wrocław's ruling elite" should be found somewhere on page 114 in Davies' Microcosm. First of all, page 114 deals with the Hussite wars, which were around 1430, whereas the ref is used for a time 200 years earlier. The whole page deals with several people of the Hussite war, but hardly mentions people from Breslau. And the only Pole is a starosta and Hussite leader from Niemptsch/Niemcza.

2. "Despite the Germanisation the city remained multi-ethnic." should be found somewhere on page 110. Sorry, but the only thing I can find is this: "As a result, his rule (Charles IV) possessed a strongly cosmopolitian flavour, as he sought to steer a middle course between the predominant Germanity of the empire and the predominant Czech character of the kingdom."

3. "The issue was closed only in 1372; and while the city lost political ties to Polish state, it remained connected to Poland by religious links and existence of Polish population within it." on page 103. The lost political ties are mentioned, the religious links are mentioned, but not the Polish population within it. This can be found on the next page, where a "distinct, but shrinking Polish community" is mentioned. On the same page, in the same sentence, it is mentioned that the city cut all political links to Poland in 1327, yet this isn't mentioned.

4. Page 182 is used 4 times in the article, always to prove a Polish minority in the city during the 16th and 17th century. This time the referenced can be found in the book. Davies however speaks about a "small Polish community living on the margins of Presslaw". The two mentioned priests were "obscure", the "one or two lowly parishes on the periphery"... "struggled to keep their tiny schools in being and whose very existence would hardly be noticed in the gilded chambers of the Rathaus." Why are two obscure priests on the periphery notable? WP:DUE

5. "The Polish community faced a lot of pressure and the attitude of local government was generally more unfriendly than for example Berlin." on page 305. The actual reference is on page 304. Here is the quote "And it (Breslau) was less friendly to Poles and Czechs, or to unassimilated Jews, than Berlin was". Why aren't Czechs and Jews mentioned?

6. "Notable Poles from that period include Adam Asnyk and the poet Jan Kasprowicz, who portrayed the life of the city in his works, and was arrested by German police for his underground political activities." on page 294-295. He was arrested "for belonging to a secret Socialist society". And he was only 2 or 3 years in the city. Why is he mentioned? WP:DUE

7. "After First World War the Polish community starting having masses in Polish in Churches of Saint Anne and since 1921 in St. Martin church; Polish consulate was opened, additionally a Polish School was formed by Helena Adamczewska." on page 361. This time the facts are backed up by the book, but on the same page the book says "The Polish community dropped from a meagre 4-5.000 in 1918 to a statistically insignificant residue two decaded later". Undue weight maybe??? And what's so special about a Polish consulate in a city with more than 20 consulates?

8. "A different thesis is presented by Norman Davies who writes that it is wrong to portray people of that time as "Germans" as their identities were those of Saxons and Bavarians." No page is given here, but a quick look and we find many mentions of Germans or German culture for the Middle Ages, on page 75, 76, 77, 81, 95, 103. Davies moreover writes on page 86 that the medieval inhabitants of the city couldn't be called Poles either. Interestingly user MyMoloboaccount somehow forgot to add this fact.

9. "Most of suburbs on right bank of Oder were Polish speaking communities according to a source from 1874, and many photographs from this period indicate widespread use of Polish names." This can be found on page 305. Davies however continues "Yet names are no guide to the current identity of people, and are only relevant to descent on the male side of the family.".

10. "Polish student associations were banned." Allegedly on page 334 and 336. On page 334 is a map of the Weimar Republic, page 336 deals with the violence during the early 30s, but Polish student associations aren't mentioned.

11. "In 1923 the city was a scene of antisemitic riots." According to user MyMoloboaccount somewhere on page 396. This page however is about Lebensborn and the 40s.

It's interesting to note that user MyMoloboaccount uses a book of more than 500 pages about the history of the city, yet when he edits the article a section like the one about the German empire for instance looks like this:


 * "When the Prussian-led German Empire was created in 1871 during the process of Germany's unification, Breslau became the empire's sixth-largest city, its population more than tripled to over half a million between 1860 and 1910, among them 6413 Poles in 1890.[21] Most of suburbs on right bank of Oder were Polish speaking communities according to a source from 1874 and many photographs from this period indicate widespread use of Polish names. The Polish community faced a lot of pressure and the attitude of local government was generally more unfriendly than for example Berlin.
 * The Prussian census from 1905 lists 470,904 residents, thereof 20,536 Jews, 6,020 Poles and 3,752 others. Breslau possessed the third largest Jewish community in Germany. Breslau became one of the centers of cultural life of Polish minority in German Empire, with many famous Polish authors and scholars studying at the local university and living in the city. Notable Poles from that period include Adam Asnyk and the poet Jan Kasprowicz, who portrayed the life of the city in his works, and was arrested by German police for his underground political activities."

The German empire is covered on more than 50 pages in Davies' book, but user MyMoloboaccount ignores 99,9% of the content, twists and fabricates facts to prove the Polishness of the city. Karasek (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The actual reference is on page 304. Here is the quote "And it (Breslau) was less friendly to Poles and Czechs, or to unassimilated Jews, than Berlin was". Why aren't Czechs and Jews mentioned? - probably because currently the city is in Poland, not the Czech Republic. Feel free to add in the Czechs and Jews.  Volunteer Marek   17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will rewrite these sections soon, don't worry. Karasek (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Undue weight maybe??? And what's so special about a Polish consulate in a city with more than 20 consulates? - again, it's not undue because the city is currently in Poland. And that's also what's so special about a Polish consulate.  Volunteer Marek   17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And the city was formerly part of Bohemia and Hungary, was captured by France and Russia, a American president and British prime minister visited the city... shouldn't we mention the embassies of these countries too? Karasek (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, most of this is simply a case of two or three pages which I gave wrong numbers to. In all other cases the information is there, only Karesek disagrees with their inclusion or wants to add some information. The facts are notable as they are noticed in book dedicated to history of Wrocław. As to point 1 and 2-I will check my book again and give proper page numbers along with quotes. I already corrected point 10 to with proper page and quote. As to Page 6 they are notable since they were part of Polish history of Wroclaw which is after all a Polish city and its Polish past is important, plus both have monuments and streets in the city named after them. Thus notable. Similar thing with point 4. If Karasek wants to include information about Jews or Czechs, he's my guest. I would do it too in time, as I planned to expand the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Corrected point 1.Gave proper number of the page and gave quote.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I corrected point

2. Also to be honest, yes the whole page needs a lot more information. Obviously each wikipedian has his own sphere of interest, and I welcome everybody who contributes in friendly and reliable manner to expand this article.I will probably add some more information later, if time allows before returning to a very long wiki break.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's nice to know that you want to contribute in a friendly and reliable manner. After you found all mentions of Poles on 50+ pages about the German Empire in Davies' book I hope this means you will put your additions into context now and mirror what Davies writes? Karasek (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Karasek, image
Karasek, please don't try to edit war over this image. Your previous edit summary was that it is not "relevant to the history of the city". It very obviously is.  Volunteer Marek  17:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Polish community dropped from a meagre 4-5.000 in 1918 to a statistically insignificant residue two decaded later." (Davies, Microcosm, page 361). 4-5.000 Poles in a city of 550.000 people means less than 1% were Poles in 1918. And many of them left after 1918. Please tell me why a shrinking community of less than 1% is notable and so relevant to the history of the city that a picture connected to this tiny minority has to be shown for this period of time? Karasek (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the city is now part of Poland. So the history of the Polish minority within the city is important and obviously relevant. The very fact that this minority is being discussed shows notability. Whether you IDON'TLIKEIT or not. There's no justification for the removal of the pic, or some of the removal of the relevant text, as you've done.  Volunteer Marek   17:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Less than 4.000 people in a city of 550.000 aren't a minority, they are insignificant. And as long as no one presents a source that proves that the allies decided to award Breslau to Poland because of the Poles in the city, or that the Poles in the city planned a coup d'état to turn the city into a Polish one, they only represent themselves... a statistical footnote in a German city. Karasek (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Karasek..."in a German city" ? Wroclaw is a Polish city Karasek, I really find this statement strange. Thus its Polish history is important, as demonstrated by its treatment in book on the subject by Davies.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the mentioned era the city was German. Karasek (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Constant POV-pushing by user MyMoloboaccount
WP:UNDUE states:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Recent edits mainly by user MyMoloboaccount are perfect examples of creating undue weight by using tactics described in WP:UNDUE. In a city with less than 5% Poles after 1871, and less than 1% after 1918, he solely adds facts about Poles in the city, especially popular is name-dropping, and thereby creates undue weight by the "quantity of text". Undue weight is increased by the "depth of detail", like mentioning a school by a Polish teacher (the school was "tiny" according to his own source, strangely he forgots to mention it). "Prominence of placement" is used too, like adding pictures about places connected to Poles. And if all fails "juxtaposition of statements" is used extensively by adding "according to author..." (now used for Davies, his own source, too, if used against his agenda), thereby making the article almost unreadable. User MyMoloboaccount moreover falsifies sources by only citing what fits his agenda and ignoring the context. From Davies' Microcosm for instance he cites that "photographs from this period indicate widespread use of Polish names", but fails to mention that Davies rebuts this argument in the same sentence (Davies: "Yet names are no guide to the current identity of people, and are only relevant to descent on the male side of the family").

Based on WP:UNDUE I will therefore delete "facts" not significant to the article. A tiny minority of 0,5-2% (German Empire and Weimar Republic) is relatively insignificant. Karasek (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're misapplying the concept of due weight here. WP:UNDUE has to do with the presentation of sides in a dispute in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. It apllies to views, and not to content.
 * What you are confusing with undue weight is appropriate emphasis on the basis of relevance to the present day situation. This is a normal and non-controversial practice in historical writing.
 * For example, a article on the history of Christianity is going to place more emphasis on earlier movements that lead to present-day movements than on movements that represent "dead ends". An article on the history of evolution is going to place more emphasis on ideas that lead to Darwinism than on ideas that lead to Lamarckism. An article on aircraft is going to emhasize events that lead to successful implementation than on events leading to failed or abortive experimentation.
 * This has nothing to do with WP:NPOV, but is a normal and well-justified editorial decision over which content to include in the article. Events in the history of Wrocław that pertain to the Polish population are simply of special significance because they pertain to the present-day population. Likewise, added emphasis is also given to events leading up to significant historical milestones, such as WWII. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How can someone misunderstand this quote: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."?
 * And I fail to see how the fact that the city is Polish now is relevant to the 19th and early 20th century history of the city. The place wasn't awarded to Poland because of a Polish past but because Stalin annexed Polands eastern territories, and because he wanted a shorter Polish/German border. As long as no one provides a source that a supposed Polish minority in Breslau played a role in the decision of the allies to award the city to Poland this minority represents only 0,5% of the city, and not the things to come.
 * Mentioning tiny schools (one teacher!), obscure priests, postcards or students who stayed for 2 years in the city is ridiculous. All these "facts" are cherry-picked from Davies' book, but whereas Davies puts these "facts" into context (the German Empire is covered on more than 50 pages, and maybe one or two pages deal with Poles) they get blown way out of proportion here, where we don't have 50+ pages to deal with the German Empire for instance. Or have we? Should I add, for instance, the other 26 consulates too? Karasek (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the phrase "appropriate to its significance to the subject" that you are not getting. Whether the material added by Molobo is too detailed is something your going to have to talk about with him. And you're not going to be able to do that if you do not understand that significance is dependent upon the present-day situation. Comments like your "26 consulates" comment seems to indicate that you intend to be disruptive just to make a point. Don't go there. Think over the examples I gave in my last answer, and work together with Molobo to come to a compromise that is amenable to both of you. Remember also that this is equivalent to a short recap of the Davies book, and that all the material in it cannot be summarized with the same proportion of pages as in the book. Naturally there will more emphasis on recent history and the current situation. And yes, the significance of a lot of the material added depends on "things to come", as you put it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but after being harrassed by the EEML brigade I somehow doubt the will of *some* of the participants here to work together in good faith, especially when I see the same editing patterns again and again by one of the highest sanctioned Wikipedians ever. And I find it quite interesting that you worry I could be disruptive. Maybe you should review my edits and the edits of some others to remind yourself who wrote almost the entire page, and who added almost nothing.
 * And why would it be disruptive to mention other consulates? Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Austria all once ruled over Silesia. Russia, France, the USA and UK were at war with Germany just a few years before. Isn't the past as important as the future? Karasek (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest moving the facts to subarticles, rather then deleting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not simply create a section about the ethnic composition over the centuries? I'm not against mentioning some of these facts, but right now they just worsen the readability, if the text discusses socio-economic problems of millions of people in the country and hundreds and thousands in the city, and in the next sentence I read something about tiny school with one teacher. Karasek (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As others pointed out Wrocław is a Polish city and its Polish history is essential. The current info is just a tip of the iceberg anyway and only presents basic facts without getting into detail. The claim of percentages is irrelevant, the German state from 1871 to 1945 for example is only a tiny percentage of the city's history, little for instance compared to its history under Bohemia for over 300 years, yet you are not complaining that it takes more space than Bohemian history(which I will expand btw).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn't had the time to rewrite the entire article and started with the "wrong" section. Your critisism is especially funny since I also wrote the section about Bohemia almost completely alone three years ago and barely touched the late 19th and early 20th century, which meant that "my" section of 300 years of Bohemia was the biggest part of this article for more than 3 years until I began to expand the 19th and 20th century recently.
 * I'm thrilled to hear that you want to expand the article now. There are quite a few mentions of Poles in this section of Davies book, I can't wait to find them here soon. Karasek (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While Davies's book is interesting, IIIRC it was being criticised in newspapers when it came out for too strongly focusing on German history and a bit pushed attempt to downplay Polish aspects of the city. I think we should diversify the sources somewhat, therefore I will probably also us 'Historia Wrocławia: Od pradziejów do końca czasów habsburskich' by Cezary Buśko, Włodzimierz Suleja, Historia Wrocławia w datach 'by Marek Cetwiński, Romuald Gelles and Historia Wrocławia: Od twierdzy fryderycjańskiej do twierdzy hitlerowskiej''Cezary Buśko, Włodzimierz Suleja, Teresa Kulak. Of course that doesn't mean Davies can't be used as well.I will probably be able to obtain one of them this week. Cheers.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Silesia and Lower Silesia
Wrocław is in Lower Silesia, which despite the name, is not considered part of Silesia. Silesia refers strictly to Upper Silesia (most, but not all, of Śląskie, and also some of Opolskie). The postwar situation in Lower Silesia was VERY different from the situation in Upper Silesia (Lower Silesia had a very small autochthonous Polish population, and most of the present day population originated from other parts of Poland, especially the Kresy). Kamusela is discussing only Upper Silesia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, though the situation in Upper and Lower Silesia was for sure very different, to claim Lower Silesia is not part of Silesia is a WP:Fringe theory. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're the one in error. Lower Silesia is very distinct from (Upper) Silesia, and NO ONE in Poland would ever say that Wrocław, or part of Lower Silesia is in "Silesia". Unqualified, Silesia currently refers exclusively to Upper Silesia. You made a false conclusion based on the names of the provinces, rather than on actual usage. Now, in some hisorical contexts, Wrocław WAS consdred part of Silesia, but that was before the timeframe being discussed here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly Lower Silesia and Upper Silesia are two completely different issues. Just as Silesians and Wroclaw Polonia which are again two different groups with different history. unsigned edit by User:MyMoloboaccount


 * Let's have a look at Silesia. Wroclaw is mentioned several times ("Silesia's largest city and historical capital is Wroclaw") and I would trust Wikipedia in that aspect. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't be used to source articles. It's a fundamental rule. Kamusella(himself unreliable and controversial author to say the least) writes about Upper Silesia, later shortening it simply to Silesia, it's a common way of writing in Poland. He writes nothing about Wroclaw Polonia.User:MyMoloboaccount
 * @HerkusMonte: The key word is "historical". As I explained above, that situation has changed, and neither Wrocław or Lower Silesia is now considered part of (unqualified) Silesia. Also, I had four lectures today with students here in Wrocław, and I asked them all about this. The concept that Wrocław is in Silesia or that the residents of Wrocław are Silesian was bizarre to them, even those who had "autochthon" grandparents. I am also quite familiar with Kamusella and his Silesian indentity sympathies. When he writes about Silesians, he clearly means Upper Silesians only. He does have a clear agenda regarding Silesian autonomy, which unfortunately compromises him as a source.


 * Also, the WP article on Silesia is indeed poorly written. It does not adequately explain the evolution of the concept of Silesia clearly. I'll see if I can clean it up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Wrocław. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609171308/http://www.rogermoorhouse.com/article1.html to http://www.rogermoorhouse.com/article1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101174432/http://www.breslau-wroclaw.de/de/breslau/postcard/projektor/print.php?showId=1000 to http://www.breslau-wroclaw.de/de/breslau/postcard/projektor/print.php?showId=1000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)