Talk:History of Cieszyn

Untitled

Part "Newly-formed Czechoslovakia attacked Polish part of the region" is not true, because whole Tesin was in y. 1918 part of Lands of Bohemian crown (from y.1335) and thus was integrally part of Czechoslovakia. But Polacks attacked Czechs in Tesin and so Czechoslovakins forces must defend themselves on basis status quo. This article is one-sided point of view.

My dear, indeed whole Silesia was part of the Bohemian Crown since the middle ages. However, the area was divided by the two local governments until a future compromise is reached. This compromise was not accepted by the Czechs and that's why they invaded - check your sources on which army was present in the area, not to mention which army attacked first.

Also, the status quo was reached in 1918 by the local Narodni Vybor and Rada Narodowa - so how come the Czechs had to defend it by breaking it? And finally, please refrain yourself from using offensive terms. The term "Polack" is definitely not the one to use when referring to the Polish people. (BTW, muzes psat cesky, mluvim spatne ale hodne rozumim)

--Halibutt 14:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Halibutt, yes, whole Silesia was in Middle Ages part of Bohemian Crown, but Tesin was part of this Crown in 1918, and thus one must say, that a) Local Narodni Vybor dont have power to change it, b) czech forces defend status quo in this way, that whole Tesin was part of our lands.

Well - that article is one-sided - a bit. The great part of slavic-speeking people in Tessin region called themselves Silesians that time, not Czechs nor Poles. And both nations wanted to have them. And the whole region too (30.10.1918 RN demand annexation by Poland, 1.11.1918 NV by CSR). There were conflicts and provocations on the both sides, becouse of it. 2-5.11.1918 some kind of compromise was reached by RN and NV, thats true. But it was provisional, local, arrangement, governments had to have final words.

Polish government agreed, Czechoslovakian disagreed (railway to Slovakia, coal...). And before some solving of this conflict, Polish authorities started to organize elections in whole problematic region (it was against 5.11. treaty). Czech autorities understood that as breaking of status quo - and sent army there.

In Paris new demarcation line and future plebiscite was arranged. That time Poles dont agree with that (Germans and Silesians/Slonzaks would probably dont choose Poland), so arbitration solved this finally.

I agree, that attack of czech army was not a good idea for future relations with Poland. This conflict damaged them, so they did not normalize till world war II. But it is not like bad Czechs attack Polish land illegally.

Bias

I think the "History of Cieszyn and Těšín" section is slightly biased, the opening talks about a legend that appears to be Polish (or presented in Polish terms) which immediately gives rise to the notion the region is Polish. The rest of the article seems to talk about the evil Czech war-machine and the poor Poles. It notes that the region was invaded during the Polish-Soviet War (rendering the Polish weaker), without noting that the Czechs were also having a war at the time with Hungary. The only picture regarding nationality is one showing Poles welcoming the Polish army. Why no Czechs welcoming Czech army? Or Germans welcoming German army? The article could also use more of a Silesian perspective and less of a Polish (or Czech for that matter) one. So, that's my rant. Discussion welcome. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Article is not about the whole region but only about the city. The legend is the only one accepted in both cities today and is the subject of popular festivities each year. There is nothing about evil and good ones in this article, that is only your feeling. As for the photo, you are free to upload a free licensed e.g. German one. - Darwinek 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, this article isn't biased, you're delusional. Go back to the crazy house, crazy man." I presented backing for my argument that the article is biased, where's yours. PS: Read my post. "Cieszym się" is definitely in Polish terms. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is in local dialect of Polish language but that is the history. "Czech version" of the legend doesn't exist, simply because Czechs are not autochtonic to this area, even the local Czech authorities acknowledge that, deal with it and attend this years' Święto Trzech Braci / Svátek tří bratří for more details on how to build up the brotherhood. Regards. - Darwinek 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact it is an old Polish legend should be noted. And I don't see how my attendance of local festivals is relevant to my perception of articles. Let's try to stay on topic here. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1919 war

The text " Czechoslovakia attacked the Polish part of the region on 23 January 1919 and forced Poland, which was at the time almost completely overrun by Bolsheviks in course of the Polish-Soviet War, to withdraw from the bigger part of the so-called Zaolzie area." is incorrect. The Polish-Soviet War started only in February 1919 (i.e. after the 1919 war (lasting for 7 days) with Czechoslovakia finished) and Poland was "overrun by Bolsheviks" (I understand that this refers to the Vistula miracle) in 1920. Could please others comment? I intend to change the text.--Xixaxu 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

---

1.) The territory wasn't "shared", it was divided between the two countries. 2.) It wasn't in Paris but on the Spa Conference in Belgium. Regards. - Darwinek 15:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Next time describe your edit. Yopie 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name

The article is about the common history of both Cieszyn and Těšín, so History of Cieszyn is a bit misleading, as some other editor posted earlier. The official name was Teschen before it was split into two parts, and this article focuses mostly on the time for which the name Teschen was the established one. Therefore, the most neutral and historically correct alternative would be to use that specific name (History of Teschen). - Anonimski (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical names: Tescin (? - 1155), Tessin (1223), Thesin (1228), Tesin (1239), Tesschin (1258), Cessin (1288), Teschen (1312), Tesschyn (1327), Tiessin (1454), Tesinio (1526), Tiessyn (1566), Cieszyn (1636), Tessin (1652), Ciessyn (1699), Teschen Polnish Tiessin (1736), Teschen (1738), Tiessyn (1767), Teschnen pohlnisch Tiessin (1804), Cieszyn/Teschen (1900). The name is patronymic in origin derived from personal name *Ciecha, *Ciesza (≤ Ciech-ja).{{cite book | last = Mrózek | first = Robert | title = Nazwy miejscowe dawnego Śląska Cieszyńskiego | trans_title = Local names of former Cieszyn Silesia | publisher = [[University of Silesia in Katowice|Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach]] | year = 1984 | location = Katowice | pages = 52-53 | language = Polish |issn = 0208-6336}}. D_T_G (PL) 14:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not uncommon to see such a variation of names in a region where multiple languages overlap. Historically, spelling wasn't very standardized either. The reason why I moved it to Teschen is that the name seems quite well established for describing its historical era before the split in 1920. It would also be the most neutral choice. - Anonimski (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, they're all rather one name transcribed by people of different ethnic origins, who often had problems pronouncing it in the aboriginal way and so also spelling it (and so it is a different case as compared to, for example Tallinn). I doubt it is the most neutral choice, but let it be. D_T_G (PL) 10:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pl/thumb/2/2e/Cieszyn_studnia.jpg/450px-Cieszyn_studnia.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718173246/http://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=11734 to http://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=11734
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080107094938/http://www.militariacieszyn.republika.pl/cieszyn1939.htm to http://www.militariacieszyn.republika.pl/cieszyn1939.htm

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) 23:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)