Talk:Silesia/Archive 8

message: I think this topic holds the record for "most archives of a talk page". Isn't there any area of argeement? Please, someone just list all the disputed points. Then we can go through them one by one. I can help, if people want me to. --Uncle Ed 18:28, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (That was fast! It only took 14 days for an answer to appear to my question... ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of the debate (list of issues) 

message: ===Current state of Silesia===
Should it be said that parts of Silesia are now in Germany?
Yes
*Because the Britannica Encyclopedia (2002 edition) and other encyclopedias does. Nico 21:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Silesia (Polish Sl`ask, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, bounded by the Sudeten mountains to the southwest, by the Beskid range to the south, and by the Kraków-Wielun plateau to the northeast, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the northeastern Czech Republic. It was originally a Polish province that became a possession etc. 
Geography First
===Nazi Atrocities===
Should Nazi World War II atrocities be discussed in the introduction to the article?
Yes
Yes, if the expulsion of the Germans is mentioned in the intro. The expulsion of the Poles by Bismarck should also be mentioned. -- Caius2ga 17:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: Silesia introduction

message: Should it be said that parts of Silesia are now in Germany?
Yes
*Because the Britannica Encyclopedia (2002 edition) and other encyclopedias does. Nico 21:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Current state of Silesia

message: Should the Silesian dialect/language name of the province be mentioned a) with the other names; b) somewhere else in the introduction; c) not at all?
Nico thinks that From a linguistical point of view, it does not exist a "Silesian" language. The dialect which uses Slonsk and Slunsk are spoken by 70,000 people, according to caius2ga. Silesia has 10 Million inhabitants. Second, "Silesian" may refer to German (Lower Silesian) as well, and the name "Silesian" is very misleading. Third, no other encyclopedia (including the newest edition of Britannica) mention these names.
? If we should simply have "Silesian", it should be: "Silesia (Polish: Slask, German: Schlesien, Czech Slezsko, Silesian: Slask, Schlesien, Slonsk and Slunsk)" (in the article about "Silesian" language, Germanic Silesian is mentioned as well). That's quite long.
Or how about: "Gdansk (Danzig, Gdunsk, Gyddanyzc, Gyddanyzc, Kdansk, Gdanzc, Dantzk, Dantzig, Dantzigk, Dantiscum, Gedanum) is a city on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea..."? It sounds not good. I think Wikipedia not should be a dictionary, and only names with relevance for English readers should be mentioned in the introduction of articles. Other encyclopedias mention the Polish, German and Czech name of Silesia.
with other names
*Delirium
* Space Cadet
* Silesian name of Silesia is a must in this place -- Caius2ga 17:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Silesian Name of Silesia

message: Should the article say that Silesia is located in Poland and the Czech Republic, or that it is located in what is now Poland and the Czech Republic?
in what is now Poland and Czech Republic
*john (I don't feel particularly strongly about this one, though)
*Nico Because the Britannica Encyclopedia and most other English language encyclopedias does. 
*Delirium, makes sense when discussing a region that has changed hands many times
in Poland and Czech Republic
* Space Cadet "what is now" unnecessary complication, sounds like smuggling hints between the lines.
* szopen I agree with space cadet
* Right term, no offensive wording -- Caius2ga 17:49, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: in what is now

message: Should Nazi World War II atrocities be discussed in the introduction to the article?
Yes
Yes, if the expulsion of the Germans is mentioned in the intro. The expulsion of the Poles by Bismarck should also be mentioned. -- Caius2ga 17:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi Atrocities

message: Should the expulsion of the German population in 1945 be mentioned in the introduction to the article?
Yes
*Delirium, important for understanding of demographic shift
No
*Baldhur
*I'm not sure. Maybe it would be wise to describe this in the history section? -- Nico
* Space Cadet ditto
*john (changing vote to support emerging consensus)
*szopen but i wouldn't mind if the mentioning it would be in introduction.
*Caius2ga 17:55, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Expulsions

message: Should it be stated that there was a German majority in Silesia prior to the Second World War?
Yes
*Delirium, if this is in fact factually correct
*szopen Yes but it should be made clear that Germans were majority in "German" part of Silesia 
*Lirath Q. Pynnor Why should it be in the introduction, tho?
No
* Space Cadet history section
'Polish majority
* There was no German majority in Silesia (all 3 parts) prior to the Second World War. -- Caius2ga 18:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: German majority

message: Should it be stated that there was a Polish majority in Silesia prior to the Second World War?
Yes
* Caius2ga 19:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish majority

message: I make a formal proposal to erase the contents of this page and replace it with information about the modern province of Silesia (curently at Silesian Voivodship), at the same time the page called Lower Silesia should about the Lower Silesian Voivodship. If there are articles called Saxony and Lower Saxony about modern provinces of Germany, Silesia and Lower Silesia should also be about modern provinces of Poland~. This will end all these stupid edot wars -- Caius2ga 22:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a terrible idea.  Look, if you're so confident that you're right about everything, why don't you just vote on how you think the article should look, and try to enlist others who might support your version of the article?  If it appears that a wide consensus of users support your version, then your version (or some variant of it) presumably wins out.  If a significant minority supports your version, some consensus acceptable to everyone might be able to be worked out.  If not, well, then, tough luck, you don't get to destroy the whole article because you dislike it. john 22:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Not for us. Poles considered Silesia part of Poland from the ... times inmemorial.
*"current or historical silesia" is a question of how the article should be organized
*"Nazi Atrocities" is not a question of fact, but of whether said facts should appear in the intro to the article.
*"Expulsions", so far as I am aware, is not disputed in terms of the facts, but simply whether it should be mentioned in the introduction of the article (unless you'd like to argue that Germans weren't expelled from Silesia?)
*"German Majority" might be considered a question of fact.  It is obviously hard to determine what the exact ethnic make-up of the population of Silesia was at any time.  German censuses certainly show a German majority, both before and after the detachment of Upper Silesia.  I guess changes in the population of Polish Upper Silesia after 1920 could have led to a Polish majority in the whole of Silesia (especially if you include Auschiwtz and Zator) at some point between 1920 and 1939, but I really have no idea.  At any rate, I was not here assuming that the German majority was in existence.  I was asking whether it should be said that there was a German majority.  And you'll note that I did not vote in either that question or the one about whether part of Silesia is in Germany. john 23:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Yes...certainly.  I should not have become engaged in this.
I think, that after two months of discussing points of view and exchanging hurtful comments everything has been tried to achieve a consense here. Obviously the main problem is the inability of some people to listen to other people's opinions. Everytime we return to the same arguments or fruitless "sandbox level" discussions, as Kpjas rightly pointed out. I would rather suggest to leave the article protected and wait until January, when the arbitration committee is established. This was merely born out of frustration, I should not have said this. -- Baldhur 12:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: See above - Baldhur 15:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Space Cadet, I think all those things should certainly be talked about in the article - I'm not sure how much of it should go in the introduction - Swidnica would make sense, and certainly the diversity in the region across the ages (caius2ga had a paragraph on that in his version, which I objected to, but mostly on the grounds that it was poorly written).  I'm not sure if the other stuff is necessarily for the introduction, though, although some issue of the question of Silesian/Polish nationality might be worth discussing there.  As far as the issue of annexation goes, it certainly wasn't my intention to imply that Poland was responsible, although I can see how it might seem that way.  Would changing it from "was annexed by Poland" to "became part of Poland" be more acceptable? john 20:28, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you John, for getting involved. Although I have tried earlier to help resolve the problems here, I am not too familiar with the subject of Silesian history. After reading through the questions above, I have come to the conclusion that they are not extremely relevant (however, the vote above seems to help providing arguments). While facts should of course never be voted upon, vote results may help convince some people that they might reconsider their views.I believe that the problem with Silesia is not so much  what facts are presented where and how, but a lack of good will on the part of some, and an unwillingness to improve their social skills beyond sandbox level.Kosebamse 16:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silesia, Lower Silesia just like Saxony, Lower Saxony 

message: Hello, everybody! :-)
My name is Ed Poor, and I usually sign my comments as Uncle Ed. I am a member of the newly-formed Wikipedia Mediation Committee.
If anybody would like me to take a look at the article, or help resolve conflicts about it, please list your names below. Or if anyone wants me to butt out, say that instead! ;-) --Uncle Ed 17:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you ten, I'm sure we have a quorum. Wik and Taw are welcome any time. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Offer of Mediation

message: *Baldhur
*Space Cadet
*john
*hesitantly yes Kpjas 20:41, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, get involved

message: Well, it's been two days, and no one has stated their "win conditions" or basically responded to anything I've said (except Wik, who didn't even sign up for the mediation). 
So shall I declare my effort a failure and bow out now?
Or is there still something I can do to help? --Uncle Ed 19:55, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Moderation Needed?

message: I've just found interesting page, where it is written, that in 1764 Landowners were forbidden for hiring people not knowing German, in 1765 it was forbidden to hire Polish teachers (but that decret had to be translated into Polish, because nobody had understood it), that he (Fryderyk The Great) even forbidden marriage between people not knowing German.. is it ubran legend or true? He also settled there 61.000 German  settlers. Should we enter it into article or it would be onlu cause of revert wars? Szopen 10:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silesia after 1740 

message: I have added Görlitz and Opava to the Major Cities section. Opava was the capital of Austrian Silesia, while Görlitz is part of the small section of Silesia in Saxony. It is arguable that Ostrava should be included as well, because part of the current city was once known as Silesian/Polish Ostrava. However, the more important part of the city, Moravian Ostrava, was part of Moravia. Olessi 01:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cities 

message: An Indonesian public figure Franz Magnis-Suseno (born Franz Graf von Magnis) is said to have been born in Eckersdorf, Silesia. Someone told me once that this village is/was located in Glatz/Kłodzko but he was not sure. So can anybody please tell me where it is? Thanks. Meursault2004 09:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that :-) But I also wrote as a footnote that the present name is Bożków, Dolnoslaskie, Poland. Meursault2004 09:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eckersdorf in Silesia 

message: Firstly it must be said that Silesia as a historical region hasn't an official coat of arms or a flag. Neither :Image:Flagge Preußen - Provinz Oberschlesien.svg (reversed flag of Upper Silesia; it should be yellow-blue), nor :Image:Flaga slaskie.gif (arms of the Voivodeship) are the right flags of this region. The flag of Silesia was white-yellow, Upper Silesia introduced the yellow-blue flag, as it became a province in 1919. The coat of arms used in the article was copied from the Czech coat of arms, but as it shows the right picture I think this isn't a problem, as long as there isn't a better version. --PetrusSilesius 19:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to remove with article the flag and coat of arms. OK. I deleted. LUCPOL 11:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms and flag 

message: The Munich Agreement didn't "surrender Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany".
Xx236 10:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, it did not.81.131.16.68 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In accord with the Munich Agreement that surrendered Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. 

message: The plebiscite, organised by the League of Nations, was held in 1921. The outcome was 706,000 votes for Germany and 479,000 for Poland, according to Polish estimates. German sources, and those of the League of Nations, give a wholly other impression.
If it was organised by the League of Nations, why aren't the League of Nations figures listed first? Whose Polish estimates? Wladyslaw Gomulka's? 136.186.1.117 04:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the League of Nations figures are the internationally accepted correct figures. Neither Germany nor Poland had any input. The Plebiscites were carefully monitored and published by the Allies. 81.131.16.68 16:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  League of Nations plebiscite 

message: The article about the camp is Gross.... So eventually that article should be moved to Groß....
Xx236 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article should be moved to Groß. Ameise -- chat 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Groß-Rosen concentration camp 

message: Instead of citing "government" sites can you cite some historical sites? But anyway, even this site says that the lands inhabited by Polish tribes were united. Archeology says that they were reunited after over 100 years of separation. Space Cadet 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Government" site 

message: I don't know, but i think it's somehow misleading *not* to differ between Lower and Upper Silesia especially in the history section of the article. Although both a part of the same historical entity they vary greatly in the way they developed. The Piasts of Lower Silesia for example founded their monasteries with monks from Germany and Bohemia, whereas the Piasts of Upper Silesia called them from Poland. This had a HUGE impact on the developement of the country, since the monasteries were the centers of the colonisation and somehow illustrate the affiliation to a certain culture area. 
We can see the problems that arise when we not differ between Upper and Lower Silesia in the talk pages too. Nationalists from both sides (Poles and Germans) use either the upper or lower part of Silesia to push their agenda. It's confusing to find out which part some users mean when they talk about polish or german majorities in the late middle ages or something. For example, a user on this talk page points out that "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". Question is: in every part of Silesia? Which is somehow difficult to believe given the fact that many lower silesian towns or villages were founded by germans or switched to a german name in the middle ages because of the majority of germans there. A good source for it is this book, a collection of documents mainly of Lower Silesia and Upper Lusatia:
http://www.literature.at/webinterface/library/ALO-BOOK_V01?objid=19012
I think at least a part of the history section should be splitted in Upper and Lower Silesia to better illustrate the different direction these two regions took. 84.181.107.43 09:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lower Silesia vs. Upper Silesia 

message: Where is Cieszyn Silesia? This is a part of historic Silesia! And a Lusatia isn't part of Silesia!! It was part of Silesia only 50 years - in Provinz Schlesien!
--83.29.246.133 13:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A map isn't good 

message: The boundaries shown on it match the ones in the external link, and also jibe with the text in the article. Kelisi 02:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The external map depicts the borders of the Prussian province of Silesia as of 1871. It does not take into consideration "Teschen", Hlučín, or Opava (the later Moravian-Silesian Region), all of which were in medieval Silesia. I'm not positive, but Ostrava could also be possibly included. The first Wiki map depicts Silesia within Germany in 1871, while the second Wiki map presents the medieval boundaries of Silesia (but without the later addition of parts of Lusatia). That is why I had changed the caption from Historic to Medieval. A proper "Historic Silesia" map would depict all of the territories that have been considered "Silesian". Olessi 08:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know a source for that? I'd like to do it properly. Kelisi 19:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have been able to get the thumbnail of the new map to work, but not the full image. It looks good to me so far, with the exception of the Schwiebus region presented on the 1378 maps. Olessi 04:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This detailed 18th century map shows Ostrava (Ostrau) on the border between Moravia and the Duchy of Teschen. Olessi 05:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at the 18th-century map, I see that Silesia's borders as defined thereon match the cyan border already on the map in the article, except for the Schwiebus exclave. I have therefore added that, and I would further suggest that we desist from adding any further lines to the map lest it become an indecipherable tangle of borders. The caption is already a bit tangled. I really only meant the map to be used as a locator so that readers could see just which part of Europe the article was going on about. Showing Silesia's limits at various times in history isn't a bad idea, but I would suggest separate maps for that. Kelisi 18:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Thanks for working on the maps. Olessi 18:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Did someone delete the map? It seems to be missing today. Lusanaherandraton 04:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The'' map is just fine 

message: German names of places are generally (very) old. There are however many names imposed in Germany since 1936 and in Poland since 1939. A reader should be informed if a name is 500 years old or was imposed by a Nazi administrator during WWII. 
Xx236 13:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a standard in most articles where cities had two names (German and Polish). The fact that the German name is in parenthesis should insinuate that they are no longer used -- I wouldn't say that most of them are 500 years old... Germany lost Silesia in WW2 (though they lost Upper Silesia in WW1). Ameise -- chat 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...and gained Silesia in 1871. Space Cadet 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How did Germany "gain" Silesia in 1871, other than "gaining" its own existence as a country?  Silesia had officially been part of Prussia since the end of the 7-Years War (1763) and de facto since 1742 or so.RogerLustig 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Germany lost a tiny bit of Silesia (Hlučin) directly after WW I and a more substantial portion a few years later.  But most of O/S (as it was abbreviated then) remained German until 1945.RogerLustig 05:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The longest historical period of Silesia was under Polish and Bohemian kingdoms. Thus conversation is over, but according wiki policies other names should be included in the parenthesis alphabetically. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German names 

message: ::Although part of the Holy Roman Empire, Silesia continued to have strong economic ties, especially through the Jewish merchants in the cities, with the neighbouring Kingdom of Poland during the Renaissance period and beyond.
This is a little misleading.  By ca. 1500, Jews had been expelled from most of Silesia; the imperial expulsion of 1582 allowed them to reside only in two cities: Glogau in Lower Silesia, Zülz in Upper Silesia.  Brilling estimates the total Jewish population of Silesia in 1600 at 120 people.  (Die jüdischen Gemeinden Mittelschlesiens, p. 4.)  Not until the end of the 17thC did Breslau start to have a Jewish community again.  
To be sure, the Jews of Glogau and Zülz were important for trade, and the Zülz Jews served as "local Jewish merchants" for Breslau, Oppeln and elsewhere.  But most of the Jewish merchants who kept the economic ties strong were from the Polish cities.RogerLustig 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish merchants in the cities 

message: There is no reliable source why Casimir III should have been "forced" to renounce definitely to Silesia (1335). Therefore I have deleted this word in the article.
Wikiferdi 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casimir III 

message: Under the section “Interwar period” I replaced the phrase “according to the right on self-determination”  with “contrary to the stipulations of the referendum and therefore contrary to the right on self-determination”.
Reason:
Before the referendum was held it had been clear that if the majority of the voters in Upper Silesia votes for Poland Upper Silesia comes to Poland. Otherwise, if the majority votes for Germany Upper Silesia shall remain in Germany. So these had been the stipulations for this plebiscite.
The decision of the League of Nation to split the region by applying now another standard was contrary to the stipulations and contrary to the right on self-determination of the Upper Silesians!
Wikiferdi 02:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a source for that, otherwise it's original research. —AldeBaer 12:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plebiscite in Upper Silesia 

message: Are there no Roma (gypsies) in Silesia?
In Czech part I´m sure, that many Roma living in Ostrava. Yopie 22:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roma 

message: Should Silesian Autonomy Movement be in the lead ? It is a fringe movement similar to Bavaria Party, which isn't in the lead about Bavaria. In failed to get into parliamenent, is limited to Upper Silesia and doesn't involve Lower, German, and Czech Silesia. In elections in 1991 it out of circa 9.000.000 population living in Silesia it  received 26,357 votes. I really don't think such marginal movement that even doesn't deal with the whole Silesia should be in the lead. What do you think ?--Molobo (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it can be mentioned somewhere in the article, including it in the lead does seem imbalanced. Olessi (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless it can be shown that this is an extremly numerous and popular organization, I agree with Molobo it is fringe (and as somebody who grew up in Katowice and almost never heard of it, I think he is quite right it is rather fringe).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the piece at the end of the "history" section.  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a fringe movement be in the lead ? 

message: First of all, I'm new here and since this is a rather delicate topic i prefer to start on the discussion page. ;)
1) Etymology
- "Archaeological finds from the 7th and 8th centuries have uncovered former largely populated areas"
Really? I would love to see a source for this. Maybe my knowledge is outdated, but from what I know the finds from the early slavic period are rather limited. 
BTW: most of these archaeological finds were lost after the war (the Sielsian Museum of applied arts and antiquities in Breslau/Wroclaw for example) and it's therefore difficult to pass a judgement.
2) Protestant Reformation
- This section is misleading. The Silesian Protestants received help from many countries, not just the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Brandenburg and Saxony did the same, especially Brandenburg, which was devastated after the Thirty Year War and needed skilled people. They also built around 150 Protestant "Grenzkirchen" (border churches) next to Silesia. 
- The utterly important "Friedenskirchen" (churches of peace) and "Gnadenkirchen" (churches of mercy?) aren't mentioned at all!
- The role of Prussia as the liberator of the Protestants and the force which finally brought religious freedom to Silesia isn't mentioned either. And I miss the "Bethauskirchen" too, a type of church which was built in almost every village right after the Prussian conquest, many times directly opposite the older Catholic churches.
- Maybe it could be also mentioned that the mix of Protestants and Catholics, which was pretty unique in Europe, came to an end after 1945.
3) Thirty Years' War
- the paragraph about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Polish szlachta is completely unnecessary. It is a minor episode without any consequence for Silesia or the Thirty Years War. 
Silesia was a Protestant region within the Holy Roman Empire and therefore, like Bohemia, an important scene in the war... yet this article tells me exactly zilch about it. Where is Waldstein/Wallenstein, where is Mansfeld, where is, for instance, the defense of Protestant Breslau against the Catholic Emperor?
4) Kingdom of Prussia
- the claim that German had become the only popular language in Lower Silesia by that time is of course correct, but a nice twist of facts. The switch from Latin (Polish was never widely used in documents) to German in documents took place between 1300 and 1400, and by 1500 Lower Silesia was as German as Saxony or Brandenburg. More then enough records, for instance about the revolt in Breslau/Wroclaw in 1420 or about local crimes in Schweidnitz/Swidnica from 1315-1378, proof this. Small linguistic enclaves however remained until 1945 (Czechs were expelled too).
5) Napoleonic Wars
- Nothing about it! Silesia was a centre of resistance against Napoleon. The Lützow Free Corps (and other Freikorps), the Landwehr, Blücher, the connection to German Romanticism (Eichendorff, Körner) etc.. Karasek (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold.  Make edits you think are appropriate and see what happened.  None of this seems unreasonable to me. john k (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some remarks 

message: The history section should be split into subarticle, per WP:SUMMARY.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. There should be a separate, more structured, history section. The current section could be shortened and new sections, like economy or arts (literature, architecture) could be added. Karasek (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of Silesia]]

message: 1. GERMANIAE VETERIS  Map by W.J.Blaeu 1634 Tribes in Ancient Germania
2. Germania 1493 Map incl Slesia (Silesia) Hartmann Schedel
3. Silesia in (Holy Roman Empire] Germany on Map 1634] W.J. Blaeu (70.133.74.161 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  People in Territory of and around Slesia Silesia on Historical Maps 

message: Hi i dont understand why the german names may not be mentioned in italics in the city list with the biggest cities. I wrote all the names in the list, but all the time, my version is being deleted. Mentioning the german names of the cities just enriches the article and gives more information at a glance. Jadran91 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. If it's felt there's too much in that table, I suggest taking out the coats of arms.--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree.  The German names are quite commonly encountered in English, so it's very useful for readers to be able to see them at a glance. john k (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  german names of cities in city list 

message: Population of German Silesia.
Xx236 13:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite your sources please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is true it deffinitely regards only to Prussian Silesia, not Austrian Silesia (Opava and Cieszyn Silesia) with Czech population... D_T_G (PL) 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think he is talking about the whole Silesia - 25% Poles in whole Silesia seems totally correct, since most of them were in Upper Silesia and Opole region, while elsewhere were almost absent..Szopen 12:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What a dazy :O So I live at the part of Silesia where had never lived Czech, and what is ever more pert here didn't lived Poles cause inherently it's not Upper Silesia in my point of view :P So maybe I'll repeat: what about Czechs, Jews and others? This article is about whole Silesia - not only Prussian/German... D_T_G (PL) 15:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This contradicts several other, better cited articles in en wikipedia. Please add some fitting template to make people know that this paragraph is not of best quality, and perhaps rework it. I suppose you could find a lot of good and cioted informations in Silesia and Silesian Uprisings. Really, this seems like anti-polish propaganda. Thanks, bye. 11:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 1905, a census showed that 75% of the population was German and 25% Polish. 

message: I would think that terms like (military) occupation and liberation are best avoided in the description of the recent history of Silesia. It rather apparent to me that they depend on the point of view in an area such as Silesia. There are other terms in the English language that can be
 used to describe the facts in more NPOV, e.g., take, acquire.  Cheers.  Stan J. Klimas (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military occupations and liberations