Talk:1921 Upper Silesia plebiscite

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Silesia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SilesiaWikipedia:WikiProject SilesiaTemplate:WikiProject SilesiaSilesia

Military history: European / German / Polish / World War I C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	World War I task force

Maps Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.
	This article had an importance automatically assigned to it. Once it has been checked by a human, please remove `\|autoi=yes`.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

deleted the maps

I've deleted the maps for separate reasons. The map showing Poland and Baltic state had nothing to do with political reality of these times, and would give wrong impressions to anyone viewing it (Kowno region never belonged to Poland during this period, for example). It had little to do with the topic of this wiki page, Upper Silesia was barely visible there.

the second map is new one, but is clearly based on censuses made by Austria-Hungary, Prussia and Austria. First, while one could accept austrian and prussian census as only slightly modified, that is not the case with russian one, and majorly polish territory stretched much further east. Secondly, it is too general (only polish majority areas according to census), and doesn't bring anything to knowledge about Upper Silesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.177.180 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 September 2008

--- "The Polish side alleged, that German majority in the cities was achieved artificially by the votes of Silesian emigrants brought in from western Germany only to vote for the plebiscite. Without their presence, the Polish representatives claimed, the vote count would have been almost 1:1. The right to take part in the plebiscite for all people born in the region was however the condition on which all parties had agreed upon before the plebiscite."

That whole paragraph is unclear. Like "somebody used to say..." But what does it say? What are the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.61.244 (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Needs wikifying after the old lead was rewritten by a new editor; sources and ilinks were removed. The new editor claimed to be editing for NPOV, but AGFing him, his text needs revision, if only to ensure no info was lost, and ilinks are readded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another carefully written Polish propaganda page. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:9903:6846:EFA1:E0B9 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map, and southern Ratibor county Hlučín Region

The map shows, correctly, that the southern half of Ratibor county became part of Czechoslovakia. There is no mention of this in the article. If I can find how it came about, I shall add a mention of this to the article. Maproom (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's called Hlučín Region. Maproom (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errors?

Table shows twice "Beuthen (Bytom)". By mistake? Carlotm (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the town and the surrounding district, which excludes the town. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Upper Silesia plebiscite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific standards

Do we really have to use such pamphlets like ′The Problem of Upper Silesia′ by a certain Robert Machray from 1945 ! First the man seems to have no scientific degree of any form and is unknown and in the book are made many claims without proper citations (which are very sparse anyways). There are enough modern serious scientific publications (see the german or polish articles about the issue) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichtbringer3 (talk • contribs) 03:44, April 6, 2025 (UTC)

Machray is a foreign policy writer that is credible enough to have his works sourced in academic publications, such as in Poland's Place in Europe: General Sikorski and the Origin of The Oder-Neisse Line, 1939-1943 by Sarah Meiklejohn Terry and in Poland Between the Wars, 1918-39 by Peter D. Stachura. Though your rants about "Polish propaganda" show a WP:NOTHERE problem. Brat Forelli🦊 13:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A random foreign policy writer (so, yes, no scientific background) and his writings don´t get any better (scientific, non-biased) just because they are cited in academic publications. And do I have to repeat here myself? : we have enough modern scientific works on that matter. Outdated biased pamphlets, regardless on which side they tend and cater to, shouldn t be used in an wikipedia article ´(again, see the polish or german article for improvements...non of them uses R. Machray or Kozial. Am I biased ? Oh , yes...I am a great propagandist for good scientific standards and articles and opposed for wikipedia to become the playground for agenda driven people..regardless of which directions. Lichtbringer3 (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really relevant, because we as Wikipedians have no right to judge who is "scientific" or not (WP:YANARS). Machray is a reliable source for Peter Stachura and so it is for us. The passages that cite him also use in-text attribution ("According to Robert Machray"), there is nothing to object to per Wikipedia guidelines. Brat Forelli🦊 21:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we as Wikipedians have no right to judge who is "scientific" or not -- nonsense, and that's not even what that essay is saying; nobody here is trying to insert themselves or their own writings as a reliable source. We have, on the other hand, an obligation to judge who is "scientific or not"; we do it every time we evaluate a source as reliable and encyclopedic. It does behoove us to know, for example, whether Machray is an academic writer or a polemicist; certainly he had a strongly non-neutral point of view regarding the issue of Upper Silesia; the book being quoted from says "Justice demands that Opole Silesia, as a territory ethnographically Polish, should return to its mother country" and ends with "Only then will the countries of this part of the continent be able to fulfil successfully the role of guardian of the peace in Europe."

This being said, both Brat Forelli and Lichtbringer3 need to knock off the edit warring, immediately. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]