Talk:Silesian Uprisings/Archive 1

Second Silesian Uprising
"occupying German/Prussian forces in order to liberate the region" while 60% of the population voted in favour of remaining in Germany is not neutral.
 * It is disputable how much percent of *real* Silesians voted to which side and why, so please do not not be irredentist, ok?
 * Silesia was and is a Polish province so the Germans were occupyinf forces by definition, is it clear?
 * How do you have uprisings when the Germans were exculpated out of the region by the Treaty of Versailles?
 * Long story short: German army forces were removed, but their police and paramilitary forces remained in the area. ToV decided that the fate of this territory would be decided by the plebiscite. Germans cheated, Poles who lost rose up in an uprising. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * hey polish extremist, silesia WAS a german province... settled by 4 million germans, one of them my grand parents... and Poland has annexed it by force and the population was expelled by force with many casualties after WW2... and for sure while these "uprisings" Polish extremists slaughter the "bad occuping forces" like trainman, schoolboys and majors living in silesia like their German ancestors does is real a glory uprise... face it man, your are an extremist who like to distort every logical historical fact... French and British controlled that area during the plebiscite.. and the French want that area to Poland... so of course it's very easy to cheat at this plebiscite... for sure you dreamer...

Being of both German & Polish descent, I feel that this issue can be seen as reparations for the years of forced Germanization, & ethnic cleansing, of the Polish areas.Poland needed resources. --Sorry, have to disagree. There hasn't been forced germanization in the prussian province of Posen on large scales nor ethnic cleansings - that happened 20 years later!--

I must also point out to the Last pro German speaker ( "one of them my grandparents". etc.,)  that all four, or at least two , of these grandparents would have  lived in Silesia ( assuming norms of morality...) take your time, lads, don't edit in haste...

(Whomeyesme)

I am obligated to admit, that British (due to their foreign policy of that aged) supported Germans - in their point of view, that country had been too weakened by loosing I WW, Alsatia (and so on) establishing II'nd Polish Republic. The problem is that big part of Germans who were voting, were emigrants, who have lived in other parts of that country. The truth is that foreign forces were well known by their brutality... (mikhail)

General discussion
User:Piotrus seems to be a Polish extremist, his edits are propaganda pure and against any proved historical fact and of course against any logic... If you change that back to his version you support his propaganda... I am very familiar with this theme but I really have not the time to fight in every article dealing with Polish history with these Polish extremists who have a lot of energy and time to change every article back to their propaganda crap... Best regards Exec k 10:12, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus is a good person, while he still has a POV like all other people, he does not push it as forcefully as other Poles on this site, such as User:Halibutt and User:Space Cadet. I'm sure what you are calling his POV pushing is just because English is not his first language and so he does not understand all the connotations that come with some words. I have tried to fix some the minor examples of what I have seen, that were minor at the most. Jadger 21:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do ppl keep changing the last line of the first paragraph from " from Germany and join it with Poland, which had been established following World War I (1914-1918)." to "from Germany and join it with Poland, which had regained its independence following World War I (1914-1918)." the link and indeed the nation is/was the second polish republic, which was created after WWI, it cannot regain an independence it did not loseJadger 05:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you see the difference between Poland and Second Polish Republic?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Loaded sentences
how about this sentence in the article: "It should be noted that Poles born in Silesia working in the Ruhr were not allowed by their German employers to go and vote."

This gives the impression that all Germans were in a conspiracy to hold Poles down, rather than the actual truth that employers do not let workers go on vacation on very short notice. And how were these low-income workers to travel all the way accross the nation and take up residence for a period of time on their very limited income? --Jadger 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Matthead, please restore Molobo's version, as their was critical information there that needs to be revised to non-POV. --Jadger 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I shall scan
A map of Weber next week. --Molobo 07:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

the voting portion may be POV
I was wondering about the paragraph in the article that says:

"The Treaty of Versailles had ordered a plebiscite in Upper Silesia to determine whether the territory should be a part of Germany or Poland. In the background, strongarm tactics and discrimination of Poles led to rioting and eventually to the first two Silesian Uprisings in 1919 and 1920. In the plebiscite, around 707,605 votes were cast for Germany, while 479,359 for Poles. The Germans thus gained 228,246 votes of majority. German state brought however a huge number of German outvoters numbering 179,910. Deducting them from the German total, the total German vote is reduced to to 527,000. It should be noted that Poles born in Silesia working in the Ruhr were not allowed by their German employers to move and vote. There were also 10,000 Polish outvoters from Poland, giving the total results of  527,695 German resident votes and 469,359 Polish resident votes, or a German majority of 58,336 instead of 228,246. If the Silesian Poles working in the Ruhr had been allowed to vote, or if the plebiscite had been held only East of the Oder River, the percentage of the vote for Poland would of been higher. However, it was held in all of Upper Silesia, including the predominantly German speaking areas West of the river."

I believe this is some POV pushing that is quite conniving and subversive. that is because of the article Ostflucht has shed some light on the situation. These "Poles" that were not allowed to "return" from the Ruhr to vote because they were German citizens, ethnic Poles, but German citizens, residing in the Ruhr, not Polish citizens commuting to the Ruhr for work.

--Jadger 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Lets face it. This article as it stands is pure propaganda and a travesty of historical fact. Goebbels would have been proud of it - had he been a Pole. It needs major re-editing and restructuring in keeping with the actual facts, which were fully reported on by a competent team of Allied military and civilian personnel; the Italians and the British by far the most impartial. Christchurch 10:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call the article Polish propaganda, we have already NPOVed it with the help of User:Jadger whom I don't think anybody can accuse of being a Polish POV pusher (at least, not with a straight face). Feel free to point out the specific errors and issues that seem POVed to you. I certainly agree that the article needs expantion (there is almost no meaningful content on the first two uprisings), and innline citations are a must for a controversial subject like that. This, however, warrants not a NPOV tag but rather an expand or copyedit one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that's funny because I could of sworn someone I had POV disputes with on Germano-Polish articles before was going to revert my last edit as soon as I had posted it. --Jadger 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, looking at the page history I don't see that your last edits were reverted. But maybe I am looking at the wrong edits - I am not sure what you mean by your above comment?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt edited, that's what I was saying. I was surprised that someone did not restore the POV stuff I had deleted, as has been done so many times when I have edited articles. --Jadger 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you take it as a compliment when I will say that I consider your recent edits to be much more neutral then they were when we first met. We all change, and I would like to think that for better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to give a short resumé of what is wrong with this travesty of historical fact without rewriting the entire article on the Talk Page. Frankly, if you cannot see what is wrong with the article then you must be in the same camp as those who wrote it up. I am logging my dispute clearly so please do NOT remove the NPOV label until the article and its presentation can be reworked. In the meanitme I suggest you read up on some impartial source materials. Christchurch 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I know my edits have been much more "neutral" recently because I have not tried to overstep the bounds and remove the most sacred and closest held beliefs of people like Molobo, because when I edit one of their POV statements along with many other things such as grammar and outright lies, they tend to revert it all. CC, please log your dispute more clearly, by saying what is actually POV, such as quote a section of the article. I know it's not perfect, but with your help we cna make it better. --Jadger 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * CC, if you cannot point out any specific facts that you thing are POVed that your criticism is not constructive at all, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV tag
NEUTRALITY DISPUTED (THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS POLNISH NATIONALISTIC POINTS OF VIEW) --Castor100 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please use, and give more detailed reasons. --Matthead 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Preferably give detailed reasons first, and then consider using tags. Also, don't shout and read about netiquette.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted
I deleted the following:"In the local elections following the uprising on 9/11/1919, 6,822 Poles were elected compared to only 4,373 Germans. (Pierwsze powstanie śląskie)"


 * As this is the English-language Wikipedia sources should be given in English-language publications. Christchurch 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning is this: there is no evidence that shows that this was not the norm, what were the previous election results before the uprising? It is currently misleading as it implies that up until the uprising a vast majority of elected officials were German, which has not been proven. It is more likely that a majority of elected officials before the uprising were ethnic Poles as well. To use a modern Canadian example, this is like saying that it is an aberration that english speaking Canadians are elected to the Quebec provincial parliament less often the French speaking ones.

--Jadger 02:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is still a referenced numerical data - I think it is somewhat relevant.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC).


 * How would you like it if we cited Nazi "referenced numerical data"? Would you accept that? I certainly would not, and I do not accept very obvious false data manufatured entirely for propaganda purposes. The true figures are all contained in the Plebiscite Commission's Reports. Christchurch 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I also think it is relevant, if it can be put into context; as in, can we get the previous election results that show it was indeed an aberration caused by the repressive actions taken against the rebelling population.

--Jadger 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather prefer this information to be kept as otherwise it may get lost. Could you perhaps look for other data complementing it instead ? I consider it a good illustration supporting the previous sentence and one of the few pieces of solid and sourced data in the article. As such, it should be preserved, regadless of other shortcomings of the article. I hope you'll not consider it edit-warring, but I've restored the data, assuming that you'd agree with it, despite your reservations. --Lysytalk 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer it be kept also, BUT only if indeed it is valid as I have outlined above. It is indeed sourced, but it obviously is not solid as I have shown above, only if you assume that Germans were the majority elected prior to the uprising is it solid, but that cannot be proven, nor is it likely. I also do not see the point of this statement anyways, as it does not directly prove what it is supposed to be reinforcing, as election results do not signify that people voted on the basis of race, perhaps ethnic German candidates put together bad platforms or they simply did not run in many areas where Poles dominated. To use another contemporary Canadian example: the Bloq Quebecois does not run candidates in English speaking Canada for a reason, perhaps there was something similar in Silesia, of course this is just conjecture but you see my point, these numbers are meaningless without some substance to them.

I will give you 24 hours to counter my argument or provide evidence before deleting the information, thus trying to prevent an editwar.

--Jadger 03:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Jadger's argument is valid. Regardless of whether the outcome of the elections was a norm or not, that's how it was. Why should we hide that? To make it less evident whom the people wanted? I don't really get it.  // Halibutt 22:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why must it be pointed out that some where of one ethnic group and others of another? it is pure racism being propogated on wikipedia. the common people did not vote for these people singly because they were Polish or German or African American. leaving this in implies that that is the case. Do you seriously claim that most upper silesians are racists?

--Jadger 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whichever way you twist the cat, the tail... No, Jadger, that's not what I suggested. The basic topic of this article is to describe a political (at times military) conflict for certain area. One of the basic stages in the resolution of the conflict were the elections. But no, you propose to delete the mention of the outcome. Should we also delete the military outcome of the uprisings because it was unfavourable to the Germans? To paraphrase your comment, do you seriously believe that most Silesians are soldiers? Besides, Poles and Germans belong to the same race, regardless of what the Nazis claimed.  // Halibutt 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The situation in Silesia at this time was both military and political. The two cannot be separated in this instance. It would be an impossibility. Also, there is plenty of published independent authoritative evidence on the inter-war period for Silesia which is not Nazi. Christchurch 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Third Silesian Uprising

 * A map of the resulting demarcation would be most useful. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   00:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is an absolute mess. All we have are German-nationalist and Polish-nationalist POV garbage. john k 16:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * On the bright side, there seem to be no edit wars of vandalism here. If you could remove the POV you spotted it wouod be great. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I don't know terribly much about the subject. It's certainly a fraught one.  Maybe you could have a go? john k 21:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is on my 'to do' list, but since you did spot some POVs, could you point them out to me so I can try to verify/disprove them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the current version seems to be German POV. It was changed from a previous (Emax) version that was Polish POV.  A lot of the discussion of who was a majority and who a minority, about the role of the allied occupying forces, about the nature of who provoked the conflict, seems to change back and forth based on who last edited it. john k 15:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I tried to revert some POV pushing, it seemed pretty biased towards Poland. I however have not a lot of time and haven't fixed all the grammatical errors. Jadger 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering, I have never heard of grenschutz before used in this context, but the way they are described in this topic they sound like Freikorps, which is a more familiar term, can the originator of this topic tell me what they are so a topic can be established on them, or the link can be made to freikorps instead of having a non-linking grenschutz on the page. Jadger 21:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Grenzschutz Ost, paramilitary "volunteer border guards", operating in many areas as far as Lithuania. It was disbanded in 1920 and joined with the army, but many Grenschutz veterans later joined the SA. --HanzoHattori 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish Nationalist Propaganda
The article consists largely of thoroughly dishonest Polish nationalist propaganda. Polish nationalists, with the blessing of the Polish and French governments, tried to seize Upper Silesia by force. They didn't want a plebiscite! Norvo 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it avoids stating things as clearly as it should in order to avoid disturbing Polish sensitivities. For instance, it avoids clearly stating that Polish forces crossed the border and agitated the rebellion. This article needs serious work done, but I havent the time right now, perhaps you could help in editing it.


 * --Jadger 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

If Wikipedia is to be an authoritative and correct source "sensibilities" should not enter into it. History should be entirely truthful. I appreciate this is often very difficult. We ought to be aiming for properly sourced data for this article. As it is in the English-language Wikipedia my suggestion is that it should be from English-language publications. That would avoid most German and Polish books. Maybe Polish and German nationalists should avoid such articles. Christchurch 16:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While I'd like to point out that per WP:V our goal is verifiability, not 'truth', I agree with the rest of your comments about sources and nationalists, obviously :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite mad citing Polish books on this subject. German books won't be much better, although they'll still have an edge on the ultra-nationalist Polish stance. The entire issue was in the hands of the Allies and the Plebiscite Commission. There are a very considerable number of English-language books on this subject, mostly compiled by people concerned. The best clear statements on this subject will come from them. This article should not be entitled "Uprising" because the overwhelming majority of Poles who lived in Silesia were not involved. Insurgency would be the correct terminology. 213.122.51.131 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Can everyone please calm down... The Silesian Uprisings (I think that should actually be the correct English translation rather than Insurrections) are very emotive for Polish people. Partly for reasons of national pride, partly as revenge for WW2 (I realise they happened prior to it). I am a Silesian (both German & Polish parentage) and understand why Piotrus or other Polish editors would hold a partisn view - you must remember that they (depanding on age) went through their historical education skewed by communist propaganda where anti-German sentiment was the POV that history was presented through. I do believe that Piotrus' contribution is somewhat skewed towards Poland but let's not automatically attribute it to deliberate misinformation - most Polish students would have been presented with the exact same POV at school. --70.72.1.203 (unsigned)

Actually "the WW2" was "revenge for the uprisings" - after the Nazi invasion, large numbers of Polish veterans were rounded up and executed by the Germans. The actual "revenge for the WW2" came after the WW2 - in Poland, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the former Axis nationals were mostly imprisoned, killed or expelled (including on the newly-aquired territories, like Poland's "Retaken Lands" or Soviet "Kaliningrad" or "Kuryle"). But this is another story. --HanzoHattori 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is simply untrue to call the events which took place an "uprising". The fanatical and violent nationalists such as Korfanty were in a extreme minority and relied almost entirely upon fellow-travellers from Poland who crossed the border with arms, ammunition, and a few armoured cars. This was extensively reported on by the British. It is also worth pointing out that the voting in the Plebiscite was often carried out under intimidation and that probably more Poles, rather than less, would have wanted Silesia to remain in Germany had the overall electoral atmosphere been more free and fair. At least that was the view of virtually all the Allied personnel there, the only waverers being the French, Poland's principal (and only) ally at the time. The Plebiscite in Allenstein, for instance, showed that the overwhelming number of Poles there wanted it to stay in Pussia. So no uprisings, please, just terrorism or insurrection. Christchurch 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Because 140,000 people who toom part in the general strike, preceding the first (spontanic) uprising did this in support of Germany, and Korfanty had anything to do with this, right? And 40,000 armed insurgents in the final fighting were "extreme minority", right? And the Freikorps members were all Silesian Germans, and were not "fanatical and violent nationalists", right? --HanzoHattori 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you cannot prove that Korfanty or others did not incite that general strike, in fact, history shows that General strikes are most often incited, and I doubt this one was any different, I bet if you even researched the matter just a little, you would find that I am right. oh ya, and BTW: where do you think the 40,000 armed insurgents get those weapons? from people like Korfanty of course

--Jadger 03:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where the German militias got their weapons? And so what? --HanzoHattori 14:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm let's see. A foreign nation is arming your citizens to overthrow your government... I see a problem there, so it's not "so what?".  and the German militias were freikorps, demobilized veterans of the war, they had more access to weapons that were not going to be used any more.

--Jadger 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Chaps, look. All this schoolboy arguing is getting us no-where. To any academic much of the information - even the name - in this article is quite clearly written from a chronic Polish nationalist persepective. It is full of lies and half-truths as they try to use Wikipedia to rewrite history in their favour. Its sad but its a fact. What is forgotten by such people is that the Allies, even the French (who were pro-Polish), had teams of people in Silesia, including troops, and the whole thing is terribly well documented by them. In addition, all the archives of the British Foreign Office are available and the Minutes of the British Embassy in Warsaw make tortuous reading as they are told blatant lies by the new Polish authorities - who even lied days later about what they'd said days earlier! I had felt I could not be bothered entering into this subject but I think I shall now dig out some factual source materials for you. What we should be supporting in these articles are facts. Not fiction. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for propaganda - anyones. Christchurch 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. This talk page has inspired, as well as somewhat disgusted, me to contribute for the first time to Wikipedia. Cheers! There obviously is a great deal of resentment regarding this subject and frankly many comments which I consider to be unfounded and sometimes racist. Overall, there is a painful and repulsive amount of name calling and insults be thrown around when that energy would be better spent contributing. I have made a small contribution as of today and I look forward to providing further facts on the subject to the best of my ability. Any advice or criticism will be greatly appreciated. I would like to end by saying that factual data provided by German, Polish or any other language source should not be deemed unusable just because this is the english version of wikipedia. It is wrong. It is censorship (see Fahrenheit 451). It smacks of racism and besides, even biased material will provide some insight and factual data, provided you have an open mind yourself. Thanks Onlywithcitations 05:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only two edits, ever, by this clear troll. Christchurch 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please WP:AGF, be |CIVIL and don't BITE. --Richard 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Christchurch, you're long on assertions and general complaints and very short on specifics. Provide cites and/or links to the data you invoke - the Polish lies, the Allies' support of Germany, the Polish intimidation of Polish voters etc. And even if there's some POV in the article you need to tone down yours as well. Calling Korfanty a "fanatic" and the insurrectionists "terrorists" is a lot more POV then referring to the subject matter as "Uprising" rather than an "Insurrection". radek 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of "Allies' support of Germany" but I stand by my entirely correct and accurate remarks regarding Korfanty. Like it or not Silesia was then part of Germany and he and his gangs were acting outside the law, receiving armaments etc., from across borders. If they behaved that way in Britain our army would probably have shot them or at least locked them up for a very long time. Your problem is that you are unable to detach your patriotism from your interpretation of historical fact. I have not had the time yet to come back to the article which is largely a travesty of truth. It would be laughed out of our universities. Christchurch 16:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat myself: you're long on assertions and general complaints and very short on specifics. Provide cites and/or links to the data you invoke. And don't impugn my motives as you don't know anything about me. radek 16:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please clearly define "terrorism" and its use in this context. Onlywithcitations 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

These Uprisings did not just appear out of thin air. The German Government contravened its own constitution, in particular Article 12, that all Prussians were equal before the law and Article 4, that public offices were equally accessible to all equally qualified persons. The Expropriation Law and discriminatory recruitment practices in the local and provincial administration, if only these, made it very clear that Bismarck wanted Poles forced out of Germany, illegally. If the Poles, as well as other minorities, were no longer granted all civil liberties and freedoms under the laws provided in the Prussian constitution, then who was responsible for them and by what laws are they to align themselves under? Onlywithcitations 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

thought this was useful
feldgrau article. does anyone know of this monument that was mentioned? the one desecrated by Poles after WWII.

--Jadger 21:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Germanization of Non-Prussians
The following text was recently removed. As it is unreferenced, I don't see much point in reinstating it until it is, this article is in bad enough shape as it is without warring over such digressions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Until 1870, Poles living in Silesia enjoyed relative liberties granted under the Prussian constitution.

The German-Prussian political unification of January 18, 1871, under the rule of the Prussian chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, brought with it new policies, legislations and a shift in the government's handling of Poles living in Silesia.


 * 1872-3 Instructions were issued from Berlin that restricted the use of languages other than German in the schools of the eastern provinces.


 * 1904 the Prussian Landtag passed a law permitting county officials to withhold building permits in situations where granting them would obstruct the German colonization programme - the idea was to prevent Poles from buying and subdividing German farms and selling them on to Polish smallholders.


 * 1872 Schools Inspection Act that was to replace the ecclesiastical dignitaries who had traditionally overseen the inspection of the 2,480 Catholic schools in the province with professional full-time inspectors in the pay of the state.


 * 1908 Anti-Polish Expropriation Law of March 20, 1908, which permitted forcible removal of Polish landowners (with symbolic financial compensation) for the purposes of German colonization and overriding legitimate property titles.


 * If you don't see much point in reinstating it, why did you?


 * --Jadger 00:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was waiting for your explanation; in this case I was satisfied with your claim that it is not directly related to topic - we can argue over it on talk, if anybody wishes, but lack of citations is not making me want to waste much time on this piece.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * apology accepted. next time you have a question about one of my edits, feel free to discuss it with me, either on the article's discussion page or through our personal talk pages. That would be preferrable to another one of your famous revert wars, we don't want to get you in trouble and sent to ArbCom again.


 * --Jadger 00:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I should probably remind you that the ArbCom is looking into the behaviour of all parties - so perhaps you should worry a little about your actions, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that a threat? it sounds like a threat to me


 * --Jadger 04:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The books from which I obtained these facts are listed under further reading, where they obviously shouldn't be. My mistake. I will have all of the information I have provided properly cited as soon as I have the materials in my possession once again. I can understand that the material was not sufficiently cited, which I will take care of, but I would like to know why this material has been deemed 'not directly related to the topic'. The information is true, you need only look up Kulturkampf to find this out.

Prior to these uprisings, Otto von Bismarck, at some point, changed his policies towards the Roman Catholic Church, as well as Poles, within the German empire. Bismarck felt that these elements were going to pose a threat to the stability of the newly formed German Empire. Why? These facts all seem relevant to me. Discussing Kulturkampf, is not POV. It is accurate historical background information which describes the tensions that existed prior to the uprisings. Onlywithcitations 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention
I've lost track of how it's supposed to work now. In this case (in particular in regard to recent edits by Matthead) should it be German names for cities wiki linked, Polish names in parentheses or vice versa? I know at one point there was a general consensus on this. I'm leaving it be for the moment.radek (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Anna M. Cienciala
While Cienciala makes a wonder full summary of polish history she is very bias! In her writings she often interpreted in favor of a pro polish (nationalistic) view on history. Therefor one might refrain from quoting her and use more recent non bias Historical sources. Personal note: There are of course exact opposites (pro naturalistic Germans and naturalistic Selsians etc.) which one should also not quote. Prof. Lübke (Greifswald) and members of the DHI Warsaw represent open mined and non bias Historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.84.191 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Source 10 - being directly copied without quotation marks. this is stylistically problematic, as well as ethically wrong. if a student quotes the original source and a professor reads his paper then compares to wikipedia, professor may think student copied from wikipedia. why should we weaken wikipedia for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.29.199 (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Source:. Author: Anna M. Cienciala of the University of Kansas. Its Wayback machine version is dated Sep 03, 2006. I haven't checked the insertion history for all the following problems; just the first two, which were inserted July 2007.

Article: In February 1920, an Allied Plebiscite Commission arrived in Upper Silesia, made up of British, French, and Italian forces, but it was too small to maintain order. In any case, the British and Italians favored the Germans, while the French favored the Poles. Diff of insertion:  July 24, 2007.


 * Source: In February 1920, an Allied Plebiscite Commission arrived in Upper Silesia, made up of British, French, and Italian forces with the French being most numerous, but this force was too small to maintain order. Moreover, the British and Italians favored the Germans, while the French favored the Poles.

Article: The British and French governments disagreed on the interpretation of the plebiscite.[2] The main bone of contention was the "Industrial Triangle", the coal and steel producing district east of the Oder river bounded by the cities of Beuthen (Bytom), Gleiwitz (Gliwice) and Kattowitz (Katowice).[2] The French wanted it to go to Poland, to give the latter an industrial base and weaken Germany; the British, supported by the Italians, wanted it to stay in Germany because the Germans claimed they could not pay war reparations without Upper Silesia.[2] In late April 1921, rumors flew that the British and Italians would prevail over the French, and thus Upper Silesia would remain in Germany. Diff of insertion: July 24, 2007.


 * Source: The British and French governments disagreed on the interpretation of the plebiscite. The main bone of contention was the "Industrial Triangle," that is the coal and steel producing district east of the Oder river bounded by the cities of Beuthen (Polish: Bytom), Gleiwitz (Polish: Gliwice) and Kattowitz (Polish: Katowice). The French wanted the Triangle to go to Poland, to give the latter an industrial base and weaken Germany; the British, supported by the Italians, wanted it to stay in Germany because the Germans claimed they could not pay war reparations without having all of Upper Silesia...In late April 1921, rumors flew that the British and Italians would prevail over the French, so Upper Silesia would stay in Germany.

Article: At the same time, the vast majority of the landowners, businessmen, factory owners, local government, police and Catholic clergy were already German. (?)


 * Source: At the same time, most of the German landowners, businessmen, factory owners, local government, police and clergy were Catholic.

Article: On the other side, Polish propaganda stressed that if Poland won the plebiscite, Silesian Poles would no longer be oppressed or treated as second class citizens as they were in Germany, and they would not lose their old age pensions.


 * Source: Polish propaganda stressed that if Poland won the plebiscite, Silesian Poles would no longer be oppressed or treated as second class citizens as they had been in Germany, they would not lose their old age pensions, and Silesia would have autonomous status in Poland.

Article: Furthermore, troops of the German "Freikorps" (Free Corps), made up of veterans of the former German army, terrorized those Silesians who favored voting for Poland.


 * Source: Polish newpapers claimed that the German "Freikorps" (Free Corps), made up of veterans of the former German army, terrorized those Silesians who favored voting for Poland...

Article: The commission gathered its own data, interviewed Poles and Germans from the region, and made its decision on the basis of self-determination.


 * Source: As it turned out, the League appointed its own commission of inquiry which gathered its own data, interviewed Poles and Germans from the region, and made its decision on the basis of self-determination.

Article: Furthermore, since Germany claimed she could not do without Upper Silesian coal, she was allowed to import 500,000 tons per year at reduced prices. However, when the coal agreement ran out in 1925, Germany refused to import the coal, and tried to use this as economic pressure to make Poland agree to a revision of the whole Polish–German frontier. Then Germany started a tariff war with Poland with the same intent, but failed to reach her goal.


 * Source: Furthermore, since Germany claimed it could not do without Upper Silesian coal, it was allowed to import 500,000 tons per year at reduced prices. However, when the coal agreement ran out in 1925, Germany refused to continue importing this coal, and tried to use it as economic pressure to make Poland agree to a revision of the whole Polish-German frontier. Therefore, Germany started a tariff war with Poland, but failed to reach this goal. Novickas (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know I was in correspondence with professor Cienciala over the use of her works under a free license, I will check my archive if she has given a permission to do so and if we have the corresponding OTRS ticket for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An OTRS search of the name discloses nothing. Until we have logged this at OTRS, the text should be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll rewrite it shortly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, 12 and a half minutes :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I got an email from the professor saying that she can agree for "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0". So for now the content is indeed useless to us. Perhaps she will change her mind in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If anybody cares about good news, I got the permission to use her online history notes under CC 3.0 Attribution :) I will fwd the @ to OTRS soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Permission is good. I'll keep an eye out for it at OTRS, if Stifle doesn't get it first. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've send it in yesterday, but I have not yet received any confirmation from OTRS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

←I've got it and replied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

B class
During the B-class review for WikiProject Poland, User:Piotrus determined that the article seems to him to meet the criteria for the B-class. Please consider adding a map to the article. Good job! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After a second review, I have to fail it. Too much unreferenced content. This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV the easier way...
From Neutral_point_of_view:

''The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.''

''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.''

''Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.''

So, please stop trying to press two oppositional viewpoints into one. There are two. Accept and present both. Even if the authors of this article found a mutual consent the two oppositional viewpoints existing in the heads of German and Polish (alphabetical order) people (scientists included) wouldn't disappear. Thus, Wikipedia would describe an ideal world that doesn't exist. Please, bring your energy into the explanation of 'who believes what and why' - especially of 'why'.

Ben 194.138.39.36 12:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you can see two oppositional viewpoints Ben, because I don't. Accusations without evidence, are to be considered defamatory statements, libel and slander, to put it easily. Until I see some proof behind the statements made here, regarding the article as well as contributors, I will treat them as such. I am thinking about those partisans in France who fought against the established, like it or not, Vichy government and German occupation and whether they are to be considered terrorists as well. Onlywithcitations 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Onlywithcitations, do you want to say that the people defending here their positions just haven't noticed that there is a full agreement between German and Polish history scientists on how to see/evaluate these events? Is there really one? If so, where is it documented? Why does nobody (e.g. you) reference this common view both German and Polish hotheads would have to accept?

Ben 194.138.39.37 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying Ben. What I'm saying is, refrain from all the name calling and labeling (e.g. German and Polish hotheads!!!, Korfanty as terrorist, etc..) because it is antagonizing and there is no place for it. I don't think it matters really how anyone feels (angry, happy, sad...) about the subject, so long as the facts are present, or at least some inkling of an argument for people to discuss over. The only reason why there hasn't been any kind of explanation as to why Korfanty's actions could be considered terrorist is because there is no argument to be made. And what common view or agreement are you referring to??? A history that is rewritten to appease both sides??? I would never accept that. Onlywithcitations 13:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

^ Of course you wouldn't, history IS written by the victors after all. Which means that the historical TRUTH becomes another casualty of war, waiting to be re-discovered by the kind of people inclined to know the full historical factual picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.56.198 (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

First Silesian Uprising
"National Identity and Weimar Germany: Upper Silesia and the Eastern Border 1918-1922", by T Hunt Tooley (University of Nebraska Press, 1997). It decisively refutes the contention by purveyors of Polish nationalism that Polish insurgents did not use terrorist violence against ethnic German civilians in the Eastern Borderlands in the wake of the First World War in the context of the Polish attempt to seize those territories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Picky (talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is disputable it it could be classified a German occupation and a liberation if 60% of the population voted in the plebiscite for remaining in Germany. Therefor my warning of Neutrality.
 * It is disputable how much percent of *real* Silesians voted to which side and why, so please do not not be irredentist, ok?
 * Nevertheless, the region had been German for centuries. We are talking about a region within a few days walk of centuries old German cities. People who believe Silesia was occupied by Germans are the same people who think Prague was never a German city. Its ridiculous.
 * I don't know which Polish propagandist always changes back the edits to the Polish propaganda, BUT it would helpful if YOU read the main article about Silesia which agree with my edits... AND why deleting the German translation of the event's name??? Many German civilians were killed... and the article belong to Polish and GERMAN history... i have the bad feeling only Polish extremist care about this article...