Talk:Poznań

Old Posen article:
Posen bishopric was founded in 968. Duke Mieszko I was unable to cope with internal enemies ,sought the support of German emperor Otto I the Great and became one of his vassals. Mieszko married Dubrawka, got baptized and promoted Christianity.

The first bishop of Posen was Jordan (968-82), who was appointed suffragan to the archbishop of Magdeburg. Posen continued to be the only bishopric until the Diocese of Gnesen, Lat. Gnesna, Polish Gniezno was created.

Duke Boleslaw I Chrobry, son of Mieszko I, chose Gnesen for a shrine for the remains of Saint Adalbert of Prague. Emperor Otto III came to the grave of St. Adalbert in AD 1000 and established the archbishopric of Gnesen and at the same time Otto III created the bishopric of Krakow, Breslau and Kolberg. Posen was severed from Magdeburg during the ensuing strife at the death of Boleslaw I in 1025. It was reattached and in 1133 the archbishop of Magdeburg Saint Norbert? still had the metropolitan jurisdiction of Magdeburg over Posen recognized.

After that time Posen became a defacto suffragan under Gnesen.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taw (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 December 2001 (UTC)

On the bishopric's foundation date: 968, 999 or 1000
1) There is only _one_ document which claims founding bishopric in 968 - Thietmar wrote that in 968 first Polish bishop, called by him of Posen, was suffragan of Magdeburg. Paul Kehr (German) Das erzbirstum Magdeburg and W Abraham (Polish) Gniezno i Magdeburg showed that this is against historical fact. They did that years before WWII. Both Labuda and independently Weiss showed that Jordan was bishop of country, directly dependent from Pope, not from Nagdeburg. Claim of Thietmar was based on document, placed in Magdeburg, which was attributed to Pope John, who was in the end of Xi century attached to Liber privilegiorum Sancti Mauritii. In that document it s written that first bishopric was founded by Emperor Otton I and that first bishop received his sacra from bishop Adalbert. P. Kehr proved that this document was falsification, fabricated in 1004-1012, to make a fundament for actions of Magdeburg, who wanted to achieve supremacy over Gniezno. Nobody until today dared to even try to question his findings. Since this document was falsificate, then only source which we have about founding bishipric in 968 is false. Another German who wrote aout that issue and also decided that cited document is falsification was Karl Uhlirz. Status of Jordan was simlar to st. Augustin, bishop of England (or, to be more accurate, English)

All later mentioning of bishopric in Posen are later (eg. Poznan yearsbook which was compiled in XIII/XIV century)

Bishop Unger was catched in Magdeburg after 1000 and was forced to accept archbishop of Magdeburg, but after his death bishopric of Posen again was attached to archbishopric of Gnesno.

So before 1000 there was no bishopric in Posen. it was founded in 999 by Pope Sylwester, IIRC, and then in 1000 it was put into life on conferency in Gnezno.

2) Posen was most probably not a capitol of POland. Wide discussion which (again) take place over that question you can find, if you know Polish, in (2) in Szopen/Literature

3) Thesis that Mieszko was unable to cope with internal affairs is kind of wishfull thinking. Where is simple example of internal affair that in 965 Mieszko was unable to cope with? Why Mieszko bapticized is still question of debate, and hypothesis are: personal influence of Dobrawka (this is what Thietmar wrote) seeking of allies against Weletes (Slavs west from Oder) securing his state nad strengthening his position as king (i haven't found this hypothesis in recent books, but i remmeber that from my schoolbook)

4) Anyway, why Mieszko and when he accept christianity has nothing to do with Mieszko, it is doubling with entry about Mieszko and should me removed, and replaced by link to apriopriate article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 January 2002 (UTC)


 * For history of Posen Gnesen read : Catholic Encyclopedia
 * outside link http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06590b.htm
 * H.J. 15:39, 7 January 2002 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed that link you provided is for Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1907? You realise that from that time there was some progress in science, do you? I don't know when exactly Kehr published his work, but he did that before 1920s (i had a book which cite him from 192something) and after 1910s. DO you want me to cite Polish first encyclopedia from XVIII century as a source???? Do you think that any encyclopedia is of better credibility than legions of historians? I can gave you links to Polish encyclopedias, do you want them?szopen 15:44, 7 January 2002 (UTC)

There are so many ERRORS in this article that it should be written from scratch - I will take care of this soon ;-) cc 21:49, 24 September 2003 (UTC)

Latinized names
Posen was an important German town for quite some time, and might well have become known in English under the German name, why I don't object to the statement of that form as an alternative in the introductory paragraph, but may I ask what's the reason to have two Latin names at the same place? Is the town maybe known to the English in latinized spelling, or is the local community of Latin speakers that very significant?

Wikipedia articles ought to follow simple usability rules, as "most important things first"! --Ruhrjung 08:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Polish-revisionist version protected
User:Hephaestos has protected a Polish-revisionist version of this article, mentioning the German name in a silly way (also known as Posen in German language instead of German: Posen), and almost denying (not mentioning, and removing the name) that Posen was a German city most of the time from 1793-1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.4.106 (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2003 (UTC)
 * I see you know history very well German-revisionist. Poznań was a German city but among 1792 - 1918. I think also writing names of the city in other than native language is about information. Not about proof of its fixture. Polish and other nations this is idea of Wikipedia. Germans as usualy play theys own rules. Tlumaczek 06:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's right to say that Poznan [also known as Posen in German language (also known as język niemiecki in Polish language;)] was a part of Germany most of the time from 1793 to 1945. Most of the time is correct; more then two thirds of the time is correct as well. Not really precise, but you cannot say it is a lie! :) KubicaPOL (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The way this article handles history and gives a decidedly nationalistic Polish version of events is why Wikipedia is not respected. Udibi (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Royal City of Poznan - historical capital of Poland
Poznan was, is and will be an important Polish city. It was the Polish capital in 10th-11th century. The first historical Polish duke Mieszko I and the first Polish king Boleslaw I the Brave are buried in Poznan cathedral.

In a overhelming majority of its 11-centuries history 900-2003 it belonged to Poland, except a small periods when it belonged to Prussia (1793-1806) and the Third Reich (1939-1945). Even in years (1815-1918) it was the capital of the Grand Duchy of Poznan under Hohenzollern kings but with the guarantee of free develpoment of Polish nation and language.

There is no doubt that there were many German-speaking inhabitants of Poznan, invited by Polish dukes and kings to settle here, and they played a significant role in the city development, culture and history. But the German speaking inhabitants of Poznan were most of the time loyal subjects of Polish kings and patriotic defenders of their Polish homeland.

The ethnic German inhabitants of Poznan were the fucking good Poles, as good and patriotic as any others Polish citizens regardless of their ethnic origin, religion, culture, business or social status.

There's no doubt that Poznan is an old Polish city, and I find it very very rude, nationalistic and stupid to call it a German city in any period of time. And it is very silly to publish such a nonsense 20 times a day from an anonymous IP.

You are invited to find some new material to add value to Poznan article, and when refering to Polish-German relations please follow the example of German and Polish historians who are working together to produce one common version of history and clarify much of the confusion produced by the 19th century nationalisms:

Polish-German relations in Middle Ages


 * (ed.) Rainer Riemenchneider, Die Rolle Schlesiens and Pommern in der Geschichte der deutschen-polnischen Beziehungen in Mittelater,, Georg-Eckert-Institut fuer Internationale Schulbuchforschung, Braunchweig 1980
 * (ed.) Marian Biskup, Śląsk i Pomorze w historii stosunków polsko-niemieckich w średniowieczu, XII Konferencja Wspólnej Komisji Podręcznikowej PRL-RFN Historyków 5-10 VI 1979 Olsztyn, Ossolineum, Wroclaw 1983, second edition: Instytut Zachodni, Poznań 1987.

Polish-German relations in 16th-18th centuries:


 * (ed.) Antoni Czubiński, Zbigniew Kulak, Śląsk i Pomorze w stosunkach polsko-niemieckich od XVI do XVII w. XIV Konferencja Wspólnej Komisji Podręcznikowej PRL-RFN Historyków, 9-14 VI 1981 r. Zamość, Instytut Zachodni, Poznań 1987
 * German edition also available

Thank you for you cooperation.

--cc 17:24, 18 October 2003 (UTC)

From Vandalism in Progress

 * User:Wik vandalize Poznan. See history of the article. Nico 20:22, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please insert your your comments on the right place, Wik, and don't just copy my comment. All other users, even CC (the other Polish guy), prefer the other version, therefore you will be reverted until you stop vandalizing the page. Posen is not the former German name, but the actual German name, as CC told you. See the German Wikipedia. Nico 20:29, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia, and we should only list city names in English and in the current official languages of the country concerned, plus any former names. So Posen is only relevant here as a former name. There is no need to list German names of non-German cities on the English Wikipedia. Besides, even in Germany it is politically incorrect today to refer to Polish cities by their old German names. --Wik 20:48, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

The style used on Wikipedia is followed. See other articles on cities. We have consensus, you are the only one insisting on your agitative, surely not NPOV version, which I think just is pure vandalism. Politically incorrect to refer to cities by German names in Germany? Don't be silly. And it have nothing to do in this discussion. Nico 20:58, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, see other articles on cities. Then you'll see that we don't bother to list "French: Londres" under London. Some cities may have 10 different versions in other languages. And if we should list them all, why stop at cities? Why not provide foreign-language equivalents for countries, e.g. "Germany, German Deutschland, French Allemagne, Dutch Duitsland, Danish Tyskland, Polish Niemcy, Hungarian Németország, ..."? It's you who's outside the consensus. --Wik 21:10, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Don't make yourself silly. Denmark has never been German. Posen was a German city, with a majority of German population, most of the time from 1793-1945. Also in English the city was known as Posen until 1945 (or maybe longer). Nico 21:20, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was a German city. Hence, "former German name". And as to English, there has never been a separate English name for the city. In English, it was Posen until 1945 and then Pozna&#324;. (Another silliness I corrected is the notion that "Poznan" without the accent is an "English version" of Pozna&#324;. It is nothing more than a version without the accent, used by those who don't know how to type it or who are simply ignorant about it.) --Wik 21:29, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, you have to use the version used by English speakers. If English speakers use Poznan, without accent, then Poznan without accent is the version to be used on Wikipedia. I will check it with Google. Nico 21:35, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I told you above why some people (not just English speakers) use it without accent. This doesn't make it an "English version" in the same way as "Warsaw" is an English version of Warszawa. On Google you'll find that almost any properly accented word appears more often than not without any accents on English pages; that's just due to people's carelessness or ignorance. If that were the standard we'd have to remove accents from thousands of articles. --Wik 21:43, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

GOOGLE: Results (English pages only), Poznan: 147,000 (1) and the entire Google: 491,000 Results (English pages only), Posen: 45,600 (still used in English!) (1) and the entire Google: 492,000 (!!!) Results (English pages only + the entire Google), Poznaƒ: 1,130 (1)

Well, the computer can’t even handle the accent. I think most English speakers use Poznan without accent. Then this is the version to be used. And as you see, Posen is also used by a significant minority in English (and a majority worldwide). Then Posen should be mentioned as an alternative English form in the article too. Nico 21:52, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Posen is used in English when referring to the city before 1945. And that you won't find much use of the accent is obvious, not only for the reasons I gave before, but furthermore since this particular character (accented n) is not in the regular ASCII code (which is also why we can't use it for the article title), and older browsers can't display the Unicode. --Wik 21:59, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * Posen is used to refer not only to Poznan, but to other places (see: Posen). Ausir 16:40, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik, Nico, please fight your fights elsewhere, this is a page about vandalism, not edit wars or differences of opinion. Kosebamse 21:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You don't have to tell me. I'm just responding. --Wik 21:43, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Name of the article (Poznan or Posen)
moved from Vandalism in progress (discussion of User:Wik)

GOOGLE: Results (English pages only), Poznan: 147,000 (1) and the entire Google: 491,000 Results (English pages only), Posen: 45,600 (still used in English!) (1) and the entire Google: 492,000 (!!!) Results (English pages only + the entire Google), Poznaƒ: 1,130 (1)

Well, the computer can’t even handle the accent. I think most English speakers use Poznan without accent. Then this is the version to be used. And as you see, Posen is also used by a significant minority in English (and a majority worldwide). Then Posen should be mentioned as an alternative English form in the article too. Nico 21:52, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many of those google hits to Posen is to cities in America named after the Poznan Szopen 08:09, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

English city names
Personally I find this Poznan-Posen row very, very silly. I my opinion it's a natural thing that big cities have several names in various languages. For example a German city in Bavaria is called Muenchen, but also Munich in English and Monachium in Polish. A famous Italian city of Venezia is called also Wenedig, Venice and Wenecja (guess in what languages).

Some cities have a distinct English name (Munich, Venice, Warsaw, Rome, Moscow) and these names should be used in English Wikipedia. If there's no clear English equivalent we should use the official city name in the local language, and this is precisely the practice of the English speakers.

Poznan was for centuries an important political and economic centre of Poland, so it deserved a name in several languages. Because Latin and Polish were the official languages in Poland the city had a name in theese two (Posna, Posnania, Poznań). Because of significant German population in Poznan and importance of German language in international trade Poznan also had a German name, but it was changing in time (Posna, Posen).

On a 18th century English map, in my posession, the city is marked as Posna, but I'm not sure if this English version comes from Latin, German or abbreviated Polish name.

Poznan was a possesion of the German speaking monarchs (Prussia, Germany) in years 1793-1806 and 1815-1918 so in these years we can say that the official name of the city was Posen. On the other hand peace congress of Vienna in 1815 (held in French) has assigned western part of Duchy of Warsaw (Poland) to the Prussian kings with the guarantee of "free development of Polish nation". The province was called Granch Duchy of Poznan (Grossherzogtum Posen, Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie). The Duchy was the possesion of Prussian kings, but it stayed outside the German Union federation. So there's no doubt that this period (1815-1918) can be called bilingual (German and Polish) so there were two official names of the city (Posen and Poznań).

To summarize: 1) Polish name of the city was used all the time in last 1000 years and it was an official city name most of the time. There were only two periods in history (1793-1806) and (1939-1945) when the German name was the only official name - and they were just episodes in city's history.

2) Poznan is undoubtly a Polish city, and it cannot be in any way called a German city, although we must admit that the ethnic Germans played an important role in the city, and in the 19th century the city belonged to Prussia and Germany.

3) In my opinion the city has now three names: Poznan in English, Poznań in Polish and Posen in German, and all three names should be listed in the article. I think that listing of Latin name(s) is also very important because it shows the earliest version of the city name in the written documents.

4) If there's any doubt about the English equivalent we should use the official name of the city: Polish names in Poland, German names in Germany, in their modern boundaries. In this case Poznan is the English equivalent made of the Polish name. In most English publications, I have seen, the city is called just Poznan, and most of theese sources also mention the Polish form: Poznań.

--CC 17:04, 19 October 2003 (UTC)


 * It is undoubtly a German city too, in modern times historically (since 1793) belonging to Germany, and with a majority of German population (60 %) until it was occupied by Stalin and his gang, and given to Poland, when the majority of the inhabitants of the city were expelled. Nico 19:05, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * PS: From 1793, not only 19th cenutry, plus 1900-1918 and 1939-1945=24 years of the 20th century. Nico 19:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To Niko: I don't know in what sense you use the words "German city". If a city can be German, Polish, Jewish, French, and Scotish at the same time, I agree with you that Poznan is a German city too.

If you think that a city with a significant ethnic population can be described as a ethnic city, that means that Poznan was a German city.

If you think that a city belongs to the state in which it lies, that means that Poznan was a German city in years 1870-1918, as it belonged to the German Empire.

If you think that the city is best described by its connection to only one ethnic group, Poznan was and is a Polish city, as it was inhabited by the Poles most of the time, and the Poles were the majority of inhabitants most of the time.

If you think that the city is best described by its connection to only one political entity Poznan was and is a Polish city, as it belonged to the Polish state most of the time.

To summarize:

1) Poznan was and is a Polish state from political and ethnic point of view.

2) Poznan can be sometimes described as a German city, but only from ethnic point of view, and in very limited points of history.

3) Poznan cannot be described as a German city from political point of view, as its belonging to the German state was only an episode of history. --CC 21:36, 19 October 2003 (UTC)

I am very sorry to tell you, Niko, that your remarks about Poznan history during WWII are very offensive and agressive, and bear no respect to all those you died defending their lives, propery and freedom. Please take a while to rethink what you are saying about this dark period of history.

--CC 21:36, 19 October 2003 (UTC)


 * Grzes of Posen [CC] wrote: "If you think that a city belongs to the state in which it lies, that means that Poznan was a German city in years 1870-1918, as it belonged to the German Empire. "


 * Don't be silly. "German" include former parts of Germany, such as Prussia. Or you could say that Posen has belonged to POLAND only since 1990 (The Soviet Republic People's Poland was another state, huh?)


 * According to WW2, Germany had the regal right to liberate the occupied territory of Posen, which legally belonged to Germany, according to the Vienna congress. I have no respect for stalinists and their crimes against humanity.


 * To summarize: Posen was a German city most of the time from 1793-1945, belonging to different German states, and with a majority of German population, which was expelled or murdered by the Stalinists in 1945.


 * According to the Geneva protocols, it is illegal: 1) to permanently keep land militarily taken over 2) to expel and to replace the inhabitants. Nico 13:38, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Uh, oh, another misguided German. Pardon, but when i hear sentences like in 1945 majority of populationw as German, then i wonder were that guy was taking information from.

Whole populaiton of province in 1905: http://30.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PO/POSEN_GERMANY_.htm "The population of the province in 1905 was 1,986,637, including 1,347,958 Roman Catholics, 605,312 Protestants and 30,433 Jews. The Roman Catholics are mainly Poles, of whom there are upwards of 1,000,000 in Posen, while the great bulk of the 900,000 Germans are Protestants."

Data only for cities of the province: http://www.pgsa.org/poznan.htm "As of 1837 there were in the Grand Duchy the following numbers of townsmen: 142,812 Poles, 91,462 Germans, and 71,177 Jews. "

The Grand Duchy of Poznan~

by Edward Callier, From the Sl~ownik Geograficzny

Population [Vol. 8, p. 955]... The population of Poznan is primarily Catholic. In some areas there are Protestant Poles, and in others German Catholics. Jews who have become wealthy move westward (see E. v. Bergmann, Zur Geschichte der Entwickelung Deutscher, Polnischer und Juedischer Bevoelkerung in der Provinz Posen seit 1824, Tuebingen, 1883). The [German] colonists brought in by Friedrich II and settled along the Notec~ river have become inveterate foes of the people they live among. The same attitude appears among German Protestants, both in the villages and in the towns. As of 1837 there were in the Grand Duchy the following numbers of townsmen: 142,812 Poles, 91,462 Germans, and 71,177 Jews. Later statistics do not differentiate the inhabitants on the basis of nationality.

In the opinion of those in government, there are no Poles within the borders of the nation of Prussia, there are only Prussians and Germans, differing only in creed. Of the towns of Poznan~, the following have predominantly German populaces: Bojanowo, Brojce, Bydgoszcz, Chodziez*, Czarnko~w, Fordon~, Kargowa, L~abiszyn, Leszno, L~obz*enica, Lutomys~l, Margonin, Miasteczko, Mie~dzycho~d, Mie~dzyrzecz, Ostro~w, Pil~a, Radolin, Rakoniewice, Rawicz, Rostarzewo, Rydzyna, Rynarzewo, Sierako~w, Skwirzyna, Szamocin, Szlichtyngowa, Trzcianka, Wielen~, Wolsztyn, Wyrzysko and Zaborowo. " (Poznan is not mentioned)

The map about language distribution in province in 1905: http://www.man.poznan.pl/~bielecki/images/posen.gif

I can't find data for city alone, but IIRC Poles started to be majorit in XIX century.

On the other hand, that may be truth that in 1945 Germans were again majority in the city. Nazis had expelled hundreds of thousands Poles from Poznan aread into GG, and imported thousands of Baltic Germans into Poznan, giving them former Polish houses without any recompensations, of course.

Another link to Posen province population: http://thorin.adnc.com/~lynnd/gfaqi.html

I will try to search in house about Poznan/Posen city alone. szopen 13:50, 21 October 2003 (UTC)

What is the English city name: Poznan or Pozna&#324;
As I have stated before my opinion is that present English name of the city is Poznan, and not Poznań. I was using this name consequently in my substantial contributions to this article, and now I am very surprised to discover that this name was traslated to 'Poznań' Anyway this needs some discussion before we resolve this problem.

1) There's not doubt that the city has no unique English name comparable to other Polish cities (Warsaw, Cracow), so the English name is derived from the native Polish name of Poznań.

2) In this case the city name in English version documents is not used consequently, some documents use 'simplified' name: Poznan, while other documents use the full Polish version Poznań

3) It is impossible to distinguish in the internet resources if the English speaker writes Poznan because he cannot write Polish characters, ot he writes Poznan because he thinks this is the proper English name.

4) I any case Poznań (with ń) cannot be called an English name, as there is no such letter in the English alphabeth. Poznań can only be called A polish name imported into English

5) Polish national characters pose a serious difficulty for English speakers. It is also almost certain that the English speakers will search in internet for Poznan, not for Poznań, as the Polish name is difficilt to type-in for non Polish computer users.

To summarize:

A) Being an English speaker for 25 years and internet user for 10 years my opinion is that Poznan (without ń) is the form most commonly used by English native speakers and in English publications. The obvious examples are The internet guide to Poznan and Poznan City Guide.

B) Additionaly my opinion is that two versions of the city name (Poznan and Poznań) are used by the English speaking Poles. The examples are Poznan University of Technnology, PoznanSchool of Banking but also Poznań University and Poznań University of Economics.

C) This means that the most common and widely accepted English equivalent of the city name is Poznan (without ń) and this name should be used in this article and in the English Wikipedia. 

D) Great care must be taken by non-Polish speakers when dealing with these names in the Poznan article. Personal name Poznan is written without ń in Polish and it should not be renamed.

E) Internet sites should be named after their original name, not our preferences.

cc 19:55, 26 October 2003 (UTC)


 * There is no English name. Obviously those who can't type accents will ignore them. That doesn't make the no-accent version an "English name". We can use accents here, so we should do so. Anything else is a pointless "dumbing down". If Poznan were an English name, it would be used on those English sites which otherwise use Polish accents. But that's not the case. Most English sites will ignore all Polish accents, because most of them are not available as ASCII characters. On the other hand, the printed Britannica generally uses accents, and therefore it naturally says Pozna&#324; and not Poznan. To summarize: if we don't use the accent here, then, by the same argument, we should use no accents at all in the Wikipedia. There is hardly any accented word in any language which on most English websites would not be stripped of its accents. But that's just ignorance and/or laziness. Why should we follow that? --Wik 19:59, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

It is only your opinion that there's no English name for Poznan. For me it's very bizzare to write Poznan' in English texts. My opinion is that the English name exists if people are using it. More and more English speakers come to Poznan avery year for business and/or entartainment and that's why the English name is introduced into the common English language.

cc 22:19, 26 October 2003 (UTC)


 * Do you think this is specific to Pozna&#324;, or do you think the same for all other cities with diacritics? Do you think "Sao Paulo" is the English name of São Paulo, or "Zurich" of Zürich, "Malmo" of Malmö? --Wik 22:37, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * In my opinion yes, Sao Paulo, Zurich, Malmo are the English forms of these names. We don't pronounce them in the native way either.  Anyone who pronounces them in the Portuguese, German, and Swedish ways in ordinary English conversation would be considered almost as insufferably pretentious as someone who insisted on calling "Paris" "Paree" or on calling "Madrid" "Madrrrith". -86.140.131.100 19:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a difference. English computers can easily type the germanic ö, ü etc. and they are also included in the ISO Latin 1, when it's very difficult to type the slavonic accents, which is not included in Latin 1, and older browsers view them often as "?". Nico 22:47, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it doesn't matter if it's easy or diffucult to type national characters. It does matter what is the most commonly used name by the English speakers. cc 20:17, 27 October 2003 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the omission of diacritics due to sloppiness or computer restrictions does not create a new name. There are only a few cases where there are true English names which are spelled like the original minus the diacritics. For example, Mexico is the English name for the country known in Spanish as México. But then that's also pronounced differently! I say again, if we go by "the most commonly used name by the English speakers" then we should not use diacritics at all. But that has not been our practice. There are hundreds of articles on cities which include the diacritics without mentioning the stripped version as an "English name". --Wik 20:32, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

I'm definitely for the use of diacritics. In German it's possible to "walk around the problem" by writing Koenigsberg instead of Königsberg, etc. But in Polish it's not. And I'm not buying, that by skipping the diacritics you get the "English" version. "Walesa", "Swinoujscie", "Grudziadz" are not English versions, for COL! Every day more and more English-language books and publications use Polish diacritics correctly. The right fonts are more available now, than they used to five years ago. Friendly note to Nico: The diacritic symbol in "&#324;" is not called a "slavonic accent". It's not an accent at all. It's called "kreska" and in Polish language is used to change consonants into their palatal form. Graphically it differs from the "accent" symbol by the shape, angle and placement over the letter. Other Polish diacritics are: ogonek, kropka and stroke. Accent symbols are not used at all in written Polish. Sincerely Space Cadet 22:16, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Time to write an article on the Polish alphabet, maybe?


 * Just as a pastime from the current edit wars, I mean!
 * --Ruhrjung 15:16, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Population of Poznan
I have found info about Poznan population in this publication: Encyklopedia Historii Gospodarczej Polski do roku 1945 [Encyclopaedia of Economic History of Poland to 1945], Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa 1981

About population in article: Poznan 1600: 20.000 inhabitants after Polish-Swedish war of 1655-57: 14.000 inhabitants afterwards increase of population 1700-1709 Norhern War, and a great plague 1716: city destroyed by Tarnogrod Confedarates 1733: 6.000 inhabitants 1738: great flooding destroyes 60% od the city 1768-72: fightings by the Bar Confederates, Prussian troops next economic upheaval 1793: 12-13.000 inhabitants 1793-1800 integration of metro area into one city 1831: 31.000 inhabitants 1870: 54.400 inabitants 1910: 157.000 inhabitants, 1939: 272.000 inhabitants 1939-1945 during WWII some 100.000 inhabitants resettled to GG

entry: Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie

During Prussian times (Grand Duchy of Poznan) Polish population share in Poznan City fell from 66% in 1816 to 58% in 1910


 * During Prussian times, it didn't exist a Grand Duchy of "Poznan". Nico 13:38, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Nico, It was. It had two names, in Polish and in German. Poles used Polish version. Vienna guaranteed that Poles in their province under German rule will have rights "to develop their own nationality" IIRC or something like that. Then i bet Poles were allowed to use their names.
 * OTOH i'm happy that you no longer claim that before 1945 Poznan has majority of Polish population and was given to Poland by Stalinist band. That half of my family which was from Greater Poland and was fighting for free Poland is hardly one you could describe in that way. szopen 08:47, 27 October 2003 (UTC)

I have updated Demographics section adding also some info from internet sources cc 01:48, 22 October 2003 (UTC)


 * There is something wrong with the numbers. In one section of artcile there is mention that German poopulation rose to 60%, while in another there is data about 58% of population being Polish in 1910. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 08:04, 23 October 2003 (UTC)


 * The ethnic share numbers of 66%-1816 and 58%-1910 are taken from a reliable source (the Encyclopedia) so they should stay. On the other hand, I have typed this 60% number from my memory having the above numbers in mind. Sorry for the mistake. cc 19:31, 26 October 2003 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior by Polish User: 217.96.26.45
from Szczecin Zachodniopomorskie : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=217.96.26.45 Reference to his f... remark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.47.62.78 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2004 (UTC)


 * 66.47 etc, i already explained it to you few years ago. Poznan was not attached to Magdeburg. Magdeburg later made falsificate (first one to discover it was GERMAN historian Kehr around 1920s). It constantly tried to attach Poznan, but without much success and with great opposition from Polish dukes.
 * Szopen 08:59, 27 February 2004 (UTC)


 * While id agree that 217.'s remark The city name is Poznan, and the fucking Teutonic scoundrels, please kindly stay away is both very rude and deeply offensive (some Polish nationalists seem as bad as Weimar-era German ones), 66.47 (banned user HJ) has no right to complain about trolling behaviour being one herself. PMA 09:07, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

It was a German "editor" who inserted the "f" word into the Polish editor's comment. The wrong person was banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"former" German name
moved from User Talk:Wik:

I would appreciate if you realize that Posnan hasn't become a "German" name. "...formerly better known under its German name" would be my suggestion, and if you produce something like that, I think maybe a compromize could be achieved. --Ruhrjung 17:31, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Posen is not the German name today in the same way that Warschau is the German name for Warsaw. Try a Google search "Poznan Polen" (5,460) vs "Posen Polen" (2,470). --Wik 17:38, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your tricky Google search is irrelevant. The German Wikipedia uses the name Posen. A google search for Posen (German pages) gives 106,000 hits, a search for Poznan gives only 48,500 hits , mostly from German-language pages at Polish domains. Nico 17:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Searching for "Posen" without Polen includes historical references where Posen is correct. You have to make sure reference is made to the current Polish city. But I have said all this before, of course, with lots of other cities, and I'm not repeating myself any more. I will continue to revert your irredentist nonsense. --Wik 17:49, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Holding "Poznan" for an un-German name is not "irredentist nonsense". Compare "Helsingfors" which was the common name for the city now known as Helsinki in German. However, "Helsingfors" was never a "German" name of the city, neither is "Helsinki", in the same way as "Wiburg" was the German name of what the Swedes called "Viborg", the Finns called "Viipuri" and the Russians still call Vyborg. It's the same thing with Posen and Stettin. "Posen" is a German language name of the city today better known as Poznan, a Polish name often used also in present-day German texts. But it's still Polish, like "Vyborg" is Russian and "Viipuri" is Finnish. --Ruhrjung 18:11, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It is not better known as "Poznan" in German, which the search results have proved.Nico 18:16, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Only your bogus search figures. --Wik 18:22, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Where did I say Poznan isn't Polish? Of course it's not a "German name". There is no "German name" of Poznan in the sense of "Warschau", therefore the most correct use in German is to use the Polish name. Using the former names of cities that have become Polish is POV, it's like still using "Königsberg" for Kaliningrad. --Wik 18:22, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * "There is no "German name" of Poznan"? Don't make yourself so ridiculous. The German Wikipedia uses the German name Posen, and as it is a lot more popular than the names of that particular city in various other languages (including the Polish name), it is inappropriate to state it is not a name in use. It's simply just not true. Nico 18:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's enough: lets have Nico banned
I think we all are tired of Nico edit wars here at Poznan and in othe places. Poznan is a Polish city, badly hurt by the Germans, especially during World War II. The war is over now and the Polish-German relations and better and better these days. And Nico is startinf the WWII againg and again with his manipulations, threats and insults. Lets's have Nico banned. Mestwin of Gdansk 17:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * calm down, ok? Have an edit of other, unhistoric or not tied to Polish-German relations, get a rest and come back. AFAIK Nico said, that Posen is German name for Poznan, not that Poznan is German city. Is that right, Nico? Or do you believe that Poznan is German city under temporary Polish occupation where most of inhabitants is immigrants from Congress Poland? Szopen 07:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The discussion was concerning the German name only. Anyway, it's time for mr. Albinowski to be banned, IMHO. Nico 21:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poznan is a famous Polish city, with numerous population, prospering business, culture, education and science. Nico's obsession with the imperial and Nazi Germany is ridiculous. German occupation of Poznan was just an episode in Poznan's history. It is worth mentioning in the history section, but is unnacpetable that it occupies half of the intoduction. Mestwin of Gdansk 22:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, unlike Wroclaw/Breslau, which was a German city for hundreds of years, Poznan always remained a Polish city even under German rule. Ausir 16:56, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see it the same way Posen was never realy a German city it belongs too the citys under long term german cultural Influence, witch reached as far as Orelburg in Russia and included hundreds of cities witch from th 13th century, till the 19th with ending in the I and II WW where influenced by Germans and german speaking Jews ,as: Riga; Hermannstadt ( Romania), Lemberg, ( Lviv)Dünaburg ( Daugapilis) Laibach ( Lublijana) Marburg ( Maribor) Prag A second part of the cities lost in the second world war to Polen where never realy Polnish or only for a while like: Stettin ( never), Danzig(under Influence ), Breslau ( sometimes Chech Polnish, Chech, Austrian, Prussian, German, Polnish )ethnical this Cities where 800 years German and where part of the closed coverd German Language area - For Germans the loss of this cities was as you whould settle Spanish to Kent with the argument the Spanish Armada was once on its coastline. In oppositof this, Posen was by the most Germans too, mostly recogniced as Polish city, even in the 19 th century. So I dont understand the dicussion on the German side being myselfe German speaker.

Johann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.103.229 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Coat of Arms
radomil 08:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of revert
1. I suspect that only reason of inserting French name into article is to move German name to second place. French was not widely used in Poland, despite what some imply; not more than in Warsaw (will you insert Varsovie in Warsaw article?).

2. "Occupied by Prussia" in 1871-1918 is not NPOV. It's against wikipedia policies. Occupied would mean without international recognition, i think. Althought Incorporation of Poznan into Reich was with violation of earlier signed treaties, nobody really objected it in intenrational ground, IIRC; Therefore, i believe it would be enough of mentioning it somewehere into article. Szopen 06:55, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello Szopen,


 * This is the explanation of my edits, If you don't like any of these, PLEASE, make amendments one in a time, please do not revert several edits just because you don't like one on them.


 * 1. I have restored the French name, because I think it is important here. If the German and Latin names are listed; the French name should also be here. It me be located at the end of list if you prefer.


 * 2. I have unbolded the German name because it suggested that there are two alternative names Polish and German, which is not true. The only name is Poznan and only this should be bolded. Other names are in italics.


 * 3. New version of the historical intro: Poznan was in years 1815-1919 the capital of the Grand Duchy of Poznan in personal union with the Kingdom of Prussia, but it was not part of Germany. In year 1871 it was unilateraly annexed by the newly created German Empire, despite the protests of the Polish parliamentarians. Poznan was also occupied by the Nazi Germany during World War II (1939-45).
 * Correction, the Grand Duchy become an official Prussian province around 1850 (still trying to get that pinned down) and of course the Duchy wasn't part of "Germany", because "Germany" was created in 1871. However, the Congress of Vienna gave control of the Duchy to Prussia, restored it's occupation. You can call it "personal union" (and I'm sure that's what it was officially) but I think that it's pretty certain that any Polish independence in the Grand Duchy was illusionary and was symbolic pacification. (Proof to the contrary welcome, feel free to e-mail me from my user page.) All of the histories that I've read treat the area as a province of Prussia from 1815 to 1920, but they might not have felt it important to be too detailed in this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwood (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 July 2004 (UTC)


 * 4. I have restored and changes slightly the 5 Pozna&#324;'s districts


 * 5. I am removing the links to the German Empire from the see also section. They are already mentioned in the history of Poznan, and they are not so important to be mentioned again. Poznan does NOT belong to the German Empire, so they looked very strange here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szczecin (talk • contribs) 07:35, 29 April 2004 (UTC)


 * It's now looks OK by me - but Posen is not just German name, it also _former_ English name - in use for some time in XIX century Szopen 08:08, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * So there is an agreement that Posen is a German name of the city. I sorry I cannot agree with Szopen, that Posen is a former English name. 18th century English maps usually show the name of Posna. So Posna is the former English name of the city. During the times of Grand Duchy of Poznan both the Polish name of Pozna&#324; and the German name of Posen were in official and private use, but neither of the two are English names. The English name was still Posna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.147.124 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, i am not going to persist on including that as former English name. If nobody objects, then it's fine with me; definetely there is a lot less to support including "Posen" than in Gdansk case Szopen 15:36, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Posna is not really a valid "English" version. I've never seen it, and 18th century isn't a timeframe to consider here. Most English references to the town will be from the 1800s on. Since the official name for most of that time was the German one, most English texts use that. My vote is to mention the German version in the intro and to keep the other language versions also. Perhaps a standard for all town articles should be adopted with a little taxobox or a modification to big taxobox. EG, Köln>Cologne; München>Munich. I like the paragraph used here in the middle, though, as it gives more info than a taxobox, but I would like to see dates attached to the full official names. In short, the present version is on the right track. The compromise proposed below is the wrong direction, but "Posna" could be added to the Name paragraph as an archaic usage, not sure if it was strictly English archaic. We need to keep the reader in mind. Some will be looking for info about the current world, some will be trying to learn history, often in a specific time period. Both should be able to quickly self-direct themselves from the top of the article to the info that they are interested in. Bwood 12:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This revert war has been raging on for ages now. How about a compromise I proposed (apparently noone noted it since the article got changed in some 20 minutes or so)?

All the other names (including the ceremonial, historical or Latin) are mentioned in the ==Names section anyway... Halibutt 05:16, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why some of you reply above my post instead of below it. Anyway, Posna is definitely the former English name of the town. It's nowhere near that popular as Posen, but try searching for Posen Poland in google and you'll find out that most pages to use that name either refer strictly to the Provinz Posen as a proper noun or is a webpage of some German or Austrian company. The cases where the name is used separately and not in addition to Poznan or Province of are very scarce. The very word Posna came to English in the 16th century from French. It was in use at least until the partitions. A quick search pointed me even to this merry page.


 * As to the dates - this might be quite difficult. What criteria to use? Also, many names were and are used simultaneously (like cerremonial and normal names). Halibutt 17:16, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Link: Very ENGLISH historical map: http://www.muzeum-polskie.org/images/mapa2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti (talk • contribs) 22:59, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

The former English name, under which the city was widely known, is Posen, see for instance 81.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GE/GERMANY.htm

Antique English spellings of Poznan which may have been used 300 years ago on a map or so is better to mention in a name section. In any event it is not "the former" English name. Burschenschafter 23:04, 22 July 2004 (UTC)


 * So, please find a source issued before 1846. Posnan and Posna were used for centuries. Posen for barely 70-80 years. So, what is FORMER ENGLISH name. Bye.Yeti 23:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, that's exactly the problem I have with the word formerly. Both Posen and Posna are former English names (the earlier being rather a German name). To be precise we'd have to insert the following in the header: (formerly also referred to in English as Posna or Posen. However, I believe that these names do not belong to the header. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:59, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

formerly known under its German name Posen
I know the t=dispute has been raging on for ages now, but the way it is now is unacceptable to me. formerly known under its German name Posen) suggests that until certain date the city was known under its German name while after that date the name was changed. This is not true. We have to find some not-misleading way to mention the German name in the header - otherwise it should be deleted and placed in some other section ( ==Names== section being the most suitable). German name was used by the German administration for some 40 years altogether, which is not much when compare it to 1000 year long history. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:28, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * True. I'm ready to support: "German Posen". Also same logic for Gdansk and Sczeccin. Rübezahl 02:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I would support that also, but then we come full circle to Prussia-denyists trying to throw every other possible foreign name onto (and in front of) the German version. That is why "former German name Xxxxx" is still the best compromise. Rubestahl says that introduces inaccuracy, but I feel that anyone in Germany who uses the old German name in a current context is wrong, the old German name should only be used in historical discussions, whether in German or English or whatever. If I say I'm going to visit Bydgoszcz, I use the curent official name. If I say that my ancesters once visited Bromberg, I use the official name at the time. "former German name Xxxxx" is the best compromise. I ask for Rubestahl to defend his "silliness" stand on the phrasing and then I will call for vote. Bwood 14:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I hadn't bothered to look at this entry before, but I see it's the usual ridiculous brouhaha over a city that was once German and is now, again, Polish. The case of Poznan/Posen is different from those of Wroclaw/Breslau, Szczecin/Stettin and Gdansk/Danzig in that Poznan has a much more extensive history as a Polish city through most of its existence. However, it seems that an even-handed approach here too would not fail to mention that among the famous natives of Poznan/Posen was Paul von Hindenburg, German field marshal and president of Germany in 1925-34. Hindenburg was born in what was then Posen on October 2, 1847. Had he not appointed Hitler as chancellor in 1933, history presumably would have been much different -- and presumably the three cities mentioned above still would be German. user:sca 19:03, 25 August 2004 (UTC)

Ok, we've come around full circle again. So, can we please settle on the compromise that we had two weeks ago? "former German name Xxxxx". Please see my reasoning two paragraphs above. I would support the shorter version "German: Xxxxx", except that it leaves it open for all the mess that we've gone through on this article. Bwood 02:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I guess I was mistaken. I'm supporting this one. Rübezahl 03:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "Woo-hoo!" How about you Halibutt? Can we get your agreement? Anyone else? Bwood 18:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * In this case both (former German name Xxxxx) and (German: Xxxxx) seem fine with me. However, the case of Poznan is slightly different from the case of Szczecin or Opole so I guess this naming compromise would be only temporary - until someone violates it or until we reach a pan-wikipedian header and naming policy. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:23, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about the differences that you refer to. Bwood 04:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm in. Space Cadet 04:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not the former German name, but the current German name, and it is not listed because it is the German name, but because the city previously was known under this name to English speakers. Also, the former name shall be bolded, as the article does not only deal with the city after 1945/46. In the case of Posen/Poznan, I suggest "Poznan (formerly also Posen)", and in the case of cities which were German during most of their history and had no significant Polish population, like Stettin, Danzig and Breslau, I suggest simply "Polish name (formerly German name)". If some people do not like "formerly", I'd be happy with "German", though. Burschenschafter 13:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * These articles are about the current towns, first and foremost. They are now Polish and probably will continue to be Polish for the next several centuries. Whether they were 95% German or 10% German before WWII has no bearing on the main format of the article, especially the first paragraph. It *does* belong in the History section. It is critical that the Wiki community develops and agrees on a universal format for the intro paragraph, that addresses the names issue, for Polish towns which were once part of the German Empire. Otherwise, each article will be eternally involved in edit wars. Therefore, we should try to find a compromise format/language standard that everyone can live with (even if it isn't the preference of most). To that end, after enduring edit war after edit war, the following language/format is gaining support: (former German name: GermanName) or if there are entries in the table at the "Cities alternate names" article: (former German name: GermanName, see also other names)
 * Here is a recap of the reasons for this structure:
 * It should be as short as possible. The intro paragraph is not the place to argue about names.
 * It must mention (as briefly as possible) the German name, as it was used for so long a period of time in recent history (last couple of centuries).
 * It should (as discreetly as possible) point to a place where other language versions can be found. Think of someone who has come to the article to confirm if it is the same town as the one they are reading about in other material that uses a different language version.
 * It should discourage those who wish to dilute the German name reference by throwing in other language versions by qualifying the reference to the German name to indicate that it *used to be an official name* (but isn't now). The explanation can be made in the History section, not the intro paragraph. If we don't include the adjective "former", it opens up the argument of why the German name (and only the German name) is so prominent.
 * The article name is the only thing that should be bold in the first line of a Wiki article. Other names (even Danzig) are secondary to the article topic. If the article were not the general town article, perhaps "Danzig before WWII", then the Gdansk name could be secondary.
 * We should avoid the "English name" issue, as there really aren't any strictly English names, it depends on the time period. If the Prussian period is being discussed, the German names are usually used, otherwise the Polish.


 * I'm always open to arguments for alternate language, but we must come to common agreement that a majority of people can live with. So far, at least three major contributors to articles of this type have signed on to this format. I hope you will too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwood (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 September 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely don't care how many Polish nationalists like Space Cadet who like the "former German name" nonsense, but if you continue to remove the formatting and obscuring the German name, and if you insist that articles like Danzig/Gdansk should in fact not deal adequately with the city before 1946, we will have to separate all these articles. One article Danzig dealing with the city before 1945/46 and one article Gdansk dealing with the city after 1946, for instance (then we would have even before the article start: "For the city before the end of the second world war, see Danzig"). The German name belongs in the introduction, bolded, as it was a completely different city than the current, boring Polish-inhabited ruins of the German city. Burschenschafter 18:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I always find it funny when a clear nationalist tries to discredit someone by calling him nationalist, please leave Your aggresive tone at home. And firts of all talk about Your problems with Gdansk on the right page. I would argue with You about Gdansk and think I have some strong arguments, so if You like to talk let me know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.147.136 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It hardly seems like you've read my arguments above, or you wouldn't be making ridiculous suggestions about splitting into two articles. I happen to ethnic German by ancestry, so I hope you don't accuse me of being a Polish nationalist also. I could go on to refute the few points that you've made, but it is obvious from what you're written lately, that you are not neutral, and so there is no point. I've clearly outlined the reasons for this standard. I truly believe it is the most neutral that we can come up with. I guess you and I (and those who will support this standard) will just have to settle in for years of edit wars. So be it. I will conclude by admitting that Danzig is the extreme end of the spectrum, as being the most German, the longest, but this compromise still fits well enough. As for taking the discussion to the Gdansk article talk, no thanks. We have to have a standard, and a single place to talk about it. If you want to set up a special page for that, I will gladly move the discussion there. I will repeat certain points, though I think it's a waste of time with Burschenschafter:
 * The alternate spellings are not there to to obscure anything, but to prevent others from putting those spellings in the first line to obscure the German name (It happened on this article).
 * The first line is not the appropriate place to have name wars.
 * Only the article title should be bold in the first line (Wiki policy)
 * (btw Halibutt, I asked Burschenschafter to bring his arguments to this page, in edits to the other pages, so we can discuss them in one place) If there is a way to set up a page to discuss this standardization issue, let me know and we'll do that instead. (I can't use the Historical States Project page, because these town articles aren't within that system.) Bwood 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, obscure spellings and completely irrelevant foreign names of Danzig and other cities which are never and have never been used in English, does not belong in the introduction, and we do not need the link to the section where they are found. I suspect this link is only used to obscure the German name once again. Burschenschafter 18:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear Burschenschafter, this debate has been raging on and on for ages now. I'm sure that with little effort you can find all answers to your questions on relevant talk pages. Anyway, to put the matter straight to you: we can either describe the history of cities like Danzig as neutrally as it is possible (and that's the version you are trying to change) or use the POV of the winning side. I prefer the earlier, but if you insist on changing the NPOV version to German POV - then perhaps we should reconsider the whole concept of NPOV. Currently, most contributors try to avoid sensitive terms like "occupation", "annexation" and so on. You're one of the very few who would like to describe the history from just one perspective. Also, the German name belongs to the header of the Gdansk article and that has been agreed on Talk:Gdansk page quite some time ago. However, please revise your concept of two different articles since we'd have to make several articles out of them:
 * Until 1308 - Polish POV article
 * 1308 - 1361 - German POV
 * 1361 - 1793 - Polish POV
 * 1793 - 1945 - German POV
 * 1945 - now - Polish POV
 * Do you really think that is needed? Also, why don't you state your problems with the Gdansk/Danzig on Talk:Gdansk page? The case of Poznan is completely different, it has never been a German city (although at times Germans constituted as many as a 3rd part of its inhabitants).
 * It was never a completely different city to the one before the war and it belonged to a German state for less than 110 years in its history (not to mention that it belonged to Germany for barely 50 years). It's not that someone is trying to hide the relevance of Germans in the past of Poznan. There's simply not much to be hidden. Sorry, but that is not a Polish nationalist propaganda, just take any book on the history of Poznan from your library and compare the data. The history of Poznan before 1946 was not really different from its history after 1946. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:07, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Halibutt, I was actually referring to Danzig, not to Posen. I know that that Posen only became German at the end of the 18th century and had a large Polish population (contrary to Danzig), and that's why I also agree that "formerly Posen" perhaps not would be correct, or at least misleading, so I suggested "formerly also Posen" instead.


 * Bwood, it was you who first referred to Danzig. Burschenschafter 22:59, 6 September 2004 (UTC)


 * All right then, please continue your discussion on the Gdansk/Danzig/Dantzk/Gedania/whatever to Talk:Gda&#324;sk. This would let us avoid confusion. As to Pozna&#324; - I'd agree to:
 * Pozna&#324; (formerly also Posna and Posen1)
 * With the link leading to the names section where all the usages are explained. Neither the English name nor the German name should be bolded since they are out of use for some century or so now. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 00:58, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll go with: " (German Posna and Posen1)". Let' finally drop the silly "formerly". Space Cadet 05:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And I'll go with: "(German Posen, formerly also Posna in English1)"
 * or: "(formerly also Posen and Posna1)".


 * The name Posen is much better known to English speakers than Posna (this ancient spelling is largely forgotten), and has to be mentioned first. It also needs to be bolded. On the other hand, I would agree to bold Posna as well if you want it. Burschenschafter 14:15, 7 September 2004 (UTC)

This starts to be boring. The German name of a city that was German for 50 years in its' history should be bolded only if the Slavic name of Berlin is bolded in the header and the same with Dresden, Leipzig, Hoyswerda and others. Bolding the German name would suggest that the city was German for a substancial part of its history or was/is currently known in English primarily under that name (if so then why the hell won't we move the whole darn article to Posen?). This is not the case and suggesting otherwise seems like pushing some hidden agenda or a German revisionist POV. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:11, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup, this starts to be boring. The Slavic (not necessarily Polish) names of Berlin, Dresden, Hoyerswerda and Leipzig have never been used in English! In English! And I repeat: IN ENGLISH! That's why we are not going to bold these names, because they are, frankly, rather unimportant to English speakers. But cities like Stettin and Danzig are even now still known by these names to many English speakers, who cannot even pronounce their Polish equalents. Most English-language encyclopedias used Danzig and Stettin (and not Gdansk and Scszsceczin) until around 1970, some until the 80-ies.


 * But: I would agree to bold the French names of Regensburg and of Koblenz, which were formerly used in English. And I have no problems with Cologne and Munich being located under their French names.


 * You simply have to accept that English speakers have preferred French names over German, and German names over Slavic. In an English language encyclopedia, it is important to use both names which have been used predominantly in English recently. The cities are also referred to in articles (in historical context) by their German names, and when you click on "Danzig", you should find an article with this name bolded. Burschenschafter 17:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, lets bold the damn thing, drop the "former", do analogical in Hrodna, Lviv, Vilnius, Kiev and go have a drink together. Mazw tov! Space Cadet 17:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've started a page under the Cities Project: /Names issues, let's take the discussion there. Bwood 04:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rübezahl edits
Look, Rubestahl, we've been trying to hash out a standardized way to mention the German name in the first line of these articles about current Polish cities which had a recent significant German ownership, without offending the Poles. Your "formerly known under its German name xxxx", while not much different from what I think is the best compromise "(former German name xxx)" is longer than it needs to be, without adding anything that has to be there, but does devote a lot of the most important line to a topic which irritates the current citizens of that town. Please justify or reconsider your widespread edits. Bwood 04:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Look, this version has been used on Gdansk, Szczecin etc by Yeti, Cadet, Halibutt, Przepla, Polish Politicians and Szopen, so don't tell me "the Poles will be offended". I personally prefer simple: "German name - this and that". I noticed the Poles are freaking over "former name - this and that". "Former German name ..." is ridiculous and it contains that "former" bit, which seems to indicate that those cities were never Polish before they were German, which in turn "irritates the current citizens of that town", whom you care so much about. I just wanted to stop a stupid edit war. Rübezahl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rübezahl (talk • contribs) 05:48, 23 August 2004 (UTC)

Recent History section edits
While this is better than what was here previously, it is unbalanced. The Polish uprisings (while important) should not have this much detail in the *Summary*. They are best left to the various history articles, whose links are provided at the beginning of this section. This is not the place to debate how "autonomous" the Grand Duchy was (let's leave that the article about the Grand Duchy and its history). And there is no need to repeat the entire history of Wielkopolska here. A summary of the official governments through time, with references to the related geopolitical events is sufficient. Any material specific to just the town should be considered, for example the 1848 uprising which was centered in Poznan/Posen. Bwood 12:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bwood's questions
radomil 16:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) taken from number of deaths, births and migration "saldo" - I was thinking about situation like that: You have got number of inhabitants from census. Each year you've got summary - how many inhabitants died, how many persons was born, how many people imigrate to town, and how many emigrate. Mayby you would find better English term for datas like this
 * 2) Trial of Arthur Greiser was as fair as Nuremberg Trials (and more fair than today's "trials" in Guantanamo. If you thinking about this phrase from Arthur Greiser article - After Greiser was convicted, he was paraded around the city of Poznan in a cage, before being hanged - imagine Herman Goering's trial in 1945 or 1946 in Coventry or London. Don't You think that he wasn't lynched shows that it was a trial?
 * 3) 90 000 German settlers during wwII - 19 682 from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia; 154 from Galicia, Wolyn and from lands in Narew valley, 550 from Bukowina; 20 from Bessarabia; 400 of Shwarzmerrdeutshe; about 20 000 of Volksdeutshe from Poland; rest from Germany - soliders of garrison, police, administratin workers and their famillies. After allied air forces started destroing German town - workers of few factories (e.g. Focke-Wulf) etc.
 * does "saldo" mean "summary"? or "report"?
 * 90,000 instead of 90.00, right?
 * (just couldn't understand, not debating any issues) Bwood 17:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I also just wanted to anserw your questions, I'm sorry for may English :)
 * "migration saldo" = number of imigrants - number of emigrants radomil 18:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As to the question number 2 - this indeed was a trail of tears, but the guy deserved it (and much more than that). Whether it was a trial (I guess that's the word you were looking for) - yes, it was. There was no force on earth that could've defended him though, although he did have a defendant. And the style of his hanging did not change much, it was very similar to countless other executions all around Europe, from France to Yugoslavia and from Poland to Soviet Union (did you know that the last person to die on a pole was some German SS mj. general in Yugoslavia in 1945?).

The executions of war criminals in Poznan were carried out by the so-called "social hangmen", a group of relatives of the victims of German terror who volunteered for the job. They were joined by countless people who saw their attendance as an act of purification after all they had to suffer during the war. This was needed in order to uncharge the civil unrest. It was a clear act of vengance, but this way victims among civilian Germans could be avoided. As a sidenote, the concept that all the Germans should be put in former German concentration camps was not that alien in Europe after WWII. I even prepared an interview with a woman who said she was dissappointed that the Allies did not shot to death 6 millions Germans after the war... In this context his short trip around the city he was slaughtering for 6 years does not seem a step too far (although by todays' standarts...). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:41, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt spellings
Did you have a deliberate reason for changing the American english spellings to British english? ("center" to "centre") Bwood 23:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page protected
I have protected this page due to an ongoing edit/revert war and page protection request on WP:RFPP. Thank you. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:21, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * When this page become unprotected, someone please add & . It's a wikilink to the article in Japanese. Thanks. Revth 12:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

comment on NPOV
Sorry about the multiple edits to this, I keep thinking of new things to say and realizing others aren't important, since you can find an argument for either side anywhere. At first I chose to defend the lesser represented of the two, but I think I'll just insert my other two cents.

Words like "occupied" are very suggestive of point of view...I went through this article and tried to be as impartial as possible. I only used terms like "return and restore" when the change in power is exchanged back and forth within a short period of time, such as it in the Forties or the period during Napoleon's implementation of the Duchy of Warsaw. Being an American, I thought it would be interesting to offer as an example the way the United States (ca. 1776) never is referred to as an "occupier" despite our seizure of Native American or Mexican lands...then again, these regions have yet to change hands again, so that could be the reason why such terminology is used. It could also be because this appears to be a rather permanent change. An interesting note about Poland and Germany is that the borders DO appear to be finalized, especially now that the divide between ethnicities is rather distinguished. Ironic how the Pan-Germanic movement created a solution to this former problem, but it wasn't the one most had envisioned and in the process, also lost land that I really wouldn't consider Polish except prior to the 1400's (Szczecin, Słupsk), though now it is almost fully populated by that majority. It's also kind of funny that Germany was united under Prussia, and yet the territories that made up Prussia - except for those close to Berlin - cease to exist as part of the German state. This is another reason why the solution is likely to be final, since two ethnic groups are not competing over the same land - barring any future belligerence.

--24.72.227.2 08:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

intro
The 'history of Poznan' is a section already within the page, so I cut the historical information out of the introduction that was also included in the 'history of poland' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.21.204 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yiddish name
Is there any reason to put a name of the city in Yiddish? There is no information about importance of Poznan to Jewish culture, language, etc. There is no information about significant Jewish minority before the WW2. Also other cities that would fulfill those conditions (Lodz, Krakow, Lublin) do not have their names in Yiddish (perhaps they simply do not have them, I do not know). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.32.162 (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Historical population of Poznań - in 19th century Jews were more than 20% o population. Three groups: Poles, Germans and Jews were most significant in towns history. Radomil talk 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish and Latin names
Why the Yiddish name? I hardly see one of those in articles about Belarusian or Ukrainian citis which, perhaps, wold desrve it more. I mean they had a far bigger percentage of Jewish population before WW II than Poznan. In fact some towns in the Kresy were predominantly Jewish. However the Jewish population in Poznan was one of the smallest in II RP (in terms of percenatage).

And the latin name is just hilarious. Was Poznan ever populated by ancient Romans, or was it a major Latin kultural centre? And just don't say that Latin was a state language of PLC. You know better than me it was only used for administrative purposes and never widely spoken (bisides the nobles). And even in this role it gradualy gave way to Polish. So why bother? 83.14.140.134 23:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why Yiddish: In history of Poznań, Jews were one of three main nationalities of city (they were ca. 20% of populatoion) - see: Historical population of Poznań
 * Why Latin: Latin was official language of whole town's administration at least till XV century. Also first mention about Poznań is in Latin.
 * Radomil talk 10:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the yiddish name: When talking about small jewish population in II RP I meant prcisely the II RP i.e. 1919-1939. Take a look at the 1931 census. It means that jews are not a significant minority in the city since at least 75 years. But that's not all that important.

The message I'm trying get across is that the yiddish name 'Poyzn'is obscure in english (299 hits). The hits I got for 'Poyzn' were regarding a turkish goth metal grup or were mirrors of wikipedia. The sole page were 'Poyzn' reffers to the city is a jewish organisation. Btw even this page uses 'Poyzn' as a typicaly yiddish term while in brackets giving a explanation that 'Poznan' is being meant!

So what is the purpose of keeping the name?

the latin name: In medival europe latin was the universal language of diplomacy, science, intelectuals and most importantly the church. The scribes in chancelarys were all clergymen hence no wonder administrative acts were in latin, most sources from that period are in latin and so forth. So your argument is -pardon the expression- laughable, as it is true for most medieval cities. Does it mean that latin played an important rolein the town's culture? No. Was it a language native to the inhabitants? No. Is it in popular usage? No (667 hits, most abot the sports club, others mirrors of wiki). Is it redundant? I certainly think so!

Reasuming: 1. the usage of yiddish and latin names is close to nil 2. keeping the names may mislead people about their importance 3. they take space and make the heading look messy 4. they look posh and somewhat funy (IMHO)

```` 83.14.140.134 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Royal Castle in Poznań
Related stub just created, likely should be linked from here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just want to say: awesome job, Radomil!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

why am I on the blacklist?
Hi why am I able changing all articles except Posnan? I get the message that I would be on a SPAM Blacklist. I have never been informed nor did I ever had someone who disagreed anything about my input. So I do not understand what is going on. Please help. Thank you (Fujicolor 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Names in other languages
Do we write names of the cities because of information or because the city sometime they belonged to somebody? 193.109.212.37 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of the discussion page?
I noticed that when German editors don't have any more points, they will insert the word "fucking" multiple times into Polish editors' comments. The last time they proved that Polish cities and astronomers are German they used their bombers and their SS, so it's still not so bad a behaviour, but anyway shouldn't there be a possibility of protecting the discussion pages from vandalism?

name in German
The discussion of the use of other names in the opening line seems to be 4 years old, and does not seem to have come to consensus. The city was under German rule for 200 of the last 300 years - readers will expect the German name to immediately follow the Polish: Poznań (Posen; see also other names) This is the solution for other cities that were part of Germany or its predecessor states for a significant period of time, and it makes sense here as well. Jd2718 (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Only for 120, not 200 in whole history of city -it is over 1000 years, only with ca. 10 year of German majority, all over with Polish majority of inhabitants. Radomil talk 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct about the number of years. But these are 120 of the more recent years. Poznań is and was a Polish city, but the German presence and period of rule are significant. Jd2718 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Disucsion was caused by number of names in heading and their order. German rule over the city, not counting ocupation during world war II, extended 90 years ago, so those 120 yeras are not so recent. Order was also cause of problem. For instant: why german name should be before Latin, while latin was language of administration for over 600 years (so about 60% of town's history)? And what about Yiddish name? Language of significant minority present in history of Poznań as long as Germans? Radomil talk 14:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is taking any names out. It is just a question of moving Posen up, directly after Poznań. And 90 years ago is long, but still just a few generations. This is still considered modern history. Jd2718 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But it is only one of opinions, marking German name as so important, not any neutral POV... Radomil talk 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to be normal in other WP articles on now-Polish, sometime German cities to include the German name in the lead. Sometimes other names (Latin, Kashubian, Lithuanian, Yiddish... appear as well). Posen certainly seems to be an important historical name under which readers might have encoutered this city in the English literature. Latin and Yiddish names less so, but they could appear in the lead too, after Posen. It isn't a POV issue (no-one's disputing what the names were), just a question of what information is likely to be useful for readers.--Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The German name must appear in the opening sentence. It was the official name of the city for the whole of the 19th century, is still commonly used in English, and still appears in some English-language maps. I appreciate Polish sensitivities about this, but omitting the German name is just childish. What if the Lviv article failed to mention that it was once called Lwów, hmmm? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC) (in beautiful Poznan)


 * Not at all. Was one of two offical names (Grand Duchy was bilingual) other examples of towns with simmilar problems are Prague or Bratislava. I do not mind If Liviv would be trated in this same way. Radomil talk 19:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I bet you would mind. Yes, OK, during the brief Napoleonic period it was Poznan, but during the entire Prussian and German Empire period it was Posen. I know you don't like this but it's a fact, and omitting it is childish and unencyclopaedic. Gdansk, Szczecin, Wroclaw, Olsztyn and Katowice all give the German name immediately after the Polish name. Encyclopaedias need to be consistent, and not to pander to the patriotic sentiment of some users. Even the Polish Wikipedia gives Posen immediately after Poznan! (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pozna%C5%84) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is ommitin it. It's just other solution of prblem, not grading if German or Latin name is more important. And as for Grand Duchy... read terms of Congress of Vienna... Polish autonomy was guarantee by international treaty. Prussia abolished this authonomy in 1846. Up this time Grand Duchy was autonomic, bilingual, and kept outside of German Confederation. History of Middle Europe (or Mitteleuropa) is not so simple Radomil talk 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Piervously was this same solution as on pl: but there were edit wars if Latin or German name goes first... History is complex... even now Radomil talk 19:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to argue Polish history with a Pole, but the Duchy of Poland was abolished at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The so-called Kingdom of Poland within the Russian Empire had some autonomy until 1831, but the Poznan area was directly incorporated into Prussia.
 * The Latin and Yiddish names are hardly of comparable status, since Poznan was never ruled by Romans or Jews. By all means include them, but after the German name. So far as I know, the city has only ever had two official names, Poznan and Posen.
 * Can you answer my questions below? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

While I have your attention, two questions:
 * why was the course of the Warta river at the eastern side of the city changed in the 1960s, just to create a rather ugly valley now used mostly as a car park?
 * what is the big stone building on the south-western corner of Kosciuszki and E Taylora? It looks 19th century but it's not on my 1910 German map. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about Duchy of Warsaw, I'm about created by Congress from its eastern portion Grand Duchy of Posen. As for latin, It was official language of administration for centuries..., as for Yiddish, agree, thats problem is only on first non-Polsih name (Latin or German). Now questions:
 * Warta: To prevent (at least in mind of authors of this idea) floods in spring and to make river usuable again for shipping during summer.
 * On SW and NW corners is park... on NE corner is [[Image:Akademia Ekonomiczna Poznań RB1.JPG|25px]] build 1929-1932, for Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa (difficult to translate.. mayby some like "College of Commerce" currently used by it's continuation - Poznań University of Economics, on SE is [[Image:ZDOKP Poznań RB1.JPG|25px]] build 1910-1916 used for all its history as seat of directorate (German and Polish, with names changing during times) of railways (currently Zachodnia Dyrekcja Okręgowa Kolei Państwowych ("Western Regional Directorate of State Rail") and few minor directorate like Poznań Regional Directorate of PKP PLK. Radomil talk 20:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant this building: http://adam-carr.net/photofolder2007/poznan/P1030450.JPG. Maybe I have the street names wrong, but I'm sure it's on Kosciuszki, which I walked the length of this afternoon. I think the buildings you have posted pix of are on Niepodleglosci, not Kosciuszki. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is rear view of Railway Directorate. Radomil talk 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, as a Polish editor, I think that "Posen" should come first (after Poznan), since nobody speaks Latin anymore (you know what I mean) (and if you look at the way other cities are listed, Latin usually comes last). On the positive side, it's nice that the discussions about naming conventions have moved on to such triviality, though discussed in a much more civil manner.radek (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Links to commercial sites
Do we need links to several sites for commercial companies? E.g. hotels, hostels etc? I wanted to undo recent additions, but I hesitated. What's wikipedia policy on this? Szopen (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:ELNO is a guideline of sites we should not link to. Basically I'd say delete it either if it adds no further encyclopaedic information for the reader, or if the link is there more for the website's benefit by increasing traffic than the readers' benefit. Knepflerle (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image at top of infobox
I don't think the montage of photos currently at the top of the infobox really tells the reader anything except that this is a city with lots of buildings. And it takes up quite a lot of space, forcing the actual infobox down off the first screen. Can we move it to somewhere else, or perhaps get rid of it, if all the important locations are already depicted in captioned images?--Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"German majority"
Skapperod added a claim that the "German settlers constituted the majority in Polish towns of that time". I don't think the source he presented supports his claim. Dr. Loosmark 12:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been sorted out and verified here. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope it has not been "sorted out", far from it. Dr. Loosmark  10:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a source that says that the "burghers" of towns at some time were primarily of German origin. Were the entire population of towns considered to be burghers?--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

B-class review failed
This article does not meet B-class criteria, due to missing key sections (ex. economy) and insufficient inline referencing (there are entire sections unreferenced). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 16:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

text biased and unbalanced
It should be added that at the Congress of Vienna there was a confrontation between Russia and Prussia opposing France, Britain and Austria about the creation of a Polish state. Prussia and Russia wanted a constitutional united Polish state, Britain and France rejected. This was the major point of disagreement, almost resulting into a war.

Basically it was Britain's divide and conquer tactics that aimed at installing problems and weakening any possible opponent rather than "giving peace".

Prussia initially had no interest in annexing any territory that was Polish. So called Polish partitions were about a dysfunctional political unit that was already under Russian control. Prussia was interested in Saxony, whose duke was "Polish" king of that Russian controlled Poland. At the Vienna congress Prussia wanted Saxony instead of the Posen/Poznan territory and Russia wanted to establish a Polish constitutional kingdom, which would have led into a Poland in its ethnic boundaries, i.e. in boundaries were people regarded themselves as Poles.

Apparently, because western culture is anti-German and Prussia ethnically cleansed, certain aspects of history are left out for distorting understanding of issues. Another such distorted topic is about the term Ostsiedlung or Eastern Colonization. This does not compare to French and British colonization of overseas territories, because settlers from Germany were invited to come and not sent as conquerers from any German state. They were legal immigrants.

In connection with WWII, borders between Poland and Germany after WWI were never agreed by Germany and result of the Polish attack on Germany at the end of the war. Polish-German borders were legally disputed for a number of reasons. Poland expelled a large number of the 2.4 million Germans who came under Polish control and even killed many. Normalization between Germany and Poland was not achieved before WWII, Hitler wanted to recognize Polish borders in return for a transit road to detached Eastern Prussia and a return of Danzig that was 96% German on plebiscite and whose population wanted to belong to Germany. Britain gave a guarantee to Poland for escalating the Danzig conflict and Polish military wanted war because they expected victory in a big alliance paving way for annexation of Eastern Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. After German victory, the pre-WWI population of Germans was re-established. Hitler tried to end war and settle with Britain 42 times and wanted to establish a Poland in its ethnic boundaries but Britain refused any talks, finally ceded Poland to Soviet Union and not declaring war on Soviet Union when they invaded Poland.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.153.19.174 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about a city in Poland. No trolling please. --Lysytalk 07:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why there is trolling. I'm a slavic Pomeranian who says what he thinks. There is a lot of significance for Posen/Poznan region in context of the Vienna Congress, which was supposed to establish European peace. It was there and then that Poland was divided, i.e. Poles lost sovereignty and were merged into Russia and Prussia as minorities (at around that time Britain and US were slavers, hunted Indians, pirates on all the seas, decimated the Irish, ...). And it was Britain and France who are responsible, not Prussia or Russia who made large efforts to establish a Polish state. The term Posen/Poznan is not just about a city of today but stands for a whole region which in turn stands for a Polish-German conflict where there is involvement of the world powers France and Britain. In this context, there should be mentioning of the point of view of all sides involved. And no, I'm not pledging for saying Posen/Poznan is/was German, definitely it was Polish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.153.19.174 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There's some inaccurate information on Poznan History
I understand some of the Polish nationalism on here, but often times people write incorrect information when they're "in the heat of the moment". To the poster who claims Posen "always was, is, and always will be" a Polish city has glaring mistakes in the explanation. The fact is (and feel free to do research to educate yourself) Posen was part of Prussia, and then the German Empire from 1793 to post WW1 in 1918/1919. YES, during the Napoleon led Polish Uprising of 1806 the City briefly switched back to Polish control for about 9 years (1806-1815). But history is accurate in claiming the City was a part of Germanic statehood for nearly 115 years. During this time, the Prussians (Germans if you like) greatly fortified and expanded the City into a stronghold and center of culture and trade in the area. The Germans of the city weren't "invited" by the Polish rulers to settle - rather the Prussians encouraged settlement into these areas in order to "Germanize" them. In fact for most of the 19th century, many Posen residents who never knew the days of being part of Poland, and of Polish decent, would have considered themselves Germans of Polish decent. You may not like to hear these facts, but they are indeed, facts. Part of my family lived in Posen and originally settled there in the mid-19th century during Prussian rule. Once the City was handed over to Poland after WW1, they moved, along with many others, back to Germany. To say they were "Good Poles" is completely inaccurate. One side of the City was German, and the other side was Polish. After WW1, the city then became primarily Polish as the ethnic Germans migrated back. It's fine to have an opinion, but when it comes to history, we really need to base these on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.61.10 (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @208.92.61.10 By the 1840s, the German population of Poznań didn't exceed 40%. Even at the height of German inhabitance, the city was still majority Polish. 85.128.6.226 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Poznań. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120714064143/http://www.raanana.muni.il:80/English/Topics/My+City/Sister+Cities/ to http://www.raanana.muni.il/English/Topics/My+City/Sister+Cities/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Confirmed as being the correct link. Thanks, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Poznań. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140719025116/http://www.szfao.gov.cn/zwgk/wsz/201103/t20110322_1645217.htm to http://www.szfao.gov.cn/zwgk/wsz/201103/t20110322_1645217.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131113092638/http://www.szfao.gov.cn/ygwl/yxyc/ycgy/201101/t20110120_1631663.htm to http://www.szfao.gov.cn/ygwl/yxyc/ycgy/201101/t20110120_1631663.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141112101846/http://www.szfao.gov.cn/ygwl/yxyc/yhjl/ to http://www.szfao.gov.cn/ygwl/yxyc/yhjl/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140718035924/http://mysite.verizon.net/vze85xxc/polegl/RZESZ.html to http://mysite.verizon.net/vze85xxc/polegl/RZESZ.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Confirmed as correct x 4. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Poznań → Poznan – The proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME for the city. This is shown by the broad use of the proposed name by multiple news agencies, such as NYT, the Guardian, AP, AJ, Reuters, and ABC. Spekkios (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per comments here --> - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As per your comment there, please show that reliable sources use the current name, because as per my move request it appears they do not. --Spekkios (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are four similar proposals currently active — Talk:Zürich, Talk:Kraków, Talk:Wrocław and Talk:Łódź. All of these propose to strip diacritics from the names of European cities that use the Latin alphabet — a matter that has already been decided in favor of accents and diacritics during previous such discussions. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that no policy-aligned reason has been provided here, with the only reason being a vague nod at past discussions which don't exist for this article, and if they did WP:CCC and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would apply. BilledMammal (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have provided no policy reason to oppose a move nor provided any evidence that the matter of accents and diacritics has been decided, especially because WP:DIACRITICS clearly says to use the WP:COMMONNAME as provided in reliable English-languages sources. --Spekkios (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, for the same reasons as at the Wroclaw discussion; per the sources provided in the nomination and my own search, it is the clear WP:COMMONNAME.
 * In regards to GizzyCatBella's !vote, if this were the Polish Wikipedia then they would be correct - "Poznań" would be the correct spelling, and "Poznan" would be inaccurate. However, this is not the Polish Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia, and in English, per reliable sources, "Poznan" is the correct name for the city. I would also note that no policy justification has been provided for their position, while "Poznan" is supported by WP:COMMONNAME, by WP:UE, which states that "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage", and by WP:DIACRITICS, which states that the use of diacritics should "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language". If they, or other editors, disagree with this, then I would suggest that they seek to change WP:UE or WP:DIACRITICS, rather than trying to overrule them with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk)
 * have you looked in the category Category:Cities_and_towns_in_Greater_Poland_Voivodeship? Have you looked at any Eastern Europe geo cat on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If the articles listed in those categories have titles that disagree with policy, then those articles should also be moved, or policy should be changed. Personally, I would have a slight preference for moving, but if a policy change was proposed it wouldn't be hard to convince me to support it. What should not be done is allow the status quo to stand. BilledMammal (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose as per established rules--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which rules are you refering to? WP:DIACRITICS and WP:COMMONNAME both support this move. --Spekkios (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they do not.  Volunteer Marek   09:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DIACRITICS says The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. and WP:COMMONNAME says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. Can you please explain how those policies don't support the new name, intead of just stating they don't? --Spekkios (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We have English sources aplenty that use diacritics. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument is not that there are no English sources for a name, but that the WP:COMMONNAME is not the article title. There are approximately 220,000 scholar results for Poznan and 190,000 for Poznań. BBC has 1,130 for Poznan and 31 for Poznań. Reuters is 2,240 vs 139. --Spekkios (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * a restriction of google scholar searches to be after 2010 shows 39,200 for Poznan and 45,700 for Poznań —blindlynx 14:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * oppose Per the Wrocław and Kraków discussions—blindlynx 14:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the other discussions (linked to by Roman S).  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per my comments on Talk:Wrocław – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is not dumbed down and WP:DIACRITICS are ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose no evidence has been provided per WP:TENNISNAMES that Poznań is a blonde Serbian former tennis player. We only anglicize one article on en.wp because of the special rules that apply to that one person. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are commenting under the right article? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IIO's comment is in reference to ancient discussions on Talk:Ana Ivanović from a previous iteration of the endless diacritics dispute – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, WP:DEADHORSE... close, and move on until another newbie in 10 years discovers diacritics and gets confused. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's an extremely poor characterisation of the nature of this request. --Spekkios (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose news services often avoid all diacritics for reasons that don't apply to Wikipedia, and other usage suggests we should use the diacritic. On a Google Scholar search for "Poznan" (without a diacritic), all of the top 10 results use a diacritic (and are in English). User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose none of the sources use any diacritics for anything in their articles. We can't tell if they made the intentional decision to misspell Poznań or if they just didn't bother on adding them. By the way, the sources also misspell person names, such as Bartłomiej Wróblewski. Will someone also try to move the article per WP:COMMONNAME? Super   Ψ   Dro  10:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will happily note that all other RMs attempting to remove diacritics from city names have failed (except the Zürich one, as it's still open). Maybe people should take this as a sign that we aren't misspelling names per lazy sources and end these requests. Super   Ψ   Dro  10:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to see this failed, but someone please put this out of its misery and close it. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.