text:
Talk:Silesia/Archive 5

What is it ?? The above version is unaceptable
1) Why was the Silesian name of Silesia areased ???

2) Silesia is a region in Poland and Czech Republic (in simple English language). Why do we have do use such strange words like region what is now Poland. Is is just bad English or what???

3) Silesia is a geographical, historical, administrative and local government region not only historical.

4) What are the mysterious ties that were weakening or increasing ??????

5) Why the Czech/Bohemian kingdom is totally ignored here ???

6) Although it is arithmetically true, it is also misinformation that most of Silesia was German before 1945. All of Lower Silesia was German. Upper Silesia was divided between Germany, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.

7) Although it is arithmetically true, it is also misinformation that majority of population was German. Un lower Silesia was mostly German with significant Polish and Jewish minority. Upper Silesia was mostly Polish with significant German and Jewish minority. The Czech Silesia was inhabitet by the Germans, Czechs and Poles.

8) It is not true that the German population were expelled and replaced by Poles expelled from former Kresy.

After 1945 Upper Silesia was inhabited mainly by the same population as before, there were significant migrations, but not of ethnic reasons.

Population in Lower Silesia was changed significantly, but is not true they were expelled. Most of the Germans escaped before the Soviets or were evacuated by the German authorities. Significant groups emigrated later. Polish authorities tried to hold them here as they wanted the labour force. There was also a group that was expelled.

Polish population in Lower Silesia was not from Kresy. As the statistics collected in years 1945-50 show population of Lower Silesia was from various Polish regions (central, western, eastern Polsnd), from ex-Polish territoreis ceded to Soviet Union, from other parts of Soviet Union, from Germany (held as compulsory laborers there), from Western European countriies and also from Upper Silesia and some natives living in Lower Silesia before.

9) It is very biased to mantion only expulsion of German people, and to stay silent about expulsion of Polish Silesians by Bismarck and Hitler. It is also very strange to stay silent about killing Silesian Poles and Jews during WWII.

'''To summarize this intro seems to be a piece of Nationalist work and I cannot understand why Wikipedia is beeing used for such dirty misinformation and propaganda. It is very disgusting.''' [user:caius2ga|Grzes of Poznan]

1 It doesn't exist a "Silesian name" and it doesn't exist a "Silesian language". What does exist, is dialects of Polish and of German spoken in Silesia, German Niederschlesisch and Polish-Silesian. The article does not mention the names you inserted because they are totally unknown and not used by other encypedias, e.g. Britannica, encyclopedia.com, Catholic Encyclopedia etc.

 * it is YOUR point of view. 100.000 people in Silesia declares they speak the Silesian language. If you don't believe they exist it your ptoblem, not theirs.

 * Well, then you should begin with convincing the serious encyclopedias, as the Britannica --- Nico 23:06, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

2 Silesia is an historical region, now divided between Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic. The last version of Encyclopædia Britannica states in the introduction: Silesia: ''Historic region, east-central Europe. It now lies mainly in southwestern Poland, with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic.''

3 The different administrative regions the Polish portion of Silesia is divided into has their own articles, as you see.

4 "Why the Czech/Bohemian kingdom is totally ignored here ??? "

Because this is the introduction.

This compromise was mainly written by szopen. You consider him a Nazi? Please keep you revisonism out of this article. -- Nico 22:00, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---

Secondly: You may not rename Oder River into Odra, since we use the English name at English Wikipedia. The Polish name may be used at the Polish Wikipedia. From your talk page

 ''Names of cities Please stop renaming cities to Polish names. The names in use are those known to English speakers. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and needs not be done again. I'll revert all of your changes. RickK 05:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What do you want Rick?????????????????????????

How about this: Rom (Rome) is a historical city in what is now Italy. it belonged to Italy in ancient times. Ties with Italy were weakening over time, while ties with Germany were increasing. After World War II the city was occupied by the American troops and became Italian, when the German population were expelled and replaced by Italians from the south.

Revisionism have nothing here to do. Please respect the discussion at the talk page. You are welcome to participate, but if you just revert when all other have agreed on a compromise, you will be reverted. Calling szopen a Nazi is just stupid. -- Nico 23:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Neutral Silesia intro proposal
My suggestion for the neutral Silesia intro is (mainly summary of what was developped earlier):

Silesia (Silesian: Ślonsk, Ślunsk, Polish: Śląsk, German: Schlesien, Czech: Slezsko) is a geographical and historical province in south-western Poland and the north-eastern Czech Republic, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra river. Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with strong Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by the Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. History of Silesia is connected with history of the three nations and countries: Poland, Bohemia and Germany.

First is says what Silesia is NOW: a geographical and historical region in two coutries.

 * Silesia is divided between three countries. I told you that revisionism have nothing here to do. Feel free to read the Britannica: "Historic region, east-central Europe. It now lies mainly in southwestern Poland, with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. " Nico 01:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Second it says about it's rich culture now and its roots in the past.

 * Culture may be described under "Culture". The introduction shall just state what Silesia is referring to in English. Nico 01:08, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Third is says about Silesia;s modern inhabinats mentioning ALL most important groups.

Fourth it says about Silesia's history and the three nation-states.

In my opinion this is true, neutral and acceptable to all moderates. Any opinions are welcome.Grzes of Poznan 23:38, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What is acceptable: Neutral and Nationalist point of view ???
I have the feeling that we are seeking a compromise between the Neutral Point of View and the Nazi Point of View. A couple of editors try to write neutral articles and they are destroyed all the time by Nico, who thinks that Silesia is German province, only the Germans are important and other groups can be ignored, the intro should tell about Silesia in 1945 and not now, all the wars won by the Germans are ok, and the wars lost by Germany are bad. Expulsions of the Germans must be condemnend in the intro paragraph, and the expulsions of other people are acceptable.

He thinks that the history of Silesia is the history of the German people and the fate of other people is not important. He thinks that the ties of Silesia were important and increasing, while the ties with other coutries didn't exist or were decreasing.

'''I'm shocked, I'm shocked, I'm shocked, I hoped such thinking is over. I'm shocked that Wikipedia is tolerating such thinking, that can be named no other than Nazi POV. ''' I will have to resign from editing here if such views are accepted again.

Grzes of Poznan 18 Nov 2003

The history of the introduction
Szopen’s proposal: ''Ties with Poland where weakening over time, while ties with Germany were increasing. Most of Silesia was part of Germany before 1945, with majority of Silesia' population being German. After World War II most of Silesian (German) population was expelled and replaced by Poles expelled from former Kresy.''

The Britannica: ''Silesia: Polish Slask German Schlesien. Historic region, east-central Europe. It now lies mainly in southwestern Poland, with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic''

Encyclopedia.com: ''Silesia, Czech Slezsko, Ger. Schlesien, Pol. S´la?sk, region of E central Europe, extending along both banks of the Oder River and bounded in the south by the mountain ranges of the Sudetes—particularly the Krkonos e (Ger. Riesengebirge )—and the W Carpathians. Politically, almost all of Silesia is divided between Poland and the Czech Republic. The Polish portion comprises most of the former Prussian provinces of Upper Silesia and Lower Silesia, both of which were transferred to Polish administration at the Potsdam Conference of 1945; the Polish portion also includes those parts of Upper Silesia that were ceded by Germany to Poland after World War I and part of the former Austrian principality of Teschen. A second, much smaller part of Silesia belonged to Czechoslovakia since 1918, and became part of the Czech Republic with the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993.''

I wrote this together as: ''Silesia (Polish: Slàsk, German: Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. The historical region belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland were weakening over time, while ties with Germany were increasing. Most of Silesia was part of Germany before 1945, and the majority of the population were German. After World War II most of the Silesian (German) population were expelled and replaced by Poles expelled from former Kresy. ''

And then I changed it to:

''Silesia (Polish Slàsk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. The historical region belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland were weakening over time, while ties with Germany were increasing. Most of Silesia was part of the German provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia before 1945, and the majority of the population were German. After World War II most of Silesia became Polish. In the Polish language spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as Slonsk or Slunsk.''

As you see, even medieval Poland is mentioned here, when the HRE is not mentioned at all. What are exactly your problem? -- Nico 23:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Protected as requested by Nico Dysprosia 01:50, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Why editor Nico doesn't like the truth ????
These are the paragraphs erased by Nico:

1) During World War II the Nazi Germany has annexed the Czech Silesia in 1938 (part of the so called Sudetenland) and Polish part of Upper Silesia in 1939. Mass massacres, expulsions and murders of the Poles and Jews followed.

2) According to Thietmar the name of Silesia region comes from the Mount Slez (Polish: Ślęża, Sobótka, German: Silling, Sobbten).

3) In ca. 620 Silesia probably belonged to the State of Samo, a Frankish tradesman, the first Western Slavonic state, which was a federation of various Slavonic tribes in Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, Pannonia, Lusatia and Silesia.

4) In 990 Silesia was incorporated into Poland by Mieszko I ... This boundaries of Poland were accepted by the Pope and Roman Emperor Otto III, by establishing the Silesian bishopric in Wroclaw (1000).

5) The neutral, multi-ethnic, introduction mentioning all the states and nations:Silesia (Silesian: Ślonsk, Ślunsk, Polish: Śląsk, German: Schlesien, Czech: Slezsko) is a geographical and historical province in south-western Poland and the north-eastern Czech Republic, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra river. Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with strong Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by the Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. History of Silesia is connected with history of the three nations and countries: Poland, Bohemia and Germany.

And also in Gdansk: 6) Nazi regime murdered the Polish postmen defending the Post Office after the COF, this is one of the first war crimes during WWII.

Grzes of Poznan 02:01, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nonsense. I reverted as you did not respect the consensus and replaced the introduction with your own nationalistic POV version. -- Nico 02:27, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---
 * First: This is a compromise initially written by szopen, not me. And the words historical region in east-central Europe, in what is now southwestern Poland" are the same words which are used by other NPOV'' encyclopedias, e.g. the Britannica. Why are you against NPOV? Because according to you, all other contributors and all other encyclopedias in the world (almost) are "Nazi", right?

"Editor Nico thinks it's important that the majority of the population were German "

 * Well, this sentence was written by szopen. If you find a better solution, I maybe would not insist to keep it in the introduction.

5) Editor Nico thinks it's important to tell - in the intro - that the Germans were expelled, and at the same time he refuses to tell the the Poles and Jews were expelled and murdered - no mention even at the end of the article.

 * You may mention what you want in the other sections (as long as it is true), but this do not belong in the intro.

What editor Nico does like ????
1) Editor Nico states that the Prussian/German boundaries are definitive, and the historical boundaries of Silesia in Polish and Czech times don't exist.

As I have pointed out previously the Goerlitz area is part of Lusatia nad was joined to the Prussian province of Silesia in 1815-25. This are doesn't belong to Silesia.

2) Editor Nico states that's important that Most of Silesia was part of the German provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia before 1945 and its not important what's the current status.

3) Editor Nico uses the words historical region in east-central Europe, in what is now southwestern Poland ... The only undestanding could be: now it is in Poland, in future .. we will see.

4) Editor Nico thinks it's important that the majority of the population were German and its not important at all what are current inhabitants, and what are the other nations/ethnic groups.

5) Editor Nico thinks it's important to tell - in the intro - that the Germans were expelled, and at the same time he refuses to tell the the Poles and Jews were expelled and murdered - no mention even at the end of the article.

Why editor Nico doesn't like the truth

Grzes of Poznan 02:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nonsense. I reverted as you did not respect the consensus and replaced the introduction with your own nationalistic POV version. -- Nico 02:27, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nico, please read carefully the contents of ALL Silesia Talk pages, including the archives. If you read all the posts and opinions you will see that this version you are fighting for was not accepted by all editors (so you cannot tell about the concensus). Every version you introduce is more and more nationalistic, and it's diffucult to discuss it with you. Grzes of Poznan 02:35, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself. Difficult to discuss with?? "Every version you introduce is more and more nationalistic" *LOL* Find a mirror! I've even tried to satisfact you by including those names not used by any other encyclopedia. The controversial part of the current article isn't even written by me, but by szopen. (But he is a Nazi according to you, of course) Nico 02:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Back to discussion
Hmm...the current introduction seems perfectly fine to me, as a disinterested outsider, as far as POV goes. I'd like to say, thought, that "Ties with Poland were weakening over time, while ties with Germany were increasing," is not good English. How about "Ties with Poland weakened over time, while ties with Germany increased. After a period of Austrian rule, most of Silesia became a part of Prussia following the War of the Austrian Succession in the 18th Century." This would be more precise, although perhaps too detailed for the introduction. on the other hand, Frederick's seizure of Silesia is probably the most famous historical incident involving Silesia (certainly to English speakers), so some mention in the intro might be appropriate. I'd also note that I hope you guys work out your differences soon so the article can be unprotected, as there's a lot of issues with awkward English phraseology at the moment, and the list of facts from the Catholic Encyclopedia really ought not to be in the article. john 03:29, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What do you think about this?

Silesia (Polish Slàsk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. The historical region belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland weakened over time, while ties with Germany increased. After a period of Austrian rule, most of Silesia became a part of Prussia following the War of the Austrian Succession in the 18th Century. After World War II the major part of Silesia became Polish.

or something like that? (removing the demographics and expulsions from the intro) -- Nico 03:57, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about "As a result of the Second World War, nearly all of the Prussian province of Silesia was transferred to Poland." Although, some reference to the expulsions might be worth noting - on the other hand, any reference to expulsions seems to create serious problems as far as getting consensus. john 04:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia (Polish Slàsk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. The historical region belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland weakened over time, while ties with Germany increased. After a period of Austrian rule, most of Silesia became a part of Prussia following the War of the Austrian Succession in the 18th Century. As a result of the Second World War, nearly all of the Prussian province of Silesia was transferred to Poland, while the German population were expulsed.

In an English context, this sounds good, but I'm afraid our Polish friends not will accept it. -- Nico 04:56, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The problem is not the bad English, but the bad content
I don't know what ties are you talking about?. Silesia was rules the Polish dukes until 1675, under Czech overlorship until 1742. The Kingdom of Bohemia was tied to the Kingdom of Germany as they both participated in the Roman Empire. So the conquest of Silesia by Prussia meant that there were LESS ties with Germany after 1742, as the rightful rulers of Germany were the Habsburgs of Austria. History of Silesia is rather a zig-zag not a straigh line. Grzes of Poznan 05:17, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Grzies, your understanding is, I think, quite wrong. *Parts* of Silesia continued to be ruled by *Piast* dukes until 1675.  By the 15th century or so, said dukes were completely Germanized, despite their Polish origins.  And, in any case, most of Silesia was not being ruled by said Piast Dukes, but by the Habsburgs, who ruled Bohemia from 1526, and thus were suzerains of Silesia.  The Holy Roman Empire, which chose to elect the Habsburgs of Austria as Emperor for a long time, but was a state including many other separate estates, including most of Brandenburg-Prussia, is not the same thing as Habsburg hereditary territories, which the crown of Bohemia (including Silesia) basically was from 1526.  The Piast Dukes were, for the whole early modern period, basically tenants of the Habsburgs.  Over the course of this period, Silesia was becoming more and more Germanized.  It was certainly being *ruled* by Germans.  In 1740, with the death of Charles VI, Frederick the Great invaded Silesia, and managed to take over most of this.  His conquest was confirmed by treaties in 1742 and 1745.  This certainly did not mean less ties with "Germany", since Prussia was a German state, and Silesia became an integral part of it.  In any event, Silesia was already largely German long before 1742.  It is frequently noted by historians, for instance, how damaging the loss of Silesia was to the Austrians, because it was one of the few largely German territories they possessed.  So, the connection with the Habsburgs from 1526 increased the "ties" of the Bohemian crown to Germany, while the increasing Germanness of the population (certainly the towns and nobility were entirely German during the 17th/18th centuries, and much of the peasantry was as well - certainly in Lower Silesia) also would increase said connection.  By the time the Habsburgs lost most of Silesia in 1740-45, it was a largely German territory, with, of course, a substantial Polish minority, especially in Upper Silesia (although I suspect that Polish numbers in Upper Silesia would have increased tremendously in the late 19th century during the industrialization of the region).  It might also be noted that by the 20th century, in Upper Silesia, in particular, there was a substantial Polish-speaking population which, nevertheless, considered themselves to be "German," and voted to remain part of Germany in the plebiscite. john 06:58, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--- Silesia was a part of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation) from 1327 and remained German until 1945: Almost 700 years. According to szopen it was German for 400 years (not counting Bohemian rule).

--- Just two correction: Polish Piasts were Germanised in XVI century - last Polish Piast who speak exclusively Polish and maybe some Czech died around 1526 or so, cen;'t remember without looking into my sources. Second, not whole nobility and twonsmen were German, I put examples for Bytom which was completely Polish until XIX century. But the vast majority was German, though. See the below for more.szopen

I will stay away for a couple of days
Because RickK told my that 'Referring to other users as Nazis a violation of Wikiquette' which I wasn't aware of, I am removing all my references to Nazi and placing Nationalist instead.

I will stay away from editing Silesia for a couple of days, let the other editors have a chance to look at my edits, a have an opinion.

Grzes of Poznan 05:27, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Couldn't you try to write a new proposal based on szopen's proposal, and tell us exactly what you don't like? When szopen and all the other contributors have landed at a compromise, why shouldn't you? We don't have to agree on every detail in Silesian history, just on a brief introduction mentioning both Polish and German history in a fair way. Nico 05:48, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have written what I don't like two weeks ago, a week ago, and today in 9 points. I have also made some proposals two weeks ago, a week ago and today and I'm afraid you ignored them, tried to hide them, tried to rename the titles. That's disgusting that you cannot talk to people Grzes of Poznan 06:57, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As requested by User:caius2ga an accuracy dispute note will be added to Silesia. Dysprosia 06:12, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The goal of the Silesia article
I my opinion this article should have two goals:

1) It should tell the reader what Silesia is today (its geographical location, people, cities, the rivers, the mountains and torism)

2) It should also tell about the historical Silesia. It should tell the facts. And it should answer one important question: how the various ethnic, religious and cultural groups of people managed to to live together, and how they refused to live together in the 19th-20th cenuries.

Grzes of Poznan 06:57, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...personally, I think the historical Silesia is more important than Silesia today to this article. Silesia today has no corporate identity, and consists of three Polish provinces, some border areas of surrounding Polish provinces, and some territory in the Czech Republic. The geography of these areas ought to be discussed in detail in articles about the political divisions in use today, with the Silesia article mostly just indicating where to look for said information. As far as the historical Silesia, I think the purpose of an encyclopedia article on the subject should be to describe the (complicated) history of Silesia in as dispassionate a manner as possible. Certainly we all agree on that. Grzes, why don't you take the article, and make a modified version of it on a subpage of your user page, and then we can all look at that and have a better idea of how you want to change the article? john 07:15, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Personally I think modern Silesia is more important that the historical one. Silesia is a live province with over 10.000.000 inhabitants. Silesia was never a corporate body, as it was divided into several duchies and later divided between Poland, Germany and Czechoslovakia. Also the Prussian portion of Silesia was not a corporate body as it was divided into several disctricts and later into two separate provinces. We must not forget that all the time there was also the Czech Silesia and the Polish Silesia which were also important parts of the region.Caius2ga 22:31, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What about something like this: ''Silesia was originally a Polish province that became a possession of the Bohemian crown in 1335, passed with that crown to the Austrian Habsburgs in 1526, was taken by Prussia in 1742, and became Polish after World War II. '' It think btw it is important that our introduction not are totally different from articles in other encyclopedias. Nico 07:35, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me - but let's wait and see what our irate Polish friend says. john 08:36, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Grzes, calm down. The introduction should be compromise. I proposed one, which would please both Polish and German point of view. The truth is that bulk of Silesia belonged to Germany before 1945, and that German population was expelled. While part of population was Polish and native to the region, still a lot of Poles came from other regions, including expelled from Kresy. I am Pole, BTW. As you can find out form my nickname, i think.

Have you read my thoughts on the issue? I feel something ridiculous when you call me Nazi (you call that Nico, but when quoting my proposal - you should consider apologising him, bTW). I think you just skip the whole long discussion (of which the my proposal was effect) and jumped right inside with your comments.

You can't have everything in introduction. You should have however something which will be close enough to NPOV and respect feelings of all sides.

Finally, Silesian is not separate language from linguistic point of view. While 100.000 Silesian may consider themselves separate nation, it does not mean they use separate language - Silesian is, contrary to kashubian, dialect of Polish. It's actually Old Polish with German inmixings. It would be as proper to call it separate language as call Poznanian separate dialect. Just as German dialects in Switzerland, Austria or wherever. szopen
 * I agree. The difference between Polish and Czech language is lesser that between dialects of German. AM

Majority of population
It is very insidious to say that Silesia had a German majority at any time. According to the various sources in my possession, Silesia had Western Slavonic majority for all its historical times (at least since AD 600)

Before 1742 Silesia was divided between Czech Kingdom and Poland, and after 1742 Silesia was divided between Prussia, Czechia and Poland - we should count the population together.

Population of Prussian Silesia

 * 1787 - 1.7 million (45 persons/sq km)
 * 1871 - 3.7 million
 * 1910 - 5.2 million (130 persons/sq km)

 * 1871-1910 Upper Silesia population density grew +68% to 167 persons/sq km
 * 1871-1910 Lower Silesia population density grew +25% to 110 persons/sq km

Upper Silesia in 1921
According to the German sources in Upper Silesia there were
 * 1,159 Poles (65%)
 * 621 Germans
 * total 1,780

other counting
 * Poles 1250 (64%)
 * Germans 690
 * total 1940

The German sources are not very reliable. First the Prussian state considered all its subjects to be of the Prussian nationality se there was no need to collect nationality data. However they did collect the language data.

The declared language of the household head was assigned to all the houshold inhabitants including the servants. Billingual people were counted as Germans. Jews also declared the German language.

Silesian Voivodship in 1931
Silesian Voivodship contained 1/3 of Upper Silesia assigned to Poland and half of Cieszyn Silesia divided between Poland and Czechoslovakia

 * Total 1,3 million
 * Poles some 90%
 * Germans some 10%
 * Jews some 1%

Czechoslovak Silesia

 * Cieszyn Silesia ?
 * Opava Silesia ?

Population of Silesia in 1938 (all three parts)

 * Germans 2-2.5 million (according to various sources)
 * Poles 2-2.5 million (according to various sources)
 * Czechs and Moravians 0.5 million
 * Jews 100.000 ??

Expelled Silesian Germans in 1950
from Upper Silesia 550 from Lower Silesia 1,540 total 2,090

Population of Silesia in 1950
Population (in thousands) of 3 Silesian voivodships in Poland: Total 5,300 (2,900 natives+ 1,000 repats+1,400 resettled)
 * Katowice Voivodship 2,800 (2,300 natives + 200 repats + 300 ressetled)
 * Opole Voivodship 800 (400 natives + 200 repats + 200 ressetled)
 * Wroclaw Voivodship 1,700 (2,300 natives + 200 repats + 300 ressetled)

 * natives = people who lived there before 1938/45
 * repats,repatriates = Polish expats in the Western Europe, and workers in Germany
 * ressetled = people ressetled from central Poland, ex-Polish eastern territories and other lands of Soviet Union

Population of Silesia today
Some 10 milion, most of them were born in Silesia and do feel that they are Silesians. Most of them are ethnic Poles, but there are also those who feel: Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians.

Population summary
'''To summarize: In all its known history of 1400 years Silesia had a Western Slavonic majority, although it is sometimes difficult to judge if these people were the Czechs, Moravians, Silesians or Poles. National identities were crystalized in the 20th century. There was a significant Germanic majority althout there were never in history a majority of population. It is possible that the Germans were actually a majority in 1944 after a series of massacres. murders and expulsions of Poles and Jews and ressetlement of new Germans during WWII. These Nazi state of affairs should not have place in Vikipedia.'''

Caius2ga 21:50, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Political Ties of Silesia to Poland

 * Silesia was part of Poland since the creation of the state in 990/1000
 * Silesia had a bishopric in Wroclaw since 1000 in the Polish eclessiatical province of Gniezno 1000-1825
 * Silesia was a leading Polish province 990-1335
 * Silesia was ruled by the Polish Piast dynasty until they died out in 1675. Although Silesia was under the Czech overlordship the dukes considered themselves the dukes of Poland
 * 1443 Silesua Duchy of Siewierz falls to the bishops of Cracow
 * 1454 Silesia duchy of Oswiecim, Zator, Zywiec falls to Poland
 * 1471-1526 the Polish-Lithuanian Jaggielonians are the kings of Bohemia and Hungary: Ladislaus II, and Luis II
 * 1490-1498 Lower Silesian duchy of Glogow is ruled by John Albert, later king of Poland-Lithuania
 * 1498-1506 Lower Silesian duchy of Glogow is rules by Sigismund I, later king of Poland-Lithuania
 * 1625-1655 Charles Ferdinand Vasa of the Polish royal family is the bishop of Wroclaw
 * 1645-1666 Upper Silesia is ruled by the Vasa family: the Polish royal dynasty: Ladislaus IV, Charles Ferdinand, also bishop of Wroclaw, John Casimir
 * 1597-1598 Upper Silesia is ruled by Sigismund Bathory, cousin of the Polish king
 * 1691-1737 Silesian duchy of Olawa is ruled by Jakub Sobieski, son of Polish king and pretender of the Polish throne
 * 1597-1598 Upper Silesia is ruled by Sigismund Bathory, cousin of the Polish king
 * 1691-1737 Silesian duchy of Olawa is ruled by Jakub Sobieski, son of Polish king and pretender of the Polish throne

Cultural Ties of Silesia to Poland

 * first sentence ever in Polish language was wtitten down in Silesia in ca. 1270 in the so called Henry's Book published in Latin
 * first book ever in Polish language was printed in Silesia in 1475
 * in the 16th Century the books in the upper Silesia courts are held in the local Silesian dialect (misture of Polish and Bohemian). Majority of the cities are Polish

 * the Prussian kings considers Polish language so important that he published all his official acts in German and Polish. For example Instrukcya dla Sołtysów Wieyskich w Szlązku i Hrabstwie Glackim. Dan w Berlinie 1 Maia 1804, w Wroclawiu, w drukarni Wilhelma Bogumila Korna

 * 1836 Literary-Slavonic Society established in Wroclaw
 * 1863 Society of the Polish Upper Silesians founded
 * 1886 Polish students organizations in the Wroclaw university abolished by the Prussian government
 * 1920-21 majority of Upper Silesia is ethnic Polish, popular plebiscite and 3 Silesian uprisings show that the Silesian people want to live in Poland.
 * 1921-1939 autonomous Silesian Voivodship show that it is possible to combine the Silesian independence and autonomy with the belonging to the Polish state.

Ties of Silesia to Czechia

 * Silesia was part of various Czech states: Samo State in ca 620-650, Greater Moravian Empire ca. 850-890, Duchy of Bohemia ca 900-990, 1038-1050
 * Most of Silesia was part of the Czech-Polish Kingdom 1300-1306
 * Most of Silesia was part of the Bohemian Kingdom from 1338 to 1742
 * southern part of Silesia (Opava region) was part of the Czech states for all these time: 1400 years

Summary: Prevailing ties to the Slavonic states
'''To summarize: In all its known history of 1400 years Silesia had significant and overheming ties to the Western Slavonic states (Samo's State, Great Moravian Empire, Duchy of Bohemia, Duchy and Kingdom of Poland, Kingdom of Bohemia, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Kingdom of Galicia, Czechoslovakia, Second Republic of Poland, Czech Republic, Third Republic of Poland) and this should be said clairly in the introduction.

Silesia had also significant ties to the German states (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, Austria, Prussia, Germany) but they were never prevailing. Although Austria and Prussia were prevailing in political terms in the 18th-19th century; the ethnic, economic and cultural ties of Silesia to the Slavonic states were never cut or reduced''' Caius2ga 22:32, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is one of the most misleading posts I've ever seen. In terms of population, I note you list Upper Silesia, but never Lower Silesia, which is generally acknowledged to have been largely German in the 19th century. I'd also note that you claim that in 1920-21 the majority of the population of Upper Silesia voted to join Poland. This is completely false. In spite of the fact that the majority of the population of Upper Silesia was Polish speaking, a 3/5 majority voted to remain in Germany. The partition of Upper Silesia agreed to basically gave the regions that wanted to be Polish to Poland, and left the rest to Germany. Your list of political rule in Silesia is created entirely by cherry-picking - noting "Polish" (sometimes actually Swedish, or what not) Bishops or Dukes of Silesia, or Germanized Piast Dukes, and so forth. Read any book and you'll discover that, from the 16th century, Silesia was essentially ruled by the Habsburgs. It might be noted that various German princely families like the Auerspergs or the Hohenlohes were also made Dukes of various Silesian principalities in exactly the same way that Jakob Sobieski was, for instance. These dukedoms did not, in the 17th and 18th century, actually convey any kind of political sovereignty - they were essentially big landowners with some feudal rights. Certainly not even as much independence as the smalles free city of the empire. Certainly it would be very difficult to make the case that Prussian Silesia from 1742-1918 had any political connections to Western-Slavdom.
 * It had at least one, but very important. Bishopry in Breslau/Wroclaw was part of Polish province of the church until 1850 AM

 * Isn't that an ecclesiastical connection?, rather than a political one? john 19:44, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The connections to the Bohemian Kingdom which you indicate were certainly there, but to ascribe this to "Czechia" is misleading.

 * Right. In Sherlock Holmes book written around 1860?, Bohemia appeared as German country, and you try to argue, that Silesia also were the same. Officially yes, but Slavic background where there always. AM

 * Certainly. But the Slavic element in Silesia was Polish, not Czech, except in part of Austrian Silesia.
 * This is difficult to understand. Difference between languages of Poles and Czech is very small. You should rather put, that the dialects of the same language was foundation stones for 2 separate literature languages. Why Silesians in national awakenings XIX, XX century became Poles, instead of Czechs? There are few different reasons: Silesians were put in opposition to government by Kulturkampf together with Poles, the fact, that Silesia was part of the Polish province of the church, the Polish attempts to undermine Prussians not only in Great Poland but also elsewhere, all this contributed to that process. But it could have happenned otherway around: Silesians could become Czechs as well.AM

I have no idea of the actual figures, but in 1740 the Crown of St. Wenceslas probably had almost as many Germans as Slavs in it, given the large German minority in Bohemia and Moravia, and what was probably a slight German majority in Silesia (assuming Lower Silesia tp be largely German,
 * In 1740 Lower Silesia was also mixed. I can give you some links, if you are interested. Upper Silesia was not very mixed by this time. I also would like to point out, that you cannot use the word German in 1740. Germany was united in 1871. Before being German meant nothing. Many people used German language, without being GermanAM

 * I would be interested to see links.
 * > http://www.literad.de/regional/fremdspr_krei.html Here you can find parts of Lower Silesia with Polish ingredients even by German statistics in 1910. AM

However, the idea that using the word "German" in 1740 is meaningless is nonsense. While there was no single German state, there were multiple German states. Prussia was certainly a German state.
 * Nonsense! Prussia originated from: Brandenburg, that was Slavic country, Germanised and with French hugenot ingredient, and East Prussia, Baltic background + Polish and German settlements, Germanised. Proper Germans, i.e. Rheinlander never considered Prussia entire German state! It was kind of German colony in the Baltic regions, mixture of cultures, but not in freedom, but in militarism..AM

 * Brandenburg was a German country by the early modern period. In any event, your basis of determining nationality seems to be ethnic.  Most of the time when such things were discussed, the practical basis of nationality used was linguistic.  By that standard, at the time of the establishment of the Kingdom in Prussia in 1701, the lands of its ruler were overwhelmingly German speaking. john 09:17, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Nonsense again. Southern East Prussia where overwhelmnigly Polish speaking by 1656. It turned back little bit after invasion of Tatarians, but Prussians complained about lack of German speakers well into XVIII century.AM

Austria was as well, sort of. Certainly the Hereditary lands were.
 * Austria?? Where 30% of people has Czech names? Others have Hungarian, Slovenes and Polish? Austria is also kind of border German culture. Ask German, what he thinks about Austrian Ordnung!.AM

 * Well, I suppose. Of course the whole "nationality" idea has never made much sense, and made the least sense in east-Central Europe in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
 * You try to determine nationality in binary way. In addition, you don't understand, that in the Eastern Europe, majority of Lower classes were passive for centuries, and the countries seemed Polish or German, at least from above. Then crude people awaken, and suddenly i.e. Sudetendeutche found surprised themselves minority in the foreigncountry. The same happenned in Silesia, but then Silesia was a part of National Germany, and Germans had a lot of success in Geramanising in depth people, than Austrians in Bohemia. By the way, what you say about englishspeaking Irish guy?? Was Ireland overwhelmingly English by early XIX century already?? AM

and Upper Silesia mixed with a Polish majority). In any event, the Crown of St. Wenceslas was held from 1526 to 1918 by the House of Habsburg, making the German connection for such rule relatively strong.  Any account of the War of the Austrian Succession notes that the loss of Silesia was terrible for the Austrians, in part because it lost them one of the most German parts of their realm.  john 23:33, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC) It is nonsense. In 1740 nobody cares of nationality. What was important, the economical meaning of Silesia, very reach province ever.AM

 * Nationality did have some meaning in the 18th century, although you're right, the economic value of Silesia was more important. Certainly at the time.  What historians have noted, however, is that in the long run, the loss of Silesia was a big hit to Austrian chances of dominating Germany, as it greatly reduced the ethnic German population of Austria. john 19:44, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As I have said before, our article should be as neutral as articles in other encyclopedias. I invite any user to read articles on this matter in different encyclopedias, e.g. those I've posted links to before, and compare with the revisionism caius2ga now comes up with. Btw, there have been calls to ban him on the WikiEN-list. Nico 07:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thought we were already through this. I thought it's consensus now, that Silesia had ties to Poland even in modern time, but majority of population of _whole_ Silesia was German. I'm becoming a bit tired with all this.

Also, Caius2ga, not all of the natives who stayed after 1945 stayed to today. Some of Germans were eemigrating also later, mostly as result of demanding that citizens of Poland will have only one citizenship, when double-citizenship left for RFN. Of course, IIRC - i read this in some popular newspaper long, long ago. szopen

Lots of archives
I think this topic holds the record for "most archives of a talk page". Isn't there any area of argeement?

Please, someone just list all the disputed points. Then we can go through them one by one. I can help, if people want me to. --Uncle Ed 18:28, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Already been through this
As szopen said, we have already been through this. Everyone else agree on the current version. No need for doing all this again when caius2ga is the only one not cooperating, and pushing his odd revisionism. Just look at other encyclopedias! I've asked him to tell what he don't like, and he haven't. Instead he is now flooding the talk page with misleading statistics, and calling all his opponents "Nazis". What he don't like is probably mentioning Germany at all, in an historical article dealing with a German province until modern times for almost 700 years with an overwhelming majority of German population! Give me a break!

What do you think about a vote on which introduction we should use? -- Nico 18:51, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * 1) I don't like votes. Not for settling this sort of issue.
 * 2) If caius is the only one who disagrees, then I'm siding with Nico.
 * 3) Caius, if you want other people to listen to you, pick ONE disputed point and make it clear and short. Otherwise, you just look like a troublemaker. I don't have time for this! --Uncle Ed 23:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is all very irritating. Caius's contribution here is entirely negative. He cherry-picks facts and reads evidence in order to come to the conclusion he already wants to come to. And he won't actually say what he doesn't like about the current article. Apparently, it's the idea that (the majority of) Silesia was more connected to Germany than to Poland at any time other than, say, 1871-1945. At any rate, I personally am not a huge fan of the current introduction, and would love to edit it to make it better written and a bit more detailed and clear. This apparently will never happen, sadly.

It seems to me that a fair introduction on the History of Silesia would note that 1) the region was originally a part of Poland; 2) that in the later Middle Ages, the ruling elites became Germanized and encouraged German settlement, while the province itself came under the suzerainty of the Bohemian Crown; 3) that it passed to the Habsburgs in 1526, and then (most of it) to Prussia in 1742, and that by the early 19th century the region was majority German-speaking; 4) that Upper Silesia was partitioned between Germany and Poland after World War I; and 5) that after World War II the whole of Silesia was annexed to Poland, and the German population forced into exile. And, again, what is offensive about the introduction as it is now? john 00:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moderates and extremist
My feeling is that User:Wik, User:szopen and me are moderates here introducing neutral attitude of writing about facts, about all ethnic groups, all political influences, about various points of view.

And User:Nico is the extremist who tries to prove that Silesia was a most always a German province, most always with German majority, ''most always belonged to Germany, etc.

Nico asks what we don't like, and when we try to explain, he accusses us of flooding and spaming. If we prove he is wrong, he marks us as 'problem users', 'vandals', asks to 'protect the page' and threatens to introduce a ban to problem users. My opinion is that Nico thinks he is the wisest editor in the world, he thinks that the is lawyas right, and in fact he is just prone to the thruth and proofs.

I would like to mention in the history section that the Nazis have built tens of concentration camps during WWII, including Auschwitz-Birkenau (Oświęcim-Brzeinka) in Upper Silesia, and Gross-Rosen(Rogoźnica) in Lower Silesia to kill milions of people (Poland lost 6 million, that is some 20% of population). These Poles and Jews were replaced by the Germans resettled from various places.

And the Nico's answer is to delete any small mentions of these mass massacres, and to write at the TOP that before 1945 ...majority of the population were German. He also claims that this is neutral or concensus verstion. This is just disgusting. Disgusting.

And he also want to make a voting. Imagine that. Nico want to make a voting if millions were killed by the Nazis, and if and when there was a German majority. This is just disgusting. Disgusting. I don't know what to say Caius2ga 00:48, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What do other on-line encyclopaedias say about Silesia
Silesia Region of Europe that has long been disputed because of its geographical position, mineral resources, and industrial potential now in Poland and the Czech Republic with metallurgical industries and a coalfield in Polish Silesia. Dispute began in the 17th century with claims on the area by both Austria and Prussia. It was seized by Prussia's Frederick the Great, which started the War of the Austrian Succession this was finally recognized by Austria in 1763, after the Seven Years' War. After World War I, it was divided in 1919 among newly formed Czechoslovakia, revived Poland, and Germany, which retained the largest part. In 1945, after World War II, all German Silesia east of the Oder-Neisse line was transferred to Polish administration about 10 million inhabitants of German origin, both there and in Czechoslovak Silesia, were expelled. The chief towns (with their German names) are Wrocaw (Breslau), Katowice (Kattowitz), Zabrze (Hindenburg), Chorzow (Knigshtte), Gliwice (Gleiwitz), and Bytom (Beuthen) in Poland, and Opava (Troppau) in the Czech Republic.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0005241.html

1. [n] a sturdy twill-weave cotton fabric; used for pockets and linings 2. [n] a region of central Europe rich in deposits of coal and iron ore; annexed by Prussia in 1742 but now largely in Poland

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/Silesia

Silesia is a district in central Europe, formerly part of the German and Austrian Empires.

Katowice is an industrial city in Upper Silesia, southern Poland.

http://www.fas.org/news/reference/probert/GS2.HTM

B.2.) The First Silesian War (1740-1742) In 1740 Frederick II., King in Prussia, offered his vote (as Duke-Elector of Brandenburg) for Maria Theresia's husband, Duke Charles of Lorraine-Tuscany - if Austria would cede the territories of Jaegerndorf, Liegnitz, Brieg and Wohlau in Silesia to Prussia. The Viennese court rejected the proposition; Prussian troops invaded Silesia in December 1740 and quickly occupied the entire province ... Austria ceded most of Silesia (except Austrian Silesia) and the (Bohemian) county of Glatz to Prussia http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/18cen/austsucc.html

and also other resources:

Będzin: town in Silesia, Poland. A Jewish settlement existed in Będzin from the beginning of the 17th century. In 1765 the Jewish population numbered 446; in 1856, 2,440 (58.6% of the total); in 1897, 10,839 (45.6%); in 1909, 22,674 (48.7%); in 1921, 17,298 (62.1%); and in 1931, 21,625 (45.4%). ... The German army entered the town on Sept. 4, 1939, and five days later they burned the Great Synagogue in the Old City. About 50 houses surrounding the synagogue, which were inhabited exclusively by Jews, went up in flames and a number of Jews were burned to death http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/Zaglembie/Zag002a.html

1911 Encyclopaedia:

Prussian Silesia:

At the census of 1905 the population of Silesia was 4,942,611, of whom 2,120,361 were Protestants, 2,765,394 Catholics and 46,845 Jews. The density is 317 per sq. m., but the average is of course very greatly exceeded in the industrial districts such as Beuthen. Three-fourths of the inhabitants and territory are German, but to the east of the Oder the Poles, more than 1,000,000 in number, form the bulk of the population, while there are about 15,500 Czechs in the south part of the province and 25,000 Wends near Liegnitz. The Roman Catholics, most of whom are under the ecclesiastical sway of the prince bishop of Breslau, are predominant in Upper Silesia and Glatz; the Protestants prevail in Lower Silesia, to the west of the Oder, and in Lusatia. The nobility is very numerous in Silesia, chiefly in the Polish districts. [...]

An important epoch in the history of Silesia is marked by the year 1740, when the dominion of Austria was exchanged for that of Prussia. Availing himself of a testamentary union made in 1537 between the duke of Liegnitz and the elector of Brandenburg, and '''of an attempt by the elector Frederick William to call it into force in spite of its annulment by Ferdinand I. in 1546, Frederick II. of Prussia raised a claim to the former duchies''' of Liegnitz, Brieg, Jagerndorf and Wohlau. The empress Maria Theresa, who was at this time involved with other enemies, was unable to prevent the occupation of Lower Silesia by Frederick and in 1741 ceded that province to him. In the following year Frederick renewed his attack and extorted from Austria the whole of Silesia except the districts of Troppau, Teschen and Jagerndorf, the present province of Austrian Silesia [...]

The annexation by Frederick was followed by a complete reorganization in which the obsolete powers of the local dynasts were abolished and Silesia became a mere province of the highly centralized Prussian state. Owing to the lack of a corporate Silesian consciousness and the feebleness of their local institutions, the people soon became recoiidiled to their change of rulers. Moreover Frederick, who had proved by his wars the importance which he attached to Silesia, was indefatigable in times of peace in his attempts to justify his usurpation. [...]

Austrian Silesia:

In 1900 the population numbered 680,422, which corresponds to 342 inhabitants per sq. m. The Germans formed 44.69% of the population, 33.21% were Poles and 22.05% Czechs and Slays. According to religion, 84~ 73 were Roman Catholics, 14% Protestants and the remainder were Jews. The local diet is composed of 31 members, and Silesia sends 12 deputies to the Reichsrat at Vienna. For administrative purposes Silesia is divided into 9 districts and 3 towns with autonomous municipalities: Troppau, the capital, Bielitz and Friedek. Other principal towns are: Teschen, Polnisch-Ostrau, Jgerndorf, Karwin, Freudenthal, Freiwaldau and Bennisch.

The actual duchy is only a very small part, which was left to Austria after the Seven Years War, from its former province of the same name. It formed, with Moravia, a single province until 1849, when it was created a separate duchy.

http://3.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SI/SILESIA.htm

What's your point, besides adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia? RickK 03:55, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--- Due to mentioned German colonization, the Lower Silesia /western part of the region/ became German in the 19th century in terms of nationality, whilst the Upper Silesia /both its Prussian and Austrian parts/ in the majority remained Slavic.

About 1850 Upper Silesia Slavs had three national options: Polish, Czech and Silesian /the biggest one - more than 70% of Slavic Silesian population/. The first national Silesian groups appeared in the 1880‘s but the first strong national party - the Silesian People Party was formed in the Austrian part of Upper Silesia by Josef Kożdoń from Cieszyn in 1908/9. This party claimed wide autonomy for Austrian Silesia and demanded an official recognition of the Silesian nation, separate from Polish and Czech.

http://www.rams.pl/ras/RuchAutonomiiSlaska/eng/history/HistoryofSilesia.htm

Caius, in the first place, the quoted material does not serve to make the point you're trying to make. In the second place, your characterizations of people are unfair. If anyone is trying to claim that Silesia was always something, it is you, with your claims that Silesia has always been Polish, and only very briefly, and very shallowly, German. At any rate, stop with the massive text dumping. Please tell us specifically what you think is wrong with the article in its present form. Unless you do that, you're not contributing anything at all. john 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So, you are moderate now, caius? Actually I think szopen is a moderate and cooperative person, but you? :-)

Let me say I don't wish to belittle Polish history of the region. But if it's your intention to write an introduction totally ignoring it's German history, it will be quite difficult to make a compromise with you. -- Nico 08:11, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I already told that in the section ''What is it ?? The above version is unaceptable''. I had also demanded a section telling that in 19th/20th century: Lower Silesia was mostly German, and Upper Silesia was mostly Polish. I had also proposed a mild intro section telling about all people involved: you tell me why it is wrong: ''Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with strong Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by the Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. History of Silesia is connected with history of the three nations and countries: Poland, Bohemia and Germany. ''

I am trying hard to be a moderate. Please tell me why is it wrong?? Grzes of Poznan 08:13, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Silesia/Archive 5


text:
Ylem

Ylem ( or ) is a hypothetical original substance or condensed state of matter, which became subatomic particles and elements as are understood today. The term was used by George Gamow, his student Ralph Alpher, and their associates in the late 1940s, having resuscitated it from Middle English after Alpher found it in Webster's Second dictionary, where it was defined as "the first substance from which the elements were supposed to have been formed."

In modern understanding, the "ylem" as described by Gamow was the primordial plasma, formed in baryogenesis, which underwent Big Bang nucleosynthesis and was opaque to radiation. Recombination of the charged plasma into neutral atoms made the universe transparent at the age of 380,000 years, and the radiation released is still observable as cosmic microwave background radiation.

History
The term comes from an obsolete Middle English philosophical word that Alpher said he found in Webster's dictionary. The word means something along the lines of "primordial substance from which all matter is formed" (that in ancient mythology of many different cultures was called the cosmic egg ) and ultimately derives from the hūlē (ὕλη), probably through an accusative singular form in Latin hylen, hylem. In an oral history interview in 1968 Gamow talked about ylem as an old Hebrew word (possibly היולי "primordial", from the same Greek root ὕλη).

The ylem is what Gamow and colleagues presumed to exist immediately after the Big Bang. Within the ylem, there were assumed to be a large number of high-energy photons present. Alpher and Robert Herman made a scientific prediction in 1948 that we should still be able to observe these red-shifted photons today as an ambient cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) pervading all space with a temperature of about 5 kelvins (when the CMBR was actually first detected in 1965, its temperature was found to be 3 kelvins). It is now recognized that the CMBR originated at the transition from predominantly ionized hydrogen to non-ionized hydrogen at around 400,000 years after the Big Bang.

In popular culture
After the term ylem was resuscitated by Alpher, it was used in the 1952 science fiction novel Jack of Eagles by James Blish. It was also used by John Brunner in his 1959 short story "Round Trip", reprinted in the collection Not Before Time. Keith Laumer in the novel Dinosaur Beach introduces the ylem field 1969. The term is also used by British author Richard Calder in the 1990s to describe the quantum mechanical state of the "quantum magic" in the girls/robots in his "Dead" trilogy (Dead Girls, Dead Boys, Dead Things). John C. Wright used the term in his debut novel The Golden Age to describe a "pseudo-matter" that forms "temporary virtual particles". A German black metal band "Dark Fortress" also released an album titled "Ylem". Synaesthesia, a trance classic by The Thrillseekers, has an "Ylem" remix. The video game series Ultima uses "Ylem" as a Word of Power in its incantation and runic based spell casting system, its meaning being "matter".

In 1981, Trudy Myrrh Reagan formed an organization, "Ylem: Artists Using Science and Technology" (later written YLEM), in the San Francisco Bay Area.

It is also a usable word in the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary, Fifth edition.

Some Frank Zappa releases include the phrase "Zappa Family Archival Matter In Living Ylem."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ylem


text:
Bexley

Bexley is an area of south-eastern Greater London, England and part of the London Borough of Bexley. It is sometimes known as Bexley Village or Old Bexley to differentiate the area from the wider borough. It is located 13 mi east-southeast of Charing Cross and south of Bexleyheath.

Bexley was an ancient parish in the county of Kent. As part of the suburban growth of London in the 20th century, Bexley increased in population, becoming a municipal borough in 1935 and has formed part of Greater London since 1965.

History
Bexley was an ancient parish in Kent, in the diocese of Rochester, and under the Local Government Act 1894 formed part of Bexley Urban District. The urban district gained further status in 1935 as a municipal borough. Kent County Council formed the second tier of local government during that time. In 1965, London County Council was abolished and replaced by Greater London Council, with an expanded administrative area that took in the metropolitan parts of the Home Counties. Bexley Municipal Borough, Erith Municipal Borough, Crayford Urban District Council and Chislehurst & Sidcup Urban District Council were merged (less areas of Chislehurst and Sidcup that became part of the new London Borough of Bromley) into a new London Borough of Bexley.

Geography and landmarks
Bexley's main landmark is the Anglican church of St. Mary which lends its name to the London Borough of Bexley electoral ward containing the village. The ancient church's most distinctive exterior feature undoubtedly is its unusual spire which resembles an octagonal cone balancing on top of a truncated pyramid. Originally built in the Middle Ages, its monastic-style interior survived from the Reformation until the 18th century, before refurbishment in Victorian times. Among others, the German-born scientist Henry Oldenburg was buried in the churchyard in 1677.

Hall Place, a former stately home beside the River Cray on the Bourne Road out of Bexley towards Crayford, is where the Austen baronets lived. It lies to the north of Bexley at the foot of the road (Gravel Hill) up onto Bexley Heath (now covered in the modern day town of Bexleyheath). The house is unusual in that its two halves are built in highly contrasting architectural styles with little attempt at harmonising them. The house and grounds are now owned by the London Borough of Bexley, and are open to the public. The gardens include a topiary display of traditional heraldic figures. Three walking routes pass Hall Place, the local council-sponsored Shuttle River Way and Cray River Way and the Mayor of London's "London LOOP" walk, which, shortly after its start at Erith, follows the Cray River Way from Crayford to Foots Cray.

Danson House and the surrounding Danson Park in Welling are two of the main popular attractions in the London Borough of Bexley. The Shaw family, celebrated 19th-century architects came from Bexley: John Shaw (1776–1832) worked on Lamorbey Park and was a well-known architect in Kent and Middlesex, being one of the first designers of semi-detached housing in the capital. He is buried at St. Mary's Church; his son, John Shaw Jr, lived in nearby Crayford for a short time and owned a villa which was demolished in the early 20th century.

Places of worship

 * St. Mary the Virgin Church, Bexley
 * Albany Park Baptist Church, Stansted Crescent
 * St. Augustine's Church, Slade Green Road
 * St. John the Evangelist, Parkhill Road
 * Strict Baptist Chapel, Bourne Road
 * United Reformed Church, Hurst Road
 * Our Lady of Angels Church, Bexley Road
 * St. Paulinus Church, Bexley

Transport
Bexley railway station serves the area with services to London Charing Cross via Sidcup and to Gravesend. Bexley is served by several Transport for London bus services connecting it with areas including Abbey Wood, Bexleyheath, Bromley, Crayford, Chislehurst, Dartford, Eltham, Erith, North Greenwich, Sidcup and Thamesmead.

Culture

 * Old Dartfordians' War Memorial clubhouse, Bourne Road (home to the DA5 Club). This is home to both Dartfordians' Rugby Club and Dartfordians' Cricket Club.
 * Bexley Cricket Club is based on Manor Way.
 * Burnt Ash (Bexley) Hockey Club are also based at Manor Way, and play their home matches here, at Hurstmere School or at Erith School.

Twin towns - sister cities

 * 🇩🇪 Arnsberg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
 * 🇫🇷 Évry, Île-de-France, France
 * 🇦🇺 Footscray, Melbourne, Australia

title: Bexley


text:
Alex Vieux

Alex Serge Vieux is the chairman and publisher of Red Herring and CEO of Herring International. Through Red Herring Top 100 and other events, Vieux analyzes the potential of approximately 2,000 startups each year. His contributions to the IT industry span more than 20 years and include co-founding of DASAR, a European incubator and conference company. Currently, Vieux serves on the boards of several international public and private companies, including BVRP, CommerceOne, CheckPoint Software, Daum Communications and Kyriba.

In 1997, Vieux was named president of the Infotech Commission for the French Republic, under the auspice of the Minister of Economics and Finance. Vieux served on the board of directors for Tandem Computers for two years, until the company's merger with Compaq in 1997. Active in public service, he served as special adviser to the Minister of Industry in France from 1991 to 1993, covering all issues relating to the high-tech industry.

In 1988, he was named visiting professor at the University of Paris Dauphine. Vieux also held a position at the University of Paris La Sorbonne.

Vieux started his career at Andersen Consulting (1981–1985) implementing information systems. In 1985, he took a position as the US business correspondent for the French daily Le Monde and has authored more than 300 articles profiling the high-tech industry in the Silicon Valley. As an entrepreneur, Vieux co-founded CATS Software and Renaissance Software, firms focusing on the banking industry.

A graduate of the Institute d’Etudes Politiques and the French business school HEC, Vieux holds a law degree from the Universite de Paris and an MBA from Stanford University, where he was a Fulbright Scholar.

title: Alex Vieux


text:
Bourne, Lincolnshire

Bourne is a market town and civil parish in the South Kesteven district of Lincolnshire, England. It lies on the eastern slopes of the limestone Kesteven Uplands and the western edge of the Fens, 11 mi north-east of Stamford, 12 mi west of Spalding and 17 mi north of Peterborough. The population at the 2011 census was 14,456. A 2019 estimate put it at 16,780.

History
The Ancient Woodland of Bourne Woods is still extant, although much reduced. It originally formed part of the ancient Forest of Kesteven and is now managed by the Forestry Commission.

The earliest documentary reference to Brunna, meaning stream, is from a document of 960, and the town appeared in Domesday Book of 1086 as Brune.

Bourne Abbey, (charter 1138), formerly held and maintained land in Bourne and other parishes. In later times this was known as the manor of Bourne Abbots. Whether the canons knew that name is less clear. The estate was given by the founder of the Abbey, Baldwin fitz Gilbert de Clare, son of Gilbert fitz Richard, and later benefactors. The abbey was established under the Arrouaisian order. Its fundamental rule was that of St Augustine and as time went on it came to be regarded as Augustinian. The Ormulum, an important Middle English Biblical gloss, was probably written in the abbey in around 1175.

Bourne Castle was built on land that is now the Wellhead Gardens in South Street. Bourne was an important junction on the Victorian railway system, but all such connections were severed after the Second World War (see Railways section). The business stimulus it brought caused major development of the town and many of the buildings around the medieval street plan were rebuilt or at least refaced. Improved communications allowed a bottled-water industry to develop and coal to be delivered to the town's gas works.

The local authority at the time, Bourne Urban District Council, was active in the town's interests, taking over the gas works and the local watercress beds at times of financial difficulty and running them as commercial ventures. Large numbers of good-quality council houses were built in the early 20th century.

Bourne sent many men to both world wars but was otherwise not much affected. During the Second World War a German bomber shot down in May 1941 crashed into the Butcher's Arms public house in Eastgate. The landlord, his wife and eight soldiers billetted across the road were killed, as were the bomber's crew. In a separate incident several bombs were dropped on the Hereward Camp.

The town
The town is located on a Roman road now known as King Street. It was built around some natural springs, hence the name "Bourne" (or "Bourn"). which derives from the Anglo-Saxon burna or burne meaning "water" or "stream". It lies on the intersection of two main roads: the A15 and the A151. The civil parish includes the main township along with the hamlets of Cawthorpe, Dyke and Twenty. In former years Austerby was regarded as a separate settlement, with its own shops and street plan, but is now an area of Bourne known as The Austerby.( 52.763°N, -0.37°W ).

The ecclesiastical parish of Bourne is part of the Beltisloe Deanery of the Diocese of Lincoln and based at the Abbey Church of St Peter and St Paul, in Church Walk. Other religious congregations in the town include Methodist, Baptist, United Reformed and Roman Catholic churches.

Much of Bourne's 19th-century affluence came from the corn-trade boom that followed the mechanisation of fen drainage. The Corn Exchange in Abbey Road dates from 1870.

Lincolnshire County Council
Bourne has two County Council divisions:

 * Bourne North and Morton
 * Bourne South and Thurlby

South Kesteven District Council
Bourne has three District Council wards, two having two councillors and the new ward, Austerby, having three councillors.

 * Bourne East
 * Bourne West
 * Bourne Austerby

Bourne Town Council
Bourne Town Council has two wards which are identical to the South Kesteven District Council wards. Bourne East elects seven councillors to the town council and Bourne West eight.

From 1899 to 1974, Bourne had an urban district council in the former Parts of Kesteven. Under the Local Government Act 1972, Bourne UDC was dissolved into the newly formed South Kesteven district. Urban districts which disappeared in this way formed successor parishes and were given a dispensation to call their "parish" councils "town" councils, with their chairs to be known as mayor. These town councils were allowed to adopt the coat of arms granted to the former UDC.

A Bourne Rural District also existed from 1894 to 1931, when it was abolished to form part of a larger South Kesteven Rural District. The parish of Bourne had formed part of Bourne RD from 1894 to 1899. South Kesteven RDC had its own coat of arms, which disappeared along with that of Kesteven in 1974.

International links
Since October 1989, Bourne has been twinned with Doudeville, Seine Maritime, France.

Drainage
Parts of west Bourne are drained by one of two internal drainage boards, The Black Sluice IDB and the Welland and Deepings IDB.

Many houses in Bourne pay additional drainage rates to these authorities. Details of the designated flood risk areas can be found on a number of government web sites.

Education

 * Bourne Abbey Church of England Academy (primary)
 * Bourne Grammar School (secondary with sixth form)
 * Bourne Academy formerly Robert Manning Technology College (secondary with sixth form)
 * Bourne Westfield Primary Academy (primary)
 * Willoughby School (Special Educational needs)
 * Bourne Elsea Park Primary Academy (primary)

Road
Bourne Market Place is at the crossroads of the A15 road and the B1193.

Bus
There is a bus station at the top of North Street. The town's bus services provide a frequent public transport link to Peterborough, and are operated by the family-owned Delaine Buses. There is a daily long-distance coach between Grimsby and London Victoria, which stops at Bourne bus station.

Railways
The first local railway was the Earl of Ancaster's estate railway, which ran from the East Coast Main Line at Little Bytham, through the Grimsthorpe estate to Edenham.

Later Bourne had a railway station served by the Bourn and Essendine Railway (old spelling) line from Essendine to Sleaford and by the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway (M&GN) connecting the Midlands to East Anglia. Timetabled passenger services on both lines had ceased by the end of February 1959.

Shipping
The Bourne-Morton Canal or Bourne Old Eau connected the town to the sea in Roman times.

Until the mid-19th century, the present Bourne Eau was capable of carrying commercial boat traffic from the Wash coast and Spalding. This resulted from the investment following the Bourne Navigation Act of 1780. Passage became impossible once the junction of the Eau and the River Glen was converted from gates to a sluice in 1860.

Media
Local news and television programmes are provided by BBC Yorkshire and Lincolnshire and ITV Yorkshire. Television signals are received from the Belmont TV transmitter, the Waltham TV transmitter can also be received which broadcast BBC East Midlands and ITV Central programmes.

The town is served by both BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and BBC Radio Lincolnshire. Other radio stations including Greatest Hits Radio Lincolnshire, Rutland Radio, Lincs FM and Bourne Community Radio, a community based station.

Local newspapers are Bourne Local and Stamford Mercury.

Sport
Bourne Town Football Club plays football in the United Counties Football League, whilst Bourne Cricket Club plays in the Lincolnshire ECB Premier League. These teams play their home games at the Abbey Lawn, a recreation ground privately owned by the Bourne United Charities.

Motor sports
The racing-car marques English Racing Automobiles (ERA) and British Racing Motors (BRM) were both founded in Bourne by Raymond Mays, an international racing driver and designer who lived in Bourne. The former ERA and BRM workshops in Spalding Road are adjacent to Eastgate House, the Mays' family home in the town's Eastgate.

Landmarks
There are currently 71 listed buildings in the parish of Bourne, the most important being Bourne Abbey and the Parish Church of St Peter and St Paul (1138), which is the only one scheduled Grade I.

Notable people

 * Bourne is reputedly the birthplace of Hereward the Wake (in about 1035), although the 12th-century source of this information, De Gestis Herwardi Saxonis, refers only to his father as being "of Bourne" and to the father's house and retainers there.
 * Robert Mannyng (1264–1340) is credited with putting the speech of the ordinary people of his time into recognisable form. He is better known as Robert de Brunne because of his long period of residence as a canon at Bourne Abbey. There he completed his life's work of popularising religious and historical material in a Middle English dialect that was easily understood at that time.
 * William Cecil (1520–1598) became the first Lord Burghley after serving Queen Elizabeth I. He was born at a house in the centre of Bourne that is now the Burghley Arms.
 * Dr William Dodd (1729–1777), was an Anglican clergyman, man of letters and forger. He was prosecuted, sentenced to death and publicly hanged at Tyburn in 1777.
 * Charles Frederick Worth (1825–1895), son of a solicitor, lived at Wake House in North Street. He moved to Paris and became a renowned designer of women's fashion and the founder of haute couture. The French government awarded him the Légion d'honneur.
 * Sir George White (1840-1912), MP for North West Norfolk, a seat he held for twelve years until he died in 1912. He was knighted for public service in 1907.
 * Lilian Wyles (1885–1975) was the first woman officer of the Metropolitan Police's CID in 1922. The only daughter of the Bourne brewer Joseph Wyles, she started her police career in the women patrols, assisting young girls at risk.
 * Raymond Mays (1899–1980), son of a local businessman, was a successful motor racing driver and manufacturer.

title: Bourne, Lincolnshire


text:
Talk:Dan Savage

Date of birth controversy
WHO wants Dan Savages birthday to be 10 years ahead of what he himself has repeatedly pointed out as wrong? and WHY? someone seems to have an interest in preventing the wrong date from being edited. WHY is that so??? one of numerous sources for his correct age: http://www.savagelovecast.com/episodes/88#.UuqoNBzAnh4 unless he is a liar, his year of birth should be 1974, NOT 1964! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Romano (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He is joking. Nothing to see here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm dreadfully sorry, please forgive me, I've pasted the wrong link. Here's the right one: http://www.savagelovecast.com/episodes/88#.UuqoNBzAnh4
 * I'll take his (printed) words (see the work cited for his birthday) from his own book over the text on a podcast webpage as a more reliable source. DP 76764  (Talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I invite everybody to listen in on the podcast in the link above from min. 7:40 to 8:37 where the issue is addressed by a caller and then commented and clarified by Dan Savage himself. He says he's 34, not 43, and the conversation took place in 2008. Can we now edit the date, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Romano (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's October 7, 1964 in Contemporary Authors Online, Gale Biography in Context, Newsmakers, Salon, imdb, The Quotable Atheist, Slap and Tickle, A Readers Book of Days, etc. Savage has been taking 10 years off his age for years. It's an old, old joke. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, guys?
When did he come out? That's an important part of his life, should we put it in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.124.118 (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

He's been out since high school. In other words, that status precedes his public life, so for all intents and public purposes, always. I don't think it's necessary to put in here, at this point it would be like putting in that someone discovered they liked the opposite sex in high school. 75.17.119.250 (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 U of Chicago discussion controversy
This but it was covered by some reliable sources and lots of advocacy groups/publications, so its absence here may be rather obvious, if anyone wants to take it on: Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * U Chicago announcement
 * U of C student newspaper
 * U Chicago statement
 * Reason (magazine) June 4 and June 9.
 * National Review June 5, June 6
 * His reply
 * I tried to do it.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  02:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since this is a Biography of a living person, and these are harsh criticisms, it's important we get it right so gave more context to initial situation and used WP:RS secondary source to identify the salient points of his reply. He just said too many things all over the board for Wiki editors to do that, especially when secondary sources are available. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

He's gay: The lead
Why is there suddenly an influx of editors trying to remove the word "gay" from the lead? Savage's notability is largely based on his very public sexual orientation.- MrX 01:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * If Savage's sexual orientation needs to be stressed in lead, because it's essential to his notability, it can easily be done after his nationality.  Convention on Wiki is to open with nationality. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you could then restore it to a suitable place?- MrX 02:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * As seen with this edit link, an IP removed from the lead that Savage is gay, stating, "I erased the word 'gay' from the first sentence. I do not believe that saying he is gay is necessary. If it were, why not write 'straight' for every straight person with a Wikipedia page...?)" As also seen with that edit link, Dennis Bratland reverted, stating, "unhelpful, childish reasoning. Please discuss on talk page." I made a WP:Dummy edit, stating, "WP:Dummy edit: IP, Savage is a prominent gay activist/LGBT supporter; that's why it's relevant to state in the lead that he is gay." BoboMeowCat then removed the gay mention, stating, "Savage's sexuality should not come before his nationality in the lead." MrX reverted, stating, "This bio loses essential context if this very notable fact is omitted. Please make your case on the talk page." And I thanked MrX for that revert via WP:Echo.

 * BoboMeowCat, I'm not understanding your objection in this case; I mean the removal of "gay" from the lead. A big part of Savage's WP:Notability hinges on his being gay. Including "gay" in the lead regarding his sexuality is similar to (or "exactly" depending on how one defines "category") a WP:BLPCAT matter, which states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Also, how did you come across this article; I don't see where you've edited it before now.

 * On a side note: MrX, I altered the heading of this section with ": The lead" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. I also combined BoboMeowCat's section with yours. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have zero objection to including the word "gay" in the lead, it just shouldn't come before his nationality. It's convention to open with nationality. However, it kind of seems unnecessary and redundant considering the second line of the lead already includes: "Savage  Terry Miller began the It Gets Better Project to help prevent suicide among LGBT youth." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please point to the guideline or community consensus that states that no adjectives should precede nationality in the lead of biographies. I've edited 1000's of articles, and (at least) 100's of biographies and this is the first I've heard of this.- MrX 02:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's a formal guideline, but it seems to be a convention regarding sexuality and ethnicity, and I've seen edits which put ethnicity or sexuality before nationality routinely changed, at least on high traffic articles.  Barney Frank isn't a gay American politician, he's an American politician, even though he's considered the most prominent gay politician in the U.S., which is included in the lead.  I think such a convention keeps things from getting inconsistent and in some cases even weird sounding.  I'm glad articles such as David Duke don't open with "white American" even though that's certainly notable for him considering he's in the Klan.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * The fact that David Duke is white is covered not only by the lead image showing that he is white, but by the lead currently stating that he is a White nationalist and former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Barney Frank has a Wikipedia article about him because he is a Congressman, not because he is gay. Should we forget to mention at the top of Malcolm X that he's African-American? Or take the fact that Oscar Pistorius is an amputee and bury it in the 12th paragraph? Or not mention that Elena Myers is female because we don't say that all the other motorcycle racers are male? The reasoning there is childish and ignores the reality that in the world as it is, extraordinary personal traits affect notability. We might wish to live in a world that is blind to sexual orientation or race, but if it were our policy to pretend that is the world as it is, then everyone whose notability hinges on their race, gender, orientation, etc. should have the article deleted and we should only keep articles where their achievements alone -- as people -- are counted.Another way to look at is to consider the guideline WP:OBVIOUS and ask, "If someone knew nothing about this person except what's in the first paragraph, would they be woefully ignorant?" If you knew only that Savage was a writer and didn't know he was gay, you'd be missing something. If you knew Pistorius was an athlete but had no idea he was an amputee, you'd be missing vital information. If you mistook Savage for Canadian, what's the real harm? It isn't really that important to know he's American. But if you thought he was a straight advice columnist you'd really not have a grasp of who he is.There are many notable people whose orientation, gender, race, etc. are not important and we don't mention it in the lead. You have to pay attention to the subject and not apply simplistic rules across the board. Or better yet, look at your best sources. If the sources give it prominent mention, so should we.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't understand this long objection. I have no problem with people being identified as gay or by race in the lead, if their sexuality or ethnicity is critical to their notability, but I do think it's inconsistent to have an encyclopedia with several different  fill-in-the-blank Americans. David Duke's identification as a White nationalist comes after American instead of calling him a "white American".  People from all over the world read WP, and the convention to open with nationality seems preferable and makes sense.  If someone's notability is tied to their race or sexuality, it shouldn't be difficult to incorporate it elsewhere in the opening, as was easily done in this article where Savage is now described as an American gay activist, writer, etc--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Also, BoboMeowCat, as for the Dan Savage lead being clear that Savage is gay without stating that he is gay, all because it states "Savage and his husband Terry Miller began the It Gets Better Project to help prevent suicide among LGBT youth," and notes other LGBT matters... That does not mean that Savage is gay; it could mean that he identifies as bisexual or not by any sexual identity at all. And although, depending on how one defines the term gay, it can mean that Savage is exclusively sexually interested in men, is bisexual, or is simply a part of the LGBT community, the term gay is usually interpreted to mean exclusive sexual attraction to the same sex. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Aaaaaannd: If there's really something wrong with David Duke, then go fix it. No reason to make that into a problem on Dan Savage. Second, it says he's a white nationalist, which allows you to safely assume he's white. Contrast Duke with Dan Burros, where the fact that he was a Jewish member of the American Nazi Party is basically the whole reason he's notable. Yes, I'm sure you can find some broken articles that need fixing, per WP:OSE, but if you stick to articles that are actually well written, there's no real inconsistency. The rule is to put what's important in the lead, that's all. Which is after all, merely following the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the David Duke lead. He's identified as an American first and then his race, which is significant to his notability is mentioned after his nationality. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: An IP restored the "gay" part, but put it after "American." Side note: People should usually sign in when they have a Wikipedia account and are editing a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That wording is awkward and not an improvement, in my opinion. Substituting "gay activist" for "newspaper editor" further compounds the problem.- MrX 04:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence will unavoidably be read as a statement about why this person is notable. We generally steer clear of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation as independent components of that statement, I think for good reason. (African American appears to be the most widespread exception, for reasons discussed elsewhere.) For whom aren't those important characteristics? Not to say that being gay doesn't inform Savage's career as an advice columnist and gay activist, but it isn't necessary for either, nor is it sufficient for notability on its own. I much prefer a formulation that describes him as a "gay activist", rather than attributing his notability (even in part) to simply being gay. Where gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is for a specific reason a fundamental part of notability, it's best to make explicit why (e.g., not "...is a female race car driver", but "...is the first female to win an AMA Pro Racing sprint road race").--Trystan (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that Nationality should come before the reason for the subjects notability. --Malerooster (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Dan Savage a Copy Cat Michael Savage of Savage Nation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.246.162 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 one external links on Dan Savage. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708192859/http://www.lib.msu.edu/comics/rri/brri/bear.htm to http://www.lib.msu.edu/comics/rri/brri/bear.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114235136/http://www.indyworld.com/ic/catalog.html to http://www.indyworld.com/ic/catalog.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724085006/http://www.gayleague.com/gay/timeline/timeline4.php to http://www.gayleague.com/gay/timeline/timeline4.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303220052/http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/dont_call_me_al to http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/03/dont_call_me_al
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024115713/http://www.kittenpants.org:80/09_winners/dansavage2.htm to http://www.kittenpants.org/09_winners/dansavage2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024061121/http://www.kittenpants.org:80/09_winners/pageone.htm to http://www.kittenpants.org/09_winners/pageone.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060308163753/http://www.salon.com:80/politics2000/feature/2000/01/29/savage_reaction/index.html to http://www.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/01/29/savage_reaction/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102182528/http://la.indymedia.org:80/news/2003/12/97071_comment.php to http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/97071_comment.php
 * Added tag to http://www.ocweekly.com/columns/savage-love/savage-love-what-is-good-sex-toy-etiquette/28468/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907143315/http://www.villagevoice.com:80/advice/view/SavageLove/2009-05-28 to http://www.villagevoice.com/advice/view/SavageLove/2009-05-28
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626042106/http://www.avclub.com:80/content/node/62996 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/62996
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621160302/http://podcasts.thestranger.com:80/savagelove/ to http://podcasts.thestranger.com/savagelove/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121022126/http://www.kittenpants.org:80/09_winners/dansavage.htm to http://www.kittenpants.org/09_winners/dansavage.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dan Savage. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511210028/http://www.oasisjournals.com/Issues/9910/cover.html to http://www.oasisjournals.com/Issues/9910/cover.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216142236/http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/print/2005/9/dansavage.html to http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/print/2005/9/dansavage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106164705/http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-10-21/entertainment/17395581_1_same-sex-marriage-lesbians-dan-savage/2 to http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-10-21/entertainment/17395581_1_same-sex-marriage-lesbians-dan-savage/2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110626183946/http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/wolfson-wants-santorum-to.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/wolfson-wants-santorum-to.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonmagazine.com/home/articles/boy_crazy/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504100543/http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/30/11477048-dan-savage-apologizes-for-criticizing-students-who-walked-out-of-lecture?lite to http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/30/11477048-dan-savage-apologizes-for-criticizing-students-who-walked-out-of-lecture?lite
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604104320/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/savage_d.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/savage_d.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://podcasts.thestranger.com/savagelove/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kittenpants.org/09_winners/dansavage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dan Savage. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217225248/http://www.avclub.com/content/node/45150 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/45150
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bostonmagazine.com/home/articles/boy_crazy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Savage. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923152521/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2008/11/salt_lake_weekl.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2008/11/salt_lake_weekl.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sex workers and incels needs secondary sources
If it is worth mentioning at all, Savage's comments on incels and sex work should probably be summarized as something like, "Savage said that the stigmatization of sex workers and their clients is one of the causes of the male entitlement that contributes to mass murders by incels. He rejected characterizations of his views as 'throwing sex workers at incels'". Read:. I wouldn't mention this at all unless third party sources have covered it. Characterizing a subtle argument entirely on primary sources is out of bounds of the WP:BLP policy. Self-published sources can be used in a BLP for unambitious statements the subject makes about themselves ("I've been to France. I'm no longer dating Bob.", but when it's complex, and doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, we need secondary sources to give us an analysis. See WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Category
do you have a source for the "American cannabis activists" category? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * https://thefreshtoast.com/cannabis/dan-savage-on-launching-americas-first-marijuana-themed-film-festival-theres-a-huge-visual-component-to-being-stoned/ deisenbe (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that organizing a film festival around a particular theme automatically makes one an "activist" for that theme, and the article doesn't describe him as such. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Agreed. There's nothing about cannabis activism in that article. Unfortunately, some Wikipedia editors think "activism" means doing something in favor or support of an idea or practice, and have weakened the meaning and definition of the term.  I suspect that 90% of the activist categories should be depopulated and the editors responsible for tagging articles like this should stop. The problem initially stems from a philosophical position in the conservative/libertarian community which promotes the idea that anyone who supports a controversial idea or practice suddenly becomes an "activist".  This is a minority position unique to the conservative community and isn't generally held outside of that group. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 * FWIW, recreational marijuana had already been legal for 7 years at the time he was involved in this festival. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dan Savage


text:
Talk:Giffen good

Economics
Geffin goods statement 2405:201:601E:2803:A5B8:7162:BDA5:4E42 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Economics
वास्तविक जीवन की 5 गिफेन वस्तुओं का अवलोकन करें और उनके बारे में लिखें। 103.135.228.183 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Giffen good