Talk:History of Silesia

To antypolish POVers and other Vandals

I live in the Upper Silesia and I cannot accept these nonsense you are trying to pull out here. Tell me why are you deleting the map of the medieval Poland which Silesia was part of? Why are you deleting the word Poland from the headings? Is not Silesia now part of Poland? Was it not part of it in the medieval? Why are you not deleting the names of other countries like Germany, Prussia, Austria? Your attitude is a typical antypolish POV and any next Vandalism of this sort will be reported to the Wikiadmin. With Regards 77.253.71.235 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph dealed with the early history of Silesia and was originally called "Middle Ages". During that time Silesia or parts of Silesia were part of Great Moravia, Bohemia, Poland, part of Bohemia again, temporarily independent, part of Poland again and then splitted into independent duchies. All in merely 200 years. The term "Middle Ages" was broad enough to include all these facts. By changing the heading to "Kingdom of Poland" large parts of the early history of the region aren't covered anymore. Should we consider these edits anticzech? Karasek (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This problem has been solved by adding a new part. Now Early Middle Ages are talking about a very enigmatic (very little historical sources exist from those times) period of the Great Moravia and its succesor: the early Czech state. There is even a map showing the great Moravia so there are no more anticzech edits. :) Nevertheless you were adding to the heading -Early Middle Ages - Silesia in the Kingdom of Poland the phrase "a collection of independent duchies" which is described in the next section called... "Silesian duchies". What that has to do with carefull and antyPOVish edits? What is more the editor LUCPOL, who by the way was banned on the polwiki, reverts all the edits not even trying to explain why. He have actually just deleted the map of middle age Poland as well as the word "Poland" from the article headings. He is trying to give English readers the wrong impression. He even deleted the word Poland from the post WWII section. Tell me where does Silesia lay since 1945? Of course other country names such as Prussia, Austria, Bohemia and Germany are no problem to him, so tell me are those edits neutral and nonPOVish? Regards 77.253.66.8 (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr IP 77.253.... - you be blocked on pl.Wikipedia (user). Your is sockpuppet. It is not proper to discuss with nationalistą from Poland. PS. Moreover Silesia now (after 1945) lies in Poland, Czech Republic and Germany, not only Poland. Your edition is manipulations, lie and vandalism. Twoje edycje będą dalej cofane. LUCPOL (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not tolerate personal ataks. I will just say that any unsourced edits that are an obvious antipolish and therefore antisilesian POV will be reverted. What is more every new personal atack will be reported to a Wikiadmin. By the way no part of the historical Silesia region is part of modern Germany. If you are refering to the part of Lower Lusatia that was only administratively connected to a Prussian province of Silesia in 1815 than you dont konow anything about how historical regions form. Lusatia is Lusatia and Silesia is Silesia and those are separate historical regions. The fact that they were connected by the authorities of some state does not change the historical borders of both regions. If you are treating Upper Lusatia as part of Silesia becouse it was connected to the Silesia administrative province than as well you would have to agree that Częstochowa is also part of Silesia becouse it is now a part of the Silesian Voivodeship. 77.253.66.8 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.64.169 (talk)

Częstochowa nie jest częścią Śląska bo się nie ześląskowiła. Inaczej jest z tym kawałkiem dawnych Łużyc. Tam wciąż, nawet teraz jest śląska tożsamość. Poza tym ty nie pisz że jesteś z Górnego Śląska bo to nic nie znaczy. Jesteś polakiem a nie Ślązakiem. Widziałem dzisiaj na ulicy murzyna i on jest mi bliski jak wy - polacy. Wy tylko tu żyjecie, nic więcej. Ten murzyn też może powiedzieć (jak ty) że tu mieszka - ale to nic nie znaczy. Więc nie pisz więcej takich bzdetów. Pozdrawiam. LUCPOL (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The user LUCPOL does not anwser in English. So his post does not have to be anwsered. In order to carry on a conversation on enwiki please put your posts in English so that everyone could understand you. Especially Wikiadmins. 77.253.64.169 (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP. Please register. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Section titles

Please refer to WP:HEAD. It is better to have shorter than longer section headings, and in general not repeat the article title in the section heading. So for example, in an article on Silesia, you would not expect to find "Silesia" in any of the section titles. So for example, in the section about Silesia in WWII, it is sufficient to use the title "World War II", and it is patently understood that since this is the article on Silesia, that it refers only to Silesia in World War II, and is not a general paragraph about WWII, or Pearl Harbor, or Iwo Jima... Ask yourself, "Within the subject of history of Silesia, what sections are needed to allow navigation within the article to all the parts of the history of Silesia?" That's all that section headings are. They are not titles of a book, and are always referring to a subsection of the article. Apteva (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it or isn't it (part of Poland)

Reviewing maps from Magosci's Historical Atlas of Central Europe:

• ca 1050, Silesia split between Poland and the Holy Roman Empire, note, under Bolesłow I (992-1018), the furthest extent of Poland pretty much included all of Silesia
• 1250, Silesia subdivided (not noted as such itself) into the northern tip of Bohemia and mainly Legnica and Wrocław in Poland
• 13th-14th century, part of Bohemia, Moravia; by 1370 the south-western border of Poland ran about 50 km north-east of the Oder, roughly parallel; majority of Silesia acquired by Bohemia-Moravia in 1327 and 1335, with a small territory including Świdnica in 1392.
• Silesia (as well as Lusatia to the north-west) fell under the farthest extent of Hungary during the reign of Matyas Corvinus (1458-90)
• By 1480, however, Silesia was part of the Holy Roman Empire
  • Interestingly, with reference to Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire above, in 1450, Silesia fell under Poland ecclesiastically (jurisdictions of the Catholic church)
• 1570, Silesia part of Habsburg lands, Holy Roman Empire
• Haven't read through the text for an exact date, but by late 18th century, part of Prussia

Hope this helps. —PētersV (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Silesians date to what became Silesia to (at least) the 7th/8th century AD and the initial expansion of the Slav homeland. —PētersV (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To clear things up:

• the situation around 1050 was only temporary. There were unrests in Silesia, Bohemia (part of the HRE) captured it for approximately 20 years, Silesia was also temporary independent for some time and afterwards the bigger part fell back to Poland. Until 1137 there were frequent battles between both countries.
• around 1250 Silesia was independent, but the rulers tried to acquire the Polish crown and owned Polish territory at times.
• Silesia was already part of the Holy Roman Empire when the Bohemian crown acquired the Silesian duchies.
• Ecclesiastically Silesia was part of the archbishopric Gniezno from 1000 to 1821.Karasek (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Correct, Gniezno was the archdiocesan see for Poland, established in 1000. —PētersV (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is still some "mishmash" in the names of the headings.

• First of all Silesia became part of the HRE as soon as it became a permanent part of Bohemia, and that is in the first half of the XIV century.
• The second thing is that it is not clear to me why the time when Matthias Corvinus took control is regarded as the begining of a period in which Silesia became the part of the HRE? As I stated it was earlier. This part schould be connected to the "Bohemia" paragraph which schould be titled "Silesia in Bohemia and therefore in the Holy Roman Empire"
• The next paragraph schould start in 1526 and be titled "Silesia in the Habsburg Monarchy"
• The next thing is that in the 1740 not all of Silesia was annexed by Prussia. A part of it remained as part of Bohemia and then Empire of Austria, Czehoslovakia and the Czech republic. This fact is mentioned in the last heading (Silesia after WWII) but is ommited in the heading about Prussian conquest. So this paragraph schould be titelled "Prussian conquest of most of the Silesia" or "Silesia divided between The Habsburg Monarcy and the Kingdoom of Prussia"
• The last thing is the title of the last section. In 1945 Poland acquired most of the prewar Prussian/German Province of Silesia and the whole of the Silesia historical region that wasn't before the WWII part of Poland or Czehoslovakia. Wikipedian Lucpol thinks that the change of administrative borders within the Kingdoom of Prussia that was made after the congress of Vienna in 1815 changed also the borders of historical regions that were developed in the Medieval. The historical Silesia ends even a bit closer than the modern Polish western border. The territories West of it are part of the historical region of Loverer Lusitia which were taken from Saxony in 1815 and administratively connected to the Prussian Silsian province. It is worth mentioning that this region (Lusitia) is also inhabited by a different to Polish and German Sorb community which never identified itself with Silesia but with other Sorbs that remained in Saxony after 1815. What is more this section of the article does not mention even in one word about the so called "German Silesia after WWII" or even about the Czech part of the Upper Silesia. There is only information about the postwar Polish Silesia so the heading is misleading. In my opinion it schould be like this: "Prewar historical German Silesia again in Poland" or, if some info about the so called "German Silesia after WWII" will appear it schould look: "Prewar German Silesia east from the Neisse river again in Poland"

Cheers 82.143.161.131 (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I should preface by saying I have no allegiance in any direction. I think there's far too much detail in the introduction trying to account for everything and then it multiplies throughout the article. The introduction should be something simple more along the lines of (and apologies for doing of the top of my head)... "Silesia is a historical region in central Europe named for the Silesians (Slavic tribes) which first settled there in the 7th to 8th century AD. It roughly encompases... running in parallel to the Oder River... First overrun by the Goths in XYZ (400's?), then settled by the Silesians, Silesia has fallen under the domains of... the various sovereignties... and with it, the cultural influences and influxes of... Poles, Hungarians, Germans, etc. Finally something about Silesian identity, but remembering this is the history of the territory."

Just a thought. —PētersV (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Slesie Slesien Schlesien, Silesia named for Silinger, Germanic tribe

Vecrumba writes: "Silesia is a historical region in central Europe named for the Silesians (Slavic tribes) which first settled there in the 7th to 8th century AD.

Somewhere else Vecrumba write: Silesia ...after all, it's named after the Silesians, the Slav tribe that settled in that area.-

Correction: Silesia (Slesia=Schlesien) is named for the Silinger a Vandalic, of the Germanic tribes, who lived in Germania Slavs started moving into Germania after the 6th century and Silesia was conquered by the first duke of the Polans, Mieszko I around 1000 AD, but shortly after lost again. Polish name is Slask. An Observer

See tomb of: Boleslaus Dux Slesie Slesien- Schlesien, Silesia not of Slask

An Observer (71.137.197.97 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Magocsi lists the Silesians as Slavs with Vandals arriving significantly earlier, 3rd-5th century AD. Magosci doesn't list Germania as an entity. I have other refs covering that period, but packed away at the moment. It would seem unlikely a Slavic tribe would come along, be named for the territory and lose its own identity. —PētersV (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Under Bolesław I, Poland at its greatest extent encompassed Silesia, so I'm not sure what your reference regarding Boleslaus' (Germanic spelling) tomb is meant to indicate. —PētersV (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The tomb of Bolesław simply indicates to the early Germanisation of Silesia in the late 12th century. The monastery of Lubiaz, where the tomb originally was located, and the surrounding countryside was a German enclave already when Bolesław died. The tomb was most probably made by the same workshop which also built the monastery, and this was a German workshop from Altzella in Saxony. Karasek (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully I'll have some more time to look through my sources over the weekend. —PētersV (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Silingi Wikipedia article about the Germanic tribes Silingi and Vandali Vandals (and other Germanic tribes) gived you some information about the Silingi etc, who lived in Silesia and gave its name to it. A number of them remained and survived around Mount Zobten and the town of Nimpsch, even when later Slavs moved in.

Vecrumba/PetersV, you write, that Magocsi lists the Silesians as Slavs ... Many sources claim the Vandals or the Silesians or the Prussians or the Huns and others as Slavs - they are all incorrect, but they do point out that there is a great confusion still today.

2.The tomb of Boleslaus I simply indicates, who he was, that is a son of Wladislaus II , the Exile, who was a subject of the HRE, was expelled and received refuge in HRE Germany. His wife, granddaughter of Holy Roman Empire emperor, was the mother of Boleslaus I, the Tall. Both Wladislaus and Boleslaus were subjects of the empire, held their land as fief and received their title as Dukes of Silesia from the emperor. Boleslaus' tomb also states, that Boleslaus Dux Slesie Fundatot Lubunsis, (not Lubiaz) founded the monastery, where he was entombed. An Observer (71.137.197.97 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

To the user 71.137.197.97. It is obvious that in the early Middle ages nobody wrote or carved in West Slavic languages yet. The formation of the Polish written language was still in its origins the same as with Bohemian, Hungarian etc. The fact that in the 13th century there is written Boleslaus and not Bolesław or Silesia and not Śląsk is therefore a very weak argument. Even in Kraków, Wrocław or Gniezno such carvings were made in Latin becouce it was a lingua franca of those times. In latin Śląsk is Silesia, Lubiąż is Lubunsis and Bolesław is Boleslaus. Is is as simple as that. What is important to the disussion is that it wasn't written in German.

By the way please give me some modern literature stating that Silesia was granted to the sons of Władysław the Exile by the HRE as his fief. I posses modern historical literature written by history professors stating that the Silesia province was returned to Exiles' sons by the senior duke of Poland Bolesław IV the Curly after Exiles' death in 1163. He also secured his senior position by keeping in his hands cities of Wrocław, Opole, Racibórz, Głogów and Legnica. It is worth mentioning that the HRE could not give Exiles' sons the Silesia province becouse he did not control it. It was since 1146 under Bolesław IV the Curly control and only he could give or not the province to anyone. There was no Polish vs HRE war in this year that would give to the HRE the control of Silesia so he could give it to some third party. This situation is than simply impossible. Cheers 213.238.120.42 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right about Latin, however: names of places and persons in latin documents of this time weren't consistent. Depending on the origin of the author these names often followed either the German or Polish version of the name. For example, Henry I. was called Heinricus, Heynricus and Henricus in documents. This probably also applies to the tomb. Karasek (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry is a name of German origin. Its latin equivalent is Henricus. And so it could be written in various ways depending on who wrote it. For some German historian of those times it was easier to write in a more German fashion. But I still dont see any significance in the fact that Polish Medieval tombs had latin carvings. As it was said texts on the tombs in Poland those days were written only in latin. This continued even later See : this 16th century tombs of Polish kings in the Sigismund's Chapel in Kraków. The text is also in latin. But this is compleatly of no significance. I would be really surprised if you could show me any Medieval tomb with a Polish text on it.

So this argument is worth as much as the imagined fact that sons of Władysław III the Exile recived their province from the HRE. Cheers 77.253.69.10 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

pagus Silensis (Thietmar of Merseburg), Sleenzane (Bavarian Geographer)

It is now commonly accepted that the name Silesia (Slask-Śląsk) derives from the name of the Silesian mountain Sleza (Ślęża) known in German as Zobotenberg. The name of the mountain comes from old West slavic word ślągwa and ślęgnąć which means moisture, humidity etc. It was given to the mountain and the nearby river due to the humidity which was much higer here than anywere else in the region.

Slza means teardrop in modern day Czech language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.52.85.253 (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Befor the WWII some German nationalists tried to create a new theory as if the name derives from the word Siligi a Vandalic tribe that passed through the region during the Migration Period. It was strongly defended by Karl Mahr in his Bemerkungen zu den Steinbildern am Siling, "Schlesische Blatter", 1940-1941. It is worth mentioning that this and similar "historical works" are nothing more than part of the Nazi propaganda.

Even more obious it is when we see who edited those books. For instance the "Ostgermanen und Nordgermanen", edited in 1940 in Leipzig and Berlin as a third volumin to the "Vorgeschichte der deutschen Stamme" part of which was "Gcrmanische Tat und Kultur auf deutschem Boden" was edited by the "Reichsbund fur deutsche Vorgeschichte" and "Reichsamt f. Vorgeschichte der NSDAP". Authors of those books are nowdays mostly a shamful topic in the German historiography but as I can see some people still use those "arguments" even though they were invented by Nazi Propaganda.

When we look at the name of the province carved on the tomb of Boleslaus the Tall. We can see the name Slezia. It those times the latin name of the province was not yet stable. For instance Thietmar calles it pagus Silensis and in Bavarian Geographer the name of the tribe is Sleenzane. In a Bohemian document from 968 there is province of Slensane. So the name on the tomb could be just one of the Medieval versions that were in use. What is more interesting this name Slezie directly corresponds with the name of the mountain Sleza as well as with the name of the tribe Slensane and therefore could be older and of more Slavic origin than the later latin Silesia. Cheers 213.238.120.27 (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Search Results Google Books for ancient sources Silesia

Person from Warsaw above suggest several Polish assumptions in reference to Polish: Slask, Sleezane, Slezie, Slenza , slagwa, slegnac ==

1.book 1894 Sleezane 1 book in German

2. book 1957 in Polish 3.book 1962 in Polish Sleezane

Sleezane by 2008 books (4 German, 4 Polish)= 8 books Total

[Sleza first in a book in 1820 Sleza in a German-Slavic dictionary Sleza=Thraene=a tear (English), nothing about a mountain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.202.100 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(Slesie German) Slezie often in Latin Slezie

Slenza= Slenza Italian Roman language = rain, Venetian lenza= water from latin lavare (lavaratory)

In Brescia slenza =sliver

Slask–used by Poles today for Silesia not before 17th century. Old English lexicon: Slush= from Slask, slaska = Swedish word for dirty water. Another old lexicon slask=Gothic word meaning dirt, mud.

slegnac

Slagwa

The current Polish names for Silesian places posted above seem to be mostly inventions of the 20th century, perhaps spred by Communist Polish Historiography after 1945 and their copyists? (71.137.202.100 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Thats right, the version with l after S (Slezie) is used more often in old Medieval documents. It also strongly corresponds withe the Slavic names of Slask (Śląsk) Mount Sleza (Ślęża) and the river Sleza (Ślęza). Thanks for noticing that. What is more it has little to do with the name Schlesien which is just a later on germanism.

Of course I can see that noone disputes with the fact that the "Silingi theory" was only a prewar Nazi propaganda. And that this "reaserch" is even less trustworthy due to its financing by the NSDAP. Cheers 77.253.70.76 (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See a posting at WP:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard

Hoping to get more contributions to this Talk page, I opened a listing at WP:CCN#History of Silesia. All are welcome to comment there. Thanks also to User:Vecrumba (PētersV) for adding his analysis just above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Monarchy of the Silesian Henries"

I removed the pic since this "Monarchy of the Silesian Henries" existed only a short time and the upper part of the page is already cluttered with maps. Since I also can't find a single reference of this term in the English speaking world I added a tag.Karasek (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the English terminology, but it's very often used by Polish historians, so I've added clarification on this and removed the tag. Teodor von Zalenzer Halde (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Teodor von Zalenzer Halde

Copyedit

Copyedited this. Feedback encouraged. Comments:

• Still way too long. I find too much emphasis on bits of territory changing hands and minor succession changes. This could be condensed, focusing on those with longer-term impacts.
• How about some economic data? Production levels in various industries, etc.

Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Volksdeutsch

The history of Upper Silesia is much more complicated. Upper Silesians generally declared German nationality (many of them had been terrorised) and joined Wehrmacht/Waffen SS/police. Some of them joined later the Polish army in the West.Xx234 (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Communist '"nationalism"

the Polish government who adopted a nationalistic anti-German policy - the government was controlled by the Soviets, which made its nationalism Stalinist rather than conventional. Xx234 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

has pressed for the right

Rights of Germans in Poland were imposed/suggested by the Bundesrepublik rather than locally discussed.Xx234 (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

which met the needs of a modern state

Are militarization, imperialism and high taxes "modern" versus "obsolete" pacifism and anarchism?Xx234 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Silesia. 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/20120318131952/http://tygodnik.onet.pl/1%2C41565%2Cdruk.html to http://tygodnik.onet.pl/1%2C41565%2Cdruk.html

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) 07:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Silesia. 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/20170224234905/http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001016/01/17.pdf to http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001016/01/17.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170224234905/http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001016/01/17.pdf to http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001016/01/17.pdf

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) 22:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Map showing Silesia within the HRR should be included

I argue that this is due to historical bias. Several maps stress "Silesia within Poland" (no doubt on that) but no map shows "Silesia within the HRR", i.e. the medieval German state. I further advocate a lingustic map being included. --Tino Cannst (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Numbers: 3s and 8s

At History of Silesia#Ethnolinguistic structure of Prussian Silesia, the sentence about middle Silesia in 1819 after the first table seems to have some numbers wrong. Specifically the source seems to read 833,253 total inhabitants instead of 838,253 and 3,900 Czechs instead of 8,900. The numbers sum up in both cases and the source isn't exceptionally easy to read. The assumption that the numbers are given in decrescent order would support the current state. 3s are usually hanging lower than 8s and this is pretty clear in the total figure, supporting the change. Rechecking other numbers from the same source would also be a good idea, but the matter doesn't seem trivial and someone familiar with the subject may be used to this kind of problems, so I'll wait for an eventual second opinion before editing. Personuser (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)