Talk:Silesia/Archive 2

Page protection
Nico, Wik and Szopen: if you don't stop fighting among yourselves, I'm just going to protect the article. I've asked twice what this is all about, and the only result has been that you are all still insulting each other. Stop it. Just stop it. I'm asking you, please! --Uncle Ed 21:06, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes. I think it's important to protect the page. There is no use in a continued reversion-war. That will in the long run only chase wikipedians away from wikipedia, beside shaping an athmosphere where edit-wars and rude behavior will increase. Which version you protect is of lesser importance than that the combatants are forced to discuss instead of reverting. Therefore I would be disappointed if User:Wik's version were to be your choise, as Wik is the one who has both declared and demonstrated him not being prepared to seriously discuss the matter. But still: in my humble opinion, even a long-term protection of Wik's version would be superior to a continued state of war. The page ought to be unprotected first when the combatants here have agreed to a compromise. --Ruhrjung 06:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a page protection is necessary as long as the combattants do not try to edit it again (last edit was yesterday in the afternoon). This talk page has become so long that it is almost impossible to get all points. So it might be a good idea, if the combattants give a brief summary of their opinion: What is to be changed in the current version of the article, what is to be kept, and why. So it will be easier for a neutral mediator like Ed to understand your points and find a compromise. And please: no insults anymore! -- Cordyph 07:36, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[I moved a discussion which doesn't have with the issue Protect or not to a more appropriate position below.--Ruhrjung 10:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)]

I just protected the page. Wik began again reverting the article without willing to discuss at this place. -- Cordyph 14:24, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I stated my views before. If you can't see Nico is following an agenda (having stuffed the article about a Polish province with 10 German-language links (out of 15)) then you're blind. There is nothing to argue there. Whenever this is unprotected, I will continue to revert his nonsense. I will also complain about any sysop violating the neutrality principle and protecting one side in an edit war. --Wik 14:31, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Why can't you speak the truth? 1) You did not revert my version, you reverted Ruhrjung. 2) My latest edit contains only 1 link to a political German-Silesian organisation (Landsmannschaft Schlesien), while 4 to political Polish-Silesian organisations (the other German links also appears in caius2's version). 3) I consider you, in any case, a Vandal. Other users, including me, are trying to find a compromise which is acceptable to everybody of us. Opposite you, we have modified our positions. You are just reverting/vandalizing for having fun. Nico


 * Then feel free to complain. Look at the edit history of Silesia: Before my revert I did not edit this page, so I was NEVER involved in this edit war. Instead of that I tried to help the combattants finding a compromise. Afterwards the discussion restarted. There is no sense in having pages with an edit history full of reverts. By the way: If you seriously claim, that I am protecting Nico, you must be blinded. I have no sympathy at all for his ideology. I simply reverted to a version, that was intended as a basis of discussion. -- Cordyph 14:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Whether you were involved before or not, it is not acceptable to favour one side as you do by not only protecting an article as it stands but explicitly reverting to the other side's version. Why should that version be "a basis of discussion"? --Wik 14:49, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Because you are a vandal, which Ruhrjung definitely not is. While he is trying to make another compromise acceptable to you, you are reverting without discussing, not only him and me, but also even caius2. Note that my and Ruhrjung's versions have been protected not only once, but three times by three sysops because of your vandalism. Nico 17:09, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ed: Please revert this to the Aug 14 version, which stood unchallenged for almost two months. The Oct 9 version by Heine (a known vandal) basically started the whole edit war. --Wik 18:47, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion restarted
Ok, here are my points:

1) Sentence that for most of 2nd millenium was on border of HRE or was part of HRE is true. Just as for the most of the 2nd millenium Silesia was part of Poland or on border of Poland. Or that for most of the 2nd millenium was part of Bohemia or on borders of Bohemia. Therefore, what's the point of the sentence?

2) Silesia being part of HRE is not equivalent to being part of Germany, no matter what Nico is saying. When Bohemia was ruled by Polish kings, it was formally part of HRE, but it was almost mere formality. It was part of German states since Habsburgs start to rule Silesia. German element was very important also earlier, but it's already mentioned that Silesia had heavy Polish, Czech and German influences.

3) I guess it should be enough to say that Silesia in its history was part of different states, Polish states, Bohemia, German states. Even the xxx years is not necessery. It may be stresses (by why in introduction is beyond me) that Germans were increasingly important in cultural and political development of Silesia, but then, heck, first Polish printed work is from Silesia, by Silesian Kasper Eljan IIRC.

4) Another point of possible differences is modern times. It's true that according to PRUSSIAN censuses about 30% of whoel Silesia was Polish speakers. Polish-speakers is not equivalent to Poles, just as German speakers is not equivalent to Germans (During the war there were Poles who even can't speak fluently POlish, and were first repressed by Nazis, and then by communists).

5) Silesia did not became part of Bohemia in 1327. Some of duchies became Bohemian fiefs in 1327. Ties to Bohemia are even earlier. Some stayed independent until 1368, and some territories were incorporated directly into Bohemia. Some duchies were also bought and incorporated into Polish kingdom.

6) Silesia had been also part of HRE temporarily earlier: after Krzyszkow for few decades or so whole Poland was recognising HRE authority, although it was thought that Poland is part of HRE, but not as part of Germany - that emperor and pope are two heads of christian world and highest authority over all other christian dukes. -- Szopen


 * (I just moved this comment from above to this place; I hope, you agree, Szopen) -- Cordyph

Nico, so, you simply reverted all the changes i did. Both the proposition of compromise and corrections of incorrect dates, everything If this is not Vandalism, then i dont know how to call it. szopen


 * Wik reverted my edit and vandalized the article (removed links, for instance), therefore his version was reverted. Nico 13:08, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I find it rather stupid to revert to a version which we KNOW have no chance of being accepted (at least not at the moment), why I modified Nico's edit (which actually almost was an earlier proposition from me) a bit more. I don't know if anyone will get happier this way, but at least it's a try to move forwards.--Ruhrjung 10:13, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

HRE as a cath-all for German influences
I still don't understand why you have to stress that Silesia had once large ties to HRE and then became one of its "provinces" (let's not discussing sense of the word now, please) in INTRODUCTION. It's not relevant to geographical location, it's not relevant to current status of Silesia, it is only historical detail which should go, where it belongs, that is to HISTORY section. User:Szopen

HRE is much shorter than a long list of HRE-subentities. Also: By ignoring the German influences before 1742, I believe Central European history (and present-day sentiments) are made harder to understand, instead of clearer. What I, User:ruhrjung, find important is not the years as a Prussian province, but the years of German influence. Beside that, it's a matter of emotions for the expulsed families. By neglecting the earlier German influences, the impression is emphasized of the Germans as late intruders, conquesters and masters, something which I know to easily evoke protests. I'm sorry to say that also I believe to recognise a certain amount of Slavonic denial and belitteling here. No offense intended. --Ruhrjung 09:59, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, again, what;'s the point of the sentence with HRE? Will then add that it was on border of Bohemia ?(and increasingly so) and Poland (and ties were strong for centuries)? What's the point of that sentence in INTRODUCTION? Also, what's wrong in my correction of date ? Silesia was conquered in 990 by Mieszko, not in 999 by Boleslaw and htis is fact which is approved by all or almost all serious historians. szopen

The point is to indicate the German influences in as few words as possible, explaining why the Schlesien-question is important for people who no longer live there, or who's ancestors used to live there until 60 years ago. If the article is purely about Silesia as a Slavonic entity, then we'll get a Schlesien article sooner or later, and THAT would be a highly unwelcome development. (And I don't care the slightest about 999 or 990.) --Ruhrjung 09:45, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And what's wrong with writing "due to complicated history..." and writing something that the territory was once belonging to different states, including German ones and German population once was majority? I feel that similar sentence (about HRE, that is) can be in article, but in history section, not introduction. szopen

To be honest: I changed User:Nico's version, not yours. But to answer your question, I hold the sentences below to be too detailed to be good for the first paragraph:
 * Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with heavy Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by the Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. In history, Silesia used to be part of different Polish states (about 360 years until now), Bohemia (about 250 years) and different German states (about 400 years, not counting Bohemia rule - although some count Bohemia overlordship over Silesia also as time of German rule).

--Ruhrjung 10:13, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Then what about this:
 * Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with heavy Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by the Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. In history, Silesia used to be part of different German, Polish and Bohemian states.

It might trigger changes as it neglects the expulsed.

My last proposal inserted for reference:
 * For most of the 2nd millennium, Silesia was situated at the eastern border of, and increasingly associated to, the Holy Roman Empire in 1742 ceeded by Austria to Prussia. After World War II, when the German minority was expulsed, Silesia lies almost entirely within the borders of Poland, with exception for the T&#283;s ín area, which is part of the Czech Republic, and the Görlitz area, which is part of Germany.

The expulsed do not have to be specifically apostrofed in the initial statement, that's absolutely not neccessary, but their feeling of being wrongly exiled would be good to address, one way or another. --Ruhrjung 10:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But mentioning HRE does not mention German influence. The HRE can go into history section. Instead, you could just write that Silesia was once in majority inhabited by Germans and that 400 years was part of different German states, for 250 years it was part of Bohemia and 360 years part of Poland. What wiould be difference between thatm and HRE, besides that HRE is historical entity and could puzzle some readers?

Besides, you may have impression that we are trying to create impression that Germans are conquerors and intruders. That's not the point, since history explains that and Wik's version also mentioned complicated history and heavey German influences. But I have impression that you are trying to impress reader that Silesia was MOSTLY German for lsat thousand year (most of 2nd millenium creates such impression) which is also untrue. Silesia had mixed population, with Slavonic majority well into XV century. szopen

No, I do not have that impression. I have the impression that the effect of your proposals is, or at least easily can be seen as, a "Slavonic denial and belitteling" of German influences.

My criticism of User:Wik has nothing with his version to do – only with his behavior.

No, I have no wish to give any exaggerated impression of the dominance of German laws, language and population. I would like to give the impression of an increasing German influence, which when squezed in on a few lines might give a slightly distorted impression of nothing but a a steady increase from 1163 to 1945.

How do you think when you say that "mentioning HRE doesn't imply German influence"? --Ruhrjung 10:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As user:szopen wrote, Schlesien has been part of German states during the last 400 (longer in my opinion) years until modern times (1945), and with a majority of German population. That's the most important! Details from earlier history (990 AD etc) are not so relevant in the introduction, because 1) these people are not living anymore, neither their culture, while a lot of expulsed German Silesians still are living and claiming their property in Schlesien, and 2) as you argue according to the Heiliges Röhmisches Reich (deutscher Nation) 1, I could argue that the mediaeval kingdom of Poland is not the same as Poland (the Republic of Poland); different name, different borders, no continuity: another state. Nico 13:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC) (1) The article Holy Roman Empire is btw a part of the "History of Germany" series.

moved from archive:


The main question
The main question is: What is Silesia referring to? The information the readers are searching for, and what they probably also wish to read already in the introduction is: A historical Central-European region inhabited by Poles and Germans, a formerly German province, a province of Poland today (since 1945).

Since Silesia has been German (referring to all German states during history) for almost a millenium, it should be mentioned in the introduction. Nico 00:18, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What is "German"
I need to get it said, although I due to my work will be mostly absent from wikipedia for a week or so, that I most certainly do not regard myself as in any way a Nationalist, Revisionist or Suprematist, but reading much of the statements above I see a strong anti-German need to re-define German in such a way that influence of German customs, German laws, German trade, German migration, and/or German conquest is given another lable than (seemingly: any other lable than) German. I can't help to regrett this.

I am in no ways proud of what could be called my ethnical ancestors' medieval Drang nach Osten but I think we all are gained from calling a spade for a spade. It's notable that the contemporary German influences in northern direction are uncontroversial (with a possible exception for Schleswig).

I do not agree to statements of the kind that HRE wasn't German, or wasn't German before the Reformation, or that Austria wasn't or isn't German, and I can't help the suspicion that some contributors to the discussion above tries to define Germany to be equal to German Prussia and its successor states. That is, in my sincerest opinion, either a grave misunderstanding or rather blunt propaganda. --Ruhrjung 08:25, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Germans - a minority?
Ruhrjung, I wonder, was the German population in Schlesien a minority in/until 1945? Nico 15:59, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That can be seen as a tricky question. Let's say that the expulsed Germans were seen as, and in numbers also were, minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia. One solution would of course be exchange the words the German minority for the German population, another alternative would be to write about the ethnic Germans. I tried to steer free of the discussion on how many "Germans" there were in Silesia, and how many of them had arrived "recently" compared to how many had lived there "for a long time", as I feared that discussion could consume disproportionately much energy on issues such as Who is a German?

I think it's easy to read your thoughts on this issue, Nico. Actually I'm convinced that it's more important to hear the thoughts from "the other side". But I guess it was good you brought it up. Thank you. --Ruhrjung 08:19, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My thought is that it's nonsense to say "German minority" was expelled. German population was majority in Silesia. --szopen

Stronger steps
If you guys continue to make personal remarks about each other, you will force me to bring this issue to the attention of the site owner, Jimbo Wales. In recent weeks he has begun being more strict about stopping users from insulting each other. I hate doing this, because time spent building a case against a contributor is time I'd rather spend editing articles. But if you keep making nasty remarks like the following, I will have no choice:
 * [He] is following an agenda....his nonsense
 * If you can't see [this] then you're blind.
 * Why can't you speak the truth?
 * I consider you a Vandal ... you are a vandal ... your vandalism... He vandalized the article.

I request that all contributors stick to the point, as Ruhrjung has been doing. Any sysop who gets involved, should probably stop editing the article for a while -- except to add suggestions that all others can agree on. (Of course, this includes me. I will gladly revert my last edit if anyone disagrees with its factuality or neutrality).

One more thing: let's not play "gotcha". Let's work together to make a neutral and useful article. --Uncle Ed 18:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Reverted to version of August 14th
Ed: Please revert this to the Aug 14 version, which stood unchallenged for almost two months. The Oct 9 version by Heine (a known vandal) basically started the whole edit war. --Wik 18:47, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Reverted to August version, at Wik's request.
 * --Uncle Ed 19:02, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I object. This is just stupid; now you removed half of the article, which is written, mainly by caius2, since then. And the spelling is also wrong, it doesn't exist a "Goerlitz area". The name is Görlitz. Why are you listening to this vandal? Please reinstate the last version by Ruhrjung
 * Nico 20:08, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Which "vandal" are you talking about? That's so insulting...


 * Anyway, I fulfilled Wik's request because he asked me politely. I'm willing to (a) unprotect the article, or (b) revert to my own version, or (c) ??? you tell me ???


 * BTW, I love German music and have a Polish wife.
 * --Uncle Ed 20:16, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * As I wrote before, I find it more important that the page is protected than which version is protected, but I can't say that I feel encouraged by this solution. User:Wik has yet not demonstrated neither willingness, nor ability, to discuss the issues at stake. This feels as if User:Wik's methods are approved (by the higher wikipedia authority which you administrators are whether you like it or not), and thereby as my ideas, of how situations with conflicting views on how wikipedia articles best ought to be written, are not. I appears to me as a déj`a vu of sysop:172's stance on the NPOV-dispute on the Continuation War article. By dismissing the work which has been done since August, and which actually has required quite some energy, not the least from User:Caius2ga, but resulted in very few thanks and cheers, one can imagine that more than one contributor react as on aversion-therapy.
 * &mdash; The protection is an improvement, but I wonder if the way this issue was handled yesterday really is for the best of wikipedia.
 * --Ruhrjung 08:03, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Especially User:Ruhrjung is hardly trying to make a compromise everybody could be happy with. His last version was totally neutral, and common sense says it was much better than the older version you've reinserted. Most of this article was also written by our Polish friend caius2, and is mainly pro-Polish more than pro-German. User:Wik is an extreme anti-German, and the only one who has declared that he not are willing to make a compromise. The only thing he has done to this article is reverting and reverting without discussing. Nico 20:41, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nico that Ruhrjung is trying hard to make a neutral compromise version. Wik & Nico, try to follow Ruhrjung's lead. Cordyph, when there's enough agreement, please un-protect the page. (I will be off-line all weekend, and I trust all my Freunden to work this out with WikiLove.)
 * --Uncle Ed 21:09, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced of Ruhrjung's neutrality. In his last edit he just made minor changes of Nico's version. Considering Nico's obvious agenda that is unacceptable. The basis should be Szopen's version. If Ruhrjung thinks there's anything wrong with that version, we can discuss it.
 * --Wik 21:27, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm asking again: Why can you not just tell the truth? "My" version, which Ruhrjung made changes to, was actually Ruhrjung's version; his former version, which I had reinserted after you vandalized the page. And what do you have problems with in this introduction, exactly? By the way, it is you who have an agenda which is unacceptable. I'm still willing to discuss this, and have modified my position several times, which you never had
 * Nico 22:37, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You, Wik, are "not convinced". OK. I'm not neutral. I'm critical of your behavior, which you are very well aware of. I'm also not neutral when it comes to how disputes on wikipedia best are to be met and handled. I also have an agenda, and on that stands for instance:
 * Most important things first.
 * Each beginning deserves more attention (with regard to style, balancing, readability, enticing effect, etc, etc) than that what follows.
 * Wikipedia articles must be as true and correct and balanced, and all that, as possible - but most important is to seek a wording which do not trigger edits from partisans which in turn triggers contra-partisan edits, and so on.


 * But maybe you ment something else? Spit it out! Maybe you implied that I be unsupportive of the NPOV-policy? Are you maybe trying to hurt my feelings? ...to insult me? ...to chase me away? Which of my edits, which can be retrieved from the page-history, have made you so very unconvinced that you in public feel urged to throw suspicion upon my motives?
 * I do not use to demand apologies in season and out of season, but maybe you ougth to think more of whom you should apologize to (than whom you should request apologies from ).


 * However, it's a huge improvement that you now acknoledge your preparedness to discuss the issue . Now we wait for you to throw yourself into the discussion.
 * --Ruhrjung 08:03, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Now you make no sense at all. Apologize for what? That I'm not convinced of your neutrality? The fact is, and the page history shows, that you keep working on Nico's versions, ignoring his extremist bias, and then you are critical of my behavior. What exactly do you criticize? That I revert Nico? Or that I refuse to engage in a "discussion" with him? I have said all there is to say about him before. He is an obvious German nationalist (to avoid a stronger word) who does not support the NPOV policy and and none of whose "contributions" here have had any merit. To "seek a wording which do not trigger edits from partisans which in turn triggers contra-partisan edits" is of course impossible - you can not have NPOV and at the same time satisfy extremists who are not interested in objectivity. The article has been NPOV and uncontroversial all the time until Nico arrived 10 days ago. I don't see any need whatsoever to accommodate him. --Wik 12:20, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, in case, so what? You are en obvious Polish nationalist. What's the difference? The difference is: I'm willing to accept a compromise which is acceptable also to you, I'm, unlike you, not pushing all my POVs into the article. I'm trying to follow the NPOV policy in the article, which you are not. By the way, I do not consider myself a nationalist, just a conservative. I even have Polish ancestors, for that sake. Nico 12:43, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I still hope to see User:Wik's contributions to the discussion on the article . Regarding your opinions and nationalities I start to get curious. I wouldn't believe User:Nico to be German or User:Wik to be Polish, but maybe I'm wrong?
 * --Ruhrjung 18:11, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What is this about?
The introduction should briefly tell us what the word Silesia is referring to. Silesia is clearly not only referring to the Polish province Silesia after 1945, but to an historical european region, which historically have been connected to the German states and cultural area. From an English point of view, unlike maybe a Polish or German POV, both the German and the Polish history is interesting. We must keep that in mind.

This is the last introduction by Ruhrjung. What consider User:Wik is wrong or not NPOV?

Silesia (Polish: &#346;l&#261;sk, German: Schlesien, Czech: Slezsko, Polish-Silesian: &#346;lunsk) is located along the upper and middle Odra/Oder river. For most of the 2nd millennium, Silesia was situated at the eastern border of, and increasingly associated to, the Holy Roman Empire – in 1742 ceeded by Austria to Prussia. After World War II, when the German minority was expulsed, Silesia lies almost entirely within the borders of Poland, with exception for the T&#283;&scaron;ín area, which is part of the Czech Republic, and the Görlitz area, which is part of Germany. Nico 16:38, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To me, the passage Silesia lies almost entirely within the borders of Poland implies that Silesia is not sovereign part of the Polish state and that Silesia's status is open. This passage can be contrasted with and the Görlitz area, which is part of Germany. It is not neutral and because of that unacceptable. The predominant part of Silesia is now part of Poland with exception for the T&#283;&scaron;ín area, which belongs of the Czech Republic, and the Görlitz area, which is part of Germany. --Kpjas 19:00, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any difference. Your proposal is also fine. Nico 19:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can understand the concern, although I wouldn't come to think of it by myself. If I am responsible for that wording, I believe to have had nothing else in mind than a good flow of the prose trying to avoid repeating the words "part of" too much. But that's maybe not so very clever. Would you have anything against:
 * ...almost all of Silesia is part of Poland, with exception for the T&#283;&scaron;ín area, which is part of the Czech Republic, and the Görlitz area, which is part of Germany.

--Ruhrjung 19:35, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Ruhrjung: Now the passage is quite acceptable to me. Thanks. Kpjas 19:56, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * According to T&#283;&scaron;ín/Teschen, it seems like the English name is Teschen. More popular at Google, and used in a number of English encyclopedias:
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Teschen
 * http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/T/Teschen.asp
 * http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/T/Teschen.html
 * -- Nico 19:37, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, then I think we have:

Silesia (Polish: &#346;l&#261;sk, German: Schlesien, Czech: Slezsko, Polish-Silesian: &#346;lunsk) is located along the upper and middle Odra/Oder river. For most of the 2nd millennium, Silesia was situated at the eastern border of, and increasingly associated to, the Holy Roman Empire – in 1742 ceeded by Austria to Prussia. After World War II, when the German minority was expulsed, almost all of Silesia is part of Poland, with exception for the T&#283;&scaron;ín area, which is part of the Czech Republic, and the Görlitz area, which is part of Germany

Supported by Ruhrjung, Kpjas and me? -- Nico 21:09, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well... at least accepted by us, although I think you, Nico, is too eager and imprudent (in particular in the current sensitive situationi) when you change that Slavic Teschen-spelling to the Germanic. You might be right that Teschen is better known to English speakers than T&#283;&scaron;ín, but you take a considerable risk. I took the liberty to change that back in the blockquote above. --Ruhrjung 21:28, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We have an anglicization policy here, which states that the names used by speakers of English are the names to be used at Wikipedia. There's no exceptions from that rule. Nico 21:32, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, given that the name really is used by English speakers, which might be doubted in this case. But in principle, and if the sensitivity of our Slavic friends hadn't been strained in advance, I believe you might be right. Just look at the silliness going on with Tesín and Teschen. There actually exists Talk-pages. There is no law requiring you two to start a reversion-war whenever possible. One might consider to ask other wikipedians for advice. If nowhere else, there exists the Village pump. --Ruhrjung 22:31, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Teschen should be discussed another place (here). To continue with the article: It would be interesting to hear caius2ga's opinion. Nico 00:37, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You could try with a friendly reguest on User Talk:Caius2ga and User Talk:Szopen, maybe? But maybe they are away for the weekend. --Ruhrjung 07:08, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

WHY even mentioning that Silesia was for most of the time on borders of HRE and then part of HRE? If so, you may also add that Silesia was part of Poland and ties with Poland decreased over time. Add this or similar sentence and I will happy. You can also add sentence that German populationw as majority before 1945 and was expelled in 1945, and i will be happy too. What i am against, is to stress only German history of the region and ridicule ties with Poland and calling Polish ties to region "irrevelant" and "too old to be worth mentioning". Until XIV century is hard to argue that Silesia was part of Germany. It was part of different Polish duchies. THen it was part of BOhemia. Which was BTW ruled also by Polish kings. And Silesia was governed by future Polish king at least once. Silesian ties were very strong with Greater Poland, as cloth industry was in fact around GP-Silesia borders. Ties with Poland were still existing well into modern era and while in XVIII it was more German than Polish province, i wouldn't so sure to say that in XVI century. user::szopen

Instead of the pseudo-discussion above, which is an attempt by the German nationalists to reintroduce an old version that has been sufficiently criticized before, let's look at the last introduction by Szopen. What considers User:Ruhrjung is wrong or not NPOV? --Wik 19:28, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Silesia (Silesian: &#346;lonsk, &#346;lunsk, Polish: &#346;l&#261;sk, German: Schlesien, Czech: Slezsko) is a province in southwestern Poland and the northern Czech Republic, located along the upper and middle Odra/Oder river. Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with heavy Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by the Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. In history, Silesia used to be part of different Polish states (about 360 years until now), Bohemia (about 250 years) and different German states (about 400 years, not counting Bohemia rule - although some count Bohemia overlordship over Silesia also as time of German rule).

For myself, I can say that it is not NPOV to ignore and belittle the German history of Silesia in that way, and even try to fool the readers to believe Silesia has been Polish for a long time ("about 360 years until now"). And Silesia's "cultural mix" you may describe another place, the introduction should just state briefly what Silesia is and was, or what Silesia is referring to. The last (almost) 700 years of German rule in Silesia is clearly more important than the place you have given it, and you haven't even mentioned the whole Silesia, with the Görlitz and Teschen areas. Nico 19:45, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

By the way, it had been better if you could tell us what you don't like in the other introduction, instead of initiating your own discussion. Nico 20:11, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nico, Silesia was part of different Polish states and principalities (Polish independent duchies in Silesia mostly) since 990 to 1327 at least (some parts even longer) = say 327 in 2nd millenium ONLY. Plus 2000-1945 = 55 years. SO, where is trying to fool the readers?

On the other hand, you are trying to imply, than Bohemia was German state. IMHO this is not the case. Also, Germans started to be majority in Silesia not 700 years ago, but much later. Some regions had majority of Slavic speakers (let's not say "Poles") well into modern era (Opole region e.g.) user::szopen

-

Your statement "about 360 years until now" implies there is a continuity, when in fact Silesia only has been Polish since end of WW2, except mediæval history.

And as I told you, the history 990 to 1327 is lesser important in the introduction. And the connection between mediæval kings considered Polish and the Polish state is even not obvious. Additionally, during the middle ages it didn't exist national states, just rulers, and none of these people nor their feelings or culture, are living anymore - opposite millions of expulsed Silesians now living in Germany, which history historically were German up to modern times. Nico 13:10, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If medieval history is so irrevelant, then why you are so stubborn on including HRE mentioning that for most og the 2nd millenium SIlesia was either on border or part of HRE? Also, i do not agreed with any of your statements. Connection between Polish kings and Polish states from medieval times to today is definetely not less obvious than connection between Germany today and Austria or Prussia. Additionally, it seems that you are unaware of real ethnic tensions which were in Silesia and elsewhere - all those controversies with Nanker etc. While for most of Europe and most of the medieval times nationalities did not matter, in XIV century in Poland ethnic feelings and conflicts were VERY strong. szopen. -

A couple of explanations
Because I am pretty new to this project and was invited by the Wikipedia policy just to step in and make some edits, I would like apologize for failing to communicate with you effectively, and to clarify a couple of things:

1) I have made in the recent days some substantial contributions and modifications to the Silesia article that I felt would be valuable to the internet readers. I din't expect that some of this changes will meet with such a fierce resistance.

2) These contributions were based on my deep knowledge (in my opinion) and serious studies into the history and modern times of Silesia. My intention was to write about facts and not about opinions, and to avoid any nationalistic bias of any kind.

3) I am very seriously touched that people who introduce most of the chaos and natiolistic bias to this article are the first to accuse others of vandalism and extreme nationalism.

Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 20:45, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

-

My suggestion: let's write what Silesia is now
The Silesia article DO need some serious improvement if we want it to be the valuable and reliable resource for the internet users. The current (restored and protected) version contains so many errors that it will chase away people with basic historical knowledge, if it's not changed as soon as possible.

1) First I suggest that we write what Silesia is now (as this is most interesting to the reader), and not what is was in the past. Silesia rich history should be discussed in the history section.

2) It is unacceptable to state that Silesia lies between Odra and Vistula rivers. First look at any map will show you that Silesia lies along the Odra river.

3) Silesia lies today in Poland and Czech Republic. It is doubtful if the Goerlitz area is part of Silesia. It is a historical part of Lusatia, and was joined to the Silesian province after 1816. Anyway the Goerlitz are should be memtioned ih the history section.

4) Im my opinion we should not discuss Silesian history in the intro paragraph, but if we decide to, it is unacceptable to mention only the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

5) I do not care in what order the language-names of Silesia are mentioned, but I do insist that the Silesian version (&#346;lonsk, &#346;lunsk) is included in this list.

6) I do insist that the various nationalities and ethnic groups living now in Silesia, are mentioned clearly and the list should include at least the most mumerous groups: the Silesians, the Poles, the Germans, the Czechs

7) The theories about the name of the region must be clearly marked as theories and not as facts. The passages need some minor rewrite.

8) The remarks about HRE overlordship in 1146 and 1163 are simply false, no longer upheld by the German historians, and must be removed

9) Great care must be taken when dealing with Silesian history, for example the rude remarks about devastation was caused by Hussite rebellion must be rewritten using neutral words

10) The Silesia article need more sections on the People, Economy, Culture, Education, Science and Tourism.

Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 20:55, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wonder, what would you say if we have lived in 1940 and was writing an article on a former Polish city, which in 1939 had become German? Had it been correct not to mention it's Polish history in the introduction, because it wasn't Polish anymore ("...it is a German city located...")? I think not. And it's also clearly unacceptable not to mention the German connection in the introduction of this article, as Silesia historically mainly is referring to a German province until 1945. A connection to kings considered Polish almost thousand years ago is lesser important (in the introduction), for reasons I've told you before. Nico 22:12, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If I was living in 1940 in a former Polish city, which in 1939 had become German, I would probably be shot down for writing bad versions of the Silesia article. ;-) Grzes

---

Holy Roman Empire overlordship over Silesia
current version: ''In 1146, duke Wladislaw II acknowledged the overlordship of the Holy Roman Empire, but was driven into exile. After 17 years in Germany, his two sons took possession of Silesia in 1163 with Imperial backing, dividing the land between them as dukes of Lower and Upper Silesia. ''

[repeated from another section of the Talk page]

8) The remarks about HRE overlordship in 1146 and 1163 are simply false, no longer upheld by the German historians, and must be removed Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 20:55, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Grzes, IMHO HRE overlordship is historical fact, but it was mere formality. Emperor was simply overlord of all christian states. Silesia was considered part of Polish kingdom, AND Polish kingdom was considered (at least by emperor and from time to time it was reluctantly (when forced by arms) by Polish dukes) to be part of Christian world ruled by Emperor.
 * It's only does not mean Silesia was part of Germany, because it recognised HRE overlordship. szopen

Thanks, szopen, for your explanations. My intention was to draw your attention to the badly explained events of 1146 and 1163. Wladyslaw II, high-duke of Poland indeed met with the Emperor in Kaina/Kayna in 1146, but there's no evidence of accepting overlorship at this time. In 1163 Wladislaw son's received their provinces in Silesia, but after their parents deaths.

The 1146-1163 events are sometimes misinterpreted in two ways. First duke Wladislaw II and his sons are treated as the provincial Silesian dukes who seceded from Poland and switched their loyalty to the Empire or Germany. Second the meetings with the Emperors are treated as acceping overlordship, accepting feudal fiefs where there is mo evidence of such activities.

These events should be interpreted according to the Polish constitutions of 1138 and 1180 - who should be the high-duke of Poland, and who should be the dukes of every province of Poland. These constitutons were accepted and guaranteed by the Polish estates(nobility), the church, the Emperor and the Pope - this explains much of their activities in the struggle for power in Poland.

It's true that in this period Poland accepted the Pope's and the Emperor's prerogatives to be overlords of the Christian world - these matters should be discussed fully in Poland's history, and only mentioned in Silesia history.

Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 20:55, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Unprotection
I unprotected the article - since protecting it didn't seem to help. But I notice there's a lot less insulting and a lot more discussing, on the talk page :-)

Please, meine Freunden, try to find some areas of agreement. Also, where you disagree, please find ways of expressing those disagreements in a neutral way (see NPOV tutorial). --Uncle Ed 15:02, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bad. I wish you a much success. I have other things to do. --Ruhrjung 15:01, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations to Wik for his success in chasing away the contributors, who were willing to improve this page. A few days ago I told Nico, that Wik probably would not be allowed to ignore the outcome of the discussion and revert to his POV version. I admit that I was wrong. Achieving NPOV in the German-Polish pages is not possible with some contributors getting away with their antisocial behaviour. Goodbye. -- Cordyph 16:16, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You just prove again that you're either biased or ignorant. I should not have withdrawn my complaint. As anyone can see who studies the page history and the talk archive here, it was Nico and Ruhrjung who ignored discussion and tried to push a German nationalist POV. --Wik 17:50, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

Confusion over divisions
The article says that Silesia is currently located in Poland and the Czech republic, and then lists the Polish vovoidships it's divided into. Presumably the Czech part is not within these vovoidships, so the Czech equivalent (province?) should be listed too. Unless I'm missing something? --Delirium 06:02, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * After doing a brief bit of research, it seems some of Silesia is part of modern-day Germany as well, so that part of the article seems to be factually incorrect (or else my sources are). --Delirium 06:03, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

After reading more, it seems the current article is deliberately skewed. The standard English usage of the term Silesia is to refer to a historic region, which as far as I can tell, is currently located mostly within Poland, partially within the Czech Republic, and a small bit within Germany. The current article for some reason does not say this in the introduction, presumably due to some sort of agenda. --Delirium 06:07, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

From the archive:


 * Third, I don't think that we should tell the reader about the Goerlitz area in Germany - these regions are historical parts of Lusatia and were joined to Silesia in 1815-27, fro a relatively short time, when the Lusatia was disbanded and distrubuted among Brandenburg, Saxony and Silesia.


 * Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 21:23, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Note that Nico or Ruhrjung have never responded to that, so the Görlitz part was removed, yet now they propose their old version again, and innocently ask what's wrong with it. We have been through that. --Wik 06:11, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Well, "+Görlitz +Silesia" comes up with about 1000 google hits, and it is referred to as part of Silesia by our article on Görlitz. While it may have been a "relatively short time", it does seem to be said that Görlitz is part of "the historic region of Silesia" at least by some historians.

The Czech Republic thing is a bigger issue though; it appears to be undisputed that part of Silesia is part of the Czech Republic. --Delirium 06:15, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * The Görlitz article is from the 1911 Britannica! Today people in Görlitz don't consider themselves part of Silesia. The present version does mention that part of it is in the Czech Republic. Please don't revert to the old version; much uncontroversial material has been added since (look at the diff). --Wik 06:19, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

All right; working from your restored version (I hadn't noticed the other part, sorry--I assumed it was an edit war over the intro, not a completely different old version). I added information about the current Czech region (it's part of the Moravian-Silesian Region according to the article on Czech Republic). I still think something about Görlitz should be mentioned, since it apparently was considered part of Silesia for a good 100-125 years or so, but it doesn't need to go in the intro. --Delirium 06:24, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

I'm starting to have enough of that. I can't understand why stressing that Silesia was either part of HRE or on border of it is important ot have in INTRODUCTION of article, why mentioning that before1945 it also was in past part of POLAND is irrevelant and including mentioning about it means Polish nationalist.

Leaving the introduction in current form stresses ONLY GERMAN influences and gives impression that in fact Poles are invaders who appeared here out of nowhere after WWII. While this in fact may satisfy feelings of expelled Germans, this is not neutral POV and i fail to see why you keep thinking that it's, while removing it and moving to history section is NPOV.

Explain it to me. My proposition of intro: 1) It should mention that Germans wer emajority before 1945 and that Silesia for long time was part of different German states, and that German population was expelled 2) at the same time it should mention that ealier also it was part of Poland and Poles were (or Polish-speakers if you can't stand "Poles") significant minority even in modern times. 3) Teschen/Cieszyn controversy - so it also should mention Bohemia part.

If you only wrote "Silesia is historical German province" or choose another sentence which in fact means the same, it's not NPOV. user::szopen

That makes sense to me. I'll see if I can find a way to word that neutrally. I agree that a combination of 1) and 2) particularly is what we need to present all the facts accurately: it was a mostly German area, but it was also always in some sense a Polish area as well. We should avoid either of the two nationalist POVs: 1) that it was an exclusively German region taken over by Poles after 1945; or that 2) it was always a Polish region except for 100 years when Germans invaders occupied it. --Delirium 21:30, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Re-protection
A number of people have expressed the opinion that un-protecting the Silesia article was a mistake. So I'm going to re-protect it.

Please make specific and short suggestions on how to improve the article. If enough people agree on a suggestion, a sysop will put it into the article.

Remember, I know nothing about Silesia and very little about the history of Germany, Poland, and so on. I'm just good at English grammar :-) and the NPOV.

Let's work together on this, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:08, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cordyph and Ruhrjung. It is impossible to write a NPOV article as long as the Polish nationalists are free to do what they want, and besides, I've also have better things to do. I leave this discussion. And I'm sorry to tell that this article will be of no interest for people seeking serious and neutral information. Nico 14:32, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nico, you are again escaping discussion and again are offensing Polish discutants. You are not caring about neutral information. You are caring about making impression that Silesia is rightful German province and nothing more.

Moreover, what of what we were doing you are considering "Polish nationalist"? We are against putting remark that "Silesia was either in HRE or on its borders" for most of 2nd millenium, while ignoring other countries. In other words, you were for mentioning ONLY German influences in INTRODUCTORY paragraph, while simultanously arguing that all Polish influences are part of medieval history and had no relevance, so the reader impression is that SILESIA IS GERMAN PROVINCE temporarily administrated from mercy by Poland. And you are ALL ignoring my primary question: WHAT IS THE SENSE of such sentence? Silesia became part of HRE in betweem 1327 and 1368 and ceased to be in 1807 (or was it 1815) when HRE ceased to exist. For most of that time being part of HRE was mere formality (eg When Bohemia was ruled by Polish kings). IF HRE ceased to exist in modern times, then you arguments has no sense. Suggest other sentence. And do not AGAIN and AGAIN offend us by suggesting that OUR suggestions are not aimed at achieving neutrality. BEcause your version is not.

Gosh, since my wars with some other German lady i've never was so angry. szopen