Talk:Lower Silesia

Which version is better

would someone be so kind and speak out to whether my version of the article is better or the other one.Jadran91 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jadran, simply, you added towns from Lusatia, not from Silesia. Both countries are different. Does you have proof of opposite? If yes, of course, add these Lusatian towns. As I understand, you probably by error confuse Prussian province of Lower Silesia and country Lower Silesia. --Yopie (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Historically the county of Glatz/Kladsko/Klotzko was part of Bohemia and not of Silesia, why wasn't Kłodzko deleted too? Karasek (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

as can be seen here, http://www.kreis-goerlitz.de/city_info/webaccessibility/index.cfm?waid=132 , the coat of arms of lower silesia is official part of the coat of arms of kreis görlitz

as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Lusatia in section inhabitant, it is mentioned that silesian is still partially spoken in the east of upper lusatia i wonder why silesian is spoken there if it wasnt part of historic silesia because languages cant be imported just due to political changes

the region franconia, which makes up almost half of bavaria, and where people dont even speak bavarian but franconian also wasnt part of bavaria earlier. but i cant see an article about bavaria that excludes franconia.

its normal that historic regions change their dimensions during time

of course it can be said, that the real old historic lower sileasia ended at bóbr and kwisa, but due to the fact that the date is 1815, i think that its also historic already. cause genereations have grown up there and felt silesian, and therefore the article and the city list would be incomplete without these parts

it exists an article about województwo dolnośląskie, in which of course Zgorzelec is mentioned, one about Dolny Śląsk in which its also mentioned, one about Śląsk where its also mentioned and one about Prowincja Śląsk in which its also mentioned. To create an article about Lower silesia without Zgorzelec and other cities west of it, an article Lower Silesia prior to 1815 should be made following the example of the article Altbayern , Old Bavaria, which excludes FranconiaJadran91 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Jadran, please read WP:RS first. We need reliable sources, not original researchand subjective feelings. About country and administrative regions - Czechoslovakia was divided to regions (kraje) (see Administrative divisions of Czechoslovakia) and one was Severomoravský kraj (Region of the North Moravia), but this region include whole Czech Silesia. With your logic Czech Silesia was united with Moravia and now is "deleted" from maps. Of course, today is this commies mistake repaired and exist Moravian-Silesian Region. Again, don't mix Lower Silesia and Province of Lower Silesia. --Yopie (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yopie you impute a logic to me that i absolutely dont have. According to that logic, i would have to believe that all historic regions in the former GDR are deleted from the map because they were once integrated into several gdr boroughs http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:DDR_Verwaltungsbezirke_farbig.svg this is not comparable to the situation as we have it in upper lusatia The inhabitants of the former saxon parts of lower silesia may at the beginning not have felt silesian, but within 130 years, this region slowly adapted to the rest of silesia, until it was natural for people havin been born there to be silesian. may be lusatian too, but also silesian May the incorporation of that region not have been voluntarily, but by and by it became silesian and this not only in a political context but also cultural. and why do people speak silesian there? and why is the integration of the silesian coat of arms in the görlitz coat of arms not proof enough. do they include it just for fun the region is in lusatia, but parts of lusatia are lower silesian. its lower silesian upper lusatia and why is franconia and bavarian swabia included in each bavaria article this article is not about voivodeship dolnośląskie where the towns west of nysa Łużycka could be excluded, but its also not about lower silesia in the borders prior to 1815 its about lower silesiaJadran91 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Did you have proof of this? I´m sure not and your POV is subjective original research.--Yopie (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

that those cities were part of lower silesia from 1815 on doesn't have do be proven since it's already in the article as a fact, so someone else must already have proven it. again, this article is not about lower silesia prior to 1815 Jadran91 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Read WP:RS and WP:OR first. CoA of region isn't proof and because in CoA is Bohemian lion, I can assume with your logic, that region is in Bohemia.Czech republic have in CoA Silesian eagle and isn't in Silesia or whole Silesia isn't in CR. BTW you are in edit war and next time you will be reported.--Yopie (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lower Silesia/Lusatia

The question that is asked here concernes logical thinking. We all agree that the cities of Gorlitz&Zgorzelec are part of a historical region of Lusatia and precisely Upper Lusatia.

We all must agree that historical regions have some borders and when one historical region ends another one begins.

As the laws of logic say when a is a it cannot be b in the same time. The question is than is it possible for a town to lie both in two historical regions? Can both: Gorlitz&Zgorzelec be in Upper Lusatia and in Lower Silesia in the same time? It could be so only if Upper Lusatia would be a subregion of Lower Silesia but we all know that historical region of Lusatia was never part of a historical region of Silesia and historical region of Silesia was never part of a historical region of Lusatia. They were for some part of the history under the same rule but that connects them in a same way as Tuscany is connected with Liguria.

We need to decide something. If we agree that Gorlitz&Zgorzelec lie in Lower Silesia than they can't lie in Upper Lusatia in the same time, can they? If we decide opposite the conclusion also must be opposite. That is becouse towns can lie only in one historical region in the same time. 213.238.108.89 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As the laws of logic say when a is a it cannot be b in the same time. You should perhaps review the laws of logic again. john k (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

why the towns Görlitz, Zgorzelec and Hoyerswerda should or schould not be included in the city list

one calls places like Görlitz a melting pot of cultures and neither one can be ignored

A

the region west of lusatian neisse belongs to lower silesia since

1. it belonged to it administratively since 1815

2. it belongs to it linguistically since the silesian accent still is spoken

3. it belongs to it culturally which can be proven by the official page of kreis görlitz

4. the lower silesian coat of arms is integral part of the coat of arms of kreis görlitz, and this not, as the bohemian lion, for historical reasons

on the official website of kreis görlitz it says:

der Niederschlesische Adler verkörpert die kulturelle Identifikation eines Teils der Landkreiseinwohner mit Schlesien

the lower silesian eagle embodies the cultural identification of a part of the inhabitants of the county with silesia

http://www.kreis-goerlitz.de/city_info/webaccessibility/index.cfm?waid=126&item_id=840394&old_item_id=0&oldrecord=48716&oldmodul=5&olddesign=0

so we have these three criteria

culturally, linguistically and administratively

what else does one need to count a region as part of a region

• Does you have proof for Silesia accent, used in Lusatia?
• Your citation about CoA is intersting, but you omitted part "Das Kreisgebiet gehört zum Territorium der Oberlausitz" - "Region is part of Upper Lusatian territory", and of course "kulturelle Identifikation eines Teils" is not about whole territory.
• Still, same - article is about Country, not Prussian province.--Yopie (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

B

here is the constitution of the free state of saxonia:

http://www.landtag.sachsen.de/de/landtag/grundlagen/86.aspx

in the preamble it says:

Anknüpfend an die Geschichte der Mark Meißen, des sächsischen Staates und des niederschlesischen Gebietes........hat sich das Volk im Freistaat Sachsen ............ diese Verfassung gegeben

following the history of the mark meißen, the saxonian state, and the lower silesian area ..... the people in the free state of saxonia ....... has given itself this constitution

it says: lower silesian area. neither does it say: the parts that belonged to the province of lower silesia, nor does it say anything of lusatia.. it says lower silesian area

in article 2 number 4 it says

Im Siedlungsgebiet der Sorben können neben den Landesfarben und dem Landeswappen Farben und Wappen der Sorben, im schlesischen Teil des Landes die Farben und das Wappen Niederschlesiens, gleichberechtigt geführt werden.

in the settlement area of the sorbs, beside the land colours and the land coat of arms, the colours and coat of arms of the sorbs, in the silesian part of the land the colours and the coat of arms of lower silesia can be used equally

here it says silesian part of the land.. again, neither the province nor lustia is mentioned

see also: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagge_Niederschlesiens

if the parts west of lusatian neisse just would have been part of the province of lower silesia and not of lower silesia, then these parts wouldnt be called silesian in the saxon constitution

• Hmm, Constitution of Czech republic says in first article "We, citizens of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia", so Czech republic consist from Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. Thus, because Wrocław is in Silesia, is in Czech republic (and Zgorzelec too :-)--Yopie (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

C

it exists the case that some regions are part of two historical regions like for example

Angeln which is part of Southern Schleswig which is part of Jutland

you can find an article about Franconia, and one about Bavaria, and this of course includes Franconia

Franconia roughly became part of Bavaria when parts of lusatia became silesian

in this case, franconia is like lusatia, and bavaria is like silesia

the page Bavaria leads to the page free state of Bavaria, Freistaat Bayern

the page lower silesia does not lead to województwo dolnośląskie since unlike bavaria, silesia is no political entity today

In the page Altbayern, what describes Bayern prior to the belonging of franconia to bavaria it says:

Altbayern (also written Altbaiern, English meaning: Old Bavaria) is a term used to describe the three oldest parts of the Free State of Bavaria, which were earlier known as Kurbayern

According to this, an article about lower silesia in the borders prior to 1815 would have to be created and then the parts of lusatia could be left out

D

this article just would be incomplete without görlitz

in görlitz can be found the silesian museum görlitz

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlesisches_Museum_(G%C3%B6rlitz)

the traditional hotel silesia

http://www.hotel-silesia.net/

the bank sparkasse upper lusatia lower silesia

https://banking.sparkasse-oberlausitz-niederschlesien.de/cgi/anfang.cgi

before the local government reform, parts of kreis görlitz were called lower silesian upper lusatia kreis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niederschlesischer_Oberlausitzkreis

it exists the football team lower silesian football team yellow white görlitz

http://www.nfvgw09.de/spielbetrieb.asp?iid=70&mid=37

and other things that contain lower silesian, like Niederschlesischer Kreisfachverband Fussball

http://www.nkvfwn.de/

even though the name lower silesian does not exist in administration anymore, a lot of things are called like that

and this is even more a proof that parts of lusatia not just have been part of the province of lower silesia, but still are silesianJadran91 (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree that you gave any real argument here aside from your desire to include Zgorzelec in the historical region of Lower Silesia. You gave a link to Bavaria which tells not about a historical region but about a, and I quote, the largest federal state (Bundesland) of Germany. The article about Franconia tells about a historical region that lies in different Federal states of Germany but that does not change the fact that Franconia has its historical borders even though it is now divided between various administrative parts of Germany.

When it comes to the historical region of Jutland as the article says it forms a territory north of the Eider River. The boundries are settled here. The word Jutland in your link is used to cover, I quote, the mainland part of Denmark. and not the historical region of Jutland which is described above. This historical region has its boundries and subregions which are: North Jutland and South Jutland. South Jutland is known also as Schleswig. In the 13th century South Jutland became a duchy. The first duke was Canute Lavard (Knud Lavard). In the late 14th century it took the name of the Duchy of Schleswig. The duchy was named after the city of Schleswig (Slesvig).

Today all of North Jutland is part of Denmark and South Jutland is divided between Germany and Denmark. The German part togeather with the historical region of Holstein forms the Federal state of Germany (mark not a historical region) of Schleswig-Holstein. Those are cases of regions dividing into subregions but it is not the case of Lusatia and Silesia because historical region of Lusatia was never part of a historical region of Silesia and historical region of Silesia was never part of a historical region of Lusatia. They were for some part of the history under the same rule but they never formed one historical region as South Jutland and North Jutland. Jutland is on the same level as Silesia and Lusatia. South Jutland on the other hand on the same level as Upper Lusatia and Lower Silesia.

Ergo. Historical regions have their boundriers. They also have their subdivisions. A city cannot lie in two different historical regions in the same time. Angeln lies in South Jutland which is part of Jutland. Wrocław lies in Lower Silesia which is part of Silesia. Zgorzelec lies in Upper Lusatia which is part of Lusatia. The administrative divisions of the modern states are something compleatly different than historical regions. 77.253.71.61 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. the link that i gave leads to the federal state, since the historical region of bavaria and the federal state agree with each other, since the borders remained the same, whereas lower silesia and województwo dolnośląskie dont

the history of the federal state and bavaria in general can be written in the same article, since it is the same geographical entity, and of silesia this cant be done

furthermore i also gave the link to altbayern, in which can be read that altbayern are the three oldest parts of bavaria

most of the rest of bavaria became bavarian in 1806, so thats almost the same year

if we would do the same with lower silesia, an article about lower silesia prior to 1806 would have to be created

2. may it be that franconia is divided between two federal states, but that does not change the fact that bavarian franconia is a historic region of bavaria, as bavarian swabia is too

as i said, franconia is like lusatia: franconia is divided between the fed states of bavaria and baden württemberg, and lusatia between fed states of saxony, brandenburg and between poland

bavaria, however, is like silesia.. it's impossible to write a historical article about bavaria without mentioning the capital of franconia, nuremberg.. but it's also not possible to write a historical article about silesia without mentioning görlitz

all you said is that franconia is divided between several fed states like is lusatia

who said that this is not the fact

3. in the text about jutland it even says that north of the eider, but south of the border, clauses of the jutlandic code apply hence it must be part of jutland

but these regions are also in south schleswig

and schleswig is one of the historical regions of fed state schleswig holstein

see the section historic regions in the jutland article

of the six regions there are two in germany southern schleswig and holstein

and this article is about the historic region jutland

it is divided into danish part and german part

jutland itself is a historic region, because otherwise there would not be an article about the jutland peninsula... and the article itself states six historic regions within this historic region

thus, for example the town of glücksburg is in the historic region of jutland, south schleswig, and angeln for the physio geographic article see: jutland peninsula

furthermore you can see in this article even Lübeck and Kiel are mentioned whose inhabitants probably dont identify as jutlanders, but anyway it is in the article, since otherwise, it would be incomplete.. and the inhabitants of görlitz feel much more silesian than the lübeckers feel jutlandic... and a lower silesian article without görlitz is incomplete

who decides when something is to be called historic and when not

silesia also must have begun somewhere, and at the beginning it must have been smaller than what it is today

there are always regions which belong to a historic region longer than other parts

if the parts would have just been part of the province of lower silesia, but the people in it would always just have felt lusatian or saxon, what reason would there be to name anything after it now? what reason should there be to remind oneself of the province of lower silesia? there is nor reason actually. it's because it is silesian that the name and the coat of arms has survived and why do some people speak silesian there?

i explained above that the former saxon parts of lusatia slowly transformed into parts of silesia

may the expansion having been done by force and unvoluntarily, or in another way

but just because it was in 1815 that those parts began to become silesian, they cant be ignored

it cant be transformed more than the culture and the language

i do not think that there is any region in which the culture of a historic region is and the language, but which is not mentioned in the article of that historic regionJadran91 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In your first sentence you wrote that Bavaria and Lower Silesia are not like each other becouse region of bavaria and the federal state agree with each other, since the borders remained the same, whereas lower silesia and województwo dolnośląskie dont. On the other hand a bite later you wrote bavaria, however, is like silesia.. .

The truth is that they actuallay differ. Bavaria for most of its history was an independent state with its own king only under nominal control of the Holy Roman Emperor. So Bavaria is on a same level like Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria and any other unitary state. Now it is part of a federation of Germany but it does not change the fact that it was a state with its own monarch and offices for almost a 1000 years.

Silesia on the other hand since its formation as a historical region also over 1000 ago was almost always a province of some country (only in the 13th century there was no overlord over Silesia, but the province since 1241 became weak and divided). First of Great Moravia, than of Bohemia and Poland, for 200 of Prussia(independent and later within German Empire, Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany) finally it is a province of Poland once again.

For this 1000 years Silesia had its boundries and, as a part of another country, it couldn't conquer any lands and incorporate them into Sileisa as Bavaria did. Thats becouse Bavaria was a state with a monarch and an army and Silesia was not. Nevertheless various rulers and states fought and divided Silesia several times: in 1050, 1742, 1921 but those lands that were within the borders of the historical region of Silesia but in the same time were part of different countries were still considered as forming one region - Silesia.

The only land that was actually added to Silesia was Kłodzko. That is becouse it happened in the 13th century and it was not an administrative shift as the Prussians did in 1815 but a dynastic agreement between ruler of Prague and ruler of Wrocław.

It is not true that autochthon inhabitatnts of Lusatia are Silesians that speak Silesian. Lusatia is inhabited by Sorbs who do not consider themselves Silesians but Lusatians. If the German Silesian dialect exists in the region of Gorlitz it was most likesly brought by refuges after WWII who were expelled from Silesia but still the language of Zgorzelec was always more similar to the language of Budysyn and Chóśebuz than to the language of Wrocław.

The province of Jutlant covers the Jutland Penisula nad a proposal of merger of those articles was made due to this fact. And as I said division of South Jutland (Schleswig) did not change the historical border of the region on the Eider River which has hunderd of years as has the border between Lusatia and Silesia. The division of the region of Jutland into North and South and other subdivisiond within those two do change the borders of the Jutland region itself.

The conclusion is that historical regions had their borders created hundered of years ago, usually in the migration period, as the article about historical regions says. They were created by tribes living on its territory. For instance Silesian tribes, Franks, Saxons, Polans, Sorbs etc. Some of those tribal territories became states with their own monarchs (Saxony) and some did not (Silesia). The states conquered or lost territories sometimes dividing historical regions. But that did not change or create new historical regions but only administrative regions.

The article Lower Silesia is about historical region with its borders as old as Silesia itself. The article Lower Silesian Voivodeship, Province of Silesia, Province of Lower Silesia etc are not about historical regions but about administrative regions and there Zgorzelec & Gorlitz are mentioned.

77.253.68.64 (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i wrote once that bavaria is like silesia and once that it is not

this is right

but it depends on in which respect one looks on things

1. i just wrote that the article bavaria and free state of bavaria can be written within one article because the geographical territory remained exactly the same, so the history of bavaria and freestate of bavaria can be written in one article.

the history of województwo dolnośląskie and lower silesia cant be written in one article cause the geographical territory isnt the same.

in this respect, silesia and bavaria are not the same

i wrote that bavaria is the same as silesia compared to franconia and lusatia, because parts of the historical region of franconia became parts of the historical region of bavaria and parts of lusatia became parts of silesia.

thats why the region is called lower silesian upper lusatia

2. it does not matter if bavaria is on a level with poland, lithuania and france or silesia and pomerania. because that does not change the fact that bavaria is a historical region as is silesia.

may the addition of territory in bavaria be ascribed to that it was an independent kingdom and may the addition of territory in silesia be ascribed to the incorporation in the province of lower silesia, the outcome is the same.

people living in franconia feel as much bavarian as some that live in east upper lusatia feel silesian.

3. fact is, that for example glücksburg is in the historic region of angeln, but also south schleswig and jutland. it was said that this is not possible and i proved the opposite.

3. may the addition of kłodzko to sląsia be ascribed to an agreement of two rulers, and may the incorporation of parts of the kingdom of saxony be ascribed to an administrational shift of borders, both reasons are artificial, and at the beginning, probably the inhabitants of both these regions didnt feel silesian.

4. i didnt ever mention sorbian or sorbs in what i wrote, and of course i did not mean the sorbs when i talked about that silesian still is spoken in this region. sorbian is a west slavic language on the same level as polish and czech.

as far as i know, most of the silesian refugees did not find a new home in the remaining part of silesia, but in the west of germany, far away from their old homes.

the german silesian accent is mostly spoken by those, who inhabited this region when it belonged to the province of lower silesia.

5. furthermore, görlitz and the rest west of lusatian neisse is included in the silesia article as well, which is not about the province of silesia or a województwo, and therefore it would be deceptive not to include that in lower silesia.

görlitz is also included in the category cities of silesia.

6. furthermore, i provided an official proof of that the region is silesian. since 1. the saxon constitution designates these territories as silesian, and not as former parts of the province of silesia and 2. even the coat of arms and the flag of lower silesia may be used equally to the saxon flag, it is officially accredited that those regions are silesian.

in which geographical region, which is not part of a historic region may the coat of arms and the flag officially be equally used? i dont think there is any example

it is not the aim of wikipedia to discuss history new, but to depict facts as they are.

and a proof cant be more authentic than a citation of a constitution.

may görlitz be a thing to discuss about, but it is not to us to decide what is right or wrong in this respect.

and for people who want to inform about silesia, it is more useful to advise them of görlitz, than not to do it. görlitz has been and is a centre of silesian culture.

btw are you not yopie and if so then why don't you use your account Jadran91 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As to Bavaria. I must say that it is not that the historical region of Bavaria equals the free state of Bavaria. It is just that you treat them alike and write it here.

The comparison of Franconia to Lusatia is wrong. The differences are to big.

• First of all Franconian Circle existed since the end of 14th century and covered only part of the historical region of Franconia (its eastern part).
• The second thing is that almost all of the Franconian Circle was transfered to Bavaria and only a small portion of Lusatia was transferd to Prussia. The Prussian administrative experiment however ended almost 65 years ago, and on the other hand East Franconia is still mostly part of the Free State of Bavaria.
• The third thing is that in all parts of the Franconian Circle the East Franconian German is still spoken which indicates a common franconian identity togeather with some loyality to the proper state of Germany in which they now live. I quote Most Franconians do not call themselves Bavarians, but their insistence on this point is generally a lighthearted matter in modern times. 213.238.120.83 (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As to Jutland I wrote before that it ends on the Eider River and any subdivisions of that historical region (into North, South and even the South into some parts) cannot be compared to the border between two compleatly different historical regions: SIlesia and Lusatia.

As to the flag it is not a historical flag of the region of Lusitia or of the region of Silesia which have tousand of years. It is a flag inveneted by local German authorietes only few months ago to show that some administrative part of Saxony was once part of the Province of Silesia. The other explanation could be that it lies on the borderline with the region of Bohemia (the lion) and the region of Lower Silesia (the eagle) but is actually part of Lusatia (the wall made of golden bricks). Nevertheless it is not a historical flag becouse its origins lie in 2009 when it was created.

If some nonautochthons consider themselves to be Silesian becouse either tney were connected to the province of Lower Silesia administratively 60 years ago for 130 years or becouse they were expelled there from Silesia after the war than that is not a factor that schould decide here. That is becouse the Sorbs who are autochthons there consider themselves Lusitians and never Silesians. Silesians originated from the Silesian tribes and that cannot be said neither about Germans living in Lusatia nor about Sorbs.

The article about Silesia only repeats this Original research without any reference. If you look well you would see that this info was put there by people who were edit warring here few days ago. When it will be finally settled that historical region of Lusatia is not a part of a historical region of Silesia. Then the article about Silesia will be rewritten as well.

But bottom line. Historical regions had their borders created hundered of years ago, usually in the migration period, as the article about historical regions say. They were created by tribes living on its territory. For instance Silesian tribes, Franks, Saxons, Polans, Sorbs etc. Some of those tribal territories became states with their own monarchs (Saxony) and some did not (Silesia). The article Lower Silesia is about historical region with its borders as old as Silesia itself. The article Lower Silesian Voivodeship, Province of Silesia, Province of Lower Silesia etc are not about historical regions but about administrative regions and there Zgorzelec & Gorlitz are mentioned.

77.253.68.253 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

@Jadran91: I´m not anon IP, if you want, use checkuser.--Yopie (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the arguments of Jadran91. All indications are, that this is the Silesia. Former this area is Lusatia, but former. From 1815 (two centuries) it is Silesia. LUCPOL (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

1. who says what this article is actually about? it is not about the province of lower silesia and not about the województwo dolnośląskie. but what is it about? who says that this article must fulfill the allegedly official criteria of being a historical region, which are probably disputed anyway? why is this article not about the lower silesian cultural area? who defines that?

2. whats the use of the information that almost the entire part of the franconian circle was transfered to bavaria and only a small part of lusatia to prussia? thats nothing new. almost all of franconia became bavarian and only a part of lusatia became silesian. that is why this region is often called lower silesian upper lusatia.

3. whats the use of the information that most of franconia still is within the free state and that the silesian parts of lusatia are not part of the province anymore? this isnt new either.

4. and what about this: in all parts of the Franconian Circle the East Franconian German is still spoken which indicates a common franconian identity

i mean, it is clear that there are far more people speaking franconian than there are people who speak silesian if only a very small part of the province remained

as soon as there are or were people who speak/spoke silesian, who havent moved there, they are/were indigenous, no matter how many

if most franconians dont call themselves bavarian, there are some who call themselves bavarian

perhaps the franconian identity within bavaria is stronger than the lusatian identity in the area of the former province

5. may it be that south schleswig is a subdivision of jutland, but glücksburg lies within the historical region of angeln, and in jutland

in this article

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCtland

it says

the applicability of the denotation jutland is not indisputed, since the denotation historically fluctuates between elbe and kolding ribe line

in denmark, the whole peninsula is called jyske halvo and the denotation jütische halbinsel also appears in texts of historians and enciclopedical works as denotation of the whole peninsula

in the article holstein http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holstein as far as i see jutland isnt mentioned with a single word, this is strange if it would just be a subdivision of jutland

on the other side, kiel and lübeck are included in the jutland article though they are in holstein

6. Raetia is also listed in the list of historical territories in germany, and the capital of raetia was augusta vindelicorum, augsburg which is now the capital of bavarian swabia

the listing of raetia in historical territories shows that it is at least in dispute what is to name a historical territory

why is raetia no historical territory

7. the arguments about the flag are not adjuvant for your opinion

i think lusatia doesnt have a flag but there is a sorbian flag i think that sorbian and lusatian shouldnt be equaled and perhaps the sorbs are not the only indigenous people in lusatia

that the bohemian lion is integrated in the coat of arms because of historical reasons, since görlitz apparently has belonged to bohemia some time, and that the silesian eagle is integrated because of the identification of parts of the inhabitants with silesia, i mentioned already

the coat of arms of kreis görlitz was invented new, because the lower silesian upper lusatia kreis and another kreis of saxony and görlitz recently merged to kreis görlitz and this is why the coat of arms of the kreis is new

you said that the flag was newly invented but i dont think that this is the case. where is the proof for this? you confused the coat of arms of kreis görlitz with the flag of lower silesia. in the flag there is no bohemian lion

what i found about that is this:

Silesia was initially an Austrian and later a Prussian province, but used never the Austrian or Prussian colors. From there must the origin of the silesian colors be searched in the pre Austrian times. The colors White and Yellow could be the colors of the house of Piaste, the ancient sovereigns of the Duchy of Silesia, which existed until 1327

i think it is the original silesian flag which is used

http://www.flaggenlexikon.de/fdtschle.htm

here is the flag of silesia on the landeskrone in görlitz

http://www.schlesien-heute.de/news/flaggelk.jpg

here it can be read

http://www.wohnenbeithiele.de/goerlitz-und-region/landeskrone.html

8. where is another geographical region in that the use of the coat of arms and the flag of a historical region is officially allowed equally, but the region itself isnt part of the historical region

where is one

earlier you wrote:

Does you have proof of opposite? If yes, of course, add these Lusatian towns

if i would argue like you i would now have to say:

since the eastern parts of the free state of saxony are designated silesian by the saxon constitution, which is an official document, and not as parts of the former province of lower silesia, the cities in this region must be included here, and the deletion of them is vandalism, unless it is proven that the saxon constitution is noncredible Jadran91 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you ask wahat the article is actually about I can anwser you. In the first line you can read: This article is about the historical region. For the Polish administrative region, see Lower Silesian Voivodeship. For the former Prussian province, see Province of Lower Silesia.

So it is not an article about a Province of Lower Silesia/Silesia and its borders and not about some cultural region. This cultural argument is also quite inapropriate cause Silesians evolwed from the early medieval period from the mix of Silesian Tribes and settlers from Western Europe (mostly Germans). Some of the Slavic Silesians were germanised and some were not. Those who were Germanised however retained some Slavic-Silesian vocabulary and traditions. Now tell me how could Sorbs and Germanised Sorbs, who are autochthons in Lusatia, become culturaly Silesians in just 130 years when the Silesian and Lusatian cultures were already established? And if it schould be an article about a cultural region than how the new Polish culture of the Lower Silesia could be equaled with the culture of Lusatians (Sorbs and Germanised Sorbs) or of the Lower Silesians expelled after WWII? There is just no such thing as a cultural region of Lower Silesia in the way known before 1945 anymore.

I agree with the arguments ststing that historical regions have their boundries and when one region ends another one starts. You schould not mistake administrative provinces (which are changeble and now look compleately different than prior to 1815, between 1815 and 1945, and even changed several times after 1945) with historical regions created usually during the migration period with boundries as old as themselves. Szczepan3210 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1. the sentence that this article is about the historical region was just written to make clear that its not about the województwo or the province. it could be easily altered or deleted. perhaps it was written by someone who wanted to make clear that görlitz must be excluded because she/he thought that it cant be included that way

2. not all inhabitants of lusatia are sorbs or germansied sorbs i think

3. the first people living in lusatia were not sorbs i think

4. in 130 years some generations grow up, and as soon as someone was born within the borders of silesia she/he might feel silesian

5. its not the aim of this article to equal the polish lower silesian culture with the one in the german area or with the one of the expelled. why should it perhaps it should mention all of them

6. in germany there was no difference being made between görlitz and the rest of silesia, görlitz was considered silesian and was one of the most important cities there may i remind you of the silesian music festival

7. the evangelical church, which uses the most historic names in germany, for example Evangelical Church in Hesse and Nassau even though nassau as a region doesnt exist anymore or the pomeranian evangelical church is named Evangelical Church of Berlin-Brandenburg-Silesian Upper Lusatia

8. the citation of the article historical region also is no support for your opinion:

There is no universally accepted definition of a region[3],and the word does not differentiate between macroregions such as Europe, territories of traditional states, or smaller microregional areas. A geographic proximity is the often required precondition for emergence of a regional identity.[3] In Europe the regional identities are often derived from the Migration Period, but for the contemporary perspective are related to the 1918-1920 time of territorial transformation, and another in the post-Cold War period

9. this comment was no reaction on the arguments that i mentioned before

10. fact is that this region isnt in the province anymore, but the silesian flag blows there Jadran91 (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The first line is as old as the article itself. look here.

There were some generations born in this part of Upper Lusatia that was temporairly part of Lower Silesia province. But now, for 65 years, there is no province of Silesia anymore so if any Silesian sentiments still exist in Upper Lusatia they will propably perish as quick as they were created, which is not so long considering that the historical region of Silesia is over 1000 old and this experiment lasted only 130 years.

As you quoted In Europe the regional identities are often derived from the Migration Period, but for the contemporary perspective are related to the 1918-1920 time of territorial transformation, and another in the post-Cold War period The region of Silesia was created shortly after the migration period and from contemporary perspective its borders were shifted after 1945 territorial transformation. Even if we both agree to this post 1945 opinion, than parts of Upper Lusatia that were added to Lower Silesia ceased to be part of it in 1945.

The Sorbs were the first people who settled there permanently after the Goths left to the West. Becouse they are still there they must be considered true autochthons and the other inhabitants are either Germanised Sorbs or settlers from the West or maybe also some expellies from the east.

The desire of some people in Saxony to treat a part of Upper Lusatia as part of historical region of Lower Silesia cannot change the historical boundries of a 1000 years old region even if 8 months ago they invented a flag of a border county that has a Silesian Eagle in it. I still think that the arguments that tell that historical regions have their boundries as old as themselves is more true than those desires made by some Upper Lusatians and their authorities. Szczepan3210 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. even the first link that you provided mentions that one part of lower silesia is in germany

2. i dont understand why the german part of silesia shall be left out by force :-( the germans who come from silesia perhaps give a strong emphasize on the remaining part of the province, and perhaps its just important for them to include it here........ my dear people why dont you just let görlitz be included here.. all the refugees who had to leave their homes are glad that there is still a region in germany they can lean on. i asked someone who comes from niesky whether he feels more saxon or silesian and he answered silesian and he is roughly as old as i am

3. for sure, it cant be said that the area we are talkin about doesnt have to do anything with silesia

it was equal to the rest of silesia in germany and this is a fact

4. if i would insist on the rules then id have to say that u have to prove that the saxon constitution is noncredible and u know that

5. even if the parts ceased to be part of l s then they would have to be included here since this article also includes the history and therefore görlitz would have to be included even more

6. apparently it hasnt ceased because look on the landeskrone.. landeskrone = land`s crown

what blows there?

7. i dont care who is indigenous to lusatia because i find it good that sorbian is the official second language of lusatia, and no matter what, sorbs cant be equaled with lusatians

8. still no example has been given for a region, in which the coat of arms and the flag of a historical region may be used even though the region isnt part of the historical region

9. perhaps u just gotta resign to the fact that görlitz and the whole area having belonged to the lower silesian province is a border case and that its better to include it here than not to do it

10. the argument with the new coat of arms of kreis görlitz is completely inappropriate because the kreis was created a few time ago and the historical coat of arms was just inserted cause two kreise and a city have been merged... lucky for you cause the kreis has been called lower silesian upper lusatia before, now that its merged with kreis löbau zittau and the city of görlitz its called kreis görlitz... but unfortunately, the lower silesian flag still may be used in this region.........

11. this sentence:

Constitution of Czech republic says in first article "We, citizens of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia", so Czech republic consist from Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. Thus, because Wrocław is in Silesia, is in Czech republic (and Zgorzelec too

is completely dispensable because of course, czech silesia is meant, and what does this have to do with that anyone claims wrocław is in the czech republic just because in the constitution the inhabitans of czech silesia are mentioned? thats completely dispensable

12. according to the saxon constitution, the lower silesian part of the country is treated completely different from the rest, since in the first sentence it is separated from the rest and this not because its lusatian, but silesian.. the rest of lusatia which also lies in saxony, is not separated...... even lusatia as a whole isnt mentioned as a different region, but the area of the sorbs.. and lusatia and the sorbian area may roughly agree with each other, but they cant be equaled

13. since the silesian flag is flown there, even though the province of lower silesia does not exist anymore, it has to be silesian.. since if it was only the province then there couldnt be a flag anymore

14. and since there is 1. no official definition of what to call a historical region and 2. even if there was one which would exclude territorial shifts of regions from a defined date on, then there is no rule that this article is just about that... but there is none anywayJadran91 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The arguments that insist on distinguishing historical regions, historical provinces and modern provinces are correct. As far noone has chalenged the argument that historical regions, in this case created during the migration period, have their historical borders.

Both historical regions: of Lusatia and of Silesia, were created in the same time. While they formed they were inhabited by Sorbs in Lusatia and Silesian tribes (usually treated as part of the Polish tribes) in Silesia. Both regions were divided by a natural border of swamps, forests and rivers and therfore they formed in separation from one another, creating different customs, using different language and being under different rule for most of their history.

Those are the facts about those historical regions that you can find in most of the historical books and other studies.

In 1742 most of Silesia was conquered by Prussia. Some of its historical parts were left on the Austrian side of the border, but the Austrians did not incorporated it into Moravia or Bohemia, but left it as a separate province of the Bohemian crown even though it was just a scrap of the former Austrian province.

In 1815 the Wettins that were allied with the Emperor Napoleon were stripped from big parts of their lands, inclunding some parts of Upper Lusitia still inhabited primarly by Sorbs. The Prussians could either left this small portion of Lusatia as a separate province of their kingdom or could add it to one of their neighbourhod provinces. They did the second thing, and so the Province of Silesia (not the historical region of Silesia, becouse that one had its borders even beyond Prussia) gained some lands west of the Neise river. From the geographical, cultural and historical point of view it looked rather silly becouse this part of Upper Lusatia formed a kind of sharp wedge that separated Saxony from Brandenburg.

In the following years the germanisation of Lusatia increased, especially in the Prussian part, and so in the begining of the 20th century there were about 120 000 Sorbs left (around 95 000 in official statistics) who began to seak a possibility of an autonomy, secession to Bohemia or even of independance from Germany. Their efforts however failed and during the Nazi rule the pressure of germanisation was even stronger.

Jadran says that during the period of the Prussian rule in Upper Lusatia (propably in its second part) some of the inhabitatnts of this region began to feal as Silesians and some Silesian German vocabulary passed in to the Lusatian German dialect. Those dialects however were always quite simmilar becouse they formed in a same way - by incorporating some Slavic vocabulary and speaking patterns into the language of the colonisators that came from the West.

In his oppinion those facts (still unsourced therefore rather Original research) schould determine that those parts of Upper Lusatia that were assigned to the Province of Silesia in 1815 in some way became actually part of the historical region of Silesia being in the same time part of the historical region of Lusatia. The other argument is a Flag and Coat of Arms that were invented by the local Saxon authorities in January this year. The last argument is that according to the Saxon constitution from 1992 those who live in the territories formerly part of the Province of Lower Silesia are allowed to use the flag of this province if they wish to do so. However this does not change the fact that all those territories are not forming any separate part of Saxony as for instance in Bohemia and that it is rather an provincial sentiment not a historical region one.

In the end I must insist on treating the article about the historical region as such. It schould be on the same level as an article about Lusatia, Moravia and so on. On the other hand the articles about administrative regions can be a place were parts of Upper Lusatia may be treated as part of the province of Silesia. That is becouse in the history of Lusatia they were Silesian only in this way.

I do not oppose mentioning of those lands in the article about Lower Silesia (as they are still mentioned now) but it schould be clearly mentioned that those cities, now and prior to 1815 forming part of Saxony, were just for 130 yars part of the Province of Silesia and not the historical region of Lower Silesia. Opole.pl (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. actually i also think that the real old lower silesia ends at the bóbr kwisa line...

2. but through the incorporation in the province, borders or felt borders blured...

3. and the lusatia that was in the province is another lusatia than the rest because within the province, the silesian culture and so on perhaps was stronger than the lusatian and it expanded to the west and it superseded the lusatian culture

4. a mentioning of görlitz only in the article province of lower silesia therefore doesnt do justice to that fact

5. may it be that its not the real old silesia, but its part of the silesian culture region

6. it has to be mentioned here, since its not the case that with the abolishment of the province, those silesian influences were abolished as well

7. perhaps it would be helpful to find similar cases of regions in which something like that happened

is there no comparable situation anywhere else?

8. due to the importance of being the most silesian city in germany, it has to be mentioned even more

many silesian cultural activities within germany are being concentrated there

9. it is fact that the people in the east of saxony dont feel saxon, but as i think, lusatian either... they feel more silesian than lusatian.. i dont mean the sorbs

10. the coat of arms which is allowed to be used and the flag are the original coat of arms and the original flag of lower silesia.. the newly invented coat of arms is just the coat of arms of the newly created kreis görlitz, in which the use of the original lower silesian flag is officially allowed, but not in the parts which were earlier the kreis löbau zittau, but only in görlitz and niederschlesischer oberlausitzkreis. the lower silesian coat of arms appears now also in parts which were always parts of saxony..

11. may anyone tell me that the reasons for the incorporation in this article are subjective and feelings.. for me, feelings of belonging are enough to include it here..... but as soon as its said that i shall cite a proof, then i invoke the saxon constitution and this is an official proof Jadran91 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Saxon constitution of 1992 is not a source that could define borders of a historical region and the whole quarrel is about the borders.

The article is not about a cultural region (which does not exist anymore becouse German Lower Silesians were expelled from Poland after WWII). It describes a historical region as the article about Lusatia describes the historical region of Lusatia and the article about Moravia describes the historical region of Moravia.

If you want to create an article about "Silesian" traditions in Lusatia than do so. The flag and the coat of arms could be a source for that kind of an article becouse it shows some sentiment twords the long gone Province of Silesia.

However in the article about a historical region, its historical borders schould be considered as the most important. This does not mean that there can't be any information about the borders of the late Province of Lower Silesia. Though it needs to be clearly stated that it was an expansion of an administrative region within Prussia that lasted for 130 years and is no long gone (same as Prussia btw).

The fact is that we cannot find any reliable scienific source that would state that the borders of the historical region of Lower Silesia changed between 1815 and 1945 due to the cultural influence of the inhabitants of the Wrocław region twoards the inhabitants of the Zgorzelec region. Now it is just a speculation based on the provisions of the new (1992) Saxon constitution which surely can't be considered as a scientifical source which is needed here.

What is more, the dominant language of Wojerecy is, aside the laguage of the Sorbs, the Low Lusatian German and not Silesian German.

The article clearly says that it intends to describe the historical region of Lower Silesia and we schould allow it to do so. The links to the Polish and German administrative provinces are also provided in the very first line of the article in order to avoid cofusion.

The historical region of Lower Silesia deserves an article in a same way as the historical region of Lusatia and other regions. This article was created to describe this historical region. If you want to create an article about a cultural region or "Silesian" traditions in Lusatia please do so. Here you can just mention that some parts of the historical region of Lusatia were, for some time, assigned to the Province of Silesia. After that you could mention the most important cities of this part of Lusatia if you wish to do so, but I think that it schould be done in a separate paragraph concerning only this matter.

You could write for instace: For 130 years parts of formerly Saxon territories of Upper Lusatia formed the most westward part of the Prussian Province of Silesia nad later of Lower Silesia. During this time Lower Silesian culture and Silesian German dialect spread in the eastmost region of Görlitz. Due to this fact some of the inhabitants of this region still consider themselves Silesian and cultivate some Silesian customs. The main cities of the former province of Lower Silesia west of the Oder-Neisse line are:

• Hoyerswerda (Wojerecy)
• Görlitz (Zhorjelc)

But you schould not equal Görlitz with Wrocław or Legnica becouse they had compleately different history.

Opole.pl (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Image Upper and Lower Silesia

Is the image of the map shared correctly? It defines the lower Silesia as bright orange but is that correct? I remember Wrocław being in Upper Silesia. 2A02:1811:3611:9200:ED95:7D59:9C75:33DA (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)