Jump to content

Talk:Silesians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Culture

[edit]

Does anyone agree with me that perhaps a bit more should be said in particular respect to the culture? Michael 00:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, plus something should be said about the 2002 census - majority of Silesians were not allowed to sign as Silesians... they had to choose between Polish or German nationality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.180.114.141 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were not allowed to choose Silesian nationality? Can you provide a source for this claim?Kasnie (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr IP. Many of Silesians were not allowed to sign as Silesians. Sources exist (mostly in Polish or Silesian language), but you have to look for. LUCPOL (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many silesians

[edit]

In this article should be disambiguation page, because silesians could mean either german speaking inhabitants of Silesia (selfname Schlesier) who were expelled after WW2, either slavic speaking inhabitants of Silesia (selfname Szlonzaks or Szlunzaks) --Vulpes vulpes 09:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget about medieval Slavic tribe of Ślężanie Radomil talk 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox

[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources needed

[edit]

The numbers provided in this article need to be supported by citations from reliable sources. Why should people who have declared Polish, Czech, or German nationality be forcibly categorized as Silesians? I've removed the link to the Tripod website, the article barely even touches on Silesians, it does not support the 2 million figure, and lastly, Tripod is not an acceptable source.Kasnie (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LUCPOL, I don't understand why you continue to delete the 200,000 from the top of the info box. The figure of 200,000 has to take precedence because it comes from an official census. If anything should be deleted, it should be the 2,000,000 because it is simply an estimate and a poorly sourced one at that. My reason for deleting the Tripod website is explained above. If you disagree with any of this, then you should provide authoritative sources instead of engaging in edit-warring.Kasnie (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

improved real data. LUCPOL (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs to find its focus

[edit]

I think this article should focus on the West Slavic ethnic group, and the info about ethnic Germans who have lived in Silesia belongs in a separate article. Lumping them all together creates a confusing mess.Kasnie (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, describing "Silesians", is the most right place for the german speaking Silesians. Jonny84 (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just bad, that's all. If somebody would write a decent article about the topic, these issues could be sorted out encyclopedically. This is not the History of Silesia article. The Silesians are in origin a West Slavic group, but now most of them seem to speak German or Polish. What Kasnie is saying is that there is a difference between germanized Silesians and ethnic Germans that happen to live in Silesia. This is of course correct, even if this distinction will be more difficult to draw today than back in 1850. The Silesians of today are whoever self-identifies as Silesians. If that's just 200,000 people, then there are just 200,000 Silesians today. You can't make people "be Silesians" by proving that they have Silesian ancestors if they simply do not self-identify as such today.

Jonny84, you can't just wave your hands and claim the census figures are flawed. Since there are people identifying as Silesians in Germany, you among them, please go and find a decent reference estimating their number. This doesn't need to be an official census. Just cite some estimate by a Silesian cultural organization or something. Any source will be better than just rambling about how you don't like it. --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing a lot of things. 1. 200.000 people didn't declared themselfs as Silesians (actually they weren't asked for it), they declared a Silesian nationality. This is a big difference. People which declared a German nationality didn't exclude that they are Silesians. 2. Silesians is a modern term. The West Slavic group which lived in Silesia were Sleenzanes. Silesians aren't Sleenzanes and Sleenzanes aren't Silesians. To build a connection between Silesians and Sleenzanes is very non-scientific and POV. Also it's hard to say that Silesians are a West Slavic group after the German Ostsiedlung in 14th century in Silesia, and the term Silesians was created after the german settlement. Silesians are also living in Upper Silesia, but Sleenzanes never lived there. It was the homeland of the Opolani. --Jonny84 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Germany nowadays don't ask people for their cultural identity, so it isn't possible to find any current numbers of self-declaration. Also I don't know any estimates of organizations and I think that we shouldn't use estimates. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

footnotes are not sources

[edit]

Re: [1]. Please don't restore these highly speculative personal opinion footnotes unless you can provide a reliable source to back them up. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wanted to restore the version without this Sleenzanes-nonsense. I didn't care about the footnotes at this moment.--Jonny84 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok, but looking at your edits and the difference between the previous version of the article and yours, you are removing a section beginning with "The Silesians are sometimes treated as part of Polish tribes..." [2] which is referenced to the The New Cambridge Medieval History, a reliable (English language) source. Why? The text also has several other reliable citations appended to it. You should not remove cited material, especially under a misleading pretext.
Otherwise, it's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because he meant Sleenzane and further the west slavic silesian tribes. And this don't belong here. Calling them Silesians is also wrong. --Jonny84 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if the Ślężanie aren't the same as the modern Silesians, there's obviously a connection there, if no other than a linguistic one and this should be mentioned. I guess the problem here is that the article text doesn't accurately contextualize the information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted information about German occupation

[edit]

For unknown reason someone is constantly deleting the info that in 1940 East Upper Silesia was under Nazi occupation. If you contest that info discuss here. If you are just making an unsubstantiated unrest or are for some reason trying to defend the nazis you will be reported to the admin. Opole.pl (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is this article about?

[edit]

Is it about Slavic-speaking Silesians or any people who live in Silesia regardless of ethno-linguistic affiliation? Because I see references to Silesian Germans all the time. Germans from Silesia should be discussed in a separate article and this article should be cleared from off-topic. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral terms

[edit]

When the sorce states: "Silesian are Poles" a sentence that uses the phrase "Silesians are usually considered Poles", with no other sources used, is very neutral. If you want me to write in the way stated in the source - without trying to balance it with the word "usually" that implies that there may be other opinions - then you are the one who is not neutral.

Changing the word "Eventually" into "According to some sources", when there are no other sources given, is simply falsyfing the whole phrase. If you have other sources than state them but do not change what is given in the sources I provided.

I would like to add that more than a half of all the sources used in this article were provided by me. Before that the article reflected only someones opinions without scientific data to support it. As a "thank you act" my input is being reverted and rephrased in a way that does not reflect the sources I provided. Opole.pl (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are sources show Silesians as part of Poles but Wikipedia is neutral, show this sources but may not use the terms "usually" or "eventually", particularly in controversial cases. There are sources show Silesians as part of Poles? Ok, but we - users do not have the right to decide that something is "usually" or not. Franek K. (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word eventually is not an evaluative word! It states that something happened in a result of something and that's what the source states. Opole.pl (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
I do not know the details of the situation at hand, so I will comment only on what is raised here. If a source states something as an unequivocal fact, then that does not necessarily mean that we need to do so as well. We should consider how authoritative the source is and whether the claim is controversial or not. When dealing with issues of ethnic and national identity, there are not many claims that are truly uncontroversial. Consider whether the claim should be specifically attributed to the source; e.g. "According to..." and then say the specific source making the claim. This avoids weasel words like "some sources" without needing to debate whether the claim is true or not. I hope this helps and remember there are no hard rules here, it is up to you all to come to a consensus about how to present these claims in a neutral way. (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the 1945 census

[edit]

There was no census in Poland in 1945, Census in Poland. There was a summary (rather controversial) census in 1946.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any Silesians?

[edit]

The word has many meanings - German Silesians, Uppersilesians (Poland), Czech Silesians, people living in historical Silesia.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Math in introduction does not add up

[edit]

The math cited below does not make any sense - this states that 847,000 people including 1.65 million people declared Silesian nationality of some kind.

I do not speak Polish, so I cannot refer to the source for disambiguation.

Nevertheless, 847,000 people declared themselves to be of Silesian nationality in the 2011 Polish national census (including 376,000 who declared it to be their only nationality, 436,000 who declared to be their first nationality, 411,000 who declared to be their second one, and 431,000 who declared joint Silesian and Polish nationality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstanton (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Slavs

[edit]

Czechs, Slovaks, Sorbs and those in related list are West Slavs, so West Slavs alone surmises these groups. Other than the fact that east, west and south are man made classifications rather there actually having existed three progenitors (one per set), the three sets have common ancestry. --OJ (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The connection to Germans/Austrians is an association (like Berbers with Arabs), not a relationship. --OJ (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Silesians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main Problem of the article

[edit]

Tridtional Polish Slask is ONLY that which Germans call Upper Silesia. Polish Silesians, as traditionally understood, are only the Polish Upper Silesians. Lower Silesia did not have much Polish speaks before 1945 and if the population has now established as "Silesian" after only 3 generations is rather silly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tino Cannst (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silesians&oldid=1184485445"