Talk:Wrocław

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Poland (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire / Prussia  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Prussia.
 
WikiProject Austria (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Silesia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Silesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hanseatic League (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Hanseatic League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Naming of Historical Imagery[edit]

I do not want to punch a hornets nest. But I am uncomfortable with the historical images of Breslau, such as 'Wrocław City Towers in 1736', using the name 'Wroclaw'. These paintings where made when the city was indeed called Breslau. Whilst I believe the historical context justifies use of the name 'Breslau' here in and of itself, I think this even goes beyond that due to the fact that the paintings are made to represent the city of Breslau and refer to it as such. All of the paintings explicitly refer to the name Breslau either on the painting itself or in the name of painting. If someone does not present a very good reason otherwise I will look at making the appropriate changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globo (talkcontribs) 07:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the U.S. on the old photographs are used Indian names ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.45.74 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

They use Indian names when the photo shows places which had Indian names, then.theBOBbobato (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrocław[edit]

The heading should be Breslau, as it is the most common term used in the English language[1]please see: WP:COMMONNAME --IIIraute (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC) I agree, the heading should be Wrocław. --IIIraute (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No. And the google ngrams are notorious for being unreliable.VolunteerMarek 16:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not asking for your POV here. There are clear WP policies, such as WP:COMMONNAME - why would you not want to use the most common term used in the English language? --IIIraute (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not "my POV", it's Wikipedia's. WP:COMMONNAME is being followed by using Wrocław rather than a historical anachronism. And there's a specific policy for these particular cities. Please don't try to strip up the trouble that's long been put to rest.VolunteerMarek 16:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you please provide some evidence, as well as the relevant WP policies for your claims?--IIIraute (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
See my response over at Gdansk.VolunteerMarek 17:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This matter will not be decided by you. There are clear WP policies, also you have to comply with. Please also do not manipulate the outcome of the vote which was not close at all → [2]:

  • Results on VOTE: Period from 1308 to 1454 = 54 vs 7, in favour of Danzig
  • Results on VOTE: Period from 1454 to 1466 = 44 vs 7, in favour of Danzig
  • Results on VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793 = 46 vs 36, in favour of Danzig
  • Results on VOTE: Period from 1793 to 1945 = 56 vs 8, in favour of Danzig

--IIIraute (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And results for Vote: Period after 1945 = 67 vs 3, in favor of Gdansk. I am complying with Wikipedia policies.
Or put in "Istanbul,Constantinople" in your ngram search, 10 smoothing parameter and all, then go to the Istanbul talk page, get them to change the name of that article to "Constantinople", then come back here once you've succeeded and there may be something to talk about.VolunteerMarek 17:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I won't have to do this, as we are here on the Wrocław/Breslau talk page. There is very clear evidence that within the English language the term Breslau is in more common use than Wrocław. Unless you provide some evidence that proves me wrong, I cannot really see any argument on this matter.--IIIraute (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
You can assert whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.VolunteerMarek 22:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, especially since you are not able to provide disproof for the ngram result [3] ...just keep living in your fancy little Polish world.--IIIraute (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I already did [4]. To put it into technical terms, you're using a bullshit, useless, metric. And I'll let that immature statement about my "fancy little Polish world" slide.VolunteerMarek 01:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
No, you did not. Instead of providing evidence you are making up some WP:CLONE. Your example is not valid. Please comply with the following WP policies: WP:SET and WP:COMMONNAME. Your POV interpretation of the result is of no interest or value to this discussion.--IIIraute (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
At this point I got to say, I have no idea what you're talking about. The present article title is in perfect compliance with WP Policies. I don't know what exactly it is you're going on about.VolunteerMarek 02:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is this so difficult to understand, as per WP:SET, the WP:COMMONNAME is Breslau. Can you provide some reliable research that gives proof of something different, as well as on why Wrocław should take precedence over Breslau? Köln is named by its French name "Cologne" within the English language. What makes Breslau different?--IIIraute (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
So after Gdańsk and Wrocław are you going after Szczecin, Kołobrzeg, Słupsk, Olsztyn, Grudziądz, Toruń, Gliwice, etc.? On the English language maps all these cities appear in Polish names. Skoranka (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Would make sense indeed, wouldn't it?[5] --IIIraute (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
To repeat myself, google ngrams is not the appropriate metric here. And it seems that you don't actually have an idea as to what these charts are showing, in addition to being unfamiliar with the policies you're actually quoting.VolunteerMarek 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
...yeah, whatever.--IIIraute (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comply with the Gdansk-vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above."[6] and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."[7] --IIIraute (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So what's the problem here? I looked at the article and it seems to comply with the vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

My (german) point of view: omitting the most used form `Breslau´ seems to be a misguided attempt of being political correct, which is i.m.h.O. absolutely non-p.c.! Today the town has its `original´ polish name, but those mentioned various historical form are a meek excuse for the real lemma `Breslau´. Germany has given up all claims to silesia, but some philanthropists seem to re-interprete reason for tradition. So, please do Yourself the favour and try to mention the german name `Breslau´ (which literally means the same as Wratislava) in the opening sentence - I swear to God, we really don't plan to get that city back, okay?--92.226.80.62 (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Disputed-Introduction[edit]

I find the introductory section of the article to be rather negative in tone. I recently deleted a sentence which claimed that Wrocław had never belonged to a Polish government before the end of World War II. This is not a correct statement as it had, for one, been under the rule of Mieszko I. This factual inaccuracy is one example of the article section's tendency to disparage the city as Polish and lament the loss of Wrocław/Breslau as city which the writer(s) perceive(s) as being distinctly German. I personally need to do more research to see if other pieces of information are factual. At any rate, this section of the article does not introduce the city in a neutral, objective manner.

Note: I am new to editing Wikipedia. If there are other measures I should take, or if I should be putting such remarks elsewhere, I would appreciate the feedback. Thank you!

Yeah, standard and persistent POV pushing by anon IPs. I've restored an older version of the article.VolunteerMarek 23:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"This factual inaccuracy is one example of the article section's tendency to disparage the city as Polish and lament the loss of Wrocław/Breslau as city which the writer(s) perceive(s) as being distinctly German." Gentlemen, please !

The text was sourced, it mentioned Sachony, Bohemia, Old Austra, Preussia and Germany. You seem to take this as a personal thing, rather than findng sources. (the change was made my me, and I hav no clue why I wasn't logged in. and I'm from Sweden and I used a swedish encyklopedia. ("Nordisk Familjebok") This states everything I wrote. Except that Breslau is the largest city Germany has lost and that people was forced to move from Lwow (now Lviv in Ukraine, then the Sovietunion). I never even mentioned what happened with the german population. But it is a fact that Breslau is the largest city germany did loose after the wars. Is that not worth mention ? But when did Mieszko I rule ? And what sources do You have for that Wroclaw was polish under his rule ? You must respect that there is no place for nationalistic point of views reguarding Wikipedia. And You have both declared me as "german" though I'm swedish. If You only had watched the references I gave, You would also had noticed that fact. And I'm not pro- eighther this or that. I try to find the truth. Boeing720 (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the Nordisk Familjebok contains the information that you just put in the article (which I'm not exactly convinced is the case), then you really have to find a better source, as it's not correct. This has nothing to do with Sweden being neutral or anything like that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. The source you're using is not reliable. We have many many other reliable sources which directly contradict the text you're trying to insert.
  2. What's "Sachony", "Austra" and "Preussia"? That's not even Swedish. That would be "Sachsen", "Österrike", and "Preussen", and even then the city was never part of at least two of these.
  3. Some of the things you mention may be worth mentioning in the text of the article (provided an actual reliable source is provided) but not in the lede.
  4. Mieszko I ruled at the end of the 10th century. Not sure how that is relevant.
  5. You must respect that there is no place for nationalistic point of views reguarding Wikipedia.. Sure, that's why you got reverted.
  6. You have both declared me as "german" though I'm swedish Neither I, nor the commentator above declared you as "German". You're getting a little ahead of yourself here, as well as in the rest of your comment.
Etc. etc. etc. VolunteerMarek 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. A pre-WWII encyclopedia is not a very reliable source for such issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You seems totally lost what Wikipedia is about. A swedish source is neutral reguarding polish-german relations. And there were accusation of me being german. Cite What's "Sachony", "Austra" and "Preussia"? That's not even Swedish. That would be "Sachsen", "Österrike", and "Preussen", and even then the city was never part of at least two of these. What on earth are You on about ? This is english Wikipedia. I have of course translated the source into english. Cite A pre-WWII encyclopedia is not a very reliable source for such issues. - agreed if the source is written in a nation with censur. (Like Germany 1933-45, Poland 1945-89, USSR etc). I really think You have been confused by the USSR-propaganda in Poland during 1945-89. Stalin needed to explain to the polish people why their (YOur) borders was moved to the benefit of the USSR. Not only Germany lost territory, so did Poland aswell. Lwow, Wilna, Brest-Litovsk etc. Have You ever seen a map of Poland 1919-1939 ? (question) But above all, You do not use any kind of sources. Nordisk Familjebok is reliable, indeed. Boeing720 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As pointed out above, first the source is not sufficient (at best it's an outdated tertiary source) and second your interpretation of its contents may be suspect as well. I have no idea what the map of Poland in 1919-1939 has to do with the city's status in the middle ages.VolunteerMarek 22:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I never knew anybody in Poland who would actually get "confused by the USSR-propaganda in Poland during 1945-89". Everybody saw through their lies, except little children. Are you implying that Marek or other Polish editors actually believe in whatever Stalin said? Are you accusing them of being brain washed and unable to form their own opinion? I'm not so sure about Sweden's neutrality either. Sweden was the one who introduced and long defended the term "Polish Concentration Camps". As far as a pre 1939 Encyclopedias are concerned, take 1911 Brittanica for example. Poland had never done anything wrong to Britain, yet everything wrtten there about Polish lands throughout history is heavily biased against Poles and Poland. Educate yourself first, at least from related Wikipedia articles Recovered Territories) would be perfect), work on your English (which leaves a lot to be desired) and always do a spell check. Why don't you start with Sweden related articles, something closer to home? Happy editing. Skoranka (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You ought to know that propaganda is proven to have effect on atleast 90% of a population rather soon after media gets censored. (whithin a few years) And the figures rises over time. Take the Katyn massacre f.i. During 50-55 years the germans was blamed for this holocaust aswell, though now it's been proven that this massacre of polish people was done by the red army already in 1940 -on order from Stalin or Beria. I've studied a 1955 encyklopedia aswell. "Bonniers, Lilla Uppslagsboken" written in 1955. From 1327 there cannot be any doubts. Nore that it has been a Saxian Dutchy before that year. And Wroclaw undoubtly lies whithin the borders of the so called "Holy Roman-German Empire". See any map from 900-1800. But now I've put the polish king into the earlier. This is international wikipedia. The reason why edit this or that shall not be asked. Wikipedia is about sources. My only reason for editing this article is that I found it wrong and unsourced and polish nationalistic (like denial of writing out "Breslau"). If You do have "Encyklopedia Brittanica" - why do You not use it concidering Wroclaw (see "Breslau" if it is from 1911) ??? Then problems could and would be solved.

Education is not spreading invented tails. Again - soures is needed. This is the previous edition of "Nordisk Familjebok" [1] Here isactually stated that the city was polish before 1163. Then Schsian Duchy. But later editions doubts the earliest parts. If You cool down I can translate all three versions to english (history parts). But of course use "Encyclopedia Britannica 1911" if You do posses that item Boeing720 (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out to you, there are far, far better sources than either the Nordisk Familjebok or the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. We have no realistic reason to consider even looking at those sources. It would just be a waste of time. I'm guessing, though, that the Nordisk Familjebok is probably largely correct, but that your reading of it is faulty.
No offence intended, but I'm going to have to agree with Skoranka here that neither your understanding of the topic, nor your knowledge of WP sourcing requirements, nor your command of the English language are good enough for you to be able to constructively contribute to this article for the time being. Please consider editing on Swedish WP or on topics that you are more familiar with. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
So now I have reading errors aswell ? You do obviously not understand the need for references/sources. I'm sorry to say. This article is on english international wikipedia but lacks all historical references. Neighter do You listen to

anybody else. A WP source ought to be in english. But since no such do exist I tried to add a swedish source with good reputation. Cite We have no realistic reason to consider even looking at those sources. - and then You accuse me of not knowing about sourcing ! This makes me ask: Are You afraid of what true sources may reveal ? You do not even use (after -89) polish sources. Why not ? Please concider reason. 83.249.42.164 (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What's a "Schsian Duchy"? If you are referring to the period of the Fragmentation of Poland, you must know that many countries have also had their periods of feudal fragmentation - the best example for western Europe is France. Whether some provinces were lost for the fragmented country it can be said for sure only after the period of fragmentation ended. Provinces of fragmented France were still provinces of France, similar with Czech Lands in the 12th century and with Poland from 1138 to the 14th century. In the 14th century Polish kings renounced their hereditary rights to Silesia. Since then Silesia was de iure under Bohemian rule, but before that there was no international treaty concluded between rulers of Poland and some other state which provided that Silesia ceased to be part of Poland. Opole.pl (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A dutchy is a (usually) smaller territory ruled by a Duke. I have not invented the Saxony era. I have just refered to what is stated in encyklopedias. However ,mr Opole, You seem atleast reasonable. If "the fragmentation of Poland" had refered to the dividings of Poland in 1629 (Livland lost) and cities like Smolensk and Kiev (before 1700) and then the three major dividings of the country, 1772, 1793 and 1795 - then yes I had. I.o.w. I am very aware of this sad part of the history of Poland. But You refer to the ealier centuries. And then I know a little bit less. However I know that the "heartland" of Poland (very early, in 8:th century) was an area between Oder and Wisla, but not so far south as Silesia, and not norther than 150 km from the Baltic Sea. This "heartland" grew century by century to the east (and north-east and south-east). At some point Poland and Lithuania was a united nation with a hugh territory. This nation did also include what later became the heartland of Preussia. But from around king Sigismund (I use his swedish name, I know he had a slightly different name in Poland, but not what) and during the 17:th century the kingdom started to fall apart. But again I must explain that it's about giving sources to the wikipedian texts that matters. (With exception of well-known facts). I fail find the current Wroclaw article to be up to standard. There is a complete lack of sources and references. But best reguards, mr Opole Boeing720 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But what is "Schisian"? There is no such word! I am referring to the feudal fragmentation of Poland (from 1138 till the 14th century) and not to the partitions of Poland that took place in the 18th century. The first Polish State was created in the second half of the 10th century - before that it was a tribal organization. Before the end of the 10th century Poland was a country that extended from the Carpathians and Sudetes to the Baltic coast, and it was that country which was fragmented in 1138 only to be reunited in the 14th century, but without parts of its original territory (Silesia for once). Pomerelia was recovered only in the 15th century and remained as part of Poland ever since, except for the period of the Partitions of Poland you were wrongly referring to in your previous entry. Opole.pl (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Correction[edit]

I shall correct myself a bit. There are references further down in the article. I have not have time to study them. But some of the older parts needs better sourcing. And most certainly the "Etymology" part - (this do to me seem stolen (or partially stolen) from the slovakian capital Bratislava. Anyway this part lacks all sources and references. I've found out that the last of the saxian dukes was "Duke Henry VI" who had no children. Before he died in 1335 he sold his Duchy (it shall be spelled that way) to "John of Bohemia" in 1327. During the Duchy era the city was independent of other parts of Saxony. Soxony was (like many other states whithin the so called "Holy Roman-German Empire") very fragmentated whith enclaves and exclaves, so many that small maps was (and still is) difficult to make. (See any central european map before the unification of Germany in 1871 after the war between France and (mainly) Preussia 1870-71). Other sources states that "Breslau around the year 900 was an "Holy Roman" outpost towards the east. In any case the city was fully or partially destroyed by the mongols during the independent time. Yet other sources states that the Hansa have been owner of the city before the independency era. The cities of Lwow and Wroclaw is connected as late as 1945-46. During the Potsdam conference Stalin demanded that the border between Poland and the USSR should follow what was stated in the secret part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty 23/8-1939. Churchill disagreed but Truman cared little (at the time of the Potsdam conference) about european borders. Poland lost a hugh territory in the east, but got in return (I'm sorry to not know all the Polish names) Hinterpommern, Silecia (with exception of the small Görlitz area) and areas between Hinterpommern and Silesia east of Oder. And the southern part of the former East Preussia and the former freestate of Danzig, Gdansk. But the territorial changes included the populations. Millions of both germans and poles was by the force of the red army (and NKVD) to move toward the west. The largest lost polish city was Lwow and atleast 200.000 poles were forces to move to the largest new polish city, Wroclaw. (and Lwow was emptied of all polish people) When this ethnical cleancing was done, propaganda (and violence) was needed to explain why "commerate Stalin" had commanded this. Today the lost polish parts belongs to Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. Germany has twice declared (before and after autumn of 1989) that they have no territorial claims on Poland (or any other country). A lot of the polish history after around the year 1600 is very sad. I have not had any intention to enoy any polish citizen. But the article about Wroclaw/Breslau (like all other towns and cities) must be sourced. And there must be space for imperative facts. Sourced or well-known. Live in peace 83.249.42.164 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Boeing720 (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

About Silesia being part of the "Polish Lands":

"Silesia, inhabited by Poles and constituting a racial and cultural unity with other Polish lands, was an integral part of Poland at the time when an independent Polish Kingdom began to exist at the end of the tenth century."

—Robert Machray, The Problem of Upper Silesia, G. Allen & Unwin ltd. 1945, p. 13 Google Books

"The conquest of Pomerania was achieved by the first 'historical' Polanian leader, Miesco I (~960-92), who managed towards the end of his life to gain the Silesian territories disputed with Bohemia (990?) and Little Poland together with Cracow, thus completing the lengthy process of uniting Polish lands."

—Jerzy Strzelczyk, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 523 ISBN 0-521-36447-7 Google Books

The formal transfer of Silesia from Poland to Bohemia in 1339:

"Casimir, although aware that in the circumstances he could hardly have obtained a better solution, hesitated to sign the surrender of Silesia to Bohemia. He only did so in 1339 on the occasion of another meeting at Visegrad. So ended an important phase in the relationship of the two Slavic states. Silesia, for whose possession Poles and Czechs had striven, became a land of the Bohemian crown. The prestige of the Czech kingdom was considerably enhanced by this acquisition, and the danger that some at least of the Silesian dukes might become direct vassals of the emperor was averted."

—Francis Dvornik, "The Slavs in European history and Civilisation", Rutgers University Press, 1962, p. 50-51, ISBN 0-8135-0799-5 Google Books

I hope that this will help you understand. :) Opole.pl (talk)

Silesia[edit]

Wrocław is no longer in Silesia, as currently defined in Poland, where the concept of Silesia has contracted to include only to Upper Silesia (most of the Silesian Voivodeship and about half of the Opole Voivodeship, with perhaps a tiny fragment of the Lower Silesian Voivodeship that does not include Wrocław). The ties to Silesia are purely historical. By far most of the Lower Silesian Voivodeship is no longer considered part of Silesia, despite the name. Just Like Lower saxony is not part of Saxony, or West Virginia part of Virginia. The population of Lower Silesia was almost totally replaced at the end of WWII, and any ties to Silesian history and culture were effectively severed, so the region is not a continuation of the pre-war German province, except for the name, which was chosen for historical reasons. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Silesia doesn't mean only what the Poles want it to mean, this is not a Polish encyclopedia. Besides, I never heard of this "concept" of yours, any sources? Silesia, in the big picture, is not just what it is right now, but what it's been since the first written record. "You have to think 4-dimensionally, Marty." The population looks exactly the same way and does the same things as their German predecessors (source: friends and distant family), they just speak a different language. As far as culture - do you seriously think, that a lot of people in Wrocław actually cook Kutia (as a random example)? Probably only people over 75 know how. As far as other things are concerned, is Southern California a part of California, was East Prussia a part of Prussia? Yes? Well then, where does that put your home-made naming conventions? Yes. I know your intentions are good, that's why I'm not going to continue taking part in your revert war. Happy editing. Rübezahl (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I live in Wrocław, and nobody, but nobody, here or elsewhere in Poland considers it or the Lower Silesian Voivodeship part of Silesia. BTW, Lower California is not part of California. It's not even in the United States. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I know, where you live. And I myself know a lot of people from Poland and everybody, but everybody, considers Wrocław to be an integral part of Silesia. Is this really the kind of argumentation we want to use here? "I heard all over town ..." is not really very encyclopedic, don't you think? "Southern California" and "East Prussia" were just examples of how your newly invented naming convetion sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Which doesn't qualify it as a rule (or even a tendency) or anything to follow in encyclopedic articles. Rübezahl (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You are confusing political entities with geographical (etc) ones. Southern California a part of California as a geographical area just Lower Silesia is part of a geographical and historical entity called Silesia. As parts of Silesia are in other countries your example of California seems to prove you wrong. Rsloch (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The geographical area called Silesia today no longer coincides with the pre-war geographical area or the historical boundaries, and currently includes only what was (approximately) Upper Silesia. It is especially used to refer to the Katowice agglomeration and the Upper Silesian coal basin.
Lower Silesia is now a different geographical area that has no connection to the geographical area that is now called Silesia.
The historical area called Silesia is just that, historical, as in it no longer exists except when talking about the past, having been reduced to the area called (Upper) Silesia today. Lower Silesia (post-WWII) has no connection to Lower Silesia (pre-WWII) except that it happens to occupy the same land and has the same name. It no longer has any connection to Silesia at all.
The political entity called Silesia ceased entirely to exist after WWII. There is no political entity with that name now.
The voivodeship called Lower Silesia is a non-political administrative area, whose name was chosen in 1999 because someone in Warsaw thought it would be cute to give the voivodeships "historical sounding" names, sometimes with ridiculous results (like people thinking that Lower Silesia is in Silesia). In this case, the boundaries of the voivodeship largely, but not quite, conform to the historical boundaries.
The voivodeship called Silesia does not entirely coincide with Upper Silesia. It includes cities like Częstochowa and Sosnowiec that were never part of Silesia, and excludes areas that were, but are now in the Opole Voivodeship.
The Opole voivodeship is now split. The Eastern part is considered part of Silesia, whereas the Western part isn't.
The cultural/ethnographic area called Silesia today conforms largely with historical Upper Silesia. It no longer includes Wrocław or Lower Silesia, where there the culture completely died after WWII and the population was almost totally replaced. People who live in Wrocław or Lower Silesia today do not consider themselves as living in Silesia. Precious few of them have ancestors who lived in the region before 1945.
The Czech area currently referred to as Silesia was historically a part of Upper Silesia. Like Polish Upper Silesia, it retained a large part of its population after the war, some of whom still consider themselves of Silesian ancestry. Aside from that, it has no connection to Polish Silesia except for a (sort of) common history.
As far as Breslau is concerned, it ceased to exist after the war (more than 80% was destroyed). The recently resettled Poles essentially build a new city on the site, sometimes faithfully recreating the pre-war architecture, and sometimes not. In my neighborhood, there is only one house that predates the war. There was no continuity in city admistration or institutions. The university was almost entirely restaffed with Polish academics from Lwów and Wilno, and the German bishop and clergy were replaced as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This is getting silly. The consensus here is that there Wrocław is part of Silesia and its historical capital.Rsloch (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I've heard that Wrocław is not part of Silesia. Silesia is still divided into Lower and Upper. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
And I have never seen, outside of historical contexts, (unqualified) "Śląsk" used to refer to anything outside of a area covering the larger part of Ślaskie and the eastern half of opolskie. Can you provide a source that Wrocław or dolis currently considered part of (unqualified) Silesia? Google searches for "wrocław leży na śłąsku" turns up only a few instances of football fans and the like protesting that it does on forums. Proving a negative is difficult, but I did find this source confirming that (unqualified) Silesia now normally refers to only Upper Silesia: [[8]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
See for example the history page on official city of Wrocław page here, which discusses the history of Wrocław and Ślask. Ditto for entries in the WIEM Encyklopedia ([9], [10]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
None of those sources say anything resembling in the slightest that Wrocław is currently in Silesia. They only say that it WAS in Silesia until the end of WWII. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Are there any sources saying that Wrocław is not part of Silesia? As far as I know even Ślůnzoki consider it a part of Silesia and want it transferred to the Vaterland. 13:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoranka (talkcontribs)
Dominus Vobisdu apparently means that present inhabitants of Wrocław do not normally refer to themselves (or think of themselves) as Silesians. The Polish ethnographic term Ślązacy (Silesians) gives an idea of what the identification problem is. But this is irrelevant. Silesia is a historical-geographical concept. Lower Silesia (a part of Silesia) was inhabited by Slavs/Poles, then Germans and now by Poles of different territorial origins (generally not descendants of the original inhabitants). Their roots are not Silesian, but they live in Silesia. Orczar (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. This argument may have more merit if we were to discuss the geographical scope of Silesians, although what this discussion really needs, one way or another, is reliable references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
A big part of the problem is that Silesia has no official definition or status in Poland today. Different people define it depending on the need at hand: mining engineers have their definition, urban and regional planners have theirs, linguists have theirs, ethnographers, botanists and geologists, too. Usually vaguely contiguous with Upper Silesia. All we really have to go on is public consensus, which unfortunately has not been reliably documented.
As far as scholarly sources that deal with Silesia today, they deal exclusively with Upper Silesia, and when they deal with Lower Silesia, they don't treat it as part of a larger Silesia. I've looked for hours and hours and couldn't find any reliable sources for the extent of what is considered Silesia today, except, of course, for the ethnographic/cultural/linguistic definition, which also has a high degree of public consensus.
About the most reliable thing I found about the topic is this radio interview from about two years ago with this guy who got so frustrated by the fact that people from Wrocław don't identify with Silesia that he started a (very small) movement to redefine Silesia to include Wrocław again. [[11]]. Apparently, the movement never took off. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The interview seems to concern the fringe political movement aiming at Silesian autonomy (or independence). This is hardly relevant. Silesia may not be an official province, but so what? It's a geographical and cultural term. If you want to discuss the definition of it, Talk:Silesia would be a better place for it. And if you want to make a claim that "people from Wrocław don't identify with Silesia" - cite your sources first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
No. The interview is not at all about the autonomy movement. It's about redefining the idea of Silesia to include Wrocław specifically, and to recreate a sense of Silesian identity among the people in Lower Silesia. It's worth listening to, and it is a pretty good source for the statement that people who live in Wrocław do not identify with Silesia, nor do they consider Wrocław to be part of Silesia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This sounds like a fringe opinion to me. I'd very much like to see some reliable sources on this issue. I'd expect there should be some sociological works on that. If you are drawing blanks on sources, I'd recommend contacting people from here or here (and I see you have sufficient command of Polish for this not be a problem). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've produce a reliable source from a mainstream radio station. Listen to it and then decide whether it sounds fringe to you. I was thinking of dropping in on Czaplicki anyway. Thanks for the reminder. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Try this:Tożsamość mieszkańców Dolnego Śląska : Raport z badań[12]-150 pages devoted to identity of inhabitants of Lower Silesia accessible online, you might be also interested in Dolnoślązacy? : kształtowanie tożsamości mieszkańców Dolnego Śląska po II wojnie światowej / redakcja: Joanna Nowosielska-Sobel, Grzegorz Strauchold. Wrocław : Oficyna Wydawnicza "Atut" - Wrocławskie Wydawnictwo Oświatowe, 2007.

But yes, we don't identify ourselves as "Silesians". It's a completely different identity. Anyway identity of someone from Zgorzelec or Walbrzych will be different from someone from Wroclaw, there are a lot of local differences, some quite strong. Also some of the remaining Polish population from Lower Silesia from pre-war still exists. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A Scot living in London might not identify himself as English but that would not alter the fact that he still lived in England. The same thing applies here.Rsloch (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you will have to be more precise. I fail to see any similarities. For starters the nationality of people living in Wroclaw and those living in Warsaw is the same. There is no separate national identity in Lower Silesia. There is a very small Silesia identity movement in Upper Silesia, a region which generally is called Silesia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

2% of what[edit]

The centance "The population was 58% Protestant, 37% Catholic (including at least 2% Polish[13]) and 5% Jewish (totaling 20,536 in the 1905 census)" is unclear. Was the Polish part of the population 2% of the catholics or 2% of the entire population ? Also wonder why (only) the precise number of Jews are mentioned among percentage figures ? I think that first mentioning the total number of inhabitants, followed by ethnical groups in percentage is sufficient. (And never use "percentage of percentage"). F.i could the entnical groups be German protestants, German catholics, Polish catholics and Jews. (assume the number of Polish protestants are too low to be mentioned, but do not know for certain) Boeing720 (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Study of Breslau/Wrocław Page Development as Example of How "Historical Record" Comes Into Existence[edit]

Breslau no longer exists. Silesia no longer exists. The Silesian people were forced to flee to other parts of the world as punishment to Germany after the Nazis were deposed and WWII ended. It represents the largest forced migration in modern history. There is no parallel in modern times. It is estimated that of the 16 million German inhabitants, 2 million Germans died in the process of trying to flee the geographical areas taken away from Germany at the end of WWII. This is the ugly truth of the matter.

This online encyclopedia page represents the continuing argument over how this history should be recorded. The surviving Silesians are now dying off rapidly. One needs to only do the math: the Silesians had to flee in 1945-1946; this is 2013. In another 10 years virtually no one with any birth connection to Breslau or Silesia will exist. The argument then, will be dead.

I see here in Wikipedia a very poor historical record of Breslau/Wrocław. The page is infected throughout with subtle efforts to justify that this city is now Polish. One can "read between the lines" and feel the propagandization of history in the article. Sentences are included here that no one would consider relevant in any other city's history. The authors are obviously very busy trying to get their version of history past the Wikipedia administrators. Many feel one way, many feel another way, and even the idea of labeling changes to the page as "vandalism" is hotly debated.

Almost humorous are the votes in the Danzig/Gdansk debate on what to call a city in English. Wikipedia policy is decided by 48 people voting one way. That's it -- a worldwide online encyclopedia's decision is dictated by a voting margin of a dozen or so votes. One wonders if a similar debate occurred concerning Munich/München, and if not, why not? The lack of a constituency in this vote devalues the outcome of the vote. There are what, 6 billion humans on the face of the earth at the moment? A cute video of a cat on YouTube gets more "thumbs-up" votes every 30 seconds than the entirety of Wiki's supposedly eternally precedent-setting Danzig/Gdansk vote. (No, I'm NOT going to provide a reference source to prove that a cute cat video on YouTube gets more than 48 votes in 30 secords flat.)

Regardless of whether Wiki administrators demand that I include all kinds of online references, that fact still is that Breslau was a huge German city and its inhabitants were brutalized, murdered, and evicted at the end of WWII. The men were loaded onto cattle cars and shipped to Soviet prison camps in the Ural mountains.

We have here a fine developing example of how history is written. Because whether the story is written with a fountain pen or a laptop computer, words are arranged to distill millions of actions, millions of lives, into a few short paragraphs that somehow will be deemed to be the official record. What is in this record? Depends on who is distilling it. People with motivations beyond an "objective" distillation are battling it out here on Wikipedia. Even my write-up here, this very write-up, is being continuously deleted by Wiki authors. This post, even to this Talk page, will probably be quickly be deleted, and the person deleting it will post some fancy legitimate-sounding reason to justify the deletion.

I predict that 50 years from now, the written record contained here in Wikipedia will be noticeably more sympathetic to the Polish occupants of Breslau/Wrocław, because the victors write the history books. The descendents of the displaced Silesians will no longer feel any connection to Silesia or Breslau, and will no longer advocate an accurate recording of the history of Breslau and the events that occurred at the end of WWII. What would be interesting to see would be a scientific analysis of the development of the official history over the course of time, and whether this shift paralleled other events, such as the original displaced population of Breslau dying off, or such as the closure of Silesian cultural organizations.

For social scientists, an analysis is currently possible that would provide interesting insights to the development of what we call "history". This would be a comparative analysis of the Wikipedia entries for Breslau in the different language versions of Wikipedia. My quick review of those entries in the Chinese, German, and English languages reveals significant differences.

To those continuously censoring this Talk section, may I try to delay your actions by 15 seconds by saying this: No, I do not need to provide verifying sources; this is a Talk section. Look at Wikipedia:Talk Page Guidelines, wherein it is stated, "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation." It cannot be more clear that continued deletion of my entry here on the Talk page will represent vandalism. SonOfARefugee (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit of a rant, but one you're entitled to make (and I'm pleased to see that it's still here six weeks later). It most certainly relates to this article, and there are some valid points that you make. The expulsion and flight of the Silesian German population (as distinct from Slav Silesians) is mentioned, but should perhaps be covered in a little more depth here, and certainly warrants greater attention at History of Wrocław, as should resettlement of the Polish population expelled from what had become part of the Soviet Union. To be honest, the historical coverage on this page from 1945 onwards is practically non-existent, leading to a distinctly unbalanced history section, by which I mean historically unbalanced, not necessarily ethnically unbalanced. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Postwar history[edit]

The history of the city appears to stop in 1945. We are told (mainly from image captions) that the city was almost destroyed during the war, yet we have recent images showing historical buildings. Presumably there was a massive amount of restoration work, which deserves at least a passing mention. How did the city develop with the influx of thousands of dispossessed people from what had become the Soviet Union? How was a functioning city re-established without its earlier inhabitants? Similarly, there is nothing whatever about the period under Communist rule. Did nothing happen at all in the city during this period? Towards the end of this period, was the city not involved at all in the rise of Solidarity, and opposition to the Communist regime? Has nothing happened in the city since the collapse of Communism, and the restoration of democracy, other than flooding? Skinsmoke (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Should Breslau be mentioned at the beginning of the page?[edit]

It used to be mentioned at the beginning of the page, but now it's ommited completely. It is a (big) part of the Wrocław's history, so why not mention it. Teysz Kamieński (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Because there is a dedicated section to the historical names.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Alt names[edit]

The relevant guideline is here: WP:NAME. It states:

If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc.

Hence, if an article has a dedicated section (such as "Etymology" or "Other names" or "Historical names") there is absolutely no reason to relist the names in the lede. In fact that kind of practice smacks of irredentist "territory-marking" and can be seen as disruptive.

That is the guideline that is relevant here, not a 10 year old "vote" by a minority of the community, most of whom are long gone from Wikipedia, and which most present day Wikipedians never have heard of. A curiosity from the early days of Wikipedia should not be abused to push a POV or irredentist edits on encyclopedic articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith? Every one of these discussions is full of accusations of people being "irridentists" or similar after about the third post. Regarding Breslau, it's the name the city was known as in English for a very long time, so there is a case for including it in the lede. People who may have read that name in older English sources will immediately know it is the same city. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. And it's precisely why we have a dedicated section to the alternative name, per Wikipedia guidelines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NAME is a general rule, the Gdansk vote is a special rule for areas sharing a German-Polish history. A special rule supersedes the general rule (lex specialis), not vice versa. Marek knows the Gdansk vote very well and he knows that "persistent reverts against community consensus" are regarded WP:VANDALISM. His attempts to undermine this established policy by removing pretty much every single "Breslau" from the article [13] (and even a Gdansk vote pointer from the talk page [14]) actually just confirm a wellknown WP:battleground mentality HerkusMonte (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Gdansk vote is no rule at all. It was always a suggestion and superceded by official Wikipedia conventions. Gdansk vote was utterly flawed as several Polish editors were stricken from the vote by admin who made anti-Polish comments in other parts of Wiki and was obviously biased.It's time Herkus to move on years after this event happened, please don't mislead others that it is a rule.It is clearly categorized as survey and a poll, and was never adopted as an official ruling--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The Gdansk vote is neither policy nor even a guideline. It's somewhere between somebody's personal essay and a talk page discussion that was held ten years ago. To keep invoking it ten years later to justify tendentious editing is silly. "Ten years ago some people agreed with me, therefore I get to revert you as many times as I want and edit war to my heart's content". Really? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://runeberg.org/nfbd/0073.html