text:
Ivica Račan

Ivica Račan (24 February 1944 – 29 April 2007) was a Croatian politician who served as Prime Minister of Croatia from 2000 to 2003, heading two centre-left coalition governments.

Račan became the first prime minister of Croatia not to be a member of the Croatian Democratic Union, namely the opposition coalition headed by his Social Democratic Party won the 2000 parliamentary election and came to power for the first time since independence. He was the leader of the party, the successor of the League of Communists of Croatia, from 1990 to 2007.

Before becoming prime minister, Račan served in the capacity of Leader of the Opposition on two occasions: firstly, from the first multi-party elections in May 1990 until the formation of a national unity government under Franjo Gregurić in July 1991; and secondly, from his defeat in the 2003 general election by Ivo Sanader until his death on 29 April 2007.

Early life
Račan was born on 24 February 1944 in Ebersbach, Nazi Germany, where his mother Marija Draženović was interned in a labor camp during World War II. He and his mother survived the Allied bombing of Dresden and were buried for days in the basement of a collapsed building. After the war, Račan returned to Croatia and spent his childhood and adolescence in Slavonski Brod, before moving to Zagreb and enrolling at the University of Zagreb. In 1970 he graduated from the Zagreb Faculty of Law.

Early career (1961–1989)
Račan entered politics in the Socialist Republic of Croatia in 1961 as a member of the League of Communists of Croatia (SKH), the Croatian branch of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (SKJ). He was president of the communist youth organization in the Slavonski Brod gymnasium. From 1963 to 1974 he worked for the Yugoslav institute of social research where he studied and researched the topic of Workers' self-management. In 1972, his professional political career began when he entered the central committee of the Croatian league of communists after 6 seats were made available because those 6 previous officials were involved in the 1971 Croatian Spring. He was a member of the SKH culture committee and the head ideology commissioner. From 1982 to 1986, he was director of the "Josip Broz Tito" political school in Kumrovec. In 1986 he was elected to represent SKH in the presidency of the Yugoslav league of communists in Belgrade.

In the late 1980s during the Anti-bureaucratic revolution, tensions grew between pro-Milošević and anti-Milošević supporters so in autumn 1989 the Croatian communists elected Račan as the president of SKH because he defended the rights of republic autonomies which the Milošević establishment wanted to abolish. Račan led the Croatian delegation at the 14th SKJ party congress, held in late January 1990. The congress was dominated by Slobodan Milošević's supporters and the Slovenian and Croatian delegations were continuously outvoted in trying to reach a compromise on the political future of Yugoslavia, their proposals of various political reforms and amendments to the Constitution, aiming primarily on decentralizing the federation, all being rejected. Finally the Slovenian delegation declared that they were abandoning the congress. Milošević tried to persuade Račan to stay, but Račan replied that a communist party without the Slovenes was unacceptable. Without the Croatian delegation, it was impossible to reconvene the congress. (Adam Le Bor: Milošević)

Opposition years (1990–1999)
Under his leadership, SKH re-branded themselves as the Party of Democratic Reform (Stranka demokratskih promjena or SDP) in February 1990 and then ran in the 1990 election as SKH-SDP, winning 26 percent of the votes and coming in second behind the right-wing Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ). During the 1990 election campaign, Račan stirred some controversy when he referred to HDZ as a "party of dangerous intentions".

Although his party had lost the election, they remained the second largest party in the Sabor, and Račan thus continued his political career as the first Leader of the Opposition in the history of modern Croatia. SKH-SDP, however, quickly became a shadow of its former self – a majority of its membership, including the highest-ranking officials, defected to HDZ, while the breakup of Yugoslavia, the rebellion of ethnic Serbs and the ensuing war which broke out in 1991 further radicalised the Croatian public. In such circumstances, Račan was more concerned with the survival of his party rather than challenging Franjo Tuđman's rule, even if it meant tolerating some of Tuđman's more controversial policies, like the nationalisation of workers' owned enterprises and privatisation.

In such circumstances, Račan gave up the opposition leader title to Dražen Budiša of the Croatian Social Liberal Party (HSLS). SDP then barely managed to pass the threshold in the following 1992 general election, but it did succeed in establishing itself as the strongest social democratic option. In 1994, SDP incorporated the minor Social Democrats of Croatia (SDH) party and soon became one of the two main alternatives to Tuđman, along with HSLS. The same year, Miko Tripalo, who was chairman of the Social Democratic Action of Croatia (SDAH) tried to force an all-left party coalition on the Croatian political spectrum but Račan and the SDP head committee rejected the idea and thus later becoming the only major left party.

Following the end of the war of independence in 1995, Croatian voters were becoming more concerned with social issues, and in such circumstances, SDP gradually began to consolidate support at the expense of other opposition parties, most notably the social liberals, HSLS. This became evident in the 1995 general elections. SDP finished second in the 1997 Croatian presidential election which gave them the status of the main opposition party.

Prime Minister (2000–2003)
In August 1998, Račan and Budiša signed a coalition agreement and later won the 2000 elections, dislodging HDZ from power after a decade.

Following the election, Račan became Prime Minister of Croatia and formed a six-party centre-left government with ministers from SDP, HSLS, the Croatian Peasant Party (HSS), the Liberal Party (LS), the Croatian People's Party (HNS), and the Istrian Democratic Assembly (IDS).

Račan, like the newly elected president Stjepan Mesić, was initially hailed as a new, reformist leader who would symbolize the break with Croatia's authoritarian and nationalist past. While a democrat, Račan was, however, inefficient in running a government comprising six parties, the first coalition in modern Croatian history. His style of governance, sometimes described by the phrase "Odlučno možda" ("Decisively maybe" in English), plagued his government with factional struggles. Račan had to adopt a compromise-making attitude which limited the government's ability to commit fully to what should be done.

Račan faced problems when his main coalition partner Budiša lost in the 2000 Croatian presidential election. This made Budiša lose any significant role in the government so he became frustrated and started making trouble. This led to the break-up with Budiša who took a more nationalist approach to dealing with the issues of ICTY indictments against Croatian Army generals. This rift began to affect Račan's government on other issues. IDS was the first to leave the coalition in June 2001.

Račan formally resigned on 5 July 2002, after their coalition partner HSLS obstructed the ratification of a vital agreement with Slovenia on the status of the co-owned Krško Nuclear Power Plant. This led to a party split which saw the main faction of HSLS leave the ruling coalition and a dissenting faction which formed a new party called LIBRA which opted to stay in the government. This enabled Račan to form a slightly modified government that would remain in power until the next elections in 2003.

Račan's best achievements were in foreign policy. He successfully brought Croatia out of the semi-isolation of the Tuđman era and set the country on the road towards membership of the European Union. During his term as prime minister, the Constitution of Croatia was amended, turning Croatia from a semi-presidential system to a parliamentary democracy and granting more power to the parliament and prime minister. Among other things, Račan opened up the government's workings to the public with an "open-doors day" at the government and scheduled regular press conferences, which was in sharp contrast to previous governments who for the most part shunned media attention. Račan visited Bleiburg, Austria, in 2002 and attended the annual commemoration of the Bleiburg repatriations.

During his term in office, Croatia also changed economically. The opening to the West brought fresh inflows of capital which helped jump-start Croatia's GDP growth, amounting to around 5% per year during the years of the Račan government – high compared to previous years. The government also undertook a series of reforms in the public and government sectors and started large building projects, such as an affordable housing program and the construction of the A1 highway connecting the two biggest cities Zagreb and Split, which had been long-desired due to its importance for tourism. During this period, Račan also began to heal the rifts between Croatia and its neighbour Serbia and other former Yugoslav republics.

He also endured much criticism during that time when it came to the ICTY investigations. On the right-wing political spectrum he was attacked as being non-patriotic and a traitor to the national interests while on the liberal-left spectrum he was accused of not doing enough in fighting right-wing extremism and doing little on ensuring de-Tudjmanisation. In February 2001, he faced a massive public uproar when the indictment from ICTY came for Mirko Norac, who at the time was a runaway. The incident came to a peak when 100,000 people came to protest on the Split Riva against the government and a fear of a Coup d'état was at stake. The incident was calmed down when Račan made a deal with Carla Del Ponte which assured that Norac would be prosecuted in Croatia.

In July 2001, came the indictment for Ante Gotovina but Račan delayed accepting it because he felt that some parts of the indictment were wrongly written and negative about the Croatian War of Independence. Since Gotovina was not arrested or even under surveillance during that time, he made his escape to exile which lasted until his arrest in 2005. It was a heavy blow in the Croatian negotiations process with the EU. The last major ICTY scandal happened in September 2002 when the indictment for Janko Bobetko came. Bobetko at the time was in a bad health condition, so he refused to leave his home and surrounded himself with armed people. Račan was afraid that if Bobetko died during the transport to The Hague, it would cause a national riot with the right-wing population. Račan rejected the indictment and Croatia faced a risk of international isolation at that point. Račan persuaded Bobetko to leave his house and go to the hospital. The situation was tense until April 2003 when Bobetko died. After his death, the indictment was dropped and Croatia continued with the negotiations.

Račan was also criticized for his ratification agreement with Slovenia over the Gulf of Piran in 2001. Račan attempted to improve relations with Slovenia which were needed for the EU negotiations so he made an agreement which gave Slovenia 80% of the gulf territory and an exit in international waters but Croatia would still have the border with Italy. The agreement was heavily attacked by the public and the parliament speaker at the time, Zlatko Tomčić, claims that he did not know how much territory was given to Slovenia until the new gulf map came out in the newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija. The agreement was later rejected and not signed by the prime minister so it never came to a realization.

Back in opposition (2003–2006)
Račan's centre-left coalition lost its majority in parliament following the November 2003 election. SDP did not create a big coalition like in the previous elections which cost them the votes. HSS decided to go alone and join the party which won the elections. Those tactics proved to be devastating for them. The coalition with HNS was rejected by Račan for reasons unknown which also proved to be a mistake. Račan conceded the defeat soon after election results were announced. His former coalition partners attacked him for conceding victory so early because they thought that they could try to enforce another great coalition but Račan said that it was unlikely to happen and even if it would happen, there would be no stability in such a great gathering. He officially ceased to be prime minister on 23 December 2003 when the Croatian Parliament approved his successor, Ivo Sanader of the HDZ, to take up that post.

SDP remained the most popular opposition party in opinion polls, and Ivica Račan was viewed as the leader of Croatian opposition. While viewed as indecisive as prime minister, he proved to be very skilful in maintaining SDP party leadership for over fifteen years. In 2006, Račan publicly stated that he had no intention of running for a new term as party president.

Illness and death

On 31 January 2007, Račan announced that he would temporarily leave public life for health reasons. SDP vice-president Željka Antunović took over as chairperson of the party. His health began to deteriorate and was diagnosed with cancer in his shoulder. In February, Račan underwent two surgeries to remove cancer from his kidney, urinary tract, and shoulder. On 4 April it was announced that tests showed metastases in his brain. On 11 April he stepped down as leader of SDP. Translation of his resignation follows:

"Colleagues, friends, comrades! Faced with a difficult illness I continue my fight for life but it is time to thank you for our joint work and your support in my political career. We were building together a Social democratic party and I am proud of what we have achieved. I am proud of the social democratic values – morals, work, honesty, tolerance – that we have forever engraved into the political life of our country. I have done as much as I knew and all that I could. With this, I resign from the party presidency and you will have to continue without me. Find a new strength at the election convention for I am sure that it exists in SDP."

On the morning of 12 April 2007, his condition was described as "critical" due to complications which occurred after he had a couple of surgical procedures to remove the cancer in his right shoulder. That same day, Zagreb radio station Radio 101 wrongly reported his death based on "unofficial information from two sources within the party", but SDP officials denied this. After that, he was reported to be in a critical condition, unable to communicate and under heavy sedation.

On 29 April 2007 at 3:05 am, Ivica Račan died at the Clinical Hospital Centre Zagreb. The reported cause of death was kidney cancer that had spread to his brain. He was buried on 2 May, at the Mirogoj Cemetery crematory. Per his request, only twelve closest friends and members of the family (including wife and both sons) were present. A separate commemoration was organized by SDP at the Lisinski Concert Hall, which was attended by the president, prime minister, a host of other dignitaries and many party members.

Throughout the three months of Račan's illness, the Croatian media regularly reported on his status due to the huge public interest. Račan himself made no public appearances after the day he announced his illness, but the media was regularly informed through SDP's spokespeople. This was a situation previously unknown in Croatia, particularly in comparison to the death of the late President Tuđman, when the details of his illness had been well guarded.

When Račan resigned as the party leader, he made no indication as to his preference for his successor but instead requested that an election convention be held, where the new leader would be elected by the party membership. Because of the upcoming November 2007 election, this was widely speculated to be relevant for party's poll results.

Personal life
Račan married three times and had two sons, Ivan and Zoran, from his first marriage. His first wife Agata Špišić was a judge with the Croatian Constitutional Court. His second wife Jelena Nenadić was a librarian in the Kumrovec political school during the 1980s, and his third wife Dijana Pleština was a professor of political science at the College of Wooster in Ohio. He was a self-declared agnostic.

title: Ivica Račan


text:
Vladimír Špidla

Vladimír Špidla (born 22 April 1951) is a Czech politician who served as the prime minister of the Czech Republic from July 2002 to August 2004 and as European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities from November 2004 to February 2010. He also served as chief adviser to Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka from 2014 to 2017.

Early life
Born in Prague, Špidla studied history at Charles University. His thesis was Založení Živnostenské banky (Establishment of the Entrepreneurial Bank). After his graduation in 1976, he worked in several different jobs, including menial ones, as he refused to fulfil political obligations necessary for access to better employment. He also worked as an archaeologist.

Political career
Špidla entered local politics in his hometown of Jindřichův Hradec after the Velvet Revolution, joining the re-established Czech Social Democratic Party (ČSSD, then called "Czechoslovak Social Democracy"). In 1991–1996 he served as the director of the district labour office. In 1992, he became a member of the Presidium of ČSSD, in March 1997 its statutory vice-chairman, and in April 2001 chairman of ČSSD after the previous chairman Miloš Zeman resigned. He was elected to parliament in 1996, and was First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Labour and Social Affairs in the government of Miloš Zeman from 22 July 1998 to 12 July 2002.

He was appointed Prime Minister on 12 July 2002 in the coalition government of ČSSD and the smaller Christian Democratic Union - Czechoslovak People's Party and Freedom Union-Democratic Union. During that time, he also held Presidential powers from 2 February 2003 until 7 March 2003, as the presidential term ended before the Parliament could elect a new one. His government proposed some reformed to address the growing budget deficit, but their proposals were criticised by the opposition being too mild, as well as focusing too much on tax increases rather than spending cuts. Partly due to tensions within the coalition and a slim majority in the parliament, the government was unable or unwilling to take more radical measures.

Špidla resigned as Prime Minister in June 2004 following poor results for his party and coalition partners in the 2004 European Parliament elections and subsequent loss of support within ČSSD, and he left office on 26 July 2004. He was succeeded by Interior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Stanislav Gross, whose government was sworn in on 4 August. Špidla then accepted the nomination to the European Commission, where he became European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities from 22 November 2004.

Špidla was considered to be on the left wing of ČSSD, though strongly anti-communist. In foreign policy, he was strongly pro-European and expressed support for further integration. His acceptance of the European Commissioner post was criticised as a "golden parachute", as well as an abandonment of ČSSD and Czech politics.

As a Commissioner, Špidla stated his desire to preserve the European social model, and said that Europe needed to preserve its "core values of social justice, equality, respect for rights and dignity for every individual." His key policies were to "create more and better jobs," "reap the benefits of its enlargement," "address the impact of demographic ageing" and "promote an inclusive society." He also created a European Globalisation adjustment Fund (EGF) similar to the European Social Fund to help businesses adjust to the effects of globalisation. He stood down in February 2010.

Špidla attempted to return to Czech politics, running for a seat in the Czech senate at the 2010 elections, but was defeated by incumbent Tomáš Jirsa of the Civic Democrats. In 2014, Špidla became Chief Adviser to Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka.

Špidla was nominated by the Prague branch of ČSSD for the 2021 legislative election. However, the party did not reach the 5% threshold and Špidla thus did not become an MP.

Špidla ran in the 2022 Czech Senate election for the Senate seat of Prague 11. He received 8.39% of votes finishing 5th and thus failed to advance to second round.

Personal life
Špidla has been married twice; he has two sons from his first marriage and another two children acquired by marriage. His hobbies include cross-country and marathon running. He speaks German and French, but his English is weaker, which was used to question his qualifications for the European Commission.

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

title: Vladimír Špidla


text:
Dileita Mohamed Dileita

Dileita Mohamed Dileita (Dileita Macammad Dileita, دليطة محمد دليطة; born 12 March 1959 ) is a Djiboutian politician who was the prime minister of Djibouti from 7 March 2001 to 1 April 2013. He was vice-president of the People's Rally for Progress (RPP), the governing political party, until 2012. He also served as president of the Union for the Presidential Majority (UMP), the governing coalition. He was elected President of the National Assembly on 5 March 2023.

Early years
Dileita was born in 1959 in the coastal eastern city of Tadjoura, Djibouti, to an Afar family. He studied in Cairo and Reims, then went to the Centre for Vocational Education in Médéa, Algeria, from which he graduated in 1981.

Political career
Upon graduation, Dileita returned to Djibouti, where he worked at the Directorate-General of Protocol under the Presidency. He became the second ranking diplomat at the embassy of Djibouti in France in early 1990, and subsequently he became Ambassador to Ethiopia in 1997. He also represented Djibouti at the Organization of African Unity, headquartered in Addis Ababa, while serving as Ambassador to Ethiopia, and assisted in the peace talks that ended the 1998–2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

In December 1999, Dileita was charged with negotiating a peace agreement with a faction of the Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy (FRUD); the negotiations led to the signing of an agreement in February 2000. He became ambassador to Uganda in mid-2000. After long-time prime minister Barkat Gourad Hamadou resigned for health reasons in February 2001, President Ismail Omar Guelleh appointed Dileita as prime minister on March 4, 2001, and he took office on March 7. He had no prior experience as a minister.

Dileita was elected as the vice-president of the RPP on July 3, 2003, succeeding Hamadou in that post. Dileita led the ruling coalition, the Union for the Presidential Majority (UMP), in the January 2003 parliamentary election, standing as the first candidate on the coalition's list for the District of Djibouti.

On May 21, 2005, Dileita was reappointed as prime minister after Guelleh's re-election in the April 2005 presidential election; a new government under Dileita was named on May 22.

As of 2008, Dileita was the president of the UMP coalition, and he headed the UMP list for the District of Djibouti in the February 2008 parliamentary election. Following the election, in which the UMP won all seats amidst an opposition boycott, he resigned as Prime Minister on March 25, 2008. Guelleh promptly reappointed him on March 26 and named a new government under Dileita on March 27.

After Guelleh won a third term in the April 2011 presidential election, he reappointed Dileita as Prime Minister on 11 May 2011. Guelleh retained Dileita in his post even though various other long-serving ministers were dropped from the new government that was announced on 12 May. He was replaced as RPP Vice-president by Abdoulkader Kamil Mohamed in September 2012, as part of an extensive shake-up of the RPP leadership.

On 31 March 2013, Dileita was succeeded by Kamil as Prime Minister.

Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, the Chairperson of the Commission of the African Union, announced on 11 June 2014 that Dileita was appointed as the African Union's Special Envoy for Libya. He was head of the African Union observer mission for the March 2016 Congolese presidential election.

title: Dileita Mohamed Dileita


text:
Talk:Silesia/Archive 7

Back to reversion war. Page is protected again. Earlier talk archived. Kosebamse 11:55, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

State of the debate (list of issues)
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)

 * (That was fast! It only took 14 days for an answer to appear to my question... ;-) --Uncle Ed 16:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion there are 2 main areas of the dispute: the intro paragraph and the history section.
 * (1) Should this article and the introduction paragraph be focused on modern or historical Silesia

 * (2) The boundaries of Silesia: is Silesia part of Poland and Czechia only, or Germany too.
 * (2a) Is the Goerlitz area part of Silesia or part of historical Lusatia and Saxony now
 * (2b) Are the historcial duchies of Siewierz, Oswiecim, Zator and Zywiec part of Silesia or not. This is imprortant because they were part of Poland since the 15th century
 * (2c) Is the Czech Silesia: Ostrava/Opava/Karniow/CeskyTesin area part of Silesia?
 * (2d) Is the Klodzko area part of Silesia?

 * (3) Were the ties of Silesia with Poland, Czechia, Austria, Germany decreasing/increasing? What are these ties (political, eclessiastical, economic, ethnic, cultural)?
 * (3a) What was the ethnic majority of Silesia in various times (prevailing ethnic ties)?
 * (3b) What were the prevailing political belonging of Silesia in various historical periods?
 * (3c) What were the prevailing eclessiatical (also educational/religious) ties?
 * (3d) What were the prevailing economic ties of Silesia?
 * (3e) What were the prevailing cultural ties of Silesia?

 * (4) Should the Silesian name (Ślunsk, Ślonsk) be also mentioned?

I think that everybody should answer these questions before we can proceed. CC, 19:37, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The discussion is held in are also below
 * Talk:Silesia/archive6

Silesia: other encyclopedias
Nico, how do you dare to erase the definitions I pasted here, and insert olny those you like? How do toy dare -- CC, 21:34, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I haven't erased anything. Why are you lying? Nico 21:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

reinsert section deleted by CC

The article should not be totally different from that of other encyclopedias.

This is the introduction of the Silesia article at http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s/silesia.asp

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.

And here is another article (Catholic Encyclopedia): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13790b.htm

And the Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=403975

Historic region, east-central Europe. It now lies mainly in southwestern Poland, with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. [...] -- Nico

Feel free to find more articles. Nico 15:14, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Two proposals of the intro section
Now we have 2 proposals of intro about Silesia, one supported by John, Nico and Szopen, the other by Wik and CC

History of the current introduction
See Talk:Silesia/History of introduction

Debate
How about:

 * Silesia (Polish Śląsk, 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 the northeastern Czech Republic. The historical region belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased in the later Middle Ages, and the province was a Habsburg domain from the 16th to the 18th century. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II most of Silesia was annexed by Poland, and the German population was expelled. The remainder of Silesia remained under Austrian control, and today forms part of the Czech Republic.  In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as Ślonsk or Ślunsk.

Does anyone have any problems with this? john 08:35, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This seems fine to me, although I think also the German part (the Görlitz area) of the region should be mentioned (and with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic), as the Britannica does. -- Nico 08:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Silesia (Polish Śląsk, 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 northeastern Czech Republic. Silesia belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased in the later Middle Ages, and the province was a Habsburg domain from the 16th to the 18th century. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II most of Silesia was annexed by Poland, and the German population was expelled. The remainder of Silesia remained under Austrian control, and today forms part of the Czech Republic.  In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as Ślonsk or Ślunsk.

Not that I don't love arguing about this stuff, but couldn't everyone try to take a look at the revised opening paragraph presented above, and present an opinion on it? john 09:17, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, how long do we have to wait to see if people object to the suggested new version? I think all of the folks who've been involved in the debate have made some change to this page in the last 24 hours or so, which suggests they've seen it, and none has commented, other than Nico. So, is this good? Would this meet everyone's objections. One would note that it has the virtue of not mentioning the very disputed ethnic composition of Silesia in the pre-1945 period, and that it at no point calls Silesia a part of Germany (as opposed to Prussia), while at the same time not denying any German claims. It also managed to be more specific than the previous version in other ways, mentioning the war of the Austrian Succession (Silesia's most famous moment on the world scene, surely) and the expulsion of the Germans after 1945. So, any problems? The language, can, of course, be modified if people object to any of the statements made. But this page is getting to be ridiculous, with numerous people checking in to continue fruitless historical arguments, and nobody actually commenting on what we're supposed to be doing, which is writing an encyclopedia article. If nobody has any objections in the next day or so, can we get someone to unprotect the page and then implement these suggested changes? john 09:22, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have feeling that "ties with Poland decreased in Later middle ages" should be changed into "ties with Poland decreased over time". Ties with Poland were present even in XIX century. Also, don't youw ant to mention that Germans were majority in most of Silesia pre-1945? Also, not all German population was expelled in 1945/6- most of them.Som estay until 60s, some until today (although large part of today's 100.000 strong German minority is in fact descendants of those, who in 1945 were positively verified as Poles and only later found their Germannes anewszopen

Newest revision, incorporating Szopen's suggestions:

 * Silesia (Polish Śląsk, 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 northeastern Czech Republic. Silesia belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased over time, and the province was a Habsburg domain from the 16th to the 18th century. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II nearly all of Prussian Silesia was annexed by Poland, and most of the German population (which had formed a majority prior to the war) was expelled. The remainder of Silesia remained under Austrian control, and today forms part of the Czech Republic.  In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as Ślonsk or Ślunsk.

john 03:58, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove "which had formed a majority prior to the war" and "The remainder of Silesia remained under Austrian control", and describe that in the history section instead? Nico 21:30, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Silesia (Polish Śląsk, 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 northeastern Czech Republic. Silesia belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased over time, and the province was a Habsburg domain from the 16th to the 18th century. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II nearly all of Prussian Silesia was annexed by Poland, and most of the German population was expelled.  In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as Ślonsk or Ślunsk.

Incorporating bohemian crown etc.

 Silesia (Polish S´la?sk, 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 northeastern Czech Republic. Silesia belonged to Poland in the middle ages. Ties with Poland gradually decreased over time, and the province became a possession of the Bohemian crown, and thus part of the Holy Roman Empire, in 1335, and passed to the Austrian Habsburgs in 1526. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War II nearly all of Prussian Silesia was annexed by Poland, and most of the German population was expelled. In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as S´lonsk or S´lunsk. The Polish portion of Silesia, which forms the bulk of the historic region, is now divided into the voivodships of Lower Silesian Voivodship (capital: Wroclaw), Opole Voivodship (capital: Opole), and Silesian Voivodship (capital: Katowice). The latter two are sometimes called Upper Silesia. The small portion in the Czech Republic is joined with Moravia to form the Moravian-Silesian Region of that country, while the Görlitz area now is a part of the German state of Saxony. '''

False statements in the John-Nico-Szopen version
Silesia (Polish Śląsk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) - BIASED title

 * the first line should also mention the region name in the Silesian language: Ślonsk, Ślunsk -- CC 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I am indifferent on this issue.john 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * When we not list the "Silesian" names first, it is because they are totally unknown, and because they are not mentioned at all in any other encyclopedia, e.g. Britannica or Encyclopedia.com. Other encyclopedias mention the English, the German, the Polish and sometimes the Czech name. I've already told you this, Grzes. Look at the Gdansk article! 12 names (Sic!) are mentioned in the introduction. It's idiotic, but at least they are not mentioned in the first sentence, as you demand. Slonsk and Slunsk are mentioned in the current version of the intro. -- Nico 22:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I think this is because these on-line encyclopedias were written/published before the 2002 national census, when the Silesians could declare their language and nationality for the first time ever. 170,000 people in Silesia declared Silesian nationality and 70,000 of them declared the Silesian as the first language (National census of 2002). In my opinion Wikipedia's goal is to be better than other outdated encyclopedias. I see no reason to exclude the Silesian people and the Silesian language from the Silesia article. -- CC, 07:53, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * 70,000 out of 10 Million people? Why should a dialect version used by 70 000 people be listed before the Polish name used by almost 10 Million Silesians and 38 Million Poles, and the German name Schlesien used by about 125 Million German-speaking people and about 20 Million Scandinavians etc, totally almost 150 Million people? Nico 18:34, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

'' 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 northeastern Czech Republic. '' - FALSE and offending statement

 * Silesia is not olny historical but also a geographical and ethnographical region. Silesia lies in Poland and Czech Rep. and not in Germany (the goerlitz portion of Lusatia was only temporarily joined to Silesian province). Silesia lies IN Poland and Czechia, and not WHAT IS NOW - offending words. -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Since Silesia is a historic region, which has not always been part of Poland and the Czech Republic, it makes sense to say what is now. Especially since Polish borders have changed so much... john 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Silesia was always a divided region. It was divided between Poland and Czechia(Bohemia) in the middle ages and in modern times (boundaries changing). After 1742 it was divided between Prusssia, Czechia and Poland, after WWI it was divided between Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia, after WWII it was divided between Poland and Czechoslovakia, and now it is divided between Poland and the Czech Republic. I see no reason why why this article should concentrate on what Silesia WAS in Prussian times. This is ridiculous. Anyway the words what is now are bery offensive, and not used by any other reliable sources. -- CC, 08:00, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

'' Silesia belonged to Poland in the middle ages. '' - FALSE statement

 * Silesia belonged to Poland in Middle Ages and in modern Times and it belongs now. Portions of Silesia belonged to Poland all the time. -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * What portions of it belonged to Poland all the time? It belonged to it in the middle ages.  By the early modern period, connections to Poland were quite limited.  A small part of Silesia returned to Poland in 1920, and the rest in 1945.  We already noted that it is currently part of Poland, largely, so this is obviously not saying it is not part of Poland now. john 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Silesia was divided into several (up to 17) duchies under Polish Piast dukes (upto 1675) with Czech crown fedal overlordship (from 13/14 century), so this time can be called dual Polish-Czech rule. Various Polish Piast dukes were appointed to be governors-general for all of Czech-Silesia. Various Polish kings and dukes were kings of Bohemia, governors-general of Silesia, and dukes in partuicular duchies. Duchies of Siewierz, Oswiecim and Zator were part of the Polish crown from 15th century. Duchies of Oswiecim and Zator were part of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria - the Polish part of the Habsburg Austrian Empire.

Ties with Poland gradually decreased over time, - FALSE statement

 * Silesia had many ties to Poland (political, economical, eclessiastical, ethnic and cultural) and it is not true they were decreasing. It is true the ties were decreasing in some times, increasing on other times. -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Hmm...so ties with Poland were the same in the 12th century as they were in the 19th? that's nonsense. john 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Ties were changing: increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing, increasing, decreasing. The statement that they were only decreasing is obviously false. I am asking now: WHAT TIES to Poland were decreasing? Just explain it. -- CC 08:15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Political, cultural and ethnic ties. In 1905 Silesia had been German and German-speaking for centuries, and 3/4 of the population were German. The remainder of 1/4 were Czechs, Poles etc. Nico 19:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

and the province was a Habsburg domain from the 16th to the 18th century. - FALSE statement

 * Although it is true that most of Silesia belonged to the Habsburs, it fails  to say about the Czech Kingdom. Significant portion of Silesia belonged to POland. -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The Czech kingdom has been added to a trial version above, I believe. That's fine with me.  None of Silesia remained part of Poland after 1335, though, except in the Polish ecclesiastical province.

 * You are wrong. Auschwitz, Zator were seized in XV century and belonged to Poland up to partitions. Also, in times Polish kings with Polish everything administrated vast areas of Silesia (in XV-XVI entury) szopen

After 1st partition of Poland 1772, the duchies of Oswiecim and Zator fell to the Habsburgs, and were part of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria - the Polish part of the Habsburg Empire. the Polish kingdom ceased to exist, but Poland stayed there under another political name. -- CC, 08:27, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. - FALSE statement

 * Silesia was seized in the three Silesian wars - this statement is misleading. -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * It certainly was not. Frederick was given the whole of Silesia (except for Austrian Silesia, which he never got) by Maria Theresia after the first war ended in 1742.  She tried to recover it in two further wars, but was not successful.  (Actually, it's possibly he won somewhat more territory in the 2nd Silesian War, but the conquest was definitely complete by 1745. john 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can agree that large portion of Silesia was seized in the 1st Silesia War -- CC, 08:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

''This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945. '' - FALSE statement

 * this part of Silesia was called the Silesian province until WWI. After WWI it was divided into the provinces of Lower Silesia and Upper Silesia. portions of both provinces were ceded to Poland and Czechoslovakia. -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * None of it was ceded to Czechoslovakia, which was formed entirely out of Austro-Hungarian territory. Part of Upper Silesia was ceded to Poland.  I was not aware that any of Lower Silesia was.  In any event, this is a minor issue. john 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * You are wrong - the Hulczin/Hlucin area of Upper Silesia belonged to Prussia-Germany and in 1921 was ceded to Czechoslovakia. -- CC, 08:30, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

''After World War II nearly all of Prussian Silesia was annexed by Poland, and most of the German population (which had formed a majority prior to the war) was expelled. '' - FALSE and BIASED statement

 * It is false to say about the German majority, which cannot be proved at any time. Although before WWII there was a German majority in the German portion of Silesia, there was a Polish majority in the whole region. Additionaly it very biased to ignore Poles and Jews expelled and murdered ny the Nazis during WWII -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The German census of 1905 certainly says there was a German majority. And we are not talking about things that happened during WWII - we specifically say the Germans were a majority before the war (as you previously demanded). john

 * Actually I've earlier proposed not mentioning the expulsions of the Germans in the introduction, and I still have no problems with moving this to the history section. It was szopen who proposed to mention this. Nico 22:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * There was no German census for the whole region, there was only census for the German portion of Silesia. Ouside the German Silesia was also the Polish and Czech Silesia under Austrian rule with more that 1 million population -- CC, 08:32, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There was no nationality statistics in the census for the German Silesia, there was only the language statistics. There was probably a German speaking majority in the German portion of Silesia.

This number of Germans speakers includes: There were also significant groups of Poles, Czechs and Slavs(Silesians) who could not speak German and were classified so. The eclessiastical statistics of the German portion of Silesia show the Catholic majority, and most of the historians agree that most of them (but not all) were indeed the German speaking Slavs (Poles, Czechs and Silesian) - many of them were bilingual. We have no strict and reliable data for nationality and ethnic matters in the German portion of Silesia, but if you add the Austrian-Polish-Czech portion it is clear there were no German majority in Silesia. -- CC, 08:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * German speaking Germans
 * German speaking Poles
 * German speaking Czechs
 * German speaking Silesians
 * German speaking Jews

The remainder of Silesia remained under Austrian control, and today forms part of the Czech Republic. - FALSE statement

 * There were portions of Silesia outside the Prussian controll which belonged to Poland and Bohemia (in personal union with Habsburgs Austrian ). The Habsbug part of Silesia was called the Czech/Bohemian Silesia long into the 19th century. In 1920 it was divided between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Additionally Czechoslovakia took part of the German Silesia. -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * None of it belonged to Poland. In any event, it was certainly called Austrian (as opposed to Prussian) Silesia.  And Czechoslovakia did not take any of German Silesia.   john

 * As said before Duchies of Oswiecim, Zator and Siewierz were parts of Poland, and later the Polish province of Austria. The name of Czech Silesia was officialy used until 1849, and then renamed the Austrian Silesia. The Czech-Austrian Silesia of the 19th century is NOT equal to the modern Czech Silesia --CC, 08:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In the Polish dialect spoken in Silesia, the region is also known as Ślonsk or Ślunsk. - FALSE statement

 * In standard Polish and Polish dialects in Silesia the name of the province is always Śląsk. These names nentioned here: Ślonsk and Ślunsk are the names of the region in the Silesian language, which is constanly ignored and vandalised by Nico. -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Again, I absolutely don't care about these Silesian language/dialect issues. john 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * No one except Silesian consider it separate language. In fact linguists are saying that some old-Polish features are better preserved in "Silesian" than in standard Polish.szopen

 * 170,000 people in Silesia declared Silesian nationality and 70,000 of them declared the Silesian as the first language (National census of 2002). The Silesians do have the status of etnic minority in Poland, their situation is much better in the Czech Republic where they have the higher status of national minority and their language is recognized. In the Nazi Germany and in Communist Poland and Czechoslovakia it was forbidden to declare to be a Silesian. After 1990 we live in free countries, so the Silesian people and the Silesian language is gaining acceptance and recongition. Wikipedia should ceirtainly contain modern and up-to-date information -- CC, 08:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * While Silesian may be separate nation, this does not mean Silesian is separate language. At least not in opinion of linguists. Kashubian is separate language, but SIlesian is no more language than Poznanian. Since you are from Poznan you know what i'm talking about - when i first heard native posnanians from Wilda talking in their jargon i was unable to understand them, and was even seriously offended when one of the girls called me "szczun" szopen

 * How do you know that Kashubian is a separate language. In most of the publications in Communist Poland Kashubian was called a Pomeranian dialect of Polish, 60 years ago some people claimed that the Ruthenians in eastern Poland also speak just dialects of Polish language. Today most of the people accept the Ukrainian, Belarussian, Kashubian and Silesian are separate languages. Opinions of linguists are divided. Some linguists say that Slovak can be classified as a southern dialect of Polish. -- CC, 09:34, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To summarize: ALL statements in the Nico version are FALSE and should be removed -- CC, 13:31, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * It's not a Nico version. it was my version (editing a compromise version worked out by Szopen and Nico).  And your definition of false is highly subjective. john 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I do not care who is the original author. I am discussing with the wrong opinions, not with the people. No matter who is the author/co-author/consultant/acceptor/supporter or anything else position wrong statements remain wrong statements -- CC, 08:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Silesia intro proposal by Wik and CC
This is the current version of the intro, based on earlier discussions, introducing all important and non-controvercial facts, accepted at least by Wik and cc.

Silesia (Silesian: Ślonsk, Ślunsk, Polish: Śląsk, German: Schlesien, Czech: Slezsko) is a historical and geographical region with over 10 million population in southwestern Poland and the northeastern Czech Republic, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra river and along the Sudeten mountains. Upper Silesia is divided into 2 Polish provinces, Silesian Voivodship (capital Katowice) and Opole Voivodship (capital Opole), and one Czech province, the Silesian-Moravian Region (capital Ostrava). Lower Silesia is divided into 2 Polish provinces, Lower Silesian Voivodship (capital Wroclaw) and partly Lubusz Voivodship (capital Zielona Gora).

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 Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. History of Silesia is connected with history of the four nations and countries: Poland, Bohemia and Germany.

In the middle ages Silesia was an object of Polish-Czech rivalry but also with many ethnic Germans settling here. It was a province of the Bohemian Kingdom from 1348 to 1742, although a small portion became Polish in 1443. In 1742-1763 most of Silesia was seized by Prussia in the Silesian Wars, and organized into the Prussian provinces Upper and Lower Silesia until 1945. After World War I half of Upper Silesia, and after WWII most of Silesia was ceded to Poland. During WWII all of Silesia was part of Nazi Germany and the Germans murdered or expelled most Poles and Jews (see concentration camps, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Gross-Rosen); after WWII most of the Germans were expelled from Poland and Czechoslovakia (Expulsion of the Germans).

 * I would agree to that. --Wik 20:47, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

 * We have also to convince others, and wait a while for the comments and maybe some improvements CC, 20:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Is it OK to say History of Silesia is connected with history of the four nations and countries: Poland, Czechia(Bohemia), Germany and Austria. CC, 20:54, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Lubusz voivodship is not currently considered part of Silesia, but an entity on its own. There is a reason why people were demonstrating for one Lubuskie voivodship and screaming we are not Poznaniaks, but Lubuszans.
 * Second, I don't think that intro is good. Tired of explaining why, though.
 * Third, FIVE nations: Hungary was involved (temporarily) in SIlesia too (Mathias COrvinus). Or SIX if countinng Moravia. Or SEVEN if counting PRUSSIA (after all, if separately Austria and Germany, then why not split Germany later. Mentioning Austria and Germany in pre-XIX century context is IMHO absurd) szopen

Germany and Austria - OK, I have returned to the version agreed by my and Wik.

Three books in my possession show maps and texts claiming that south portion of Lubuskie is part of Silesia today: CC, 13:37, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Stefan Mizia, Historia Śląska. Popularny zarys dziejów, Wydawnictwo Rzeka, Wrocław 2000
 * Lech Szafraniec, Śląsk Dolny, Górny, Opawski, (no date/publisher)
 * Śląsk, in: Encyklopedia Historii Gospodarczej Polski'', Warszawa 1980

CC, the first paragraph of your proposed version is fine with me, although I know others strongly object to your characterization of Silesian as a separate language. The second paragraph is almost completely uninformative. The third paragraph has some significant problems: 1) the Austrian connection before 1742 ought to be specifically mentioned. 2) Silesia was not seized in the Silesian Wars between 1742 and 1763. In the first place, the First Silesian War started in 1740, and ended in 1742. In the second place, so far as I know, the Austrians after 1742 retained the exact same territories in the 1745 and 1763 treaties. Reed Browning in The War of the Austrian Succession says of the Treaty of Dresden (1745): "Austria retained, as it had in 1742, Cesky Tesin and Opava." This suggests that all of the seizing had already been completed by 1742, and that the 1744-45 and 1756-63 wars were Austrian attempts to regain already lost territories, rather than further seizures by Prussia. Thirdly, the discussion of Nazi horrors is absolutely unnecessary in the introductory paragraph, especially since it is not particularly specific to Silesia. And the last sentence is silly - shouldn't we be discussing the expulsion of Germans from Silesia, not from Poland and Czechoslovakia as a whole?

In terms of the alternative proposal, it's definitely better, although I think some indication of the ethnic status of the province and the ethnic transfers after World War II is in order, as also, perhaps, the fact that part of Upper Silesia went to Poland after World War I... john 18:01, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * If discussion of Nazi horrors is unnecessary, then so is the discussion of expulsions. Neither was specific to Silesia. --Wik 18:09, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree with Wik. The expulsions should be moved to the history section. Nico 18:11, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The expulsions permanently changed the ethnic composition of Silesia. Nazi atrocities, while pronounced in formerly Polish Upper Silesia, were not there any different from those throughout central-Eastern Europe, and do not provide any information necessary to understand the history of Silesia.  The expulsions do. john 19:10, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Improved proposal
 Silesia (Polish Śląsk, German Schlesien, Czech Slezsko) is an historical region in east-central Europe, located along the upper and middle Oder/Odra River, bounded by the Sudeten mountains to the southwest, by the Beskid range to the south, and by the Kraków-Wielun plateau to the northeast, in what is now southwestern Poland and with parts in Germany and the northeastern Czech Republic. It was originally a Polish province that became a possession of the Bohemian crown in 1335 and passed with that crown to the Austrian Habsburgs in 1526. In 1742 most of Silesia was seized by Frederick the Great of Prussia in the War of the Austrian Succession. This part of Silesia composed the Prussian provinces Upper- and Lower Silesia until 1945, when most of Silesia was annexed by Poland. The Polish portion of Silesia, which forms the bulk of the historic region, is now divided into the voivodships of Lower Silesian Voivodship, Opole Voivodship and Silesian Voivodship. The small portion in the Czech Republic is joined with Moravia to form the Moravian-Silesian Region of that country, while the Görlitz area now is a part of the German state of Saxony.

Differences: Introduce more geographical information, Bohemian crown, remove expulsions and some details about the (non-Polish) remainder of Silesia after 1945. Language: "belonged to Poland in the middle ages" > "originally a Polish province", removed "Ties with Poland gradually decreased" etc.

/ Nico

This is fine with me. john 19:10, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Debate on History of Silesia
Except the intro debate there's also some confusion about the history section. Current version the history is unacceptable as it is a history of German colonization of Silesia. I have tried to make some improvements have some small successes.

Just before the page was protected I tried to add these 4 passages, but they have been reverted by Nico more than  twenty times. So I am asking you Nico for the third time: do you have anything against incorporating these sentences about historical facts into the history section of Silesia -- CC, 21:10, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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

Bishopric of Wroclaw 1000
In 990 Silesia was incorporated into Poland by Mieszko I (although some historians are moving the date to 999 and rule of king Boleslaus I. This boundaries of Poland were accepted by the Pope and Roman Enperor Otto III, by establishing the Silesian bishopric in Wroclaw (1000).

Mass massacres of Poles and Jews
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.

Nico, Do you have something against? -- CC, 21:10, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For the third or maybe even fourth time, you'll still find my answer in the archive. It's not deleted, it is there! If you are interested in reading it again, then please do so! Nico 21:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico, Do you have something against? -- CC, 21:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * CC, most of those passages are fine - although I suspect that Nico was reverting other changes you made, as well. As far as the last one, though, it is incorrect.  Czech Silesia was annexed by Germany before World War II began. As far as the introduction, the intention is not to protect the current version forever.  The intention is to come to some sort of consensus as to an alternative way of doing it, which everyone can agree to as acceptable.  Heretofore this has been unsuccessful.

Nico, Do you have something against? -- CC, 21:48, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Traditional western border of Silesia is the Kwisa river.
 * Goerlitz (and Zgorzelec) are not in historical Silesia - they're in Lusatia (Luzyce).
 * No part of Silesia is in Germany now.
 * Polish part of Luzyce is in Lower Silesian Voivodship, and so is Kotlina Klodzka, and a couple other areas much too small to become separate voivodships.

These are the facts, and the article was falsely claiming otherwise, so I edited it. I didn't touch any controversial stuff, like Silesian language, ties with various countries etc. Taw 14:04, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think you're supposed to edit the content of a protected article, even if stuff is blatantly wrong. As far as the substance, while Görlitz may not be part of traditional Silesia, it was part of the Prussian province of Silesia, no? Given that, some mention is surely appropriate? john 18:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So the rules must have changed since I was last here. Then people were supposed to be bold about editing articles. The problem was pointed out on Polish Wikipedia, I just followed interwiki links and fixed it. Just agree on whatever you want now and change the article appropriately. Taw 18:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The rules have not changed; Naming_conventions_(use_English) has been in place for quite some time. - Hephaestos 18:50, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How does it relate to borders of Silesia ? Taw 18:52, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See D. Quinlan's comment in Conflicts between users. - Hephaestos 19:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

According to the Briannica Encyclopedia (2002 edition) Silesia now lies mainly in Poland, and with parts in Germany and the Czech Republic. Nico 20:38, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can we have some sort of a neutral intro (while we are discussing it) in place of this nonsense version displayed now. I cannot understand why this totally wrong and biased version should be ptotected forever -- CC, 21:07, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm going to officially call a vote, as the current discussion is going exactly nowhere:

 * A vote only makes sense if everyone agrees in advance to abide by its results. I don't think that's the case here. --Wik 23:21, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * Perhaps true. But I thought, at the very least, it might be useful to separate out various issues that are in dispute and see if we can come to a consensus about any of them.  I'd appreciate your thoughts and explanations on these various questions in any case. john 23:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can we revert to any non-Nico version
Can we have the Silesia article reverted to any non-Nico version, not necessarily to my version. Nico is mainly editing the intro paragraphs of hundreds articles adding German names there, and nothing else. He is seldom developing the articles and adding valuable information. He has his version protected now and he is not interested in making compromise, so he can keep his version forever by blocking any compromise here. -- Caius2ga 04:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, Grzes, you could accelerate the process as well by making some input here. After the start of the discussion here you and Nico decided to continue edit wars elsewhere instead of contributing to discussion on this page. I also realised, that you did not reply to any of my polite addresses, that I directed to you on various pages. So one could doubt, that either of you is interested in a compromise. Nico can not block a compromise here; if this really should be what he wants, we would make an article without him. But if noone participates in a discussion, it complicates the issue for sure. Of course complaining, accusing and reverting is much easier than cooperating. (And for clarification: This means Caius2ga and Nico.) -- Baldhur 07:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can we revert to any non-Nazi version ??
Can we have the Silesia article reverted to any non-NEONAZI version, which is protected for the last 6 weeks. -- Caius2ga 22:59, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Current version shows the biased history of Germans, who lived peacefully in Silesia until 1945 and were victims of the Poles, Czechs and Soviets. It doesn't say anything about the German masacres of Poles, Czechs and Jews during WWII, It doesn't say anything about Auschwitz (deleted by Nico), It doesn't say anything about Germanization practices since 1744. It mentiones wrongly the German majority in place of Polish majority. It tries to erase information about the Silesian ethnic minority. If this is not Neo-Nazi, version of history, what is???. I can no longer cope with this neo-nazi propaganda at wikipedia, and I am planing to withdraw from this project. -- Caius2ga 00:10, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * You had the possibility of discussing your views with other users above. (Ed asked you a special question there.) You are constantly not replying to other users' questions, and now you are calling other users Nazis again. In the entire process you did not show a little bit of cooperative behaviour. All the compromise proposals made by me and others remained unanswered by you. My patience with your annoying behaviour is clearly over now. So, if you want to withdraw from the project, I will not hinder you. Obviously you did not understand, how this project works. -- Baldhur 09:01, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Silesia/Archive 7


text:
Archant

Archant Limited is a newspaper and magazine publishing company with headquarters in Norwich, England. The group publishes four daily newspapers, around 50 weekly newspapers, and 80 consumer and contract magazines. The company is a subsidiary of Newsquest, which is owned by American newspaper publishing company Gannett.

Archant employs around 1,250 employees, mainly in East Anglia, the Home counties and the West Country, and was known as Eastern Counties Newspapers Group until March 2002.

1845 to 1900
The company began publishing in Norwich in 1845 with Norfolk News, backed by Jacob Henry Tillet, Jeremiah Colman, John and Johnathan Copeman. The Colman and Copeman families still retain close involvement in the business.

The Eastern Weekly Press was launched in 1867 and in 1870 was renamed the Eastern Daily Press. A sister title, the Eastern Evening News, was launched in 1882.

1900 to 2000
As the business grew it moved premises in 1902, 1959 and again in the late 1960s to its present headquarters location at Prospect House in the centre of Norwich.

At the end of the 1960s, Eastern Counties Newspapers merged with the East Anglian Daily Times Company, publisher of the East Anglian Daily Times, to form Eastern Counties Newspapers Group (ECNG).

ECNG developed further with the launch of Community Media Limited in 1981, a weeklies publishing operation based in Bath, which launched and acquired titles in Scotland and the West Country.

In 1985, ECNG purchased the East Anglia-based Advertiser group of weekly free newspapers. These businesses operated as separate entities until the mid-1990s when they were brought together under the ECNG banner.

ECNG acquired four weekly newspapers in Huntingdon, Ely, Wisbech and March from Thomson in 1993. The acquisition of Peterhead-based P Scrogie followed shortly afterwards.

In 1995 the company opened a new 25m Print Center in Thorpe, Norwich, with Goss HT70 Presses and Muller-Martini Mailroom Equipment, Replacing the Goss Metro Presses at Prospect House.

The company moved into Internet publishing in 1996 when it launched Eastern Counties Network, a Web-based service using copy from its four daily newspapers as well as original material. Later this was disaggregated into separate websites for each of the newspapers.

In April 1998, ECNG bought Home Counties Newspapers Holdings plc with an agreed bid of approximately £58 million. The bid earned the company the nickname of "The News Corp. of East Anglia". HCNH published a range of 26 weekly paid and free titles across Greater London and the Home Counties. The title portfolio included the Hampstead & Highgate Express, the South Essex Recorder series, the Herts Advertiser series, the Comet series, the Herald group and the Welwyn & Hatfield Times.

Consumer magazine publisher Market Link Publishing, now Archant Specialist, based in Essex was acquired by ECNG for £5 million in autumn 1999. Its titles now include Photography Monthly, Professional Photographer, Pilot, Sport Diver, Complete France, which sponsors a French forum, French Property News, Living France, and France Property Shop. It also sponsors The France Show at Olympia and The French Property Exhibitions in London and Yorkshire.

2000 to present
The launch of a county magazine in Norfolk in 2000 saw the beginning of what is now Archant Life, the country's biggest publisher of county magazines. The division was subsequently scaled through multiple acquisitions in the North West, the Cotswolds and the South and South East of England.

In March 2002, ECNG changed its name to Archant, prompted by the company's broadening geographic scope and growing range of its activities.

In December 2003, Archant purchased 27 weekly newspapers from Independent News & Media in two separate deals worth up to £62 million. The titles included the Hackney Gazette, Islington Gazette, the East London Advertiser, the Barking & Dagenham Post, the Bexley Times and the Bromley Times.

In April 2007, Archant Scotland's eight newspaper titles were sold to Johnston Press for around £11 million.

In February 2008, Archant acquired Compass Magazines and its four monthly regional magazines in Dorset, Hampshire and Surrey.

In September 2009, Archant Print completed an £8 million project to bring its press centre in Norwich up to ten printing towers with associated equipment.

In November 2009, Archant launched Great British Life, a website portal. In the same month, Archant launched Subscription Save, a dedicated magazine subscriptions portal for their publications.

In May 2010, Archant launched Cambridge First, a weekly newspaper in Cambridge.

In June 2010, Archant acquired KOS Media Publishing Ltd, the publisher of Kent on Sunday and a series of free weekly newspapers, magazines, websites and mobile products, for an undisclosed sum.

In February 2011, Archant London launched an all-new news & information website for London – London24.

In May 2011, Archant Life acquired the Wye Valley Life and Life in The Marches titles from Wye Valley Media Ltd.

In November 2011, Archant completed a change to its legal structure to simplify the trading companies into one single legal entity, now called Archant Community Media Limited. This does not change the name of the group which remains as Archant Ltd.

In January 2012, Archant launched the unique iwitness24 community news platform that aims to transform the way it gathers news. It is designed to allow readers to contribute pictures and videos in a quick and easy way.

In January 2013, saw a move into local TV with the launch of Mustard TV online in Norwich.

In August 2013, Archant announced the completion of the acquisition of www.planningfinder.com.

In July 2016 Archant announced a new weekly 'pop-up newspaper', The New European, designed in response to the UK's vote to leave the European Union. With a cover price of £2, it was initially intended to run for four editions only;

In August 2017 Mustard TV closed, having been sold to the That's TV Group.

In December 2017, Archant won a €676,000.00 grant from Google's Digital News Initiative. The project, Local Recall, aims to bring 150 years of newspapers back to life through the latest technology; chatbots. Archant, in partnership with local artificial intelligence leaders ubisend, take on this two-year challenge to make their archived newspapers available via voice and text chatbots. However, as of May 2023, the project website is no longer available and redirects to the EDP24 homepage. No explanation has been given for this, or where the money has gone.

In September 2019 Archant announced its intention to out-source all newspaper printing to Newsprinters (Broxbourne) Ltd. from 10 November 2019, and close the Archant Print Center in Thorpe St. Andrew's Norwich, bringing to an end 174 years of newspaper printing in the city. In a letter to staff, Archant said the decision had been taken due to "changes" in the newspaper industry and the move will provide "substantial cost savings". Approximately 95 Norwich Jobs will be lost as a direct result of this change.

In January 2020 Archant sold its headquarters, Prospect House, to regional insurance firm Alan Boswell Group.

In July 2020, Archant announced it had put itself up for sale and was willing to plug a funding deficit exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic's disastrous impact on industry-wide advertising revenues. On 30 August it was announced that the operational units of Archant had been sold to private equity firm Rcapital Partners, (and the pension funds transferred to UK Government Pension Protection Fund); the holding companies were put into administration, making the existing shares worthless.

In March 2022, Rcapital sold the group to American media giant Gannett via its British subsidiary Newsquest.

Magazines
Online and print magazines include:
 * Airgun World
 * Archant Life county magazines:
 * Hampshire Life
 * Kent Life
 * Somerset Life
 * Sussex Life
 * Essex Life
 * Norfolk Magazine
 * Suffolk Magazine
 * Cheshire Life
 * Cornwall Life
 * Cotswold Life
 * Derbyshire Life
 * Devon Life
 * Dorset Magazine
 * East Suffolk Living
 * Exeter & East Devon Life
 * Hertfordshire Life
 * Lancashire Life
 * Life in North Wales
 * Surrey Life
 * West Essex Life
 * Yorkshire Life

Daily newspapers

 * East Anglian Daily Times
 * Eastern Daily Press (EDP)
 * Norwich Evening News
 * Ipswich Star

Weekly paid newspapers
Many of the paid for titles have free online edition (web pages, some also have a digital facsimile of the print edition including advertisements)
 * Barking & Dagenham Post – Barking and Dagenham, London
 * Beccles and Bungay Journal – Beccles and Bungay
 * Brent & Kilburn Times – Brent and Kilburn, London
 * Cambs Times – Cambridgeshire
 * Dereham & Fakenham Times – Dereham and Fakenham
 * Docklands and East London Advertiser— East London
 * Ely Standard – Ely
 * Exmouth Journal – Exmouth
 * Great Yarmouth Mercury – Great Yarmouth
 * Green Un – an Ipswich-based Association football weekly
 * Hackney Gazette – Hackney, London
 * Hampstead & Highgate Express (Ham & High) – Hampstead and Highgate, London (Paid with limited free distribution)
 * Ilford Recorder – Ilford
 * Islington Gazette – Islington, London
 * Lowestoft Journal – Lowestoft
 * Newham Recorder – Newham, London
 * North Norfolk News – North Norfolk
 * The Pink'un – a Norwich-based Association football weekly (digital only)
 * Romford Recorder – Romford
 * Royston Crow – Royston
 * Sidmouth Herald – Sidmouth
 * Welwyn Hatfield Times – Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield and Potters Bar
 * The Weston & Somerset Mercury – Weston-super-Mare and Somerset
 * Wood & Vale – St John's Wood, Marylebone and Maida Vale, London (Paid with limited free distribution)

Weekly free newspapers

 * Diss Mercury— Diss
 * Dunmow Broadcast & Recorder – Great Dunmow
 * Exmouth Herald – Exmouth
 * The Advertiser – Coastal edition (East Suffolk)
 * The Advertiser – Great Yarmouth edition
 * The Advertiser – Ipswich edition - no longer in existence as of 24 June 2020
 * The Advertiser – North Norfolk edition
 * The Advertiser – South Norfolk edition
 * The Advertiser – Waveney edition
 * Comet Series – North Hertfordshire
 * Havering Post – Havering, London
 * Herts Advertiser Series – St Albans & Harpenden
 * The Hunts Post – Huntingdonshire
 * Midweek Herald – East Devon
 * North Devon Gazette & Advertiser – North Devon
 * North Somerset Times – North Somerset
 * Norwich Extra – Delivered every three weeks from 11 November 2019; a decision "driven by our publishing strategy to serve or local communities as effectively as possible while also maximizing the response for advertising clients"
 * Property Extra
 * Saffron Walden Reporter – Saffron Walden
 * Sidmouth Herald – Sidmouth
 * Watton Times – Thetford & Watton, Norfolk
 * West Suffolk Mercury Series – West Suffolk
 * Weston-super-Mare Admag – Weston-super-Mare
 * Wisbech Standard – Wisbech
 * Wymondham & Attleborough Mercury – Wymondham & Attleborough

Former newspapers

 * Herts Herald – East Hertfordshire
 * Kent on Sunday – Kent, Southeast London
 * yourashford – Ashford, Kent
 * yourcanterbury – Canterbury
 * yourdeal – Deal, Kent
 * yourdover – Dover
 * yourmaidstone – Maidstone
 * yourmedway – Medway
 * yoursandwich – Sandwich, Kent
 * yourshepway – Folkestone and Hythe
 * yourswale – Swale
 * yourthanet – Thanet
 * The New European - national

title: Archant


text:
Mari Alkatiri

Mari bin Amude Alkatiri (مرعي بن عمودة الكثيري ; born 26 November 1949) is a Timorese politician. He was Prime Minister of East Timor from May 2002 until his resignation on 26 June 2006 following weeks of political unrest in the country, and again from September 2017 until May 2018. He is the Secretary-General of the Fretilin party and was the former President of the Special Administrative Region of Oecusse.

Alkatiri is an Hadhrami Arab by ethnicity and comes from the Al-Kathiri tribe, a branch of which ruled the sultanate of Kathiri in the Hadhramaut, which is now part of Yemen. He is one of very few Muslim politicians in a country that is 99.5% Christian. The main issues facing his second term as prime minister were environmental conservation, cultural conservation, accession of East Timor to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, free public education and public health services, and building the country's economy, notably the lagging services and manufacturing sectors.

Life
Alkatiri's ancestors were Hadhrami merchants who lived in Portuguese Timor, he was born in Dili, and had 10 other siblings. He left East Timor in 1970 for post-secondary studies in Portuguese Angola, returning to East Timor as one of the founders of Fretilin, becoming its Minister for Political Affairs. Following Fretilin's declaration of independence for the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste on 28 November 1975, Alkatiri was sent overseas as part of a high-level diplomatic mission. After Indonesia invaded the nascent nation on 7 December 1975, Alkatiri and his colleagues were unable to return, and he established the headquarters of the Fretilin External Delegation in Maputo, Mozambique.

During the 24-year Indonesian occupation of East Timor, Alkatiri was a chartered surveyor (Angolan School of Geography), and lived in exile in Angola and Mozambique. He also studied law at Eduardo Mondlane University, Maputo, Mozambique. Alkatiri was Senior Legal consultant, in a private law office in Maputo from 1992 to 1998, and consultant on Public International Law and Constitutional Law to the Assembly of the Republic of Mozambique from 1995 to 1998.

On 20 May 2002, the United Nations Transitional Administration transferred sovereignty to the first elected Parliament and Government of East Timor. As Secretary-General of the Fretilin Party, which had received a large majority of the vote in Parliamentary elections the previous August, Alkatiri was chosen as the first Prime Minister of the newly independent nation.

In May 2006, his government faced near-civil war conditions when approximately half of the country's security forces rebelled amidst scenes of rioting and looting in the country's capital, Dili. On 21 June 2006, President Xanana Gusmão called for Alkatiri to resign or else he would, as allegations that Alkatiri had ordered a hit squad to threaten and kill his political opponents led to mass backlash. Senior members of the Fretilin party met on 25 June to discuss Alkatiri's future as the prime minister, amidst a protest involving thousands of people calling for Alkatiri to resign instead of Gusmão. The party agreed to keep Alkatiri as prime minister; Foreign and Interim Defence Minister José Ramos-Horta resigned immediately following this decision. On the same day, East Timor's chief of police Paulo Martins called for Alkatiri to be arrested for conspiracy to murder his political opponents.

Despite this vote of confidence, Alkatiri resigned on 26 June 2006, to end the uncertainty. In announcing this he said, "I declare I am ready to resign my position as prime minister of the government… so as to avoid the resignation of His Excellency the President of the Republic Xanana Gusmão."

The 'hit squad' accusations against Alkatiri were subsequently rejected by a UN Commission, which criticised Gusmão for making inflammatory statements during the crisis, and called Police Chief Paulo Martins's abandonment of his post a 'serious dereliction of duty'.

In the June 2007 parliamentary election, Alkatiri was re-elected to a seat in parliament; he was the second name on Fretilin's candidate list, after party president Francisco "Lu Olo" Guterres.

Alkatiri said on 1 August 2007 that he would be Fretilin's candidate for prime minister, while criticising the record of his rival for the position, Gusmão, who had left the presidency and was elected to parliament at the head of a new party, the National Congress for Timorese Reconstruction (CNRT). Fretilin won more seats than any other party in parliament, including the CNRT, but a post-electoral coalition led by Gusmão holds a majority of seats. In a statement, Alkatiri called for a national unity government comprising all parties elected to parliament, saying that this would bring stability. With the parties unable to reach an agreement to form a government together, President José Ramos-Horta announced on 6 August that he had decided that the CNRT-led coalition would form the government, with Gusmão at its head. Alkatiri denounced Ramos-Horta's decision as unconstitutional, and angry Fretilin supporters reacted to Ramos-Horta's announcement with violent protests, although Alkatiri said that the party would fight the decision through legal means and would encourage people to protest and practice civil disobedience. The party subsequently backed away from its threat of legal action.

Later in August, after Australian soldiers took Fretilin flags during protests and allegedly desecrated them, Alkatiri accused the Australians of working against Fretilin and intimidating it, and said that "it would be better for Australian troops to just return home if they cannot be neutral".

In September 2017, Alkatiri was voted again to be East Timor new prime minister.

Mari Alkatiri is an Honorary Member of the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation's Roncalli Committee.

Assessment
Alkatiri has been described as a skillful negotiator and an economic nationalist who secured as larger portion of East Timor's share of the Timor Sea oil resources against Australia. He was backed by Portugal but opposed by the Australian government of John Howard.

Honours

 * PRT_Order_of_Prince_Henry_-_Grand_Cross_BAR.png Grand-Cross of the Order of Prince Henry, Portugal (February 14, 2016)

title: Mari Alkatiri