Talk:Lower Silesia

Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice Nico, plase don't use German names in English Wikipedia cc

Cc, please do not use foreign names first. This is the English language Wikipedia, NOT the Polish. English name is Oder: http://www.nima.mil/gns/html/index.html -- Nico 00:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oder is the German name and should not be used here. No more Germanisirung is needed, thank you. Odra/Oder - both names are used in English, Odra preferred here cc

No, English name is preferred at English Wikipedia. Oder is both official and actually used name in English. Nico 00:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Nico 2003 theme ?? cc

More funny comments, Grzes? Nico 02:13, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

1. Oder is the more familiar English form of the River name; I've never heard this river ever referred to as the Odra in English. (That's why I selected Nico's last edit.) Cc, if you disagree, please provide examples; I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong, & revert this page to your last edit.

1. You two -- Nico & Cc -- have been beating each other up over this point all day. I'm protecting this page in hope it will be a cooling-off period. (Other sysops are welcome to unprotect it after 24 hours, or when it looks as if a consensus is being made.) -- llywrch 04:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You may find information at Talk:Oder River. Oder is official English name in accordance with NIMA, and used by an overwhelming majority (Google). Nico 04:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anyway the wrong info (Goerlitz are which is not part of the region) and offensive info about the Prussian provinc ein th intro, should be removed

Görlitz is a part of Silesia according to Britannica Encyclopedia (2002). Nico 04:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Conflicts between users

Nico

My primary area of interest is the history and geography of Poland, its cities, rivers, provinces and counties. I would like to contribute my knowledge and resources for the benefit of the WWW community. -- cc, 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico primary area of interst is also Poland. His activities are mainly making sure every single town and river in Poland is reffered to by its German name used in times Poland was occupied by German, Polish language forbidden, Polish people exterminated by the Germans. Nico activities are very destructive and annoying. -- cc 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is article about the Polish provinceof Lower Silesia (not the german one) -- cc 04:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, this article is about the geographical region, including German parts. Lower Silesian Voivodship is about the Polish region. Nico 04:47, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No part of Germany belongs to Lower Silesia (historical or modern). Historical boudary of Silesia were the Kwisa and Bobr rivers, Today the western boundary of Silesia is the Nysa Luzycka river -- cc, 04:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Nico 05:03, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. Clearly, between 1815 and 1945, the Görlitz region was part of the Prussian province of Silesia. As such, it continues to still view itself as "Silesian". Are all these people simply wrong? I think it's absolutely ridiculous to say that. john 05:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The ridiculous thing is your idea that every article about a city or province must begin with a statement when and why it belonged to the the Prussian/German states. The boundaries of both historical and modern Lower Silesia are known very well, and they do NOT contain any modern parts of Germany. I my opinion the Goerliz article should mentioned its previous belonging, and this article should mention it boundary changes in the history section, but it's ridiculous to mention the German times in the intro. Your agressive editing techniques are unaccetable and annoying. You are destroying every article you touch.

I consider it vandalism that Nico has erased the picture of modern Lower Silesia, providing no other picture. And I consider it vandalism that the link to the Prussian province of Lower Silesia is provided three times in this short article. -- cc, 21:37, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah, straw men. Look, the Görlitz issue is one that is clearly far more complicated than you are willing to admit, and I don't think there's a right answer. Clearly, before 1815, it was considered a part of Lausitz/Lusatia. But after 1815, it was attached to Silesia, and continues to call itself Silesia. If it is commonly known as "Silesia", then I don't see how it's Wikipedia's duty to say "no, you're wrong, it's not." The picture (map?) thing I'm not familiar with. But certainly this article is dealing with Lower Silesia as a general entity, while the Lower Silesian Voivodship deals with the contemporary Polish province. And it's ridiculous to say that it's vandalism to have three links to the prussian province. Perhaps it's overkill, and unnecessary, but hardly vandalism. john 21:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 :: There are one link in the introduction, one in the history section and one in the "See also". But there are also a large number of links to Lower Silesian Voivodship, at least three: In introduction, history and see also Nico 20:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See, this Görlitz/Lower Silesia issue is exactly, what we need to discuss on Talk:Silesia. There was no activity today at all, and that is a pity. Grzes, I would appreciate your input there, maybe in the form of a reply to my last comment yesterday. -- Baldhur 22:07, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Discussion? I'm still waiting to read any discussion over the topic that caused me to protect this page in the first page: what to call a certain river in Silesia. CC claims that Odra is the proper English name, & Nico claims that Oder is the proper English name. Anyone? -- llywrch 23:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe the consensus of all but Polish editors is that Oder is the proper English name. Polish contributors vehemently protest this, especially when used to refer to the river when its course is entirely running through Polish territory. The only time I've seen it referred to primarily as the Odra is in atlases, which tend to use the native names for all geographical features, with other names secondarily (my atlas also uses Wien and München, for instance.) I think that both river names should be used in this article, preferably in the form Oder/Odra. john 23:57, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Any way I request the map of Lower Silesia back, at least until we get a better map ---- cc, 00:05, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The map certainly ought to be on the Lower Silesian Voivodship page. Since this page is discussing the region in general, and not just the contemporary Polish voivodship, it might be better not to use this particular map. john 00:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Boundaries of Silesia

Can we settle the Silesian boundaries question: -- cc, 14:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Map of Silesia divided between Prussia, Bohemia-Austria and Poland after the Peace of Wroclaw 1742 ending the first Silesian War.

• Red line show the historical boundaries of Silesia that were stable for some 1000 years.
• Grey colour area show the major part of Silesia acquired by Prussia from Austria-Bohemia in the Peace of Wroclaw (1742), as a result of the 1st Silesian War;
• Yellow colour area show the remainder of Bohemian-Austrian Silesia. It was called the Czech/Bohemian Silesia upto 1849, and then the Austrian Silesia. The map show the cities of Opava, Karniow and Cieszyn;
• Red/Orange colour area show the Polish Silesia: duchies of Oswiecim, Zator, with Biala, later Bielsko-Biala - all shown on the map; and also duchy of Siewierz.

Outside of Silesia:

• Brown colour area outside of Silesia show the province of Lusatia (including Zgorzelec/Goerlitz) that was part of the state of Saxony.

These boundaries were stable in most of the Silesian history, and these historical boundaries are still valid today with some small modifications. In various times of history the dukes of Silesia posessed temporarily various territories outside these boundaries. In various times of history the rulers of Silesia has joined various border territories to the Silesian province(s), but these were only temporary and did not change the frontries of the historical region. -- cc, 14:26, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Alternative Names

I am finding the naming issues on Wikipedia to be quite frustrating. Encyclopedias are supposed to provide information. I fail to understand why one group finds it so objectionable to have an alternate name in a simple introduction. Based on the Gdansk/Danzig vote:

• "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises."

The introduction to Lower Silesia (as of 5/16/05) clearly states that it is a historical and geographical region. This region has centuries-old history connected with several different nationalities. Lower Silesia obviously shares a history between Germany and Poland. Based on the Gdansk/Danzig vote, it seems perfectly clear and understandable to me that multiple translations should be listed, and expected, for Lower Silesia. If this page is supposed to primarily be about the current Voivodship, then why is there any historical information pertaining to before its creation in 1999?

For the record, I am neither Polish nor German; rather, I am an American. Olessi 22:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Its about the Lower Silesian Voivodship of today. Not about the Silesia (Prussian Province).

Then the title of the page should be Lower Silesian Voivodship. The pages for the other contemporary Polish Voivodships do not discuss medieval history in the manner that this page does. If this page is for the current Voivodship, it should concern itself with the current affairs of the Voivodship. If this page is for the region and concept "Lower Silesia" it should present the history and names for all of its previous inhabitants, not just its current ones. Olessi 03:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"For the record, I am neither Polish nor German; rather, I am an American."

Hmmm... an American who adding German names in Polish articles? hmm... :) (see your contribution page:[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=Olessi&limit=500&offset=0)--Witkacy 22:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have been studying central European history with a focus on German history. Many of my reference materials have numerous names for places. Thinking that this encyclopedia is used for the dissemination of knowledge, I have been trying to add what I can to various articles, including different names. I did not expect that there would be such bickering over names by different nationalities. People have removed some additions that I have made. When the locality did not have a significant German population/history, I have not readded the names, and have been trying to follow the guidelines set by the Gdansk/Danzig vote. Olessi 03:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The article has a significant history section, and is about the place throughout history. Even if it would be only for post 1945, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:11, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nope.--Witkacy 23:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)