Talk:Silesia/Archive 6

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)

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 (&#346;lunsk, &#346;lonsk) be also mentioned?

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

Answers: Modern or historcal region

 * (1) Should this article and the introduction paragraph be focused on modern or historical Silesia

Silesia is a live province of 10 million people. I suggest that the first paragraph should describe its current status, division and people. And the second paragraph should describe the outline of its rich history. (see suggestion below) CC, 20:41, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't like the historical bias of the intro. This intro describes Silesia as a dead province of the past. Silesia is a live province of 10 million people. I suggest that the first paragraph should describe its current status, division and people. And the second paragraph shoul describe its rich history.


 * Silesia is an historical region. The opening sentences are quite similar to the opening sentences in most other encyclopedias, e.g. the Britannica. Nico

CC, 22:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that the Silesia is a historical region, but not only - it is also a geographical and ethnographical modern region.


 * The phrase what is now Poland and is very offensive and should be removed
 * Nonsense.Nico
 * It is offensive and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the word nonsense it will remain offensive.

Answers: bondaries of Silesia

 * (2) The boundaries of Silesia: is Silesia part of Poland and Czechia only, or Germany too.

In my opinion there are three attitues in determining the boundaries of Silesia: I see no reason why the boundaries in Prussian time should be definitive, they are only auxilliary and should be used if it helps to define the boundaries.
 * the oldest historical boundaries
 * the longest living boundaries
 * the modern boundaries

In most cases all three attitudes bring the same results. There are only doubts about the far western and far eastern frontiers of Silesia. Summary of my opinion is that Czech Silesia, Oswiecim-Siewierz-Zator-Zywiec area, Klodzko area and Polish parts of historical Lusatia should be included in the boundaries of Silesia. At the same time the Gorlitz area of Germany should not be counted as part of Silesia as it was only temporary within the administrative boundariies in Prussian times. CC, 19:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Answers: the Gorelitz/Zgorzelec area

 * (2a) Is the Goerlitz area part of Silesia or part of historical Lusatia and Saxony now

Accordig to all three methods the Goerlitz area is not part of Silesia. I see no reason why the boundaries in Prussian time should be definitive.

There are some doubts whether areas of historical Lusatia, that are parts of modern Lower Silesian Voivodship should be counted (my answer is yes). CC, 19:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Answers: the Siewierz/Oswiecim/Zator/Zywiec area

 * (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 till the partitions of Poland.

According to methods 1-2 areas of Siewierz, Zywiec, Oswiecim and Zator are also part of historical Silesia, although it is now a borderland between Polish Silesia and Little Poland. CC, 19:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Answers: the Czech/Bohemian/Austrian Silesia

 * (2c) Is the Czech Silesia: Ostrava/Opava/Karniow/CeskyTesin area part of Silesia?

According to all three methods the Czech Silesia, is also part of the historical and modern Silesia. CC, 19:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Answers: the Klodzko/Glatz area

 * (2d) Is the Klodzko area part of Silesia?

The county of Klodzko was historically part of the Czech Kingdom, and not part of the Silesian province in the Czech and Austrian times. It it was ruled by the Silesian dukes it was still considered part of Bohemia/Czechia. It was separated from Czechia in 1742 and joined to Silesia, where it remains till today. CC, 19:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The ties with various countries and nations

 * (3) Were the ties of Silesia with Poland, Czechia, Austria, Germany decreasing/increasing? What are these ties (political, eclessiastical, educational, religious, economic, ethnic, cultural)


 * I have spent several hours documenting that the ties with Poland were not decreasing (see the archives). There were times that the ties were increasing and decreasing - the history is a zig-zag, not a straigh line. CC, 19:14, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC


 * Revisionism is irrelevant here.Nico

???


 * It is not true that Silesia was Polish in the middle ages and after 1945. Parts of Silesia were Polish all the time, parts of Silesia were Czech all the time. It is better to say that most of Lower Silesia belonged to Prussia-Germany in years 1742-1945, and the Upper Silesia was divided between Prussia, Czechia, Poland and Austria (and the frontiers were changing). CC, 19:14, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC


 * Then say that. Nico

Answers: ethnic ties, etnic majority

 * (3a) What was the ethnic majority of Silesia in various times (ethnic ties)


 * It is not true that Silesia had a German majority, at least there is no reliable proof that there was such a majority. It is better to say that Silesia was half German, half Polish from ethnic point of view, of that the Lower Silesia had a German majority, and Upper Silesia had a Polish majority.


 * Nonsense. The 1905 census showed an German 3/4 majority. Nico


 * According to the German census of 1905 the population of German Silesia was 4,942,611, of whom 2,120,361 were Protestants, 2,765,394 Catholics and 46,845 Jews; Three-fourths of the inhabitants and territory are German, but to the east of the Oder the Poles, more than 1,000,000 in number, form the bulk of the population, while there are about 15,500 Czechs in the south part of the province and 25,000 Wends near Liegnitz

Most of the historians accept the religious numbers as the German government has no interest in falsifying them, at the same time these historians do question the ethnic numbers. (the etnic stats are indeed for the language not etnicity. The historians think that some of the Catholics were indeed the Poles counted as the Germans.

You have also to consider the Austrian Silesia: In 1900 the population numbered 680,422, which corresponds to 342 inhabitants per sq. m. The Germans formed 44.69% of the population, 33.21% were Poles and 22.05% Czechs and Slays. According to religion, 84~ 73 were Roman Catholics, 14% Protestants and the remainder were Jews.

You have also consider the Polish Silesia (with some 500.000 inhabitants - mostly Polish)


 * It is very offensive to say that there was a German majority before 1945 as this was the period of Nazi atrocities, masacres, mass murders and reseltllement, If we want to show the historical status its better to say before 1938, of before WWII. CC, 19:14, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Nico


 * In my opinion it is very offensive to mention the German majority before 1945 and to ignore the the German occupation of Poland and Czechoslovakia and to ignore the results of the German activities in the Auchwitz concentration camp. CC, 23:16, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If Upper Silesia was mostly Polish, why did 60% of it vote to remain part of Germany in 1920?
(This section containts comments made today, so it should remain on the main page for a while)

Caius, if Upper Silesia was mostly Polish, why did 60% of it vote to remain part of Germany in 1920? In terms of your version, it is much less useful than the current version, in that it doesn't explain the history at all. john

Upper Silesia was mostly Polish according to the German statistics. Are you accusing the German government of falsifying the statistics to promote the Polish nation or of Polonizing the Silesia???

But to answer your question.
 * the question was do you want to be in Poland or Germany, and not of nationality.
 * the German propaganda line was that Poland is a temporary state that will be liquidated in just a few years, so its better to stay in s safer place
 * the German propaganda line was that Poland is unstable state, with no stable goverment, borders, army, economy etc so is better to stay in safer Germany
 * police and administration was in German hands, so they could influence th voters especially in the rural areas. The urban workers organized into trade unions voted mostly for Poland
 * upper classes were mosly German, so its was unsafe to vote against your boss. You could loose you job.
 * additionaly the Germans have organized some 200,000 Germans who were ever born in but left Silesia afterwards, Polish side was allowed only 10,000 such persons. If we count only true Silesians living in the area the result would be 49%-51%


 * Because 60% was from people both living in Upper Silesia and those who were allowed to vote (who were born in Silesia). From those who were only from Silesia, proportions were much more in favour of Polishness szopen


 * Ah, that makes sense. Of course, there were a lot of Polish immigrants into Upper Silesia, due to the increasingly industrialization. john 09:17, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Germany were so afraid of graduall Polonisation of the Eastern province, see Ostflucht, that Poles couldn't immigrate, and those who immigrate were expelled. AM

08:20, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) I can explain it to you. Silesia was border province, and the alleged Germans of the province were not so German, and alleged Poles were not so Polish. Remainder had all but confused opinion about nationality. Silesia was also kind of Prussian colony, where all upper classes where German Prussians, while lower where Polish. To advance in your carreer, you must become German. Also many Silesians came to Ruhr area to work. Some of them Germanised there. Don't underestimate power of Prussian militarism. Prussia was not a liberal country. Children were beaten at school to adhere to Prussian education theory. Silesian national movement wanted to liberate Silesia in the alliance with Poland. First of all, they wanted Silesians to wake up and become free people. It suceeded only partly. During the referendum, many people that returned from Ruhr, voted for Germany, many that voted for Germany, where not German at all. Many people appear German before 1914, Polish 1920-1939, German 1939-1945, Polish in 1945, but eventually emigrated to Germany, where they insist on speaking Polish! Your simple equation, that 60% voting for Germany, means that they were German, maybe true in democratic society of USA, but not in the trapped by totalitarian powers Silesia of XX century. AM


 * I wouldn't call either Germany or Poland in 1920 "totalitarian". In any event, I wonder how much of the distinction had to do with religion.  That is to say, Poles were Catholic, but Silesia was largely protestant.  Mightn't protestant Polish-speakers have voted for staying with Germany? john 09:17, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * To confuse you more, since Protestants made more stress on national languages, Polish speaking protestants were the first to use Polish language in writing. Teschen Silesia Poles were protestants, but eager Poles. Upper Silesia and Klodzko/Glatz were Catholic, Lower Silesia protestant. AM

Answers: political ties

 * (3b) What were the prevailing political belonging of Silesia in various historical periods.

Answers: eclessiastical ties

 * (3c) What were the prevailing eclessiatical/educational/religious ties

Answers: economic ties

 * (3a) What were the prevailing economic ties of Silesia.

Answers: cultural ties

 * (3a) What were the prevailing cultural ties of Silesia?

Silesian name of Silesia

 * (4) Should the Silesian name (&#346;lunsk, &#346;lonsk) be also mentioned?

In my opinion it doesn't matter if the Silesian dialacts are considered to the the dialacts of Polish language or dialects of the Silesian language. The fact is that the Silesian name exists: ussualy spelled: &#346;lunsk, &#346;lonsk and they should be listed. CC, 20:51, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It is good that Polish, German and Czech names of the region are listed, but its bad that the Silesian name is not listed. Polish name of the region is &#346;l&#261;sk, and the Silesian name is &#346;lonsk, &#346;lunsk (in various dialects; spelling unsettled yet)
 * It's totally unacceptable to list the Polish dialect names Slonsk and Slunsk first, and in the first sentence. As I've already told you, these names are not used by any other encyclopedia and are totally unknown. How about: Silesia (Silesian Schlesien, Lower Silesian Schlesien, German Schlesien, Polish Slask Czech Slezko)?? Nico


 * According to the last census 2002 there are 170,000 Silesians in Poland and 70,000 of them declare Silesian as their first language. The Silesians are an officialy akckowledged national minority in the Czech Republic and an officialy akckowledged ehnic minority in the Poland. So you claim that the Silesians do not exist has no ground. CC, 22:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New intro proposal
Why don't you use, as the most neutral way, a very very short introduction and a very long history part, in which all facts are described, such as 60%-votes, mostly a legal part of Poland today, ...? Things could be so easy. 82.82.129.22 08:26, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about:


 * Silesia (Polish &#346;l&#261;sk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and the northeastern Czech Republic. The historical region belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased in the later Middle Ages, and the province was a Habsburg domain from the 16th to the 18th century. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II most of Silesia was annexed by Poland, and the German population was expelled. The remainder of Silesia remained under Austrian control, and today forms part of the Czech Republic.  In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as &#346;lonsk or &#346;lunsk.

Does anyone have any problems with this? john 08:35, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This seems fine to me, although I think also the German part (the Görlitz area) of the region should be mentioned (and with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic), as the Britannica does. -- Nico 08:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Silesia (Polish &#346;l&#261;sk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the northeastern Czech Republic. Silesia belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased in the later Middle Ages, and the province was a Habsburg domain from the 16th to the 18th century. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II most of Silesia was annexed by Poland, and the German population was expelled. The remainder of Silesia remained under Austrian control, and today forms part of the Czech Republic.  In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as &#346;lonsk or &#346;lunsk.

Not that I don't love arguing about this stuff, but couldn't everyone try to take a look at the revised opening paragraph presented above, and present an opinion on it? john 09:17, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, how long do we have to wait to see if people object to the suggested new version? I think all of the folks who've been involved in the debate have made some change to this page in the last 24 hours or so, which suggests they've seen it, and none has commented, other than Nico. So, is this good? Would this meet everyone's objections. One would note that it has the virtue of not mentioning the very disputed ethnic composition of Silesia in the pre-1945 period, and that it at no point calls Silesia a part of Germany (as opposed to Prussia), while at the same time not denying any German claims. It also managed to be more specific than the previous version in other ways, mentioning the war of the Austrian Succession (Silesia's most famous moment on the world scene, surely) and the expulsion of the Germans after 1945. So, any problems? The language, can, of course, be modified if people object to any of the statements made. But this page is getting to be ridiculous, with numerous people checking in to continue fruitless historical arguments, and nobody actually commenting on what we're supposed to be doing, which is writing an encyclopedia article. If nobody has any objections in the next day or so, can we get someone to unprotect the page and then implement these suggested changes? john 09:22, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have feeling that "ties with Poland decreased in Later middle ages" should be changed into "ties with Poland decreased over time". Ties with Poland were present even in XIX century. Also, don't youw ant to mention that Germans were majority in most of Silesia pre-1945? Also, not all German population was expelled in 1945/6- most of them.Som estay until 60s, some until today (although large part of today's 100.000 strong German minority is in fact descendants of those, who in 1945 were positively verified as Poles and only later found their Germannes anewszopen

Newest revision, incorporating Szopen's suggestions:


 * Silesia (Polish &#346;l&#261;sk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the northeastern Czech Republic. Silesia belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased over time, and the province was a Habsburg domain from the 16th to the 18th century. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II nearly all of Prussian Silesia was annexed by Poland, and most of the German population (which had formed a majority prior to the war) was expelled. The remainder of Silesia remained under Austrian control, and today forms part of the Czech Republic.  In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as &#346;lonsk or &#346;lunsk.

john 03:58, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove "which had formed a majority prior to the war" and "The remainder of Silesia remained under Austrian control", and describe that in the history section instead? Nico 21:30, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Silesia (Polish &#346;l&#261;sk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the northeastern Czech Republic. Silesia belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased over time, and the province was a Habsburg domain from the 16th to the 18th century. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II nearly all of Prussian Silesia was annexed by Poland, and most of the German population was expelled.  In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as &#346;lonsk or &#346;lunsk.

Incorporating bohemian crown etc.

 Silesia (Polish S´la?sk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the northeastern Czech Republic. Silesia belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased over time, and the province became a possession of the Bohemian crown, and thus part of the Holy Roman Empire, in 1335, and passed to the Austrian Habsburgs in 1526. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II nearly all of Prussian Silesia was annexed by Poland, and most of the German population was expelled. In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as S´lonsk or S´lunsk. The Polish portion of Silesia, which forms the bulk of the historic region, is now divided into the voivodships of Lower Silesian Voivodship (capital: Wroclaw), Opole Voivodship (capital: Opole), and Silesian Voivodship (capital: Katowice). The latter two are sometimes called Upper Silesia. The small portion in the Czech Republic is joined with Moravia to form the Moravian-Silesian Region of that country, while the Görlitz area now is a part of the German state of Saxony. '''

Silesia is live nor dead region (my original comment)
I think we are going in the right direction (multi-cultural intro) very slowly but still not far enough. Here are a couple of my opinions.


 * It is good that Polish, German and Czech names of the region are listed, but its bad that the Silesian name is not listed. Polish name of the region is &#346;l&#261;sk, and the Silesian name is &#346;lonsk, &#346;lunsk (in various dialects; spelling unsettled yet)
 * I don't like the historical bias of the intro. This intro describes Silesia as a dead province of the past. Silesia is a live province of 10 million people. I suggest that the first paragraph should describe its current status, division and people. And the second paragraph shoul describe its rich history.
 * The phrase what is now Poland and is very offensive and should be removed
 * I have spent several hours documenting that the ties with Poland were not decreasing (see above and arhcives). There were times that the ties were increasing and decreasing - the history is a zig-zag, not a straigh line.
 * It is not true that Silesia was Polish in the middle ages and after 1945. Parts of Silesia were Polish all the time, parts of Silesia were Czech all the time. It is better to say that most of Lower Silesia belonged to Prussia-Germany in years 1742-1945, and the Upper Silesia was divided between Prussia, Czechia, Poland and Austria (and the frontiers were changing)
 * It is not true that Silesia had a German majority, at least there is no reliable proof that there was such a majority. It is better to say that Silesia was half German, half Polish from ethnic point of view, of that the Lower Silesia had a German majority, and Upper Silesia had a Polish majority.
 * It is very offensive to say that there was a German majority before 1945 as this was the period of Nazi atrocities, masacres, mass murders and reseltllement, If we want to show the historical status its better to say before 1938, of before WWII. CC, 19:14, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

New intro/definition of Silesia (proposal)
My suggestion is the initial paragraph about the modern Silesia, next paragraphs about historical Silesia.

Silesia (Silesian: &#346;lonsk, &#346;lunsk, Polish: &#346;l&#261;sk, German: Schlesien, Czech: Slezsko) is a historical and geographical region with over 10 million population in southwestern Poland and the northeastern Czech Republic, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra river and along the Sudeten mountains. Upper Silesia is divided into 2 Polish provinces, Silesian Voivodship (capital Katowice) and Opole Voivodship (capital Opole), and one Czech province, the Silesian-Moravian Region (capital Ostrava). Lower Silesia is divided into 2 Polish provinces, Lower Silesian Voivodship (capital Wroclaw) and partly Lubusz Voivodship (capital Zielona Gora).

Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with strong Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. History of Silesia is connected with history of the three nations and countries: Poland, Bohemia, and Germany.

In the middle ages Silesia was an object of Polish-Czech rivalry but also with many ethnic Germans settling here. It was a province of the Bohemian Kingdom from 1348 to 1742, although a small portion became Polish in 1443. In 1742-1763 most of Silesia was seized by Prussia in the Silesian Wars, and organized into the Prussian provinces Upper and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War I half of Upper Silesia, and after WWII most of Silesia was ceded to Poland. During WWII all of Silesia was part of Nazi Germany and the Germans murdered or expelled most Poles and Jews (see concentration camps, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Gross-Rosen); after WWII most of the Germans were expelled from Poland and Czechoslovakia (Expulsion of the Germans). CC, 20:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I would agree to that. --Wik 20:47, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wik, we have also to convince others, and wait a while for the comments and maybe some improvements CC, 20:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Is it OK to say History of Silesia is connected with history of the four nations and countries: Poland, Czechia(Bohemia), Germany and Austria. CC, 20:54, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

He continues
Well, it seems like he continues to flood the page, and insisting on his complete outrageous version. If he not will cooperate with other contributors, the only solution will be a vote. -- Nico 20:44, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nico, please stop the personal attacks, and discuss the issues. You continue to accuse many users of editing without any comments and of flooding and spaming the talk pages. This is ridiculous. Anyway you comments and contributions are welcome. We want to cooperate with you. CC, 20:58, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Stop the personal attacks"? That is coming from the right person!

By the way, you are wrong. We wish to cooperate with you. But if you not will cooperate, the page will just stay protected. Nico 21:08, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

CC, your method of flooding the page with ridiculous amounts of text makes any kind of discussion very difficult. Your version of the page, focusing on the modern provinces in Silesia, seems confusing and unnecessary. And the reference to the Holocaust in the intro to the article is completely POV, and has no place in the introduction to an article about a particular region (especially since the vast majority of Silesia was already part of Germany before 1938). The historical explanation you provide is overly complicated, and fails to mention the Habsburg connection. (My version, to be fair, failed to mention the Bohemian connection, but I'd be amenable to reasonable attempts to add something about that). Some of the contentions you make are, as Nico says, nonsense. That it is somehow offensive and POV to say that Silesia is a region in what is now Poland and the Czech Republic? Furthermore, your argument that the article ought to focus on the "modern province" of Silesia is ridiculous. There is no such thing. There are three Polish provinces which mostly correspond to the now defunct Prussian Silesia, but there are parts of the old Silesia which are not part of those provinces. Silesia is also not a province in the Czech Republic, forming instead fhte Moravian-Silesian region, with parts of Moravia. It seems to me, then, that a mostly historical account makes a lot more sense for the introduction. In any event, I suggest a vote. john 22:17, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * FROM THE BRITANNICA:


 * Silesia (Polish Slask German Schlesien)


 * Historic region, east-central Europe.


 * It now lies mainly in southwestern Poland, with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. It was originally a Polish province that became a possession of the Bohemian crown, and thus part of the Holy Roman Empire, in 1335. Because of succession disputes and the region's prosperity, there were at least 16 Silesian principalities by the end of the 15th century. It passed to the Austrian Habsburgs in 1526; it was taken by Prussia in 1742. After World War I it was divided between Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Germany. During World War II Polish Silesia was occupied by Germany and was the site of atrocities against the population by Nazi and, later, Soviet forces. In 1945 the Allied powers assigned virtually all of Silesia to Poland; today its nine Polish provinces contain almost one-fourth of Poland's population.


 * http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=403975

what is the publication date of this definition?? CC, 06:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Debate on History of Silesia
Except the intro debate there's also some confusion about the history section. Current version the history is unacceptable as it is ''a history of German colonization of Silesia' I have tried to make some improvements have some small successes.

Just before the page was protected I tried to add these 4 passages, but they have been reverted by Nico five times. So I am asking you Nico for the second time: do you have anything against incorporating these sentences about historical facts into the history section of Silesia. CC, 20:35, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Name of Silesia
According to Thietmar the name of Silesia region comes from the Mount Slez (Polish: &#346;l&#281;&#380;a, Sobótka, German: Silling, Sobbten).

State of Samo
In ca. 620 Silesia probably belonged to the State of Samo, the first Western Slavonic state, which was a federation of various Slavonic tribes in Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, Pannonia, Lusatia and Silesia.

Bishopric of Wroclaw 1000
In 990 Silesia was incorporated into Poland by Mieszko I (although some historians are moving the date to 999 and rule of king Boleslaus I. This boundaries of Poland were accepted by the Pope and Roman Enperor Otto III, by establishing the Silesian bishopric in Wroclaw (1000).

Mass massacres of Poles and Jews
During World War II the Nazi Germany has annexed the Czech Silesia in 1938 (part of the so called Sudetenland) and Polish part of Upper Silesia in 1939. Mass massacres, expulsions and murders of the Poles and Jews followed.

Do you have something against? Caius2ga 20:35, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

- Note to other users: Caius2ga is fully aware of why his vandalism was reverted. See http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Silesia/archive5#Why_editor_Nico_doesn't_like_the_truth_???? -- Nico 11:22, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nico, it is a fact that you have reverted these changes. I don't know WHY you have reverted them. So I am asking once more: why did you you revert these submissions? Do you have something against them? Please tell us. Is it so diffilcult Caius2ga 01:34, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--

Silesia - a German colony in Poland
The Wikipedia article about India is the article about the Republic of India, and it doesn't mention that it was part of the British Empire before 1948 and that many Englishmen were expelled. In my opinion the article about Silesia should be about the region of Silesia, and it would be OK not to mention Germans at all, as the India article does not mention the British. Any mention of the Germans in the intro is a great concession to our German friends.Caius2ga 22:44, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. India was a colony. Silesia was a German province with majority of German population. If you think it is "OK" to write an article about an historically German province not mentioning Germans at all, then just go away. This is an encyclopedia. Nico 23:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia was colony too - a German colony in Poland. There is no ground for your claim that there was a German majority in Silesia. It is almost sure that Silesia had a Slavonic majority: Silesians, Czechs, and Poles, although it is diffulcult to decide how many of them. I cannot agree that Silesia is a German province. Historically it was occupied by Prussia and later Germany for a relativelty short periods of time - in other words it was under temporary Prussian administration.

Silesia had a very difficult history, especailly in the last two centurries. We have to put aside the historical conflicts, and try to write about the common history of Silesia. Caius2ga 23:25, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about. The India article certainly mentions the British.


 * By subjugating the Mughal empire in the 19th century, the British Empire had assumed political control of virtually all Indian lands. Mostly nonviolent resistance to British colonialism under Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru led to independence in 1947. The subcontinent was divided into the secular state of India and the smaller Muslim state of Pakistan.

And, in any case, Indian history is covered by a separate article, History of India. Further, the old Silesia no longer exists, and it is essentially a historical region, so more historical discussion is in order for the main article than for India, which is a contemporary state. john 07:28, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that the British aren't mentioned in the introduction of the India article, only in the history section (and the separate history article). And what exactly is the "old Silesia"? Silesia is still a contemporary region. If your point is that it isn't a single administrative entity, well, for most of its history it wasn't either. So I think the introduction should begin with a description of the present region (population, geographical setting, current administrative divisions), as in Caius' proposal above. --Wik 12:31, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * And I think the point is that India is a contemporary state, while Silesia is an historical region. See other encyclopedias, e.g. the Britannica, they all starts with Historical region, it now lies mainly in Poland, with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic etc.. To compare Silesia, German since later middle ages, and which had a majority of German population, with India, which was nothing but a colony, is not only extremely offensive. It's ridiculous and idiotic. Nico 13:10, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia, Saxony and India - modern and historical
In terms of Silesia as a present-day region, it is no more one than, say, Normandy, or Anjou, or Swabia. The region obviously still exists geographically, and is sometimes referred to as a region. And even some administrative divisions might be named that. But they primarily remain historical terms, for regions that don't quite exist anymore. The three Polish districts that lie entirely within the old Silesia, and which are called "Silesia", ought to be treated in articles about those specific regions (as, as I understand it, they are). They do not, however, constitute the whole of the very well-defined province/region of Silesia which existed for nearly a thousand years. Several other Polish provinces contains portions of the old Silesia, and there is no Czech province which wholly consists of the old Austrian Silesia. Silesia is essentially defunct. Further, India/Silesia comparisons are not fair, not only because the German presence in Silesia was over a far longer span of time, and far more extensive, than British presence in India, but also because the India article itself is essentially an introduction to India, since there are various specific articles like History of India that go into more detail. There are no such articles for Silesia. Furthermore, again, India is a present day country. Silesia is a historical region, still referred to, but no longer having any specific meaning on its own. The Polish voivodeships can be discussed in their own separate article, and even as it is, they are discussed in the second paragraph of the current article. I continue to be confused as to what is at issue here. john 23:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are more similarities than you think. Historical India no longer exists and is now divided into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Historcial Saxony no longer exists and is now didided into Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Lower Saxony - if you are referring to Silesia in Poland now, you are ussually refferring to the Silesian Voivodship - Caius2ga 01:31, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah, your last comment is interesting. Since we already have an article on the Silesian Voivodship, which you yourself admit is the primary contemporary referent of Silesia, shouldn't the Silesia article then focus on the historical Silesia? john 04:12, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion Silesia has today two meanings: first is the Silesian Voivodship, second the geographical region consisting of several voivodships in Poland and a region in Czechia. I hope we can agree to write an acceptable article on this geographical region. But if Nico will not stop his nationalistic incursions and edit wars I will make an official proposal that the Silesia article is devoted solely to the modern Silesian Voivodship, and the Lower Silesia article is devoted solely to the modern Lower Silesian Voivodship, (in the same manner as Saxony and Lower Saxony) -- Caius2ga 06:17, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would disagree, somewhat, with the first part, and very strongly with the second. It has two meanings: first is the Silesian Voivodship, and second is the historical region comprising what is now three Voivodships in Poland, part of the Silesia-Moravia district of the Czech Republic, parts of several other Polish voivodships, and perhaps the Görlitz district of Germany. In what sense has anybody been involved in edit wars on this page in recent days? It has been protected. Furthermore, Nico's arguments have not been particularly unreasonable or nationalistic, at least recently, and his position seems to be little different from that of Poles like Szopen, or of Americans like me. Your second proposal is completely unacceptable. Outside of Poland, the general region of Silesia is much better known than the current Voivodship. The article ought to detail the history of this region, and this ought to be dealt with in the introduction. Further, the article on Saxony certainly includes the history of the region before the existence of the current state, including some discussion of the completely different area called Saxony in the middle ages (the present day Lower Saxony). john 07:48, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just a side note: i will abstain from the article sicne i decided that i have better things to do that invloving in revert wars. I will be back and i will lurk here, but that's all.

In Poland we still commonly refer to area as "Slask", although at most cases when people mention it they are meaning Upper Silesia. Silesia is not "Dead" region. In all maps showing general divisions of Poland, the regions are Silesia, Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Masovia, Pommerania, Masuria. Those general meaning of Silesia is more or less "compatible" with borders of historical Silesia

Mere lack of one province covering whole Sielsia can't be argument, since in medieval times Silesia was divided into separate STATES and you won't be claiming that it means Silesia is dead region. szopen

Indeed, it's not a dead region. It's a region which has no specific political significance at the moment. Like Anjou or Baden, rather than, say, Tuscany or Saxony. My point is that Silesia can't be confined to the three voivodships +Czech areas that caius2ga wants to do, because historic Silesia was bigger than that, and because it would be pointless to do so, since we can (and do) easily have articles on those three voivodships. Given that the historic Polish region of Silesia roughly corresponds with the historic Bohemian/Prussian province(s) of Silesia, the article should deal with the history of this conglomerate, which essentially ended as an independent unit in 1945. In any event, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about here. Are we arguing about whether to include any historical discussion of Silesia in the introduction at all? I continue to fail to understand what is wrong with the introductory paragraph I submitted as a possible revision of the current one. I would propose a vote, but I have no idea what we'd even be voting on. john 08:48, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Better comparison would be maybe with Wales or whatever. History of the region had not ended in 1945, period. If you will discussing only history of "independent unit" then sho me periods of history when Silesia was one separate independent entity. If in the past Silesia was divided into few entities, and nevertheless you consider it "region" then i can't understand why you are saying that today Silesia is not separate entiry, although I became a bit confused by your last sentence - are you arguing that history of Silesia ended in 1945 or not?

About introduction i've said already that it's fine if you will remove "in later middle ages" part of sentence of decreasing ties of Poland, since a) it is acceptable to me b) it is acceptable to others - mainly because it is so blurred sentence. Ties with Poland WERE PRESENT even in XIX century, heck even in XX century and were decreasing over time. szopen

Re: introduction, I think I already made the change you suggested some time ago. Re: the other, increasingly useless discussion, I'm not arguing that the history of the region ended in 1945. That doesn't make any sense. I'm just saying that Silesia is no longer a distinct area in the way that it was until 1945, and that the article on Silesia should focus on the pre-1945 period, while the more recent stuff can go in the articles about the three Polish voivodships and the Czech district to which much of Silesia belongs today. Just as the article on Anjou should discuss the historical French province, while more recent material would go in the article on the département of Maine-et-Loire, despite the two being essentially the same region. john 19:07, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

John, I must say i am ignorant in that: was really Silesia separate GAU in Germany pre-1945? Was it one single separate province pre-1918? If not, then I am not sure what are you arguing about. If Silesia was divided previously in few provinces, and now is divided in few provinces, then what's the difference? szopen

Silesia was a Prussian Province until 1945. Of course, there was also Austrian Silesia, which became part of Czechoslovakia after 1918. But, yeah, Silesia was a single Prussian province prior to 1945, along with such places as Brandenburg, Pomerania, East Prussia, and so forth. john 05:50, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually it was two provinces, Upper and Lower Silesia, since 1919. And even before, the Prussian province, as you say, was not all of Silesia, so it is not very different from now, when there is also a "Silesian voivodship" by name, although that is not all of Silesia. Feel free to create a separate article specifically about the historical Prussian province, but this article is supposed to be about the region of Silesia, and this did not cease to exist in 1945. You mentioned Normandy before - why don't you go to that article and see how it starts exactly in the same way as Caius's proposal for this article (i.e. describing its current conditions before its history)? --Wik 06:03, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias
This is the introduction of the Silesia article at http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s/silesia.asp

Silesia, Czech Slezsko, Ger. Schlesien, Pol. S´la?sk, region of E central Europe, extending along both banks of the Oder River and bounded in the south by the mountain ranges of the Sudetes&#8212;particularly the Krkonos e (Ger. Riesengebirge )&#8212;and the W Carpathians. Politically, almost all of Silesia is divided between Poland and the Czech Republic. The Polish portion comprises most of the former Prussian provinces of Upper Silesia and Lower Silesia, both of which were transferred to Polish administration at the Potsdam Conference of 1945; the Polish portion also includes those parts of Upper Silesia that were ceded by Germany to Poland after World War I and part of the former Austrian principality of Teschen. A second, much smaller part of Silesia belonged to Czechoslovakia since 1918, and became part of the Czech Republic with the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993.

And here is another article (Catholic Encyclopedia): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13790b.htm

And the Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=403975

Historic region, east-central Europe. It now lies mainly in southwestern Poland, with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. [...] -- Nico

Why don't you use, as the most neutral way, a very very short introduction and a very long history part, in which all facts are described, such as 60%-votes, mostly a legal part of Poland today, ...? Things could be so easy. 82.82.129.22 08:26, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)