Oh my, well, is the dispute over place names? Or more substantive issues than that?
If the dispute is over place names, then subject to the advice of Germans I know, I am willing to decree what strikes me as the obviously correct solution: things are to be named in the German wikipedia what the majority of Germans call them, and things are to be named in the Polish wikipedia what the majority of Poles call them.
Also, is there any suspicion that a banned user (HJ) has returned? She was always stirring that topic up.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Oh my, well, is the dispute over place names? Or more substantive issues than that?
If the dispute is over place names, then subject to the advice of Germans I know, I am willing to decree what strikes me as the obviously correct solution: things are to be named in the German wikipedia what the majority of Germans call them, and things are to be named in the Polish wikipedia what the majority of Poles call them.
I think that the major dispute isn't over the German and Polish Wikipedias, but over place names in the English Wikipedia: when and how prominently to use the historic German names versus the modern Polish names (for example, Danzig vs. Gdansk). This comes up occasionally with other former-German areas as well, such as Koenigsberg (modern-day Kaliningrad in Russia). The non-German supporters generally object to over-use of names that are no longer the official names of the cities, while the German supporters object to what some see as an attempt to rewrite history (for example, by saying that things in the 17th century happened in "Kaliningrad," when no city by that name existed then). The current resolution seems to depend largely on how many partisans each side has: there are few Russian partisans on the English Wikipedia currently, so [[Kaliningrad]] uses the name "Koenigsberg" fairly prominently up until discussing the period it came under Russian rule, while there are more Polish partisans, so the [[Gdansk]] article retroactively applies the name Gdansk to the city's entire history.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
I think that the major dispute isn't over the German and Polish Wikipedias, but over place names in the English Wikipedia: when and how prominently to use the historic German names versus the modern Polish names (for example, Danzig vs. Gdansk).
Oh, I thought the original post was about something going on at de.wikipedia, my mistake.
Perhaps we can form a general policy of how to do it, something made in the abstract that covers all the general cases, without reference to German or Polish, and then go from there...
For example, when referring to a place at a time in the past, prefer the name of that time while parenthetically pointing out the current name if the clarification will be helpful to the reader. When referring to a place at a time in the present, prefer the present name while parenthetically pointing out the past name, blah blah blah.
I can't help but suppose that there's a tedious wikipedia policy wiki page on this somewhere. :-)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
Oh, I thought the original post was about something going on at de.wikipedia, my mistake.
There the German name haters already won ;-( At times, the German "Recent changes" list looks funny: many a lot names completely unknown to me. The strange thing is that they don't step forward renaming also "Straßburg" (Strasbourg), "Mailand" (Milano), "Rom" (Roma), "Venedig" (Venezia), "Kopenhagen" (Kopenhavn), etc.
Perhaps we can form a general policy of how to do it, something made in the abstract that covers all the general cases, without reference to German or Polish, and then go from there...
We agreed to run the so called Google test - but the German name haters deliberately ignored this agreement ;)
For example, when referring to a place at a time in the past, prefer the name of that time while parenthetically pointing out the current name if the clarification will be helpful to the reader. When referring to a place at a time in the present, prefer the present name while parenthetically pointing out the past name, blah blah blah.
This seem like a good solution for the English WP
I fully agree the fact we must not use external pictures in articles, but why don't allow them in meta/user/talk pages ? I had a pictures of my baby on my user page, I can't see it any more :o( More seriously, I'm afraid prohibit external link will make people copy more non encyclopedic pictures on the server and will make harder to select right pictures when we will make a static version.
Aoineko
Aoineko wrote:
I fully agree the fact we must not use external pictures in articles, but why don't allow them in meta/user/talk pages ? I had a pictures of my baby on my user page, I can't see it any more :o( More seriously, I'm afraid prohibit external link will make people copy
more
non encyclopedic pictures on the server and will make harder to select
right
pictures when we will make a static version.
I don't see a problem with people uploading a few unencyclopaedic pictures. Several users have their own photo on their user page, I've got a butterfly that isn't used elsewhere on the 'pedia (there is already a good one of that breed available). Sure, we don't want people using Wikipedia as a personal photo album, but one or two personal photos to illustrate a user page seems fine to me.
Regards,
sannse
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
There the German name haters already won ;-( At times, the German "Recent changes" list looks funny: many a lot names completely unknown to me. The strange thing is that they don't step forward renaming also "Straßburg" (Strasbourg), "Mailand" (Milano), "Rom" (Roma), "Venedig" (Venezia), "Kopenhagen" (Kopenhavn), etc.
Well, that's very strange to me. It's not really my place, exactly, to comment much on what the wiki-consensus should be in German language, but if I was German, I'd probably want to work on fixing that. But perhaps there are subtleties that I don't understand, so I'll just refrain from comment.
--Jimbo
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:50:45AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
There the German name haters already won ;-( At times, the German "Recent changes" list looks funny: many a lot names completely unknown to me. The strange thing is that they don't step forward renaming also "Straßburg" (Strasbourg), "Mailand" (Milano), "Rom" (Roma), "Venedig" (Venezia), "Kopenhagen" (Kopenhavn), etc.
Well, that's very strange to me. It's not really my place, exactly, to comment much on what the wiki-consensus should be in German language, but if I was German, I'd probably want to work on fixing that. But perhaps there are subtleties that I don't understand, so I'll just refrain from comment.
Should be intlwiki-l but anyway; for me it was natural to form the policy on Hungarian as "we should use names which Hungarian people would naturally use, and which is the most used, and make others redirect to them".
grin
Peter Gervai grin@tolna.net writes:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:50:45AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Well, that's very strange to me. It's not really my place, exactly, to comment much on what the wiki-consensus should be in German language, but if I was German, I'd probably want to work on fixing that. But perhaps there are subtleties that I don't understand, so I'll just refrain from comment.
I guess the reason why is pretty simple. In the past, in the times of the German Democratic Republic all the antifascists used the "foreign" names to show how PC they are (me included). Some of the prolong this way of life in our current times. And then there are some German writers who are quite advanced in Middle and Eastern European languages: using foreign spellings they can show how clever they are ;-)
Should be intlwiki-l but anyway;
No, I'm not going to subscribe to jet another list ;)
for me it was natural to form the policy on Hungarian as "we should use names which Hungarian people would naturally use, and which is the most used, and make others redirect to them".
Sure, that's the natural way to solve this "problem" -- maybe I'll start another try to get things right. Unfortunately, often there is more important work to do.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 06:48:00PM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Delirium wrote:
I think that the major dispute isn't over the German and Polish Wikipedias, but over place names in the English Wikipedia: when and how prominently to use the historic German names versus the modern Polish names (for example, Danzig vs. Gdansk).
Oh, I thought the original post was about something going on at de.wikipedia, my mistake.
Perhaps we can form a general policy of how to do it, something made in the abstract that covers all the general cases, without reference to German or Polish, and then go from there...
For example, when referring to a place at a time in the past, prefer the name of that time while parenthetically pointing out the current name if the clarification will be helpful to the reader. When referring to a place at a time in the present, prefer the present name while parenthetically pointing out the past name, blah blah blah.
I can't help but suppose that there's a tedious wikipedia policy wiki page on this somewhere. :-)
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.
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
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:03:56PM -0800, Delirium wrote:
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?
Gdansk definitely was never a "German" city. Its Slavonic name is original, and Slavonic inhabitants of that city has been always calling it that way. That Germans living there used different name doesn't matter much (it wasn't a "different" name, it was just a phonetical transformation of Slavonic name). It'd be silly to use the name "Gdansk" for period from medieval times to about XVIII century, when it was taken over by Prussia, switch to "Danzig" for XIX and early XX century, and then back to Slavonic name in XX century back - people living there didnt't all suddenly turn German. And it's completely idiotic to use name "Danzig" before it existed. "Poznan'"/"Posen" is in similar situation, but it was even less German than Gdansk.
But Kaliningrad is completely different matter - it wasn't a Russian city before after the Second World War. But it had a Polish name of "Kro'lewiec" too.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:48:30AM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:03:56PM -0800, Delirium wrote:
didnt't all suddenly turn German. And it's completely idiotic to use name "Danzig" before it existed.
Hmm, I accept your national pride, but this might have been a bit strong for a friendly attitude. Call it as the local population of the given wikipedia would call today, and redirect the others. It's simple in the case of German and Polski 'pedia, isn't it?
In english, I believe either you have one which is used in _English_speaking_ countries (eg. dictionaries, encyclopedias, other references), or if there are more, first come first serve, others can redirect at their own pleasure.
I'd probably use "danzig" to describe the darned place and "history of gdansk" when talking about its heroic past. And I wouldn't forget to mention all possible names in every article's first sentence anyway.
But Kaliningrad is completely different matter - it wasn't a Russian city before after the Second World War. But it had a Polish name of "Kro'lewiec" too.
I'd look for "kaliningrad" if I would look for the city. I may look for Koenigsbers (or whatever) if I wanna check a historical reference, and maybe krolewiec" for other sources. I expect all of them working....
Well one possible reason could be to use newset names because it's unlikely that they going to change unless we happen to enjoy a new world war. Other possible reason could be to use the name which longest suited the place in the past, since the past not expected to change. I personally couldn't care less if "Budapest" would be called "Buda-Pest" or whatever they called it in the past as long as "Budapest" pops up the article...
But it's a nice thing to debate, I agree.
[[user:grin]]
ps: let's find the city with the most owners and names. gdansk only have 2, it's boring. some on the austrian/slovakian/hungarian border have at least three! I FIGHT FOR THEM! ;->
Peter Gervai wrote:
In english, I believe either you have one which is used in _English_speaking_ countries (eg. dictionaries, encyclopedias, other references), or if there are more, first come first serve, others can redirect at their own pleasure.
I'd probably use "danzig" to describe the darned place and "history of gdansk" when talking about its heroic past. And I wouldn't forget to
Relying on tradition is not necessarily NPOV, as English (as well as Swedish) readers have traditionally got their information about Poland through German sources. England has strong historic ties with Hanover (even its own spelling of the city's name), and Sweden's main trading partner has most often been Germany.
When I travel from Sweden to Finland to Russia, I feel that I am abroad when I enter Finland, but on my way back, I feel that I am coming home when I re-enter Finland. The same goes for Sweden-Germany-Poland. Brits or Americans might feel the same if they return to Spain from Morocco. This doesn't mean we should limit ourselves to the traditional Spanish view of Morocco. I think we should be aware that the traditional perspective might be biased, and actively seek other sources of information. But of course that information (too) should be NPOV and verifiable.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Gdansk definitely was never a "German" city. Its Slavonic name is original, and Slavonic inhabitants of that city has been always calling it that way. That Germans living there used different name doesn't matter much
After having seen Gdansk, I cannot agree with this description. The old town's entire architecture and purpose as a trading port of the Teutonic Orden, with its monopoly on the amber trade, is what I would describe as "German". This includes the St. Mary church, inspired directly from the brick castle of Marienburg / Malbork.
I cannot claim to be an expert on anything Polish or German, but my disagreement should be interpreted as an indication of an area where Wikipedia should provide more background in the form of verifiable facts rather than assertions that it "was never a German city". Such assertions only serve to disqualify those who utter them.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org