Talk:Trans-Olza/Archive 1

Old talk

I made minor change about reasons of Czechoslovakia for military operations. This was because "only railway going to Slovakia went throughout this area and access to the railway was critical: newly-formed Czechoslovakia was at war with revolutionary Hungary trying to re-establish control over Slovakia. This set up stage for conflict." (see History of Cieszyn and Těšín (not edited by me) see http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect12.htm This part of article was added only for "synchronisation" of articles and for "balancing" of Czech and Polish view. For conclusion - both republics were in war with bolsheviks and both had some reasons for conflict.

If you wanted to give the arguments of one side of the conflict, you should equally add the arguments of the other side to keep the NPOV. Also it should be clearly explained what the war with Hungary had to do with it ? --Wojsyl ^(talk) 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Czechoslovakian war with Red Hungary is in same context as mentioned Polish war with Red Russia, and for understanding of reasons of Czechoslovakian actions. See above: " only railway going to Slovakia went throughout this area and access to the railway was critical: newly-formed Czechoslovakia was at war with revolutionary Hungary trying to re-establish control over Slovakia." I think, that this is understanding for necessarity and thus is impossible to build new railway. One think (but this is only my personal oponion), that if Red Hungary anexed Slovakia, then Poland was in big problems with bolsheviks froum south, east and nordeast, but because Czechoslovakian army liberated Slovakia, Poland was secure from south. Yopie.

Except for the fact that the railway maps of the epoch show that the main train route from Prague to Bratislava went not through Ostrava (not Cieszyn by any means), but through Brno. Check the map on the right, or here, or here... //Halibutt 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The war with Red Hungary ended and Czechoslovak occupation of Zaolzie lasted until 1938. Czechs and Slovaks decided to build Czechoslovakia together - OK, it's their business, but it doesn't mean, that Poland HAD TO make this project feasible by giving up of Zaolzie only because Czechs and Slovaks needed a piece of railway which accidentally runs through this Polish area.jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.12.217.234 (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Polish ultimatum of September 30th, 1938 was given to the Czechoslovak government almost at midnight, not at noon. The airplane with the ultimatum landed at Prague at 22:07 Sept. 30th, 1938. This information is in "Monachium 1938, Polskie dokumenty dyplomatyczne" Z.Landau, J.Tomaszewski. The ultimatum was written after Warsaw obtained the text of the Munich agreement and an information, that Czechs accepted it.jan

Good Article

I find that this article meets the Good Article criteria. It presents an interesting and fairly detailed look at the region and its conflicts. Areas I would recommend further work on, to approach Featured Article status:

• While it is well-referenced, most of those references are to a single source, Zahradnik. Adding more citations to Długajczyk, Siwek, and Badziak would be a good idea before FA.
• A copyediting pass to tighten prose further would be in order. While it's well-written, there are some redundancies and one or two unclear sentences. (For instance, "On September 1, 1939 Zaolzie was annexed by Germany after it invaded Poland." -- does "it" refer to Zaolzie? I know, anyone with a basic knowledge of world history will know it's meant to refer to Germany, but the wording could still be clearer.)
• History prior to the early 1900s is pretty thin. Is there anything more to be said?
• Similarly, "the area's economic significance grew." Can this be treated in more depth?
• Make sure everything's in line with the manual of style. It mostly seems to be, but FA can be very detail-oriented. (One thing I did notice in this vein is that "Since 1945" is a full section rather than a subsection under "History.")

On the whole, this is an excellent article, informative and interesting. I would recommend a peer review as the next step. Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work. Shimeru 21:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the article is not objective. I have asked for review. Exact reasons explaining the view are stated. Xixaxu 11 April 2007

Objectivity

Darwinek - you may wish to check what Krzysztof Szelong writes on assimilation of the autochton Poles and immigrants from Galicia (in: Těšínsko, vlastivědný časopis, číslo 1, 2001). In my view, you simply ignore the involvement of germanisation (next to the issue of Silesians, which is not covered by you at all and the only reference added was deleted by you). Why it is not possible to mention this as an alternative view?

In the same source, you may wish to check the contribution against Czech extremist views by Mečislav Borák (the author references to whom you have deleted from the text - the relevant part in Gabal was written by Mečislav Borák).

You may also wish to check "Československé Slezsko mezi světovými válkami 1918-1938" by Marie Gawrecka (Opava 2004). If you do, you will find a source (which quotes many Polish sources) confirming many of the amendments I made and you deleted.

Please try to be reasonable. Yes, I am not Pole and I do not live in Zaolzie. But that is not my fault and, after all, why should it matter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xixaxu (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

As for Mr. Szelong and Mr. Borák, I know them personally and can discuss that matter with them. You are right Germanisation is not covered in the article. It affected all Slavic nations living in this territory. As for the "Silesians", they were ethnically Poles, although they refused to admit that and even their contemporary neighbours treated them like traitors. I can quote Mr. Dan Gawrecki (relative of Gawrecka you have mentioned), in the matter of "Silesians". P.S. It matters you are not from Cieszyn Silesia, as you can never fully understand the complicated history of this region without feeling it and experiencing it. That's why the best historians dealing with the region's history are from this region. - Darwinek 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reply re Silesians is disappointing. Silesians have the right to think of themselves as Silesians and not as Poles or Czechs or Germans. Americans have the right to think of themselves as Americans, despite of being of Polish, Czech, German, Chinese or any other origin. Australians do too, as well as New Zealanders, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Afghans (refusing to admit they are Tajik, Uzbek, Pashto, Hazar, ...?!), etc., etc. No national agenda can take that away from them. If something along the lines of "The so called "Silesians" are Poles, even though they refuse to admit that." is added to the article, it should be deleted.

I think it was Stalin who said never look at what is being said but always look at who is saying it. But that is wrong approach on Wikipedia. Are you biased simply because you are Pole living in Zaolzie? Of course not!

Also, we talk facts here. For example, the agreement between the two national councils in 1918 was interim, no matter how you feel about it. Check its text.

--Xixaxu 10:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the "Silesians" they were not a nation. It is not the same case as in the Opole and surrounding region. Cieszyn Silesia "Silesians" was an artificially created group by several people who wanted to gain some advantages of it, it was a purely instrumentalist move. And by the way, most of them hailed from the Polish part of Cieszyn Silesia (from today's view). If you have Polish, Czech or Jewish blood, nobody can change that from day to day. Ask thousands of Czech Jews who were murdered by Nazis during the WWII and weren't aware until WWII they are Jews because of their ancestors' choice to accept Czech identity. There are almost no Silesians in Cieszyn Silesia today because their choice was closely related with the German identity and Germans were expelled after WWII. Check the last census. Many people here feel Silesian but this is a regional affiliation, NOT national. As you can feel Prager or Berliner. I consider myself a Silesian, too, regionally. As for the 1918 agreement, I know it and it is already stated it is interim. You have some serious problems. - Darwinek 16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop your personal attacks, please. I disagree with your "blood" approach which smells, as you fittingly described, of Auschwitz. I am not alone, by the way. Concept of nationality is different in Central Europe than in Western Europe and elsewhere (including, for example, China). It is not stated in the article that the 1918 agreement was interim as you deleted the amendment saying this and inserted reference to interim councils instead. --Xixaxu 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ferdinand Peroutka

I strongly disagree with Darwinek's assessment of Budování státu as biased work written at the time when national tensions between Poles and Czechs were culminating. The assessment is simply incorrect.

Ferdinand Peroutka (check Wikipedia) was a respectable Czech journalist, who emigrated to the West (England and then further to the United States) after the communist takeover in Czechoslovakia. He was the first head of Czech broadcast of the Radio Free Europe and one of the main figures of Czech anti-communist resistance.

The monumental four volume Budování státu ("Creation of the state") is Peroutka's pivotal work. Its publication started in 1932, more than 10 years after Zaolzie became part of Czechoslovakia.

Budování státu is regularly used, quoted and appreciated by (at least) Czech scholars. Its re-editions are published even in this century and by respectable authorities such as the Czech Academy of Sciences.

If you read the work (and I suggest you do, as it is really interesting), you will find that he is as critical to Czechs as to any other nation and, above all, his conclusions are based on evidence.

Despite of the above, I removed Budování státu as the primary source quoted in this article and replaced it by recent works (who, because the above, use Budování státu as one of their sources). I do not want to start any silly edition war or to tease anyone.

On the other hand, I cannot accept deletion of some of the information I added to the article. In my view, information by non-Polish authors must also be included for the article to be objective (before my editions apparently all sources were works of Polish authors only).

Xixaxu 10 April 2007

To Darwinek: I have read your personal message to me. I will not reply to this message and I will not add any further amendment to the article. It is pointless. Apparently you are too captured in your patriotic feelings to comprehend what my additions tried to achieve. Your article is not objective. Xixaxu 10 April 2007

If it is now part of Czechia, why does it use the Polish name?

Because it has a major Polish population and Czechs don't even know there is something like Zaolzie. - Darwinek 12:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reliability of Ferdinand Peroutka would be best discuss on his discussion page, and with proper references to back up one's claims. Although I am not a specialist of history of that region, it appears to me that refs added by Xixxu are reliable (Kovtun, Peroutka). They would need to be verified, and their claims are rather controversial - for example, 'demonstrations of Czech and German national indentity were prohibited' seems strange, considering that German minority for example had its own political parties (Blok Mniejszości Narodowych in 1920s, Jungdeutsche Partei in Polen (Partia Młodoniemiecka w Polsce in 1930s)) and a list of other German organizations in Second Polish Republic is pretty long: Związek Niemczyzny dla Ochrony Praw Mniejszości w Polsce (1921-23), Niemiecka Socjaldemokratyczna Partia w Poznańskiem i na Pomorzu (1920-33), Zjednoczenie Niemieckie w Sejmie i Senacie dla Poznańskiego, Okręgu Noteci i Pomorza (1924-33), Niemieckie Zjednoczenie w Poznańskiem i na Pomorzu (1934-39), Związek Niemców w Polsce (1921-23), Niemiecka Socjalistyczna Partia Pracy w Polsce (1925-39), Niemiecki Związek Ludowy na Polskim Śląsku (1921-39), Partia Niemiecka (1922-34), Niemiecka Chrześcijańska Partia Ludowa (1934-39), Niemiecka Partia Socjaldemokratyczna (1922-25)... I'd strongly suggest discussing each of the additions here, and referencing it with other sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus - let's discuss, be fair and not use ad hominem arguments (yes Darwinek, I do not live in Zaolzie but that does not mean all I say is wrong). Please note that the addition of 'demonstrations of Czech and German national indentity were prohibited' is not a quote from Kovtun or Peroutka but from Gabal (who, in turn, quotes for example Zahradnik as one of his sources). Also, the addition refers to period after the area was annexed by Poland (i.e. 1938). Xixaxu 11 April 2007

Dont worry Xixaxu, about Darwinek and his "if you aren´t from Zaolzie, you are wrong talk about Zaolzie". For him I´m bad, because I´m from Silesian/Moravian border (and of course, i don´t agree with him about Tešín. Darwinek normally use ad hominem attacks Yopie 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

GA status under review at WP:GA/R

The GA status of Zaolzie is under review at WP:GA/R, for possible delisting. --Ling.Nut 12:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with delisting for NPOV. Yopie 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Watt

Why do some people keep on deleting parts of this article based on a book by Richard Watt? If you claim he is wrong, come up with you own arguments instead of deleting. I see no reason not to believe him, he wrote the book in an objective way, and he is not Polish. Or perhaps some of you are afraid of the truth?

Tymek 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the exact point. For some people (you can guess which) the truth is still uncomfortable. - Darwinek 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. First explain on talk why the text is being removed; than remove it if there is consensus.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with Watt being quoted here, provided other authors who have different view are also quoted. So far, quotations of these authors (including Polish authors such as Chlebowczyk and Kosiński) were deleted. No one bothered to explain why. Check history of this page. What is the problem with Gabal, Kovtun, Mamatey or Gawronská? In another words, you delete views you do not like, I delete your unilateral view. You let other views being quoted, I have no reason to delete any unilateral views.--Xixaxu 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"... P.S. It matters you are not from Cieszyn Silesia, as you can never fully understand the complicated history of this region without feeling it and experiencing it. That's why the best historians dealing with the region's history are from this region. - Darwinek 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"

What is please Watt's connection with Cieszyn Silesia, Darwinek?

--Xixaxu 10:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Review and edits by Piotrus

I have reread the article. Quite a few facts need references; otherwise they can be disputed by either side. I restored several facts by Xixaxu that seem uncontroversial, but many of his changes are either unreferences (really, inserting claims that Polish authorities behaved bad w/out refs everywhere there are mentioned is just lame) or highly controversial and need to be properly discussed here. Some stuff may be split to Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts (which is not very well linked from this article, btw).; actually splitting a good part of the article into History of Zaolzie - particulary the controversial bits - and leaving uncontroversial summary-compromise is probably a good idea. Finally, this article seems to be concentrated on demographic/ethnographic history of Zaolzie, but it sais nothing or little about infrastructure, economics, culture and other issues that would make it comprehensive. There is much work to be done to make it really fullproof GA.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent amendments to the article. They are helpful. Note that controversial statements I have inserted were always supported by reference. I have added the controversial statements as a reaction to controversial statements already existing in the article and which I was unable to delete or amend (as all such attempts for amendment or deletion were, without explanation, reverted). If strong views are presented, plurality of views must be established.--Xixaxu 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If plurality of views is to be established, provide your version of the 1919-1920 events, instead of deleting what's been added. I would be more than happy to get to know a factual, truthful Czech version of how they gained control over Zaolzie. Tymek 19:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you do not like Czechs, Tymek. Was that the reason for adding Watt and his "insight into methods used by Czechs"?--Xixaxu 09:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for adding him was simple - no other historian I know has described these events so accurately. About liking Czechs - well, what makes you think so? I meet them on a daily basis, know a lot of them and they are OK. There is no other nation as close to Poles as the Czechs. Tymek 13:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Presumably you, together with Watt, also took part on the dinner with Beneš, where he, between having the main course and the desert "triumphantly succeeded to dupe the Poles". :) --Xixaxu 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir! If you disagree with Watt's description of these events, please come up with a documented version of what happened then. Please stop making a fool of yourself, I thought I was talking to an intelligent person. Tymek 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how documented Watt's version is. For example:

1. Watt simply ignores the interim nature of the agreement between the two national councils, which was expressed even in the text of the agreement and is clearly supported by the two declarations preceding the agreement. Instead, he writes that "Nobody objected to this friendly agreement.".

2. Judging from your quotations, Watt is silent on the main reason of Czech invasion (which were the polls to Sejm organised in the area by Poles - this fact is acknowledged by Polish sources also). Instead, he writes that "... the Czechs cooked up a tale of that the Teschen area was becoming Bolshevik ...". (By the way, do you know how the social structure of Poles living in Cieszyn Silesia looked like and for which political parties Poles in Zaolzie voted in Czechoslovak polls after 1920?)

3. Watt does not mention that it was the Polish side who came up with the plebiscit idea first. The Czech side accepted the idea only after being convinced that Silesians and Germans will support the whole Cieszyn Silesia becoming part of Czechoslovakia instead of Poland.

At any event, thanks for encouraging me to quote different documented accounts of the events. Did not feel like it after having most of my additions reverted by Darwinek. Thanks to you now I do now feel like it and will do it. Hopefully you will then defend any attempts to revert these amendments.

--Xixaxu 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not read Watt myself, but he is not contradicting other facts, just the parts quoted by him are describing different aspects. Czechs real motive may have been to disrupt the polls, but what they officially said was that they were acting to prevent Bolsheviks from taking over. Watt doesn't deny that the agreement was interim or that the Poles wanted the plebiscite. does he?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think the quotation "Nobody objected to this friendly agreement." is not in contradiction to the interim nature of the agreement and the friction existing at that time? Also, in my reading of what is quoted Watt says it was Beneš who came up with the plebiscite idea ("Then something unusual happened - Czech envoy Edvard Beneš proposed a plebiscite."), which is not true. In relation to "what they officially said", do you have any specific declaration or any other instrument in mind pls?--Xixaxu 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No chance Xixaxu :). Peroutka and other persons from interwar period (even quoted) won't be allowed in this article. Same attitude should be taken in the case of Armenian Genocide article and many others and there will be no problems (lasting several years) with that articles. - Darwinek 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. So you will delete the Dąbrowski quotation, right?--Xixaxu 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (Auschwitz, Armenian Genocide, what will you come up with next? War against terrorism, Greenhouse Effect?)

Why person from interwar period are not allowed? And who are you Darwinek, that you "allow" and "not allow" some serious sources. Are you owner of Wikipedia, or "Lord of True History"? Yopie 19:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I added some more info from Watt's book. I hope that Xixaxu now changed his mind. Watt is not a partisan, pro-Polish historian. This is why it is worth mentioning him in the article, as the question of Zaolzie seems to have been missed by other Western historians Tymek 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The question of Zaolzie was not missed by other Western historians. However, not all write in such an exciting style. Maybe that is because the other Western historians are university professors and not businessmen and bestseller writers. (Richard M. Watt urodził się w 1930 roku. W 1952 ukończył studia na Dartmouth College, a następnie przez trzy lata służył w marynarce wojennej Stanów Zjednoczonych jako oficer artylerii na niszczycielu. Po zakończeniu służby związał się z firmą z branży chemicznej, a obecnie jest jej prezesem.)Bitter Glory Polish web page--Xixaxu 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If other Western historians wrote about it, please find sources and put them down. Tymek 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mamatey is not a Western historian? Is that because his father was Slovak? At any event, Norman Davies (who himself is accused of being a Polonophile in presenting conflicts of Poles with their neighbours) writes about the book of Richard M. Watt you quote that "Książka ta wielce się przysłużyła sprawie reputacji Polski, a dla wszystkich Polaków będzie bardzo potrzebnym lekarstwem na zranioną dumę.". Also, Norman Davies writes that Richard M. Watt "... jest biznesmenem, nie zaś historykiem ....". So, is Richard M. Watt really a respected, unbiased and well educated Western historian? Judging from some of your quotations "Nobody objected to this friendly arrangement." or "Then something unusual happened - Czech envoy Edvard Beneš proposed a plebiscite. The Allies were shocked ...", "Over the dinner table, Beneš convinced the British and French that the plebiscite should not be held and that the Allies should simply impose their own decision in the Teschen matter. More than that, Beneš persuaded the French and the British to draw a frontier line that gave Czechoslovakia most of the territory of Teschen, the vital railroad and all the important coal fields." or "By giving the impression that the Czechs would accept a settlement favorable to the Poles without a plebiscite, Beneš got the Poles to sign an agreement that Poland would abide by any Allied decision regarding Teschen.", I do not think so.--Xixaxu 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know anything about Mamatey, it doesn't matter if his father was Slovak or Tibetan. Anyway, I am feeling like I am talking to a brick wall. Since you do not like Watt, please DENY his words using referenced sources. If things about Benes and his involvement in Spa looked different that Watt claims, please come up. I did not even want to search for Davies, since I had justly taken for granted what you wrote above. If you do not think so, find sources that deny these words. Tymek 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for a rewritting

• Copy the article to History of Zaolzie. Summarize here without unncessary controversial details.
• Merge to off 1918-1920 conflict to Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts, leave only a summarized version in History of Zaolzie
• Expand this article with sections on geography, economy, politics, culture, etc.

What do you say?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems interesting but I would propose that in the future, when the article itself will be more complex with info about culture, geography etc. Nowadays it is de facto only a historical account, so it is no need to split it, for now. - Darwinek 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all the above suggestions of Piotrus. In my view, they make sense.--Xixaxu 07:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review

The GA review period for this article expired after no comments other than a keep and watch result leading 3-0, minus the nominator. The result was no consensus, thusly kept by default. Just FYI. IvoShandor 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Only today I was able to read the summary presented by Piotrus on the GA review page. (My mistake I did not do that earlier.) The summary is wrong. Here is why:

- First of all, I tried to discuss all of the issues on talk page of the article. However, the other side (Darwinek) responded only on my talk page and only in Czech. If you speak Czech, check the responses and the accusations of polonophobia and claims that it is high time I leave Wikipedia. Following that, I naively replied to him on his talk page (you can check that also, and, by the way, the replies are in English).

- It is not true that I have inserted highly controversial, anti-Polish remarks supported by sources reliability of which was disputed on talk page of the article. If anyone disagrees, I would very much like to read one single example of any such remark. (Perhaps Piotrus means "[The behaviour of the new Polish authorities was similar] (but obviously worse, as all demonstrations of Czech and German national indentity were prohibited)"? Or maybe "However, the approach of Czechoslovak authorities cannot be described as systematic persecution aimed at liquidation of the Polish minority, as described in Polish propaganda at that time."? All of these were added to counterbalance what was written in the article and reliability of their source was never disputed.)

- What is controversial on and why was deleted "Other Polish sources (Chlebowczyk or Kozeński) are less resolute and claim that Czech authorities exerted pressure to speed up the assimilation processes rather than enforced Czechisation. However, there can be no doubt that local Poles assimilated into the Czech population at that time."?

- Reliability of one source I used (Ferdinand Peroutka and his Budování státu) was disputed on the grounds that it was written in the period of heightened nationalism and that the author is biased. I have started discussion on this (see talk page of the article) as I believe these grounds are wrong. The only thing which happened was that I was told by Piotrus that the discussion does not belong here but to the Ferdinand Peroutka talk page. No one bothered to discuss with me whether Peroutka is or is not biased.

- By the way, with respect to using Peroutka, what is controversial on and why was deleted "Czechs tried to revert the [population] decline [in the area before 1918] but were not successful. Reflecting the change of ethnic boundaries, in 1908 Czech national organisation Matice osvěty lidové moved from Těšín to Ostrava and Czech newspapers moved from Těšín to Frýdek. The decline is also reflected in works of Petr Bezruč, local Czech poet."?

I would strongly recommend everyone to check the history of this article and the talk page to it and to make their own judgement.--Xixaxu 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Initialy part of ...

Dear Darwinek, you too use old references (eg.Elizabeth Lucretia, Duchess of Teschen and "Těšínsko tvořilo původně součást území kmene Holasoviců a patřilo s ním do Moravy" (Tesin initially was part of region of Holasic tribe and with it was part of Moravia) is what I say. In article itself is Zaolzie defined as part of Tesin. Yopie 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in archived talk page I cannot found anything about consensus about old sources. Yopie 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Could you guys expand on this - initially a part of Poland - since when, exactly? The 9th-10th century Moravian ref ([1]) - how reliable is it? Can we find better, more reliable refs in English for those claims? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• To Yopie: We've reached that consensus with Xixaxu and Piotrus and I recommend you to join us, friend. It is really better for mutual good, it avoids nationalist and often non-precise old information from both sides. Remember that both sides fabricated (překrucovali, přibarvovali) facts.
• To both: No rush, no worries. There were written hundreds books about Cieszyn Silesia, Czech and Polish. Some historical magazines about this region still appears in both languages. It is really no problem to find any information. I don't think it should be in English, as literature in this language is scarce. I believe Yopie or me will find that info sooner or later. No worries.

--Darwinek (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Zaolzie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Just a few minor issues with this generally excellent article:

• There is a request for citation apparently dating back to April 2007 in the second paragraph of Part of Poland (1938–1939).

• Dates are not handled consistently. Sometimes they're given autoformatted in the American style [[October 1]] [[1938]], sometimes they're autoformatted in the international style [[31 October]] [[1918]], and sometimes they're not autoformatted at all. I'd suggest removing all the date autoformatting, but if the American style is going to be preferred for this article then there should also be a comma between the day number and the year, as in October 1, 1938.

• The article needs to decide whether to use American English spelling (as in center), or British English spelling (as in behaviour).

• "Poles became a minority, which they are to this day." Presumably this means as at 2008? Need to be careful about making undated statements like that.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All issues solved. I just don't know how to reformat the sentence you mention, if the change is really needed. - Darwinek (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• • "... to this day" needs to be clarified. Who said so, when did they say it?

• • There are too many long quotes that need to be paraphrased. Victor S. Mamatey, for instance, is almost entirely made up of two long quotations.

• • Where does the quotation in the first paragraph of Richard M. Watt end?

• • If the transcluded {{Borders of Poland}} template is to appear in the lead then it must be right-aligned and integrated into the text.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a non-controversial statement. Just see the [[Polish minority in Zaolzie]] wiki article. It is dumb to use "as of 2008" form. The minority will be there every next year, it will not disappear in the moment.

Borders of Poland is used correctly. I don't see a problem with it.

I will look at the quotes though. - Darwinek (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the Mamatey ones, as this was quite simple. Problem with Watt is I fear losing some of the information by restructuring his quotes, as they are quite specific. Do you have any ideas? - Darwinek (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the restructuring you've done, so the Watt quotation can be left now as far as I'm concerned.

Please see Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Borders of Poland should appear on the righthand side of the page, as in History of China. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the {{History of China}} template? - Darwinek (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean that template as it appears in the History of China article, right-aligned, yes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Borders of Poland template always appeared and still appears on the top right side of the text. - Darwinek (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised why we've been talking at cross-purposes about this Borders of Poland template. I've just upgraded to the latest version of Firefox, 3.0.1, and it looks fine now, so apparently the centred template I was seeing was down to a bug in Firefox. Thanks for the work you've done on this article; I've closed the review now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Interwikis

Articles in different languages are different, so the problem which Inerwikilinks are right or wrong is quite complicated. This "Zaolzie" article has questionable Polish name and discusses the Polish-Czech conflict. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not complicated, because (as you pointed out) the articles in different languages are quite different. The name of the article is not questionable, it has Czech (Záolží, Záolší) and German (Olsa-Gebiet) equivalents. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the Polish-Czech conflict. The title is Polish and this is English Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

de:Olsagebiet is almost exclusively about the conflict. The Czech Záolží, Záolší is used in texts about Poles in the area, it's not a Czech name of the area, because it would be Predolží.Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't mess with issues you aren't apparently familiar with, as you still do in many areas which can be seen continuously at the Polish noticeboard. You don't know this area and its problematic. Moreover, you can't speak and write Czech. :) - Darwinek (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a time and would read some Czech books, it will be just fine. By the way, how many Czech books about this area have you read? None? That's what I thought. In the meantime you may borrow these books and see the use of Zaolší/Zaolží terms.

Josef Falta: Přes fronty a přes hranice: listy z války a z emigrace, p. 49

Mořic Hruban: Z časů nedlouho zašlých: Vzpomínky Mořice Hrubana, p. 294

Václav Král: Otázky hospodářského a sociálního vývoje v českých zemích v letech 1938-1945: v letech : 1938-1945, p. 121

Fridolín Šlachta: Těšínsko: jeho první a druhé dělení, p. 63

Jaroslav Valenta, Emil Voráček, Josef Harna: Československo 1918-1938: osudy demokracie ve střední Evropě : sborník mezinárodní vědecké konference v Praze, 5.-8. října 1998, p. 628

Et cetera, et cetera. - Darwinek (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the books. I have read however

• the Czech Wikipedia:

Východní část české části Těšínska je od rozdělení Těšínska v roce 1920 Poláky běžně nazývána Zaolzie [zaolžje] (tedy Zaolší, viděno směrem z Polska). Východní část československého Těšínska začala být Poláky nazývána „Zaolzie“ (Zaolší - oblast za řekou Olší, viděno směrem z Polska).

• The Polish Wikipedia says: potoczna, używana głównie w Polsce nazwa terenu na Śląsku Cieszyńskim.

• Kaczmarek, Nowak: od pewnego czasu polskie pojęcie „Zaolzia” jest akceptowane przez stronę czeską (niekiedy jako „Zaolší”, „Zaolzí”) i wyodręb­niane z terminu „Cieszyńskie” (Teschener Land / Tešínsko), zwłaszcza przez historyków. (but this article is allegedly about the area, not about the 20 century conflicts)

The main problem is however this article. It's mainly about the Polish-Czech conflict about the area, rather than about the area. You impose your opinion that my Interwiki is wrong. Let other editors decide. Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

POV

Since it is apparently evil now to post POV-section tags on obviously unbalanced statements without a corresponding talk section, here it is. "Decision time (1918-1920)", besides the media-esque title is a horribly POV-ed section. A large portion of it is occupied by a preposterously biased 'historian', the thoughts of whom are presented as facts, and the entire section suffers from one-sided bias even outside the quotes. It needs to be made (far) clearer that this is the opinion of an historian (one who I find unlikely to not have been discredited by now), much of it is disputed and the tone of the entire section needs a good scrub to remove the horrendous nationalistic slant. Now that I think of it, is it not awful practice to split the history section into the views of separate historians? It should be merged, and the claims of Watt clearly balanced with the views of an actual historian, or actual, sourced, facts. Final thought, is it Watt or Watts? The ref states 'Watts' but the section header 'Watt'. Whilst I doubt I will have the time to do this personally at this very moment, you can be assured I will not be letting this slip. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Watt seems to be not a 100%-profession-clear historian. His views may be viewed by you as nationalistic but they are not. Same views are presented by other historians (from Poland mainly), so this is a valid view. Article has currently GA status, which has been maintained by recent review by neutral user. No one during the whole time never questioned the neutrality of this section. It is only another view, man. The section name and the whole "view by ..." style is ok. POV tag would be appropriate in situation when Watt's text would be the sole view under history section, which is not the case. - Darwinek (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Allies were shocked ... a lot could happen in that time – particularly when a nation's affairs were conducted as cleverly as were Czechoslovakia's ... It was obvious that a country so desperate as Poland would accept any dictate of the Allies. And this was the moment Beneš had been waiting for. ... The Cieszyn Silesia affair was indeed a tragedy. ... And eventually that day did come." - that is not even text from within quotes, that is full-on article text. Shocking. Is this section meant to be an historical account or a thrilling tale of romance, political intrigue and down-on-their-luck inner-city kids, chasing a pocketful of dreams? This needs a serious balanced rewrite, even if the opinions of Watt (or is it Watts? See Zaolzie#References) are preserved. It could also use a trim, quite a lot of it is minute detail and long-winded subjective babbling. Shame I can't get my hands on this book (searched almost all libraries on the Aussie east coast) and rewrite it myself. We obviously need to strive for a more balanced analysis of this man's comments. PS: I am somewhat shocked this article has been given GA status, how long ago was this? With the current state of the article, mainly the history section and the mass of red links I think a re-evaluation may be advisable. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, please. The "Czech POV" forced by Czech educational system is not the only one in the world. Watt's views are eligible and valid. He's got many good points, although he writes often in journalist style, that's true. Nonetheless idea of rewriting someone else's book is not appropriate, to say it mildly. The article itself was born in pain but was promoted to GA status long time ago and several weeks ago the status was confirmed, although it was pointed out that the Watt and Mamatey sections are troublesome (but not by content but by format). - Darwinek (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am calm, I just greatly enjoy using sarcasm. :) I have not studied history in a Czech school (and even if I have, what exactly makes the Polish POV any better?), and I completely agree Watt's views are valid, I would not have the article without him. My problem is with 'format' as you put it. It needs to be clearly and repeatedly stated that these are the views of Watt, and the journalistic style needs to be removed from anywhere outside the quotations. As it stands that section is horrendously unprofessional. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know each other, I know you love sarcasm, I just have problems sometimes to recognize sarcasm when people are sarcastic. :) Agree with you about the need of format editing in this section. It must be clear what is cited and what is not. - Darwinek (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I keep forgetting my sort of humour rarely translates to the screen very well. I am glad we have found a place to work from on this. I'll try and have a look at offering my (hopefully balanced) rewrite of the section sometime on the weekend. Unfortunately I can't promise anything, I'm ridiculously busy (I really ought to keep deadlines rather than inundate myself in work at the very last second :( ). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's better than before. - Darwinek (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Crucial ommission

The article seems to omit the fact, that it was Benes who proposed after Munich giving Zaolzie to Poland - Beck's ultimatum was only about time. Are any reasons for this ommission? Szopen (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is unsourced nonsense, for one? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hexagon, why you said it's nonsense? Benesz proposed change of borders BEFORE MUNICH (this is the only thing I was wrong, before, not after). Quitecommon knowledge amongst anyone who is interested in the topic. Szopen (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No reasons. If you can find academic sources, it would be great. - Darwinek (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. Polish books would be enough? E.g. "Middle European confederation" by Kisielewski? Before I will write down the bibliography, here are internet LINK

This below I do not treat as a valid source, I provide the links only because I believe most editors here understand Polish and won't think this is fantasy I created out of thin air.

E.g. here: http://www.zaolzie.org/zaolziearchiwum/biuletyn1/Biuletyn20040123.htm

BENESZ proposed change of borders before MUNCHEN:

"W dniu 22.9.1938, a więc na cały tydzień przed „Monachium” – czyli dyktatem monachijskim Benesz pisał do Mościckiego:

... „Przedkładam ... w imieniu ... Państwa Czechosłowackiego ... propozycje ... wyrównania ... problemu polskiej ludności w Czechosłowacji. Pragnąłbym ułożyć tę sprawę na płaszczyźnie zasady rektyfikacji granic.”

Czeski minister spraw zagranicznych Krofta do polskiego ambasadora Papée 30.9.1938 (w dzień po „Monachium”):

„Zapoznałem się z treścią noty z 27 września, w której Wasza Ekscelencja proponuje ... zawarcie ... umowy, normującej ... sprawę terytorium, zamieszkałego przez ludność narodowości polskiej . .. Rząd Czechosłowacki chciałby podkreślić, że chodzi tu o akt dobrej woli wynikający z jego własnej inicjatywy i własnej decyzji....”

„Zostałaby ... utworzona ... komisja polsko-czechosłowacka.. Komisja ta uformowałaby kwestię ... przesiedlenia .. ludności...”

...Zostałby ustalony termin, w którym powinno nastąpić przejęcie terenów.... przejęcie terenu mogłoby nastąpić najwcześniej 31 października, a najpóźniej 1 grudnia” (1938 r.!)."

Here we have the same from quite other point of view, from pro-communist NIE newspaper:

http://www.nie.com.pl/art10872.htm

25 września Rząd czechosłowacki, w odpowiedzi na polską notę z 21 września, odpowiada koncyliacyjnie, proponując podjęcie "przyjaznych rokowań na wszelkie tematy". Wręczając notę, minister spraw zagranicznych, Kamil Krofta, wyraził gotowość korekty (rektyfikacji) granic. Prosił jednakże o powstrzymanie się od narzucania rozwiązania w momencie, kiedy strona czeska znajduje się w trudnej sytuacji i traktowanie problemu niezależnie od kwestii sudeckiej, czyli bez współdziałania z Niemcami. Z taką samą propozycją zwrócił się tegoż dnia prezydent Czechosłowacji, Edward Benesz, w osobistym liście do Ignacego Mościckiego.

30 września Rząd czechosłowacki, w odpowiedzi na polską notę z 27, uroczyście potwierdza swoją zgodę na rektyfikację granicy i przekazanie odpowiednich terenów Polsce. Proponuje jednakże ­ w zgodzie z załącznikiem do umowy monachijskiej ­ opracowanie zasady nowego podziału Zaolzia przez wspólną komisję. Polskie MSZ niezwłocznie ogłasza komunikat, uznający stanowisko rządu Czechosłowacji za niezadowalające.

The difference in dates (22.9 vs 25.9) is the difference between when the letter was written (22.9) and when it was given to Moscicki (25.9). Yes, this is not mistake. It lasted three days before this letter was given to Moscicki. The whole letter can be find via google, e.g. here: http://forum.historia.org.pl/viewtopic.php?t=3908&start=15&sid=563945445901e698c82c6757ad459a3f

Oh, that clarifies everything. I gave a shot to reading it but I do not feel confident in my understanding of it, translations please. Also, if this is a book as reliable as Mr. Watt there, then inclusion of any of its assertions will be contested. You need to be able to find a number of different, independent sources on this, as I see it as highly dubious. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Hexagon1. Sources are dubious and as I understand, proposed change of borders was not explicitly about "Zaolzie". Correctures of borders are common and are mainly about exchange of few meters. So is dubious about exact meaning of letters.--Yopie 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation of Benesz letters, translation mine. At yopie: Zaolzie was issue between Poles and Czechs and thorn in relations for two decades. "Solving problem of Polish population with border change" cannot be understood otherwise as proposal of giving away the Zaolzie.

In this moment, when fate of whole Europe is in danger, and when two our nations are vitally interested in building lasting fundaments for honest cooperation between our two nations, I am writing to your excellence with this proposal of making friendly relationships and new cooperation between Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Therefore I am giving here in the name of Czechoslovakian state, to your excellence proposal of honest and friendly solution ot our different point of views to matters of problem of Polish populaiton in Czechoslovakia. I would like to solve that issue on principle of border change. Our agreemtn in comon relationships will be of course logical and direct consequence of this agreement. If we will reach the agreement, and I am sure this is possible - I would think about that as about beginning of new era in relationships between our two nations.

I would like to add that as ex minister of foreign affairs and current president of republic, that Czechoslovakia neither now, nor at any time in the past had any treaties and duties, secret or not, whose meaning, goals or intentions would do damage to Polish interests. [..] I would like to make this matter as subject of interest of exclusively our two nations.

Knowing delicacy of our direct relationships and knowing, ashard it was in normal times to repair them using normal diplomatic and political means, I try to use this current crisis to removing obstacles which lasted in past decades for creating of new atmosphere. [...]

Who has access here? http://www.jstor.org/pss/1877555 google gave fragment of sentence which suggested, that the letter of Benes is mentioned there somewhere. Here: THEY BETRAYED CZECHOSLOVAKIA

by G. J. GEORGE http://www.archive.org/stream/theybetrayedczec00georuoft/theybetrayedczec00georuoft_djvu.txt

President Moscicki read President Benes's letter, and sent for his Foreign Minister. A conference took place, in which Marshal Rydz-Smigly also took part. Colonel Beck held firm to his position. Did Czechoslovakia voluntarily offer the Teschen district to Poland? Well and good. But as for coming to a friendly understanding with her and signing a

Szopen (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot make heads or tails of what you just wrote. The translation is fine, it is the rest of your post that baffles me. From the quote it would appear Beneš brought up reconsidering the border arrangements in the region, I do not see any offer of transfering Zaolzie to Poland. Can you clarify the rest of your post please? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaah sorry it seems when copying and pasting from "They betrayed Czechoslovakia" it cutted half of the paragraphs. The crucial point is here that i should clarify that this is not "unsourced nonsense", since it's in book, available in English, in public domain, that "Czechoslovakia voluntarily offered the Teschen district to Poland" (look into this book and search for Teschen, you will see from context that the words used in my quote are exactly in this sense: Benesz offered before Munchen Teschen to Poland, in hope this will be exchange for cooperation Szopen (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Random through: If Beneš´s offer was true, in this point looks Polish occupation of Zaolzie as treason.--Yopie 19:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The book appears to have been published in 1938, I am weary of its veracity as anything more than an editorial, and indeed, the book fails to cite any sources for vital passages, rendering it largely useless as a historical reference. In fact, the author admits this himself: "This book is the work of a journalist, and not of an historian.". The other source, as I said, does not appear definitive at all on the issue, not to mention the obvious questionable neutrality. PS: Yopie, could you please consider linking your name in your sig, or recolouring it somehow perhaps? I am finding it difficult to differentiate between your posts and the others. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Kisielewski Tadeusz, Federacja Środkowo-europejska ISBN 83-205-4400-9 str. 17

"22 September 1938 -- so, two days after this dramatic Czechoslovakian government meeting -- Benes wrote the letter to Ignacy Moscicki, in which he wrote amongst other things: >>I this moment, in which fate of Europe is to be decided [..] I am writing to your excellence with proposal of reestablishing of friendly relationship and new cooperation between Poland and Czechoslovakia. In the name of Czechoslovakian government I therefore propose to your Excellence honest and friendly explanation of regulation of our disagreements in the subject of Polish population in Czechoslovakia. I would want to solve this using the principle of border change<< Of course it was about changing border on Teschen Silesia. "

str 18. "Moscicki answered Benes 27 September >> I am totally sharing your Excellence opinion, that relationships between our countries could be improved only if serious and effective decsion would be quickly undertaken. I am also of opinion, that in this moment in the foreground we have only the case of territorial question, which for almost 20 years made impossible improval of atmosphere between our countries <<". In the same 27 september Polish embassy chef, Kazimierz Papee gave a note to Czechoslovakian minister of foreign affairs, Kamil Krofta, in which it was demanded to >>immedietely giving Poland territories inhabited in majority by Polish population [..] because of the demand of the moment, the territories mentioned in point 2 will be taken over by Polish army<<". Such way of handling of this case was not according to the minds of Czechoslovakian side, and in the same time Polish goverment was affraid that Germany will be involved. In the answer in 30 September Krofta proposed: >>Czechoslovakian wants to underline with its whole behaviour, that this is act of its free will and its own initiative, from its own decision. It treats its as very important for relationships between our nations and states in the future<<. Czechoslovakian government didn't want to make impression, that the decision was effect of Polish pushing. In the same time, Czechoslovakian gave Polish government the most solemn guarantees, that >>there will be change of the borders and in the result giving back territories, which will be decided by this agreement, no matter what will be international situation. Republic of Czechoslovakia is ready to give declarations to Great Britain and France, and to accept those two states as guarantees of this decision<<. "

Paweł Wieczorkiewicz, Ostatnie Lata Polski Niepodległej ISBN 83-03-03222-4 str 59

"The further situation pressed Warsaw to pursue case of discrimination of POlish population in official note in 21 september. The answer came 5 days later [actually, 27 September, 5 days after the answer was dated] -- the border changes were proposed"

Szopen (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, this editorial source talks about "border change". It was the Poles who demanded the entire area back, I see no mention of Czechoslovakia offering Zaolzie back to Poland. Had the Czechoslovak proposal been accepted what would have followed would have been months of negotiation over the border adjustment so that it is satisfactory for both parties (which may have never happened), not 'Whooptie-doo, here's the keys.'. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hexagon, seems you haven't read it. Polish side demanded "solving the problems of discrimination", Benes proposed "solving the problem USING THE PRINCIPLE OF BORDER CHANGE". Taking the context into the account, you cannot understand it other way than giving back at least large part of Zaolzie. The problems between Poland and Czechoslovakia, which were to be solved, was exactly Zaolzie issue. Second, Czechs underlined that >>there will be

change of the borders and in the result giving back territories, which will be decided by this agreement, no matter what will be international situation<<, see it? GIVING BACK TERRITORIES. Szopen (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing up editorial journalism with historiography. There is a difference. In historiography there is no word like 'obviously' and no such concept. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hexagon, forgot "czechoslovakia betrayed", because it is not my source, I brought it only in the meantime to show you I have not created the phrase out of thin air. The sources I brought and quoted in my edits are historical works; Czechoslovakian minister of foreign affairs wrote clearly that "territories will be given back no matter the situation", in answer to Polish memo demanding giving back Zaolzie. This is almost exact his clear words - do you think this is journalism, foreign minister of Czechoslovakia is journalist? Also, in my edits all I did was only QUOTING Benes and Krofta. I don't even wrote that they were writing about Zaolzie! I wrote exaclty what Benes and Krofta wrote: that problem will be solved by principle of border change and that they will give back the territories! (I even changed "giving back" to "giving", to be more NPOV).

Simply tell me what from what I wrote in Zaolzie page was false:

"21 September 1938 Poland issued official note to Czechoslovakian government, demanding solving the problem of discrimination of Polish population in Zaolzie."

True?

"President Edvard Beneš answered in the letter signed 22 September, writing that he is ready to solve this problem using the privinciple of border change, in hope of future cooperation and improval of relationship between Poland and Czechoslovakia[36]"

Exact quote from the source, I am not even writing that he "proposed giving back Zaolzie"

"The delivery of the letter was however delayed for few days, because Czechoslovakian government hoped that the pressure from Soviet Union will force Poles to abandon their claims."

This is the opinion from both of the sources, but this is not my opinion, but of the historians quoted. Note letter was signed 22nd, given to Mosciski 25th

"Indeed USSR notified Polish government that Soviet Union will treat any step against Czechoslovakia as aggression and will act accordingly."

True, easy to check in google

"Beck answered this note in very aggressive tone"

Beck wrote "Polish government knows what treaties it signed"

"after that, at September 25th Beneš letter was finally delivered to president Moscicki."

True?

"In successive days Poles demanded the cessation of whole Zaolzie to Poland."

True.

"At september 27th Czechoslovakia answered that it is ready for border change and giving territories to Poland, no matter what will be resulting international situation. However, Czechoslovakian government wanted to stress that it will be result of it's free will and not result of the pressure."

Almost exact quote from Krofta official memo to Poland. (Actually, Krofta wrote more, but I had no whole memo in my books; on the internet you can find that he proposed solving the issue at soonest at 21.X and the latest at 1.XII 1938, he proposed also the moving Czechs out of territories which willbe returned to Poland amd moving Poles from territories which still would be in Czechoslovakia). Actually, I might wrong here - it could be 30th September, not 27th, but still before olish ultimatum.

Those quotes are from the book written by historian, from "Federacja Srodkowoeuropejska by Kisielewski. Also, not exact quotes but passages confirming the sense of those memo exchange was in quoted Wieczorkiewicz book. Also historian. It seems to me you simply reverted me without any paying any attention to the books and passages quoted. Szopen (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Because Hexagon is, I assume, Czech, I hope he will understood the text of the Krofta Memo in Polish. Unfortunately, the whole text may be find only on different internet sites, In books I have only fragments. Look here (Benes-Moscicki-Krofta exchange): http://www.1939.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6327&highlight=&sid=6d5971ca45714e6e55fd3a7fbc494957

Parts of your analysis rely on sources the veracity of which I find dubious at best. Try and scale it down to very well established fact. There is some salvageable truth in what you say, but most of it is so clouded in opinionated references and irrelevant details it is hard to keep track. Also, please try to keep your replies contiguous and for god's sake stop edit warring before the discussion finishes. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hexagon, I use as sources Kisielewski mostly plus some others. I don't know why you found them dubious. I provide internet sources only for your ease. Second, 1) BE BOLD this was always wikipedia policy 2) You reverted my edits without explaining what was wrong with them 3) I find it offensive that you called my edits "vandalism" -- please explain why it was vandalism 4) I do not edit warring. I discussed changes here, I proposed edits as usual in my practice of wikipedian, adhering to wikipedia principles, and I waited until someone will correct them. You called those edits vandalism and reverted them without answering. Again, WHICH PART of my edits is not true, POVed, vandalism, opinionated etc? For me it seems that I am discussing only with myself, I saw no real arguments against my edits. Proposing changes in talk pages is not mandatory. Wikipedia policy is to edit article and let others correct your changes. Szopen (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to have to put this bluntly: Your sources are either biased or editorial, and ahistorical at best. Be bold applies to your first suggestion, not in the middle of the debate following it, and your revert of my revert suggests you have no wish to return to the talk and wish to begin edit warring. Status quo is preferable during debates, hence the vandalism label (I used a tool which labelled it as such). The fact you haven't yet comprehendended my critique of your edits is entirely your problem, if you find them frivolous, please, adress them. If Wikipedia policy followed what you say we'd have anarchy. You have proposed changes, I contest them (only until you clean them up and preferably source them better), we debate. Do you understand now? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I will be blunt too. You call two Polish _historical_ book ahistorical and biased, because you haven't read them and because you don't like my edits (presumably because they are Polish or what?). My sources are two historical books and you have not explained why you consider those books "ahistorical at best" and "biased". Have you read them? Or do you think the quotes I brought from those two books are biased? Until now, I've seen no valid criticism at all. Just write why exactly you dislike those two books and why do you think they are bad source.

Once again, the links to other sites are not my sources - I have only brought them to show that I have not "made it up from thin air". I am basing my edits solely on those two quoted books. I can scan the relevant pages from the books; That's why I wrote initially about the internet sites etc "This below I do not treat as a valid source, I provide the links only because I believe most editors here understand Polish and won't think this is fantasy I created out of thin air"

I reverted because you reverted my edits without explaining what's wrong with them; surely explanation that "this is journalism" suggested to me that you simply have not read what I wrote. As for you "anarchy" I was editing on wikipedia for years in similar matters: edit -> suggestions of changes -> edit -> edit etc.

What do you exactly dislike with my edits now? I removed all things which were opinions added by historians who wrote the books. I left only summary of letter exchange between Polish and Czech government. Szopen (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It took a while.

The Munich Crisis, 1938: Prelude to World War II Author: Igor Lukes, Erik Goldstein Routledge, 1999 ISBN 0714649953, 9780714649955

http://books.google.pl/books?id=T5hqSh8XUCQC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=teschen+1938+delayed&source=bl&ots=FQfUQHhe3e&sig=W---Pa0lc5a-FmzP6GM_Q4toRHE&hl=pl&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA61,M1

page 61. Basically confirming what I wrote. It says letter was delivered at 26th, not 25th; a mistake, I think. Page 65, there is mentioning of Krofta letter, though only as "answer to Polish note was received... territory will be cede to Poland no later than December 1st" Is this good enough source?

Szopen (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, an actual source. Better than disjointed ramblings and egoism, at least. I have incorporated the source and removed the supplementary nonsense you have inserted. How about this:

importance to the area. On 28 Semptember, Beneš composed a note to the Polish administration offering to reopen the debate surrounding the territorial demarcation in Těšínsko in the interest of mutual relations, but delayed in sending it in hopes of good news from London and Paris, which came only in a limited form. Beneš then turned to Moscow, which begun a partial mobilisation is Belarus and Ukraine and threatened Poland with the dissolution of the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact.<ref>The Munich Crisis, 1938 by Igor Lukes and Erik Goldstein, page 61</ref> Nevertheless, the Polish leader, Colonel

+Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's OK by me. On personal note, here is the summary of the whole discussion from my point of view.

• Initially I asked in maybe a bit agressive tone why there is no mention of Benes offer.
• You answered this is "unsourced nonsense"
• I was offended, as one could expect. I mentioned that I will provide bibs within gew days but in the meantime I showed few links only just to prove this is not fantasy created by me; I clearly said my sources are books, not links. Within them, there was also link to book by journalist.
• You doubted the veracity of those sources, which was valid criticism and your doubts were perfectly acceptable, but I was not basing on those sources.
• Now I provided references to real books written by historians (actually, Kisielewski is politolog from education, but this is normal historical monography, with references et al), and translated the quotes from them. One of those only sketched the situation (only confirming that Benes proposed border changes, not mentioning Krofta memo). Second detailed whole memo exchanges. Both were historical books.
• You called this source "editorial", no idea why, since one of those books came from series which was at time intended to be supplementary source for history students.
• After discussion I inserted edits with quotes from those two books, with question "is this acceptable?". For example, I have not inserted that "Benes wanted to give Zaolzie" (because that was disputed on talk page), but only quoted that he wanted solve the issue using border change. You reverted those edits calling them vandalism. I asked what's wrong about them, got no serious answer.
• I took into account your criticism and I left out all what could be considered the opinion of book authors (e.g about why the letter was delayed, leaving only the bare facts. I also asked why do you consider two earlier books unreliable and "editorial". I got no answer, except for general ramblings about "biased, ahistorical sources"
• Instead of editing and aiming for consensus, you reverted those edit again, calling it kinder-garten vandalism. Fortunately, finally you started to be constructive, by presenting you all version. Your proposal is essentialy the same as my "nonsense" - except for mentioning Krofta memo and fact that Krofta stressed that "changes will be made no matter the international situation and solely as free will of Czechoslovakian government", but I can accept this for brevity reasons. In fact I even removed mentioning about Soviets since earlier you called it unreferenced opinion.
• Therefore, I ask you kindly -- and I sincerely believe that if you will answer honestly I can become better editor -- WHAT part of my earlier edits do you consider unsourced nonsense, WHY do you consider Kisielewski monography "editorial" and "biased" , WHY do you consider Wieczorkiewicz book "editorial" and "biased", WHERE your edits are better than mine (except for brevity - the difference is only than you omitted Krofta memo, and you added information about Soviets, which earlier you consider unsourced opinion). Szopen (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you approve of my proposed versions of your changes. Any of your questions can be answered by re-reading my replies. I am glad our co-operation proved productive, your point has now been addressed. I have replied to the message you left me on your talk. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My questions were not replied. You answered that my informations comes from dubious sources, but you have not answered why you consider Kisielewski book dubious source. I was not offended by doubting my sources. I was offended by "vandalism" label, "nonsense" "misunderstood data from a spurious talk" and by patronising tone in your answers. If you will look at the edits and the discussion - you will clearly see that I tried to be cooperative: I proposed change, after discussion I made edit which took into account valid doubts (i.e I have not wrote "Benesz proposed Zaolzie to Poland", as I initially wanted) and in summary I made it explicit I consider it a proposal (my summaries made it clear: "Ok, take a look at this - is this phrasing acceptable?" and later "Czechs please check for NPOV"). But there is no point in pursuing it further. Szopen (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Census data 1991

43479+263941+706+26629=334755 Who are missing 33600 people? Szopen (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I wrongly copied data from the book but if there was a possibility in the 1991 census to leave the nationality field blank, I suppose many people left it not filled. - Darwinek (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The sentence you continue to push is POV for various reasons.

1. It was not "Czech territory" but part of Czechoslovakia.
2. It was not "occupied" but joined to Poland as a consequence of international agreement.
3. "Western betrayal" is totally POV term, which doesn't appear anywhere in the article.
4. Last, but not least, the most POV thing about this addition is simple fact, that the 1938 annexation was not the only important historical event of this region in the 20th century. Far more important was the 1918-1919 conflict and 1920 division (which is in use to date).

By the way, lead of the article shouldn't be too long. Currently it is already quite massive. I propose leaving the lead without historical events (current situation), or very briefly mention all important events 1918-1919, 1920, 1938, 1939-1945 and 1958. - Darwinek (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're on to something, but there's no reason to leave the material out as opposed to compromising our way around the wording of this historical incident. How about "Formerly a part of sovereign Czechoslovakia, Zaolzie was taken over by Poland as a result of the 1938 Munich Agreement – known as the 'Munich Betrayal' by the Czechoslovaks"? (I have personally encountered "Western Betrayal of Czechoslovakia" in various Westenr texts, but we find "Munich Betrayal" in article Munich Agreement.) PasswordUsername (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your objections seem to be reasonable. So now, instead of reverting/deleting, be constructive, please: Write the story in your better words! ;) (incrementalism: to have something as a starting point is better than this nothing, you made by the deletition). Thanks! --Franta Oashi (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the lead with basic historical facts. The "Munich/Western betrayal" is not needed I think. Readers can easily access more detailed information in Munich Agreement article. - Darwinek (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks OK now. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Update

It seems to me that the article could use some updating. Russian authorities (Putin!) have been using recently the Zaolzie events of 1938 as an excuse for their invasion of Eastern Poland is 1939. Tsf (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but we should give a time for it to settle down, in order to prevent leaks of "recentism" into the article. There have been always a lot of rhetoric about Zaolzie between politicians. - Darwinek (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is really more serious than just an excuse that the Russians use. In 1938 Poland took part in what can be called a "partition" of Czechoslovakia. That makes any arguments about the events of September of 1939 much weaker. Tsf (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's just a political game from Putin, "we were not that bad, look at Poles in 1938". Anyways much more important are Pres. Kaczyński's words about Polish intervention in 1938. President called them "a mistake" and "a sin", basically apologizing for them. This is unprecedented move. - Darwinek (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Minorities stand

I am disputing the sentece about Polish occupation of Zaolzie The behaviour of the new Polish authorities was different but similar in nature to that of the Czech ones before 1938. Prior to Polish occupation the Polish had same rights as the Czechs did, they national organisations were present and so were they able to use their language etc. Comparing forcible polonisation and expulsion of Czechs and Germans to the status Polish minority had in Czechoslovakia is a bit too harsh. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right both stances were different and that's what the sentence says. "similar in nature" refers to the goal of both authorities, which was the cultural assimilation of the other ethnicity. The new Polish authorities were more violent and forcing in pursuing the idea of Polonization, than the Czech authorities pursuing the idea of Czechization. So while the comparison is a bit too harsh, as you pointed out, the underlying principle of dealing with the other ethnicity, remains very similar. - Darwinek (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)