Talk:Cieszyn Silesia

A fact from Cieszyn Silesia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 January 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,731 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the region of Cieszyn Silesia was in 1920 divided by the Spa Conference between Poland and Czechoslovakia and remains divided to date?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/January.

Wikipedia

Czech Republic Low‑importance

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Austria-Hungary / Holy Roman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by the Austria-Hungary task force.
	This article is supported by the Holy Roman Empire task force.

Austria Low‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Silesia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SilesiaWikipedia:WikiProject SilesiaTemplate:WikiProject SilesiaSilesia articles

Merger proposal

I suggest to merge Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia into this article, because both regions are practically identical. The differences between them can be described within the unified article. Jan.Kamenicek 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both regions are slightly different in geographical borders. Cieszyn Silesia is also a historical region, Euroregion is a modern, relatively fresh formed body aimed at preserving local culture and maintaining good transborder relations between both countries. Still I think it is no harm to have two separate articles. - Darwinek 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that merging the articles would allow to write one, more complex article on the topic, instead of two separate stubs. The Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia article will hardly ever leave the stub status. Jan.Kamenicek 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can leave the stub status, just look at PL Wiki where the article is not a stub already. - Darwinek 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the Polish Wiki article is still a stub too, both according to its size and according to its official status (zalążek artykułu). I still think that one more complex article is better. Jan.Kamenicek 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks leaving both articles separate wouldn't harm anyone. This article could mention the other though. //Halibu tt 11:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that both people I invited to express their opinions accepted it and came to the discussion. However, let's stay at the core of the matter: nobody says that the current status harms anybody, I am asking, whether merging the articles into one would not improve things. Maybe it is only my personal preference, but I quite dislike searching through lots of stubs, instead of reading well written and elaborate articles, containing all important information on the topic. Jan.Kamenicek 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest leaving them as separate, but linking them together through templates such as main, further, details, etc. I think that eventually the Euroregion will be much more than a stub. I would however not oppose a consensus to redirect it into larger article if such a consensus is reached (which doesn't appear that likely ATM).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus after more than 10 days of merger proposal. Removing merge templates. - Darwinek 20:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skoczov

Czech forces were stopped by demand of Triple Entente, not because were beaten by Poles. See Polish-Czechoslovak_border_conflicts, and [1] or [2]. Or take a look here [3], or here [4], or F. Čapka: Dějiny zemí Koruny české v datech [5]. See Peroutka, Budování státu 1, p. 383.

On Czech side were 53 death, 7 MIA and 187 wounded, on Poland 92 death and 855 wounded soldiers (Lubomír Kubík, Těšínský konflikt, Votobia 2001, p. 57). So, numbers are clear.

On other side, must be said, that Czech military action was against will of Entente. --Yopie 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clear the whole invasion was against the will of the Entente but your wording is confusing. Czech forces WERE stopped by Polish ones in Skoczów, after the stalemate they were under pressure from Entente to stop the operations, so they stopped 'em. Polish forces were concentrated on Eastern problems and also decided to stop their operations. The end of war story. As for numbers, they do not matter. Just look at some battles of the Great Patriotic War and compare their numbers with the general victor of the war. -- Darwinek (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now is OK. Thanks for rewording. --Yopie 09:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not done - consensus is to leave the article at the current name. Neıl ☎ 11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Teschen is the name established in English for the whole historic pre-1918 region, see Duchy of Teschen. Using only the Polish name is not acceptable. -- Matthead DisOuß 00:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that the region fell into the Austrian hands in the 1653. Between 1290 and 1653 it was in the Polish or Bohemian kingdoms. Just for the reference that there probably were some other nations before 1918 ... ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 01:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be favouring a Polish name if it would be "more established in English"? I guess, no. Besides, it is not more established than Cieszyn. - Darwinek (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is one of the possible names, Czech or Polish, no matter. Teschen is mainly German, there is no reason to use German name for the region in Poland and the Czech Republic. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 01:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nomination. Teschen is the English form of "Cieszyn". Charles 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tulkolahten.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tulkolahten --Molobo (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Darwinek and common sense. - Darwinek (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Teschen only seems to be used in English writing in the context of history - in modern contexts Cieszyn seems to be used in English-language texts, and Teschen seems to be now only in German-language texts. Encarta refers to "Cieszyn Silesia", Britannica's article for the town is at Cieszyn. Teschen is appropriate for a historical duchy which is no longer extant, and so was written about primarily with the title used at that time; Cieszyn Silesia seems to be preferred for a historical area which still exists and is written about using the title used at this time. Knepflerle (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated over at Talk:Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia, even a Polish-based site http://www.euregio-teschinensis.org/index2/index_a.php uses a neutral naming, Teschinensis Silesia. The use of 2000+ year old Latin language as compromise naming for 10 year old international initiative is quite interesting, showing that neither Polish nor Czech is appropriate in English. Anyway, the region continues the tradition of the Duchy of Teschen. Up to now, the article fails to give any references that the current Polish name is used in English, it just was created that way, unreferenced. -- Matthead DisOuß 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Euroregion. Teschen Silesia is one of them. The Euroregion Teschen Silesia was established in 1989. Among reasons why the Euroregion was established are both gradual expansion of local activities and ..." in "Borders and Borderlands in the Process of Europeanization" http://www.powerineurope.pl/papers/jgrygar.doc
"1) on the establishment of the Euroregion Teschen Silesia and on the cultural politics accompanying. the Euroregion`s activities; ..." http://www.ii.umich.edu/UMICH/crees/Home/Academics/Research%20Projects/ECECulturalPoliticsWorkshopAbstracts.pdf

So, it is safe to say that "Euroregion Teschen Silesia" is used even by sites hosted in Poland. Of course, the Euroregion is not even 10 years old, compared to the centuries as Teschen Silesia in general. -- Matthead DisOuß 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cieszyn Silesia is used in English [6](pdf) [7] And in German as well btw [8] --Molobo (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Easy explanation for users, who don't know anything about this region. Region of Cieszyn Silesia and Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia are two completely different bodies. First is a historical region, second is a transnational cooperational entity supported and run by the European Union. As for the name, Cieszyn Silesia is widely used in English-language sources, same can be said about the usage of Teschen Silesia. No name of both mentioned is used far more than the other. I've also seen many misspellings in English-language literature, Teshen Silesia and Cieszy Silesia to name some. Another point is that Teschen is not English-name but a German one. Indeed, the region was officially a Teschener Schlesien or Herzogtum Teschen before 1918 but this was just because it was controlled by ethnic Germans (Austria-Hungary), still majority of the population was Polish. It is now 90 years since the fall of Austria-Hungary and in that 90 years, Teschen became only once an official name - during the Nazi era. Nowadays the majority of population in whole region is Czech, second is Polish. Reason why English-language writers use Teschen Silesia is purely historical. In the last decade usage of Cieszyn Silesia in English-language sources rised significantly because it became obvious that this region is no only history, but also the present and the bright future. There is no strongly prevailing preference in English-language sources so it should stay with its current title. Cheers. - Darwinek (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is perhaps enough

I think that both variants Teschen/Cieszyn Silesia can be defended with plenty of arguments. I think, that if there is redirection established form Teschen Silesia to Cieszyn Silesia it is enough. By the way I would personaly prefere Teschen Silesia variant, it seems more neutral for me (not involving Czech/Polish controversy), more proper in English (German is more akin to it than Polish), but I am not insisting on renaming of the article. --Qasinka (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

B-class review

Quickfail due to insufficient inline reference density. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dialects of what?

"Cieszyn Silesia is also distinct for its dialect, the Cieszyn Silesian dialect, which differs from the Silesian dialect spoken in Upper Silesia. It is a distinct dialect with predominantly Polish influences; Czech and German influences are also strong." So it is neither Polish nor Czech - what is it? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There'se a separate article: Cieszyn Silesian dialect D_T_G (P L) 20:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Śląsk Cieszyński.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]