Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
You have wrong idea about the problem. The disputed
area wasn't exclusively
Polish or exclusively German at that time. Usually, it's hard to even decide who was
the "majority", as we don't have detailed data from the epoch, and it's
known
to differ from town to town. It's also not possible to tell what was the official
language - the concept of "official language" is a recent one - then some mix
of
Latin and local languages was used, depending on context. Also, the name of a city
could be the same in both German and Polish at that time, only to diverge later
with phonological changes. "Torun'" is example of a name which isn't
originally Polish
nor originally German. According to modern etymology it was Polish name equivalent to
"Tarno'w", later to be imported to German language during times of the
Teutonic Order,
then to be reimported to Polish in significantly changed version. "Warta
Boleslawiecka"
is another such example, except that reimporting happened after the Second World War.
The only sensible policy is to consequently use contemporary names, with possibly
versions in the other languages parenthesized.
This makes sense for some of the names, but I don't think for all. For
example, "Danzig" was until 1945 the generally accepted English name for
that city, so I think speaking of someone like Arthur Schopenhauer (a
German born in 1780) being "born in Gdansk" is a little bit
anachronistic, and speaking of him being "born in Danzig (modern-day
[[Gdansk]], [[Poland]])" is more accurate. I think we should generally
use the name that would've been used by the person if it's clear, and
otherwise prefer the modern name. So, Constantinople (not Istanbul) for
the Byzantines; Danzig (not Gdansk) and Koenigsberg (not Kaliningrad)
for 18th-century Germans, but Warsaw for everyone in all time periods, etc.
The main impetus behind this suggestion is that it seems odd to say
someone was born in a city that they wouldn't have called by that
name--if Schopenhauer thought he was born in Danzig, and in fact
mentioned Danzig in his writings, then that's what we should call his
birthplace.
However, I do think your argument has convinced me to use the modern
names when discussing the general history, if former names are unclear,
which I think is how it currently is: [[Gdansk]] refers to the city by
that name throughout the history section, including the
16th/17th/18th/19th centuries. That seems fine to me. It's be wrong to
refer to 16th-century [[Kaliningrad]] though.
So perhaps unfortunately we need to do it on a case-by-case basis?
-Mark