Talk:Trans-Olza/Archive 1

message: I find that this article meets the Good Article criteria.  It presents an interesting and fairly detailed look at the region and its conflicts.  Areas I would recommend further work on, to approach Featured Article status:
*While it is well-referenced, most of those references are to a single source, Zahradnik.  Adding more citations to Długajczyk, Siwek, and Badziak would be a good idea before FA.
*A copyediting pass to tighten prose further would be in order.  While it's well-written, there are some redundancies and one or two unclear sentences.  (For instance, "On September 1, 1939 Zaolzie was annexed by Germany after it invaded Poland." -- does "it" refer to Zaolzie?  I know, anyone with a basic knowledge of world history will know it's meant to refer to Germany, but the wording could still be clearer.)
*History prior to the early 1900s is pretty thin.  Is there anything more to be said?
*Similarly, "the area's economic significance grew."  Can this be treated in more depth?
*Make sure everything's in line with the manual of style.  It mostly seems to be, but FA can be very detail-oriented.  (One thing I did notice in this vein is that "Since 1945" is a full section rather than a subsection under "History.")
On the whole, this is an excellent article, informative and interesting.  I would recommend a peer review as the next step.  Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work. Shimeru 21:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: I strongly disagree with Darwinek's assessment of Budování státu as biased work written at the time when national tensions between Poles and Czechs were culminating.  The assessment is simply incorrect.
Ferdinand Peroutka (check Wikipedia) was a respectable Czech journalist, who emigrated to the West (England and then further to the United States) after the communist takeover in Czechoslovakia.  He was the first head of Czech broadcast of the Radio Free Europe and one of the main figures of Czech anti-communist resistance.
The monumental four volume Budování státu ("Creation of the state") is Peroutka's pivotal work.  Its publication started in 1932, more than 10 years after Zaolzie became part of Czechoslovakia.
Budování státu is regularly used, quoted and appreciated by (at least) Czech scholars.  Its re-editions are published even in this century and by respectable authorities such as the Czech Academy of Sciences.
If you read the work (and I suggest you do, as it is really interesting), you will find that he is as critical to Czechs as to any other nation and, above all, his conclusions are based on evidence.
Despite of the above, I removed Budování státu as the primary source quoted in this article and replaced it by recent works (who, because the above, use Budování státu as one of their sources).  I do not want to start any silly edition war or to tease anyone.
On the other hand, I cannot accept deletion of some of the information I added to the article.  In my view, information by non-Polish authors must also be included for the article to be objective (before my editions apparently all sources were works of Polish authors only).
Xixaxu 10 April 2007
To Darwinek:  I have read your personal message to me.  I will not reply to this message and I will not add any further amendment to the article.  It is pointless.  Apparently you are too captured in your patriotic feelings to comprehend what my additions tried to achieve.  Your article is not objective.  Xixaxu 10 April 2007
If it is now part of Czechia, why does it use the Polish name?
:Because it has a major Polish population and Czechs don't even know there is something like Zaolzie. - Darwinek 12:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliability of Ferdinand Peroutka would be best discuss on his discussion page, and with proper references to back up one's claims. Although I am not a specialist of history of that region, it appears to me that refs added by Xixxu are reliable (Kovtun, Peroutka). They would need to be verified, and their claims are rather controversial - for example, 'demonstrations of Czech and German national indentity were prohibited' seems strange, considering that German minority for example had its own political parties (Blok Mniejszości Narodowych in 1920s, Jungdeutsche Partei in Polen (Partia Młodoniemiecka w Polsce in 1930s)) and a list of other German organizations in Second Polish Republic is pretty long: Związek Niemczyzny dla Ochrony Praw Mniejszości w Polsce (1921-23), Niemiecka Socjaldemokratyczna Partia w Poznańskiem i na Pomorzu (1920-33), Zjednoczenie Niemieckie w Sejmie i Senacie dla Poznańskiego, Okręgu Noteci i Pomorza (1924-33), Niemieckie Zjednoczenie w Poznańskiem i na Pomorzu (1934-39), Związek Niemców w Polsce (1921-23), Niemiecka Socjalistyczna Partia Pracy w Polsce (1925-39), Niemiecki Związek Ludowy na Polskim Śląsku (1921-39), Partia Niemiecka (1922-34), Niemiecka Chrześcijańska Partia Ludowa (1934-39), Niemiecka Partia Socjaldemokratyczna (1922-25)... I'd strongly suggest discussing each of the additions here, and referencing it with other sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferdinand Peroutka 

message: The GA status of Zaolzie is under review at WP:GA/R, for possible delisting. 
--Ling.Nut 12:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA status under review at [[WP:GA/R]] 

message: *Copy the article to History of Zaolzie. Summarize here without unncessary controversial details.
*Merge to off 1918-1920 conflict to Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts, leave only a summarized version in History of Zaolzie
*Expand this article with sections on geography, economy, politics, culture, etc.
What do you say?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems interesting but I would propose that in the future, when the article itself will be more complex with info about culture, geography etc. Nowadays it is de facto only a historical account, so it is no need to split it, for now. - Darwinek 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with all the above suggestions of Piotrus. In my view, they make sense.--Xixaxu 07:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for a rewritting 

message: Dear Darwinek, you too use old references (eg.Elizabeth Lucretia, Duchess of Teschen and "Těšínsko tvořilo původně součást území kmene Holasoviců a patřilo s ním do Moravy" (Tesin initially was part of region of Holasic tribe and with it was part of Moravia) is what I say. In article itself is Zaolzie defined as part of  Tesin. Yopie 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, in archived talk page I cannot found anything about consensus about old sources. Yopie 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initialy part of ... 

message: Since it is apparently evil now to post POV-section tags on obviously unbalanced statements without a corresponding talk section, here it is. "Decision time (1918-1920)", besides the media-esque title is a horribly POV-ed section. A large portion of it is occupied by a preposterously biased 'historian', the thoughts of whom are presented as facts, and the entire section suffers from one-sided bias even outside the quotes. It needs to be made (far) clearer that this is the opinion of an historian (one who I find unlikely to not have been discredited by now), much of it is disputed and the tone of the entire section needs a good scrub to remove the horrendous nationalistic slant. Now that I think of it, is it not awful practice to split the history section into the views of separate historians? It should be merged, and the claims of Watt clearly balanced with the views of an actual historian, or actual, sourced, facts. Final thought, is it Watt or Watts? The ref states 'Watts' but the section header 'Watt'. Whilst I doubt I will have the time to do this personally at this very moment, you can be assured I will not be letting this slip. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Watt seems to be not a 100%-profession-clear historian. His views may be viewed by you as nationalistic but they are not. Same views are presented by other historians (from Poland mainly), so this is a valid view. Article has currently GA status, which has been maintained by recent review by neutral user. No one during the whole time never questioned the neutrality of this section. It is only another view, man. The section name and the whole "view by ..." style is ok. POV tag would be appropriate in situation when Watt's text would be the sole view under history section, which is not the case. - Darwinek (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Allies were shocked ... a lot could happen in that time – particularly when a nation's affairs were conducted as cleverly as were Czechoslovakia's ... It was obvious that a country so desperate as Poland would accept any dictate of the Allies. And this was the moment Beneš had been waiting for. ... The Cieszyn Silesia affair was indeed a tragedy. ... And eventually that day did come." - that is not even text from within quotes, that is full-on article text. Shocking. Is this section meant to be an historical account or a thrilling tale of romance, political intrigue and down-on-their-luck inner-city kids, chasing a pocketful of dreams? This needs a serious balanced rewrite, even if the opinions of Watt (or is it Watts? See Zaolzie#References) are preserved. It could also use a trim, quite a lot of it is minute detail and long-winded subjective babbling. Shame I can't get my hands on this book (searched almost all libraries on the Aussie east coast) and rewrite it myself. We obviously need to strive for a more balanced analysis of this man's comments. PS: I am somewhat shocked this article has been given GA status, how long ago was this? With the current state of the article, mainly the history section and the mass of red links I think a re-evaluation may be advisable. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down, please. The "Czech POV" forced by Czech educational system is not the only one in the world. Watt's views are eligible and valid. He's got many good points, although he writes often in journalist style, that's true. Nonetheless idea of rewriting someone else's book is not appropriate, to say it mildly. The article itself was born in pain but was promoted to GA status long time ago and several weeks ago the status was confirmed, although it was pointed out that the Watt and Mamatey sections are troublesome (but not by content but by format). - Darwinek (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am calm, I just greatly enjoy using sarcasm. :) I have not studied history in a Czech school (and even if I have, what exactly makes the Polish POV any better?), and I completely agree Watt's views are valid, I would not have the article without him. My problem is with 'format' as you put it. It needs to be clearly and repeatedly stated that these are the views of Watt, and the journalistic style needs to be removed from anywhere outside the quotations. As it stands that section is horrendously unprofessional. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we know each other, I know you love sarcasm, I just have problems sometimes to recognize sarcasm when people are sarcastic. :) Agree with you about the need of format editing in this section. It must be clear what is cited and what is not. - Darwinek (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I keep forgetting my sort of humour rarely translates to the screen very well. I am glad we have found a place to work from on this. I'll try and have a look at offering my (hopefully balanced) rewrite of the section sometime on the weekend. Unfortunately I can't promise anything, I'm ridiculously busy (I really ought to keep deadlines rather than inundate myself in work at the very last second :( ). +Hexagon1 (t) 12:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Have a look. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think it's better than before. - Darwinek (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 43479+263941+706+26629=334755
Who are missing 33600 people? 
Szopen (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I wrongly copied data from the book but if there was a possibility in the 1991 census to leave the nationality field blank, I suppose many people left it not filled. - Darwinek (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census data 1991 

message: The sentence you continue to push is POV for various reasons.
# It was not "Czech territory" but part of Czechoslovakia.
# It was not "occupied" but joined to Poland as a consequence of international agreement.
# "Western betrayal" is totally POV term, which doesn't appear anywhere in the article.
# Last, but not least, the most POV thing about this addition is simple fact, that the 1938 annexation was not the only important historical event of this region in the 20th century. Far more important was the 1918-1919 conflict and 1920 division (which is in use to date).
By the way, lead of the article shouldn't be too long. Currently it is already quite massive. I propose leaving the lead without historical events (current situation), or very briefly mention all important events 1918-1919, 1920, 1938, 1939-1945 and 1958. - Darwinek (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're on to something, but there's no reason to leave the material out as opposed to compromising our way around the wording of this historical incident. How about "Formerly a part of sovereign Czechoslovakia, Zaolzie was taken over by Poland as a result of the 1938 Munich Agreementknown as the 'Munich Betrayal' by the Czechoslovaks"? (I have personally encountered "Western Betrayal of Czechoslovakia" in various Westenr texts, but we find "Munich Betrayal" in article Munich Agreement.) PasswordUsername (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objections seem to be reasonable. So now, instead of reverting/deleting, be constructive, please: Write the story in your better words! ;) (incrementalism: to have something as a starting point is better than this nothing, you made by the deletition). Thanks! --Franta Oashi (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited the lead with basic historical facts. The "Munich/Western betrayal" is not needed I think. Readers can easily access more detailed information in Munich Agreement article. - Darwinek (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It looks OK now. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: It seems to me that the article could use some updating.  Russian authorities (Putin!) have been using recently the Zaolzie events of 1938 as an excuse for their invasion of Eastern Poland is 1939. Tsf (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but we should give a time for it to settle down, in order to prevent leaks of "recentism" into the article. There have been always a lot of rhetoric about Zaolzie between politicians. - Darwinek (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is really more serious than just an excuse that the Russians use. In 1938 Poland took part in what can be called a "partition" of Czechoslovakia.  That makes any arguments about the events of September of 1939 much weaker. Tsf (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, it's just a political game from Putin, "we were not that bad, look at Poles in 1938". Anyways much more important are Pres. Kaczyński's words about Polish intervention in 1938. President called them "a mistake" and "a sin", basically apologizing for them. This is unprecedented move. - Darwinek (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I am disputing the sentece about Polish occupation of Zaolzie The behaviour of the new Polish authorities was different but similar in nature to that of the Czech ones before 1938.  Prior to Polish occupation the Polish had same rights as the Czechs did, they national organisations were present and so were they able to use their language etc. Comparing forcible polonisation and expulsion of Czechs and Germans to the status Polish minority had in Czechoslovakia is a bit too harsh. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right both stances were different and that's what the sentence says. "similar in nature" refers to the goal of both authorities, which was the cultural assimilation of the other ethnicity. The new Polish authorities were more violent and forcing in pursuing the idea of Polonization, than the Czech authorities pursuing the idea of Czechization. So while the comparison is a bit too harsh, as you pointed out, the underlying principle of dealing with the other ethnicity, remains very similar. - Darwinek (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minorities stand