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

Poland Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Football: Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the German football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

According to "who's who des deutschen fussballs Deutsche Vereine seit 1903" by Harde Gruene the team's colours were white shirts and black shorts and they played at the Turngemeindeplatze with a capacity in 1941 of 35,000

Thank you. (de: Danke) Wiggy! 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The club played from 1905 to 1945, not 1905 to 1939 (i.e. 1905-1921 + 1921-1939). The administration of the region is inferred from reading the article.

The club played from 1905 to 1945 and 2007- (i.e. 1905-1922 in Germany + 1922-1939 in Poland + 1939-1945 in Germany + 2007-... in Poland). LUCPOL ( talk) 11:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Attaching Kattowitz to the category tag German football clubs ensures the team is properly sorted on the team list within the K's and doesn't float to the top of the list. Wiggy! 10:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

the club was reactivated in 2007..and is playing in the season 2007/2008 in the second lowest league in Poland http://90minut.pl/skarb.php?id_klub=4384&id_sezon=71

-- 84.142.227.49 14:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Lucpol, I have reverted your most recent edits because they took away the focus of the article from the historical German club and put it on a new, unknown, and unrelated modern day Polish club. Your edits unfortunately also introduced a number of language and style problems. I have left in place the addition of useful new information including the lists of honours and noteable players (under proper subheadings). Note that the long string of Polish language references was removed as not really being suitable for an English language article. Wiggy! ( talk) 08:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply

1 edition - I adding new data and I did order the article. 2 edition - I changed on the real information. If there are grammatical/language errors please correct (only grammatical/language errors, no substantive content). I changed "External links" to "==References==" because he is not additional information, this is sources to text of article. LUCPOL ( talk) 11:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC) reply

This article is about the historically notable team that existed before the end of World War II. It is not about an unaccomplished minor league current-day squad that would not merit it own page on this wiki. And it is not a tribute to ethnic tolerance in modern day Poland. It just a matter-of-fact statement of something that was - it is not about the glory of Silesia, Poland or Germany. Please drop the POV nonsense that keeps cropping up in the introductory paragraph. Some of the edits being made here are making this article laughably unreadable. Wiggy! ( talk) 05:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

1. today, women team played in Extra League, this is encyclopaedic and is suitable for Wikipedia.
2. ok, text (POV) about Silesia, Poland, Germany, ethnicity is deleted. There's only section of the history (here there is no conflict). LUCPOL ( talk) 23:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

1. deletes OFFICIAL polish name 1. FC Katowice from 1920s, 1930s and today.
2. manipulation with name club in today (citate "modern-day club using the name 1. FC Katowice was formed in 2007), club was reactivated in 2007, with named! arms! formed date 1905! and other. This is not only the same name. Even, if it is the conflict, need to enter neutral intro.
3. cheating with a "German club", from 1922 do 1939 this is polish club!

I know, you interested in the old German clubs but this club is different. Please, make your "German" cleanup in example Diana Kattowitz or Germania Kattowitz - they were the only German and were not reactivated. 1. FC Kattowitz is different matter. LUCPOL ( talk) 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

There's no vandalism happening. It is inappropriate to use this article to push your pro-Silesian agenda. The current day club may have the same name as the historical club, but it is utterly unaccomplished and doesn't really deserve more than a footnote in the article.

TI've Polonized the name in the section dealing with the 1920s and 1930s. I'm not really interested in re-fighting a fight from nearly a century ago. The article as it stands now reflects the teams history and conflict the club was embroiled in between the wars.

Let's be done.

P.S. Did you know I'm the guy who re-rendered the club logo that's being used in the article (and by the modern club) based on an image taken from the collection of a pin collector? You're welcome. Wiggy! ( talk) 23:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

"pro-Silesian agenda"? Where? do you think? Hardly. 1. FC Katowice is officiall polish name, by tens of percent of the time of club it name functioned. Repeat, this is vandalism. I introduced a neutral intro:

1. FC Kattowitz also 1. FC Katowice - football club based in Katowice. The club formed in 1905 in Germany, in the 1920s, 1930s and today played in Poland."

also can enter:

1. FC Kattowitz also 1. FC Katowice - football club based in Katowice. The club formed in 1905 in Germany, where played in years 1905 to 1922 and 1939 to 1945. In the 1920s, 1930s and today played in Poland."

in the end - it's true. Dry facts. is not it? LUCPOL ( talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Burying the facts of the history of the club isn't neutral. It was German, then Polish, then German, then Polish. The struggle over its identity is core to the history of the club and shouldn't be glossed over. The new club doesn't yet have any kind of tradition and its existence can literally be summed up in two or three sentences - it hasn't accomplished anything yet and isn't much more than a historical footnote at this point. I don't see that sanitizing the introductory paragraph - which is supposed to "introduce" the rest of the article serves anything. For anyone not familiar with the history of the region the introduction sets the table and is explained in the balance of the article. I'm not even the guy who started the article, but the German/Polish duality has been part of the article since its very first version. I'm not doing any overt "Yay, Germany!" thing, but your Silesian/Polish POV pervades most everything you do here and has landed you in unnecessary conflict before this. Give it a rest.

In addition, the opening sentence should be written in correct English. What you're proposing is too clumsy as an introduction and ends up getting fully explained in the course of the article in any case.

And no, I'm not a vandal thanks. Wiggy! ( talk) 02:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Citation (by Wiggy) "Burying the facts of the history of the club isn't neutral" and "your Silesian/Polish POV" - where is Silesian/Polish POV? Citation please! You're a cheater, if someone removed your German POV, you write Silesian or Polish POV.

Nowhere is there Silesian POV, if so - citation please! Also nowhere is there polish POV, I write dry facts - date and date, non adjectives type "polish". PS. I do not like Poles, how can I write Polish POV.

"In addition, the opening sentence should be written in correct English" - If there is a problem with grammar, please correct grammar (only grammar)! ... Aha, You're a cheater - so you not correct grammar, only once you enter the German POV. Surely - 1. FC is only German, German above all. German, German......

Article will have a neutral version of the intro:

1. FC Kattowitz also 1. FC Katowice - football club based in Katowice. (neutral and simply)

OR:

1. FC Kattowitz also 1. FC Katowice - football club based in Katowice. The club formed in 1905 in Germany, in the 1920s, 1930s and today played in Poland. (neutral and dry facts - date, non adjectives type "German" or "Polish")

OR:

1. FC Kattowitz also 1. FC Katowice - football club based in Katowice. The club formed in 1905 in Germany, where played in years 1905-1922 and 1939-1945. In the 1920s, 1930s and today played in Poland. (neutral and dry facts - date, non adjectives type "German" or "Polish")

OR (new):

1. FC Kattowitz also 1. FC Katowice - football club based in Katowice. The club formed in 1905 in Germany, where played in years 1905-1922 and 1939-1945. In the 1920s, 1930s (when the two countries struggled over control of the region) and today played in Poland. (neutral and dry facts - date, non adjectives type "German" or "Polish" + text by Wiggy - for compromise)

If there is a problem with grammar, please correct grammar (only grammar)! We can end the war, but you focus on the dry facts and finish used adjectives type "German". You can use adjectives in section history. PS. You acting like a fraudster and vandal - so you are. LUCPOL ( talk) 12:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I have changed the introduction to be more neutral; none of LUCPOL's possible suggestions made grammatical sense in the slightest. Giant Snowman 19:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

First of all, the club existing between 1905 and 1945 and the club founded in 2007 are completely different entities. The former is notable for participating in the highest leagues of both Poland and Germany at the respective times, while the latter is notable for its Ekstraklasa women's team. Therefore, the subjects of the articles should (and indeed are, by the way, see 1. FC Katowice) be separated from each other. Everything about the pre-WW II team should go in here, and everything related to the women's side should be moved to 1. FC Katowice.

Next up is the naming. As already mentioned above, the club was named "1. FC Kattowitz" between 1905 and 1922 (17 years) and "1. FC Katowice" from 1922 until 1939 (also 17 years), before adopting the former name once more during the occupation period until the end of WW II (6 years). Their share of first-level league participation also almost splits up evenly between four seasons each (plus/minus one in every case) in the respective Polish and German leagues. Therefore (in the case if the current wording by GiantSnowman is not going to be preferred), I would propose the following compromise as an introduction:

1. FC Kattowitz (also 1. FC Katowice between 1922 and 1939) was an ethnically German football club playing in Katowice during the inter-war period. Established in 1905, the club played in both the highest Polish and German leagues during separate times of its existence, before being dissolved in 1945.

Finally, a word on some user behavior. One has to distinct sharply between a content dispute, which is what we have here, and vandalism. Content disputes happen, they are the salt in the soup we call Wikipedia. However, it is very bad behavior to call somebody with an opinion not mirroring the own opinion a vandal, unless there is definite proof that the person in question indeed commited vandalism. Having read this discussion page and the edits in question, I cannot see anything which would rectify such claims. Given that some of the comments also contain personal attacks, it may be considered if a report to WP:ANI is appropriate or not. -- Soccer-holic ^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

You'll see my comments on the use of the term "vandalism" in the thread on my talkpage. I believe LUCPOL got the point. My impression was that LUCPOL was looking for someone to sanction Wiggy: administrators sometimes get that sort of thing, and it has a way of backfiring on the complainant. Acroterion _(talk) 20:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I've gone through my source materials and significantly expanded the article and clarified the timeline of events. A number of errors were corrected along the way (Hey look, some of them were mine!). All of this material is supported by references. There is now a separate link to an existing article on the modern day Polish club of the same name (where one might plant one's flag if one so wishes).

I have left LUCPOL's web references in place, although I note that some of them are on a pay-for-view site, so I don't know how useful they can be considered for most users (unless LUC wants to share his already paid for copies with the rest of us). Some of the references specifically discuss the historically split personality of the club and it's perception by some as German, by others as Silesian. If one bothers to read the article, I hope they would catch some sense of how difficult a period of history this was and how it affected even simple things like a football club.

Quite simply, the issue of the club's roots as an ethically-German side coloured almost its entire history and have even caused some controversy for the newly formed Polish club. It is inappropriate to whitewash that history in the name of some current-day petty nationalism - it won't change anything. Although it clearly still burns some people, what happened, happened and I've tried to put that forward simply and clearly here and support it with reliable source material. I'm really not interested in this sort of stuff [2] (which reads like it was written by the Care Bears) or in supporting the persistently POV approach of some editors who have a gift for finding themselves blocked repeatedly over this kind of nonsense. Peace out, dude. Wiggy! ( talk) 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply