Talk:Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other info[edit]

What table?[edit]

Table1[edit]

Powiaty[edit]

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

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

Cities[edit]

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

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

Table2[edit]

Cities (miasta)[edit]

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

Urban commune (gminy miejskie)[edit]

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

County (powiaty)[edit]

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

Source: www.szukamypolski.com

Discussion[edit]

Name of the article[edit]

The move discussion below has been closed. As per consensus and weight of arguments in this discussion, the page is moved back from Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) to Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939). If there should be a remaining argument whether it should say "1920" or "1921", please discuss the relevant arguments separately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


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

  1. Name "Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939)" is unclear and controversial. There are some different dates, formal and practical. Beginning in 1920, 1921 or 1922 - depending on the sources and ending 1939 and 1945 - depending on how the status II World War.
  2. Citation "Yes, the region had an autonomy and nobody deny it" ...really?!?, come down autonomy to the level of plain voivodeships [4]. This is one of some examples.
  3. I change name on Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) according to User:JDavid version + change wrong dates on name "(autonomy)". This version is compromise and consistent with the sources and principles of Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ad. 1. Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939)" is clear and uncontroversial, we have to choose good date. For sure 1939 like other voivodeships. JDavid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ad. 2. Really I don't know what you have meant. JDavid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Ad. 2. I explain again, in Polish. You wrote: "Yes, the region had an autonomy and nobody deny it" - translate to polish: "Tak, region miał autonomię i nikt temu nie zaprzecza". Ale tuszujecie to jak tylko można. Pamiętam to, jak jeszcze aktywnie działałem na pl.Wikipedii. Podałem ci też jeden z wielu przykładów [5]. Najlepiej śląską autonomię zmniejszyć do poziomu zwykłego województwa, zatuszować nazwę "autonomia" w nazwie artykułu co właśnie robicie. Jaki będzie wasz następny krok? Cicha likwidacja faktu "autonomii" w samej treści artykułu? (jak ktoś chce to może to przetłumaczyć na angielski, pisałem po polsku bo JDavid mnie nie zrozumiał po angielsku). LUCPOL (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd rather have disputed dates than this solution, which doesn't make any immediate sense. At least with the dates people will understand what the title means.--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that dates are better. The word autonomy is unclear, becouse something can have autonomy, but something cannot be autonomy. Am I right? Dates show that this article is historical, and this is important I think. And what's more it's name convension on en.Wiki (which I would have on pl.Wiki). Poznań Voivodeship (1921–1939) was created in 1921, but they had a voivode since 1919, so there is not a problem. I think we could decide what should be a determinant in this case. JDavid (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation "The word autonomy is unclear, becouse something can have autonomy, but something cannot be autonomy. Am I right?" - No, you are wrong. The word "autonomy" is clear and not apply this term to things that do not have autonomy. Second: can change on name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomous)", if someone annoys word "autonomy". LUCPOL (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can do, what we establish here in this discussion, You aren't a ruler of Wikipedia. JDavid (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article doesn't show everything, and I've made mistake in name changing. Silesian Voivodeship was created in 1920, included Cieszyn Silesia, and other small lands. After plebiscite, uprisings other lands were joined to Silesian Voivodeship. Name Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) it's accurate and noncontroversial, without POV. It's crystal-clear! JDavid (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I can add something. "Silesian Voivodeship (i.e. date)" is kind of logical, because "Silesian Voivodeship" itself can refer both to historical and current region of Poland. However "autonomy" is not a good choice, because it doesn't clearly define "which Silesian Voivodeship" - at least at first glance. Certainly date would be much better (as is usually used for disambigs). Then the issue of "autonomous" as part of a name. Undoubtly the name should be given according to the offical act of law, which was defining this region. I assume, that the proper law act was issued by polish parliament. And over there the name should be claerly written, and out of this definition, it should be the name for the wikipedia article. However I agree that technically and according to regulations, this region (in opposition to other voivodeships) could posses a certain degree of autonomy, which of course should me mentioned and described in the article itself, ideally basing on, once again, proper law acts. It's similar situation as for Poznań, as far as I remember, where Poznań is a official name for this city, but historically it was called (or rather had a status = like autonomy) of King's City Poznań (or something like that). But no one claims that the wiki article should be called like this. What is, at first glance, contradictory is the situation for Kraków, where its officially approved (by polish government) name is: "Stołeczne Królewskie Miasto Kraków" (Capital King's City Kraków), so one could say, that the article about it should be called like that. But no - because we would rather choose commons name, instead of the more offical but rarely used full one. However the latter example (and previous with Poznań) should be considered only when there were or are official acts calling "Silesian Voivodeship" - "Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship". Otherwise its autonomy is only technical but has nothing to do with the naming and therefore should be ommited from any part of article name, because it can create confusion and the date (19xx-19xx) is more along with the naming convention anyway Masur (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation (from User:JDavid): "Name Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) it's accurate and noncontroversial, without POV. It's crystal-clear!" Not crystal-clear and this is controversial. See: Constitution of the Silesian Voivodship (autonomous) - Data obowiązywania (Effective Date): 1919-06-28 [6], Data wejścia w życie: (Date of entry to life): 1919-06-28 [7], Data wydania (Release Date): 1920-07-15 [8], your date from your edit: 1921 [9], practical (real) existence of autonomy - from 1922. In addition: Data uchylenia (Date set aside): 1945-05-07 [10], not 1939 - as you did in your editing [11]. In addition, according to very many sources (also polish sources) Poland not exist only 123 years (1795–1918), not in 1939-1945. Formally and internationally, in 1939-45 Poland exist, but really this is occupation. Summary: there are several dates (1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1939, 1945), each date has sources!!!!!! You wrote "It's crystal-clear"? Are you freaking kidding. LUCPOL (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, using more exclamation marks won't make your sentences more... I don't know... important? Loud? In regards to the topic, of course one needs to admit, that it is hard to set precise dates of Silesian Voiv. existence (however for me it should 1919-1945 as law acts say; with a small correction for 1939 or 1945? As far as I remember, unlawfully but effectively, Germans dissolved the polish state), however I assume that proper sources, like monographies about the region's history, can provide us some commonly used date brackets. If not, and really if the dates of establishing and formal ceasing of Silesian Voivodeship are so controversial, still the posibility to use something different as a disambiguation in brackets can be used. Like "Silesian Voivodeship (Second Polish Republic)" or anything else, what would be unequivocal enough. Masur (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within Second Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within II Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy in Second Polish Republic)" or similary names would be acceptable, because this name shows status (autonomy) and the period (II Polish Republic). LUCPOL (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. But like I mentioned. Autonomy is part of a description, not part of a name. Name like: "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within II Polish Republic)" is imo hardly correct, because it suggests that it was almost completely independent (compare with Palestine Autonomy or Free City Gdańsk/Danzig). The only thing to figure out is how to clearly distiguish "this" Sil. void. from the current one. Like imagine that we have more than one "Kraków" in Poland. Whould you name different articles: "Kraków (Capital King's City)" and (fictionous one) "Kraków (Pomerania Voivodeship)" or rather "Kraków (Lesser Poland Voivodeship)" and "Kraków (Pomerania Voivodeship)"? And as I see i.e. here: Pomeranian Voivodeship (1919–1939), the system is to discriminate articles using dates, and there is no problem whether it is 1939 or 1945 (as we agreed that 1919 is a correct "starting" year). Therefore I think that "Silesian Voivodeship (1919-1939)" (1939 reflecting actual "end year", even if considered unlawful by the polish government on exile and some allied states) is a proper name, being in the agreement with existing naming conventions. Masur (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Name "Silesian Voivodeship (1919-1939)" and in the introductory article write "The status of autonomy was forcibly removed on May 6, 1945". Quite a mess + controversial (these dates are collusive between us). PS. excerption to Palestine Autonomy is your wrong sentence. Name: autonomy "within" II Polish Republic not suggests to Palestine Autonomy and similary your samples. In addition, I wrote "Name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within Second Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy within II Polish Republic)" or "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy in Second Polish Republic)" or similary names" - maybe my examples are not grammatical, you can improve grammar or give another example name with shows status (autonomy) and the period (II Polish Republic). LUCPOL (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so if your point of view is commonly (it's quite important, because on en-wiki common names or conventions in naming are prefered over official ones or "correct" ones. See North Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea) supported in the subject literatury (that the Sil. Void. ceased to exist on 1945), the name should be then "Silesian Voivodeship (1919-1945)". BTW. 1945 is the date where autonomy privileges were revoked or when Sil. Void. was "cancelled"? The same with 1919 - is it a year when Sil. Void. was formed or its autonomy status set? I have to say, that by the dates for disambiguation I understand the dates when Sil. Void. existed (!), therefore 1939 is a real end point, even if it was unlawful to liquidate the poolish state at all (I adressed this issue above). The dates when Sil. Void. had privileges of autonomy can be, but don't have to be, different, what of course should me mentioned in the article itself, but for the sake of discrimination from other Silesian Voivodeships, the naming convention calls for dates of existence. And, like I agreed, 1939 or 1945 is arguable, however en-wiki consensus points toward 1939 as a real "end point" for the Polish Second Republic, ergo for its administrative parts (like mentioned Pomeranian Voivodeship (1919–1939)) Masur (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

ISAP (Internet Law Acts System) isn't a source of law in Rzeczpospolita of Poland. Every date which is presented there as a beginning of binding force of the law is not valid. Ustawa Konstytucyjna z dnia 15 lipca 1920 r. zawierająca statut organiczny Województwa Śląskiego (Dz. U. z 1920 r. Nr 73, poz. 497) was proclaimed 11 August 1920. Due to unclear bequest of Article 45 of the Act: This law act comes into effect with acquisition of the Silesian Voivodeship by Rzeczpospolita of Poland - part with Cieszyn of the Silesian Voivodeship was granted 28 July 1920, and part Upper Silesia was formally accessed in 22 June 1922 - as a date of creating the Silesian Voivodeship can be accepted only 26 August 1920 (coming into force of the Law Act according to 4th article of a Law Act of 31 July 1919 [ustawa z dnia 31 lipca 1919 r. w sprawie wydawania Dziennika Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Dz. U. z 1919 r. Nr 66, poz. 400)] or 22 June 1922 (accession of Upper Silesia by Rzeczpospolita of Poland). Poznaniak (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) would be satisfactory?--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this title is the most appropriate. Poznaniak (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pro what I've said above. JDavid (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Unnecessary discussion. Still it is date discussed by us, still is mess, still controversial, still complicated. All "neutral" users is confirmed that is controversial and complicated. In the case of the Silesian autonomy will never!!! be clean and non-complicated dates. LUCPOL (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Unnecessary this discussion. Current name of article is ok. WojtekSIL (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Unnecessary conversation. Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is the best name. [[User:Ozi64|◄Ozi64►]] <small>[[User talk:Ozi64|and his talk]]</small> (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reach that conclusion? It doesn't even make sense.--Kotniski (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion makes no sense. Still it is date discussed by us, still is mess, still controversial, still complicated. All "neutral" users is confirmed that dates is controversial and complicated. In the case of the Silesian autonomy will never!!! be clean and non-complicated dates. Besides, you can use a name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomous)" instead of "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy)". LUCPOL (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have I mentioned that using more than one exclamation mark and underlining your sentences is not making them more important, really? I think, that I have... The date is not discussed, as we agreed that Silesian Voivodeship existed from 1920 to 1939 (practically) or 1945 (according to the law act). It means that the name: "Silesian Voivodeship (1920-1939)" clearly distinguishes this article from other "Silesian Voivodeships" articles; is without any doubts unequivocal, even if dates are disputable (but they clearly point toward right historical period), whereas "(autonomy)" at most is unclear because it doesn't point toward anything (could be "(yellow)" as I wrote below). Meaning that as a reader not familiar with the subject, when I see the name "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy)" it doesn't ring me a bell as good as "Silesian Voivodeship (1920-1939)", which nicely places the article within the historical period and moreover the latter one is according to the naming convention for other voivodeships. The other option, however unused at en-wiki (but in use at pl-wiki) would be "Silesian Voivodeship (Second Polish Republic)". Masur (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it another way. You write that date in the name of the article are cool because you can easily see from what period the province. You say that the word autonomy need not be named because he is in the article. Is that so? And now look at from another perspective. Silesian region was autonomy as the only region , so you can use status in the name of the article and not mix it with the usual regions. However, the period of autonomy can be read from the article. Also there may be a detailed explanation of dates. Is my reasoning is logical? Yes.
In Polish, for better understanding: Popatrz na to w inny sposób. Piszesz, że daty w nazwie artykułu są fajne bo od razu widać z jakiego okresu jest województwo. Mówisz, że słowo autonomia nie musi być w nazwie bo jest w treści artykułu. Czy tak? A teraz popatrz z innej perspektywy. Województwo śląskie jako jedyne było autonomią, dlatego lepiej użyć statusu w nazwie artykułu a nie mieszać go ze zwykłymi województwami. Natomiast okres w jakim funkcjonowało województwo można odczytać z treści artykułu. Tam też może być dokładne wyjaśnienie dat - jak każdy przyzna - skomplikowanych. Czy moje uzasadnienie jest logiczne? Tak. LUCPOL (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But don't you see that anyone who knows this entity had some kind of special autonomy will know in which period it existed (maybe not the precise years, but certainly that it was basically the interwar period), so using dates will not confuse anyone; but on the other hand, other people will know that they are interested in the interwar voivodeships, but won't necessarily know that the Silesian one had some autonomous status, so using "(autonomous)" might confuse people (as well as being inconsistent with how we do all the other voivodeships)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro I find very amusing voting over the article name... Like you know - democracy cannot make things more or less correct. And the current name is: a) against naming standards; b) not clear; "autonomy" doesn't clarify anything. And when I look for a certain article, I'd like to see from its name, whether it is the one (instead of (autonomy), ther could be (yellow)); c) autonomy, as far as I understand, didn't span the same period of time as the existence of voivodeship. Or at least practically it didn't. The Silesian autonomy was neglectable after 1935 (afair... new Constitution); d) in the discussion above at least several other arguments were presented, why (autonomy) is not good for this article disambiguation, as part of the article name. Other point of view (so, favoring "autonomy" as part of the name), imo, wasn't supported at all (like: "unnecessary - conversation. Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is the best name." from above... very constructive) and arguments focused on negating other options rather than supporting "the autonomy" one. Anyway, if we want to vote and if its the way how things are settled at en-wiki... fine. Just hope, that voters will read the discussion. Masur (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) - the most appropriate and in the line with the naming convention for other voivodeships. Current name Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is OR. The name od this voivodeship was "Silesian Voivodeship". Aspects of autonomy should be mentioned in the article. Elfhelm (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Unnecessary Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy) is the best name. Leave as is.--SPL908455, Henryk (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And again - why it is the best name? Cos somehow I don't see any argumentation. Masur (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Powiem wprost, nie jestem Śląskiem od urodzenia, i nie przeszkadza mi dopisek "(autonomia)", jak komuś to przeszkadza to już jego problem. Dla mnie ta "autonomia" w nawiasach jest swego rodzaju kompromisem, a przecież o kompromis Tu nam chodzi, a nie jakieś nasze prywatne-polityczne animozje. Dlatego uważam ze nazwa hasła "Silesian Voivodeship (autonomy)" jest jak najbardziej kompromisowa. Pozdrawiam,--SPL908455 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty touching what you say, however all of us would appreciate if you speak english here; while this is english language Wikipedia and maybe there are some participants, which would like to follow this discussion. And we aren't discussing whether the "annotation" is bothering someone or not, but whether such disambiguation fulfils its role as a way for discriminating different articles bearing similar names. Masur (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rozumiem, cel jest szczytny, ale materia - w Śląskim przypadku - jest wyjątkowo delikatna. Dziwne, ale przez wiele lat pewne fakty nikomu nie przeszkadzały. Została otwarta przysłowiowa puszka Pandory.--SPL908455 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mógłbyś chopie przeczytać argumenty adwersarzy, zamiast pisać co Ci Lucpol przekazał. Takie minimum rzetelności udziału w dyskusji. Pozdrawiam JDavid (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rozumiem, ale moja wypowiedź dotyczyła wyłącznie nazwy tego hasła, Nie wnikam w czas trwania autonomii tego województwa, bo to już inna kwestia. Pozdrawiam,--SPL908455 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) Name with word "autonomy" is erroneous and inaccurate. On the legal basis of article 81, section 3, Law Act of Constitution of Rzeczpospolita of Poland from 23 April 1935 (Dz. U. z 1935 r. Nr 30, poz. 227) autonomy was abolished.

    To existing of an autonomy is been necessary a self-reliance, there is no hierarchical dependance. A state gives up to present entity a small part of its empire

    To 1935 a change of Organic Statute required of approval from Silesian Sejm (Silesian Parliament). While after coming into force April Constitution of Rzeczpospolita of Poland (24 April 1935), it was sufficient only law act of the State (Country, enacted by Sejm of Poland). So it was no longer an autonomy, but a wide self-government of municipality [1]. From 1935 to 1939 it was voivodeship without autonomy. The abolishing Organic Statut of the Silesian Voivodeship in 1945 by the State National Council was only a abolishing of binding law basis of distict self-government of municipality from other self-governments of the State (Poland). That is why forsing a name with word "autonomy" is pure OR and it is intended only to meet the individual's complexes of user LUCPOL[2], what it cannot be alowed in Wikipedia, which has to present a Neutral Point of View. Therefore it's be ordered as in the sentence. Poznaniak (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ S. Kasznica, Samorząd: skrypt według wykładów prof. dr Kasznicy. Poznań 1935, page 43
  2. ^ LUCPOL edit
Not exactly. This according to Mr. Kasznica - although still a source of verification. Furthermore, nowhere says that the silesian autonomy lasted only until 1935. Thirdly: acts of law are saying something else, also scientific literature. I'm sorry poznaniak.
In Polish, for better understanding: Niezupełnie. To według pana Kasznicy - choć źródło jeszcze do weryfikacji. Ponadto, nigdzie nie pisze że autonomia śląska trwała tylko do 1935 roku. Po trzecie: akty prawne mówią co innego, także literatura naukowa. Przykro mi poznaniaku. LUCPOL (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it did have some kind of special "autonomy" for all of its existence, there still isn't any need to mention that fact in the article title. Most people will be most helped by being told the dates when that incarnation of Silesian Voivodeship existed, not a (seemingly rather controversial) label about its legal status. This is what we do with other former voivodeships whose names are ambiguous, and isn't anything to do with any point of view - just trying to make Wikipedia more consistent, clear and (in as far as there exists doubt about the autonomous status) neutral.--Kotniski (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Unnecessary this discussion. Current name of article is ok. Maras84 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939), Bacus15 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • All in all, I consider the name proposed name of the article (Silesian Voivodeship (1921–1939)) to be the best, taking into account a variety of factors, all of which have been raised avobe. Wpedzich (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As said above. Pro Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) Awersowy (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro "Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939)" is the best name for this article because the facts state that, not the opinions. Patrol110 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro The best name for it is "Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939)". Viatoro (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro The name "Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939)" is the best choice and is not POV.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939)" is OR. LUCPOL (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Cleanup and removing POV[edit]

I've removed the following from the article as it is non-factual and extremely POV. The Voivodeship officially ceased to exist in Sept. 1939. There is no connection whatsoever between the current voivodeship, which was created in 1999, and the voivodeship from before the war. The current voivodeship is not in any sense a "successor" to the previous one. The last sentence is blatantly POV. I've also cleaned up the English and removed other POV statements.

"The status of autonomy was forcibly removed on May 6, 1945 by the ruling Polish Workers' Party.

Its successor is the current Silesian Voivodeship, which has the same city — Katowice — as its capital. Up today, Polish authorities don't want to give back autonomy of Silesia[citation needed]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs)

No, you wrong. The Voivodeship not officially ceased to exist in Sept. 1939. From 1939 to 1945 this is occupation. "There is no connection whatsoever between the current voivodeship, which was created in 1999, and the voivodeship from before the war. The current voivodeship is not in any sense a "successor" to the previous one." - ok, I agree. LUCPOL (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The area of Sil. Voiv. was formally not occupied during the II WW. This area, as well as western parts of pre-war Poland were incorporated into III Reich, therefore they didn't hold an occupied territory status (see e.g. Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany). Therefore, legally or not, but certainly for sure formally and practically - this voivodeship ceased to exist. Masur (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Practically, not oficially and internationally. Countries in the world (not connected with the Germany) did not accept new borders of Germany during World War II. LUCPOL (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Temporary"[edit]

User:LUCPOL has added the word "temporary" in the following sentence:

"The Voivodeship was temporarily disolved on October 8, 1939 as a result of the German invasion of Poland, and its territory was incorporated into the German Province of Silesia."

This is incorrect, because Hitler meant the disolution to be permanent. The Polish Sejm did not disolve the voivodeship.

He has also vandalized the article by adding Nationalistic POV ("Up today, Polish authorities don't want to give back autonomy of Silesia.") Polish authorities revoked autonomy in 1935.

Sorry, LUCPOL, but pro-Silesian propaganda has no place on Wikipedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... but pro-Polish propaganda has always place on Wikipedia. LUCPOL (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Silesiapedia, buddy. It's just plain vandalism here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You right. Polish propaganda is vandalism here. This is not Polish Wikipedia - slot of Polish nationalists. LUCPOL (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You vandal and manipulator [12]. How can you trust the Poles? How? Yours propaganda knows no bounds. LUCPOL (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be oversensitive about something here - none of this has any value as propaganda, for either side in what you perceive as the conflict, even if it were somehow intended as propaganda. We just want to present the historical facts accurately and in a way that will be clear to the general reader.--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So avoid names "autonomy", stoop to the level of mere province, blame on the Germans and delete content on the polish liquidation of the region and very many other examples.
In Polish, for better understanding: Oczywiście. Żadnej polskiej propagandy i POV. To nic, że staracie się usuwać słowo "autonomia", mieszacie Autonomię Śląską ze zwykłymi województwami, zwalacie wszystko na Niemców oraz usuwacie informacje o zlikwidowaniu województwa przez polską władzę. Ale przecież to jest NPOV. Tylko tyle, że tylko dla was, dla innych to co robicie to manipulacja tekstem tak aby wszystko wybielić i zatuszować co dla polaków jest niesmaczne, a co za tym idzie to zwykłe kłamstwo i oszustwo. LUCPOL (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what you mean. A voivodeship had a certain amount of autonomy for a certain period of time, and with the course of history came to be replaced by other entities (first German, then Polish) that didn't have such autonomy. None of this helps or hinders any present-day cause, whether pro- or anti-Silesian - it's all just old facts. Don't worry about it so.--Kotniski (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Autonomous" or "one of many"[edit]

User:Stan J Klimas removed the following material from the lead:

was one of the 17 provinces (voivodeships) into which interwar Poland was divided. It consisted of territory which came into Polish possession as a result of the 1921 Upper Silesia plebiscite, the Geneva Conventions, three Upper Silesian Uprisings, and the eventual partition of Upper Silesia between Poland, Germany and Czechoslovakia. By an act of parliament of 1920, the Silesian Voivodeship was granted special autonomy within the Polish Republic. Its capital was Katowice.

And replaced it with the following:

a province (voivodeships) of interwar Poland. Today, often relevant in the Polish regional politics in the context of the (lost) Silesian autonomy.

The information he removed is a summary of the body of the article. The sentence he added is not.

I have asked him here and on his talk page to justify his deletions and additions here Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Stan J Klimas: No, Stan, I most certainly did not misread. I reverted your change because you removed all information from the lede about the plebescites and uprisings that lead to the granting of partial autonomy to the region in 1920. You even removed the fact that Autonomy was granted. All of this is a summary of the article. It is precisely because of these events that the Voivodeship is mentioned in history textbooks, both in Poland and abroad.
The sentence you added is NOT a summary of any material presented in the article. The present-day autonomy movement is not mentioned (nor should it be), and present-day Polish politics really has nothing to do with the scope of this article. Even in present-day Polish politics, Silesian autonomy is very far down on the list of burning items.
I also don't understand what you mean by autonomy being "buried" in the article. The first paragraph of the lead consists of little else besides the events leading up to the granting of autonomy in 1920, and the act granting autonomy itself. The words "autonomy" or "autonomous" appear no less than eight times in this article, and appear, as I said, in the very first paragraph of the lead, as well as at the very top of the infobox to the right.
The "17" is there to preserve uniformity among articles pertaining to Polish Voivodships.
Please discuss your justification for your deletions and additions here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I believe you keep misreading. Which exactly phrase is missing? If possible please give an exact quote. The phrase you give as missing is there, exactly underneath.
(2) Today's relevance of the topic is withing the scope of every article. I thought it was rather self evident that the issue is current in the Polish politics and hotly debated. References can be added - if marked it with template "fact"; I will oblige with references.
(3) It is a minor misrepresentation when the article just says "one of 17" because it implies there were all the same, whereas they were not. Silesian was the only autonomous province in Poland of the period to my information and belief. Today Poland has no autonomous entities, so it is also the most recent one, hence the modern relevance.
I thought it was only fair to have the term "autonomous" mentioned at the very top since it was recently removed from the title. This removal from the title changed no facts and the fairness for this hotly debated topic does call for a better balance.
I allowed myself to change the title of this section to reflect the merit of the discussion rather than the name of the editor. Hope this is fine with you. Cheers. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see it now. Sorry. I still think that the sentence you added does not belong in the lede, because it does not summarize anything from the body of the article. Sourcing it would make no difference to me, and discussing the modern autonomy movement in the body of this article is out of the question.
I would hardly say that Silesian autonomy is debated hotly in Poland. It's basically a dead issue even among the residents of the modern Voivodeship, and it's prospects don't look promising. That would require changes to the Polish Constitution, and I honestly can't see that ever happening. The only ones who are hotly debating it are a small group of autonomy activists, but they have garnered very little support for Silesian autonomy. Their support in recent elections does not translate into support for Silesian autonomy per se. To anyone outside of Poland, the debate is of minimal significance.
The plebescites and uprising are mentioned in most genral modern history books outside of Poland, and the information about them is what would be most interesting to most readers, not the present-day autonomy movement. This information should therefore be in the first paragraph of the lede, not the second.
Actually, I think we can achieve your goal of mentioning the autonomous mature of the voivodeship by simpling relacing the "17" with "an autonomous", and leaving the rest of the paragraph as it is. That gives you your earlier mention of the unique autonomic status of the voivodship, and me my info on the plebescites and uprisings in the first paragraph. I've made the change. Tell me what you think. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formally repealed[edit]

Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship was formally repealed by a law of 6 May 1945 by Polish Gov. http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19450170092 http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19450170092/O/D19450092.pdf

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silesian_Voivodeship_(1920–1939)&oldid=1207903773"