Talk:Świętopełk II, Duke of Pomerania

Name?
I doubt that Świętopełk is used in English with these three diacritics. Why not the alternative, Swantopolk? No sources given, too. -- Matthead discuß!    O       23:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved back to original title, and added refs. -- Matthead discuß!    O       02:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is interesting indeed what is the English name of this person. Swantopolk seems to be used primarily by German sources ; Świętopełk by Polish, both have been used in English but only by a few publications (...Świętopełk, the duke of Eastern (Gdańsk) Pomerania...The local duke, Swantopolk (1222-1266), for example, defended his rule victoriously...). None of them seem to have any significant advantage over the other in terms of which one is used more. Perhaps there is a variant we are missing; if not, whether to use German or Polish variant is not an easy question. Which language was primarily used by the subject, and did he use a Slavic or a Germanized version of his name himself?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My glance through GB gave only Polish books for the current title, Świętopełk. Swantopolk, Swantepolk, Swatopluk have a few English books, though most are German. I found more English examples for Swietopelk. The latter would at least be a more fitting article title, since the diacritics are not used in English for this medieval individual. Olessi (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving to Swietopelk II, Duke of Pomerania accordingly. -- Matthead Discuß   00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since "Swietopelk" is much more common in English publications than "Swantopolk" (400) vs.  (155) (most of which actually turn out to be in German) this article should be at Swietopelk II, Duke of Pomerania. I see that it was but Skapperod moved it to its present name "for consistency". But the above is clearly a reason to move Swantopolk I, Duke of Pomerania to Swietopelk I, Duke of Pomerania rather than vice versa (particularly as all the other guy's got is a stub). Consistency is a good thing, but only if in the right direction.radek (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The booksearch results for Swietopelk include other Swietopelks as well. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, those Google searches ... if English use is enforced by requiring eg. "+Swietopelk +duke", the numbers drop to 57 vs. 45. The first page for Swietopelk shows mainly Polish author names, a children's book, and the annoying "Mentioning By Icon Group International, Inc.", which also includes Wikipedia (Rumia). First page for Swantopolk shows international authors, and many works from the interwar period in which the early history of Danzig and the Polish Corridor areas are examined. It's safe to say that German POV was not popular outside Germany then (nor during WW2 or the Cold War). BTW, in 1244 the Duke lost a naval battle on the Nogat to the Order. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, 1) it still happens that 57>45 (although I actually get 62>45), 2) I don't see any Polish language sources in the 57, although there are some authors with possibly Polish names. On the other hand the Swantopolk 45 includes things like various fictional novels by Gunter Grass, 3) the vast majority of the Swantopolk sources are pre 1950's. While there are some such for Swietopelk, most of them are recent and 4) the proposal for Swietopelk was your idea and I'm only supporting it here.radek (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Double naming rules
Are clear that the name Gdańsk is to be used till 1308.--Molobo (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

... and further reads "...should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)", which you removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You provided no reference. Also this section is clear in regards to Biographical persons and would seem to contradict point one.Thus you are incorrect--Molobo (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A reference that Gdansk is also known as Danzig? What do you think the vote was about? Please be reasonable. Also, Gdansk (Danzig) perfectly fits the rules you mentioned, I'd really like to know which part of the rule makes you think it was ok to remove Danzig? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that Germanic writers Germanised the Polish name Gdańsk into Danzig but you have to provide reference for this Germanised form in use for that particular event/person. You are incorrect as to your interpretation, as solely Gdańsk is used prior 1308 and Danzig afterwards, are you claiming we should use form Danzig(Gdańsk) past 1308 ?--Molobo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC) -

City of Danzig
The arbitrary 1308 date is incorrect,but was pushed on Wikipedia by a group of Molobos. The German Law city of Danzig existed before 1308 see: coin of Zwantepolc de Danceke, Duke of Pomerania,(part of Holy Roman Empire). (71.137.197.160 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Fiction
Much if not most of this article is invented Polish nationalist history and appears in no other European history books. Danzig and Pomerelia were never part of ethnic Poland and there is no evidence that during their various conquests of neighbours' territories that when they did march in it was a short time before they were thrown out. These pages on Wikipedia are a total discredit to history. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:CD0A:3F55:1684:7998 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)