Talk:Silesian Piasts

Poland Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Much information was removed [1], [2] from Silesian Piasts including the Wroclaw city website link with information about the empire

Silesian Piasts - line of Piast dynasty started by Władysław II the Exile, son of Duke Bolesław III Wrymouth, who held fiefs from the Holy Roman Empire. Silesian ruler were by the 18th century also referred to as Piasts and ruled Duchies of Silesia, established by Emperor Barbarossa in 1157 and 1163. On and off Polish dukes (first established 963) interchanged rule with Bohemia in Silesia. What is by Polish sources referred to as fragmentation of Poland had begun in 1138. The last Silesian Duke and of all Piasts was George William, Duke of Liegnitz (d. 1675). The last male Silesian Piast was baron Ferdinand II Hohenstein (d. 1706).

External link

Silesian duchies established by Emperor Barbarossa 1157 and 1163. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.197.97 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of Silesian Dukes as Fief of the Holy Roman Empire

(this was removed by 223.. from Warsaw)

According to the Silesia Wroclaw [3] website: Emperor Barbarossa gains control of the territory, and forms up two duchies (1157, 1163) in Silesia. The Silesian dukes (later also called Silesian Piasts) take their land as fief from the Holy Roman Empire and 1163 Bolesław IV the Curly returns the hereditary Silesian province to Władysław's sons: Bolesław the Tall and Mieszko I Tanglefoot, (who take land as fief from the emperor). The senior duke nonetheless retained control of the most important cities in the region such as Wrocław, Opole, Głogów, Racibórz and Legnica. The Silesian dukes took control of these parts of Silesia in 1166.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). The division of Silesia between the Exile's sons that took place in 1163 initiated the division of the Silesian Piasts into two main branches: those of Lower Silesia with Wrocław, and those of Upper Silesia with Opole.

For the record this is still in the article: In 1163 Bolesław IV the Curly returns the hereditary Silesian province to Władysław's sons: Bolesław the Tall and Mieszko I Tanglefoot, (who take land as fief from the emperor). The senior duke nonetheless retained control of the most important cities in the region such as Wrocław, Opole, Głogów, Racibórz and Legnica. The Silesian dukes took control of these parts of Silesia in 1166.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). The division of Silesia between the Exile's sons that took place in 1163 initiated the division of the Silesian Piasts into two main branches: those of Lower Silesia with Wrocław, and those of Upper Silesia with Opole. 213.238.123.186 (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So only this was removed:

According to the Silesia Wroclaw [4] website: Emperor Barbarossa gains control of the territory, and forms up two duchies (1157, 1163) in Silesia. The Silesian dukes (later also called Silesian Piasts) take their land as fief from the Holy Roman Empire

Becouse it is covered in the paragraph: Differing views of the Silesian Piasts in Polish and German historiography where a link to the http://slaskwroclaw.info exists as well.213.238.123.186 (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First thing is that this page is not a neutral historical website but its a highly POVish site created by Silesian Autonomous movement organisation. The second thing is that despite the POVish character of this site info provided by it was mentioned in the last paragraph concerning Differing views of the Silesian Piasts in Polish and German historiography( with a link to this site) where is the proper place for controversial and disputed info. 77.253.67.114 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a private page. And as such is not a source accepted by Wikipedia. Only scholary pages are accepted, private blogs, homepages are not sources that are acceptable per Wiki rules.--Molobo (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differing views of the Silesian Piasts in Polish and German historiography

The claim that German historians argue that Silesia separated from Poland in 1163 is based on a single website. This view was maybe popular in older German, especially pre-war, publications, but most modern sources present it as a gradual process in line with the Germanization of Silesia. With some good modern Polish and German sources this entire paragraph is IMHO unnecessary. Karasek (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section is mostly referenced to works of a respected scholar, Norman Davies. I see no reason to remove it - historiography section should be obligatory for all articles dealing with history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the entire section is based on a claim by a dubious website ([5]), which allegedly says that some German historians suggest that Silesia separated from Poland in 1163. Davies is used to refute the claim of this one dubious source, which isn't used anywhere else in the article. This website moreover is based on a Wiki article and doesn't mention any German historian! WTF? If you read this article however there is no disagreement between Polish and German historians. I added two credible German sources which both say that Silesia did in fact *NOT* seperate in 1163 but stayed in the Polish seniorate. I sticked to the facts and tried to avoid simplifications. Unlike Davies btw., who uses Henry IV to prove his point, but simply ignores Henrys strong connections to Bohemia. Karasek (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Karasek noted, the historic dispute is noted by reliable historians such as Norman Davies-thus it is notable and worthy of inclusion. I am saddened by the use of insults and vulgar words by Karasek. The lack of use of German historians is understandable as their works are very narrow in scope and focus almost 100% on Germanisation aspects, while missing information on the life of main parts of population in Silesia.--Molobo (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss a "historic dispute" between Polish and German historians please create a new article. Here it's out of scope.

I rewrote the article and added four sources, you added how many? One? The rewritten article sticks to the facts, neither denies the Polish nor the Bohemian bonds of the Piasts and should satisfy both sides. What Davies however does is pure speculation, and his speculation is refuted by the facts. According to Davies the Silesian Piasts turned to Bohemia only after their ambitions to rule in Kraków were thwarted, and he uses Henry IV as an example... who was raised in Prague, with the Bohemian king as his guardian, who was thought to become Bohemian regent, who received his duchy as a fief from the HRE, and who was enobled by the German king. These Bohemian connection seem pretty strong to me. If Davies stays in the article not a "historic dispute" will be the issue but a respected historian who ignores facts. But this again would be better placed in a new article about the "historic dispute" between Polish and German historians. Karasek (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but facts are stated there. The ecclesial unity that lasted till 19th century! The permanent involvement in the Polish affairs despite the facts that i.e. Henry IV was raised in Prague. If you are able to give opinions of other scholars that think otherwise please do so. But do not call historical reaserch speculations and do not call internationally known and honored historians those who "ignore facts". This is a referenced data, neither German nor Polish, that schould be treated with proper respect by those who are not themselves trained historians. 156.17.122.152 (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Minor fixes such as correcting wrongly spelled city names-now the lead to wiki articles on them. Also attribute to Weczerka his claims-aren't they any more reliable authors then this one ? They have been several claims by him not confirmed by established mainstream history. Removed Germany-it's too soon to speak about this state as unified entity. Perhaps Holy Roman Empire would be better ? Also restored information about debate in scholary publications.--Molobo (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My changes

I can see that Karasek has done some good job around here but still some precise information had to be reestablished and added. Two dates: 1327 and 1329 are the most important when it comes to the separation of Silesia from Poland. It is recognised worlwide so it also needed to be mentioned here. Also the historical background: the wars of Władysław the Elbow-high etc are to important to be simply ommited. The lists of Duchies that separated in 1327 and 1329 are also a valuable information. If someone disagrees please write. Best Wishes Opole.pl (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]