Talk:Silesia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Historians first!

In my opinion, Silesia is a good example for articles in that the Wikipedia philosophy does not work. There seem to be three opinions: 1. the historian's view, that tries to find out the truth (when was Silesia polish/german, etc), 2. the polish revangist view, that tries to delete expulsion facts and tries to let seem german land polish. 3. the german revangist view, that tries to delete polish history in Silesia and tries to let seem polish land german. In my opinion, such articles should be protected always and only be edited by both german and polish historians without nationalistic ideas. Even you will find compromises here, the next polish or german nationalist already waits for the next Edit War. Other examples in which WP does not work are Religion, Israel/Palestine, Communism/Capitalism 82.82.125.120 00:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias

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

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

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

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

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

What is about the part of Silesia, that was incorporated by Poland in Middle Ages? Bishopry of Krakow has bought to principalities in the Eastern Silesia, as far as I am concerned. AM

---

What's to be done now

Thanks, everybody, for accumulating more information. Many Wikipedians have put much effort into elucidating the facts of Silesia's history on this page and in its archives. Methinks it would be a good idea now to start finding a compromise formula for the text that all can agree on (note, this can also mean that you agree to disagree, as long as the relevant positions are not misrepresented). Please make suggestions.

I would like to repeat that the locking of Silesia should not be lifted until a viable compromise is found. And I might add that refusing to participate in the discussion only to return to reversions once the page is unlocked will most certainly lead to accusations of vandalist behaviour which will, I am rather sure, this time result in a serious effort to ban such users. Kosebamse 12:54, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• Perhaps a neutral person, i.e. a Wikipedia administrator sould edit the blocked Silesia article in the future, without an end of the blocking. It is a politically delicate topic. Therefore it shouldn't be edited by everyone, since many nationalists seem to exist. Ithink, we should start, to make suggestions for an neutral article with pro and contra for every paragraph in the Talk and an administrator should decide on the basis of the arguments wheater the particular paragraph should belong to the article or not. My idea is, first a possibly very short introduction without delicate and controversial content as "belonged to Germany since ...", "is polish for somehundred years", etc. Then a historic overview could follow, naming all controversial issues in a neutral view. 128.176.189.138 13:15, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia - German or Polish? Why not both?

Just to identify my own prejudices, I have a quite German ancestry. And probably none of my ancestors came over the Atlantic from modern Germany.

Why can't a compromise be, to ALWAYS differentiate between who RULED a country, and who POPULATED it? If ancient Silesia was populated by Slavs, say so. Then, if German immigration began in the middle ages, say so. If it was ruled by Bohemians, say so. If a Slavic population remained during this time, say so. It it was ever historically part of or beholden to the kingdom of Poland, say so. If it was ever part of Prussia, say so. If the Germanic residents were ethnically cleansed by the Communists after WWII, say so.

I hope each of the above points, or its negative, is a matter of record. It should be undisputed historical fact whether or not people had a king, spoke a language, or lived on a piece of land.

Maybe the problem is, all the fighting is over "was 'Silesia' German?" or "was 'Silesia' Polish?", when really Silesia is nothing but a big hunk of dirt somewhere very south of Finland with people living on it. Silesia has been inhabited by people, they spoke languages, had ethnic origins, and had kings, and none of that should really be in dispute. Look it all up in a damn book somewhere and leave out the urge to use a public encyclopedia to mark a plot of land as your particular race's historical birthright.

PS Wikipedia is otherwise a great thing. Except the Brittania articles written in 1912 by questionable ethnographers. I mean, saying the Tatars are "stout and strongly built, and respected farmers"?

Except that some people here are trying to interpret facts in non-NPOV way and then accuse others of nationalism if they point it to them. szopen

---

I fully agree with the above sentences. We have to write about facts. Most of them are solid and undisputed. If there's a historical disgareement about a fact we can also say so: some historians say this, others say this. I my opinion it should work perfectly well.

The problem is we are putting most of our time into discussing what should go into the introductory paragraph, and that's why the page is constantly protected and lockeced from changes. I hope it will change soon. Grzes of Poznan 13 Nov 2003, 7:34

Szopen's thougths

The discussion here is structured into three parts. First, my personal feelings, which may be safely omitted. Second, I discuss with Nico's assumptions. Third, I summarise my points and propose new introduction.

You may omit this part - this is about my personal feeling in discussion, not relevant to overall sense

---

I must admit that I am not totally neutral in discussion. You see, Nico mentioned that Poznan/Posen was majority German population before 1945 and then it was given to Poland by Stalinist gang.

My grand-grand-father and many of his brothers were fighters in uprising after 1918. Later, one brother of my grandmother died as result of treatment he received in attitude-reshaping training during German occupation, shortly after releasing.

Calling them Stalinist band have a bit made me less open to discussion with Nico.

Second part of my family (second grandfather was from petty nobility from Grodno area, while grandmother was daughter of military settler) came from what is now Belarus. They were expelled by Soviets, and for 45 years during family reunions i couldn't understand why people lower their voices when talking about those who stayed in Belarus. We met them for first time after 1989. So I think I can't understand feelings of expelled Germans. Half of my family was uprooted, although they were victims of the war, and expelled from area with predominantly Polish population, and until now they are commonly called Polish occupiers and alien element. Yet, you can't see me demanding Polish equivalent for every former Polish name, or demanding that we should call this lands historical Polish province (Except last few edits when i was REALLY angered by Nico).

That's all for my feelings and I hope you will understand why my POV is a bit skewed. I am not nationalist. I am Pole with complicated family history. Just as millions of other Poles.

---

Ruhrjung mentioned that there is need to mention German influences in SIlesia history and he proposed HRE as catch-all for that influences. I think this is wrong. German influences didn't start with recognising Bohemian overlordship, also being part of HRE meant nothing for SIlesia for a long time. Do you think that it meant much for Czech hussite Jiri Podiebrad? Or for Polish hussite duke Bolko Opolski? Or for Maciej Corvinus who ruled over SIlesia up to 1490? OR for Olbracht who ruled one of Silesian duchies before he was forced to left it when elected king of Poland? Moreover, HRE was dissolved in 1807.

Nico mentioned again that Silesia is German for 618 years. Again, what does it mean: "German". Silesia had mixed population for centuries: in 1905 IIRC 20-34% (can't remmeber exactly) of population was declared Poles by Prussian officials. Why German since 1327, when few Polish dukes recognised Czech king as their suzerain? And why to 1945, some parts of Silesia returned to Poland in XVI century (Auschwitz, Siewierz) and some after 1918 (part of Upper Silesia). Some regions had majority of Polish population well into XIX century. The ties to Poland existed also in modern times.

Nico mentioned also, that he would laugh if i would wrote about decreasing Polish ties, since it would be false. What about this:

No, I would not. I referred only to a sentence totally ignoring the last almost 700 years of German history. Nico 07:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Take a Bytom as most shining example: 1834 census in Bytom showed 67,7% (2015) Poles, 17,9% (533) Jews and 14,4% (430) Germans. German Historian ZImmerman "In oberschlesien aber wird zu beuthen das beste Polnisch gesprochen", p. 217 in 1783 wrote that all citizens speak in Polish and virtually none speak German. In earlier times city documents were written in either Polish or Czech (in 1533 Jerzy Hohenzollern ordered that all documentation should be in German, but in 1534 he agred that only most important documents will be in German, and the rest in Czech). Since 1631 city book was in Polish exclusively. Local German polosed quickly. For example Langnickels in XVI century started to use name Dluginikiel.

In referendum after WWI 59% citizens of Bytom region voted for Poland (In city alone 25%, in whole SIlesian referendum 40,4% for comparison). Yet Bytom stayed in Germany. As a side note, only PRIVATE Polish middle school in whole Germany was allowed in Bytom after intervetions in League of Nations, students from that school were persecuted (e.,g father of one of students, Wilhelm Palasz, was immedietely fired from his work when he send his son Oskar to Polish school etc etc). That only for remainding, that there was Polish minority in Germany, since most of German "revisionists" use to say a lot about fate of German minority in Poland, forgetting about Polish minority in Germany. After the war 27 952 Poles in city, and 42233 in whole region were positevely verified and stayed. Just to remind that not whole population was expelled and not all Poles in Silesia are new settlers.

Some mentioned Piasts. it may be noted that last Silesian Piast speaking exclusively in Polish died in 1532 - it was Jan II the Good (at least according to contemporary chronicler, Mattheus Scholtiss, who written that he heard that king Ferdinand said that if Jan II wouldn't speak in Polish, would be totally mute).

Take Glogow. In 1451 In GLogow was born Kaspar Elyan. He printed three Polish prayers in 1475 and in Leipzig university signed as natione Polonus. First Germans in villages in neighbourhood of Glogow (Gloagu) appeared in the end of XV century. Polish villages were still present (according to German Zimmerman) in Szprotawa, Zagan and Zielona Gora (Grunberg?) in XVIII century, and in Kozuchow and ZIelona Gora they exist up to half of XIX century. When in 1494 commission demarcated border between Poland and Silesia, names of peasants were like this: Stari Grisch (Old Grisch), Cruthki (short), Jendrzei Cosziczski, Woithowa etc etc. Are this German names? Names of villages were like mocra struga, Czarny lyass, zydowski broth, cobilye bloto etc. Polish villages were majority on left side of Oder and numerous on right side of the river in the region of Glogow.

Also, the most obvious sign that SIlesia ws once Polish are the names of villages. From region of my home city, Swiebodzin (Schwiebus), there was Olobock (renamed in 1937 to Muhlbuck) (today Olobok), Rogytnicze was renamed to Schonfelde (Rokitnicko), Lunisco as renamed in 1937 to Merzdorf (Lubinicko), Wangritz to Ulbersdorf etc. In region of my home city, there was part (Babimost, Kargowa) which was inhabited in majority of Poles (about 4000 of them, but couldn;t find data for that vilalges, only for whole region of Swiebodzin)

I think you get my point. Poles didn't disappear in Silesia suddenly in 1327. Therefore, writing that Silesia was German for 618 years is a bit, uhm, exxageration. The ties to Poland aren't just remainings of ancient medieval times. They were present in modern times too.

---

1) Once, long, long ago, there was a very wise man. He was one of Polish contributors, named Taw or WojPob or Kpjas... can't remember. He made a proposition: Everyone involved in revert and edit wars should promise, that before contributing to edit wars he should first do something worthwile: a neutral contribution to wikipedia. Correcting errors, typos, adding new article on neutral topic etc. I think that it would be good that everyone involved in Silesia/Gdansk/Poznan/Warszawa/etc war should make such promise. Before any change to Silesia article I will make a neutral contribution. It's your turn, Wik, Nico, and others. None will check if you will keep that promise. None, except you, of course.

2) IMHO adding in INTRODUCTION reference to Holy Roman Empire is wrong. This may find place in history section, in some neutral form that is. If only modern times is relevant, then HRE should be abandoned, since it was dissolved in 1807. Also, while Silesia formally was part of HRE, usually it was formality.

3) After thought I admit that adding years may be wrong. First, since it may confuse the reader. Second, since it's hard to say HOW to count this years. Was SIlesia part of HRE since whole Poland recognised HRE overlordship in XII century? Or since 1327 when some Silesian princes recognised Bohemian king as suzerein? or from 1331, when he acquired some lands in Silesia? Or since 1343 (IIRC) when Kazimierz renounced rights to this parts of Silesia which were under HRE overlordship? Or since 1368 when last independent Silesian Piast died?

4) Therefore, my new proposal is as follows:

Ties with Poland where weakening over time, while ties with Germany were increasing. Most of Silesia was part of Germany before 1945, with majority of Silesia' population being German. After World War II most of Silesian (German) population was expelled and replaced by Poles expelled from former Kresy.

This seems quite acceptable to me. -- Nico 19:02, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You have here everything you may want: Recognition of feelings of German expelees, mentioning that Silesia was German before 1945, mentioning that Polish ties were also present. I would call it as POV as one could expect, or even more, from me. Vote on that.

5) I admit one error in discussion: I made claim that German colonisation started after 1270. Bad memory. It was 1175 - first document mentioning possibility of getting German settlers. Generally is this considered lower bound for German colonisation in Silesia. However scale of this colonisation is exxagerated. Definetely mentioning ruins and slaughter caused by very short raid of Mongols is part of that exxageration. From Mongol raids only third one had some effect, since only then Mongols stayed for enough time to systematically burn vilalges and catch population which routinely was hiding in the forests, as it did in case of every Yatzvinger, Prussian, Czech, Lithuanian, Rusin, Polish or German raid. But third Mongol raid was limited only to Lesser Poland and even it couldn't make such disastrous effects as decribed by German XIX-century historians (depopulation and repopulation by German colonists).

Or made your proposition. szopen

I agree on szopen's latest proposal. Nico 19:02, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(Could please everybody sign their comments?) The conflict here seems to be centered around attributing Silesia to one or the other country, i.e. reduce a long and complicated history to an oversimplification. If it can't be reduced to a few short sentences without upsetting the patriotically inclined, then some other way must be found. Methinks that 24.215.9.206's comment above ("Why not both") might be helpful. If history is complicated, say so. If a place has been inhabited by Poles, Czechs, Germans, and Jews, say so. If there are historical census data, cite them. If there have been various rulers over the centurys, say so. If today's status quo has its historical roots in this or that, say so. Perhaps we should try to make it clear in the introduction that the history of silesia was complicated, and that its political status, population etc. has changed often over the centuries. I am well aware that there have been compromise formulas that tried exactly that, but perhaps it should be stressed even more. Kosebamse 08:37, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We can't say so, because it would be Polish nationalist view. The wik's proposal of introduction was "Silesia had rich history and its culture was heavily influenced by Polish, Czech and German culture" or something like that. Nico protested this version. szopen

But in principle I guess it would be the right idea (because it would grasp the essence of NPOV). It would probably help if Nico clarified in a factual way why he objects to that version (or has he done that already?) Maybe the phrasing could be neutralised some more? Kosebamse 09:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I should add that I have told both Nico and Wik that their cooperation on this page is highly desirable, and that failure to discuss only to return to reversion wars would quite conceivably rise serious debate about their conduct. Kosebamse 09:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What, is there actually some agreement here? Between two different contributors?? Save me, I'm having a heart attack! ;-) --Uncle Ed 19:04, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Final proposal

Combining the existing article and Szopen's latest proposal, we get:

Silesia (Polish: Śląsk, German: Schlesien) is an historic region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. The historical region belonged to Poland in the middle age. Ties with Poland were weakening over time, while ties with Germany were increasing. Most of Silesia was part of Germany before 1945, and the majority of the population were German. After World War II most of the Silesian (German) population were expelled and replaced by Poles expelled from former Kresy.

Is this acceptable to everyone? -- Nico 03:00, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Acceptable to me szopen

It might be a good idea to split it up after the first sentence because that's where the most relevant information is and should be (some Websites snatch Wikipedia article first sentences to use as definitions). And I am always confused about the use of the "-ic" versus "-ical" suffixes, so I can just guess "historical" would be better. If I may offer a personal opinion (though I promised I would not, so please feel free to ignore it), the reference to expulsions, while historically factual, does not seem that overwhelmingly important so it could be moved somewhere downward in the article, perhaps to the demographics section. I am under the impression that it's a little inflammatory even in its present form - it reminds me remotely of body-count arguments like "Hitler killed so and so many - but Stalin killed etc", and these are probably not very helpful with respect to NPOV. Kosebamse 08:08, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

PS: I guess it would be wise to include the Polish name of the Oder river - it would otherwise make a casus belli again, and now enough of personal opinions. Kosebamse 08:11, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, what do you think about this?

Silesia (Polish: Śląsk, German: Schlesien, Czech: Slezko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic.

The historical region belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland were weakening over time, while ties with Germany were increasing. Most of Silesia was part of the German provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia before 1945, and the majority of the population were German. After World War II most of Silesia became Polish, when the German population were expelled and replaced by Poles expelled from former Kresy.

(eventually without "expelled from former Kresy")

I think it is important to mention the expulsions already here, because almost the whole population were replaced (and not too many years ago), which means that Silesia as a term may have a different meaning before and after this event. This was also szopen's proposal. It is difficult to write a perfect introduction when dealing with a region with a so complicated history as Silesia, and I think at least this proposal is better than the old intro. -- Nico 10:45, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It looks like a compromise has been found (BTW I believe it's "middle ages" with an "s"). I would like to wait another day and if there are no objections I guess Silesia and Schlesien can be unprotected. Kosebamse 10:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

About the Oder River: Most of the english language atlases use the name Odra, but the so called "official name" still seems to be Oder. Until Odra becomes "official", I can chill, without bellum parare.
Space Cadet 15:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---