Talk:Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:49, 9 January 2011

Poland Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Poland portal 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other info

What table?

Table1

Powiaty

In mid-1939 the population of the Voivodeship was 1,533,500 (together with Zaolzie, annexed in October 1938) and its area was 5 122 sq. km. The Voivodeship was divided into these counties:

Powiaty	Population	Area
Katowice county (powiat katowicki)	357,300	213 km²
Rybnik county (powiat rybnicki)	212,900	890 km²
Cieszyn county (powiat cieszyński)	176,600	1 305 km²
Pszczyna county (powiat pszczyński)	151,500	1 046 km²
Fryštát county (powiat frysztacki)	143,000	262 km²
Chorzów (powiat grodzki)	128,900	32 km²
Katowice (powiat grodzki)	126,200	42 km²
Tarnowskie Góry county (powiat tarnogórski)	107 000	268 km²
Bielsko county (powiat bielski)	59,500	339 km²
Lubliniec county (powiat lubliniecki)	45,200	715 km²
Bielsko (powiat grodzki)	25,400	10 km²

Cities

Biggest cities of the Voivodeship within its 1939 boundaries were (population based on 1931 census):

Cities	Population
Chorzów¹	128,900
Katowice	126,200
Siemianowice Śląskie	37,800
Cieszyn	28,000
Bielsko	25,400
Rybnik	23 000
Mysłowice	22,700
Karwina	22,300
Tarnowskie Góry	15,500
Mikołów	11,900
Bogumin	10,800
Orłowa	10 000

¹ – in 1934 city Królewska Huta, Maciejkowice and Chorzów municipality join to Chorzów

Table2

Cities (miasta)

Cities	Population¹
Katowice	123 780
Królewska Huta²	86 000
Świętochłowice	26 706
Bielsko	19 785
Rybnik	19 268
Cieszyn	15 324
Tarnowskie Góry	13 582
Pszczyna	7 660
Lubliniec	5 566

Urban commune (gminy miejskie)

Urban commune	Population¹
Siemianowice Śląskie	38 322
Hajduki Wielkie	27 834
Nowy Bytom	24 000
Ruda	23 562
Nowa Wieś	21 700
Mysłowice	20 294
Lipiny	18 997
Janów	17 890
Łagiewniki	15 382
Bielszowice	15 144
Chorzów	15 100
Chropaczów	14 332
Radzionków	14 102
Szarlej	12 059
Kochłowice	12 000
Roździeń	11 860
Piekary Wielkie	11 725
Szopienice	11 050
Orzegów	10 029

County (powiaty)

County	Area¹
pszczyński	1072 km²
rybnicki	893 km²
lubliniecki	706 km²
cieszyński	664 km²
bielski	314 km²
tarnogórski	250 km²
katowicki	170 km²
świętochłowicki	83 km²
Królewska Huta²	8 km²

¹ – 1929
² – in 1934 change name "Królewska Huta" -> Chorzów

Source: www.szukamypolski.com

Discussion

Name of the article

Original name of the Voivodship was "Województwo Śląskie" (English: "Silesian Voivodeship") without a word "Autonomous". Yes, the region had an autonomy and nobody deny it like the rollbacker LUCPOL said. The main case is the name former voivodship which was formed by present supporters to create an autonomous region in present Poland. Every law acts and even Constitution of the Voivodship]] [1] and Cancellation Constitution Law Act stays clearly "Silesian Voivodeship". There is no one act with name with word Autonomous E.x. [2] or [3]. I've changed a name of the article to correct one and given the creating Act of the Voivodship in a reference, but it was rejected, denied without any other literature, word of discussion or note by the LUCPOL in this edit. LUCPOL with his OR declaration shows clearly his intentions. Wikipedia cannot deny the facts, and fact is clear that the formal law acts and every literature use the name "Silesian Voivodeship". Even Silesian Parliament used the name "Silesian Voivodeship". I move a proposal to change article name to Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939). JDavid (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name "Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939)" is unclear and controversial. There are some different dates, formal and practical. Beginning in 1920, 1921 or 1922 - depending on the sources and ending 1939 and 1945 - depending on how the status II World War.
Citation "Yes, the region had an autonomy and nobody deny it" ...really?!?, come down autonomy to the level of plain voivodeships [4]. This is one of some examples.
I change name on Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) according to User:JDavid version + change wrong dates on name "(autonomy)". This version is compromise and consistent with the sources and principles of Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad. 1. Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939)" is clear and uncontroversial, we have to choose good date. For sure 1939 like other voivodeships. JDavid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad. 2. Really I don't know what you have meant. JDavid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Ad. 2. I explain again, in Polish. You wrote: "Yes, the region had an autonomy and nobody deny it" - translate to polish: "Tak, region miał autonomię i nikt temu nie zaprzecza". Ale tuszujecie to jak tylko można. Pamiętam to, jak jeszcze aktywnie działałem na pl.Wikipedii. Podałem ci też jeden z wielu przykładów [5]. Najlepiej śląską autonomię zmniejszyć do poziomu zwykłego województwa, zatuszować nazwę "autonomia" w nazwie artykułu co właśnie robicie. Jaki będzie wasz następny krok? Cicha likwidacja faktu "autonomii" w samej treści artykułu? (jak ktoś chce to może to przetłumaczyć na angielski, pisałem po polsku bo JDavid mnie nie zrozumiał po angielsku). LUCPOL (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd rather have disputed dates than this solution, which doesn't make any immediate sense. At least with the dates people will understand what the title means.--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that dates are better. The word autonomy is unclear, becouse something can have autonomy, but something cannot be autonomy. Am I right? Dates show that this article is historical, and this is important I think. And what's more it's name convension on en.Wiki (which I would have on pl.Wiki). Poznań Voivodeship (1921–1939) was created in 1921, but they had a voivode since 1919, so there is not a problem. I think we could decide what should be a determinant in this case. JDavid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation "The word autonomy is unclear, becouse something can have autonomy, but something cannot be autonomy. Am I right?" - No, you are wrong. The word "autonomy" is clear and not apply this term to things that do not have autonomy. Second: can change on name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomous)", if someone annoys word "autonomy". LUCPOL (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can do, what we establish here in this discussion, You aren't a ruler of Wikipedia. JDavid (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't show everything, and I've made mistake in name changing. Silesian Voivodeship was created in 1920, included Cieszyn Silesia, and other small lands. After plebiscite, uprisings other lands were joined to Silesian Voivodeship. Name Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) it's accurate and noncontroversial, without POV. It's crystal-clear! JDavid (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I can add something. "Silesian Voivodeship (i.e. date)" is kind of logical, because "Silesian Voivodeship" itself can refer both to historical and current region of Poland. However "autonomy" is not a good choice, because it doesn't clearly define "which Silesian Voivodeship" - at least at first glance. Certainly date would be much better (as is usually used for disambigs). Then the issue of "autonomous" as part of a name. Undoubtly the name should be given according to the offical act of law, which was defining this region. I assume, that the proper law act was issued by polish parliament. And over there the name should be claerly written, and out of this definition, it should be the name for the wikipedia article. However I agree that technically and according to regulations, this region (in opposition to other voivodeships) could posses a certain degree of autonomy, which of course should me mentioned and described in the article itself, ideally basing on, once again, proper law acts. It's similar situation as for Poznań, as far as I remember, where Poznań is a official name for this city, but historically it was called (or rather had a status = like autonomy) of King's City Poznań (or something like that). But no one claims that the wiki article should be called like this. What is, at first glance, contradictory is the situation for Kraków, where its officially approved (by polish government) name is: "Stołeczne Królewskie Miasto Kraków" (Capital King's City Kraków), so one could say, that the article about it should be called like that. But no - because we would rather choose commons name, instead of the more offical but rarely used full one. However the latter example (and previous with Poznań) should be considered only when there were or are official acts calling "Silesian Voivodeship" - "Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship". Otherwise its autonomy is only technical but has nothing to do with the naming and therefore should be ommited from any part of article name, because it can create confusion and the date (19xx-19xx) is more along with the naming convention anyway Masur (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation (from User:JDavid): "Name Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) it's accurate and noncontroversial, without POV. It's crystal-clear!" Not crystal-clear and this is controversial. See: Constitution of the Silesian Voivodship (autonomous) - Data obowiązywania (Effective Date): 1919-06-28 [6], Data wejścia w życie: (Date of entry to life): 1919-06-28 [7], Data wydania (Release Date): 1920-07-15 [8], your date from your edit: 1921 [9], practical (real) existence of autonomy - from 1922. In addition: Data uchylenia (Date set aside): 1945-05-07 [10], not 1939 - as you did in your editing [11]. In addition, according to very many sources (also polish sources) Poland not exist only 123 years (1795–1918), not in 1939-1945. Formally and internationally, in 1939-45 Poland exist, but really this is occupation. Summary: there are several dates (1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1939, 1945), each date has sources!!!!!! You wrote "It's crystal-clear"? Are you freaking kidding. LUCPOL (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, using more exclamation marks won't make your sentences more... I don't know... important? Loud? In regards to the topic, of course one needs to admit, that it is hard to set precise dates of Silesian Voiv. existence (however for me it should 1919-1945 as law acts say; with a small correction for 1939 or 1945? As far as I remember, unlawfully but effectively, Germans dissolved the polish state), however I assume that proper sources, like monographies about the region's history, can provide us some commonly used date brackets. If not, and really if the dates of establishing and formal ceasing of Silesian Voivodeship are so controversial, still the posibility to use something different as a disambiguation in brackets can be used. Like "Silesian Voivodeship (Second Polish Republic)" or anything else, what would be unequivocal enough. Masur (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within Second Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within II Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy in Second Polish Republic)" or similary names would be acceptable, because this name shows status (autonomy) and the period (II Polish Republic). LUCPOL (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But like I mentioned. Autonomy is part of a description, not part of a name. Name like: "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within II Polish Republic)" is imo hardly correct, because it suggests that it was almost completely independent (compare with Palestine Autonomy or Free City Gdańsk/Danzig). The only thing to figure out is how to clearly distiguish "this" Sil. void. from the current one. Like imagine that we have more than one "Kraków" in Poland. Whould you name different articles: "Kraków (Capital King's City)" and (fictionous one) "Kraków (Pomerania Voivodeship)" or rather "Kraków (Lesser Poland Voivodeship)" and "Kraków (Pomerania Voivodeship)"? And as I see i.e. here: Pomeranian Voivodeship (1919–1939), the system is to discriminate articles using dates, and there is no problem whether it is 1939 or 1945 (as we agreed that 1919 is a correct "starting" year). Therefore I think that "Silesian Voivodeship (1919-1939)" (1939 reflecting actual "end year", even if considered unlawful by the polish government on exile and some allied states) is a proper name, being in the agreement with existing naming conventions. Masur (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name "Silesian Voivodeship (1919-1939)" and in the introductory article write "The status of autonomy was forcibly removed on May 6, 1945". Quite a mess + controversial (these dates are collusive between us). PS. excerption to Palestine Autonomy is your wrong sentence. Name: autonomy "within" II Polish Republic not suggests to Palestine Autonomy and similary your samples. In addition, I wrote "Name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within Second Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within II Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy in Second Polish Republic)" or similary names" - maybe my examples are not grammatical, you can improve grammar or give another example name with shows status (autonomy) and the period (II Polish Republic). LUCPOL (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if your point of view is commonly (it's quite important, because on en-wiki common names or conventions in naming are prefered over official ones or "correct" ones. See North Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea) supported in the subject literatury (that the Sil. Void. ceased to exist on 1945), the name should be then "Silesian Voivodeship (1919-1945)". BTW. 1945 is the date where autonomy privileges were revoked or when Sil. Void. was "cancelled"? The same with 1919 - is it a year when Sil. Void. was formed or its autonomy status set? I have to say, that by the dates for disambiguation I understand the dates when Sil. Void. existed (!), therefore 1939 is a real end point, even if it was unlawful to liquidate the poolish state at all (I adressed this issue above). The dates when Sil. Void. had privileges of autonomy can be, but don't have to be, different, what of course should me mentioned in the article itself, but for the sake of discrimination from other Silesian Voivodeships, the naming convention calls for dates of existence. And, like I agreed, 1939 or 1945 is arguable, however en-wiki consensus points toward 1939 as a real "end point" for the Polish Second Republic, ergo for its administrative parts (like mentioned Pomeranian Voivodeship (1919–1939)) Masur (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much doubt as to the end point: 1939 (after then it existed only in people's minds). As to the start point, it doesn't matter when autonomy was granted, it matters when an entity called województwo śląskie was created (there's no separate article for the voivodeship before autonomy, nor any reason to create such a split). So if the voivodeship was created in 1919 (regardless of whether it had any special autonomous status then), then 1919 should be the start point.--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISAP (Internet Law Acts System) isn't a source of law in Rzeczpospolita of Poland. Every date which is presented there as a beginning of binding force of the law is not valid. Ustawa Konstytucyjna z dnia 15 lipca 1920 r. zawierająca statut organiczny Województwa Śląskiego (Dz. U. z 1920 r. Nr 73, poz. 497) was proclaimed 11 August 1920. Due to unclear bequest of Article 45 of the Act: This law act comes into effect with acquisition of the Silesian Voivodeship by Rzeczpospolita of Poland - part with Cieszyn of the Silesian Voivodeship was granted 28 July 1920, and part Upper Silesia was formally accessed in 22 June 1922 - as a date of creating the Silesian Voivodeship can be accepted only 26 August 1920 (coming into force of the Law Act according to 4th article of a Law Act of 31 July 1919 [ustawa z dnia 31 lipca 1919 r. w sprawie wydawania Dziennika Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Dz. U. z 1919 r. Nr 66, poz. 400)] or 22 June 1922 (accession of Upper Silesia by Rzeczpospolita of Poland). Poznaniak (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) would be satisfactory?--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this title is the most appropriate. Poznaniak (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree what I've said above. JDavid (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary discussion. Still it is date discussed by us, still is mess, still controversial, still complicated. All "neutral" users is confirmed that is controversial and complicated. In the case of the Silesian autonomy will never!!! be clean and non-complicated dates. LUCPOL (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary this discussion. Current name of article is ok. WojtekSIL (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary conversation. Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is the best name. [[User:Ozi64|◄Ozi64►]] <small>[[User talk:Ozi64|and his talk]]</small> (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 229: / Line 229: @@
 ::: {{Unnecessary}} discussion. Still it is date discussed by us, still is mess, still controversial, still complicated. All "neutral" users is confirmed that is controversial and complicated. In the case of the Silesian autonomy will never!!! be clean and non-complicated dates. [[User:LUCPOL|LUCPOL]] ([[User talk:LUCPOL|talk]]) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 *{{Unnecessary}} this discussion. Current name of article is ok. [[User:WojtekSIL|WojtekSIL]] ([[User talk:WojtekSIL|talk]]) 23:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
+::{{unnecessary}} conversation. Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is the best name. [[User:Ozi|&#91;&#91;User:Ozi64&#124;◄Ozi64►&#93;&#93; &lt;small&gt;&#91;&#91;User talk:Ozi64&#124;and his talk&#93;&#93;&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Ozi|talk]]) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)