Talk:Szczecin/Archive 1

Links
I just wanted to add a link to Russian wiki's &. Can anyone authorized to change the article do that for me?
 * Some of us will certainly add it after de-protecting. Don't worry. Przepla 15:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Szczecin, Duchy of Pomerania and the Holy Roman Empire
Stettin in Pomerania, which was from 1181 until 1806 in the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, then in German confederation and Deutsches Reich (German empire) until 1945.


 * It is not true that Szczecin was part of the Holy Roman Empire since 1181; Szczecin was at least in years 1127-1637 part of and later capital of the Duchy of (Western) Pomerania and ruled by the Dukes of Pomerania of the Gryffin dynasty. The duchy had various internalional relations with its neighbours: Poland, Denmark, Saxony, Brandenburg, Holy Roman Empire and later Sweden (1637-1720), Kingdom of Prussia (1720-1870/1945) and German Empire (1870-1945). Mestwin of Gdansk 21:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Aby way the link is wrong: the Szczecin was NOT part of HRE chapter in the history of Germany. We need a new article about the Holy Roman Empire, which constisted not only of the Kingdom of Germany, but also the Kingdoms of Bohemia, Italy, Burgundy and other states.

Miscelanious ducal, royal houses of Europe took part in the government of Pomerania as well as Stettin. They all received their office of dukes of Stettin and dukes of Pomerania from the HRR Heilig Roemisch Reich/HRE Holy Roman Empire/SAC ROM IMP. adding: Swedish kings were Reichs Fürsten or imperial princes of the HRE Holy Roman Empire from at least 1648 Treaty of Westphalia until 1806 demise of empire. As such they were Dukes of Pomerania. Also see Swedish Empire and Dominions of Sweden. Stettin and Pomerania had for many years also the Hohenzollern dukes. Articles in Wikipedia especially on eastern history state many mistakes and gross misrepresentations. People were only fed war propaganda and the party line ( as I wrote earlier on both sides). It is tiresome to correct the numerous false histories at Wikipedia, often under attacks, therefore the list (it's now much sabotaged). There are disclaimers on all pages, meaning don't believe anything you read here, check it out yourself. Trouble is, these Wikipedia pages with all the mistakes get copied multiple times. MfG ---


 * Main article states: Duchy of Stettin was created in 1295 then banished in 1464. Szczecin received location charter in 1243. Between 1630-1713 under Swedish rule. The above statement seems wrong. Przepla 21:58, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

City population
source: Rocznik Statystyczny 1981, G&#322;ówny Urz&#261;d Statystyczny, Warszawa 1981, Rok XLI 1960: 269.400 inbabitants 1970: 338.000 inbabitants 1975: 369.700 inbabitants 1980: 388.300 inbabitants

cc

Nico, please stop inserting German names everywhere. This is ridiculous. Edit something else. -- cc 18 Nov 2003, 06:31

CC, please stop insert foreign names elsewhere. English name at English Wikipedia, please! Let me remind you what Rick told you before:

Names of cities Please stop renaming cities to Polish names. The names in use are those known to English speakers. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and needs not be done again. I'll revert all of your changes. RickK 05:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What do you want Rick?????????????????????????

Nico

I second Nico here. Names are OK in this article, so Oder not Odra. And of course Londyn will stay Londyn NOT London in Polish Wikipedia. Przepla 21:03, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

WARNING. Nico the Silling
Nico primary area of interest is Poland. His activities are mainly making sure every single town and river in Poland is reffered to by its German name used in times Poland was occupied by German, Polish language forbidden, Polish people exterminated by the Germans. Nico activities are very destructive and annoying. -- cc 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With all due respect, but this is not the case in Szczecin and Oder articles. Szczecin was never occupied by Germany, and Oder was as far as I remember mainly river flowing during germanic nations.

Moreover, I think your point is flawed. See Vistula article, for example, nobody is changing it to Wis&. Once again let me state that: Oder is a name of Odra river in English, as well as Tamiza is a Polish name for a river Thames. It is common for major cities and rivers to have their names changed in national languages. There is: Nowy Jork not New York, Waszyngton not Washington, Amazonka not Amazon River Poczdam not Potsdam, Ren not Rhine river. It is completely OK to use Oder in English wikipedia -- it is major river. It is completely wrong to use Politz as a name of a Police, Poland since it is not a major city in Poland.

As an objective wikipedian only thing that matter to me is if the name used is a name use in English language. It does not matter if the name is of German, Latin or Martian origin. And if my homeland was occupied by Martians I will not make a crusade to change name of major cities and rivers in English language from Martian to Polish origin, just because Martians occupied my country. Language is by it's very definition neutral, it is only the association with that language that makes them non-neutral.

Please consider Naming Conventions: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. and Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Naturally, this supports what I stated earlier.

In short: Only reasons for changing Oder and Oder-Neisse line into Odra and Granica na Odrze i Nysie & is that: those [Polish] names are more frequently recognizable in English and/or as such appear in English media and as far as I know, they are, unfortunately may I add, not. Przepla 09:24, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

@Wik. Could you kindly explain reason for reverts, pretty please? No matter how low you think of mine edits, please at least give some rationale to your changes. Empty summaries are extremely rude. I gave reasons to my changes, why do you assume that I am so stubborn that I am unable to understand your POV? Maybe mine changes were bad, gave me reasons so I can improve, please treat other with respect. Przepla 00:28, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the above. Wik, your reversals are very irritating, especially since they tend to REMOVE INFORMATION, and change common names with the Polish ones. Jor 00:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to begin the article with the former German name. The current name is Szczecin and nothing else. --Wik 00:30, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * See above quote from Naming Conventions, I am just adhering to standards: Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Also please observe names in Warszawa article (everywhere is Warsaw here), Prague (Praha in Chech), Moscow, Rome... English name goes first! And the idea is to use one name of the city in whole article, now it is named differently in different paragraphs. This may be confusing to non familiar with subject. Przepla 00:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Does the current edit appease your Polish nationalism? Jor 00:35, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I am a Pole and I live in Stettin. I don't know if Wik is Pole. Przepla 00:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik, you can't be serious. Do you actually believe that Germans refer to the city under the POLISH name? Jor 00:42, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It's about evenly divided, but the old names are clearly falling out of use. --Wik 00:49, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Who cares what Germans call the city? It's not part of Germany.  What matters is a) what the city is called in English; and b) what the inhabitants called the city.  Fortunately, this roughly coincides on a chronological basis.  Before 1945, both inhabitants and English-speakers called it "Stettin".  Thereafter, inhabitants and, increasingly, English-speakers, refer to it as Szczecin.  I think "Formerly Stettin" is fine, since this is the former official name of the city, and is no longer in official use.  Stettin is rather different from, say, Gdansk, in that, so far as I am aware, the name Szczecin can be considered a new name created after 1945. john 01:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think Wik is basically right here. Certainly, the city after 1945 ought to be referred to as Szczecin.  Before 1945, I think Stettin would be the most reasonable way to refer to it.  Although wouldn't ("Stettin before 1945" or "formerly Stettin" be the easiest way to do the intro part?)  BTW, I think a pronunciation guide for Szczecin is in order.  Am I right to think it's something like "Stsetsin"? john 06:51, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * i use Stettin and Breslau in daily life only because they are easy to spell and promounce quickly - nothing political comes in to it. PMA 06:53, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Szczecin is a real mouthful. I know that "Wroclaw" actually is pronounced very similarly to "Breslau" - a softer opening sound (a "v"-ish sound, rather than a "b"), but otherwise essentially the same.

No -- it's pronounced Vrots' wav. The 'l' has a line through it & is pronounced like English 'w.' User:sca

I imagine the same is true for Szczecin/Stettin. And, of course, it was from Stettin, not Szczecin, on the Baltic that the Iron Curtain ran (except that it really ran from somewhere rather further west, but Churchill didn't want to include occupied Germany...). But this doesn't mean that a print article should refer to it by an obsolete name. john 07:01, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Szczecin in pronouced like this: Shczecin (Sh like in Sheep, cz like in Chech, e like in Stettin, ci -- tti is a reasonable approximation of this sound as there is no english similar, and n.) I think it is virtually unpronancable by english speakers. As for is it should be Szczecin or Stettin, my changes, which apparently ignited this edit war, were intended to unify usage in this article, as there were only 2 instances of Szczecin, while everywhere else within was Stettin. As Wik stated both names seems to be equally popular. So why, using the time the article is protected, not decide which version we shall use here, and use it within entire article. I think if we give enough reasons to one of those versions we may deter future edit wars about this problem. Naming Conventions instructs to use version which is more recognizable by native English speakers. I for one, believe that Stettin is more recognizable than Szczecin, but I am not an native English speaker. So the question is which name is more recognizable Szczecin or Stettin, and prefarably some proofs like Google results or similar... Przepla 13:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent what I said. I said in German both names are about equally popular. In English Szczecin is about 30 times as popular as Stettin. --Wik 17:07, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are naturally right.Przepla 19:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stettin being easier to say in English. pronuncing Wroclaw in the way its supposed to be is a little hard to get out properly too but that might be just me. PMA 15:54, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that it should be called "Stettin" for historical references before 1945, and "Szczecin" for general references and for historical references after 1945. john 16:55, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is necessary. This would cause confusion. Besides, Szczecin was within Polish area of influence 'till 14th century. On the other hand this would be much needed compromise. Przepla 19:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * @Przepla - You've made a mistake in the pronounciation guide :) Sh-che-tti-n, sh from {sh}eep, che from {che}ck, tti is really hard, try ci from Italian {ci}abatta, and finally 'normal' n. Have fun reading! jwozniak (guest from Polish Wikipedia)

Polish area of influence, sort of, but not part of Poland (like Gdansk was until 1793). At any rate, was the spelling "Szczecin" ever used before 1945? I'm not sure why this would cause confusion, while use of Constantinople/Istanbul, or whatever, does not. At any rate, it seems like an agreeable compromise just to use the 1945 thing. john 21:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can I just note a) that this page was protected long after the edit war ended; and that b) Wik is pretty clearly in the right in his dispute with Darkelf? The idea that this page should be protected and unprotected based on Wik's presence or absence, when it is Darkelf who is arguing the obnoxious position, is, I think, not a good one. john 20:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The issue of Szczecin/Stettin's name
As this page was unprotected I think it is time to reach a consensus about how Szczecin/Stettin supposed to be named within Wikipedia. Let us like civilised Wikipedians discuss the issue here, then perhaps after some 2 weeks time, let's vote similarly like in VfD, then change the page according to reached consensus and stick with it against foreign intrusions ;-). I think there are 3 options: I suggest we put arguments for and against in this format:
 * 1) Use Szczecin everywhere
 * 2) Use Stettin everywhere
 * 3) Use Stettin for events before 1945, Szczecin after 1945.

Arguments for

 * Szczecin is current name of the city. Przepla 15:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * All major sources list Stettin as a redirect to Szczecin (see: [], [], []) Przepla 15:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Google English page search gets 502,000 hits for Szczecin while 23,900 for Stettin Przepla 15:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This would be best as current mixed naming within an article is somewhat clumsy, it is not cleared what current name is. Przepla 15:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Szczecin is the modern spelling of the city name. It would be funny to use various spellings for various periods of time. Mestwin of Gdansk 21:40, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Szczecin is the official city name. Mestwin of Gdansk 21:40, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Szczecin home page and most of publications uses Szczecin in English, Frenche, Polish etc. versions, Stettin in the German vaersions Mestwin of Gdansk 21:40, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arguments against

 * The city is not normally called "Szczecin" when referring to it before 1945. john 21:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Argument 2

Arguments for

 * Argument 1
 * Argument 2

Arguments against

 * The city is no longer called Szczecin. john 21:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Argument 2

Arguments for

 * It definitely would create some consensus, and perhaps it would end useless edit wars. Przepla 15:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Even better would be creation of History of Szczecin page, when as shown in History of London or New Amsterdam and New York, New York articles appropriate names would be used in appropriate historical context. Then Stettin would not appear within article besides first paragraph, and in History of Szczecin Stetin would change into Stettin and Szczecin as history progressed. Przepla 15:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The city was and is usually known in English as "Stettin" before it became part of Poland after the Second World War. john 21:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The city was known as "Stettin" to its inhabitants before 1945. john 21:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arguments against

 * My source Nowa Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN (Warsaw, 1995-1998) [Polish equivalent of best encyclopedia) says that in the 12th century city was named Stetin (without double letter t) and German name was Stettin (with double t). Apparently initial Slavic name is Stetin. Przepla 15:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Article about Rome, use Rome even if it should use Latin Roma all the time when it was part of Roman Empire. Przepla 15:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Stetin is the Old-Polish spelling for the city which is spelled Szczecin today (pronounces the same). Similarly the personal name Stephan was accepted ito medieval Polish as Szczepan, but also as Stefan in modern times. Mestwin of Gdansk 21:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Side note
I live in Szczecin, and I would be very glad if issue of naming my home city within Wikipedia would be finally settled. Let's show others Wikipedians that we are able to settle our debate as it should be. Let's show that despite our different opinions we can reach consensus without calling each other names and using edit wars and forcing page protections. Thank you. Przepla 22:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone present a solid objection to just using Stettin before 1945 and Szczecin thereafter? Is there any evidence of the city being called "Szczecin" before 1945? The article itself says that "Stetin" is the old Polish name. The most sensible idea is simply to use "Stettin" before 1945 and "Szczecin" thereafter. Is there any objection to this? john 08:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Unless someone convince me otherwise, I think that creating of History of Szczecin where Stetin, Stettin, and Szczecin are used in apropriate historical context, i.e. as you suggested is currently best solution. I am quite upset by change made by User:AntiNaziWatch despite my pleadings in the article. Przepla 15:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not think anyone but User:AntiNaziWatch (User:Gdansk or caius2ga, or User:Swiecino, and maybe in the near future User:Szczecin) will object to that. Perhaps Wik will have some problems with the bolding of Stettin, and the missing "historical", "former" or "archaeological"? :-) Nico 16:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stettin a former German name?
Let me copy what I have written on Wik's talk page:

Dear Wik, Thank you for once again causing protecting of Szczecin page. Thank you for disregarding my pleas of refraing from editing Szczecin, and for not using the Talk page. Thank you for not saying why are you changed the name. Finally thank you for for extensive checking of sources in order to change the name. Google in German gets 135,000 hits for Stettin, while Szczecin gets 29,200 hits. I am deeply indebted to you.

There is major difference between Poznan and Szczecin. Poznan is a capitol of Greater Poland and it was German due to Partitions, it was in a sense liberated from German occupation. Szczecin is Polish due to Yalta treaty and was German at least from 16th century (and initial slavic name was Stetin by the way.) I shall copy this to Talk:Szczecin, feel free to reply in any page you wish.Przepla 18:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the page-protection of this article was not caused by Wik alone. It takes at least two people to cause an edit war; and in fact, it was Nico who reverted the third time, prompting me to freeze the page. Please do not condemn the actions of one edit warrior without also condemning the other edit warrior. Kingturtle 18:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It was Wik who started the edit war. Nico 18:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That is true, it takes two for edit war. However, I still blame Wik. Nico was reverting to:
 * Temporary community consensus,
 * Despite request for discussion in Talk
 * Without explaing
 * With factually wrong basis as in German Wikipedia is still Stettin not Szczecin as Nico pointed out in his reverts.Przepla 18:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with just "formerly Stettin"? john 18:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It isn't, with exception that it is factually wrong. City of Szczecin is named Stettin in German language, as City of London is named Londyn in Polish language. Compare: Stettin, Londyn. Perhaps, completely removing names in other languages would pacify Wik, but since Stettin sometimes appears in English (compare Churchill's Iron Curtain speech) I think it is non-advisable. Przepla 19:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wik responded to what I said on his talk page:


 * I said all there is to it before. You're searching wrong, the numbers of "Stettin Polen" (2,750) and "Szczecin Polen" (2,440) are about equal, so you can't simply say it's the German name today. --Wik 18:02, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Neverthless 50/50 division is IMO not enough to justify insertion of former name. In that case I think since in German Wikipedia is Stettin former should not be inserted. It would not hurt you to put those data on talk page before editing, wouldn't you? Przepla 19:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It is, because the trend is clear. In the 1950s the relation would have been much different, but for Germans today (other than the old or the reactionary) those are purely Polish cities, and the German names are anachronisms, as otherwise only capitals or very large or otherwise famous foreign cities have separate German names. Using the old German names for any Polish city which once was German is a practice that is clearly falling out of use. --Wik 19:31, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Who cares what the German name is? This is the English Wikipedia. We should care about a) the name by which the city is known in English; and b) the name by which the city is known to its inhabitants. The English name of the city, as well as the name which the city called itself, was "Stettin" before 1945, and is now "Szczecin". john 19:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Further point: the question of what the current German name is is a matter for the German Wikipedia (which still calls it Stettin). On the English wikipedia, I see no particular reason why we should care. The city is no longer a German city. john 19:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. Any idea of consensual solution? Perhaps: >> Szczecin and Stettin are both used in German language (altough latter is falling out of usage) <<.
 * Please note, that the very idea of using new name, while already a name in Polish was established is unknown in Polish langauge. While some city received Polish name it is stuck forever: Rostok for Rostock, Monachium for Munich, Nowy Jork for New York, etc. That is the reason I am sceptical about your arument. I yield however before you knowledge of German. (I speak German very little).
 * On the other hand, some data points strongly against Szczecin in German language (Basic Google search, German Wikipedia). Any idea for official solution -- entry in official German language dictionary would be an excellent proof. Przepla 19:57, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * While using German names for any Polish city is falling out of use, this is definitely not true for the better known ones. Even the Slavists I know agree that it is utterly ridiculous to say Szczecin instead of Stettin when talking German inasmuch as it it ridiculous to say "München" instead of "Monachium" when talking Polish. They are neither nationalist nor revisionist but rather relaxed. Duden Universalwörterbuch, a renowned, if not the most renowned German dictionary, holds that Stettin is the name in German without marking it as historical. The same is true for the maps issued by the "federal political information bureau" and Brockhaus (both the encyclopedia and the atlas). I have never heard someone say something other than "Stettin". If you do a google search "site:bundestag.de" (which is the site of the German parliament) you will find that Stettin is used almost exclusively, Szczecin hits only being additional iformation given in brackets. http://www.spiegel.de/jahrbuch/0,1518,grossbild-309888-,00.html Perhaps this information is useful for you. --128.176.76.103 13:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Another idea. Remove all references for names in foreign languages from the article. Insert: >>Formerly known in English as Stettin<< at the beginning for backward compatibility with Churchill's speach. Move all historical names to History of Szczecin or History Section. Is that would be OK? Przepla 19:57, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just to make matters clear: I am conservative (in the European understanding of the term) but to call me reactionary makes my blood boil. I am born in 1973. That is hardly what any normal human would call "old". And I consider myself anything else than a German nationalist. Nevertheless do I strongly assert that the name Stettin is the most useful in many contexts, for instance when I in my daily work have to deal with American tourists who for some mysterious reason have decided to make a tour on the Baltic Sea. If I write "Stettin" in parenthesis over Szczecin, they often recognize the name they've heard. Similarly Danes and Swedes understand me if I pronounce Stettin, but not as often if I use my best Polish pronounciation. Actually, I'm convinced that Germans (at least from former DDR) are more knowledgeable about the connections Szczecin–Stettin and &#346;winouj&#347;cie–Swinemünde than are Scandinavians. So User:Wik could come with other allegations, but this about only old and reactionary Germans holding on to anachronisms, this is quite simply outrageously respectless and proving Wik's very limited competence in Germanic languages other than English. --Ruhrjung 20:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Przepla's suggestion of "formerly known in English as Stettin" in the introductory section sounds fine to me, although I'd prefer simply "formerly known as Stettin." The rest of it should still be in the article, however, perhaps in its own section which fully explains the nuances of it. john 21:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd rather sugest using English in it to avoid further discussions that this is German name. Przepla 21:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would add, however, that no one (in particular Przepla) has addressed my argument that it makes absolutely no difference what people call the city in German. This should be an argument for German Wikipedia. john 21:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious from suggesting of removing all foreign names from the article that you made valid point. But to make state things clear: You made very valid point.Przepla 21:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't like to feel obnoxious, but I think you argument is addressed above: English speakers who have no particular knowledge on things Polish might well remember the name Stettin but not neccessarily connect it with the name Szczecin. In addition, Stettin is relevant in historical contexts, which merits a redirect from Stettin to Szczecin and a mentioning along the line "formerly known..." Besides, English functioning as a lingua franca makes unintended, unuthourized and unusual borrowings from other languages (German and Scandinavian languages are here relevant) more likely. --Ruhrjung 21:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I meant mentioning backward compatibility above. Przepla 21:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, I don't think anyone disagrees that there should be a notice that the city was formerly known as Stettin. Certainly no one thinks there shouldn't be a redirect. And most people (save User:Gdansk, or whatever his name is, who is a troll) seem to agree that it's fine to call it "Stettin" in the history section when discussing pre-1945 history. My point was directed very squarely at what should be said in the first line. When discussing the name of the city, we should note that the city used to be called "Stettin". But it is absolutely irrelevant what German-speakers call the city now. English-speakers called the city "Stettin" up to 1945 (and generally for a while thereafter). The inhabitants of the city also called it that before 1945. After 1945, the inhabitants have called it Szczecin, and English usage has gradually caught up to that. Whether or not Germans still call it Stettin is simply not very relevant, since there is no particular reason to take any notice of what German-speakers call a non-German city (what German-speakers called the city when it was German, of course, is very much relevant.) john 21:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to say, that I am ashamed of my handling current affair. While I still think that some guilt lies in Wik's Edit then reluctantly discuss politics. I treated this too emotionally. Particularly I should consider relevance of German name discussion on English Wikipedia. I apologize all parties involved. Przepla 21:55, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John, the discussion concerning what is the actual German name was brought up because Wik claimed the name should not be/is not used in German. I agree that it is irrelevant for the English Wikipedia, and Wik should continue this discussion at the German one, IMHO. Anyway, personally I think "formerly Stettin" is fine, which I have said before on a different talk page. User:Yeti however objected to "formerly Danzig" in the Danzig/Gdansk article because he thought it implied that the current name was created after the war. Nico 22:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So, threby was that issue addressed. ;-) May I propose that we copy the pattern from Gdansk?
 * Szczecin (formerly Stettin) is a Baltic Sea city with a long and colorful history. Szczecin is the capital of the West Pomeranian Voivodship of Poland situated at the river Oder, close to the German border.

--Ruhrjung 22:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I second that. We need to remember to insert something about number of inhabitants, when migrating to this version. I specially like the colorful history it is so very true.(Even Szczecin page now have colorful history ;-) Przepla 22:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I'm indifferent towards the "colorful history" bit - it seems kind of sugary and contentless, but whatever. john 00:05, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The content of the "colorful history" is too big to be squezed into the first paragraph. :-))) ...it is to be found further down, not the least in the history section.--Ruhrjung 11:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Szczecin is the English name of the city
May I suggest a compromise solution, which is consisten with the Wikipedia naming convention:
 * English Wikipedia - English name of the city Szczecin is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Stettin and Latin Stetinum are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
 * German Wikipedia - German name of the city Stettin is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding Polish Szczecin and Latin Stetinum are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
 * Polish Wikipedia - Polish name of the city Szczecin is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Stettin and Latin Stetinum are mentioned ONCE in the headline.

I make an official protest against the Neo-Nazi practices of Nico, who is starting the World War II again, translating the city name from English into German, and making no significant improvement to the article.

Mestwin of Gdansk 17:17, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The English name is Stettin, not Szczecin. Please don't misrepresent normal English usage. Normal historical practice here is to use the name at the time of the ancient events, not the modern name. Jamesday 00:43, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some thoughts about above:
 * For what I know other Wikipedias are totally different entities and we here by no mean can influence how Szczecin is named in those.
 * Unfortunately, there is no consistent conventions of using names within articles. History of London use Londonium and London, New York, New York uses New Amsterdam for historical names, while Rome uses Rome (not Roma) in whole article.
 * I'd like to point out that if World War II wouldn't take place Szczecin would be known as Stettin in English ;-).
 * Personally, I think that you are taking the names too emotionally. They are just that names. They are some abstract symbols, who denote something. Szczecin would be no more Polish when in history section it would be named Stetin for Principality of Pomerania, Stettin for Swedish and Prussian possesion, and Szczecin for Polish possesion. Most manhole covers to this day in Szczecin have Stettiner Wasserwerken inscribed on them and nobody bothers by it.
 * Finally my own interest in this discussion is to finaly reach a state when no longer name-based edit wars are on this page. I don't care if Szczecin everywhere or Stetin/Stettin/Szczecin option would be introduced since both are factually correct. I don't see prevailing one option as starting WWII or neo-nazi. I am not affraid of Germans, and I don't think that German Army will invade Szczecin because there is Stettin used in regarding to German part of history of a city. And as you are interested in Gdansk, Szczecin's history is different that Gdansk's. In years 1600-1945 Szczecin was essentially German city (as Vilnus was essentially Polish in that time).Przepla 18:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Szczecin might "be" the name in English, but what does that help when a substantial share of the native English speakers (I've had to deal with) don't recognize it – but have heard about Stettin? --Ruhrjung 12:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * There is redirection from Stettin to Szczecin, and Stettin is mentioned on the first line of article. One might also insert section about name into the article. Przepla 13:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess we agree again.--Ruhrjung 14:41, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes ;-). When I was writing the above I thought about inserting section about history of the name, but somehow wthe word history was missed. Neverthless, I think we may consider your version of a first paragraph as a consensual. Now what about Szczecin/Stettin in history section? What version can be seen consensual? Przepla 16:31, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Szczecin isn't consensual so far as native English speakers are concerned - it's inconsistent with the Wikipedia naming convention to use the normal English form. For this place, that accepted English name is Stettin. It's a shame that at least some native Polish speakers dislike the English word. That doesn't change what the normal English usage is. Jamesday 00:43, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I would strongly suggest that Stettin is no longer the normal English form. Do you have any citations to prove your argument?  john 01:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

john 01:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * See much above (arguments for Szczecin only), where I posted Google results and major encyclopeadia data. Szczecin is more common in English. Przepla 10:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions
See also: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names)

Unprotected
I changed header of the article as agreed on this page. I hope, that this will at least solve some of our problems (namely Wik's inserting former), as former in current context should mean how the city is called by it's officials. I believe that we reached consensus about header since no serious objections were raised and one person stating that Stettin is more popular English name didn't gave any rationale. Frankly the person I am fearing most is Wik himself, as he is illogically stubborn and apparently can object only by his famous rv method and can easily have this page protected again. Neverthless I still intend to have this page finally edit war free (and this discussion archived). If you feel that I am wrong please say why and don't just revert. Przepla 00:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Wik is hard-limited to three reverts a day, so this may make reprotection unnnecessary. Martin 00:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-- This entire discussion parallels that about Gdansk. To anyone who knows the history of this city, it is ludicrous that some would seek to decree Szczecin as the only name for referring to the city prior to its conquest by the Soviet Union in 1945 and its subsequent transfer to Poland; at Stalin's insistence.

That the city was called Stettin, WAS Stettin, before these events is obvious from countless historical references dating back many centuries. Yes, it's true that prior to the period of German eastward expansion that began in the 11th century there was a Slavic, Slavonic or perhaps Polish settlement in the area. So what? Berlin had obscure Slavic origins, too. As noted in the Gdansk discussion, using that as a basis for referring to the city before 1945 by its modern Polish name would be a blatant attempt to obscure most of the city's history, when it was German. Prior to the transfer to Poland, everyone who lived there knew it as Stettin.

For example, Catherine the Great, previously Princess Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst, grew up in Stettin, not Szczecin. She would never have heard of a place called Szczecin. And 200 years later, Churchill in his famous "iron curtain" speech at Fulton, Mo., in 1946, said: "From Stettin, on the Baltic, to Trieste, on the Adriatic...." He did not say "From Szczecin, on the Baltic" even though in Polish and Soviet usage Szczecin now was the city's name, because everyone in the West still knew it as Stettin. (Incidentally, in employing Stettin as the northern terminus of the Iron Curtain, he was using a conveniently well-known locale, although Lübeck would have been closer to reality.)

What has been said about Gdansk can be said about Szczecin and thousands of other formerly German places in Poland: There is no argument that today it is a Polish city called Szczecin, inhabited by Poles. Nor should there be any argument that before 1945 it was a German city called Stettin, inhabited by Germans. That is history, and in presenting the city's history, it should be called by its right name at the time.

That INCLUDES calling this city Szczecin (Shet' shin) today. English speakers who call it Stettin now are simply mistaken, because that's not it's name anymore. One can understand the present-day German predilection for calling it Stettin, since it was theirs for so long, but that doesn't make it right. User:sca --- You soooo blow things way out of proportion! Szczecin was a german city, it is a fact and it's undisputed. A consistent use of only one version of the same name cannot in any way "obscure most of the city&#8217;s history, when it was German". It is a current official English name for the city today as well as for its past.


 * Repeating this does not make it so, SC. john 04:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You do the same and hope "it will make it so". My conviction is based on 15 straight years of continuous research. Cadet


 * Why don't you provide some of that research here? So far, I've provided a lot of references to the rarity of use of Gdansk, and the commonness of Danzig when discussing before 1945.  You've mentioned the EB.  So, let's see the results of these 15 years of research.  Name books that refer to the city as Danzig in 1918, and so forth.  I'd love to see it, if you can do that.  john 17:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * John, I know my statement has little value to you without any hard evidence. I admit, that I conducted my "research" very non-scientifically, without documenting anything whatsoever. I never thought I would ever be sharing the results with anybody. Kind of a little hobby (or paranoia) of mine. For about fifteen years I've been regularly (once a month) visit libraries and bookstores and review atlases, historical atlases, tourist guides, history books and publications. For the last 10 years my search was also backed with the net surfing. I observed a drastic change in naming conventions regarding "Eastern Europe" around 1990 (which according to my highly educated friends, can be attributed to tha break of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Cold War). Write me on my e-mail, perhaps I can share more without wasting server space: spacecadet123@inorbit.com Space Cadet 15:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article states clearly to which country the city belonged and when. Alternative spellings in parentheses provide information necessary to understand the name's different usage over the centuries. And you are mistaken: Szczecin and Stettin ARE NOT two different names, but the same name in two languages. And surely Princess Sophie von Anhalt-Zerbst must have known the Polish variant of her own city's name, being an educated person, that she was. What can be said about Szczecin or Gdansk can also be said about L'viv, which for most of it's long history was known under Polish name "Lwów". The most common English version of the city name "Lwow" came from polish spelling. However consistent use of todays official English name will not deny the 800 years of Polish tradition of the city. It will not deny the tragedy of it's inhabitants having been deported partly to Siberia in 1939 and partly to Polands Recovered Territories in 1945. Encyclopedic entries are to follow simple consistent conventions, not emotions and sentiments. By the way: I don't know where you found this weird transcription of Szczecin pronounciation. The correct one is "SH-CH-E-CH'-I-N" Space Cadet 02:44, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--

I stand corrected on the pronunciation. Dziekuje! But to speak of "recovered territories" is absurd. By the same token, Stalin was "recovering" the eastern regions of prewar Poland, including Lwow and Wilna, in 1939, when he and Hitler decided to carve up Poland. In 1945 it was one giant, wholesale transfer of territories, with Poland being "compensated" (which was the phrase at the time) for its losses in the east by being given Silesia, Danzig, Pomerania and southern East Prussia --all of which Churchill described as "a magnificent piece of country."

When the Soviet demand for a Polish border on the Oder and Western Neisse -- including a digression on the west side of the Oder around Stettin &#8211; first was announced, Geroge F. Kennen wrote a State Department memorandum opposing it, which included the following observation:

"By including a large section of German territory in Poland, and the probable transfer of some 8 to 10 million Germans, the future Polish state would in all probability be forced to depend completely on Moscow for protection against German irredentists&#8217; demands and in fact might become a full-fledged Soviet satellite."

At Yalta, Churchill said (it's in the minutes): &#8220;It would be a great pity to stuff the Polish goose so full of German food that it died of indigestion.&#8221;

Don't talk to me about "recovered territories"! Utter nonsense.Thirty thousand place names were changed from German to Polish. They weren't "recovered," they were conquered. User:sca 14apr04

Sca! Are you just playing dumb to watch me freak out, or is this whole thing really over your head? (In which case I don't know what you're doing in 'pedia). You don't have to explain to me what a stupid name "Recovered territories" is! My whole family was expelled to those damn territories in 1946. They called it "Repatriation", which literary means "return to fatherland". It was, of course stupid Communist propaganda trying to hide the fact that entire population was epelled from the true land of their fathers and sent to a foreign country, whose original inhabitants were already removed. I used the name "Recovered territories" because that's what they are still officially called! Even here, in Wiki! Just like calling the tallest guy in the class "Tiny". You don't have to argue and prove to anybody his actual height! We know he's not short, OK? It's just what he is called by everybody, get it? You still carefully avoid answering my REAL point - what effing benefit is it to call the same city 4 different names in one sentence? "My grandma was born in Lemberg, lived in Lwów, got thrown out of Lvov and frequently visited L'viv." Technically the sentence is 100% true but doesn't it seem to you like some stupid charade? It does to me! I'm not trying to deny German influence over present polish lands, not trying to deny Germany's fine history (no sarcasm intended!), not trying to modify historical facts! Stop being so annoyingly defensive and take the blinds off your eyes! Try to see what I'm REALLY trying to say, without implying between the lines that I'm some kind of Polish Nationalist, or Germanophob or something. We waste so much time and energy trying to "break the open door". Sorry for getting upset. I'm not upset at you (unless you're really playing dumb to tick me off, which would be darn rude and disrespectful), but at this whole absurd situation. Peace! Space Cadet 14:53, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * We already discussed it. Please read all this talk page, and see that we've done some research on that matter. If you don't agree please say that in regard to those research and refrain from such blanket statements as above. Przepla 09:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- I've read the talk page. I'm aware of your "research". I can still speak my mind when I see a tearjerking, bleeding heart, out of context statements like the one from Sca.

(Who's bleeding? This is all factual and voluminously documented.) User:sca

What's factual and volumnously documented? That using different name for each different historical period is VALUE ADDING? I don't think so! You're not listening! I don't want to deny the German history of Szczecin or Gdansk, or Polish history of L'viv. There is enough room on each page (duh!) to expand on all of those aspects as much as you please. But what informative value does it bring to switch the name of described object five times in one article? Those different versions of the name are already mentioned in the parentheses. How will the quality of the article improve if we play charades and puzzles with the reader? Also, a simple convention will put a stop to endless debates which historical period should be awarded with what name and why. People! The Wiki articles are shallow, stereotypical and often inaccurate and we, with all our knowledge and potential, instead of fixing it, are arguing forever about what to call Gdansk when population was German speaking but loyal to Poland and other pointless issues. Let's drop the petty sentiments and get to real work - all of us. I understand there are exceptions like Koenigsberg or Istanbul - I still don't know how to handle those. But majority of naming issues with geographical entities in Central Europe will disappear! I apologize to you, Przepla, but as much as you are emotional about Szczecin - I am emotional about cold logic. Space Cadet 05:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mess with the article, but instead responded to a "know it all" expert on the Talk page. So you, please REFRAIN from patronizing me and telling me what to do. Thank you. Space Cadet 13:51, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you felt patronized, this was not my intention. Moreover, after considering what I wrote earlier, I think now that I shouldn't write that at all. It appears that I consider the matter of this article too emotionally, and therefore I am much too often blinded by emotions, and as a result I am behaving un-wikipedian like. Perhaps I should take a break with this article. Once again I must apologize all parties involved. Przepla 14:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It's cool, dude! We all appreciate your passion! Cadet

- - -

Another Wikipedian referred above to a Google search. Perhaps the results I got on 4/16/04 show how fast Google is expanding. At any rate, Szczecin got 1,270,000 hits, while Stettin got 226,000. Google displays only a portion to avoid repetition. In a broad and probably representative sampling of the displayed pages, I found that most of the Szczecin hits were from Polish-language sites of current entities in Szczecin or in Poland, or travel/tourism sites providing information about Szczecin. Most of the Stettin entries came from German-language history sites or English-language sites relating to pre-1945 events.

To me this clearly supports the argument (also advanced by john) that it would be logical to refer to the city since 1945 by its current name, Szczecin, but to refer to it by is former name, Stettin, when discussing its pre-?45 history. If this contravenes Wikipedia naming conventions, then perhaps the conventions ought to be re-evaluated. The overriding issue is historical veracity.

That Szczecin and Stettin are two different forms of the same name is irrelevant because that?s not the issue, either. The issue is, what was the city called before and after 1945 by most people, including its residents? What was its identity? The city of Szczecin and the city of Stettin are not the same city, although they occupy or occupied the same site, because their populations are wholly different. That the Poles may have referred to pre-1945 Stettin as Szczecin on nationalistic-historical grounds is of no more relevance than today?s German practice of referring to Szczecin as Stettin. In neither case was or is the actual name of the city affected by practices of people in other countries.

The existing ?(formerly Stettin)? approach is truthful. It corresponds to history. One can?t change history, whatever one?s ethnic or national origins or passions. And the history is that, before 1945 the city was Stettin. Przepla's suggestion of "formerly known in English as Stettin" is off the mark, because it wasn?t just ?in English? that it was ?known as? Stettin; it was Stettin and was known as such by everyone except, apparently, the Poles (and maybe some other Slavs?).

Regarding pronunciation: Having lived briefly in Poland, I can confirm that Polish is indeed a very difficult language for English speakers to pronounce. (One Pole with whom I worked remarked, ?Even we have trouble with it sometimes.?) It?s not too hard to understand what makes Lodz "woodzsh" and Wroclaw "vrotswav," but "sh?ch" is a tough one. So I guess that?s why some English speakers refer to Szczecin as Stettin (which I believe actually is pronounced "Shtet-teen" in German). But if an English speaker were in Warsaw and asked for a train ticket to Stettin, a Pole would instantly correct him by saying Szczecin and might show some irritation. Underlying this reaction would be the knowledge that the city of Stettin no longer exists. That being the case, I think English speakers should at least make an attempt to say Szczecin, however imperfectly (as pointed out by Space Cadet above).

Regarding Space Cadet?s recent intemperate comments, I don?t understand why the ?official? status of the phrase ?recovered territories? has anything to do with telling the story. In English, ?recovered? connotes something quite different from what happened in 1945, as Space Cadet himself notes. My concern is that the true history of these territories long has been obscured ? on the Polish/Soviet side by design, on the Western side by ignorance and sympathy for Poland?s truly tragic past. The Cold War is over and it?s time for these misconceptions to be corrected. And one must keep in mind that the Polish people had no voice in the territorial changes of 1945, which were instituted by Stalin et al. As an aside, I was not aware that intemperate, rude language was acceptable on this site. Nevertheless, I do regret any offense given to Space Cadet.

User:sca 16apr04

Sca, a couple of thoughts. Firstly, as far as I am aware, there is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy which prevents us from referring to a city by different names at different points in its history. There have been arguments made, however, that a) it is confusing to refer to the topic of an article by different names at different points in the article; and b) that this would open a can of worms with respect to a great number of cities. I think the first argument is simply wrong, and I don't think that the fact that a lot of articles may be written in a way which is wrong is a good reason for not trying to change one to be better (or whatever). But whatever. I'm getting sick of the whole issue. john 20:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)