Jump to content

Talk:Silesia/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

"skewed"?

... plebiscite to decide the issue in 1921, whose results (disputed by Poland) were skewed by the German settler population.

What in the world is meant or implied here? As far as I am aware, the post-WWI plebescite reflected the distribution of German and Polish residents in Upper Silesia. What is meant by "settlers"? Surely, we're not suggesting that the millions of Germans inhabiting Silesia before WWII were recent arrivals. Sca (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern "Silesia"

It's very difficult to treat Silesia as a extant political or cultural entity. Historical Silesia now exists as four very distinct, independent areas (Lower, Opole, Upper and Czech) that have little to do with each other politically or culturally. The fragmentation of historical Silesia occurred long before WWII. In fact, it dates back more than 800 years.

There's also the tiny fragment of historical Silesia around Goerlitz that's now part of Saxony. I don't know whether the residents of this area consider themselves Silesian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs) 08:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also grossly misleading to say that Katowice is considered the "capital" of Silesia. It's only the capital of Upper Silesia, and has no influence over Lower, Opole or Czech Silesia, where no one identifies with Katowice in any way whatsoever. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the administrative district of Upper Silesia is known simply as unqualified "Województwo Śląskie" in Polish instead of the more logical and accurate "Województwo Górnośląskie".

The article should make it clear that historical Silesia no longer exists as a single entity, and that it has been replaced by four distinct regions.

Cleaned up some Croatian nationalist blither and deleted some long unsourced and dubious etymological and cultural claims as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

TO LokPol

Wikipedia is not a place to POV as you perfectly know. You declare yourself as anti- Polish POV person - this is also POV in this point yours own. You have strong inclination which you should keep aside. Wikipedia is scientific work so only objective research should be taken in mind. You have strong animosity thus you are not objective by definition.

If I did an error just repair it. Step by step we will get consent. For me science and research is above all.


Regarding: >> PS. Where is State Country? and Duchies of Silesia to 14 century? Nonsense. And other errors.) <<

In table is “Status” not “State”. Any way the Duchies --Cleaghyre (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)--Cleaghyre (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)--Cleaghyre (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)were independent countries as for example in modern time Luxemburg or Monaco. So where is you point.

Now what is you next point in discussion, and please do not force you table. I created a table first you erased it and put yours. I improved mine including some of your suggestion and you erased it also informing you creation as only correct. This is not discussion and improvement this is editing war from you side. I welcome you next suggestion and proof to it. If you have no proof stop doing editing war, you will continue the war I will report you for blocking. --Cleaghyre (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

English version:
  1. In my user pages there is a template with text: "This user official fights with Polish POV, nationalism, propaganda and compulsory polonization in projects of Wikimedia Foundation." This is not my POV and does not mean hatred to Poles, there are many similar templates in Wikipedia. "Polish" or "German" or other POV!, nationalism!, propaganda!, compulsory polonization! (etc!) in projects of Wikimedia Foundation is typical vandalism or/and trolling. In the English Wikipedia, Poles have a bad reputation, precisely for this reason. I am one of many users, fighting with vandals and trolls from Poland.
  2. Regarding "Duchies" - your edition introduces big mistification, Duchies of Silesia exist (not to 14th century) but almost to 17th century, some to 20th century (example Duchy of Teschen)
  3. Your edition erased data about State Country (ala duchies, with minimal differences), States Country exist from 1489 to 1742, some (example Pszczyna State Country to 1918/1922).
Overall - extremely leave some of your changes, others to improve. Your version (even as amended) is very complicated, no wonder - history of Silesia is not monotonous dates. States and duchies and simultaneous Czechs or Habsburg, and even Prussia. It is difficult to describe in simple table. So I did a simplified version, you reverted my version and <czepiałeś> up my template in my page as troll.
Polska wersja (dla lepszego zrozumienia):
  1. Na mojej stronie użytkownika jest szablon mówiący o tym że oficjalnie walczę w polskim POV, propagandą, polonizacją itp. w projektach Wikipedia. To nie jest mój POV (jak twierdzisz) i nie oznacza nienawiści do Polaków, jest wiele podobnych szablonów w Wikipedii. "Polski" czy "niemiecki" lub inny POV!, nacjonalizm!, propaganda! itp w projektach Fundacji Wikimedia to typowe akty wandalizmu i/lub trollingu. W angielskiej Wikipedii, Polacy mają złą reputację, właśnie z tego powodu. Jestem jednym z wielu użytkowników, walczących z wandalami i trollami z Polski. Bo z trollingiem i wandalizmem trzeba walczyć, ja nie mam czasu walczyć z nimi na całej Wikipedii - więc ograniczyłem się do "polskiego" - bo znam Polskę i polaków.
  2. Jeżeli chodzi o "księstwa" - twoja wersja wprowadza dużą mistyfikację, księstw śląskie istnieją (nie do 14 wieku), ale większość do 17 wieku, niektóre do 20 wieku (np. w Księstwo Cieszyńskie). Pisanie że tylko do 14 wieku jest oszustwem i wandalizmem i musi być cofnięte.
  3. Ponadto, twoja wersja artykułu usuwa dane o State Country (ala księstwo, z minimalnymi różnicami), istniały od 1489 do 1742, niektóre (np. Pszczyna do 1918/1922) i usuwanie tych informacji nie będzie przeze mnie nigdy zaakceptowane.
Ogólnie - można zostawić niektóre ze zmian, inne trzeba poprawić. Twoja wersja (nawet z późniejszymi zmianami) jest bardzo skomplikowana, nic dziwnego - historia Śląska to nie monotonne daty. State Country i księstwa oraz jednoczesne Czechy czy Habsburgowie, a nawet Prusy. Trudno jest to opisać w prostej tabeli. Więc zrobiłem uproszczoną wersję, którą usunąłeś oraz zacząłeś się czepiać odnośnie mojego szablonu jak zwykły troll. Jesteś jeszcze za mało doświadczonym userem abyś mnie pouczał i robił swoje porządki na Wikipedii. Powiększyłeś tabelę - trudno, skomplikowałeś ją (na razie to zostawię) ale za nic w świecie nie pozwolę abyś usuwał jakieś dane (np. o państwie stanowym) lub wprowadzał błędne dane (np. długości istnienia księstw). Usuwanie danych czy wprowadzanie błędnych danych to zwykły wandalizm - ale o tym już chyba wiesz. LUCPOL (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

TO LukPol

Dear Sir, Although there was an error in Silesia article table this is no reason to call it mystification. It is harsh word. I do not know if you words regarding new Wikipedia user and teaching are related to me but it is not important how long one is editing Wikipedia. You proud and emotional approach is impolite lightly speaking. Some people are older and maybe at least equaly wel educated as you. Also the anti-Polish baner is offending, althougth you say is official should not exist and particulary polite person should not use it. Returning to improvement of the table: 1) Are you sure the German tribe was there from BC? If so please give a source of this assumption otherwise I propose simple “to 5th century” 2) Can you explain what is the idea about Independent Piast Duchies up to 20 centuries? I do not think it is reasonable. The Duchies lost thier independace ealier Regards --Cleaghyre (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  • @LUCPOL: we are talking about Silesia, not about particular duchies, so your note about lasting some duchies till 20. century is meaningless. Please read article State country, as you probably dont understand, what is it. Under Bohemia and Habsburgs, Silesia was Crown land, with same rights as Bohemia proper, Moravia or Tirol. If you are Silesian patriot, why you decrease importance of Silesia?--Yopie (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
@Yopie
  1. Most of the duchies existed for more than 14th century.
  2. State country works similary as the duchies, with separate parliament. This is unical type of enhanced autonomy. LUCPOL (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, article is about whole Silesia, not about particular Duchies. Silesia was not "State Country", only particular duchies, where ruling family was extinct, were created State Countries. Silesia was divided to duchies and state countries, but Duchy of Silesia was ruled by king of Bohemia as Duke of Silesia.
  • Did you know Treaty of Visegrád and Treaty of Trentschin? According these was King of Bohemia supreme ruler over Silesia and we can settle fixed date for Silesia as part of Kingdom of Bohemia.--Yopie (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Again:
  1. There was and is land called Silesia,
  2. Silesia was part of Lands of the Bohemian Crown
  3. Silesia was ruled by one Duke of Silesia (King of Bohemia)
  4. Silesia had own parliament, presided by one Oberlandeshauptmann
  5. And this Silesia was divided to Duchies of Silesia.--Yopie (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Borders of Silesia

Silesia currently has no borders because it has ceased to exist as a political entity both in Germany and Poland. The Oder/Neisse line is solely a border between Germany and Poland, and it's only relationship to Silesia is that it bisects the historical territory of that name. That is more of a coincidence than anything else, and not a particularly interesting or noteworthy coincidence at that. The fact that some of the territory formerly known as Silesia now lies withing the borders of Germany is already clearly stated in the article.

BTW, the provinces of (Upper) Silesia and Lower Silesia in Poland are purely administrative in nature, and not political. The borders of the provinces are arbitrary and can be changed at any time by the State of Poland. The names are arbitrary, too, and do not indicate that Silesia currently enjoys any measure of sovereignty or autonomy. Poland has no political divisions, unlike Germany or the United States, which are federations of politically distinct units.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User Dominus Vobisdu wrote, "Silesia currently has no borders because it has ceased to exist as a political entity both in Germany and Poland. The Oder/Neisse line is solely a border between Germany and Poland, and it's only relationship to Silesia is that it bisects the historical territory of that name. That is more of a coincidence than anything else, and not a particularly interesting or noteworthy coincidence at that. The fact that some of the territory formerly known as Silesia now lies withing the borders of Germany is already clearly stated in the article." Well said. I have to agree with Dominus Vobisdu. LUCPOL (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Demography fully outdated

This is obviously a single source, partly biased. In fact, not all left Silesia after the war - many had to stay as the were needed as workes in an industrialized zone. Where should the 1,1million people in the 80es and 90es moving to Germany come from? All of them working in mines? This part is rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.13.149 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to forget the re-population after the ethnic cleansing. Aside from the native Poles of Upper Silesia who stayed (I don't know how many fled to Germany like the Masurians of East Prussia), you had Poles who were likewise ethnically cleansed from Eastern Galicia and the Wilno region split between Belarus and Lithuania move into the void left by the Germans. You also had Poles immigrate from the over-crowded regions of central Poland (former Congress Poland) and Western Galicia following the war. On top of that, you have the population increase of Poland as a whole following WWII and the Cold War economic migration to Silesia from other parts of Poland for economic reasons. Prussia1231 (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Shilingiai

'Shilingiai' in Lithuanian language literaly means 'pine forest people' and 'shilas' is 'a pine forest'...these names appeared in this region prior slavs developed their language and germans were still living in Gotland...moreover the main river Oder in Lithuanian language is 'Udra' which is 'an otter'. http://on.lt/geruliai 90.219.127.67 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

FACTS ABOUT SILESIA

I thought the Celtic Boi (original Bohemaians) first settled this land during Roman times???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.194.69.231 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I had to wrote that. I come from Hungary and that's the reason why I'm objectiv. I'm a historian. I know a lot about Poland because I'm studying slavistic. You know, knowledge about slav people.


1)Lusatia aren't on SIlesia. Luzatia people are individual slowian people. They belong to Silesia only during german ocupation. It was from XVIII century to 1945 year. That's why I'm asking to remove that Silesia is now on the german side. It's situated in Poland and Czech Republic. Silesia is ending on the Kwisa and Bobr river.


2)For me, Nico, you are a tipical german nazist. Sorry, but you want to incline history to be comfortable to you. I think, that you didn'r read any book about Silesia, and if you did that, it was the book from Joseph Goebbels century.


3)You are and idiot, sca. You think that people at Silesia know german language? They don't know this language, don't betray people. I was many times at Upper Silesia and I saw that in schools teachers are learning their language - polish, and to choose english, spanish, french or russian. If you are so smart, come here (at silesia) and try to speak german. They will laugh at you.


4)On Silesia (10 mln people) according to nationality registration there is 96% polish people. The rest is the german less or people declaring silesia nationality (which doesn't exist).


5)FACTS :

-Generic people here are slav. Name silesia is also slowian and it became grom Sleza mountain and Sleza river. They are the latest probate analysis. They are the facts.

-first polish setntense were told exactly at silesia (day ac ya pobrusza a ty pocziway)

-Silesia writers from XV, XVI and XVII century Szymon Pastorius, Olbrycht Strumienski, Walenty Rozdzieński wrote IN POLISH. Though german nationalism and destroying polish humanity

-polish scientist dr Alina Kowalska demonstrated that city and vilage people at silesia in XVI and XVII century know how to speak only in polish.

-Silesia was german only for 200 years.

And it's all facts. People, please, read a bit before you will write that piece of shit and so many lies. This article must be corrected. hungarius 19:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating, I'm sure. john k 20:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
of course, you know better. hungarius 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear anon, please be civil. Starting your work on wiki from accusing others of being nazis and idiots doesn't lend credibility to your case. Btw, I am a Pole, and I think you are going overboard in the 'other' direction - Silesia has a complicated history, with a mixture of Czech, German and Polish history. You got at least one fact wrong: being born and having lived in Silesia (Katowice) most of my life, I can assure you that knowledge of German language is fairly large. In most of the schools, German is one of the foreign language chosen by students in addition to English. Usually, the choice is German or French and at least in the schools I attended 3/4 of studends chose German. In addition, some students know the Silesian language, which uses quite a few German words. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, sorry, but I think so. Nico will want to all be in Germany. It's true. hungarius 12:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
and you are wrong. Silesian language is only a dialect. It has polish grammar and inflection. It has only another articulation and german-loan. But loans had too cestina, polish and kashubian.
I am no specialist, but wiki article sais: Opinions are divided between speakers and linguists as to whether Silesian is a distinct language or another dialect of Polish. Personally, I'd say it is a dialect, since I can't undesrstand German at all, but I can understand my friends speaking Silesian quite well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Silesian people call it even "Slaski jezyk" or "Sloonski jezyk" (Silesian language), but it´s only a polish dialect. But there is also a german silesian dialect, the word "Ritsche" (stool) as an example. "polish, and to choose english, spanish, french or russian. If you are so smart, come here (at silesia) and try to speak german. They will laugh at you." Hello? German is the most learned language in Poland. Russian? Nobody youth wants to learn it, russian is now a very unimportant language in Poland. And I do not believe that there exists many possibilities to learn spanish. Maybe you wasn´t in Silesia? Or I was somewhere else. But than I was in Gliwice there were many people in shops who spoke german. In Silesia are also many german-contests and sometimes the participants win a trip to Germany. Only 200 years german? The Habsburg-dynasty was also a german dynasty. And another fact: Many people outside the towns have no Cable-TV, that´s why many people have Satellite-TV, which they get many german tv-channels. Jonny84 01:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Medieval Silesia might have ended at the Kwisa and Bobr rivers, but Silesia since the 19th century does include parts of Lusatia. This article is not just about medieval Silesia, but about the history of a region called Silesia whose boundaries have changed numerous times. Other encyclopedias directly state that part of Silesia is in Germany.

  • Britannica[1]: "It now lies mainly in southwestern Poland, with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic".
  • Columbia[2]: "a small section of Lower Silesia W of the Neisse was incorporated with the East German state of Saxony".
  • Encarta[3]: "Silesia also included sections of present-day north central Czech Republic and of the states of Brandenburg and Saxony in eastern Germany". Olessi 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
but Silesia with end at Bobr and Kwisa was for 700 years and with end on Lusatia for 200 years

Olessi:"but about the history of a region called Silesia". OK, I understand. Therefore in article IS sentence: "– Silesia became a province of Prussia. In 1815, the area around Görlitz was incorporated as a part of the province in an administrative reform." And you wrote [...] Columbia [...]. Look, Columbia write: "Politically, almost all of Silesia is divided between Poland and the Czech Republic." This is first sentence in introducion! I can't read more in Encarta, only "Silesia (Polish Ślask; German Schlesien; Czech Slezsko), historic region of Central Europe, mostly in what is now southwestern Poland, comprising the..." --Hungarius 22:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Transylvania originally did not include cities such as Arad or Oradea, but now it does. Likewise, centuries ago Silesia did not include Lusatian lands, but now it does. You are correct, originally the Lusatian lands were not Silesian. The Prussians then added Lusatian lands to Silesia administratively. However, for almost two hundred years now the inhabitants there have considered themselves both Lusatian and Silesian, and in that time period the boundaries of Silesia have changed.
Silesia does not exist as a medieval entity anymore, so the article's introduction should not be constrained to only include the lands currently within the medieval borders. I fully support including the Kwisa/Bobr boundary being mentioned within the History/Middle Ages section, but those boundaries are not relevant for the beginning of the article- what was Silesia in the Middle Ages is not Silesia today.
You focus on how the vast majority of Silesia is in Poland and Czechia. That is absolutely true, but it is also true that part of current Germany has been considered Silesian in the past two centuries. Regardless of whether or not southern Sorbs considered themselves to be Silesian, part of Germany is administratively known as Silesian and has been for a long time. You point out "almost all of Silesia is divided between Poland and the Czech Republic"- why should the remainder not be mentioned in the introduction as well? The article's intro states that Silesia is a historical region of Central Europe. Parts of Lusatia historically were and administratively continue to be part of Silesia. Olessi 22:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

(Just to note, but User:Nico has not been contributing to wikipedia for more than a year now). On the substantive issue, I agree with Olessi - there is no reason not to mention the originally Lusatian part of Silesia that is now in Germany. Geographical names change their reference points, and it is not for wikipedia to decide what the "correct" meaning of a term is. john k 22:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I´m Silesian. It´s wrong that Silesia ends at Bobr and Kwisa. It´s true that some parts of Silesia are also a part of Lusatia. But that´s only a small part. The information of Encarta that a part of Silesia is in Brandenburg is wrong. The german Silesia is only a part of Saxony. In today Germany we call often only this parts Lusatia, there the shields are in german and sorbian. Görlitz and it´s inhabitants are very proud to be part of (Lower-)Silesia and they call themselves mostly (Lower-)Silesian. A county near Görlitz is also called "Niederschlesischer Oberlausitzkreis". A bank is also called "Niederschlesische Sparkasse". It´s defintely wrong to say Silesia ends at Bobr and Kwisa. Jonny84 13:35, 27. August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong there, Johnny: I used to live in the south of Brandenburg, just north of the old Silesian border. It only affects a handful of villages and one town - but a few square miles in the extreme south of Brandenburg were part of Silesia.

On the wider issue, since there is a "Lower Lusatian District of Upper Lusatia" in Saxony, the article should mention that about one tenth of Silesia is situated in today's Germany. (Alright, it's Lusatia first and Silesia second - but that's not for me to resolve ;) ) Lasse Mar 31st, 06.

Latin

In relation to the Latin name [4].

I can see some reason for including the Latin name in this article, but why is it also being placed in articles of various small towns [5] [6]?VolunteerMarek 22:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it might prove beneficial to someone doing further research to include the Latin place name used in historic records, writings et al. Nightsturm (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. Anyone determined and experienced enough to search through medieval records in Latin is not likely to rely on WP for that information. Another big problem is spelling variations, which were rampant in medieval Latin, and generally ad hoc. There is no evidence that the Latin name you found for Głubczyce was a widely used spelling. More importantly, you need a secondary source for this. Deducing a Latin name from a primary source is OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The Latin place name was "deduced" as you put it from various on and offline sources, though I had no idea a secondary source is also required, however, I am sure you are not going to accept references to writings documents reviewed in a physical library which cannot be immediately checked online via a link. If anyone is not likely to rely on WP then why are we bothering to invest time and effort in expanding its content. Encouraging. Nightsturm (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
First of all, read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. And watch your tone. Of course I'll accept secondary sources that are not on-line. A good geographical dictionary or history of the town or duchy will do. Very old maps won't. You'll probably find about a dozen variant German and Latin spellings for the town, though. Like I said, orthography of placenames was pretty fluid and ad hoc, especially for smaller towns. As for people doing serious research, they have little use for WP. There are MUCH better sources available. WP is at best a "first stop" for orientation purposes only, and maybe to find the odd source that they may have overlooked. Same as with any other general-purpose encyclopedia. There's nothing on WP that a serious scholar wouldn't have to recheck against reliable sources anyway. For general readers, however, WP is useful enough to get a general idea and tips for learning more abour the topic. Investing your time expanding WP is not discouraging as long as you keep in mind its limitations. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Watch my tone? where are you coming from. Exactly: WP is a "first stop" for orientation purposes, as you say. Nightsturm (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two problems with your argument: 1. If Latin, then why not Fijian? There's an off chance that that "might prove beneficial to someone doing further research" as well, 2. If Glubczyce and Sudice why not Decatur, Alabama or Vedbæk, Denmark, or Anapaike Suriname? Just because there's some map from the 16th century with a Latin name on it? So as long as some document with a Latin name can be located we should include the Latin name? That's not policy. Please see WP:NAME.

Basically, Dominus above is not entirely correct - it is actually not sufficient to find one or two secondary sources which use the Latin name. What is necessary is to show that the Latin name is *extensively* used in secondary sources.VolunteerMarek 06:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm... I did specifically state that "There is no evidence that the Latin name you found for Głubczyce was a widely used spelling." And you misinterpreted what I said about secondary sources. I put great emphasis on spelling variations. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. My response was to Nightsturm, not you. I probably should have indented the response properly. My only disagreement with you - and maybe you did address it, in which case my apologies - was that for a particular name to be used in the article it needs to be the case that it is in wide usage, not just in a source or two.VolunteerMarek 20:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no disagreement. I said that a reliable secondary source was needed to confirm that the spelling given was in wide use. It was OR on Nightsturm's part to conclude that a given form was in wide use based on primary sources. The secondary source I require would have to specifically state that "XXX" was the most common Latin name used, not just that "XXX" was used. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha. Yes, that would work.VolunteerMarek 20:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is info being removed?

[7] - the edit summary here says "as before", which I take to mean that the previous edit summary applies. That was redundant and possibly inaccurate, summary with ref, reword. While that es might have applied to some OTHER aspect of this edit [8] I don't see in the least bit how it supports the continued attempts - sneaky ones too, since now Rsloch is trying to bury the removal among other changes - to remove the phrase " in German concentration camps". The sentence right after this one is about the expulsion of Germans. Omitting the clarifying phrase has the twisted effect of suggesting a common culpability for both phenomenon. I see no reason for removing this info EXCEPT a conscious attempt at suggesting that the concentration/extermination camps in question somehow weren't German.

Please stop.VolunteerMarek 18:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We've been here before and your assumptions are again wrong. The text you want to add is both redundant, as most people link the Holocaust with the concentration camps, and possibly inaccurate as death camps were not the only way that the Nazis murdered the Jews. If that section were to remain I would prefer the use of Nazi over German as it is dangerous to subscribe the actions of a dictatorship to all those under it.Rsloch (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Have we? Anyway, the text is not redundant, it is clarifying especially since the next sentence is about something else and can easily confuse the reader. I'm also not sure what purpose insistence on "Nazi" and avoidance of "German" here would be, unless you really are trying to suggest these were "Polish camps"? The debate over the German public's support for that dictatorship is probably best left for another day.VolunteerMarek 17:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps adding a break between the two sentences would suffice otherwise we would need a reference showing that the majority of Silesia's Jews who died in the Holocaust passed in the camps not say in a mass grave in a forest. If you can find such a reference then I would suggest that they are termed 'Nazi rather than 'German' for the reason I outlined above.Rsloch (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while there is some useful info in most recent edits [9] some of it just doesn't make sense: The industry increased during German rule peaking in the 1970s during the People's Republic of Poland sounds like Germany ruled People's Republic of Poland. I also don't see any reason given for removal of info on modern day resources and environmental problems - why was this sourced info removed? Finally, why is stuff about 4th century BC being moved to the END of the section rather than the beginning where it logically and chronologically belongs?VolunteerMarek 20:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That is possibly rather clumsily worded so feel free to reword it, that unrefed section said little (you can reinstate it if you want), and I formatted the section to have a para on coal mining, and then a para on other mining hence the positioning. Reword, reinstate, reorder, but don't undo valid material especially in the middle of the night. Rsloch (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

The sound file for German pronunciation is good, but it would be nice to have an English pronunciation provided in IPA symbols. Lusanaherandraton 04:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither sound icon seems to be working in either language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.14.9 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Language

This interesting article is vitiated by a desire by at least one author to use Polish words as if they were English, resulting in mysterious terms such as "Voivodeship", "Silesian Przesieka" or the "Silesian Piasts". This is probably allied with the tendency to use Polish placenames in relation to periods when the official language was German, which is ahistorical and also confusing to the reader. It ought to be tidied up, if that can be done without offending anyone. Deipnosophista (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

about Name of the region

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Al%C4%85sk_nazwa

"Poglądy na temat nazwy "Śląsk": 1. Bradtkie w pocz. XIX w., nazwę Śląsk wywiódł od nazwy rzeki Ślęży, od której swoją nazwę mieli przyjąć Ślężanie (o których pisał Geograf Bawarski w poł. IX w.). Od lat 30 –ych XX wieku prowadzone były lingwistyczne badania Semkowicza i Rudnickiego, którzy uznali że nie jest prawdopodobne by rdzeń Sil- (jakoby pochodzący od Silingów) mógł się zmienić w: a) „Sleenzane” u Geografa Bawarskiego czy b) w „Zlasane” w dokumencie praskim z 1086 czy c) „Selenza”, w nazwie rzeki Ślęzy, w bulli papieża Hadriana IV z 1155 r. 2. Samo słowo Śląsk pochodzi od „ślęg” co oznacza wilgoć, słotę a to znajduje uzasadnienie w dużej aż po 500 m, wilgotności góry Ślęzy i rzeki Ślęzy płynącej przez rozległe mokradła. 3. Historiografia zna wiele przypadków określenia plemion nazwami rzeki. W odwrotnym kierunku odbywało się to raczej rzadko. Wskazywałoby to na nazwanie Ślężan od rzeki Ślęzy. 4. S. Rospond zbadał najdawniejsze dokumenty z XII i XIII wieku i zauważył że nazwy z tego okresu zapisywano w formie: Slesia, Slezia, Zlesensis. Forma „Silesia” zaczęła pojawiać się znacznie później – już w czasach nowożytnych, prawdopodobnie „za sprawą lektury Thietmara, który jako pierwszy słowiańskiej nazwie Śląsk nadał dostosowaną do grafiki i fonetyki niemieckiej formę Silensia”. 5. Wg wskazówek Ptolemeusza, Silingowie (od których wg niektórych naukowców niemieckich pochodzi nazwa Śląsk) zamieszkiwali tereny Łużyc. W związku z tym związek Silingów ze Śląskiem byłby niewielki. 6. Czeska nazwa Śląska brzmi Slesko czyli zaczyna się od Sle- a nie Sil-....(np. "Silesia" jak brzmi nazwa łacińska). 7. Nowe badania J. Udolpha przychylają się do twierdzenia że nazwa Śląsk pochodzi od nazwy Ślęży i wskazał przy tym na wiele plemion słowiańskiech, których nazwy pochodzą od rzek. Jego zdaniem nawet ewentualny rdzeń sil- nie wskazywałaby na germańskość nazwy, ponieważ rdzeń sil- spotyka się w nazwach wielu rzek np. Sile w Wenecji, Silla w Asturii, Silinka w Rosji. Swoje badania opisał w „Der Name Schlesien, [w:] Studia Onomastica et Indogermanica” – Graz 1995 i w „Der Name Schlesien [w] Opuscula Silesiaca” – Stuttgart 1998."

please translate... --Hungarius 13:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. 81.131.16.68 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


'Shilingiai' in Lithuanian language literaly means 'pine forest people' and 'shilas' is 'a pine forest'...these names appeared in this region prior slavs developed their language and germans were still living in Gotland...moreover the main river Oder in Lithuanian language is 'Udra' which is 'an otter'.90.219.127.67 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a German-language source for the Silingi etymology. Note that *Silinga- and *Silingisku are exactly the ancestral forms which are phonologically needed to yield the attested names in Slavic languages for the region, the mountain and the river. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tabulation

A number of editors from varying standpoints (British, American, and Polish) have removed a table that a user from varying IP addresses wishes to add. I won't speak for others but I find the adding of such a table redundant as the data is already in the intro and the history section. It is also probably unique to this article. Hopefully this will end the bizarre messages on talk pages and threats in the history section.Rsloch (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Can those/the person pushing the inclusion of the table discuss the matter here.Rsloch (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Third time lucky? Can those/the person pushing the inclusion of the table discuss the matter here.Rsloch (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would help contradict the popular here stereotype of Silesia as a Polish province, and only a Polish province. The table nicely illustrates that for most of its history it was something else. I haven't pushed anything yet, but I will, so help me God! Schwartz und Weiss (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I do hope you remember to bend your legs not your back when pushing Rsloch (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Always! Schwartz und Weiss (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

gdansk vote?

Re: [10]. The very outdated and largely irrelevant Gdansk vote applies to historical context. It is not an excuse to spam anachronistic German names all over the place, particularly when discussing the present day. If you want to put in German historical names in the history section, that's fine, but please keep them out of the Overview section as they do not belong there.

And please don't start edit wars, against several users to try and implement these changes against consensus. Thanks. Volunteer Marek 16:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with Volunter Marek. Beside this is not question of vote anyway how name a place. Until I know in biographies the highest rule is use first the name characteristic to historical time and add the other in parenthesis. Secondly - maybe should be the first, we follow the modern English maps names - if add others at all should be in parenthesis. If exists any international rule for geographic names on maps it is a modern local names sounds transferred to English orthography/spelling - the example is Beijing.--Yemote (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The usual WP:GANG, great. Just for the record: The double naming is standard practice here on Wikipedia and the names were removed some weeks ago by an IP [11] without explanation. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Quit it with the baseless personal attacks. Double naming goes in the town's articles themselves and in historical context.Volunteer Marek 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
@Yemote. Have you ever considered taking an English course?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of information that Silesian Jews were exterminated in Birkenau and Auschwitz gas chambers

This edit[12] removed information about Jews being murdered in Birkenau gas chambers and changed information that they were murdered in Auschwitz gas chambers into "killed". I think information about up to 20,000 Jews murdered in Birkenau gas chambers should be restored and we also should write that in Auschwitz they were murdered in gas chambers as well(killing could mean various things, and the extermination in gas chambers is quite important). What do others think?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Reinstated. Could you add a citation for those figures? Rsloch (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That undo button

There seems to be an issue over some, if not all, of my recent edits to this article. I will explain my reasoning.

The first edit was to remove boilerplate text which was very generalised, was in part factually inaccurate, contained typos and was oddly worded. I incorporated material relating to differing estimates another editor had added. This was reverted because 'great difference between "expelled" and "exterminated"'. The text I added clearly states that the Jews of Silesia were first expelled to ghettos and the General Government from which many were later sent to work and death camps including the line 'Most Jews in Silesia were exterminated by the Nazis'.

I would also draw attention to similar discussions above. Rsloch (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC) You have deleted information about Nazi atrocities and that Jews from Silesia were murdered in gas chambers. Please don't do this as it is well sourced. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have delete poorly written typo filled and often factually incorrect boilerplate text which adds nothing to this article. Don't hide the valuable additions in a sea of generalised statements. Rsloch (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You have changed the information in a way that might misinform. The goal of Nazi Germany was to exterminate Jews and Poles not just expel them. To achieve this Germany used mass murder and ethnic cleansing-this should be clear, and I have added necessary information. Stating that Nazi Germany expelled Poles is incorrect as it misses the whole issue of declaring them subhumans to be exterminated and use of mass murder. And saying that Jews and Poles were to be removed is simply to euphemistic as it might led to misunderstanding that they were just to be re-located. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Silesia and thus material should relate to that region. Generalised text that it could easily fit in a hundred other articles is not welcome. Those who suffered during the war in Silesia deserve better than boilerplate text. Why not expand the sections on Intelligenzaktion Schlesien or the use of Polish children for medical 'research' rather than reinstating material that warrants remove on grammatical grounds alone?Rsloch (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Information about Nazi atrocities is vital to history of Silesia. If you believe that grammar can be improved, feel free to do so. But do not remove vital and correct information that Poles and Jews were classified as subhumans and subjected to mass murder. Some of your edits might potentially mislead for example that they were only expelled(If that was not your intention I apologize).

For example you edit includes information "One of the goals of Nazi occupation, particularly in Upper Silesia, was to expel the Polish Silesian population" which is completely inaccurate as as Poles were to be exterminated not only expelled. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Details about Nazi atrocities in Silesia are relevant to this article, general material is not. We need to be specific to Silesia. Nazi classifications of race were not limited to or unique Silesia so do not need inclusion. The same applies to the killing of minority groups. Information about Nazi atrocities is vital to history of Silesia, but only those that occurred in that region.
Your example is puzzling as the sentence clearly starts 'One of the goals'.Rsloch (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
PS can we all agree to edit rather than just revert?Rsloch (talk)

"can we all agree to edit rather than just revert?" You have continued to revert three different editors who tried to restore information about Nazi atrocities you deleted. May I suggest you led by example? As to the rest. The reason for mass murder of Poles and Jews in Silesia needs to be shown-and the fact that they were considered untermenschen is important. Also while Poles were ethnically cleansed(expelled is wrong word here), the fact that they were mass murdered and targeted for extermination is far more important. Your edits show inaccurate and distorted picture of events in Silesia. We can't show Nazi treatment of Poles or Jews in Silesia as just "expulsion"(in fact the very word is wrong-it should be ethnic cleansing), as their primary goal and actions were genocide. In your answer I see no argument for that and I am afraid that I will continue to see a reason to restore valid and accurate information about Nazi atrocities in the region.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well don't say I didn't try.
The word 'expelled' is factually correct, used in books on the subject, and not in danger of breaking the NPOV rules. The rest I've explained.Rsloch (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. You haven't explained anything about why you have replaced information that Poles and Jews were exterminated as subhumans with information that they were expelled.Please do.Otherwise I see no reason not to restore this vital piece of information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I repeat 'This article is about Silesia and thus material should relate to that region. Generalised text that it could easily fit in a hundred other articles is not welcome'. Please read the two sections and you will see that one is general and could cover anywhere whilst the other relates specifically to Silesia. You may feel it needs additions then do so but please keep it related to Silesia. And the material you wish to reinstate is should not be on grammatical grounds alone.Rsloch (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I support mention of Nazi German-organized Holocaust in the lead; it's an important part of the region's history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree. The version proposed by Rsloch is just plain revisionism and violates our sourcing and NPOV policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Clearly that is not the case. Perhaps you would like to explain that strange conclusion? Rsloch (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

As far as I can tell, the warring is over this phrase, "The Polish population of Silesia was reduced to a worker class status and mistreated by their new "German overlords"", reverted in this edit. Both versions, by the way, suffer from poor grammar. I don't know if the entire dispute boils down to this, but if it does, that's particularly silly. (I'm not here to discuss content, but the overlord language is a bit not so encyclopedic.) Rsloch, Dominus Vobisdu, and Yemote, you'll have to figure this out here, what's going on in this edit war and how you will reach consensus. Afterward, Estlandia will proofread. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Silesia was not always ethnically diverse

Copy of whole discussion on talk pages

My edits in order, one is doubly cited, two is a typo correction, three is the reversion of a grammatically flawed generalised section to a Silesia specific one, four is bringing the Intelligenzaktion Schlesien section into the one above, five gives the date of Jewish settlement in Silesia with cite, six expands their history with cite, seven expands on Nazi expulsion of Jews with cite, and six reinstates text by MyMoloboaccount that got lost in the mix. Could you explain why you are removing all of these additions? Rsloch (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

In first place do not enter with Warnings on my talk page and remove my Warnings on yours. That is good that you finally start asking questions, it is bad you do not answer for mine. The answer for you question is that you reverted MyMoloboaccount edit which strongly underlined German Nazi work, namely GENOCIDE. Secondly MyMoloboaccount say you have no his consensus to that and I agree, I do not give a consensus for you actions too. Third, you provided some resources regarding: ``Silesia has historically been an ethnically diverse region`` it is free expanding authors sequences to you POV benefits. Nobody says that Silesia was always ethnically mix area. It is simple not true. Introducing it as top sentence in section `History`is invasion and manipulation for POV. My proposal is to accept the fact German Nazi made GENOCIDE and that Silesia was not always ethnically mix area. Slavs entered the deserted area in in VI or VII AD, created there their states and nations. Only from XIV AD some German settlement start there on the permission of Polish Royal dynasty. They are the facts.--Yemote (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The warnings left on this page were designed to persuade you not to conduct blanket reversions of valid material. Responding with tit for tat is rather silly.
Again I am having difficulty understanding what you have written. None of it justifies your actions. Neither MyMoloboaccount or I need each other's or your permission to edit a page. Consensus is sought not given. Also much of the material you reverted was not in contention, like the spelling error. If there are concerns about the validity of a statement editors will often seek to provide citations to justify them. That is what I did, twice. You may not agree with a doubly referenced statement but that is not grounds for removing it. As to your claim that the Nazis conducted genocide in Silesia the facts do not support that. The Nazis conducted their genocide elsewhere. I think we should concentrate on the evil things that occurred in Silesia don't you?
Blanket undoing of referenced valid material is vandalism. As the second warning says that 'you may be blocked from editing without further notice'Rsloch (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I ask you to be polite and stop Warning me. I reverted you editions since you start edit war with me end others. If you would only change spelling errors I would not touch it but meantime you reverting edits which are valuable and has already consensus. Please do not cover you offending action by spelling changes, do them separately nobody will touch them. Do not pretend you do not understand what I wrote. I am in English speaking country, I speak write and read well. I converse with government officers and scientist without difficulties, I have English language fluency and grammar certificate which allow me to enter here University so maybe not all bad is on my side. Mentioning about permission is just ballooning you anger, do correct edition and do not expect I will leave others alone when you offend their valuable edits. The reference you entered as support of you POV in top sentence of section History are not valid in this content, as well as you SUGGESTION. In total it is double ZERO - it is nonsense to expect that every sentence which has reference should be left in text. You manipulating provided a resources which are not supporting your generalization at all. You do generalization on base of referrals to fraction of Silesian history. That must be stopped. German Nazi conducted GENOCIDE everywhere killing people with every possible reason and without any on every day of the WW II just shooting people directly on the streets. It was not necessary to gas them in Auschwitz, the death camps were also in Silesia. Finlay the top sentence of the section HISTORY must be removed it SUGGEST you favorable Germans were in Silesia from ever and always. IT IS NOT TRUE. Unfortunately for you Germany does not have rights to Silesia historically or legally - that is the international fact. It is not only because the area is native for Slavic tribes but also because it was sized by Prussia and there was brutal GENOCIDES by Germans. --Yemote (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You reverted five separate revisions that I made in one go. That means that you specifically chose to revert the spelling mistake and the other edits you seem to have no dispute with. That is why I warned you.
You may speak and write perfect English but a fair amount of what you have posted on my talk page is difficult to understand. I don't highlight this to belittle but the possibility of confusion.
You don't like the two reference I have provided for the '`Silesia has historically been...' sentence. Could you be clearer as to why?
Genocide is something separate to random killings or even mass murder. I've checked the Extermination camp article and no death camps existed in Silesia.
I've never stated that the Germans were always in Silesia and though I am part German I've always believed that when start wars you have to put up with losing territory if you lose. I'm not a fan of expelling people on the grounds of ethnicity whoever does it. My views on geopolitics though aren't relevant to this article. Rsloch (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

____

Summation: History books does not start from overstated conclusion it follow the chronology. Silesia was not ethnically diverse region for earliest time until XIV century. At least you or anybody has knowledge of it. Additional from VII to XIV century there was only Slavic culture there. Thus you statement; "Silesia has historically been an ethnically diverse region" as the top sentence is WRONG. Let me know exactly what citation from you resources would support the generalization for early period of Silesia's history. Give me the page and citation. If not it is simple you mislead other and start edit war, and will be send to appropriate notice board. --Yemote (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point Yemote, I think I can find a source confirming that Germanization of Silesia was relatively late event. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Above is now a full account of the discussion. Apparently it's all about the Germans. Rsloch (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
From the above text"As to your claim that the Nazis conducted genocide in Silesia the facts do not support that" it is clear now that user believes there was no genocide of Jews and Poles in Silesia-a claim that won't by supported mainstream history. This seems to explain on his persistent attempts to remove information about genocide in Silesia such as classification of Jews as subhumans or use of gas chambers.Wikipedia does not support promoting fringe theories or views to which a claim that Jews under Nazis in Silesia weren't exterminated would certainly belong.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I base that statement in part on Steinbacher, S. "In the Shadow of Auschwitz, The murder of the Jews of East Upper Silesia", in Cesarani, D. (2004) Holocaust: From the persecution of the Jews to mass murder, Routledge, P110-138 which states that the Jews of Silesia were murdered outside the region hence genocide did not occur in Silesia. Hardly a fringe source.Rsloch (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You are engaging in synthesis and original research, that Silesian Jewish population was ethnically cleansed and mass murdered elsewhere(which is incorrect anyway as Auschwitz Birkenau was in Gau of Upper Silesia and Gross Rosen was used in genocide as well) doesn't change the fact that Silesian population was subjected to genocide.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That the majority of the Silesian Jewish population was subjected to genocide is not the issue. That the genocide took place in Silesia is. It clearly didn't. And Gross-Rosen was a work camp and Auschwitz Birkenau was not in Silesia. Again this is all mildly amusing but not getting us anywhere near a compromise. Rsloch (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"It clearly didn't" There are whole books on genocide in Silesia, at this point you are just repeating your personal theory. As to Gross-Rosen it was used in genocide and to murder people as well, and Auschwitz Birkenau was part of Silesian Gau. I will add sources on genocide once the article is unblocked.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is enough to see the Wikipedia article Extermination camps there are one of mine death camp Gross-Rosen in Silesia, Jewish Ghetto in Bendzin and “surprise” for Rsloch - Auschwitz - in German Provinz Oberschilesien. I am sure he will still assume the GENOCIDE was not performed by Germans in Silesia. Gross-Rossen was work camp? For God sake, 40,000 died on site and in evacuation transports -1/3 of total inmates. For Rsloch murdering of tens of thousands has to be done in specific way to be considered GENOCIDE. He is definitely Holocaust denial. I have to investigate if this can be put in court in US, here is possible to put a foreign citizen to respond.--Yemote (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering how wiggly Rsloch dancing around the so call German ancient tribes and eternal ethnic diversity in Silesia he has definitely very clear POV with inclination to revert historical fact for "ideological" reasons. It can not be tolerated.--Yemote (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rsloch you did not provided the page #s and citation from the resources you add to the top sentence of chapter History. I cannot found any reasonable paragraph which can support you makeup.--Yemote (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How should we describe the Nazi genocide of Polish and Jewish population in Silesia during Second World War?

Since a dispute has occurred I would like to know opinion of others how should we describe the campaign of organized mass murder and genocide against Poles and Jews in Silesia during Second World War? Current euphemistic sentence that atrocities happened seems lacking as it could indicate isolated incidents. I believe sentence in line of "Poles and Jews were classified as sub-humans by Nazi Germany and subjected to campaign of genocide involving mass murder and ethnic cleansing, with their extermination as final goal" would be far more appropriate. What to others think? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to Holocaust and the corresponding article on Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It would need opening up to all victimised ethnic groups but it seems a fair compromise. Rsloch (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

So a short subsection titled Nazi Genocide of Poles and Jews in Silesia and sentence "Poles and Jews were classified as sub-humans by Nazi Germany and subjected to campaign of genocide involving mass murder and ethnic cleansing, with their extermination as final goal" and wiki-link to appropriate articles would be acceptable?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am for the proposal of a short subsection titled Nazi Genocide of Poles and Jews in Silesia and sentence "Poles and Jews were classified as sub-humans by Nazi Germany and subjected to campaign of genocide involving mass murder and ethnic cleansing, with their extermination as final goal" and wiki-link to appropriate articles.--Yemote (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I understood Piotrus proposal to be a link, in text (as now) or out of it in the form a 'See also'. That text is generic not Silesia specific.
The text you propose adding is very similar to that you wanted to add to the Free City of Danzig article. Are you intending to put versions of the same text, valid or not, on multiple articles? If so should you not seek wider approval before doing so? Rsloch (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Rsloch-do you voice any objection towards my sentence about Nazi genocide in Silesia against Jews and Poles? Or is it acceptable? Feel free to discuss other issues on my talk page or on appropriate talk pages of articles. I would like to focus here on how we should describe the organized mass murder and genocide by Nazis in Silesia. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As stated above I think that Piotrus' suggestion opened up would be a fair compromise. Seeking to reinstate disputed text solves nothing. We need to construct a factual account of what happened in Silesia linking it preferably in text to the larger picture.
The terminology you use creates difficulties. An example, if you want to use the term 'ethnic cleansing' you have to apply it universally not just to specific groups. If the Jews and Poles of Silesia were 'ethnically cleansed' so were the Germans living there. Want to open that can of worms?
My questions do need answering as the answers could colour debate here or even make it redundantRsloch (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"reinstate disputed text solves nothing" Good. You have now clarified that you dispute the text. However what are you exactly disputing about it? Poles and Jews were classified as subhumans and Nazis and targeted for extermination-this is a wide known historic fact accepted by mainstream history, so it can hardly be disputed. Unless you have any other argumentation to dispute the text I don't see why it should be removed. "If the Jews and Poles of Silesia were 'ethnically cleansed' so were the Germans living there" Your POV not mine. Population transfer is legal and accepted by international law and Germany transferred its legislative powers to Allies under unconditional surrender. However this is not the place to discuss this nor the proper section as we are discussing Nazi genocide against Poles and Jews here. If you want to push forward claims about population transfer of Germans do it in other more suitable discussion please. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the sense that Rsloch do not understand any other point of view except his own. Any attempt to go to a subject which he does not like lead to extended discussion of anything but the subject. If we ask him if he believe that the GENOCIDES occurred there in Silesia he will not answer. This GENOCIDE on East Europe appeared everywhere. I remind you that on the West were killed 5 million on East 30 million. It does not matter where it was matter who, in Silesia or further East. That can not be forgotten.Are you going to say Rsloch that Poles and Jews were treated differently in Silesia then in other part of Poland? --Yemote (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

In summary your text is generic, not related to the topic of the article, its terminology is doubtful, it is in probably in part inaccurate, it if not expanded breaks NPOV rules, and it looks to be part of an attempt to place similar text on multiple articles without discussing it beforehand (please correct me if I'm wrong on that).
There is a compromise on the table. Can we work from it or is your text the only thing you'll accept?Rsloch (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "In summary your text is generic"-I believe that we shouldn't deal in too much detail how Poles and Jews were classified as subhumans and subjected to genocide in Silesia in the general article about Silesia. Do you want more details about Nazi genocide regarding Poles and Jews in this article?
  • "not related to the topic of the article"-since both Poles and Jews were subjected to genocide in Silesia during WW2 as subhumans it is very much related to the this article, don't you agree? Surely you aren't claiming that there was no genocide in Silesia of Jews and Poles?
  • "its terminology is doubtful"-mainstream sources can be added confirming the use of term untermenschen towards Poles and Jews by Nazis and that they were subjected to genocide. Are you contesting this?
  • "it is in probably in part inaccurate"-where is it inaccurate?
  • "expanded breaks NPOV rules"-please elaborate? How does it break any rules?

"There is a compromise on the table" You seem to forget that three other users than agreed to include a version that you are contesting. It is certainly the most supported compromise as of now. Since you were edit-warring I hoped you could tell what was your reason for deletion of supported version containing precise information about Nazi genocide.So far you have evaded giving direct answers I am afraid. As to adding links to wiki articles-that is ok, but we also need something in the article itself and ambigous sentence that Poles and Jews were subject to atrocities is too generic and doesn't in paint in full the whole picture and scale of Holocaust. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have my answer, your text is the only thing that you'll accept. Discussion closed. Anyone else who wishes to add anything please do.Rsloch (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am quite willing to accept a different version of the article with information about Nazi genocide as long as basic vital facts about fate of Jews and Poles in Silesia will remain: -that Poles and Jews were classified as subhumans -that they were victims of genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing -and that the ultimate goal of Nazi state was to exterminate them

How this information will be written can be discussed. Are you opposed to this information being in the article? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because it's generic detail that doesn't needed to be added to every area that saw Nazi oppression and being so is often factually inaccurate. Nazi oppression was not a universal one description fits all event but rather a series of tragedies that occurred in different ways in different places and if the article is to correctly describe things it has to deal with what happened in Silesia not be bogged down in these generalisations that you are adding to page after page. Please go read one of the many online sources that describe what happened to Poles, Jews, Roma, or anyone else the Nazis didn't like in a specific area. You won't find blank statements racial classifications but the facts of what happened in that area. That's what the article should do. Rant over. Rsloch (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not inaccurate but precise."oppression was not a universal one description fits all event but rather a series of tragedies" Mainstream history disagrees with you and confirms that Nazis engaged in organized and systemic extermination of Poles and Jews. Looking at the text below where you deny that genocide of Jews in Silesia happened under the Nazis:"As to your claim that the Nazis conducted genocide in Silesia the facts do not support that" which goes against every mainstream history research. You are pushing a fringe and highly revisionist view that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

So someone sent to die in a death camp had the same experience as someone shot in a forest in Latvia, who died of hunger in a ghetto in Poland, was sent to work in the quarries of Austria, or someone a lazy gaulieter determined to be German?
I've clearly state that genocide did occur but elsewhere. That's a statement of fact. Perhaps you can produce a citation from 'mainstream history' to disprove that.
As amusing as this all is the purpose is to reach a compromise and 'my way or nothing' won't get us there. Rsloch (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust happened with different methods, including mass executions(which happened in Silesia among other forms of genocide). Your personal theories can't be used as source for Wikipedia. I will write an article about genocide in Silesia anyway and add link to it with proper description. As to "compromise" let other users who were in disagreement with you voice their opinion on entering claims that Nazis in Silesia didn't engage in genocide.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not seeing any merit at all in Rsloch's arguments. Seems like nationalistic POV whitewashing to me, plain and simple. Really don't see much to compromise on, or anything much in his comments that derserves serious consideration. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Getting back to the topic at hand now that the sockpuppet has departed, the proposals that have been suggested are to link articles on Nazi oppression or have MyMoloboaccount's 'Poles and Jews were classified as sub-humans by Nazi Germany and subjected to campaign of genocide involving mass murder and ethnic cleansing, with their extermination as final goal'. Does anyone have any alternative proposals to added?Rsloch (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


Comparative map

The article claims that most of it is now within the borders of Poland, with small parts in the Czech Republic and Germany... But what is where? A map should compare Silesia with up to date maps to solve this question...

Proposal for neutral article version

I placed a new version of this article on User:Baldhur/Silesia. I tried to find a middle course for every major conflict here, although that is not always easy. Please tell me what you think about this revision and if you could imagine to replace the current article with that version. -- Baldhur 15:31, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Looking mostly at the intro, the first two paragraphs are fine. The third paragraph is pretty useless, and in pretty poorly written English in parts. I'd also say that at least some brief discussion of the history of Silesia ought to be included in the introduction. I also don't like the timeline in the history section. john 20:39, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That third paragraph is copied from the article in its current revision. But I would agree with deleting it. I took the history out of the introduction because every proposal was rejected by someone. The timeline was introduced by me to give a brief overview, because the history sections became so long. I thought it would be a good idea to take the most important dates out of the following paragraphs.
As for "poorly written English": please feel free to edit and improve that page. -- Baldhur 00:04, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know of course that the version is not perfect. So let me reword my question: What do you think about unprotecting the Silesia article, taking the version from User:Baldhur/Silesia as a provisional version, and then editing it in order to make a good article. If you oppose this proceeding, then I would be interested to hear how to go on in your opinion. Should this article remain protected forever? The discussion on this page has died away, our moderator disappeared, and the interest in this page has faded. So is my proposal a possible way to proceed or not? -- Baldhur 11:35, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like your version, except those language issues which John points out, but I'm sure he will help with that. Nico 02:51, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I buy it. Space Cadet 03:18, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But: I agree with John that an outline of the history maybe should be mentioned and that the third paragraph is useless. How about this? Nico 03:33, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Silesia (Polish Śląsk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historic region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder (Odra) River and along the Sudeten mountains. It now lies mainly in southwestern Poland, but with a small part in the Czech Republic, and another small region, which only became part of Silesia in 1815, in Germany. It was originally a Polish province that became a possession of the Bohemian crown and passed with that crown 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, when most of Silesia was annexed by Poland. In a local Silesian language or dialect Silesia is also called S´lonsk.

The Polish portion of Silesia, which forms the bulk of the historic region, is now divided into the voivodships of Lower Silesian Voivodship, Opole Voivodship and Silesian Voivodship. 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. The largest city of Silesia is Wroclaw (German Breslau).

In a local, not the local language or dialect because only a quite small minority of the Polish Silesians actually use this dialect.

And why is it so important to have the history in the introduction? I left any historical event deliberately out. Taking it back inside will only lead to new trouble.
As for the Silesian language or dialect or whatever, I don't have enough knowledge about this subject. Britannica calls it a dialect of Polish language. But I don't think that it is ambiguous, because the former German-Silesian dialect is now (almost) extinct.
Probably we should take it out of the first paragraph and mention it somewhere else, if necessary. -- Baldhur 15:53, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's important to have history in the introduction because the history of the region is very complex, and some basic understanding of it ought to be present before you get to the table of contents. john 18:51, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I object to "annexed" phrase. Kpjas
How about "became part of Poland"? john 21:05, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Fine. Kpjas

Baldhur's version looks better than the "protected" version. Even if it's not perfect, and even if it raises new objections from some contributors, I think we should use it. Should we vote on this? Should we even vote on "un-protecting" the article? --Uncle Ed 19:35, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would support unprotection. The most intractable user involved in this discussion seems to have left Wikipedia. I think the rest of us can probably work it out without too much acrimony...but who knows? john 19:55, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You know my opinion. It is time for unprotection. I am a little bit concerned about the users who did not participate in this discussion because they were the major problem in the past. Please don't let pass too much time after unprotection and quickly start to replace the current version with my or another better version. I fear the reversion warriors lie in wait for the moment of unprotection. -- Baldhur 21:00, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Count me in Szopen

Well, what if we (a) unprotect the Silesia article and (b) replace it with Baldhur's version? Then, if anyone has problems with one or more specific sections, we can delete those sections from the new article, move them to talk, and pick up the debate again.

If enough of us agree to the process, we can leave the article unprotected from now on, and work together in the talk page to iron out the differences.

I daresay most of the differences will be over how to describe the conflict between German and Polish ways of looking at the history of borders and place names. But in any case, the solution we can all agree on is to say that Group X largely regards it this way, while Group Y sees it that way... --Uncle Ed 21:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with replacing the current version with Baldhur's. But I would like to emphasize that the nature of the past problems was never "the conflict between German and Polish ways of looking at the history of borders and place names". Let's not simplify complex things and let's avoid labeling. No contributors are required to state their nationality, and even if they declare it, it should not be a factor of their reliability. Besides, I don't recall anybody openly labeling himself as German in this discussion since User:H.J. So Ed, do not place this thing in a drawer "Polish-German antagonism", because I would never contribute to something like that. --Space Cadet 22:22, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with every sentence. I don't see myself involved in a conflict Germans vs. Poles here. -- Baldhur 09:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about the over-simplification. It's partly because of my inability to really grasp the issues here, that I'm not contributing to the article. I hope that despite this "drawer incident" I can still be of some help mediating the article creation process; if not, my resignation is ready... :-( --Uncle Ed 16:28, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There is no need for you to apologise, and noone of us felt offended. Of course you can be helpful.
I think everybody here has now agreed with unprotection and replacement, so let's do it, okay? -- Baldhur 18:13, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected. --Uncle Ed 21:15, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. I just replaced the article with my version. Please, everyone should feel encouraged to improve it. -- Baldhur 21:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Great! Are we doing "Gdansk" next?Space Cadet 21:59, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've changed about Baldhur's version to add in history and remove the third paragraph, which was weak. Still could use some work. As for Gdansk, as I recall there's still a great deal of disagreement. But surely we can all agree that Danzig should be bolded somewhere near the top of the article? (I'll continue discussion at Talk:Gdansk). john 22:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we remove all the regional capital cities from the second paragraph. That is described elsewhere, and is unnecessary in this short summary.
And I wonder if "but with a small part in the Czech Republic, and another small region, which only became part of Silesia in 1815, in Germany" is better English than repeating part of Germany? -- Nico 15:28, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I also suggest we move the name in "Silesian" dialect to "Demographics", "Name of the region" or something. According to the last Polish census (2002), 70,000 people speak this dialect. Silesia has 10 Million inhabitants. A name in a dialect spoken by 0,7 % of the present-day (not included the exiled) inhabitants of the region, is hardly worth to mention in the first paragraph. -- Nico 19:14, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero made a suggestion on the mailing list, which (I hope) is irrelevant to this article (but just in case... ;-)

We could have an official version and a draft version. As I understand it, rather than say this article's neutrality or facts are disputed we could have an undisputed version at Silesia and draft version at Silesia (draft).

We would all agree that some trustworthy soul would copy undisputed text from the draft version to the main version.

This is the, um, "reverse" of my earlier proposal to have an alternate version at Silesia (moderated).

Don't worry, I'm not going to jump ahead and start doing anything. My role as Mediator is merely to lubricate the gears. I don't want to turn the crank. --Uncle Ed 16:51, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I just read that suggestion, as well as your answer referring to the "nice folks at the Silesia talk page" ;-) I don't think that the article is irrelevant. The reason why we managed finding a consensus is obviously that the most contentious editors left Wikipedia. They may come back and start it all again, or a "new set of contestants" (Zero's words) may appear.
Even now Nico is making some tiny changes, one edit here, one edit there, to turn the pretty neutral article back into a version that may become a basis for new edit wars.
In my opinion the version as of 9 Jan 2004, 23:11 (including Wik's edit) is definitely an undisputed version. I am in favour of protecting it and making all subsequent changes part of the draft version. -- Baldhur 00:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I find your statement very unfair. -- Nico 01:34, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong, per se, with the changes that Nico has been making, but I think all of us should be running by any suggested changes at the talk page before making them, given the level of dispute which this article has caused. john 00:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I actually did. There was no response at the talk page. And, I have not moved the name in "Silesian" dialect yet, although I have proposed it, since I considered it more controversial than the other changes. Nico 01:37, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed you did. I have no particular opinion on that subject. Let us wait and see if anyone else says anything. john 01:41, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Attention tag... spiffing things up a bit

I noticed there was a fired up discussion about this page, but that noone has worked on it for some time, so I went ahead and formatted the text a bit. Hope it works OK for everyone. Oh, I also took down the attention tag - if someone thinks it's still neede, just put it right back! (although I think the page looks OK now, aside from section stubs...) Karol 22:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic Silesians?

According to the 2002 Polish census, 170,000 people considered themselves to be 'Silesian' rather than Polish. That would make them Poland's largest minority. So, are the Silesians simply ethnic Poles "insufficiently aware of their Polishness" or do they constitute a separate West Slavic ethnicity? It seems even the Polish government doesn't have a concise policy towards the 'Silesians'. According to Warsaw, the Silesians are not a nation, and, therefore, cannot be considered as a "minority", even though they constitute an "ethnic group".

Moreover, does anybody know if Prussia/Germany recognized a distinct Silesian ethnicity? Or were the pre-WWII Slavic inhabitants of Silesia simply considered to be Polish?

They were considered to be Polish (and mostly _were_ Polish). the distinct SIlesian identity seems to become phenomemenon post-war, as result of misguided policies (though there were example so fSilesian national activists even before WWI).

A question about demographics

The information about the Jewish population given in the Demographics section is confusing:

Silesia's Jewish community, who were concentrated around Wrocław and Upper Silesia, numbered 48,003 (1.1% of the population) in 1890 decreasing to 44,985 persons (0.9%) by 1910[25] In Polish East Upper Silesia the number of Jews was around 90.000-100.000[26]

==> How could the Jewish population of East upper Silesia be twice the size of the Jewish population of all of Silesia? What year does the 90,000-100,000 figure refer to?

After the German invasion of Poland in 1939 the Jewish population of Silesia was either placed in ghettos or expelled to the General Government. Those sent to ghettos would from 1942 be expelled to concentration and work camps.[27] In August 1942 10,000 to 13,000 Silesian Jews were killed in Auschwitz.[28] There were seventy thousand Jews in Lower Silesia at the end of the war.[29]

==> How did the Jewish population of Lower Silesia at the end of the war come to be much larger than the Jewish population of all of Silesia before the war, especially after the majority of the Jews had been deported and murdered?

WWI should be WW II ?

"Most of Silesia was conquered by Prussia in 1742, later becoming part of the German Empire, the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany up to 1945. After World War I the easternmost part of this region was awarded to Poland by the victorious Allies"

... I think World War II was intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.210.51 (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In the intro, the following is stated:

Silesian German: Schlesien

However, the etymology section states:

Silesian German: Schläsing

Anyone know which one is correct? --IP.303Talk 05:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

New changes

Propositum, some your changes are very controversial, for example:

  • you use term "conurbation" but most of independent sources show the area as urban agglomeration or metropolitan area, not conurbation
  • you show Wrocław as currently capital of Silesia but today, Silesia is not large Prussian Province or large medieval Duchy, currently Silesia is historical region and there is no capital. Also, between Poles - currently, Katowice is capital of Silesia, informal. So, status of capital of Silesia is very disputed and you can not use that term in article without consensus.
  • some, small your changes also are controversial.

If you have different views - ok, but must to be a consensus for these changes. Franek K. (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

And some nores about Propositum lead

If You have some notes, You may change something or discuss it, but not delete all. Everything I have written is true. Katowice with adjacent cities is most typical conurbation. Wrocław has always been the capital of Silesia. There were two main nationalities (we can also say wider Slavs instead od Poles). And so on. You should be happy that the lead is already done well. Propositum (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned in brackets that Ostrava lies partly in Moravia, but Katowice 'connurbation' also lies partly in the historical Lesser Poland (Zagłębie Dąbrowskie with Sosnowiec, Jaworzno). Part of Silesia in the 18th century remained within Habsburgs' Empire (Austrian Silesia). Wrocław is the historical capital. Polish (...) (often 19th-century immigrants to the coal basin) - well I would say that a bulk of the working class leaving in familoks of industrial Upper Silesian towns were of a rural local origin, not mentioning that but saying that what is above about immigrants, with the word 'often', leaves a subtle misleading impression, I would say. D_T_G (PL) 17:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. You also forgot a sizable Lach-speaking Czech population in Austrian Silesia. D_T_G (PL) 18:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Silesia within Slovakia?

Hi, I am a history fan and a citizen of the Czech Republic. I've never heard that a part of Silesia belongs to Slovakia. Which part, can you specify please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iarostgo (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The northern part of the Kysuce region was disputed between the silesian Duchy of Teschen and Hungary for some time. D_T_G (PL) 21:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silesia/Archive_9&oldid=1079496547"