Talk:Silesia/Archive 2

message: ==== The main question ====
The main question is: What is Silesia referring to? The information the readers are searching for, and what they probably also wish to read already in the introduction is: A historical Central-European region inhabited by Poles and Germans, a formerly German province, a province of Poland today (since 1945). 
Since Silesia has been German (referring to all German states during history) for almost a millenium, it should be mentioned in the introduction.
Nico 00:18, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from archive: 

message: The main question is: What is Silesia referring to? The information the readers are searching for, and what they probably also wish to read already in the introduction is: A historical Central-European region inhabited by Poles and Germans, a formerly German province, a province of Poland today (since 1945). 
Since Silesia has been German (referring to all German states during history) for almost a millenium, it should be mentioned in the introduction.
Nico 00:18, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main question 

message: I need to get it said, although I due to my work will be mostly absent from wikipedia for a week or so, that I most certainly do not regard myself as in any way a Nationalist, Revisionist or Suprematist, but reading much of the statements above I see a strong anti-German need to re-define German in such a way that influence of German customs, German laws, German trade, German migration, and/or German conquest is given another lable than (seemingly: any other lable than) German. I can't help to regrett this.
I am in no ways proud of what could be called my ethnical ancestors' medieval Drang nach Osten  but I think we all are gained from calling a spade for a spade. It's notable that the contemporary German influences in northern direction are uncontroversial (with a possible exception for Schleswig). 
I do not agree to statements of the kind that HRE wasn't German, or wasn't German before the Reformation, or that Austria wasn't or isn't German, and I can't help the suspicion that some contributors to the discussion above tries to define Germany to be equal to German Prussia and its successor states. That is, in my sincerest opinion, either a grave misunderstanding or rather blunt propaganda.
--Ruhrjung 08:25, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "German" 

message: Ruhrjung, I wonder, was the German population in Schlesien a minority in/until 1945?
Nico 15:59, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Germans - a minority? 

message: If you guys continue to make personal remarks about each other, you will force me to bring this issue to the attention of the site owner, Jimbo Wales. In recent weeks he has begun being more strict about stopping users from insulting each other. I hate doing this, because time spent building a case against a contributor is time I'd rather spend editing articles. But if you keep making nasty remarks like the following, I will have no choice:
*[He] is following an agenda....his nonsense
*If you can't see [this] then you're blind. 
*Why can't you speak the truth?
*I consider you a Vandal ... you are a vandal ... your vandalism... He vandalized the article.
I request that all contributors stick to the point, as Ruhrjung has been doing. Any sysop who gets involved, should probably stop editing the article for a while -- except to add suggestions that all others can agree on. (Of course, this includes me. I will gladly revert my last edit if anyone disagrees with its factuality or neutrality).
One more thing: let's not play "gotcha". Let's work together to make a neutral and useful article.
--Uncle Ed 18:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Stronger steps

message: Because I am pretty new to this project and was invited by the Wikipedia policy just to step in and make some edits, I would like apologize for failing to communicate with you effectively, and to clarify a couple of things:
1) I have made in the recent days some substantial contributions and modifications to the Silesia article that I felt would be valuable to the internet readers. I din't expect that some of this changes will meet with such a fierce resistance.
2) These contributions were based on my deep knowledge (in my opinion) and serious studies into the history and modern times of Silesia. My intention was to write about facts and not about opinions, and to avoid any nationalistic bias of any kind.
3) I am very seriously touched that people who introduce most of the chaos and natiolistic bias to this article are the first to accuse others of vandalism and extreme nationalism.
Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 20:45, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of explanations 

message: The Silesia article DO need some serious improvement if we want it to be the valuable and reliable resource for the internet users. The current (restored and protected) version contains so many errors that it will chase away people with basic historical knowledge, if it's not changed as soon as possible.
1) First I suggest that we write what Silesia is now (as this is most interesting to the reader), and not what is was in the past. Silesia rich history should be discussed in the history section.
2) It is unacceptable to state that Silesia lies between Odra and Vistula rivers. First look at any map will show you that Silesia lies along the Odra river.
3) Silesia lies today in Poland and Czech Republic. It is doubtful if the Goerlitz area is part of Silesia. It is a historical part of Lusatia, and was joined to the Silesian province after 1816. Anyway the Goerlitz are should be memtioned ih the history section.
4) Im my opinion we should not discuss Silesian history in the intro paragraph, but if we decide to, it is unacceptable to mention only the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
5) I do not care in what order the language-names of Silesia are mentioned, but I do insist that the Silesian version (Ślonsk, Ślunsk) is included in this list. 
6) I do insist that the various nationalities and ethnic groups living now in Silesia, are mentioned clearly and the list should include at least the most mumerous groups: the Silesians, the Poles, the Germans, the Czechs
7) The theories about the name of the region must be clearly marked as theories and not as facts. The passages need some minor rewrite.
8) The remarks about HRE overlordship in 1146 and 1163 are simply false, no longer upheld by the German historians, and must be removed
9) Great care must be taken when dealing with Silesian history, for example the rude remarks about devastation was caused by Hussite rebellion must be rewritten using neutral words
10) The Silesia article need more sections on the People, Economy, Culture, Education, Science and Tourism.
Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 20:55, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  My suggestion: let's write what Silesia is now 

message: A number of people have expressed the opinion that un-protecting the Silesia article was a mistake. So I'm going to re-protect it.
Please make specific and short suggestions on how to improve the article. If enough people agree on a suggestion, a sysop will put it into the article.
Remember, I know nothing about Silesia and very little about the history of Germany, Poland, and so on. I'm just good at English grammar :-) and the NPOV.
Let's work together on this, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:08, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cordyph and Ruhrjung. It is impossible to write a NPOV article as long as the Polish nationalists are free to do what they want, and besides, I've also have better things to do. I leave this discussion. And I'm sorry to tell that this article will be of no interest for people seeking serious and neutral information. Nico 14:32, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-protection