text:
Talk:Magneto

Initial post
What /sucks/ is the clutter about contact points? I've never seen contacts on a magneto although I hear motorcycles have them and I suppose they are common enough. Typically it's even more fault tolerant due to the absence of moving parts aside from the flywheel bearing (which isn't really part of the magneto). The coil placement defines the firing window and is sometimes adjustable on the fixed gap & I've seen fixed timing with an adjustable gap. The former is ideal, but I came here looking for the effects of the gap adjustment... The article seems to imply points are necessary and I feel like points are more of a refinement. The most basic magneto drives the coil directly as the magnets sweep past. I suppose the flywheel is technically a moving part but it doesn't wear due to any association with the nearby coil.

 * Then you've never taken a magneto apart. All magnetos on engines have a contact breaker (points).  It is possible these days that some bright spark (!) has devised a way to operate them electronically, but without a constant source of power, it is difficult to se how. 86.184.24.140 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about Restructuring
I totally sucks that this has been changed into a disambig page. The term "magneto" is recognised by 99% of people to mean the electrical generator thingy - that's where the term originates. The other names are secondary. Therefore the correct thing to do is to make this the article page, with mention and wikis to the other two meanings in a separate section. Otherwise all the existing links need to be updated, which is just silly. I intend to put this back how it was, in keeping with the guidelines. GRAHAMUK 06:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't see much to agree with in your arguments, particularly your gratuitous and insulting observation that "I [sic] totally sucks". I'd bet that 99% of people neither know nor care about the "electrical generator thingy" (you don't seem to care, given your terminology).  The other names are secondary - to whom?  "Electrical generator thingies" carry more weight than popular culture characters because... why?  And as for "all the existing links": I count 7 total pages, one of which is a redirect and two of which are users.  Updating those links seems neither difficult nor silly.  Also, the guidelines you refer to in such reverent tones note that references to other pages for a term should be listed at the top of a page, not the bottom, so at the very least I'll do that. -mhr 06:35, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No need to be so touchy. Maybe I shouldn't have been either... but fact remains that "magneto" primarily means the generator. The other meanings, however "popular" they may be - which is highly subjective (personally they mean nothing to me) - are secondary, simply because of the precedence of time and usage. Magnetos have existed since Faraday's time, presumably the other usages are derivative, or else were arrived at independently by somebody who didn't think to check what it meant. To me - and probably anyone with an engineering bent, - naming a superhero after an engine component seems a bit, well, silly - what's next, rubber gasket man? (Hmmm... gives me an idea....) Anyway, this is not the point. I have no wish to argue about this, not upset anyone for whom "Magneto" is their favourite band/superhero/soft drink/panty liner brand or whatever, but the way the article is laid out now is correct, as far as I can see. You were right about putting the disambig at the top, but wrong about moving the primary meaning in the first place. I think we can agree at that! (I hope anyway). Incidentally if moving the associated links didn't seem difficult nor silly, why didn't you do it? GRAHAMUK 11:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry for being touchy, but I was taken aback by your comment, given the usually even tone of disagreement I usually see on WP.
 * Alas, I don't agree that magneto is primarily the engine component. Even discounting the fact that I'm a comic book fan, I've heard the term used to refer to the villain dozens of times in the past 5 years (from commercials for and reviews of the X-Men films alone), whereas in the last 20 years I've heard it used to refer to the engine component... well, maybe in a physics class at some point, but I can't remember a single concrete example.  It's just not a term in common use, and I think there's good reason to think it's being eclipsed - in general usage - by the pop culture character.  I would certainly argue that people on WP who are looking up Magneto are as likely to be looking for the character as the engine component.
 * Many technical and engineering terms fall out of favor over time (e.g., carburator), becoming of interest primarily to specialists. While I would not argue that any pop culture figure who adopts a name from science immediately (or ever) grows to equal the weight of the original term, I think the marginal nature of the magneto component combined with the prominence of the character makes this an exception. -mhr 06:58, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, terms fall out of favour over time. Did you mean carburettor? AFAIK, carburator isn't even a word - which might have been your point! I disagree about magneto though. I suppose it just depends what you're interested in - since you're interested in comic books then you a probably more likely to "notice" the usage of Magneto as a comic book hero's name than someone who isn't, and vice versa - maybe you don't notice the use of magneto in its engineering sense. It all depends on who you ask in other words. As for whether it is in common use, I believe it is, it it still very much used in small and aero engines, and hasn't been replaced by something with another name. I just bought a brand new petrol-driven grass trimmer for example, and that has a magneto. What has to be considered is whether the relevant articles of either type are easily found by those looking for them. In its present form I think it accomplishes that pretty well. Those who only have ever heard of the comic book character will discover something interesting they didn't know into the bargain ;-) My apologies for the outburst you objected to - obviously it wasn't aimed at you or anyone in particular, it was just a final irritation at the end of a very long day.... GRAHAMUK 11:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It occurs to me that my role in cleaning up the history might be construed as the only opinion being expressed here by a third party, and as an opinion that the device sense should be the main article to the exclusion of "equal disamb" i.e. that the second move would have been a good one if "move this page" had been used instead. In fact, my strongest opinion in that area is that expressing a preference would impair my ability to communicate about the technical and "process" issue, followed closely by my opinion that you each knows more about what the subject of Magneto should be than i do. --Jerzy 16:32, 2004 Jan 10 (UTC)

Just read this with interest - have been having some early flying lessons and wondered what on earth a magneto is, and found what I was looking for. It seems that it's great to list words that aren't in common usage - if I already knew what it was it's highly unlikely that I would have visited. I'm also aware of Magneto as an X-Men baddie, but would never consider looking him up in Wikipedia! Jon-stewart 11:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Reconstruction of Mangled History
When an editor renames an article by cutting and pasting its text to a page that has the new title (but "Move this page" should have been used), it is possible for a developer to correct the history entries of the page. The reconstruction of the history for the period from 2003 Nov 14 thru 2003 Nov 16 was instead performed by means of ordinary edits, after a sysop kindly (The need for a sysop was for the deletion, which only they can perform.)
 * 1) moved Magneto to Talk:Magneto/temp (along with its history),
 * 2) deleted Magneto (as required by next step),
 * 3) moved Magneto (engine component) to Magneto (along with its history), and
 * 4) reverted the text to a convenient point.

The point of those maneuvers was to rejoin the history of the edits made under the title "Magneto" before the creation of "Magneto (engine component)" (and the ones made under the title "Magneto (engine component)" back with the text of "Magneto" and the history of future edits that will be added there. (The history of edits of text that are documented only as history entries on a redirect is essentially lost.)

They ugly way the history was recorded in this case is by using the summary field of reversion edits and dummy edits to store information, most significantly the summaries of early edits whose results are recapitulated as new revisions. Thus the differences in the text can be seen by clicking "cur" or "dif" links in the recapitulation entries, instead of the confusing and misleading ones involving the original Nov 15 entries. (Note that some of these recapitulation entries reflect previous content of Magneto, but others that of Magneto (engine component).)

Jerzy was the one who made up that approach, and as to what's not clear abt its meaning, ask me specific questions at this convenient spot and i will use them to tell me what more i need to say here to explain them. TIA for your patience. --Jerzy 10:40, 2004 Jan 10 (UTC)

How it got that way
Damage was done in the process of the competing edits motivated by the positions taken in the preceding section -- done, specifically, by the cut-and-paste move that was made to partially reverse the earlier true move. (The latter was executed with proper technique as described at How to rename (move) a page, but gave no apparent attention to the advice given there for taking account the impact on this community.)

In any case, i have obtained the help of a sysop and am now in the process of creating have created a record, within the history of Magneto, of what the history of the article on the device should have looked like. (The result will make more sense than its description, worry not.) --Jerzy 08:28, 2004 Jan 10 (UTC)

Well, somewhat more sense, even if it sucks, but better than taking up a developer's time to do a pretty job of making the information available.

Contrary to my recollection, i see that clicking on "Move this page" doesn't point a user to How to rename (move) a page, so i regert my willingness to let some harshness possibly creep into my earlier references to it. Please don't let that keep you from studying it. --Jerzy 10:40, 2004 Jan 10 (UTC)

Disambiguation header
I restored the single-line disambiguation header to the page. I think this reads better, and it's more in keeping with the form at Cream, which is explicitly referenced in Disambiguation. This seems to be the standard, and I think it's desirable to keep the header as vertically short as possible. If we end up adding yet another meaning, then we should probably created Magneto (disambiguation) - but for only two secondary meanings I don't think we're there yet. -mhr 23:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Aircraft spark
'and two sparks burn more efficiently than one', why is that anyway? Surely when the avgas is ignited its going to burn the same with one spark than two? What about aircraft shower of sparks system anyway? I mean you might be right, just seems like the kind of thing to prove with a citation.
 * I can't give you a citation but I'm a pilot and I assure you that this is true. Part of the preflight check in an airplane with a reciprocating engine is to turn off the magnetos one at a time, which causes a drop in RPM. Maybe "efficiently" isn't the right word to use but having two sparks does make a difference. -- Captaindan 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Although not an expert I think the two spark efficiency comes from igniting the fuel simultaneously in two places. The flame front takes a significant time to spread from the point of ignition and so igniting the fuel/air mixture in two places causes it to burn marginally quicker and thus deliver power at a more optimum time during the stroke of the piston.

I'm also a pilot and flight instructor and wanted to mention that the 'shower of sparks' is only used on certain mags while the engine is being cranked. It uses a vibrator to create a near constant spark on one of the cylinder's spark plugs to make starting easier. As soon as the engine starts, the mag reverts to normal operation.

 * I have somewhere heard that before, that one magneto had a sort of spring loaded trip so that it would always flick past its spark point with adequate speed even at low revs. It appears to be related to the thinking behind "Some luxury cars before that time were dual-plugged as well, but had only one set of plugs fired by magneto. The other set was wired to a coil, dynamo, and battery circuit because the magneto would generate high voltage at high engine speed, but not at low engine speed, whereas the other ignition system would perform well at low engine speed but not as well as a magneto at high speed." Can anyone back this up so it can go in the article? PMLawrence (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Lawrence, the system you're referring to is called an "impulse coupling", and is only used during starting. Once the engine hits a minimum RPM (usually around 150), the impulse coupling is disabled by a flyweight system. And in the other department, about using a magneto ignition on one side and battery ignition on the other, this has been used on a few aircraft engines, most notably some versions of the Jacobs R-755 radial engine. It's used because magnetos are considered more reliable, but they have fixed timing, while battery ignition has the ability to vary the timing. Since magneto timing is fixed, it must be adjusted to a compromise setting which is neither the best for starting nor for full power. On the other hand, the battery ignition timing can be retarded in order to start the engine below the magneto's coming-in speed, or advanced to achieve greater fuel efficiency at cruise RPM. The idea has seen a resurgence in modern homebuilt aircraft, with the old style analog battery ignition being replaced by a modern, sophisticated electronic unit not unlike those used in automobiles. Australian Jon Johanson used such a setup (among other modifications) in order to achieve the fuel efficiency necessary to fly his RV-4 across the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean. Shreditor (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Magneto ignition can be advanced and retarded in exactly the same way as battery coil ignition can. 86.180.171.123 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnetos
Is it true that magnetos are also called permanent magnetic generators (PMG's)?

ANSWER: The human being can call the same object of the reality in different ways. Of course a magneto is a Permanent Magnets Electric Generator (not magnetic), or PMEG, but this is so complicated, something like to say a common cat is a Felix Catis... do you know anybody that calls sugar, for its chemical name, sacarosa? ... please... don´t complicate technology and science, they are enough complicated by themselves..

Needs a starter
I'm moving this sentence to the talk page:

 * Most importantly, the magneto does not have the ability to start the rotation of the engine or of itself, so that an alternative starting method will be required for a machine using a magneto. Some such methods are the starter motor, kickstart, starting crank or pull cord, starting charge, or the like.

This statement is somewhat misleading in that it implies that only engines with magnetoes require separate starters. All reciprocating internal combustion engines need an external starting method, regardless of ignition type. Nibios 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Magnetos are not just for ignition
I'm going to re-write the opening sentence. Magnetos today may be used mostly for ignition but I don't think that's the definition of a magneto. I think what makes it a magneto is 1) permanent magnets and 2) no commutator, so AC output. If you have a good reference please feel free to refine my definition. Rees11 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That definition does not quite distinguish modern alternators which charge the battery and AC generatators (magnetos) that powered spark coils. Also to be included should be the hand-cranked AC generators (magnetos) used in late 1800s telephones to signal the switchboard operator that the user of the magneto wanted to make a phone call. Greensburger (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Technically: a magneto is a specific type of permanent magnet generator that uses an interupting device of some sort (traditionally a contact breaker) in conjunction with a secondary coil to produce a pulsating high voltage output (typically thousands of volts). As ever in engineering, the term gets borrowed to describe other types of generator.  The telephone 'magneto' described above and in the article does not work this way, but is in reality just a permanent magnet alternator that produces a few hundred volts only.  The term has similarly been usurped to describe other types of permanent magnet generator. 86.180.171.123 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm confused. "Primary"/"Secondary"? "Points" ? Ignition magnetoes don't have a primary - there's no battery, and no points. It's been a while since I took apart a lawn mower engine, but I don't recall anything other than a coil and an insulated wire to the spark plug. I think the article is in error, or at least describes one of several cases (some of which have no points or primary/secondary coils). --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Magnetos don't usually have a transformer, but see Eisemann magneto system, 1911 or Magneto ignition with low-tension magnetic spark plugs, 1909. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Magnetos are permanent magnet AC generators, no more, no less. No commutators, but the windings can be either on the stator or rotor, so they don't always have slip rings. I've recently split the Commons categories into
 * I would suggest re-structuring this article similarly - probably by moving this to ignition magneto and then starting with a disambiguation page under magneto. As to the assertion that they have either transformers, or always have points, then I think that's an excessive inferrence from some specific ignition magneto example somewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't playing close attention the last time I took apart a lawnmower engine, all those years ago - from what I've been reading, a permanent-magnet generator is a magneto, but magnetos used for ignition have both an internal primary and secondary winding and also points and a condensor. Usually all this stuff is under the flywheel on a small engine so it's hard to see (and I haven't been around many aircraft engines).
 * I don't think the article needs to be split up as much as all that; the unity of permanent-magnet field is the common defining element, and we can briefly discuss the particulars of ignition and telephone uses. How would magneto (generator) differ from magneto (telephone) ? We would start off with a general description, discuss the telephone bell ringer, then discuss small engines and aircraft ignition (with some history in automobile use and current use in racing vehicles), and finish off with the lights the headlamp on a snowmobile.   --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest re-structuring this article similarly - probably by moving this to ignition magneto and then starting with a disambiguation page under magneto. As to the assertion that they have either transformers, or always have points, then I think that's an excessive inferrence from some specific ignition magneto example somewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't playing close attention the last time I took apart a lawnmower engine, all those years ago - from what I've been reading, a permanent-magnet generator is a magneto, but magnetos used for ignition have both an internal primary and secondary winding and also points and a condensor. Usually all this stuff is under the flywheel on a small engine so it's hard to see (and I haven't been around many aircraft engines).
 * I don't think the article needs to be split up as much as all that; the unity of permanent-magnet field is the common defining element, and we can briefly discuss the particulars of ignition and telephone uses. How would magneto (generator) differ from magneto (telephone) ? We would start off with a general description, discuss the telephone bell ringer, then discuss small engines and aircraft ignition (with some history in automobile use and current use in racing vehicles), and finish off with the lights the headlamp on a snowmobile.   --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article needs to be split up as much as all that; the unity of permanent-magnet field is the common defining element, and we can briefly discuss the particulars of ignition and telephone uses. How would magneto (generator) differ from magneto (telephone) ? We would start off with a general description, discuss the telephone bell ringer, then discuss small engines and aircraft ignition (with some history in automobile use and current use in racing vehicles), and finish off with the lights the headlamp on a snowmobile.   --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bicycle dynamo
I don't have a source so I'm not putting this in, but the wheel mounted generator used power the headlight on a bicycle is a magneto, although it is incorrectly called a dynamo in common usage. Rees11 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, good point. The Sturmey-Archer Dynohub hub dynamo which I lovingly installed on my pushbike in the 1960s, for example. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I have done a little work on the article linking to other places where this material is already in Wikipedia. It doesn't seem a good time to do too much work on the article, though, see below! Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. There does not appear to be consensus for the suggested move. It would seem there is a general principle at work here, regarding when a derivative topic can supplant its root topic as primary. In particular, it appears that a derivative topic can be primary if it is of interest to a general audience, as opposed to a particular fandom. A magneto is a device used in commercial and industrial applications all over the world, and its notability is not subject to the whims of western pop culture. I'm not sure that I've quite put my finger on it, but this is something we can all keep an eye out for, gauge consensus in similar cases, and see whether we've got a best practice worth writing down somewhere. - GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

– As discussed at Talk:Magneto (comics), this proposal suggests that there is no primary topic for the term "Magneto" and that the disambiguation page should be at the base name. Powers T 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Magneto → Magneto (electrical generator)
 * Magneto (disambiguation) → Magneto

 * Oppose this is the primary topic. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you certain that this topic is far more likely to be sought by people searching for "magneto"?
 * Look around you, in whatever settlement is wherever you live, and see how many electromagnetic devices conforming to the topic of this article that you find. Further per the decision at Avatar, where the movie is NOT primary, the encyclopedic topic is not the comic book character, it is this device. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose and a damned great big electric trout to the comics fanboys who were happy to arrange such a move without even noting it on the affected pages. WP:RECENTISM has already been noted. From just where did they think that Magneto (comics) had derived his name otherwise? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, what move was arranged without notification? The proposed move I linked was soundly defeated, so nothing was "arranged", certainly not by plural "fanboys".  Also, I note that derivation is not sufficient to demonstrate primacy; else, Mercury would be about the god, toilet would be about making oneself look presentable, and Boston would be about the town in Lincolnshire.  Powers T 14:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose this is the primary topic. Cliff (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I ask you the same question I asked the IP user above. Powers T 14:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. People who are interested in comics are a minority, perhaps a large minority. Were I to be looking for information on a comic book character, I would look first at that comic's article, especially if I knew that there was more than one meaning of the word magneto. I feel that is a pretty normal approach. How are you sure that it is not what people who search magnet are looking for? Cliff (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - comic book characters named after electrical machine - it's those d*n Transformers all over again. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Very well put. While not wanting to produce instruction creep, when the dust clears we might be able to add something to some project page (MOS? but dunno where) to help with such issues. No change of vote (below). Andrewa (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. As can be seen by any of the methods given at Primary topic, there is no clear primary topic for "Magneto" and therefore the disambiguation page should be moved to the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: I am of the opinion that any time article A has more traffic than article B, article B should not be the primary topic. (Article A might not be the primary topic either, regardless of how much traffic it has, but certainly not article B.) That is the case we have here. Better to go with a disambiguation page. 16:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting your traffic data? Cliff (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are links for Wikipedia article traffic statistics in 2010: comics (615,018) versus electrical generator (137,275). So a factor of ~4.5 even though the electrical generator was at the undisambiguated name. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * from the article's history tab will link to these.
 * The point is not which is the higher traffic, because AFAIK that just isn't a consideration for naming policy. If it is, or if it ever becomes so, then let's just rename the whole thing LadyGagapedia and give up on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a consideration, as mentioned at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but one of many. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it's probably time to give up the project as a failure. When are we getting that Pokemon namespace? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Overly dramatic much? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just tired of every "policy" decision being made so as to favour the teenager vote. Botticelli gets deleted but Plan B stays? Where do you think Magneto's name even comes from? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank Jimbo we didn't delete all those essential transistor articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Support The generator can not be the primary topic if the fictional character get several times as many page views, per CWenger above. The DAB gets a very high number of views, which suggests that many people are going to the generator article by mistake and then using the hat. Kauffner (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Magneto (generator) - Primary topic is influenced by page views not notability or worth. Most of the page views on what is currently Magneto are people looking for the character. Bad enough that the current arrangement is completely contrary to the primary topic policy. Marcus   Qwertyus   04:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You not only "support" this new change of name, you went right ahead and did it, without any further discussion or the faintest hint of consensus (what's that?)
 * This is a poorly chosen name at that, and will need to be moved yet again. Magneto (electrical) would be a reasonable choice for the broad-scope article on the three groups of electrical magnetos in general, if it's not to be the primary Magneto. Magneto (electrical generator) already exists as a separate article - this new name you've chosen independently is far too close to that and so is confusing.
 * You weren't aware that there were distinct groups? Did you not bother to read past discussion on the talk page here? Not that you've ever let ignorance of a subject hold up your BOLD editing style before. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There was consensus on the last request so cool it. Luckily I noticed this new discussion on my watchlist. Marcus   Qwertyus   16:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no such consensus -- the other move request at Talk:Magneto (comics) had been closed as "no move" for well over a day before you took it upon yourself to move the page. You might want to be a little more careful in the future. older ≠ wiser 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There were five editors plus myself advocating making the dab page the primary topic as a compromise. If others chimed in and opposed the move then fine. It can always be moved back and a debate can be initiated. In this case there was already one and I was quick to ask an administrator move it back. Marcus   Qwertyus   17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There was consensus actually. If you look at that discussion, Dicklyon and 65.94.47.63 were in favor of keeping the electrical generator as the primary topic. Myself, Powers, Jenks24, and Kauffner all supported putting the disambiguation page at Magneto. Necrothesp probably favored the former as well but it's hard to tell as they voted before the alternate proposal was suggested. And James proposed making the comics the primary topic, so presumably they would support putting the disambiguation page at Magneto as an improvement. So that would be 5 to 3 in favor. With that said, I agree it was a very bad idea to go ahead with this move while this discussion was in progress. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not aware there was a discussion and would never have moved the page had I known. Marcus   Qwertyus   17:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (after ec) @Marcus Qwertyus: Which administrator were you quick to ask to move it back? And are you saying that you did see that the other move request had already been closed? That makes your action even less comprehensible. You had not expressed any opinion in the discussion there so where were you advocating for this? There were eight editors involved in the other move discussion, counting the requester. There were four that expressed support for moving the disambiguation page and three that explicitly indicated the electrical magneto was the primary topic. That is hardly consensus. older ≠ wiser 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I mentally endorsed the making the dab page the primary topic which put it over the consensus threshold. I placed a speedy on the redirect I couldn't reverse. Marcus   Qwertyus   17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (after ec 2x) @Marcus Qwertyus: If you were unaware of the discussion, then on what basis did you move the page? That seems unusually rash. older ≠ wiser 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the discussion on this page. Marcus   Qwertyus   17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the discussion on the other page. older ≠ wiser 17:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @CWenger, Sorry, only four explicitly expressed support for the dab page -- we do not generally base consensus on assumptions of what we hope other editors might have meant. But even so, 5 to 3 is not consensus by any definition I'm aware of. older ≠ wiser 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's use common sense here. If somebody nominates article A to be made primary topic instead of article B, why would they possibly not support a disambiguation page with article A and B as a compromise? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Common sense does not include speculating about what another editor's position might be and then counting such speculation as evidence. older ≠ wiser 18:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you envision any scenario in which the nominator would reject such a compromise? Just for spite? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been numerous discussions where compromise was an unacceptable option for many editors. The point is that we should not be counting !votes based on inferences about what we think another editor might have meant. older ≠ wiser 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Five including the nominator. Marcus   Qwertyus   17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator made no express opinion regarding the disambiguation page. Until he expresses a position, it is pure speculation as to what James opinion might be. older ≠ wiser 17:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus, how do you know that most of the page views at magneto are people looking for the character? Cliff (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The page views fluctuate similarly when Magneto (character) is in the news or something. Marcus   Qwertyus   06:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Weak Oppose. Page views are not the only determinant of primary topic and I think there is good reason for a general encyclopedia to prefer to prefer the common historical usage. older ≠ wiser 12:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What would that reason be? (And keep in mind, the proposal to make the character the primary topic was soundly defeated.)  Powers T 18:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That the electrical sense is well-established and in common use and few readers (apart from comic fanboys) should be surprised to see an article about the electrical sense at the base name. older ≠ wiser 18:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have heard of magnetos in petrol/gasoline engines for the last 50 years. Until reading tbis discussion I had never heard of the Magneto comic strip character, even though I have read comics sometimes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bkonrad. Even if the X men character is the most common search term at present, in some cases there is good reason to prefer the original use and not a derived use that, given the nature of popular culture, may little known 20 years hence. I remember reading an essay on this very argument some time ago but I can't seem to find it now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I confess that I'm at a loss to explain how anyone would think there was any question that this is the primary topic, but we must take the support this is receiving seriously. The web search and page view stats are I guess biased by the disproportionate activity of comic fans on the web. This activity seems to be the whole basis for this support. I note at Talk:Magneto (comics) the closing admin made a similar comment, and stated that Google books delivers an opposite result, strongly favouring the electromechanical device as the primary topic, as I would have expected. Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content forks
OK, so now we have Magneto, around 4800 bytes. We also have Ignition magneto 10,739 bytes, and Magneto (generator), 9999 bytes. Each of these articles contains some text pointing at the others. Even if we were to merge all three together it wouldn't exceed 32K, which is the limit of antique 20th century browsers that no-one uses any more. It would seem to be a more coherent explanation of the topic if they were all together in one place. Or am I the only one driven crazy by "Article continued on page 173" in the magazines? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose and are you still claiming that ignition magnetos have neither points nor transformers, or have you now learned a little about a subject before commencing to pontificate on it?
 * Magneto (generator) is over 10k because it's competently written, according to the level of coverage appropriate to the topic. If ignition magneto are telephone magneto are so much smaller, this isn't because the generator article is too big, but because those two articles are so poor. Fix them first, don't mess with the one part of the four that isn't shameful. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It must be nice to never have made a mistake. If these articles are so independent, why does each one point at the others? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep to the issues, please. The tone of discussion was already a bit unhelpful IMO, but I strongly suggest that it's wisest (and difficult I know) not to respond in kind. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems nothing particularly poor about the articles at Telephone magneto and Ignition magneto. Agree they could be improved, but that doesn't make them poor. When the dust settles here I'd encourage you to improve them to your very high standard, and that's not sarcasm, you do edit very well. The leads in particular need some quite simple work and an early link back to the broader article. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The split  just yesterday was IMO completely unjustifiable in view of the ongoing controversy above. Probably the neatest and fairest solution is to revert in due course to the versions before it occurred, which is a shame in view of the amount of very competent work that has been done in the process but I don't see a good alternative. I wonder, should we put some protection on the pages, to reduce the risk of newbies wasting their time editing them in the meantime? Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

 * On the other hand, the articles at Telephone magneto and Ignition magneto seem well scoped and there's no reason to merge them anywhere. Appropriate links are in place from Magneto, and need to be preserved in any merge or revert, as they're not there at Magneto (generator) . Some work on the leads at Telephone magneto and Ignition magneto to link back to the broader article is needed, see above. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

 * And if we simply revert, we now lose a little of my work too . Such is life. I can redo it. Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm mellowing towards keeping the split, as a trial at least, but we may need to rename Magneto (generator). If its topic is the large, mainly stationary generators once used to provide power for arc lighting and the like, then it's a good topic. But as all (electromechanical) magnetos are generators (and more specifically also electrical generators), the current disambiguation is not ideal.

The current hatnote ''This article is about magnetos as electrical generators. For other electrical uses, see Magneto'' is a bit bizarre in fact, and I'd better change it immediately I think.

And we still of course need this overall article, by whatever name (see my views in the still current RM above). Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, and as I try to rewrite the hatnote at magneto (generator) I begin to see how little of the material in the current article there relates to the topic I suggested. A large section isn't about magnetos at all! Would anyone else like to have a go at the hatnote?

 * Or is it a fool's errand, and the merge the only real option? Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Keeping Magneto by itself now seems pointless. It should just point the hapless user at the list of Ignition magneto, magneto (generator), and telephone magneto, or possibly the comic book character, and whatever other splinters of fact our esteemed co-editor chooses to identify. Maybe we can also work in a slam at the reader for not being smart enough to know what he was looking for in the first place. There's no content in Magneto that isn't repeated at each of those articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Some duplication of content between related articles isn't a bad thing, particularly when one is an overview of a topic covered by more detailed articles as here.

 * Not sure who you mean by splinters of fact our esteemed co-editor chooses to identify but I suspect it's not a helpful comment!

 * The comic book character is off-topic and should not be mentioned except indirectly in the DAB, accessible by a hatnote, and perhaps in a see also section. That's what two RMs were about.

 * Not sure what alternative you see to Keeping Magneto by itself. Andrewa (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My preference would be one integrated article to cover this topic instead of four splinters. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing this is far more than just reverting the split, perhaps then the way forward would be for you to formally propose a merge of the four. This then invites others who have experience in such proposals to be involved. Instructions are at Help:Merging, Merging and Merging. Andrewa (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm late, but if I may just briefly ask, what exactly is the difference between the referent of this article and that of Magneto (generator)? The first sentences of are identical, so I'm confused. Sorry if the answer is in this thread here above but I couldn't find it easily. Chrisrus (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Wtshymanski started this merge request and left it incomplete. I have completed the request to facilitate discussion. Wtshymanski did not give reasons for his suggestion. Cliff (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no interest in the merge proposal, so I'm closing it.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  14:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge
It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with magneto (generator). Both aricles seem to have the same referent and scope. Chrisrus (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Please don't start multiple discussions on both pages. Please see Talk:Magneto_(generator) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Simplicity and reliability
What is our prototypical bright 12-year-old reader to think when she reads "Magnetos are used in piston aircraft engines for their reliability and simplicity, often in pairs." Doubling up everything is not simple. If it's so reliable, why would you need two of them? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Because a two magneto system is inherently more reliable than a single magneto system. If one magneto/energy transfer coil/spark plug fails, the other system will keep the engine going.  It's true that a magneto ignition system is very reliable (particularly the modern energy transfer systems), but any failure of an ignition system in an aeroplane is potentially embarasing. The odds of both failing together is substantially lower than one failing.  109.145.21.107 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That might have dissuaded me when I was 12 years old, but I was a remarkably trusting and rather stupid child. Why not two spark coil ignition systems, then, if you're going to double them up?  The 12-year-old might observe that Mum's minivan has gone for years between tuneups and surely doubling that system would make it, too, adequately reliable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Because magneto ingition systems are more inherantly reliable than battery coil. Even with dual redundancy, two magneto systems are still more reliable than two battery coil systems.  In the aviation world, reliability is king and anything that improves it is considered highly desireable.  Thus two magneto systems even though the odds of a double failure are considered to be very low - but they are not zero.

 * I am reminded of a case where a certain type of aircraft had two 20A fuses in parallel betwixt the battery and the electric motor that started the gas turbine starter unit (which in turn started the main jet engine). I was curious at the time why a single 40A fuse had not been used (and why 40A in the first place as it was a bit large for the motor used).  I had already figured that it could not possibly be to reduce the I2t rating of the fusing because an electric motor just doesn't care that much.  I had joked at the time to my then boss, that maybe it was for added reliability in case one fuse ruptured.  On digging out the design requirement document, it turned out that this was indeed why a two fuse design was implemented.  It also turned out that the correct fuse for the aplication was just 20A.  Sometimes you just can't get the staff. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC at Magneto (generator)
A Request for Comments is in progress at Magneto (generator) concerning whether to merge that article with this article, rename that article to Magneto (bulk power generator), or do neither and leave the article alone. Discussion should be there, using the RFC process. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Challenge to Ignition magneto
I'd post this on the talk page of Ignition magneto but the bear pit of splitting/combining has frozen the latter in a way I don't actually support. I challenge the Ignition magneto 'Operation' claim that the HV voltage is at all dependent upon the primary/secondary turns ratio. Magnetos are not transformers. It is a function of the rate of change of magnetic flux, and the secondary turns. When the flux collapses, the only limitation is the arc-gap at the contacts of the primary + capacitor. Mike163 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Magneto


text:
X3D Fritz

X3D Fritz was a version of the Fritz chess program, which in November 2003 played a four-game human–computer chess match against world number one Grandmaster Garry Kasparov. The match was tied 2–2, with X3D Fritz winning game 2, Kasparov winning game 3 and drawing games 1 and 4.

Match conditions
Fritz ran on four Intel Pentium 4 Xeon CPUs at 2.8 GHz.

The match was unique in how Kasparov relayed his moves to the computer. In most human–computer matches, the human makes their moves on a normal board, as in a normal game. These moves are fed into the computer by an intermediary seated where a normal human opponent would be, and its replies played on the board by the same person. In this match, however, no normal board and no intermediary was used. Instead, Kasparov, wearing special glasses provided by X3D Technologies Corp, saw a three-dimensional projection of the board floating in the air in front of him. He spoke his moves out loud, thus conveying them to the computer which had a speech recognition system. The computer's replies were shown on the projected board.

The time controls for each game were as follows:
 * Start with 120 minutes.
 * After move 40, add 60 minutes.
 * After move 60, add 15 minutes and 30 seconds per move.

The match was held at the New York Athletic Club in New York City, United States. Kasparov got US$150,000 for playing and an extra $25,000 for the drawn match. Kasparov would have earned an extra $50,000 instead if he had won.

Games
The moves of the games are given below.

Game 1: November 11, 2003, Kasparov–Fritz ½–½
Opening: Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD) semi-Slav: Stoltz variation ECO: D45

The first game, with Kasparov as White, ended in a draw after Kasparov sacrificed a pawn in the Semi-Slav for a better position. He eventually won a rook for a bishop and pawn, but was unable to convert the advantage into a win. Fritz managed to open lines against Kasparov's king, and drew with perpetual check.

'''1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 Bb4 8. Bd2 Qe7 9. Rg1 Bxc3 10. Bxc3 Ne4 11. O–O–O Qf6 12. Be2 Nxf2 13. Rdf1 Ne4 14. Bb4 c5 15. cxd5 exd5 16. dxc5 Qe7 17. Nd4 O–O 18. Nf5 Qe5 19. c6 bxc6 20. Bxf8 Kxf8 21. Ng3 Ndc5 22. Nxe4 Nxe4 23. Bd3 Be6 24. Bxe4 dxe4 25. Rf4 Bd5 26. Qc5+ Kg8 27. Rgf1 Rb8 28. R1f2 Qc7 29. Rc2 Qd7 30. h4 Qd8 31. g5 Bxa2 32. Rxe4 Qd3 33. Rd4 Qxe3+ 34. Rcd2 Qe1+ 35. Rd1 Qe3+ 36. R1d2 Qg1+ 37. Rd1 ½–½'''

Game 2: November 13, 2003, Fritz–Kasparov 1–0
Opening: Ruy Lopez: Berlin defense ECO: C65

The second game, with Fritz as White, was a Ruy Lopez. Kasparov played the Berlin Defence (3...Nf6), with which Vladimir Kramnik had drawn against Deep Fritz in the 2002 Brains in Bahrain match (and which Kramnik had also successfully employed as a drawing variation against Kasparov himself in their 2000 World Championship match). Fritz, however, avoided the simplifying main line (4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8), instead keeping pieces on the board with 4.d3. Kasparov seemed to have at least equal chances until he blundered on move 32 when short of time (see time control) and lost.

'''1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 d6 5. c3 g6 6. O–O Bg7 7. Nbd2 O–O 8. Re1 Re8 9. d4 Bd7 10. d5 Ne7 11. Bxd7 Nxd7 12. a4 h6 13. a5 a6 14. b4 f5 15. c4 Nf6 16. Bb2 Qd7 17. Rb1 g5 18. exf5 Qxf5 19. Nf1 Qh7 20. N3d2 Nf5 21. Ne4 Nxe4 22. Rxe4 h5 23. Qd3 Rf8 24. Rbe1 Rf7 25. R1e2 g4 26. Qb3 Raf8 27. c5 Qg6 28. cxd6 cxd6 29. b5 axb5 30. Qxb5 Bh6 31. Qb6 Kh7 32. Qb4 Rg7?? 33. Rxe5 dxe5 34. Qxf8 Nd4 35. Bxd4 exd4 36. Re8 Rg8 37. Qe7+ Rg7 38. Qd8 Rg8 39. Qd7+ 1–0'''

Game 3: November 16, 2003, Kasparov–Fritz 1–0
Opening: QGD semi-Slav: accelerated Meran (Alekhine variation) ECO: D45

Game three was another Semi-Slav, but Fritz varied from game one early with 5...a6. Kasparov replied with 6.c5 which took the game into the sort of closed position which it is generally believed computers do not play well. The game followed one between Samuel Reshevsky and Paul Keres from the 1948 World Championship Tournament until move 12 when Kasparov varied (Black eventually won that game, though White seemed to be better out of the opening). Kasparov won a pawn while keeping the position closed, and Fritz did not appear to understand the closed position well, moving its pieces back and forth with no obvious plan. In the meantime, Kasparov pushed his extra a-pawn and broke through on the queenside. With the computer having absolutely no counterplay and Kasparov about to force through his b-pawn to promote, winning more material, the Fritz operators resigned on move 45, making the match tied at 1½–1½.

'''1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 c6 5. e3 a6 6. c5 Nbd7 7. b4 a5 8. b5 e5 9. Qa4 Qc7 10. Ba3 e4 11. Nd2 Be7 12. b6 Qd8 13. h3 O–O 14. Nb3 Bd6 15. Rb1 Be7 16. Nxa5 Nb8 17. Bb4 Qd7 18. Rb2 Qe6 19. Qd1 Nfd7 20. a3 Qh6 21. Nb3 Bh4 22. Qd2 Nf6 23. Kd1 Be6 24. Kc1 Rd8 25. Rc2 Nbd7 26. Kb2 Nf8 27. a4 Ng6 28. a5 Ne7 29. a6 bxa6 30. Na5 Rdb8 31. g3 Bg5 32. Bg2 Qg6 33. Ka1 Kh8 34. Na2 Bd7 35. Bc3 Ne8 36. Nb4 Kg8 37. Rb1 Bc8 38. Ra2 Bh6 39. Bf1 Qe6 40. Qd1 Nf6 41. Qa4 Bb7 42. Nxb7 Rxb7 43. Nxa6 Qd7 44. Qc2 Kh8 45. Rb3 1–0'''

Game 4: November 18, 2003, Fritz–Kasparov ½–½
Opening: Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA): classical, 6...a6 ECO: D27

Fritz, with the White pieces again, varied from game two immediately with 1.d4. A Queen's Gambit Accepted followed, and for a while Kasparov followed a rapid game he had won with Black against Kramnik in 2001. Whereas in that game he exchanged his queen for a rook, bishop and pawn (with 13...Nxd5 14.Rad1 Nxf4 15.Rxd8 Rxd8), here he played more soberly, rapidly exchanging pieces, and quickly drawing. The match ended tied, 2-2.

'''1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 a6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O–O Nf6 7. Bb3 cxd4 8. exd4 Nc6 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Re1 O–O 11. Bf4 Na5 12. d5 Nxb3 13. Qxb3 exd5 14. Rad1 Be6 15. Qxb7 Bd6 16. Bg5 Rb8 17. Qxa6 Rxb2 18. Bxf6 Qxf6 19. Qxd6 Qxc3 20. Nd4 Rxa2 21. Nxe6 fxe6 22. Qxe6+ Kh8 23. Rf1 Qc5 24. Qxd5 Rfxf2 25. Rxf2 Qxf2+ 26. Kh1 h6 27. Qd8+ Kh7 ½–½'''

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

title: X3D Fritz


text:
Talk:Silesia/Archive 3

Anyone reading this archive should be made aware that the comments signed as GH were made by the user now known as AM.

Archive3

Earlier discussion:
 * Talk:Silesia/archive1
 * Talk:Silesia/archive2

Add a new section

Suggestions for new intro
1) Leave HRE out. IF medieval times are not important, then mentioning HRE as catch-all for German influences is wrong, since HRE was formality in most of modern times and ceased to exists in 1806. So, sentence "Silesia was either part of HRE or on borders of HRE for most of the millentium" is formally true, but does not give too much new information into article.

2) Also, how would Germans feel if I would put such, formally true, sentence: "SIlesia for most of 2nd century was either Polish province or situated on borders of Poland. Ties with Poland were decreasing over time until in 1945 it became part of Poland".

 * How we would feel about a sentence like that? Well, since it's simply false we would just laugh, I suppose.

 * What's false about it? It was was either Polish (until 1327-1368) or on Borders of Poland (until 1792) so you have your "for most of 2nd century" part TRUE. Ties with Poland wer edecreasing but were always existing, with Poles being majority in some regions, and large minority in other well into XIX or even XX century. SO What's false in that sentence, Nico? szopen

 * It is not the details from Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation I think is interesting, and when HRRdN was mentioned it was meant as a compromise (by Ruhrjung), I think.

 * You could also simply say: Silesia was historically German, and the large portion of the historical region is Polish today. You get half of the introduction, and the Germans get the other part of it.

 * The most important is what Silesia is referring to in the English speaking world. You cannot deny that the historical German province is an important part of it, which have a natural place in the introduction. Details from medieval history have not a natural place in the introduction. The difference between Polish history in the middle ages and German history is: Silesia has been German for 618 years, and there is a continuity. Polish kings in the middle ages are unknown to our English readers, and not what they are searching for in the introduction. In the introduction of the United Kingdom article you wouldn't write that England is a former Danish colony either. But if Poland occupied England or Wales today, it would be rather stupid not to mention British history in the introduction of an article in this encyclopedia. -- Nico 06:35, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

3)Also, if some are saying that only modern time are important, why not sentence "in last century SIlesia for almost 60 years was Polish and 40 German?" HUh? You say that descendants of people who live in Silesia are still alive and that's important to them. That's true. But still some of the autochtons from Silesia also stayed in Poland, despite communism and post-war hysteria.

4) Therefore, introduction, if mentioning history of the region at all, should a) stress that before 1945 Germans were majority in the region b) in modern time it was generally German province c) it was also part of Poland and Bohemia in the past d) Poles were in modern times minority in Silesia but Silesia was considered "lost" province thoughout whole modern Polish history (before WWI Greater Polish organisations were for example funding Polish libraries etc in many ragions of Silesia, were Polish minority was still significant, e.g Opole) e) majority of German population was expelled (not all, since some stayed- German minority in Silesia did not appear out of nowhere)

5) Waiting for suggestion

Nobody answered this. What's wrong with my points? 1) In introduction, mention that before 1945 Silesia was German, majority of population was German and majority of it was expelled after 1945

2) Do not mention HRE since it cease to exist in 1807 or something and usually being part of HRE was fomarlity, while it had bad conntations to Poles.

3) Mention that Silesia in past was also part of Poland and Bohemia

4) reference to the rest to history, when it will all be explained.

I will abstain for any editing until Wednesday. I promise. I won't even discuss or anything. szopen

I believe, that historically delicate facts should not belong to the intro. 128.176.189.138 13:18, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is exactly my opinion. Just mention that it was in history German, Polihs, Bohemian and Hungarian duchy.

Nevertheless, i wonder what Nico consider by "German Silesia". In some periods large minority of Silesia was German. Then it was formally part of HRE, but practically was ruled by Czech, Polish, or even Hungarian kings or by local Polish dukes. Then most of population became German (but still, for example in 1834 according to Prussian census, 60% of population of Bytom was Polish - it had Polish large minority even after WWI, and only Polish grammar school was allowed in Germany here - against all odds and after intervention in league of Nations).

Nico seem to think that Poles In Silesia were totally new people. This is not the truth: Poles were in Silesia for centuries.

BTW, how many Poles in Silesia was positively verified and allowed to stay? I've read the figure of 1 million of Polish minority from Opole region alone, which seems to me at least half million too many... szopen

Answering sysop's request for comments on "factoids"
Hi, Uncle Ed et al. ! Missed you all very much. I will stay away from the major conflict here, (because after all, I'm biased myself), and just stick to Uncle Ed's "factoids":

What year is the "Catholic Encyclopedia" from? Because it sounds like Poland was not on the map, when the book was published. Silesia has been:

 * 1) Prussian Conquered by the Kingdom in Prussia in 1840/1842

Sincerely Space Cadet 21:06, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) inhabited 3/4 by Germans, 1/4 by Poles (1905) this infamous "data collection" assumed anybody who had ability to speak german language, to be of German nationality, assumed everybody else to be Poles and completely ignored the Silesian nationality
 * 2) Slavonic (an 800 year period)
 * 3) controlled by Poland (In 999 Silesia was conquered by the Poles)  there is no evidence of any military conflict at that time, so perhaps the word "incorporated" should replace "conquered"
 * 4) controlled by Bohemia (1327-29)
 * 5) colonized by Germans (from around 1210) "destination for strong German immigration" would avoid lots of misunderstandings
 * 6) a battleground: the Hussite Wars (1420-37)
 * 7) controlled by Hungary (1469)
 * 8) "regarded as a dependency of Bohemia" (1526)
 * 9) largely controlled by Prussia (after wars of 1740-2, 1744-5, 1756-63)
 * 10) enlarged by adding half of Lausitz (Lusatia)
 * 11) divided into Upper and Lower Silesia?
 * 12) split: part of Silesia which remained an Austrian possession after 1763.

Factoids (the brief version): Silesia German for almost 700 years until 1945
Factoids: The brief version is: Silesia has been a part of different German states (Heiliges Röhmisches Reich deutscher Nation, Prussia, Germany) for 618 years until 1945, and had an overwhelming majority of German population in 1945, which were brutally expulsed by the stalinists. Nico 06:47, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * after 1945 not whole population was expelled. Polish minority, which was verysignificant, was allowed to stay.

 * Besides, i am simply... i don't know what i should say. 618 years? 1327 is the date when SOME, not even MOST, but SOME Silesian duchies recognised BOHEMIAN overlordship. In the same time (until 1357) NASOVIA was also recognisinf BOHEMIAN overlordship. SO WAS MASOVIA GERMAN? Majority of population was not German for quite long time. For example Bytom (don't know German name), large city east of Katowice in 1834 more than 60% of population was Polish (and close to 60% of population voted in erferendum to be part of Poland, but they stayed in Germany). szopen

-

Thats odd... a page on Silesia and no mention of mining... Alun Ephraim 16:16, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article mentions 'coal' in the introduction, and it contains an Economy section - to be written soon ;-) Grzes of Poznan 19:47, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Most people looking for info on Silesia would be looking for stuff that has never been written, due to a dispute over who owns the place. I was thinking of doing a list of mining regions, but this has made me think about reconsidering it. Alun Ephraim 11:36, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia is an integral part of Poland and Czech Rep.
I don't like the idea of calling Silesia a European or Central European region, because it suggests that this is a disputed area (something like Northern Ireland), or that Silesia has some sort of special legal status, which is not the case.

 * Polish Silesia is an integral part of the Republic of Poland.
 * Czech Silesia is an integral part of the Czech Republic.

Stating these facts in the intro is not necessary, but we have to keep them in mind all the time, when writing about modern Silesia. We can discuss all the things, we can make every compromise, but there cannot be any discussion or any compromise about the territorial integrity of the two countries.

I don't know if this comes from ignorance or bad will, but it is very disgusting that a couple of editors constantly try to avoid these facts by various words manipulation and text puzzles.

Previous version of the intro was much better - it is enough to say to the readers that Silesia is a region in SW Poland and NE Czech Rep.

Grzes of Poznan 20:07, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Silesia wasn't historically a part of Poland until after 1945, and is not presently an actual political unit in either Poland or the Czech Republic

 * But Silesia wasn't historically a part of Poland until after 1945, and is not presently an actual political unit in either Poland or the Czech Republic. Since when there actually *was* a specific political unit called "Silesia," said political unit was part of Germany/Prussia, it seems fair to simply call it a "European region" rather than a Polish region, ro whatever. john 09:54, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia was historical part of Poland until 1327-1368, part of Polish church province until some XIX century and with Polish-speaking majority in some regions or siginificant minority in others well into XIX century. Also, some parts of Silesia became part of Poland in XV century again (Siewierz, Auschwitz) szopen

Silesia is and was a legal part of Poland
I'm afraid you are misinformed about history of Silesia. Poland emerged as a state in years 950-1000, when the first Polish monarchs Mieszko I and Boleslaus I the Brave had united a couple of Polish tribes (Polanes, Mazovians, Pomeranians, Vistulans, Opolians and Silesians) into one political body. This fact was acknowledged by the Pope and by the Roman Emperor, 2 most important political authorities of this time, by the creation of Polish church province in 1000 (archbishopric in Gniezno; bishoprics in Poznan in Greater Poland, Wroclaw in Silesia, Cracow in Little Poland, and Kolobrzeg in Pomerania).

Except for a short period of Bohemian rule in 1039-1050, the status of Silesia as part of Poland was not questioned for several centuries (until 14th century). In year 1138 Polish duke Boleslaus III the Wrymouth has created a 'federal' or 'feudal' Polish state consiting of several provinces (Silesia among them). Provinces of Poland were to be ruled by the descendants of his 4(5) sons, but one of the duke (the oldest one) were to hold Cracow and to be the overlord or high-duke of all Poland, responsible for foreign, military and other national affairs. This was the preparation for a royal coronation. Again this 'constitution' was confirmed by the Emperor and the Pope. In the following years the dukes quarreled who should be the grand duke, but the constitution of Poland was not questioned.

Silesia, one of the provinces of Poland, was ruled by the descendands of Wladyslaw II, the oldest son of Boleslaw III. Because the Silesian dukes were the oldest branch of the Piast dynasty, they considered themselves to be destined to be the overlords of all Poland. In 12th-13th centuries Silesia became the strongest province of Poland (politically and economically) and this period is called the Monarchy of Silesian Henrys (Henry I, Henry II, Henry III, Henry IV). Preparations for the royal coronation were broken by the Tartar invasion in 1241 (Henry II died in the battle of Legnica/Liegnitz), and Henry IV almost achieved Polish throne before his death in 1290. Royal City of Cracow was inherited by Przemysl II of Poznan and he succeded to achieve Polish royal crown in 1295, '''there is no doubt that this royal coronation was prepared politically by the Silesian dukes, who considered themselvs dukes of Poland. '''

After King Przemysl II death in 1296, the royal ambitions were inherited by his 2 nephews: Ladislaus II the Short of Cuiavia and Henry II of Glogow (in Silesia), but also by the Venceslas II of Bohemia, who took control of Cracow, married Przemysl's daughter and was crowned King of Bohemia and Poland in 1300. For the next 50 years or so there were 2 competing Polish kings in Prague and Cracow fighting each other and declaring his oponents decisions to be illegal. This dispute was resolved by a compromise. King of Cracow resigned his rights to most of Silesia and Masovia, and the king of Prague resigned his rights to the 'Polish' title.

But still the Bohemian chancellery, Silesian cities, the chronicles authors in their documents had no doubt the the Silesian duchies and cities belong to the Kingdom of Poland (Regnum Poloniae). In 14th-15th centuries students from Silesia at the German universities were assigned to the Polish nation academic corporations.'''The Silesian dukes considered themselves the dukes of Poland, and they ruled their duchies until they died out in 1675. They called themselves The Piasts from the dynasty legendary founder (Piast), and the Piast term itself was invented in Silesia in 16th century.''' Silesian eclessiatical province of Wroclaw belonged to the Polish archbishopric in Gniezno up to the 18th century, although there were serious attempts to transfer it to the archbishopric of Prague.

When time was passing the real political belonging of Silesia to the Kingdom of Bohemia was prevailing over the legal belonging of Silesia to the Kingdom of Poland. Since there was a significant difference between the legal boundaries of Poland, and the real boundaries of territories controlled by the Polish kings, the jurists had developed a legal definition of the difference between two legal bodies.

According to this legal definitions Silesia and Pomerania belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, and did not belong to the Polish Crown. On the other hand Red Ruthenia belonged to the Crown, and did not belong to the Kingdom. The medieval documents show that these terms were used frequently and had significant legal meaning. For example a couple of provincial dukes sweared their oaths to the Polish King, the Kingdom, and Crown of the Kingdom.
 * the Kingdom of Poland - means the territory of all the lands that belonged to the Polish kingdom, when it was first established in 1000/1025.
 * Crown of the Kingdom of Poland - means the territories that are actually controlled by the the Polish king.

 The legal status of Silesia was that the province belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, and at the same time it belonged to (was controlled by) the Crown of St. Venceslas (or Bohemian Crown). Poland was an electoral monarchy probably since 1177 and certainly after Polish-Lithuanian Union in 1386. Every Polish royal pretender between 1370 and 1772 could attain the Polish throne on the sole condition that he will sign a document guaranting nobility priviledges, integrity of Polish Kingdom and promise to do everything to get back the lost lands on his own cost.

The 16th century Polish historian Jan Dlugosz (Dlugosius, Longinus) author of the multi-volume Chronicles of the Polish Kingdom, commenting the end of the 13-year war (1454-1466) wrote that he is very happy that Gdansk Pomerania and Prussia had returned to Poland, but he would be even more happy if Poland could re-claim other lost lands: Silesia, Lubusz land and Slupsk/Szczecin-Pomerania. His cronicles were the main source of historical and political thinking in Poland in 16th-18th century and this means that the legal rights of Poland to Silesia were never forgotten.

In the 18th century Poland became a weak country and these rights could not be executed. In the partitions of Poland (1172-1795) even the Polish state ceased to exists, but the Polish political nation and Polish Kingdom were not liquidated. The Kingdom was always considered to be a sacred thing - it continues to exist even if there no King. Existence of the Polish political nation was proved by its amibiton to return to the political map of Europe, the repeating Polish uprisings, and peaceful national activities.

'''These political Polish dreams came true when Poland regained its independence in 1918 and regained the lost territories in 1945. '''

'''From legal point of view, Silesia was part of Poland for all the time since the foundation of Poland in 1000, and it doesn't matter if the province was actually in hands the Polish monarchs or temporarily controlled by other political bodies. The Polish monarchs had invited many guests from other countries to settle in Poland to find a better life. They and their decendants were guaranteed significant political, language and economic freedoms and rights. But they and their decendants also had a political obligation - to be loyal to the Polish dukes and kings. Most of them were loyal. We are very sorry we had to expell from Poland those who were not loyal.'''

Grzes of Poznan 14:30, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Silesia historically German
Should all countries claim the territories which kings of their nationality controlled in the middle age? England was a Danish colony at this time. Should Denmark claim this territory today? I don't think there is a continuity from these kings you consider Polish until the Polish state, and I don't find this relevant. Silesia was historically German, and with an overwhelming majority of German population, and was occupied by Stalin and given to Poland after World War II. That's the facts. Medieval and earlier history should be kept in the history section, the introduction should state what Silesia mainly is referring to in the English speaking world, which includes an historical German region as a very important part of it. -- Nico 05:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Is there and always were significant Danish minority in England?
 * Was England part of Denmark for at least 340 years in medieval times, and later ruled by Danish dukes, and later ruled by Danish kings (as part of Bohemian crown, though)?
 * Was England part of Danish church province for centuries until recent times?
 * Were Danes constantly since medieval times to modern times tried to regain England?
 * Were Danes once majority in England and Englishmen are either colonists or anglicised Danes?
 * If not, you can't compare Silesia to England.
 * Second, not whole Silesia was given to Poland afetr 1945. Chunk of Silesia was also reclaimed after WWI. And beforepartitions also chunks were part of Poland.

szopen

A hole in the history
GH

Currently there is a gap in the history between 1241 and 1327, when Bohemian Kings took over. There is no information, why they claimed the province?

I propose to add a fragment like follows:

''In 1306 Wenclaus III king of Poland and Bohemia was assasinated. After his death, Great Poland, Lower Poland, and Eastern Pomerania were taken over by Wladislaus the Short, while Bohemian kings claimed their rights to other provinces of Poland, including Silesia.''

Well, Bohemian kings claimed their rights to whole Poland, not just Silesia. That's why they called Kazimierz the Great "king in Cracow" instead of "King of Poland". It was what, 1343 or something when they finally gave up their claims to whole Poland and Kazimierz resigned from claims to "this duchies, which recognize Bohemian overlordship" and then again some years later officially resignde from Silesia... But then, just before his death Kazimierz sent to pope asking him for relieving him from this deals and prepared to war over Silesia... szopen

I am of Silesian descent (my father's family comes from Waldenburg (today Walbrzych)). Silesia always had been a mix-region of people from Poland, Germany, Austria and other Slavic regions. Before WWII "Niederschlesien" was culturally mainly influenced Austrian. After WWII it is a part of Poland and because of the ethnic cleansing after the war it is nearly completely settled by people that had to leave their houses in the East of former Poland. Nobody doubts that, not in Germany, not in Poland. Nobody in Germany (only some Neo Nazis) wants to have it back. (Andreas)

Nobody doubts that Silesia is a region of mixed culture and ethnicity. In my opinion this is precisely described in the introduction of our article: ''Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with heavy Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians''. Before the Prussian conquest of the region in 1740s Silesia was half Polish, half German,from ethnic point of view, although this means Slavonic and Germanic groups, and it is difficult to say what were the real national and ethnic feeleings of the Silesians. Some of the Poles may have been Silesians and Bohemians. Anyway before 1740 Silesia had 2 official languages: German and Czech(Bohemian), as the region was considered part of the Bohemian crown.

Grzes of Poznan

Is the Görlitz area part of Silesia?
In the east of what is today Germany's state "Saxony", in the Region around the city of "Görlitz", also a small part of Silesia today still belongs to Germany. In the Introduction is said, that Silesia is today a part of Poland and the Czech Republic. I think this German part should be added.

Some were arguing that Goerlitz historically is part of Lusitz, not of Silesia. I have no opinion in that case szopen

In years 1816-1827 the historical region of Lusatia (Lausitz, Łużyce) was disbanded by the Prussian government and distributed between the provinces of Brandenburg, Saxony and Silesia. In my opinion the Goerlitz area is not part of modern or historical region of Silesia and that's why it should NOT be mentioned in the introduction. However it should mentioned in the history section and/or geography/geographical-division section. Besides it is controversial if the name of Goerlitz area should be used here. The city of Goerlitz/Zgorzelec is located on both banks of Nysa/Neisse river and belongs in half to Germany, in half to Poland. Grzes of Poznan(caius2ga) 12:05, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * You, my friend, think the Görlitz area not is a part of Silesia, because it only has been part of Silesia since 1816. Well, then, since Silesia only has been part of Poland (Soviet) since 1946 (or the present state since 1990), I could argue that Silesia not is a part of Poland either. -- Nico 05:36, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The Görlitz region of course is part of historic (!) Silesia. Even though in the region also live Lausitz people, the population is "german Silesian", too, of course not Silesian in current polish sense. But, because the part of Silesia that still belongs to Germany is very small and just part of the state of Saxony, it is not very important in the whole Silesian measures. The Neiße/Nysa became german-polish border after the war, before it was admidst Silesia. If a czech part of Silesia is named, a German should be, too. But both of them are very small in relation to polish Silesia and both of them just are parts of the historic "german Silesia" that doesn't exist anymore. 82.82.117.237 22:03, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC) from Germany

Where is Silesia?
I've heard nearly a dozen opinions. Should we vote on it, or what?

Is Silesia an historical region, like Palestine? An area populated by people of a certain ethnicity, like Kurdistan?

 * Silesia is an historical region which was German for almost 700 years until 1945. By that time, 3/4 of the population were Germans. Silesia do not exist as a political unity anymore, and is divided between Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic. The large portion of the historical region Silesia is Polish today. Nico 06:55, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Should we say that this part became part of Poland in this year, and that part become part of Czechoslavakia or the Czech Republic in that year?

(By the way, I have a hard time reading long lists of issues. Can we try to settle one issue at a time?) --Uncle Ed 16:09, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion Silesia is a historical, geographical, local government and administrative region.

The historical section can describe precisly every teritorial changes year by year.

BTW. The border between Poland and Bohemia (dividing Silesia into 2 parts) was settled in year 1050 and survived for almost 1000 years, with some minor exceptions: county of Klodzko belonged to Bohemia proper upto 1742 when it was joined to the Silesia province by the Prussian monarchs, the Cieszyn Silesia which was divided between Poland and Czechoslovakia on 1921, and small part of Upper Silesia joined to Czechoslovakia in 1920s.

Grzes of Poznan(caius2ga) 18:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You all know, I hope, that these issues have all been debated before. I would hope that szopen and friends will allow others the same courtesy that some of us endured when HJ was Germanizing everything. JHK

JHK, I was fighting over with HJ too. And a lot. You may not remember me, since i had long break in my wikipedia activity, but I WAS DISCUSSING THESE QUESTION HERE AND THERE since 2001.

Let me put it straight: I do not want to falsify Silesia history. I do not want to deny ties of SIlesia to Germany. am opposing to writing article in a tone which would imply that only Germans had contributed to history of the region and only them had right to them. If you can't understand that "Silesia through last millenium was attached to or on border of HRE before it became German province" is POV, then how would you respond to "SIlesia for last millenium was attached to or on border of Poland, links with Poland decreased over time and it ceased to be Polish province"?

Also, JHK, I am ready for discussion and i am discussing. I try to understand point of opponents and propose new compromises which IMHO should please them. But instead i keep hearing that i am Polish nationalist, and now, that i lack of common courtesy. GRRR.

But you know what? I will leave wikipedia for some time to catch breath. I advice the same to some involved in disputes. THe emotions will be lower when we would be back. In the time, some neutral person should read the points, write the proposition and then we will see if it is accepted by both sides, "POLISH NATIONALISTS" camp and "GERMAN NEUTRALS" camp. What do you think? szopen

 * Ultimately, there will be many points on which contributors disagree. The only solution possible is to say that some people, particular Polish, say THIS and other, particularly Germans, say THAT. There can be no compromise, only acknowledgement of our differences. --Uncle Ed 21:47, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

-

Historical boundaries and divisions of Silesia
Please see Talk:Silesia:Historical boundaries and divisions of Silesia

How many years Silesia was part of Poland and Bohemia
I don't like the sentence in the into saying: In the past, Silesia has been part of different Polish states (for about 360 years, including the vast majority at present), Bohemia (for about 250 years) and different German states (for about 400 years, not counting Bohemian rule - although some also count Bohemian rule of Silesia as a time of German rule).

independent Silesian duchies
 * independent Silesian duchies ca. 600-875 = 275 years

various Polish states Total Polish rule 990-2003 = 1013 years
 * early Duchy/Kingdom of Poland 990-1038, 1050-1348/1392
 * incorporation of Silesia into Bohemia 1348
 * last duchy independent from Bohemia till 1392
 * parts of Silesia on the Odra right bank still in Poland 1038-1050
 * Polish dukes of the Piast dynasty who died out in 1675: 990-1675 = 685 years
 * Duchy of Oswieciem belonged to Poland 1475-1772 = 297 years
 * Duchy of Oswieciem belonged to Galicia, Polish privince of Austria 1772-1918, and to Poland 1918-1939 = 146+21 years
 * Duchy of Siewierz
 * Silesian Voivodship 1921-1939 = 18 years
 * modern Silesia in Poland 1945-2003 = 58 years

various Czech/Bohemian states Total Bohemian rule 875-2003 = 1128 years
 * Great Moravian Empire 875-894 = 19 years
 * Duchy of Bohemia 894-990, 1038-1050 = 96+12=108 years
 * Opava Silesia belonges to Bohemia 894-990, 1038-2003 96+965=1061 years

German rule of Silesia
Can someone explain to me how Nico etc came to 700 years of German rule in SIlesia? Even if they count Bohemian rule of some of territories, then 1945-1327 = 618. German colonisation on wider scale started after 1260/70 or so.

Last independent SIlesian duchy, very large, ceased to exist in 1368. Since 1327-1525 Silesia was part of Bohemia, formally part of HRE - but this was mere formality for example when it was ruled by Polish kings (e.g 1470? - 1525) Native kings (Jiri Podiebrad) etc. Moreover, while Germans became quickly majority in the cities (at least the elites, plebs was of mixed nationality fo long time) most of popluation was still Slavic in at least half of region well into XVI century (Oder is commonly used as border before majority German/majority Polish population) with Polish speaker s being still 25-35% of population before WWI. How so he get "Silesia is German for 700 years?"

But enough of ranting. See my introduction proposals above. szopen

 * My understanding is that the last Piast Duke of Silesia (the Duke of Silesia-Brieg) died in the 17th century some time. john 09:06, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia German for 618 years until 1945
I didn't came to 700 years of German rule. I said almost 700 years.

As you said, Silesia was German, under different states, from 1327 until 1945, in modern times it had been German for 618 years. Nico 06:13, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There's no doubt that majority of Silesia was Prussian/German in political sense in years 1742-1945. An not all of the region. Parts of Silesia belonged to Bohemia, and Poland (and indireclty they were under Austrian rule). Grzes of Poznan 07:33, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Protected again
As Messrs. Nico and Wik have restarted their reversion war, I have have protected Silesia again. It should by now be clear that this page must, unfortunately, remain locked until all users involved agree on the content. I suggest that the protection be not removed before Nico and Wik publicly demonstrate a viable compromise text and declare the end of their differences. Kosebamse 23:17, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've never even heard of Silesia until I saw it was a protected page, and as far as I'm aware, I have neither German nor Polish ancestry; thus, I hope I can be neutral about all this. I have to agree with a previous suggestion in this talk page: remove the sentence in the introduction saying how long Silesia has been controlled by whom. Not only does it seem to be the main point of contention, but I can't see how it belongs in the introduction. -- Khym Chanur 04:33, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Advices from people who never have heard about Silesia before (heard about Europe?) is not interesting. This is an encyclopedia. Understand that the German history of Silesia is a very important part of what this name is referring to in the English speaking world. This was a region with an overwhelming majority of German population, and which had been German for most of the 2nd millennium, when it was occupied by Soviet in 1945 and the whole population brutally expulsed. Nico 05:49, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, the United States of America occupies territory that was occupied for thousands of years by Native Americans, and they were treated pretty brutally by the colonizing Europeans, yet none of this is mentioned in the introudction on the USA. I don't see why the history of the region has to be emphasized in the introductory text. -- Khym Chanur 00:40, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * The thing is: Silesia is an historical region, which do not exist anymore. The historical region is divided between Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic, and most of the Silesians were expulsed (from the territories occupied by Stalin). In English, the term Silesia is referring to both the historical German region Silesia (Schlesien), and the Polish province named Slask after 1946. When searching in Google for Silesia + German, you get more results than when you are searching for Silesia + Polish. When searching for Silesia + Germany, you get almost the same number of results as when you are searching for Silesia + Poland. Not to mention both meanings of Silesia in the introduction of this article is just like not mentioning Königsberg in the "Kaliningrad" article. Nico 01:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

Dear Nico!

Actually, neutral opinions are very important and interesting! Much more important than opinions who have been already proven wrong, inaccurate or part of XIX century ahistorical Prussian propaganda, which certain people, of known reputation to vandalize others' hard work and research, keep reinstating with a stubbornness worth a better cause.

Wikipedia is a team effort and nobody has a monopoly on what's official or not. Or whose opinions are intersting or not.

Khym Chanur brought a very good point. You don't see ridiculous comments about how long the area has been controlled or inhabited by whom on the Vilnius (Wilno), Hrodna (Grodno) or L'viv (Lwow) pages. Although you like to accuse every user of Polish persuasion of nationalism, revisionism (do you really know what this word means?) and vandalism, you don't see them vandalize articles on former Polish territories.

As long as there is a comment in the history part about Polish history of the city and a Polish name is mentioned at least once, I don't care if the name L'viv is used, even when talking about city history in XIV through XVIII centuries. And it doesn't matter, that my mother was born in Lwow, and in 1947 spent 2 months starving in a cattle train, being driven away from her home. When You write an encyclopedia article, Nico, you have to leave emotions behind. That's what NPOV is all about. And please don't discourage anybody from voicing their opinions on the talk page.

Judging by the depth of your inputs on WIKI, you yourself never heard of Silesia before, until about a year ago (maximum!). And you haven't really read much about the subject since, either, with exception of some irredentist articles from the net, written by historically handicapped laypersons. Neutral readers are the people to whom this Encyclopedia is addressed, and their opinions are crucial and ultimate. Encyclopedia should be an attempt to find the objective truth, not the "Wailing Wall".

Please reconsider your biased attitude of vandalizing everything of any German past, for the sake of the "Neutral Reader".

Sincerely, Space Cadet 14:43, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Keep your insults for yourself. Nico 01:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey! If the shoe fits, wear it! But of course, I was not trying to insult anybody! As always, instead of picking up a dialog and trying to answer the points, you resort to making yourself look like a victim of the polish "revisionism". (No, really, do you actually know what "revisionism" means? Or did you want to say "preservism"? I'm serious!) My e-mail: spacecadet123@inorbit.com You can explain, what offended you so much, (that you didn't do to others), in private, if you're too embarassed to do it here. Sincerely, SC

title: Talk:Silesia/Archive 3