Talk:Duchy of Teschen

Requested move

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

Duchy of Cieszyn → Duchy of Teschen – In English publications about this historical duchy, the usage of Teschen is more commonly used than Cieszyn. The latter should still be mentioned in the intro as an alternative name, of course. Olessi 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as originator. Olessi 00:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support As English form. Charles 00:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support most commonly used form of name in English-language publications. Noel S McFerran 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Olessi's reasoning, the examples he provides below and my general perception, as representing common English usage. In fact, before seeing this article listed at the requested moves page I had never seen the "Duchy of Cieszyn" form. - Ev 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. —  AjaxSmack  02:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support Yopie 10:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Searches with publication dates limited to 1950-2007. Olessi 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Google Books
  • [1] "Duchy of Teschen": ~ 80
  • [2] "Duchy of Cieszyn": ~ 11
• Google Scholar
  • [3] "Duchy of Teschen: ~ 10
  • [4] "Duchy of Cieszyn: ~ 2

To complement the above examples, here is the Amazon.com test:
Searching for "Duchy of Teschen" 27 ; "Duchy of Cieszyn" 6 & "Duchy of Tesin" 1 book.
Best regards, Ev 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Duchy of Cieszyn to Duchy of Teschen as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Name in article

Teschen is the English name of this entity, according to sources and the result of the requested move. Therefore it is entirely inappropriate to label Teschen simply as German and impose the Polish form throughout the article, removing the English form in the process. There is no need for a compromise. In fact, what would a compromise be between? English and Polish? This is English Wikipedia. That the German and English forms have the same name doesn't make this a case of German vs Polish. Charles 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is the problem with having both versions of names in the article? I have nothing against Teschen. If I would be online and active during the time of RM, I would vote for move as well. Point is, why we can't do this as in Gdansk article? It uses Gdansk when it speaks about Polish ruled city, it speaks Danzig when it was ruled by Germans. I propose to use Cieszyn here for period before 1653 and Teschen after 1653. If I would be "evil Polish POV pusher" I would force Cieszyn also after 1653, which I am not doing. -- Darwinek (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One is undue weight. This place is almost always called Teschen in English, which is why it is inappropriate for you to remove every instance of it and replace it with Cieszyn. Two, Gdansk is a mess and should not be used as an example of what to do with articles. As far as I know, it was a last ditch attempt at maintaining peace, whether it was proper or not. Three, this place was always the Duchy of Teschen in English. We are not talking about Polish and German forms of a name, both of which may have acceptance in English. We are talking about one name which is used in English. Four, I said nothing about evil so I wonder why you think it is appropriate (or maybe you don't) to mention such a thing. If I were to comment about having something against "Teschen", I would note your removal of almost every instance of it. This is not a case of Cieszyn and Teschen in English sharing usage 50/50 or even 30/70, it's a case of Teschen being the over whelming name for all things Teschen in terms of the duchy and dukes. Charles 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Gdansk "is a mess". Same solutions will appear in the future for sure. Now a similar vote was held at Kaliningrad article. Well, look closer again to see I did not removed any Teschen after 1653. I understand your "majority English use" argument, that's why I said I would support move to Duchy of Teschen. So, would you have any problem with Teschen (Cieszyn) style before 1653? It shows "majority English use" name and also second most widely used name, and (which is more important) name which was used there by the majority of population. - Darwinek (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with it because it's not needed, in English literature this place is called Teschen. The population didn't speak English. The name which they used, which is not even close to strong English usage (it falls below the radar), does not matter. We have an English name, it's Teschen. Germany was called Deutschland by the majority of its population, are you suggesting we do the same? Really now. Charles 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting this. You are twisting my ideas. I think Cieszyn can be also used - not because of duchy usage in English - but because it will help readers also. The name of the town is Cieszyn, general English preference to name this town is Cieszyn. So why not use both versions in the article about duchy? - Darwinek (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, English language preference for everything about this duchy is Teschen. "Cieszyn" is fine in the intro, but not replacing every instance of Teschen. We don't need both versions. Why start a useless double standard? It doesn't help readers to re-write scholarship. Charles 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The vote was only towards the Duchy not towards the town itself. The case is clear-use established names on Wikipedia. Both places have established names.--Molobo (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the town is not called "Cieszyn" in English when speaking of the duchy. Charles 16:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the town is called in English Cieszyn. If you believe otherwise start a request for move.--Molobo (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual, a ridiculous statement. I will say this only once and if you don't understand it, that's your problem: This article isn't about Cieszyn as a whole. "Cieszyn" was called Teschen when there was a duchy. That's that, end of story. You can't rewrite history. You have an obsession with trying to sidetrack discussions but it fails completely because it's far too obvious. Charles 16:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to say it only once, if you don't understand it, that's your problem. The town was called Teschen during the Habsburg era, but no in the first centuries of the duchy. That's why it is completely stupid to force Teschen all over the article. - Darwinek (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about what it was called in German or Polish, Darwinek, it's about the English name. Charles 17:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please start a vote to move Cieszyn then.--Molobo (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not needed, thank God, because prevailing preference in modern literature is Cieszyn. - Darwinek (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Darwinek. It's just if somebody is not satisfied with current naming, he should try to change it on the main article, rather then on links and other articles. --Molobo (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If Molobo can find an English source which uses Teschen of the Duchy and Cieszyn of the town, when writing of the same period, then we can discuss whether it is the best way to communicate our meaning. If not, he is inventing a usage, which we should not do.

However, we should also avoid German triumphalism; if the Duchy is actually called Cieszyn when writing of the fourteenth century, we should do that too.

The best guide would seem to be the practice of a modern scholar of Polish, who writes of "the former Duchy of Teschen" and the "modern cities of Cieszyn and Český Těšín".

Do remember that to speak of the pre-1920 city as Cieszyn is incomplete; in the same way as translating the British province of Bengal as Bangladesh would be incomplete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the town has a clear English name-Cieszyn, If you are not satisfied-change the name through voting.--Molobo (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with our guideline, which says to use the name commonly understood of the period in question, you are free to suggest an amendment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Which I will promptly vote against as it seems to go against all English conventions. Charles 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can be called Cieszyn as Český Těšín was created as a new town and completely plain, almost all buildings there are post 1920. Historical and much larger part remained in Poland. - Darwinek (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter, names and places go through revivals all of the time throughout history. Charles 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I like Darwinek's version which uses both names, depending on the context.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All in all, it is one place though, the Duchy of Teschen. Charles 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This [5] is an example where Ciesznyn name is used in when also mentioning the Duchy of Teschen, so why don't we do the same here? --Doopdoop (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

French map of 1746

Would you please accept that the map of 1746 much better illustrates historic context than that unsourced brownish thing (Image:Duchy of Teschen.jpg) which probably is one of the ugliest illustrations to temporarily have been on display in a Wiki article? -- Matthead  Discuß   00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It would not be accepted not only because your evident anti-Polish POV pushing, but because it is just much better map. That "brownish thing", as you pejoratively called it, is newer, much better and much precise than the old ugly rough map you are trying to push. Duchy of Teschen.jpg is not ugly, it is a perfect map showing precisely the borders of the duchy as well as all municipalities at that time. It is kind of "brownish", because that's the way the paper looked like at that time. So push your antiquated map again if you want. I will be glad to revert you, again and again. And please, do not use sockpuppets like this: 70.133.64.78. It is prohibited on Wikipedia. - Darwinek (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Darwinek, because map from 1740 is neutral, newer map is too POV - pro-Polish. I agree with Matthead. Yopie 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

And why is it "pro-Polish"? Because it is in Polish language? Very "POV" indeed, given that vast majority of the citizens was Polish at that time. - Darwinek (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? In 1740 Polish citizens? I think, that you want only flames and revert war. And what consensus? For Polish map is not any consensus. Yopie 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk

For the beginning of the 20th century, that's why it is in Polish. Abstain from personal attacks. - Darwinek (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks: Darwinek, you accused me above of using sock-puppets. And you announced that you will be editwarring. Do I have to remind you (or others, namely admins) about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek, and that your were de-sysopped and placed on civility parole? -- Matthead  Discuß   22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I have remind you that I have been re-sysopped again and my civility parole ends in ten days? Your alleged sockpuppetry can be easily checked by WP:CHECKUSER. Would you like to go on that path? - Darwinek (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Darwinek, I not attacking you personally. Why the map must be "for beginning of 20. century"? Please, explain this date. Yopie 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA states editors should comment on topic, not on user. Why this map? Because it is available and it is free also, more recent etc., I have explained it above several times. Please do not seek some undercover issues here. - Darwinek (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• On the whole, we should not have maps in Polish if we can avoid it. We prefer maps our readers can read; more English-speakers know French, and more of those who don't will be able to figure out the cognates. A map of the modern district belongs on that article, not this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you actually bother to find out that the map is written in German, tainted German? Even some German names of the villages are misspelled. I don't know what is the problem there. This version of article is consensual and compromised, because it actually includes both maps. - Darwinek (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The original, large map Image:Superiorem Silesiam AD1746.jpg is in French/Latin. And the names in 18th century were German even though sometimes spelled different compared to 19th century or early 20th. Besides, 20th century Poland was created when/after the Duchy of Teschen ceased to exist, and they warred repeatedly with Czechoslovakia over the area of the former Duchy. I would not call it "neutral" to use Polish names of present day Czech cities which had German names when part of a pre-1918 Austrian Duchy - all that on an English Wikipedia article! -- Matthead  Discuß   22:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The French form of German names is often not the German one; compare Wissembourg in Alsace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, reminding closed request for arbitration in the edit summary to support your claims is a very uncivil. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed? "Darwinek is placed on standard civility parole for one year." -- Matthead  Discuß   22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This parole will expire in 11 days. And he is not uncivil, rude and he doesn't show a bad faith. But I don't understand why you are giving this as an argument in the discussion about the map in the Duchy of Teschen article? I don't see any reason and sorry but I assume it as uncivil. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Darwinek don't have a good faith. He operated with "consensus", where is none. Yopie 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the word "consensual" that is not of the exact meaning as "consensus". And even if he used consensus I don't see any bad faith. And in the 1740 there were Poles, maybe not Poland, but Poles didn't disappeared. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The question of who have consensus can be solved by simple poll here. Yopie should take it easy, he already violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, now also WP:AGF. - Darwinek (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have room for all relevant maps in this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't need poll, because now is article OK. Yopie 09:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

I removed the map from the heading and I put both on the same level (thumb inside the article) to satisfy NPOV, now there is no superiority of one over the other and vice versa. As Piotrus said there is a plenty of space for both maps. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

State of the HRE?

Your Cieszyn/Teschen Wars are not that interesting, however IMHO this Duchy of Whatsoever as a fief of the Bohemian Crown was neither an Imperial State as it never gained Imperial immediacy nor a crown land of Cisleithanian Austria represented in the Reichsrat. 78.52.202.146 (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree.--Yopie (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is important to note that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Population, Ethnic Compisition and Administrative Division of Teschen 1910

Ok, I have seen figures which place the population of Teschen at 434,000 and list the percentage of the inhabitants who were Poles as of 1910 at under 55%. These figures are completely wrong.

I have found a very useful website (link below) about the Kaiserreich and Austria-Hungary. It lists the administrative division of the whole of Austrian Silesia as of 1910 as follows, with the modern name of the towns in parentheses and with the 1910 population:

• Bielitz AC*=18,568
• Bielitz Land=82,835
• Freistadt=122,030
• Freiwaldau=68,823
• Freudental=49,306
• Friedek AC*=9,879
• Friedek Land=45,462
• Jagerndorf=98,957
• Teschen=60,785
• Troppau AC*=30,762
• Troppau Land=102,552
• Wagstadt=66,990

Total=756,949

--*AC Autonomous City, listed separately but located within the district of the same name.

Now first we need to find out which of these divisions lie within Troppau Silesia and which within Teschen. This is easily accomplished by finding the modern translation of the names of the principal cities. This is shown below along with which country they are currently in and which part of Austrian Silesia they belonged to. Also, the Autonomous cities are included with the countryside areas which bare their names.

• Bielitz (Biala, Poland), Teschen
• Freistadt(Karvina, Czech Rep), Teschen
• Freiwaldau(Jesenik, Czech Rep), Troppau
• Freudental(Bruntal, Czech Rep), Troppau
• Friedek (Frydek, as in Frydek-Mistek, Czech Rep), Teschen
• Jagerndorf(Krnov, Czech Rep), Troppau
• Teschen (Cieszyn/Cesky Tesín, Split), Teschen
• Troppau (Opava, Czech Rep), Troppau
• Wagstadt (Bilovec, Czech Rep), Troppau

Ok, so now we have the division between Teschen and Troppau. Below, the five districts of Troppau and four districts of Teschen are shown with their 1910 population and the subtotal of each region is also shown. Also, in order to simplify things, the the autonomous cities are again counted with the districts bearing their names:

Division of Troppau:

• Freiwaldau District with 68,823 inhabitants in 1910
• Freudental District with 49,306 inhabitants in 1910
• Jagerndorf District with 98,957 inhabitants in 1910
• Troppau District with 133,314 inhabitants in 1910
• Wagstadt District with 66,990 inhabitants in 1910

Total Troppau with 417,390 inhabitants in 1910

Division of Teschen:

• Bielitz District with 101,403 inhabitants in 1910
• Freistadt District with 122,030 inhabitants in 1910
• Friedek District with 55,341 inhabitants in 1910
• Teschen District with 60,785 inhabitants in 1910

Total Teschen with 339,559 inhabitants in 1910

As you can plainly see, the population of Teschen in 1910 was not 434,000, it was in reality 339,559 or roughly 339,600. Instead it was the Troppau region which had the larger population of 417,390 or roughly 417,400, albeit still short of the 434,000 figure. Where that figure is from is beyond me. As for the demographics, given that there were 235,000 Poles, Teschen as a whole would have been roughly 69.1% Polish.

Source website: http://www.donaumonarchie.com/ under the Schlesien section

24.209.171.151 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Polish Prussian Historian24.209.171.151 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested and can read Schwabach script, I can give you link to original scanned papers of 1910 Austrian census. There are results of the census by specific municipality. - Darwinek (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting, but its original research.--Yopie (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, at least with regard to the four districts of Cieszyn. On the Zaolzie article [6] it states that "Under Austrian rule, Cieszyn Silesia was divided into four districts. One of them, Frýdek, had a mostly Czech population, the other three were mostly inhabited by Poles." It seems more than coincidence that my research with regard to the German/Austrian website (yes the OP is mine) lists four districts while the Zaolzie article lists four as well. At the same time, the Polish Map of Cieszyn [[7]] shows the region divided into four separate districts via dashed lines, though you have to view the image in full size to see them clearly.

Now I confess that my population estimates on the percentage of Poles are Original Research, even with statements such the following from Richard Watt [[8]]:

"Over the dinner table, Beneš convinced the British and French that the plebiscite should not be held and that the Allies should simply impose their own decision in the Teschen matter. More than that, Beneš persuaded the French and the British to draw a frontier line that gave Czechoslovakia most of the territory of Teschen, the vital railroad and all the important coal fields. With this frontier, 139,000 Poles were to be left in Czech territory, whereas only 2,000 Czechs were left on the Polish side".

Combine that with the population of 339,559 and the demographics of Czech Cieszyn [[9]] which list the Czech part as having 179,145 inhabitants as of 1910 of whom 123,923 are Poles, 32,821 Czechs 22,312 and Germans. Given that the remainder of Cieszyn had a population of 160,414, of whom 2,000 were Czechs and the total Polish population of Cieszyn was 235,224, one can discern that there were 111,301 Poles and 45,113 Germans living there, the large German community supported by statements in Britannica's 11th edition.

I just wish the sources in question went that extra step so the speculation could end

Prussia1231 (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Prussia1231

Yes, I would like the census data for the municipalities, I'll be able to translate it, eventually —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussia1231 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716234726/http://www.library.ucla.edu/yrl/reference/maps/blaeu/germania.jpg to http://www.library.ucla.edu/yrl/reference/maps/blaeu/germania.jpg

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718173133/http://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=13263&from=&dirids=110&ver_id=800316&lp=1&QI=1E9A46D2674AA878F51B05D5968295F1-12 to http://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=13263&from=&dirids=110&ver_id=800316&lp=1&QI=1E9A46D2674AA878F51B05D5968295F1-12

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)