Talk:Silesian language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Poll for name

We have consensus to move, but no clear preference on where to move it. There was also confusion over how to vote in the straw poll above. This here is just my suggestion; if y'all have a better idea, let's try it out.

A ranked voting system is the way to go if we don't want multiple rounds of voting, and I doubt we have the interest or stamina for that. Add your name with a "1" for your first choice, a "2" for your second choice, a "3" for your third choice, a "4" for etc. You can rank some or all of them, as you like.

These are the names that got votes last time. Add others if you like. You can rerank your votes if you like a new suggestion, or if you just change your mind before the count. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Poll closed

Upper Silesian 3 (Kwami) 1 (JorisvS) 1 (filelakeshoe) 4 (Opole) Silesian Polish 1 (Kwami) 1 (Opole) Silesian (Polish dialect) Silesian dialect Silesian language 1 (IJzeren Jan) 3 (filelakeshoe) Silesian (Slavic) 2 (IJzeren Jan) 3 (JorisvS) 2 (filelakeshoe) Slavic Silesian 2 (JorisvS) Silesian dialects of Polish 4 (Kwami) 2 (Opole) Silesian 4 (IJzeren Jan) Silesian (regional language) 3 (IJzeren Jan) Upper Silesian dialect 2 (Kwami) 3 (Opole)

Moving comments down: I noted that "Silesian Polish" parallels Silesian German — kwami (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Not quite. There is a very big diversity in "German languages", with High German being no more closely related to Low German than other West Germanic varieties. The same cannot be said for Polish. --JorisvS (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I just meant the structure of the names are parallel. — kwami (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Silesian German is a controversial name, opened the application for change of name: Talk:Silesian_German#Suggested_move. Franek K. (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also noted that an admin objected to "Upper Silesian" as a violation of the MOS. "Silesian" would presumably meet the same objection. Not that that means we can't move the article there. — kwami (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How would it violate the MOS then, in his opinion? --JorisvS (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Since an Upper Silesian is an inhabitant of Upper Silesia, we'd need language/dialect etc. as a dab, and that's what we do when a language and people share a name. Though possibly as a people they're simply "Silesian", so Upper/Lower Silesian would be okay for the lects? — kwami (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure this is true, actually, the standard practice is to put articles about peoples/nations in the plural: Poles, Moravians, Silesians, so Upper Silesians would cover that topic. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Straight up voting is in no way an acceptable substitute for a move request. If you disagree with the results of the close, you can (a) start a Wikipedia:Move_review, (b) approach the closer of the previous move request explaining your problem with their close, and asking them to re-examine it, or (c) start a new move request. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We already have consensus on moving the article. The question is to where. There was not enough discussion to come to an agreement on that before the RFM was closed. You don't need to permanently block the move: no-one is move-warring here. — kwami (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't permanently blocked any move. I MP'ed a few pages, but that can be removed as soon as consensus to move to an appropriate name is established. For a lot of reasons, even though I would agree with you that the RfC above showed at least widespread sentiment that the current name is not ideal, a ranked voting system is not sufficient to establish consensus to actually move the page anywhere. There are lots of established mechanisms for renaming pages, but, for very good reasons, a ranked vote isn't one of them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all about moving the article. As I have already argued before, the discussion about Silesian cannot be treated separately from similar cases (Scots language, Bavarian language, Limburgish language, etc.). Nobody seems to have a problem with an article titled "Bavarian language" having the opening sentence "Bavarian is a major group of Upper German varieties spoken in the southeast of the German language area", so why should it be any different in the case of Silesian? Mind, nobody seems to dispute the concents of the article itself, this is only about the title. Instead of voting about individual titles or discussing individual languages, we better concentrate on developing a more general policy for these young languages whose status is still doubtful. My own point of view is that there are both good arguments for Silesian being a group of transitional dialects between Polisn and Czech, and Silesian being a language separate from Standard Polish. But one thing is clear: Silesian is not less of a language than the example I mentioned above. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it? If it is as distinct from Polish as Scots is from English, Limburgish from Dutch, and Bavarian from other Upper German varieties, I would support keeping it at its current location. This has not been established to be the case, but I'm all ears! --JorisvS (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Results

It's been eight days, and and voting is no longer active, so I closed the poll. The two winners, using the ranked-ballot voting calculator at the Dept. of Computer Science at Washington University,[1] are:

• Silesian Polish (Baldwin & Raynaud methods)
• Upper Silesian (Black, Borda, Copeland, Dodgson, Nanson, Schulze, Simpson, Small, Tideman methods)

Can we take it that this reflects our preferences? Can we maybe narrow our discussion down to these two names? — kwami (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not. A poll with only four participants can hardly be taken seriously, if you ask me. Even the previous one had more participants. I'd say, if there is so little interest in this discussion, then I can see little reason for altering the status quo. If the title "Silesian language" is really such a tremendous problem because it's kind of POV, then it should be a matter of narrowing down the discussion to solutions that are less POV. For me, "Silesian Polish" is unacceptable because it's even more POV than "Silesian language", while "Upper Silesian" is unnaceptable because the language or regiolect or whatever you want to call it, is commonly known as "Silesian". And frankly, I don't see why Silesian should be a problematic. It's current contents can be moved to Silesian (disambiguation), Silesian language can be moved to Silesian and Bob's your uncle. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 02:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes sense, IJzeren Jan. It would be the cleanest way to avoid WP:OR regarding the language/dialect issue. The disambiguation page should exist for the purposes of disambiguation, not as a redirect to Silesian. It's quite nonsensical. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You're not counting yourself as a participant. Of course you oppose it, Jan, since you're one of the few who wanted to keep it where it is. But we've already had consensus that it needs to be moved, an it's not considered a language in RS's. "Silesian" is unacceptable per WP conventions because it isn't the primary meaning of that word. You may not like "Upper Silesian", but that's a common name for it in English, just as "Lower Silesian" is a common name for Silesian German. So if we're going to move it, and we can't use ridiculously ambiguous names per WP guidelines, what's it to be?

Iryna, "Upper Silesian" also avoids the language/dialect issue, though we really don't need to, since our sources resolve that for us: Silesian is either a dialect of Polish, or a transitional dialect between Polish and Czech. — kwami (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, kwami. I've been at this for about 9 hours without a break and I'm not thinking straight. I can also see that Upper and Lower Silesian could be a useful, non OR distinction which might be worth voting on. Retaining 'Silesian language' as the title isn't appropriate. I'll pack it in for the day and revisit the entire discussion again tomorrow. Cheers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit sad that most of the people who opened the discussion, which resulted in this vote in the first place, are now not interested in casting a vote. Same goes to those who commented or voted for the move and are now reluctant to finish what they've started. I'm refering to: Sobiepan, Franek K., Kevin Gorman, Benwing, Volunteer Marek, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Darwinek and Adam Lutostański. Perhaps It would be wise to inform those interested parties in the manner user Franek K. invited to the vote some other people (these are his invatations 1, 2, 3, 4)? His way was quite effective, as many of those informed are participating in the vote. What is your opinion? Opole.pl (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked in on this there was some discussion as to whether this vote itself is legitimate or not. Personally, I don't see why not, these kinds of votes have been used before. Still, I figured there was no point in weighting in until the situation clarifies itself. There's been a lot of just plain ol' unnecessary muddying of the issue and process, so if it's gonna get thrown out anyway, why bother? Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A vote is not a substitute for consensus, but there's nothing illegitimate about them. I was hoping to narrow down the range of possibilities, since it would seem the reason the move failed was that we could not agree on a destination. Granted, there were only five participants, but it looks like "Silesian Polish" and "Upper Silesian" are the likely choices. Hopefully that should clear up some of the mud in the water. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work in tidying the page & trying to clear up the mud, Kwami. I feel less reticent about casting a vote (in as much as it really only represents having formed a consensus and argument for submitting for a move) with emotive arguments and what amounts to little more than OR picked out of the rationale. 'Upper Silesian' seems a better choice for reasons you've outlined above, and to avoid railings against whichever Slavic 'Cabal' is the evildoer and POV pusher du jour (taking into account that it is 'common knowledge' that all Slavs are psychotic, rabid and untrustworthy).

IJzeren Jan, could you please demonstrate which sources commonly refer to Upper Silesian as simply Silesian? I conducted ngram searches and checked over a variety of books in publication (in the English language) after signing off yesterday, only to find that Upper Silesian has definitely been used for well over a century, whereas Silesian may be more commonly used but in mainly accounted for in the adjectival form covering a wide number of topics, the least of which is anything pertaining to the region. Thanks for any additional info in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

kwami, also option "Silesian (Slavic)" had three votes. Most likely, if more people voted for example: ten, would be more options of choices than these three. And also still, people vote for name of "Silesian language". It's not that simple. Franek K. (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Opole.PL, my notification related to the previous discussion and concerned the new neutral idea (see wikilink in this notifications). This not concerned to any voting (poll). So, stop trolling and stop watch and analyze edits by opposition.

And also, the biggest problem in this discussion is you: Wikipedians from Poland, which're trying at all costs to push no neutral option of "Polish Silesian". Option of "Polish Silesian" breaks main three rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research; also Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes and Wikipedia:Commonname:

• between linguists, sociolinguists, linguistic organizations, people who use the language, politicians there is no consensus for status language or dialect
• there are no sources that use the term of "Polish Silesian"
• this name is hoax, this name does not exist in nature and would be used only on Wikipedia
• even if some books define Silesian as a dialect, term of "Polish Silesian" is original research
• name of "Polish Silesian" does not meet even a scratch of Wikipedia:Commonname

You must know one thing: this is not voting, can come 100 users from Poland and give vote for "Polish Silesian", only need two users who prove that it breaks the rules of Wikipedia and administrator can not move the article to this name. But, you Opole.PL and others from Poland still trying to push of "Polish Silesian". There are no words. The new name can not break any rules of Wikipedia, in particular if they are distinct opinions on this topic. Realistically, there is no chance to use words of "Polish" or "dialect" in the new name. Franek K. (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

No, actually, it's mostly just you stirring up trouble and throwing gasoline on the fire and preventing any reasonable discussion with your fanatical devotion to a particular POV (which you got blocked for already). Oh, and yes, it's usually the folks who have some genuine POV obsession that usually run around accusing anyone and everyone of having a POV. Because anything that doesn't conform to "THE TRUTH" as they understand it must be "POV". You also have a pretty poor weak understanding of "rules of Wikipedia" that "new name can not break". Those rules don't say "whatever Franek K says must be, all else is POV". That's sort of the recluse of those who are loosing an argument and can't get consensus for their viewpoint: "nobody agrees with me, and nobody understands me, but Wikipedia rules, they justify me gosh darn it!". They don't. Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is lies, attacks and nothing more.

• "your fanatical devotion to a particular POV" - POV? I support neutral name of "Silesian". Where is POV? Whereas you pushing POV name of "Polish"/"dialect". You see the difference between us or pretend it does not exist. In any case, you can not accuse me that I push POV. I support neutral name, compared to you.
• "...POV (which you got blocked" - lying, I had one block for edit-warring (not for POV) - see description of the block and you can ask the administrator who blocked me. Whereas you had many blocks for various offenses.
• "Oh, and yes, it's usually the folks who have some genuine POV obsession that usually run around accusing anyone and everyone of having a POV. Because anything that doesn't conform to "THE TRUTH" as they understand it must be "POV"" - in this way, everyone can write to any matter. For you rule of "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" could not exist because according to you anyone who relies on this rule is guilty.
• "Those rules don't say "whatever Franek K says must be, all else is POV"" - yes, but no one in their right mind not write (if there is dispute) that "dialect" or "language" in the name is neutral. No matter what the truth is, if there is no consensus between all, not only between linguists, names of "dialect" or "language" not does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Stop write ironic posts and offensive terms, further such posts will be treated as personal attacks.

I gave arguments in points, I proved that option of "Polish Silesian" break main three rules of Wikipedia: "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability", "No original research"; also "Do not create hoaxes" and "Wikipedia:Commonname". Franek K. (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, casting a vote would not hurt anyone, even if eventually the poll and its results would be anulled. Vast amount of sorces, supproting mainly the dialect theory, have been given and if you feel offended by some editors (e.g. just 3 hour ago user Franek K. described me and some other editors as "the biggest problem") just don't react, don't let them provoke you. I learned to do so - it saves a lot of nerve. :) But participating in a discussion and initial voting should indicate further activity in this issue. Opole.pl (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the biggest problem with this article is that it is completly in opposition to the reality. As I mentioned many times, there is no distinct Silesian language, dialect etc. that would be spoken by 500 000 people. This situation simply does not exist! That is why what we have here is very much different from the Serbian/Croatian dispute. There, we have Serbs and Croats who do use and speak (in the real world!) either one and the same language or two languages but the fact is there exists a spoken and populary used standard language (or languages) with of course a bunch of dialects. Here the situation is different - we have a vast group of local dialects that differ enormously and an attempt to create a standard version, which is however still only a project. It is not taught at schools, it is not used at home, it is not used in the streets. Why? Because it was created by a group of enthusiasts and local politicians as a project for the future. When, for many centuries, there was no standard Silesian speech (Polish language was always the standard - official - version used in speach and writting), how can there be now 500 000 people declaring Silesian as their mother tongue? The answer is - they declare their particular dialect, because in every region of Upper Silesia the regional dilaect spoken there is known as Silesian, but when it comes to comparing them they differ so much from each other that peple around my hometown - Opole can't understand people from around Katowice - they use Polish to communicate not the Silesian language project because this last one is unknown to them.

But those activists, enthusiasts and local politicians are trying to create a "virtual reality" in which there actually is 500 000 people that speak one and the same - standard Silesian language, so they create grammar rules, single vocabulary and send it around international linguistic organisations seeking their recognition. They also create a bunch of Wiki pages on which they claim there is a standard Silesian language spoken by 500 000 people. When someone tries to correct this misunderstanding he is called a "nationalist" or "the biggest problem". Resuming - in the real world there is no living and used standard Silesian - just a group of very different dialects. There is however a project (similar to the Esperanto project) that tries to create such a language. It deserves its own page but it should be titled - Project for creating standard Silesian or so. Opole.pl (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My god!?! Pure nonsense. You're lucky that you wrote on top of your post: " In my opinion... ".

• "we have a vast group of local dialects that differ enormously"? - nonsense, only borderline dialect (around Cieszyn Silesia) are slightly different than dialect from central and north part of Upper Silesia
• "It is not taught at schools, it is not used at home, it is not used in the streets" - nonsense, in some schools there are lessons of Silesian, Silesians speak in Silesian in home and streets.
• "When, for many centuries, there was no standard Silesian speech (Polish language was always the standard - official - version used in speach and writting" - nonsense, Polish language was always the standard? This is joke?

Many languages ​​do not have a standard form, many there is no written form, almost every language has dialects. Lack of a standard version does not mean that there is no language, linguists wrote this.

According to you and other Polish nationalists, half a million people setting out the Silesian as their native language and 0.9 million people who declared Silesian nationality has a collective hallucination. You insult half a million Silesians setting out the Silesian as their native language and 0.9 million people who declared Silesian nationality. You are insolent. You can have your own opinion but you have no right to insult other people and group of people. This is unacceptable. Franek K. (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Why were parts of Volunteer Marek's comments deleted? Can anybody just delete someones comment on a talk page or is that for an admin to decide? Opole.pl (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Second Volunteer Marek's post has been removed because it is personal attack and nothing more. Accordance with the guidelines, everyone has the right to remove it. In the event of recurrence of the personal attack, the administrator will be notified. Talk of article is not the place for such things. Franek K. (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between *criticism* of a user and their actions, particularly when these are disruptive, and "personal attack". You don't get to remove other people's comments from talk just because you don't like the criticism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not typical "criticism", that are personal attacks, slanders and lies. Generally, tone of your post is not acceptable. If you repeat such posts, the administrator will be notified. Franek K. (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear people, personal attacks won't make this discussion fruitful. Let's just face the facts: some of you say "Silesian is a language separate from Polish", others say "Silesian is a Polish dialect". Statements like that won't get us any further. This is an encyclopedia, which means that we must represent the facts, including different opinions about them.

@Kwami. You are mistaken — I do not "want" Silesian language to be the title at all. In fact, I consider myself to be neutral in this matter. The reason why I don't have a problem with that title is simply that this Wikipedia is full of articles named "XXXXX language" containing text like "XXXXX is a language variety of YYYYY". And this is not a case of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, because it is a matter of a certain amount of uniformity in the way we present our information. That's why I'd rather keep the current name — at least we follow the Ethnologue, which is at least one independent source for this sort of information. For the rest, the whole discussion doesn't make much sense as long as one cannot even tell what precisely makes a language a language and a dialect a dialect. Distinctness was raised as an argument both pro and contra, but it's quite obvious that merely counting words won't solve the issue. Besides, as long as we have both a Norwegian language and a Danish language, the argument seems moot anyway. Let me just say that I — being fluent in Polish — find Silesian harder to understand than for example Belarussian or Slovak.

As for "Silesian is unacceptable per WP conventions because it isn't the primary meaning of that word. I disagree with that. What is the primary meaning in your opinion, and is that really such a big problem? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 18:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jan, as you are fluent in Polish you must recognise the fact that there is no widely spoken standard Silesian language. If you, being fluent in Polish — found Silesian harder to understand, then you must have encountered one of many different Silesian dialects. As J. Stadniczko once wrote, describing dialects around Opole: "It was a very beautiful dialect, without the number of German expressions found in the eaastern Upper Silesia." S. Ossowski wrote that sometimes "the amount of German in the local Polish dialect also varies from village to village." Have you ever encountered a standard Silesian language spoken in the streets or at home, that would be used by people from different parts of Silesia as their everyday speech? Opole.pl (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Opole.PL, two your sources is old, data from first source concerns 1947, second sources is from communist-era. Today is 1 March 2014, so. Furthermore, lack of a standard version does not mean that there is no language, linguists wrote this. Many languages ​​do not have a standard form, many there is no written form, almost every language has dialects and probably every non official language do not have a standard form. Also, you wrote "Polish language was always the standard - official - version", so? Dialects of Polish language are not Polish language because according to you, language is only one standard. Thus, the Silesian can not be dialect of Polish language (as you wrote "always the standard - official - version). Aside from the fact that it is complete nonsense, deny himself. Franek K. (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Franek K.: Please desist from tampering with other people's comments on talk pages, particularly when invoking 'slanders and lies' as your rationale (see WP:LEGAL). You're not doing yourself any favours and will only end up being blocked. So far, if there is any merit to your arguments, it is impossible to determine what they are because all that can be established is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

@Opole.pl: Like Franek K., your arguments are muddying the waters yet again. Quoting J. Stadniczenko to prove that it was a dialect does not ergo/ersatz prove that everything is Polish. "Polish language was always the standard - official - version used in speach and writting" (sic) is parallel to stating that Belarusian and Ukrainian did not exist because the official language was, dependent on which state was in power, always Polish or Russian. It merely demonstrates that a particular state power's bureaucracy functioned in this manner and pushed a particular line. It is not the equivalent of ethnic self-identity, nor is it proof of dialects over actual languages. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If that was so I would not argue. But Polish language was for centuries a standard version for all Silesian dialects even though Silesia for many centuries lied outside Poland and the official language was e.g. Geramn. :) My point is that there is no widely known or used standard Silesian language that would be on top of all Silesian dialects. It is only a project - not a reality. Opole.pl (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:, many times I've seen that other users revert such posts (post containing personal attacks and nothing more, not about topic of discussion). If others do it, why can not me? Also, I have a right to defend itself against slanders and lies against my person. I do not use any legal threats compatible with WP:LEGAL. Surely I can not tolerate such post[2]. Ok, criticism but never ironic personal attacks, slanders and lies. Franek K. (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the circumstances of the other reverts you are alluding to, nor whether they were removed for justifiable reasons or not. If you feel that it was a personal attack, it's better to let it stand for the record. I'm simply asking you to try to calm down and approach what you write on the talk page with a cool head. Any reasonable arguments you are trying introduce end up being lost. English Wikipedia policy is quite clear on the use of legal terms like slander. While you may not have intended to use the word in the legal sense, please consider yourself warned that it should not be used again as it is deemed to be a legal threat. Thank you for your co-operation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Classification

I'm not a real expert in Slavic dialectology, but here are my two cents: Currently, this article says embarrassingly little about the differences between Silesian and Standard Polish. Even looking at Lach (judging from the sample given in Lach dialects, even if it is not representative of the whole variation within Lach), while it shares various traits with Czech, such as /g/ > /h/, it still shares several key traits with Polish, making me think that Lach (as the name implies) is Lechitic, only strongly influenced by Czech – but not as strongly as to lose all those typical, diagnostic Lechitic traits and features (especially innovations) given in Lechitic languages#Classification (remember that the region where Lach is spoken historically belonged to Silesia). It's unmistakably Lechitic, I think. And Silesian looks even closer to Polish.

Granted, being constantly influenced by the standard language will weaken the differences and cause convergence, but I don't think that Silesian is even as divergent as Kashubian, much less Sorbian. I'm not saying it's simply an "accent", like badly pronounced Standard Polish with German loanwords, but it's not a completely different Slavic language either. I'm sure Silesian is Lechitic, and specifically Eastern Lechitic.

If the last common ancestor of Silesian and Standard Polish was Old Polish, the separation would still be appreciably deep, and perhaps Silesian existed already in Old Polish times as a regional variety of its own. So it may have diverged from Polish 500–1000 years ago. For comparison, the East Slavic languages began to diverge in the same period, and North American English started to diverge from the rest of English less than 400 years ago. My impression is that the following classification is realistic:

• West Slavic
  • Lechitic
    • Western Lechitic (Polabian)
      • (Drawehn) Polabian
      • Ranian
      • (various other long-extinct dialects)
    • Central Lechitic (Pomeranian)
      • Kashubian
      • Slovincian
      • (other long-extinct dialects)
    • Eastern Lechitic
      • (Greater) Polish
      • Lesser Polish
      • Masovian
      • Northern Kresy
      • Southern Kresy
      • Silesian (including Lach)
  • Sorbian
    • Lower Sorbian
    • Upper Sorbian
  • Czech–Slovak
    • Czech–Moravian
    • Western Slovak
    • Central Slovak
    • Eastern Slovak

Roughly like this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, your classification is incorrect and very strange. Secondly: your opinion is original research based on conjectures. How can you create an article that is a comparison of two languages? Why comparison of two or more languages (Polish and Silesian and/or Czech)? Maybe comparison of two languages from your Czech–Slovak line eg. Central Slovak and Eastern Slovak? Kashubian and Slovincian is very similar languages but this is separate languages. See examples for Czech and Slovak - the same words, so? This is the same languages? No. Silesian has a different grammar (partly) and vocabulary and accent and also alphabet relative to Polish language and Czech language. It makes no sense to compare languages in a greater sense. All Slavic languages are similar, see Slavic_languages#Selected_cognates, the differences are small. Franek K. (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The classification issue was the reason I didn't 'vote' in the first instance. When it comes policies and guidelines, everyone is capable of gaming the system and invoking what they chose to in order to get their way. The speed with which the same contributors have jumped on a second proposal, and the level of discourse, is already indicative of where this is heading: another impasse with more sanctions, blocks and antagonistic 'discussions' citing WP:OR, WP:COMMONNAME, plus anything else that can potentially be thrown into the mix.

While I don't see that 'consensus → no move' is a fair representation of the discussion – rather, it seems that there was consensus for a move but lack of consensus on qualification of WP:TITLE – this is already getting bogged down in the same circular arguments. My only suggestion is that it's not a matter of extreme urgency and would probably be best broached again after a longer breather than the one taken. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Glottolog has the following classification.[3] It appears that they're identifying Silesian with Lach, because there's still an Upper Silesian dialect of Polish (though dialects are inherited in Glottolog, and they often contradict themselves, so they're not a RS for them). They have:

• Czech–Slovak
  • Slovak
  • Czech–Lach
    • Czech
    • Silesian

— kwami (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my primary concern: why was the article split in the first instance. The 'German' Silesian article is only just over stub size, and this article isn't very long. Rather than indulging in unnecessary WP:OR in trying to shoehorn 'language' into the equation, linguistic sources don't indicate recognition of variants of Silesian as languages. Merge + 'dialects', anyone? (By this, I don't mean that Western Slavic and Germanic don't get individual treatment, but it makes better sense in terms of the reader understanding that this is a defunct region and better understand the split in variants as being historical.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

German Silesian is Germanic, but this Silesian is Slavic. Makes no sense to have one article covering both. --JorisvS (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does it 'make no sense'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you merge the biographies of two people because they have the same name? Should we merge the articles on the US state of Georgia and the republic of Georgia? It does make no sense. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Some changes

As per sources given, I updated some unproven claims. And I just changed the order. It is right that there are efforts to standardize Silesian. But nevertheless at the moment all reliable source (as Britannica) count Silesian as a main Polish dialect. Everything else is OR. But, no one knows the future (compare with Kashubian, which was in past counted as a dialect and now officially as a separate language). Best regards, Plk (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that some sources call it a separate language and some a dialect of Polish. That makes rewriting the article because one source calls it a dialect of Polish point-of-view. Both views are already covered in the article. What Britannica and others call it is mentioned, which is basically how the views should be covered. Note also that officialness is not the deciding factor here. --JorisvS (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see mainly discussions with different opinions if Silesian can be described as a separate language and reliable sources which count it as dialect. At the moment there are many unavailable links, too. So, the problem is not that some sources call it a separate language (which one should that be?) and some a dialect of Polish. But never mind. As like here, I would agree with Silesian language is a major Polish dialect. Best regards, Plk (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a different construction. In "The language of ...", 'language' is used as a synonym of 'speech', 'what they speak'. In "The Silesian language is ...", it is used using the meaning that uses mutual intelligibility and hence as opposed to 'dialect'. You can try to somehow discredit (the sources of) the pro-language views in the article. A full rewrite to one view simply claiming 'as sources' won't fly, however, only focused discussion. --JorisvS (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't discredit any source. I don't see any encyclopedias or books, so which sources do you mean? There is no "one view", Silesian is nearly everywhere listed as a Polish dialect and there are attempts to standardize this variety and separate to a language different to the Polish language. That's the state of affairs. It doesn't matter if someone like it or not and I don't care what will be in future. Maybe it will be similar to Kashubian, but it isn't at the moment. site 40, site 127, site 438, site 382 and especially encyclopedias as already mentioned, Britannica and Brockhaus (unfortunately only an old version available for free, Brockhaus 2013 is different). And I wanted to expand the topics about the speech itself (grammar and so on, see previously mentioned sources). You are welcome to help. Best regards, Plk (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to expand information on topics such as grammar without further discussion. Only when you're going to rewrite the part about language vs. dialect, that should happen piecemeal and after discussion/convincing arguments, because that is the contentious part of the topic. So far, you've only presented some sources, but not why that would warrant rewriting the article. --JorisvS (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know wikipedia works with sources. I asked all the time about sources like books or encyclopedias. Sure, I presented sources, you didn't. At the moment the article is full of OR (assertions without sources) and dead-links. That's why I want to rewrite the article. Plk (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And I'm not saying you can't. All I'm asking is that you tell us what is OR and why and which sources are dead, so that other editors can easily evaluate your edits. --JorisvS (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dead links: References 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16. External links are all dead beside of the last one, which seems not to be a professional or serious site.

OR or wrong: References: 4 (used for "is a West Slavic lect, related to Polish". In the source you can find "Dlaczego za uznaniem języka śląskiego opowiadają się zwykle jego prości użytkownicy, a sprzeciwiają się językoznawcy? - Bo ci ostatni wiedzą, że nie ma żadnych racji naukowych ani historycznych, by śląski uznać za odrębny od polszczyzny język" (Why typically ordinary people are in favour of recognising Silesian as a language and linguist not? - Because the last-mentioned know, that there are neither scientific nor historical right to recognise Silesian as a language different to Polish.)),

5 (same as 4),

10 (private? I'm pretty sure there are much better sources for that)

21 (Ubuntu translation still doesn't exist. Just 0.2% are translated[4]),

23-27 (no titles, no sources, no links, what kind of expertise? Who are they?), all sources with Tomasz Kamusella (in his sources he makes a distinction between "standard Polish" and the "dialect/creole". He neither tend to call Silesian a separate language nor strictly a Polish dialect),

30 (from "dialekt górnośląskiej wsi jest to język prawdziwie polski z czasów królów Zygmuntów. (..) język niektórych okolic Śląska jest najlepszym ze wszystkich dialektów polskich" (The dialect in Upper Silesian villages is a truly Polish language from Zygmunt-kings times. (...) The language of some Silesian regions is the best of all Polish dialects) someone made "it is impossible to classify Silesian as a dialect of the contemporary Polish language because he considers it to be descended from the Old Polish language."). Best regards, Plk (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's great to go work with! Have you tried to find replacement links for the dead links yet? I've just removed the dead links in the external links section, except for the dictionary, because it is unclear what used to be the point of these anyway. I've tagged the dictionary as a dead link, to be replaced with one that works. --JorisvS (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Refs 4 and 5 are not useful to source the statement they're supposed to source, but the latter's point is basically accurate regardless, because the sentence avoids calling Silesian either a dialect or a language and no one disputes that Silesian is West Slavic.

References 23–27 are crucial, especially 23–25 because those are supposed to be opinions of linguists, and it is therefore a very bad thing that they are so poorly formatted. After a search for the opinions of these people, they can be removed if they cannot be found.

Reference 30: It is clear that those are not the same thing, but I don't quite get what the source is trying to tell. Could you clarify it for me? --JorisvS (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime I'll tag all these references accordingly. --JorisvS (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Some changes I want to introduce

1) The Polish name mentioned by English wiki article says either język śląski (Silesian language) or etnolekt śląski (Silesian ethnolect). This is POV. I will not discuss the title of the article, because it has to be one of the options, but here we can mention more than one name. And so it is, there are two names mentioned, but one is a name used by pro-language groups (język - language), while the other is ethnolect, which is completely not in use in Polish, and such an expression only exists on Polish wiki as a sign of compromise between pro-language and anti-language groups. So I believe either "język śląski" should be removed, or "dialekt śląski" and "gwara śląska" added. Otherwise the wiki article will chose sides by mentioning one option and the compromise, and not the other option.

2) It is not true that Silesian was spoken in Lower Silesia until 1945 only. - dialects in Namysłów, Rawicz, Rychtal areas still exist, to some extent, even if only few villages use them. - the speakers of Chwalim dialect were deported in 1939, not 1945.

3) It is worth mentioning that Laskie dialects are spoken (mostly!) in what is considered historical Moravia. It comes from the fact that this area, up to the city of Hranice ("border"), which is actually geographically separate from Moravia, was part of Silesia/Poland until Brzetyslaw raid. It is part of Silesia that was conquered by Czechs then and never returned to Poland nor Silesia (while f.e. Opava returned to Silesia, but not to Poland, due to the creation of Opava duchy, and is considered part of historical Silesia).

4) It is worth mentioning that Silesian was not, until recently, used in writing nor official speach, apart from isolated cases (such as Ondra Lysohorski's attempts)

5) It is worth mentioning the relative number of Silesian language and nationality declarations, as well as the fact that a significant number of people (over 100.000) declared Silesian language, but Polish nationality only, and even a bigger number Silesian language, and Polish nationality as one of 2 nationalities they declared. And the other way round, a number of people declared Silesian nationality despite being completely Polish-speaking. The current versions are simplicistic and / or misleading.

6) It would be also perhaps useful to mention that east of the Sycow-Prudnik line, Glubczyce area was completely German-speaking.

7) It would be useful to mention what happened to Lower Silesia after ww2, that is that currently, Polish is in use there, but not Silesian Polish, but a mixture of various dialects brought by Polish settlers from other parts of Poland and abroad.

If no-one opposes constructively, I will go on with these changes - again.

Heresson (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for outlining your proposed changes here, Heresson. I reverted an edit by the user per WP:BRD. As I'm not knowledgeable in this field, much less proficient enough in Polish in order to check the references, I thought it best that other editors had a chance to go over the proposed changes to content after the edit warring this article has been subjected to. I'd appreciate it if Sobiepan, Piotrus, IJzeren Jan, Volunteer Marek, Filelakeshoe, and JorisvS could take a look at the proposed changes in order to establish whether they are controversial or not. Thanks, all! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Rawicz region

The Rawicz region is situated in Greater Poland. You mean probably the Hazak/Chazak tradition, which is probably Lower-Silesian (I'm not an expert) influenced by Greater Poland dialect. Do you have a source that Hazaks speak Upper-Silesian language? pl:Gwary dolnośląskieXx236 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Etnolekt

The word is being used [5] so removing it is perhaps also POV.Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hatnote

Currently the hatnote says:

This article is about the West Slavic variety. For the Germanic variety, see Silesian German. For ethnic group/nation, see Silesians.

This sounds as if it's asserting that there is a language called Silesian, of which there are German and Slavic varieties. But this is incorrect: the two are from different language subfamilies. I want to change it to this:

This article is about the West Slavic language. For the Germanic language, see Silesian German. For ethnic group/nation, see Silesians.

But I suspect this (or one potential alternative, "dialect of Polish/German") would be viewed as taking a stance on the language/dialect question, which would be non-NPOV. Thoughts? Hairy Dude (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Hairy Dude (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.narodowaoficynaslaska.friko.pl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Polish and Czech

• There is no one Silesian language.
• There are at least two of them - one in Poland, the other one in Czechia Lach dialects.
• The language in Poland is still long way from any standardisation and at least two native linguists (Miodek, Symonides) are against the standardisation.
• Regarding the language in Poland - it's described either as a language or as a dialect of Polish. It uses partially German vocabulary.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing sir, I find your thoughts here kind of correct from Polish "political" stand - so probably you are from post communistic population of "Silesian" people - no offence here - I've been there too, due to my only 3rd generation Silesian ancestry - read: I'm not true Silesian. Miodek's opinion though - I'm aware of his Slavic Linguistic expertise - still he is a passionate Silesian-born patriot and surely a great Slavic linguist. What vexes me his sociageneric movement of today's UE - that means praise the micro-culture. I live in The Netherlands for 9 years and I kind of blended in in Dutch culture which is really way god damn it no what we both know - sorry for damn - but it's a lonh story so I value your time and mine as well so let's leave it like that. I'm open to every kind of riposte and I promise I won't be searing - to non Polish-born people - that's really sensitive issue. -- [[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwh (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not from post communistic population of "Silesian" people.

The standardization of Silesian language will destroy many micro-cultures replacing them by the new Upper Silesian nation (possibly controlled by RAŚ).

Will the gorols be expelled from the new Upper Silesia?

The Upper-Silesian culture is being used by the Autonomists, who accept German nationalistic history as a tool against the Poles. But if you teach people that Wehrmacht (who illegally drafted Upper Silesians) was better than the Allies, you break aceptable limits of the EU. Around 1990 Germans in Poland song Nazis songs, because they believed that anti-Nazism was Polish propaganda. Around 1947 Germans in Poland were forced to watch the Polish movie The Last Stage about Auschwitz, they believed it was Polish propaganda and laughed. Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"ethnic German majority"

"Lower Silesian, a variety of Central German, was spoken by the ethnic German majority population of that region." What is "German ethnic majority"? Are Austrian german ethnic majority? Any source? From the 13th century, the inhabitants of Silesia were Germanized by the craft law, Magdeburg law and the occupation of these areas by Austria and Preußen. Not counting the immigrant Germans, all the inhabitants of Lower and Upper Silesia (in Poland, Czech Republic and Germany) were Slavs. Therefore, it would be true to say that "most of the inhabitants are ethnic Slavs, Germanized over time for centuries. And even when they were resettled after the Second World War, they were not ethnic Germans but ethnic Slavs who already considered themselves Germans. If I am a Slavic and acquired German citizenship and learn the language - then I will be German, but not an ethnic German. Are there anything like ethnic Germans at all? Why? Because the German state has only existed since 1871! Before that, there was no such thing as a German state or a German nation (See please Wikipedia "Deutschland ab 1971")! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.58.50 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree: the words ethnic German don't really mean anything specific, so I have removed them. Rp (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Examples

The section should be removed. It's based on unsourced Silesian Lord's Prayer. Does any church use the prayaer? Jan Miodek says that since the 15th century Christian prayers were printed in standard Polish [7]. Miodek is against translation of the Bible into Silesian.Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The point of the example is not to make a statement concerning whether Silesian is used in the church, but merely to give an example of the language. The Lord's Prayer is used for this purpose throughout Wikipedia. Rp (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As an English speaker, I strongly object to 400-year old English being described as "English" in this section !

Would anyone object to the English Lord's Prayer being replaced with a modern English translation ? Darkman101 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Psiŏczek "Lord's Prayer"

[] - use one or none inside these to not upset dialect/language warriors.
First of all - using prayer is already bad idea as Polish one is standardized by Catholic Church while silesian [dialect/language/ethnolect/lect] is not
example:
Ojcze nasz, święte jest miano Wasze, (I would rather use ciebie/twoje instead of was/wasze)
Wasze Królestwo niechaj też będzie nasze. (naszym would be beter but for the rhyme left out)
Niech wola Wasza ciągle się dzieje, (this one is quite weird)
w niebie, na ziemi, kiedy ćmi, kiedy dnieje.

Dajcie nam dzisiaj chwycić się chleba,
którego co dzień przecie jeść go nam trzeba. ("go" is unnecessary but not incorrect)
I nam wybaczcie w Swej łaskawości,
te grzechy nasze, jako my, prości,
naszym winowajcom też wybaczymy,
z wolnej woli co od Was mamy.
Amen.
That text above is [Polish] version in style of [Silesian dialect/Polish-Silesian/Silesian] one.
Second - much bigger problem, this isn't Lord's Prayer - see some samples:
"kej ćmi, kej dnieje."
when dims, when (sun) shines. - yeah it mean's everyday, but it means that one word is extended to one line.
"kej co dziyń przeca jeść go nōm trzeba."
because we of course need to eat it everyday
"jako my, prości,"
cause we simple people
"ze wolny woli co ôd Wos mōmy".
(with/using) the free will that You gave us.
and the best one - it starts with
"Our Father, hallowed be thy name" - there is no "who art in heaven" part in the text.
You can easily see that this is at least very artistic version of Lord's Prayer or at most text that was created on the basis of Lord's Prayer.
It should NOT be used to compare [languages/dialects/lects].
--31.183.237.8 (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)