The reason geographical names are crucially important to some people is that they are actively engaged in political advocacy.
For example, the "occupied Palestinian territories". This simple term carries a lot of baggage.
The term means that Gaza and West Bank are _under occupation_, which in turn implies that Israel is wrong to have its military forces there. The term also means that the territories belong to "Palestinians"; when we de-reference this latter term, we find that Palestinians are a stateless people (nearly all Arabs) living in (or desiring to live in) the region formerly known as Palestine.
So, every time someone mentions Gaza and the West Bank, they have a choice: simply call them "Gaza and the West Bank", which doesn't imply much of anything; or call them the "occupied Palestinian territories", which implies that Israel shouldn't have those lands but the stateless Arabs should.
Wikipedia actually has to make this choice. It can choose to get to the bottom of the controversy, take an objective stance, and educate people as to the real truth. Or it can do its best to stay out of the controversy and merely report on what the various advocates say. I have tried to word the various Arab- Israeli conflict article so that Wikipedia can stay above the controversy (BTW, how'm I doin? ;-).
What does this have to do with Polish or German names? Well, I don't know: nothing, I hope. But I worry that some advocates may be playing a variation on the "occupied Palestinian terri- tories" game. If the REAL name of a geographical feature is Polish, that implies that its REAL OWNER is Poland. Or, real name German implies real owner is Germany.
I think we should rise above this controversy as much as we can: * Acknowledge the _existence_ of alternate names. * Avoid any pronouncement that either alternative is the "right" one. * Where controversy is heated, describe it in the article, e.g., "German historian Adolf Hamburger calls this village Frankfort, while Polish geographer Jerzy Polska call it Phrangforcky."
My 2 cents.
Uncle Ed, aka Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
So, every time someone mentions Gaza and the West Bank, they have a choice: simply call them "Gaza and the West Bank", which doesn't imply much of anything;
I think we are fortunate in this particular case, in there there is a politically neutral name for the area. We don't need to say either "occupied territories" or "disputed territories", we can just say "Gaza and the West Bank".
In other cases, I suppose this might be more difficult, for instance if there is no relatively neutral term.
"pro-life" and "pro-choice", in the abortion debate, are the standard terms, and I think they are generally accepted -- but only grudgingly -- by both sides. Both are questionable to a degree, but it seems that the media consensus is to let each side name their own position.
Pro-choicers will argue that they are in fact in favor of life, and so forth. Pro-lifers will argue that they are in fact in favor of choice (for the unborn, etc.) Pro-abortion and anti-abortion are no better, because Pro-choicers will often reject the notion that they are _in favor of_ abortion.
My point is -- Ed's right, whenever there's a politically neutral term, acceptable to all sides, we should use it. But I also think that this will sometimes be difficult.
--Jimbo