Talk:Wrocław/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wrocław. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page is an archive of discussion up to November 2006. If you want to revive an old discussion, it would probably be best to move the relevant context back to the main discussion page or to link to it from there.

Archived on 27 March 2007 by Jim_Lockhart

Old discussions (section title added later)

Who decided alphabetic order had anything to do with order of other language names? Since it was officially "Breslau" for many years in "modern history", the German should be first. Was it ever officially a Czech possession? I would put that last in this English article. Who removed the pronounciation guides? That's useful info. Bwood 01:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The discussion below is interesting, but humor me for a moment and answer this question: Who had offficial possesion of the city before Prussia, and from what date to what date? Bwood 07:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

THe kings of Bohemia, which were first Peremyshilds, then Luxembourgs, then Jagiellons, and finalyl Habsburgs. You are not trying to suggest that it was Austrian posession? I don't knowmuch about the subject, so i will be very interested if you can prove me wrong, by i had always the impression that Habsburgs held the Silesia as part of Bohemian crown, not as separate entity, and their title to Silesia was because they were kings of Boehmia.

Szopen 11:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it was Czech for over 300 years and German for only 74. Space Cadet 02:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, Space Cadet. The city was part of the Holy Roman Empire from 1335 until 1806, so it was a Roman city for almost 500 years. And Poland once was a globe, wasn't it? I look forward to learn more of your history, my dear!

Right, Sweetheart. If everything included in HRE was Germany then Bohemia was practically always part of Germany? Yes?

Err... you don't know anything about European history, do you, Space Cadet? It is wrong to say that "everything included in HRE was German". The best example against this is Upper Italy, which was part of the HRE, but never German. On the other hand, Bohemia was indeed practically always part of Germany. The king of Bohemia was one out of seven electors who do determine the next king. Note that they do not elect the next emperor, instead they just elect the next German king, who then have to be crowned by the pope to be Roman emperor. It was the highest position in Germany for a noble to be one of the electors of the German king, and the king of Bohemia was one of them from the beginning. Please also note that in English language as in German language there is a difference between the words "Bohemian" and "Czech". If someone is Bohemian, he might be a German or a Czech. If someone is a Czech, he might be from Bohemia or from Moravia. Since 1306, except one single king, no king of Bohemia was an ethnic Czech. The capital of Bohemia, Prague, often was also the capital of the empire, the residence of the German king. The first university within the HRE was Bologna, but the first German university was the university in Prague. Until the 19th century a majority of Prague's citizen were Germans. Since 1626, German was the official language in Bohemia, before that point she has no official language at all..
Breslau and Silesia became property of the Bohemian King in 1335 and were past over to the Austrian Habsburg house in 1526. So you might say that Breslau was under Bohemian crown for about 200 years, but among these ten kings in 200 years only one single was a Czech. Breslau in fact never was Czech, not for over 300 years and not for 200 years. Breslau wasn't Czech for a single day. There is a difference between "Bohemia" and "Czech", and there was never in history a "King of Czech", only a "King of Bohemia". Furthermore, belonging to the crown of Bohemia does not means being Bohemian itself. Breslau of course was always part of Silesia, not part of Bohemia. When the King of Bohemia was a Habsburg, Silesia and Breslau were under rule of the house of Habsburg, that's all.

For clarity we have to remember, that before 1525 kings of Bohemia and some of governors of Silesia were Polish Jagiellons. Szopen 08:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was only being sarcastic and you missed it, though you sound pretty intelligent. Next time I'll just go straight to the point for you.

"What is your point, Space Cadet?"

Oh, my God, you missed that, too!

Space Cadet 01:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet's point usually is that everything between the Elbe and the Dnieper has always been Polish, is now Polish and always will be Polish. Anyone who disagress is a "Nazi." User:sca

I never said that or displayed in any way such ridiculous views. I also never called anybody a Nazi. Grow up, Sca! Space Cadet 04:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, SC, I was only joking. Lighten up!

BTW, I find your "How to deal with Poles" quite amusing.

If I were German I could write something similar for Germans, but I'm not. I'm just an amateur historian who gets tired of people attributing the worst possible motives to all Germans throughout all of their 1,100-year history on the basis of 12 years of Hitlerism. It's both inaccurate and unfair. Also unfair is the attempt by many Poles, misled by decades of Soviet-inspired propaganda, to obscure what really happened in Pomerania, Danzig, East Prussia and Silesia in 1945-49. Everyone knows about the terrible things the Germans did during their Nazi period, but no one wants to talk about what was done to them in revenge when it was over. We're all human beings and we all need to recognize past crimes and mistakes and move on. Can you at least agree to that? User:sca 29sep04

This official Polish website lists several inaccuracies. It states that in 1741 Frederick the Great of Prussia changed the name to Breslau. A 1493 engraving of the city in the [[:Schedelsche Weltchronik|Schedelsche Weltchronik]] shows the city as Bressla .

It also fails to mention, that land between the Oder and Warthe river , such as Silesia etc had been given as landlien to Moravia, Bohemia by previous emperors, such as Arnulf of Carinthia .

In AD 995 by a patent of Holy Roman Emperor Otto III Silesia was attached to the see of Meissen under the archbishopric of Magdeburg. Soon after emperor Otto III and Boleslaw I Chrobry founded Breslau bishopric and Breslau city.

Boleslaw I Chrobry , son of Mieszko I , first piast ruler had conquered Silesia from Bohemia ,Moravia ( parts of the empire) and it was conquered back and force several times. For a more detailed history see : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02761a.htm Breslau, also Moravia, Bohemia, Silesia .

Since appr. 1300 Silesia was directly under the emperor .

The name as published on old maps is NOT a reliable guide to the people or the language of a city. For instance, Franconia is not only the Latin but also the English name. If *I* look at most books in my office I'll see Franconia. Does that mean that the residents called it Franconia? Well, actually, yes, since they mainly wrote Latin in the period *I* care about, it does. Does that make them Romans? No. Franks? Actually, no. We in English-speaking history call them Franconians, to distinguish them from the Frankish tribes who set up the Frankish kingdom. All this is to say that Wroclaw/Breslau is not to be solved from old maps. --MichaelTinkler.

What you say is true, but what's also true is that incomplete information (as on the website mentioned) can be misleading. The map shows that there was a German name long before Frederick and all he did was make German Silesia's official language. He did not make up the name (what I think is what many people will take the sentence from the website as suggesting). --89.52.87.219 21:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged this for clarity, and English. The former German name isn't the most important thing about a Polish city. Similarly, the entries for New York and Oslo don't start with "Former Dutch colony Nieuw Amsterdam" and "Formerly Christiana." Vicki Rosenzweig

user:H.J. -- you might as well stop removing the word "ethnic", because I'm going to replace it until someone gives me a good reason not to. There was no such thing as Germany in the sense that we know it today -- just Germans. Even your precious HR Emperor was not King of Germany, but King of the Germans. Any attempt by you to say otherwise merely points out your anachronistically nationalist beliefs.HK

Julie, first of all Breslau was not the former German name, Breslau is the German name.

The HR emperors were Kaiser des Heiligen Roemischen Reiches Deutscher Nation, or Holy Roman emperor of German Nation. In 1871 this became : Deutsches Reich, German Empire.

It is incorrect for you to constantly change every German name into a different language. Is this the Polish Wikipedia ? then it would be ok to speak of Wroclaw or Gdansk or whatever the Polish language that the Soviet Union Communists renamed the cities and localities to.

You are one of the ones, that always preach, this is the English language wikipedia, the German names must be changed to English names. Why then do you change them all to Polish (or Czech, or Russian) language names?

And you can keep the name calling to yourself. user:H.J.

user:H.J., I haven't ever called you names, more's the pity -- my psyche would be better off for expressing it. You will note that I left Breslau for most of the pre-1945 references, but since the article is on Wroclaw, it doean't make sense to rename it all to the German. Also, the name of the HRE changed a couple of times over its time -- and the first references were actually not in German, but Latin. And the Empire was originally a way for the Carolingians and later the Ottonians to lay a claim to lots of ITALY, as well as the prestige of the original Roman Empire. The word Nation is a fairly late addition, and even in the middle ages, it meant more a people -- not something geographical. Your understanding of these things is flawed at best, tainted by the 19th century and early 20th century scholarship of von Herder and Ranke. THey were brilliant scholars, but we've come a long way since then. We now know a lot about the various peoples -- and even groups of Germanic peoples -- than they did. also, the HRE didn't rule over everything technically in the empire -- if he had, then we could talk about the world as you imagine it. As it was,the weakest candidate was often elected emperor in order to keep him from interfering with the German princes, dukes, etc. Sorry, but here, as in so many other places, you're just wrong, you clearly don't want to learn anything that doesn't fit into your warped picture of European history, and I actually don't know why we all try to put up with you. HK

Notes

First written mentioning about Wroclaw according to my sources is from 1000, when Boleslav Chrobry founded bishopry there, at least according to www.wiem.pl szopen

Confirmed. N. Davis quotes Thietmar's Chronicles – city called Wrotizla. Przepla 22:24, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Found exact story about what happened in 1241. The population, according to my sources, was evacuated, city burned and castle prepared to defense. Tatars arrived, take the city, but had no time to siege the castle so they withdrew (and later defeat Poles at battle of Legnica). If nobody would came with sources backing that Wroclaw was decimated, i will correct the seemingly erroneus informations.

granted government positions...

In the history part of the article, what does this following sentence mean? (Could somebody explain and/or rephrase it?): "Under direct overlordship of the Holy Roman Empire the emperors granted government positions to members of various ducal and royal dynasties."

I am reading it as the emperors gave the govenment postions to many people, but then immediately I ask myself... where and what positions? What it has to do with the city?! Was that sentence supposed to mean that the emperor gave some dukes and kings the power to govern the city? If so, that quoted sentence does not convey that message.

Hungarian name

I don't really see the need for a Hungarian name since (AFAIK) the city was never under Hungarian control. The Polish and German names are obvious, the Czech name is included because of the Bohemian crown's overlordship of Silesia, and Latin would be useful for historical documents. However, I don't believe that Hungary or Magyars ever really had much of an impact on the city. What if we included a link to "Cities_alternative_names" instead? Olessi 21:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a mention of the Hungarian name is necessary in the first sentence of the article. In my opinion, a link to List of European cities with alternative names is a bit meagre. I wouldn't object if all cities in that list would have a section at the end listing all names; as Wroclaw already has a section about its name, I'll add the info there. (And remove it from the first line). Eugene van der Pijll 21:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(See also Mainz, a not-completely-random example, where I added such a section). Eugene van der Pijll 21:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The city was under Hungarian control of Matthias Corvinus: "Until his death in 1490, Matthias Corvinus gained control of Moravia, Silesia, Lusatia (these in 1468/1469/1479-1490), and half of Austria (1477/1483-1491); he even ruled from Vienna after 1485."

The Hungarian name-variant is already out of use. Modern Hungarians use the name Wroclaw.

Breslau Forum

An email forum to discuss the city of Breslau prior to it being annexed by the Soviet Union in 1945, and then after the ethnic cleansing of its german population, made a part of communist Poland.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Breslau-Stadt

This is a cultural forum only so poles who hate germans purely because of the 12 years of the hitler dictatorship should not join this forum.

Have a nice day.

Sean

What about the Germans who hate Poles because of the "Vertreibung"? Are they welcome? Xx236 10:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming issue

The article says

the German name Breslau is highly unpopular, and they become quite offended when that name is used. As another example, the warehouse Feniks on the Rynek, built in 1904, showed in November 2004 old pictures of the building.

As another example of what? The sentence doesn't make sense. AxelBoldt 00:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you fix it then? Karol 06:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, since I don't know what it is supposed to say. AxelBoldt 16:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Neither do I :) Nevertheless, I tried to make something of it. How do you like it? Karol 17:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the Czech, Latin and German names from the intro paragraph, and added "formerly known as Breslau". The reason I have done this is that the alternative language names are not very important to English readers, and do not deserve such prominence. They also make the intro very difficult to read. They are also already covered in the etymology section, which is the best place for them. I added "formerly known as Breslau" because this is what the city is called in English books printed before 1945, and also in English books printed today dealing with the history of the city before 1945 (See Armageddon by Max Hastings, for example). For this reason it is important for English readers to know early on in the article that Breslau is the same place as Wroclaw. Using the phrase "formerly known as Breslau" is not to imply necessarily that this name is no longer used in German - it is the English language position that I am referring to.--Stonemad GB 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to participate in the naming discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). A change in standard policy such as you have suggested should not be introduced on a particular article, but should be discussed at the naming conventions page. As the standard for practically all European geographic places is to mention the alternate names in the introduction, I will restore the alternates here and on related articles. If there is consensus to change the listing of alternate names, feel free to change the wording. However, alternate names traditionally have been listed on WP... Olessi 23:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have discussed this before making the changes. I looked at the naming discussion you mentioned. The current proposal (F) says that foreign language names are permitted in the lead, but it doesn't say that they should necessarily be mentioned. It also says that foreign language names can be moved to a names section following the lead, which is effectively what I did. So on my reading of the naming convention proposal my version followed it just as much as yours - but with the additional virtue of being more concise and readable.

I noted your comment that the standard for practically all European geographic places is to mention the alternative names in the introduction - where does it say this? Look at the London entry for an example of a city with no alternative names given. If there is a convention that alternative names should be shown after the lead, please tell me where I can find it: I will then amend the London entry to show the 26 alternative names in the introduction.

If no standard exists, we will have to argue each case on its merits - and I think the merits of having the Latin or Czech names in the intro are rather flimsy.--Stonemad GB 01:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Layout

Wow, this page needs some formatting, badly. Karol 00:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Breslau - now

"Among the present Polish inhabitants of the city, especially those born some years after World War II, the German name "Breslau" is highly unpopular, and they may become offended when that name is used."

The majority of recent books printed for German tourists use the name Breslau. The Municipality of Wroclaw uses "Wrocław/Breslau" on German pages of its site www.wroclaw.pl . Xx236 11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the German name of that place still is Breslau. Which does not mean that it's the English or Polish name. Halibu tt 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Among the present Polish inhabitants of the city, especially those born some years after World War II, the German name "Breslau" is highly unpopular, and they may become offended when that name is used." Is there any research proving that the German name is "highly unpopular"? If not - why to include the above statement? Xx236 13:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There's probably no serious research cencerning this issue, but it's very true. I live in Wrocław, and alot of people here consider the name Breslau offensive even if a German-speaking person uses it (which I find unreasonable), and these people would never call themselves Breslauers. Anyway, I don't think that's a justification for that sentence, because it's not an encyclopedic statement. The German name is Breslau and that's that. Karol 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Just an addition: Renowned Polish historian Wlodzimierz Borodziej said on TV last year [1]

"To be honest, I'm observing that with a certain ..., well, it is ironic that many Germans still believe, that if they say Wroclaw rather than Breslau that they underline, as it were, their friendliness towards Poles. Back in the eighties it still had a certain significance which name you used for the city. These days it doesn't have any at all, and I think if/when (either translation possible) you speak German you simply say Breslau or Stettin and no Pole will take exception to that." --89.52.87.219 21:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've witnessed a case when a German journalist, in order to bragg with his Political Correctness, tried to use the Polish name for Breslau, but struggled with the spelling and pronounciation (that was before Google and Wiki, and well before Unicode etc.). He got "offended" when someone responded "oh, you mean Breslau?", and called the other a Nazi. --Matthead 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Bah, I think this is behind us already. I've recently stayed in a hotel in Wroclaw which seemed to be proud that Hitler used to stay in one of their rooms. I think people start to recognize history there, good and bad. --Lysy^talk 07:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Renowned Polish historian Wlodzimierz Borodziej

...with pension and awards provided by German institutions you forgot to add, which I am sure expands his boundries of tolerance :)

--Molobo 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo always sees yesterdays ghosts. --Lucius1976 07:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Breslau" irritates some older people in Poland, or those still under the influence of anti-German propaganda. It would be interesting to hear more from people actually living in Wrocław (Karol?) about this. --Lysy^talk 09:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lysy-I live in Wrocław. What do you want to know ? If about attitude towards Germans they are mostly seen irritating nuisance to locals, with their laud tourist trips the typical sight of corpulent elderly guy with beer spilling on his belly, saying loudly "ja, ja Franz, Heinz etc"(I am sorry but this is a typical sight). But it is true that on the rare occasions when I encountered Germans travelling in public transport some people started complaining that they shouldn't speak so loud in German(but maybe because Germans speak so loud in public, I don't know why they do that abroad). As to former monuments of German nationalists like Bismarck or Hitler, they fortunetely remain in ruins, and I didn't hear anything about plans to restore them. Of course any such attempt will be blocked by the secretary-general of the Council for the Protection of Memory, Struggle and Martyrdom,Andrzej Przewożnik, who stated clearly that there is no place in Poland for monuments of those who persecuted Polish nation. All in all I would say that indeed people (and not only nationalists) could feel slightly insulted when faced with German version of the Polish name. Every guest to another country should use local names if they are connected to sensitive matters-for example I wouldn't brag about Lviv being Lwów when visiting there, out of respect to Ukrainian people.

--Molobo 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Maybe "Breslau" irritates some older people in Poland, or those still under the influence of anti-German propaganda." Well, if Molobo is anything to go by, this does not just apply to older people. It is also interesting to see that Molobo denounces one of the most renowned and internationally respected Polish historians as corruptible; quite apart from that, it is ridiculous to believe that any "German institutions" would actually want to bribe Polish historians to "expand their boundaries of tolerance" regarding German place names. --Thorsten1 09:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about bribes ? As he constantly lives in Germany and earns his living thanks to German state, receives awards from Germany its understandable that his POV is more acceptable to German POV.

or those still under the influence of anti-German propaganda

Define "anti-German propaganda" the word is abused as much as it can be by German media. For example when Poland wanted justice and some reperations for German destruction of our country it was defined as "anti-German" propaganda by German press. Similiar accusations were directed against Vaclav Klaus in recent Spiegel interview when analysis of German minorities help in Czechoslovakia towards Nazi regime in pre-war time was described as "anti-German".

--Molobo 12:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's pretty fair to call demands for repirations from modern Germany anti-german propaganda. Anyone calling for reperations of deeds which took place over two generations ago is obviously just trying to stir up nationalist rivalry to absolutely no good end. Most likely they secretly yearn to start another war. Anyway, if you're going to take up issue with the damage caused by Germany during the second world war then it would only be fair to allow Germans who were forced out of their homes by the Soviets and Poles to demand their rightful land back. Remember, these Germans never voted for Adolph Hitler and many of them did not support or actively hindered the Nazi War effort. So go ahead and demand repirations from Germany, but unless you're willing to return former east german provinces back to German possession then you are a biased anti-German.

I serionsly must ask though, why do people like you persist in generalizing other nationalities with false stereotypes and pick at old wounds at a time when Europe is trying to move past all of that? Hopefully nationalist sentimates such as yours will fall by the wayside so Europe can move forward in the next thousand years instead of picking over the same old fights of the last thousand.

--Hvatum 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

There are two pictures of the city hall in the article - how about removing the second one?

By the way, the pictures in the article seem to be placed quite randomly - it would be a good idea to reorder them.

Pako 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrocław constituency

I removed the following list:

Members of Parliament (Sejm) elected from Wrocław constituency:

Władysław Frasyniuk, PD is definitely not in Sejm. PD didn't get in at all. I can't say anything about others, but the list should be fixed before reinsertion. Taw 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture etc.

The picture is justified to illustrate Breslau life under Nazist rule. Please note, that the German population was forcibly expulsed and not allowed to return. The Polish constantly deported Germans from Wroclaw, until all functions (railway station, post) could be taken over by ethnic Polish. ALl those who had been Nazi members (virtually all of the population) were directly expulsed from 1945 to 1947. If you have a source, that Germans were supposed to leave voluntarily, provide it. The Potsdam Conference said they were to be "evacuated humanely". And I don't think Poland, with its nationalism and demolishing of German street signs, grave yards and monuments, was interested in contravening Stalin's demands of driving ethnic Germans beyond the Oder to the west.Smith2006 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the picture really illustrated anything specific for Breslau. Nazi rule was not only in Breslau, and the same picture could then illustrate Berlin or any other German or occupied town or village. Also, should we then use pictures of random people to illustrate other town articles as well ? How about Wrocław during Stalin rule ? Or Berlin during Nazi rule ?

As for your other comment, you are generally right, but specifically the railway in Breslau was operated by Poles, not Germans. Due to the terrible conditions in Wrocław, most of the remaining German population wanted to leave, but initially it was not possible because of the lact of available transport infrastructure. The first Germans that were allowed to leave were anti-fascists and then the others followed. Since you've asked about my source, it is primarily "Microcosm" by Norman Davies and Roger Moorhouse (BTW, I recommend this book). --Lysy^talk 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lysy. While some images from the propaganda video (such as Image:Sudetendeutsche kratzau bohemia.JPG) arguably could be included (within Wikipedia), the picture depicting people in Breslau does not seem to add much to the article. Olessi 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No further comments, then I'm removing the picture. --Lysy^talk 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. BTW: Wroclaw was never under "Stalin" rule, but under Communist rule. I think the picture clearly illustrates Breslau life in the early 1940s, as it featured in a known and famous (for color 16 mm film) movie.Smith2006 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, will you spam articles about other cities with pictures "clearly illustrating life" in early 1930s, early 1940s, late 1940s, early 1950s, late 1960s etc ? What the point ? --Lysy^talk 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is, that it's very important to illustrate city life in German cities and represents a particularly important point of life in the National Socialist state. It fits into the article. I don't see how you did convince me. Sorry. Smith2006 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The picture is perfectly acceptable for German Labour Front, but has no relevance here. There is no guarantee that the people in the picture are even Breslauers. The description of the picture says is that they are in Breslau, but the image does not even show the city at all. Are you trying to say that "a particularly important point of life in the National Socialist state" was a smiling man wearing glasses and laughing women? How is that relevant to Breslau/Wrocław? Olessi 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Prominent residents

I find it rather silly to have the "prominent residents" divided by their ethnic origin. What is the purpose of this ? --Lysy^talk 19:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for it either. Olessi 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, if nobody explains the purpose of maintaining the separate lists, I'm going to merge and sort them in a couple of days. --Lysy^talk 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Merge them. - Evv 21:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Känsterle 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Lysy^talk 07:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

świerzów

Naming of Historical Imagery

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

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

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

Indeed the correct name should be used and that is Breslau. --105.4.7.147 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

NOT MANY HISTORIANS SHARING THEIR THOUGHTS ON THESE PAGES -- For example, the 17 July to 2 August 1945 Potsdam Conference ended with a deferment to a presumed soon thereafter "final peace treaty on Germany." Part of that treaty would deal with the Potsdam approved areas of 1937 area Germany "Under Temporary Polish Administration." Note: I suggest that those of you who don't have a firm grasp on English get help in comprehending what I just stated above. JJC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.244.230 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrocław

~~The heading should be Breslau, as it is the most common term used in the English language[2] → please see: WP:COMMONNAME --IIIraute (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)~~ I agree, the heading should be Wrocław. --IIIraute (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No. And the google ngrams are notorious for being unreliable.VolunteerMarek 16:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking for your POV here. There are clear WP policies, such as WP:COMMONNAME - why would you not want to use the most common term used in the English language? --IIIraute (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not "my POV", it's Wikipedia's. WP:COMMONNAME is being followed by using Wrocław rather than a historical anachronism. And there's a specific policy for these particular cities. Please don't try to strip up the trouble that's long been put to rest.VolunteerMarek 16:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide some evidence, as well as the relevant WP policies for your claims?--IIIraute (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See my response over at Gdansk.VolunteerMarek 17:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This matter will not be decided by you. There are clear WP policies, also you have to comply with. Please also do not manipulate the outcome of the vote which was not close at all → [3]:

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

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

And results for Vote: Period after 1945 = 67 vs 3, in favor of Gdansk. I am complying with Wikipedia policies.

Or put in "Istanbul,Constantinople" in your ngram search, 10 smoothing parameter and all, then go to the Istanbul talk page, get them to change the name of that article to "Constantinople", then come back here once you've succeeded and there may be something to talk about.VolunteerMarek 17:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't have to do this, as we are here on the Wrocław/Breslau talk page. There is very clear evidence that within the English language the term Breslau is in more common use than Wrocław. Unless you provide some evidence that proves me wrong, I cannot really see any argument on this matter.--IIIraute (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You can assert whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.VolunteerMarek 22:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, especially since you are not able to provide disproof for the ngram result [4] ...just keep living in your fancy little Polish world.--IIIraute (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I already did [5]. To put it into technical terms, you're using a bullshit, useless, metric. And I'll let that immature statement about my "fancy little Polish world" slide.VolunteerMarek 01:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not. Instead of providing evidence you are making up some WP:CLONE. Your example is not valid. Please comply with the following WP policies: WP:SET and WP:COMMONNAME. Your POV interpretation of the result is of no interest or value to this discussion.--IIIraute (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point I got to say, I have no idea what you're talking about. The present article title is in perfect compliance with WP Policies. I don't know what exactly it is you're going on about.VolunteerMarek 02:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this so difficult to understand, as per WP:SET, the WP:COMMONNAME is Breslau. Can you provide some reliable research that gives proof of something different, as well as on why Wrocław should take precedence over Breslau? Köln is named by its French name "Cologne" within the English language. What makes Breslau different?--IIIraute (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So after Gdańsk and Wrocław are you going after Szczecin, Kołobrzeg, Słupsk, Olsztyn, Grudziądz, Toruń, Gliwice, etc.? On the English language maps all these cities appear in Polish names. Skoranka (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Would make sense indeed, wouldn't it?[6] --IIIraute (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To repeat myself, google ngrams is not the appropriate metric here. And it seems that you don't actually have an idea as to what these charts are showing, in addition to being unfamiliar with the policies you're actually quoting.VolunteerMarek 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

...yeah, whatever.--IIIraute (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comply with the Gdansk-vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above."[7] and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."[8] --IIIraute (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Disputed-Introduction

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

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

Yeah, standard and persistent POV pushing by anon IPs. I've restored an older version of the article.VolunteerMarek 23:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"This factual inaccuracy is one example of the article section's tendency to disparage the city as Polish and lament the loss of Wrocław/Breslau as city which the writer(s) perceive(s) as being distinctly German." Gentlemen, please !

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

If the Nordisk Familjebok contains the information that you just put in the article (which I'm not exactly convinced is the case), then you really have to find a better source, as it's not correct. This has nothing to do with Sweden being neutral or anything like that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The source you're using is not reliable. We have many many other reliable sources which directly contradict the text you're trying to insert.
What's "Sachony", "Austra" and "Preussia"? That's not even Swedish. That would be "Sachsen", "Österrike", and "Preussen", and even then the city was never part of at least two of these.
Some of the things you mention may be worth mentioning in the text of the article (provided an actual reliable source is provided) but not in the lede.
Mieszko I ruled at the end of the 10th century. Not sure how that is relevant.
You must respect that there is no place for nationalistic point of views reguarding Wikipedia.. Sure, that's why you got reverted.
You have both declared me as "german" though I'm swedish Neither I, nor the commentator above declared you as "German". You're getting a little ahead of yourself here, as well as in the rest of your comment.

Etc. etc. etc. VolunteerMarek 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A pre-WWII encyclopedia is not a very reliable source for such issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You seems totally lost what Wikipedia is about. A swedish source is neutral reguarding polish-german relations. And there were accusation of me being german. Cite What's "Sachony", "Austra" and "Preussia"? That's not even Swedish. That would be "Sachsen", "Österrike", and "Preussen", and even then the city was never part of at least two of these. What on earth are You on about ? This is english Wikipedia. I have of course translated the source into english. Cite A pre-WWII encyclopedia is not a very reliable source for such issues. - agreed if the source is written in a nation with censur. (Like Germany 1933-45, Poland 1945-89, USSR etc). I really think You have been confused by the USSR-propaganda in Poland during 1945-89. Stalin needed to explain to the polish people why their (YOur) borders was moved to the benefit of the USSR. Not only Germany lost territory, so did Poland aswell. Lwow, Wilna, Brest-Litovsk etc. Have You ever seen a map of Poland 1919-1939 ? (question) But above all, You do not use any kind of sources. Nordisk Familjebok is reliable, indeed. Boeing720 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out above, first the source is not sufficient (at best it's an outdated tertiary source) and second your interpretation of its contents may be suspect as well. I have no idea what the map of Poland in 1919-1939 has to do with the city's status in the middle ages.VolunteerMarek 22:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I never knew anybody in Poland who would actually get "confused by the USSR-propaganda in Poland during 1945-89". Everybody saw through their lies, except little children. Are you implying that Marek or other Polish editors actually believe in whatever Stalin said? Are you accusing them of being brain washed and unable to form their own opinion? I'm not so sure about Sweden's neutrality either. Sweden was the one who introduced and long defended the term "Polish Concentration Camps". As far as a pre 1939 Encyclopedias are concerned, take 1911 Brittanica for example. Poland had never done anything wrong to Britain, yet everything wrtten there about Polish lands throughout history is heavily biased against Poles and Poland. Educate yourself first, at least from related Wikipedia articles Recovered Territories) would be perfect), work on your English (which leaves a lot to be desired) and always do a spell check. Why don't you start with Sweden related articles, something closer to home? Happy editing. Skoranka (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You ought to know that propaganda is proven to have effect on atleast 90% of a population rather soon after media gets censored. (whithin a few years) And the figures rises over time. Take the Katyn massacre f.i. During 50-55 years the germans was blamed for this holocaust aswell, though now it's been proven that this massacre of polish people was done by the red army already in 1940 -on order from Stalin or Beria. I've studied a 1955 encyklopedia aswell. "Bonniers, Lilla Uppslagsboken" written in 1955. From 1327 there cannot be any doubts. Nore that it has been a Saxian Dutchy before that year. And Wroclaw undoubtly lies whithin the borders of the so called "Holy Roman-German Empire". See any map from 900-1800. But now I've put the polish king into the earlier. This is international wikipedia. The reason why edit this or that shall not be asked. Wikipedia is about sources. My only reason for editing this article is that I found it wrong and unsourced and polish nationalistic (like denial of writing out "Breslau"). If You do have "Encyklopedia Brittanica" - why do You not use it concidering Wroclaw (see "Breslau" if it is from 1911) ??? Then problems could and would be solved.

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

References

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

As has already been pointed out to you, there are far, far better sources than either the Nordisk Familjebok or the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. We have no realistic reason to consider even looking at those sources. It would just be a waste of time. I'm guessing, though, that the Nordisk Familjebok is probably largely correct, but that your reading of it is faulty.

No offence intended, but I'm going to have to agree with Skoranka here that neither your understanding of the topic, nor your knowledge of WP sourcing requirements, nor your command of the English language are good enough for you to be able to constructively contribute to this article for the time being. Please consider editing on Swedish WP or on topics that you are more familiar with. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So now I have reading errors aswell ? You do obviously not understand the need for references/sources. I'm sorry to say. This article is on english international wikipedia but lacks all historical references. Neighter do You listen to

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

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

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

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

Correction

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

About Silesia being part of the "Polish Lands":

"Silesia, inhabited by Poles and constituting a racial and cultural unity with other Polish lands, was an integral part of Poland at the time when an independent Polish Kingdom began to exist at the end of the tenth century."
— Robert Machray, The Problem of Upper Silesia, G. Allen & Unwin ltd. 1945, p. 13 Google Books

"The conquest of Pomerania was achieved by the first 'historical' Polanian leader, Miesco I (~960-92), who managed towards the end of his life to gain the Silesian territories disputed with Bohemia (990?) and Little Poland together with Cracow, thus completing the lengthy process of uniting Polish lands."
— Jerzy Strzelczyk, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 523 ISBN 0-521-36447-7 Google Books

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

"Casimir, although aware that in the circumstances he could hardly have obtained a better solution, hesitated to sign the surrender of Silesia to Bohemia. He only did so in 1339 on the occasion of another meeting at Visegrad. So ended an important phase in the relationship of the two Slavic states. Silesia, for whose possession Poles and Czechs had striven, became a land of the Bohemian crown. The prestige of the Czech kingdom was considerably enhanced by this acquisition, and the danger that some at least of the Silesian dukes might become direct vassals of the emperor was averted."
— Francis Dvornik, "The Slavs in European history and Civilisation", Rutgers University Press, 1962, p. 50-51, ISBN 0-8135-0799-5 Google Books

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

Silesia

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

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

FWIW, I live in Wrocław, and nobody, but nobody, here or elsewhere in Poland considers it or the Lower Silesian Voivodeship part of Silesia. BTW, Lower California is not part of California. It's not even in the United States. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I know, where you live. And I myself know a lot of people from Poland and everybody, but everybody, considers Wrocław to be an integral part of Silesia. Is this really the kind of argumentation we want to use here? "I heard all over town ..." is not really very encyclopedic, don't you think? "Southern California" and "East Prussia" were just examples of how your newly invented naming convetion sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Which doesn't qualify it as a rule (or even a tendency) or anything to follow in encyclopedic articles. Rübezahl (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing political entities with geographical (etc) ones. Southern California a part of California as a geographical area just Lower Silesia is part of a geographical and historical entity called Silesia. As parts of Silesia are in other countries your example of California seems to prove you wrong. Rsloch (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The geographical area called Silesia today no longer coincides with the pre-war geographical area or the historical boundaries, and currently includes only what was (approximately) Upper Silesia. It is especially used to refer to the Katowice agglomeration and the Upper Silesian coal basin.

Lower Silesia is now a different geographical area that has no connection to the geographical area that is now called Silesia.

The historical area called Silesia is just that, historical, as in it no longer exists except when talking about the past, having been reduced to the area called (Upper) Silesia today. Lower Silesia (post-WWII) has no connection to Lower Silesia (pre-WWII) except that it happens to occupy the same land and has the same name. It no longer has any connection to Silesia at all.

The political entity called Silesia ceased entirely to exist after WWII. There is no political entity with that name now.

The voivodeship called Lower Silesia is a non-political administrative area, whose name was chosen in 1999 because someone in Warsaw thought it would be cute to give the voivodeships "historical sounding" names, sometimes with ridiculous results (like people thinking that Lower Silesia is in Silesia). In this case, the boundaries of the voivodeship largely, but not quite, conform to the historical boundaries.

The voivodeship called Silesia does not entirely coincide with Upper Silesia. It includes cities like Częstochowa and Sosnowiec that were never part of Silesia, and excludes areas that were, but are now in the Opole Voivodeship.

The Opole voivodeship is now split. The Eastern part is considered part of Silesia, whereas the Western part isn't.

The cultural/ethnographic area called Silesia today conforms largely with historical Upper Silesia. It no longer includes Wrocław or Lower Silesia, where there the culture completely died after WWII and the population was almost totally replaced. People who live in Wrocław or Lower Silesia today do not consider themselves as living in Silesia. Precious few of them have ancestors who lived in the region before 1945.

The Czech area currently referred to as Silesia was historically a part of Upper Silesia. Like Polish Upper Silesia, it retained a large part of its population after the war, some of whom still consider themselves of Silesian ancestry. Aside from that, it has no connection to Polish Silesia except for a (sort of) common history.

As far as Breslau is concerned, it ceased to exist after the war (more than 80% was destroyed). The recently resettled Poles essentially build a new city on the site, sometimes faithfully recreating the pre-war architecture, and sometimes not. In my neighborhood, there is only one house that predates the war. There was no continuity in city admistration or institutions. The university was almost entirely restaffed with Polish academics from Lwów and Wilno, and the German bishop and clergy were replaced as well. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The consensus here is that there Wrocław is part of Silesia and its historical capital.Rsloch (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard that Wrocław is not part of Silesia. Silesia is still divided into Lower and Upper. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And I have never seen, outside of historical contexts, (unqualified) "Śląsk" used to refer to anything outside of a area covering the larger part of Ślaskie and the eastern half of opolskie. Can you provide a source that Wrocław or dolis currently considered part of (unqualified) Silesia? Google searches for "wrocław leży na śłąsku" turns up only a few instances of football fans and the like protesting that it does on forums. Proving a negative is difficult, but I did find this source confirming that (unqualified) Silesia now normally refers to only Upper Silesia: [[9]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

See for example the history page on official city of Wrocław page here, which discusses the history of Wrocław and Ślask. Ditto for entries in the WIEM Encyklopedia ([10], [11]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources say anything resembling in the slightest that Wrocław is currently in Silesia. They only say that it WAS in Silesia until the end of WWII. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there any sources saying that Wrocław is not part of Silesia? As far as I know even Ślůnzoki consider it a part of Silesia and want it transferred to the Vaterland. 13:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoranka (talk • contribs)

Dominus Vobisdu apparently means that present inhabitants of Wrocław do not normally refer to themselves (or think of themselves) as Silesians. The Polish ethnographic term Ślązacy (Silesians) gives an idea of what the identification problem is. But this is irrelevant. Silesia is a historical-geographical concept. Lower Silesia (a part of Silesia) was inhabited by Slavs/Poles, then Germans and now by Poles of different territorial origins (generally not descendants of the original inhabitants). Their roots are not Silesian, but they live in Silesia. Orczar (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. This argument may have more merit if we were to discuss the geographical scope of Silesians, although what this discussion really needs, one way or another, is reliable references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A big part of the problem is that Silesia has no official definition or status in Poland today. Different people define it depending on the need at hand: mining engineers have their definition, urban and regional planners have theirs, linguists have theirs, ethnographers, botanists and geologists, too. Usually vaguely contiguous with Upper Silesia. All we really have to go on is public consensus, which unfortunately has not been reliably documented.

As far as scholarly sources that deal with Silesia today, they deal exclusively with Upper Silesia, and when they deal with Lower Silesia, they don't treat it as part of a larger Silesia. I've looked for hours and hours and couldn't find any reliable sources for the extent of what is considered Silesia today, except, of course, for the ethnographic/cultural/linguistic definition, which also has a high degree of public consensus.

About the most reliable thing I found about the topic is this radio interview from about two years ago with this guy who got so frustrated by the fact that people from Wrocław don't identify with Silesia that he started a (very small) movement to redefine Silesia to include Wrocław again. [[12]]. Apparently, the movement never took off. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The interview seems to concern the fringe political movement aiming at Silesian autonomy (or independence). This is hardly relevant. Silesia may not be an official province, but so what? It's a geographical and cultural term. If you want to discuss the definition of it, Talk:Silesia would be a better place for it. And if you want to make a claim that "people from Wrocław don't identify with Silesia" - cite your sources first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The interview is not at all about the autonomy movement. It's about redefining the idea of Silesia to include Wrocław specifically, and to recreate a sense of Silesian identity among the people in Lower Silesia. It's worth listening to, and it is a pretty good source for the statement that people who live in Wrocław do not identify with Silesia, nor do they consider Wrocław to be part of Silesia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a fringe opinion to me. I'd very much like to see some reliable sources on this issue. I'd expect there should be some sociological works on that. If you are drawing blanks on sources, I'd recommend contacting people from here or here (and I see you have sufficient command of Polish for this not be a problem). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Try this:Tożsamość mieszkańców Dolnego Śląska : Raport z badań[13]-150 pages devoted to identity of inhabitants of Lower Silesia accessible online, you might be also interested in Dolnoślązacy? : kształtowanie tożsamości mieszkańców Dolnego Śląska po II wojnie światowej / redakcja: Joanna Nowosielska-Sobel, Grzegorz Strauchold. Wrocław : Oficyna Wydawnicza "Atut" - Wrocławskie Wydawnictwo Oświatowe, 2007.

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

A Scot living in London might not identify himself as English but that would not alter the fact that he still lived in England. The same thing applies here.Rsloch (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you will have to be more precise. I fail to see any similarities. For starters the nationality of people living in Wroclaw and those living in Warsaw is the same. There is no separate national identity in Lower Silesia. There is a very small Silesia identity movement in Upper Silesia, a region which generally is called Silesia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

2% of what

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Postwar history

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

Should Breslau be mentioned at the beginning of the page?

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

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

Alt names

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

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

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

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

Can you please assume good faith? Every one of these discussions is full of accusations of people being "irridentists" or similar after about the third post. Regarding Breslau, it's the name the city was known as in English for a very long time, so there is a case for including it in the lede. People who may have read that name in older English sources will immediately know it is the same city. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. And it's precisely why we have a dedicated section to the alternative name, per Wikipedia guidelines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:

For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

WP:NAME is a general rule, the Gdansk vote is a special rule for areas sharing a German-Polish history. A special rule supersedes the general rule (lex specialis), not vice versa. Marek knows the Gdansk vote very well and he knows that "persistent reverts against community consensus" are regarded WP:VANDALISM. His attempts to undermine this established policy by removing pretty much every single "Breslau" from the article [14] (and even a Gdansk vote pointer from the talk page [15]) actually just confirm a wellknown WP:battleground mentality HerkusMonte (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Wrocław. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081016001550/http://www.dresden.de:80/en/02/11/c_03.php to http://www.dresden.de/en/02/11/c_03.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct archive. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wrocław. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No working archived captures. Replaced x 1 with active url + left 2nd using 404 capture as alternative needs to be found. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

silesian ?

The Silesian language is spoken in Upper Silesia, not in Wrocław. BTW - there are three Upper Silesian names szl:Wrocłow.Xx236 (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Beer festival

You should have referenced the allged position of the festival.
The picture - people on the grass - can be made in thousands of places of the world. Nothing notable.
Wrocław has only few minor breweries. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pollution

The pollution should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Promo material removed

Promotional material (WP:PROMO) added by a blocked user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Corinne_Travels) on August 1 has been removed. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Copywriting needed

I cringe when reading stuff like: In the years 2013-15 was built Engine Business. In Wrocław Industrial Park operates over 250 companies from nearly 60 different industries. In Wrocław is a research and development center aviation industry... but much as I love this city, a more competent Wikipedian needs to go through it with a fine comb... Zezen (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

When Polish speakers add to English articles their own material without much familiarity with English, this is exactly what automated Google translate does to the English language. It happens all the time. We don't have the resources here to deal with the outcome. And yes, you can help! Poeticbent talk 17:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Wrocław. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

English pronunciation?

The leading section lists conflicting pronunciations of Wrocław in English: the IPA reads /ˈvrɔt͡slɑːf/ ("VRAWTS-lahf") and the respelling reads "VRAWTS-wahf" (/ˈvrɔt͡swɑːf/). I do not hear this name in an English setting often enough to say which one is more common (dictionary.com and the Oxford dictionary also give conflicting results), but we should probably be consistent ourselves at least. Thoughts? Wyverald (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of Help:Pronunciation respelling key to "get it sounding like the Polish" original in English

The ear of an American English speaker seems to hear the Polish-spoken name of Wrocław as "coming out" as sounding like VRAWHT-swahf to their ear (as it does to my own pair) - barring any "existing prohibition" of the pronunciation respelling key's use for such a purpose, in aiding English speakers in correctly pronouncing the city's native name, what better way already exists within Wikipedia's system to get that pronunciation correct for Anglophones? The PIPE (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Religious diversity

I don't understand Post-war resettlements from Poland's ethnically and religiously more diverse former eastern territories (known in Polish as Kresy) and the eastern parts of Poland., so I have reverted the edit.Xx236 (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The name.

During German/Prussian times the official name was Breslau. Now is Wroclaw but Germans are still calling it by the old name. Example ? German airlines. I guess they wouldn't be able to fly to Saigon these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.0.37 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Tens of thousands of Ukrainians (from Ukraine, not local ones) live in Wrocław, they generally work. I don't have numbers, but they should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you find a source? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

https://www.radiowroclaw.pl/articles/view/85475/Spor-polemika-dialog-Sytuacja-Ukraincow-na-Dolnym-Slasku-Jak-im-sie-zyje-jak-oceniaja-ich-Polacy 80,000 in Wrocław.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The original "Brexit"?

Does anyone have a reference to the original idea of Brexit arising when Breslau left the Hanseatic League in 1474 after over 80 years?--Po Mieczu (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

B-class review

Failed for WP:POLAND due to numerous paragraphs lacking references (failing WP:V, WP:CITE). Feel free to request a re-review when those issues are addressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Snow closure: there is consensus against moving the article to the proposed name (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrocław → Wroclaw – The proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME for this city. This is shown by the broad use of the proposed name by news agencies such as NYT, WSJ, Al Jazeera, BBC, and the Guardian. Spekkios (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - per comments here -->[16] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As per your comment there, please show that reliable sources use the current name, because as per my move request it appears they do not. --Spekkios (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Support as the clear WP:COMMONNAME, per the sources provided in the nomination and my own search.

In regards to GizzyCatBella's !vote, if this were the Polish Wikipedia then they would be correct - "Wrocław" would be the correct spelling, and "Wroclaw" would be inaccurate. However, this is not the Polish Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia, and in English, per reliable sources, "Wroclaw" is the correct name for the city. I would also note that no policy justification has been provided for their position, while "Wroclaw" is supported by WP:COMMONNAME, by WP:UE, which states that "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage", and by WP:DIACRITICS, which states that the use of diacritics should "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". If they, or other editors, disagree with this, then I would suggest that they seek to change WP:UE or WP:DIACRITICS, rather than trying to overrule them with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk)

Oppose – Eh. I just don't really think that the WP:COMMONNAME in English should be used if said 'common name' is actually technically an incorrect name in the native lang. CitizenKang414 (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why something is the WP:COMMONNAME, all that matters is that it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia doesn't WP:CRYSTALBALL or WP:RGW. --Spekkios (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. There are four similar proposals currently active — Talk:Zürich#Requested move 30 November 2021, Talk:Kraków#Requested move 3 December 2021, Talk:Poznań#Requested move 5 December 2021 and Talk:Łódź#Requested move 5 December 2021. All of these propose to strip diacritics from the names of European cities that use the Latin alphabet — a matter that has already been decided in favor of accents and diacritics during previous such discussions. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You have provided no policy reason to oppose a move nor provided any evidence that the matter of accents and diacritics has been decided, especially because WP:DIACRITICS clearly says to use the WP:COMMONNAME as provided in reliable English-languages sources. --Spekkios (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose as per established rules--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Which rules are you refering to? WP:DIACRITICS and WP:COMMONNAME both support this move. --Spekkios (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per the rationales presented at Talk:Kraków#Requested_move_3_December_2021. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
oppose not the wp:commonname per ngrams [17], 'Wrocław' has been more used in english since around 2015—blindlynx 14:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ngrams, while a useful tool, isn't always conclusive, and should be used to back up a source review, rather than on its own. I conducted such a review, selecting sources by working down this list to ensure that they are not cherry picked (skipping depreciated sources and the ones in the nom) and it shows universal preference for "Wroclaw". CNN MSN New York Times Fox News Yahoo News India Times NDTV Washington Post CNBC News18 Times of India ABC NY Post

Note that some of these, such as the Washington Post, occasionally produce articles using "Wrocław", but in all those cases "Wroclaw" is preferred by at least an order of magnitude. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

News outlets aren't the only WP:RS you'll note that a google scholar search for 'Wroclaw' returns mostly results with the diacritic [[18]]—blindlynx 16:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose For languages using the Latin alphabet, it is preferable (and frankly more respectful) to use the existing names, as long as no established English alternative name exists (such as Venice, Rome, Gothenburg, Copenhagen etc.). Jeppiz (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The established English name is Wroclaw as per the sources provided. "Respect" does not play into article title decisions. --Spekkios (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Spekkios, there is no need for you to jump in and argue with every user who opposes your proposals, as you are currently doing across several talk pages. Another user already pointed out to you earlier today that your behavior is veering towards becoming disruptive (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). You've made the proposed moved request, other users are perfectly free to disagree. Jeppiz (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I am responding to each of these opposition statements because none of them cite any sources for their common use claim nor cite any policy or guidelines. That is not disruptive nor is it turning into a battleground. I am not being uncivil in any of these discussions, nor am I judging the motives of anyone anywhere. That claim is simply absurd. I find it quite curious that instead of supporting your statement with relevant policy, guidelines, or sources, you have resorted to an ad hominem. 23:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC) --Spekkios (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors do not need to cite sources to voice that they don't find your claims convincing as the article won't be moved if there isn't consensus to—blindlynx 02:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors still need to base their opinion on sources and policy. It's one thing to say "it's not the common name" and another to say "it's not the common name per xyz". --Spekkios (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

there is a big difference between asking others why they aren't finding your arguments—as the one requesting the move—convincing and asking them to WP:SATISFY you—blindlynx 16:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY clearly states that offering rebuttals is perfectly fine which is what I have done in this case. This is clearly off-topic, so if you have an issue with my conduct go through WP:DR. --Spekkios (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment Encyclopedia Britannica (by far a better source than those presented above) uses Wrocław, showing that Wrocław is indeed English usage. Jeppiz (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per me at Talk:Kraków, i.e. some of the sign images and Jeppiz's comment yesterday. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, this is all based on news sources. Journalists are likely to omit diacritics and misspell foreign names in other ways because they don't care, that doesn't mean we should. We should strive for a higher standard of general accuracy. Also, the idea that typing a name without diacritics for technical reasons makes it a new name or "English" is complete bunk most of the time, as it is here. "Wroclaw" is clearly the same name as "Wrocław", pronounced the same accounting for differences in phonology, it's just been typed without the diacritic. My same rationale applies to Kraków and Poznań. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia is not dumbed down and WP:DIACRITICS are ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Jeppiz, filelakeshoe and Piotrus. Scholarly sources matter more than newspaper articles. That's preumably why Britannica uses diacritics, too.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] ttp://runeberg.org/nfbd/0073.html

[1]