Talk:Silesian Voivodeship (1920–39)
|WikiProject Poland||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Silesia||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
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:
|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|
Biggest cities of the Voivodeship within its 1939 boundaries were (population based on 1931 census):
|Królewska Huta²||86 000|
|Tarnowskie Góry||13 582|
Urban commune (gminy miejskie)
|Siemianowice Śląskie||38 322|
|Hajduki Wielkie||27 834|
|Nowy Bytom||24 000|
|Nowa Wieś||21 700|
|Piekary Wielkie||11 725|
|Królewska Huta²||8 km²|
Name of the article
- The move discussion below has been closed. As per consensus and weight of arguments in this discussion, the page is moved back from Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) to Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939). If there should be a remaining argument whether it should say "1920" or "1921", please discuss the relevant arguments separately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
To 1935 a change of Organic Statute required of approval from Silesian Sejm (Silesian Parliament). While after coming into force April Constitution of Rzeczpospolita of Poland (24 April 1935), it was sufficient only law act of the State (Country, enacted by Sejm of Poland). So it was no longer an autonomy, but a wide self-government of municipality . From 1935 to 1939 it was voivodeship without autonomy. The abolishing Organic Statut of the Silesian Voivodeship in 1945 by the State National Council was only a abolishing of binding law basis of distict self-government of municipality from other self-governments of the State (Poland). That is why forsing a name with word "autonomy" is pure OR and it is intended only to meet the individual's complexes of user LUCPOL, what it cannot be alowed in Wikipedia, which has to present a Neutral Point of View. Therefore it's be ordered as in the sentence. Poznaniak (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not exactly. This according to Mr. Kasznica - although still a source of verification. Furthermore, nowhere says that the silesian autonomy lasted only until 1935. Thirdly: acts of law are saying something else, also scientific literature. I'm sorry poznaniak.
- In Polish, for better understanding: Niezupełnie. To według pana Kasznicy - choć źródło jeszcze do weryfikacji. Ponadto, nigdzie nie pisze że autonomia śląska trwała tylko do 1935 roku. Po trzecie: akty prawne mówią co innego, także literatura naukowa. Przykro mi poznaniaku. LUCPOL (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Even if it did have some kind of special "autonomy" for all of its existence, there still isn't any need to mention that fact in the article title. Most people will be most helped by being told the dates when that incarnation of Silesian Voivodeship existed, not a (seemingly rather controversial) label about its legal status. This is what we do with other former voivodeships whose names are ambiguous, and isn't anything to do with any point of view - just trying to make Wikipedia more consistent, clear and (in as far as there exists doubt about the autonomous status) neutral.--Kotniski (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unnecessary this discussion. Current name of article is ok. Maras84 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- All in all, I consider the name proposed name of the article (Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939)) to be the best, taking into account a variety of factors, all of which have been raised avobe. Wpedzich (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pro "Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939)" is the best name for this article because the facts state that, not the opinions. Patrol110 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pro The best name for it is "Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939)". Viatoro (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pro The name "Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939)" is the best choice and is not POV.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Cleanup and removing POV
I've removed the following from the article as it is non-factual and extremely POV. The Voivodeship officially ceased to exist in Sept. 1939. There is no connection whatsoever between the current voivodeship, which was created in 1999, and the voivodeship from before the war. The current voivodeship is not in any sense a "successor" to the previous one. The last sentence is blatantly POV. I've also cleaned up the English and removed other POV statements.
"The status of autonomy was forcibly removed on May 6, 1945 by the ruling Polish Workers' Party.
Its successor is the current Silesian Voivodeship, which has the same city — Katowice — as its capital. Up today, Polish authorities don't want to give back autonomy of Silesia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs)
- No, you wrong. The Voivodeship not officially ceased to exist in Sept. 1939. From 1939 to 1945 this is occupation. "There is no connection whatsoever between the current voivodeship, which was created in 1999, and the voivodeship from before the war. The current voivodeship is not in any sense a "successor" to the previous one." - ok, I agree. LUCPOL (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are wrong. The area of Sil. Voiv. was formally not occupied during the II WW. This area, as well as western parts of pre-war Poland were incorporated into III Reich, therefore they didn't hold an occupied territory status (see e.g. Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany). Therefore, legally or not, but certainly for sure formally and practically - this voivodeship ceased to exist. Masur (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
User:LUCPOL has added the word "temporary" in the following sentence:
"The Voivodeship was temporarily disolved on October 8, 1939 as a result of the German invasion of Poland, and its territory was incorporated into the German Province of Silesia."
This is incorrect, because Hitler meant the disolution to be permanent. The Polish Sejm did not disolve the voivodeship.
He has also vandalized the article by adding Nationalistic POV ("Up today, Polish authorities don't want to give back autonomy of Silesia.") Polish authorities revoked autonomy in 1935.
- ... but pro-Polish propaganda has always place on Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be oversensitive about something here - none of this has any value as propaganda, for either side in what you perceive as the conflict, even if it were somehow intended as propaganda. We just want to present the historical facts accurately and in a way that will be clear to the general reader.--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- So avoid names "autonomy", stoop to the level of mere province, blame on the Germans and delete content on the polish liquidation of the region and very many other examples.
- In Polish, for better understanding: Oczywiście. Żadnej polskiej propagandy i POV. To nic, że staracie się usuwać słowo "autonomia", mieszacie Autonomię Śląską ze zwykłymi województwami, zwalacie wszystko na Niemców oraz usuwacie informacje o zlikwidowaniu województwa przez polską władzę. Ale przecież to jest NPOV. Tylko tyle, że tylko dla was, dla innych to co robicie to manipulacja tekstem tak aby wszystko wybielić i zatuszować co dla polaków jest niesmaczne, a co za tym idzie to zwykłe kłamstwo i oszustwo. LUCPOL (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't know what you mean. A voivodeship had a certain amount of autonomy for a certain period of time, and with the course of history came to be replaced by other entities (first German, then Polish) that didn't have such autonomy. None of this helps or hinders any present-day cause, whether pro- or anti-Silesian - it's all just old facts. Don't worry about it so.--Kotniski (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
"Autonomous" or "one of many"
User:Stan J Klimas removed the following material from the lead:
- was one of the 17 provinces (voivodeships) into which interwar Poland was divided. It consisted of territory which came into Polish possession as a result of the 1921 Upper Silesia plebiscite, the Geneva Conventions, three Upper Silesian Uprisings, and the eventual partition of Upper Silesia between Poland, Germany and Czechoslovakia. By an act of parliament of 1920, the Silesian Voivodeship was granted special autonomy within the Polish Republic. Its capital was Katowice.
And replaced it with the following:
The information he removed is a summary of the body of the article. The sentence he added is not.
- @Stan J Klimas: No, Stan, I most certainly did not misread. I reverted your change because you removed all information from the lede about the plebescites and uprisings that lead to the granting of partial autonomy to the region in 1920. You even removed the fact that Autonomy was granted. All of this is a summary of the article. It is precisely because of these events that the Voivodeship is mentioned in history textbooks, both in Poland and abroad.
- The sentence you added is NOT a summary of any material presented in the article. The present-day autonomy movement is not mentioned (nor should it be), and present-day Polish politics really has nothing to do with the scope of this article. Even in present-day Polish politics, Silesian autonomy is very far down on the list of burning items.
- I also don't understand what you mean by autonomy being "buried" in the article. The first paragraph of the lead consists of little else besides the events leading up to the granting of autonomy in 1920, and the act granting autonomy itself. The words "autonomy" or "autonomous" appear no less than eight times in this article, and appear, as I said, in the very first paragraph of the lead, as well as at the very top of the infobox to the right.
- The "17" is there to preserve uniformity among articles pertaining to Polish Voivodships.
- Please discuss your justification for your deletions and additions here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- (1) I believe you keep misreading. Which exactly phrase is missing? If possible please give an exact quote. The phrase you give as missing is there, exactly underneath.
- (2) Today's relevance of the topic is withing the scope of every article. I thought it was rather self evident that the issue is current in the Polish politics and hotly debated. References can be added - if marked it with template "fact"; I will oblige with references.
- (3) It is a minor misrepresentation when the article just says "one of 17" because it implies there were all the same, whereas they were not. Silesian was the only autonomous province in Poland of the period to my information and belief. Today Poland has no autonomous entities, so it is also the most recent one, hence the modern relevance.
- I thought it was only fair to have the term "autonomous" mentioned at the very top since it was recently removed from the title. This removal from the title changed no facts and the fairness for this hotly debated topic does call for a better balance.
- OK, I see it now. Sorry. I still think that the sentence you added does not belong in the lede, because it does not summarize anything from the body of the article. Sourcing it would make no difference to me, and discussing the modern autonomy movement in the body of this article is out of the question.
- I would hardly say that Silesian autonomy is debated hotly in Poland. It's basically a dead issue even among the residents of the modern Voivodeship, and it's prospects don't look promising. That would require changes to the Polish Constitution, and I honestly can't see that ever happening. The only ones who are hotly debating it are a small group of autonomy activists, but they have garnered very little support for Silesian autonomy. Their support in recent elections does not translate into support for Silesian autonomy per se. To anyone outside of Poland, the debate is of minimal significance.
- The plebescites and uprising are mentioned in most genral modern history books outside of Poland, and the information about them is what would be most interesting to most readers, not the present-day autonomy movement. This information should therefore be in the first paragraph of the lede, not the second.
- Actually, I think we can achieve your goal of mentioning the autonomous mature of the voivodeship by simpling relacing the "17" with "an autonomous", and leaving the rest of the paragraph as it is. That gives you your earlier mention of the unique autonomic status of the voivodship, and me my info on the plebescites and uprisings in the first paragraph. I've made the change. Tell me what you think. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)