Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/German names

Ok, here's the problem: so far we had an agreement (so-called Talk:Gdansk compromise) that the German names need to be mentioned and that the correct formatting is the following:
 * Name (German Name, Polish Nazwa) is a...

..and so on. This is currently being turned into w Wikipedia policy at the WikiProject Cities/Names issues page. However, lately User:Gzornenplatz started to argue that the German names listed are no longer German names and that they have changed lately. So, he suggests that the current German name of Wroc&#322;aw is Wroc&#322;aw and not Breslau, Nysa has been renamed from Neisse to Nysa, &#346;wiebodzice has been renamed from Freiburg in Schlesien to &#346;wiebodzice - and so on.

I tried to reach some terms with Gzornenplatz or at least understand his reasoning, but I failed. To me it seems that the German names are still the same. That's the version supported by the German wiki and the simple Google test. Perhaps the community could help us reach some compromise. I guess it would help the WikiProject Cities/Names issues and could spare the articles now being under attack from Gzornenplatz and in danger of being blocked.

Both mine and his arguments can be found at Talk:Pi&#322;a. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:06, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I urge everyone to check out the arguments on Talk:Pila. In essence, Halibutt thinks a Google search for Pila Polen without quotes, which finds any page where the two words appear, even in totally separate contexts, is somehow more significant than a search for "Pila Polen" with quotes, which restricts the search to this specific term, which in 99% of cases will indeed refer to the current (Polish) city, and which, when compared to the search for "Schneidemühl Polen", allows a clear determination as to what the prevailing usage in German is. The word Polen makes sure it is a German-language page (you could even add "site:de" to the search to avoid the few non-German languages in which Poland is also called Polen, but it doesn't change the numbers significantly), and tying the words together with the quotes makes sure the reference is to the modern, not the historical, city (Halibutt's search will obviously find pages that may say something like "Schneidemühl war eine Stadt in Deutschland, die heute in Polen liegt" ["Schneidemühl was a city in Germany which now lies in Poland"] - you have the words Schneidemühl and Polen, but the reference is historical). Gzornenplatz 22:15, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I said nothing about Nysa, which is of course still Neisse in German, as it is not exclusively within Poland. Gzornenplatz 22:18, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I do not find your methodology acceptable for the reasons I stated at the Talk:Pila page. But even using it, the results are against your claims. ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ... Need more? --[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:50, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * And I have refuted your reasons. And here you are again coming with the old diacritic charade. If you look for the names without diacritics (which naturally are ignored by people writing in German), you find of course "Torun Polen" more frequent than "Thorn Polen" etc. The only exception is Malbork/Marienburg, I gladly give you that if you otherwise agree to my methodology. Gzornenplatz 23:08, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * we have this discussion on the German Wikipedia as well since User:Gzornenplatz thinks he knows what is right. So far he is the only one who thinks in the German Wikipedia that the German names are only the former German names ... there was an edit war about this (mostly with de:Benutzer:AHZ ) in which end he was banned for 24h (before already for 4 h) i dont see a reason why german names are not the german names anymore ... some names are not used that often anymore but they still exist as german names ...Sicherlich 23:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * And a name that is not regularly used anymore is... a former name. Gzornenplatz 23:18, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * but it is used ...Sicherlich 23:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Only by a minority, and a shrinking one, like all former names do not suddenly completely stop being used. Gzornenplatz 23:38, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * if you speak german see as well de:Benutzer Diskussion:Gzornenplatz, you might see his contributions in the german wikipedia here ... the moving of the Page de:Posen to Poznan is as well against the "rule" (de:Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen) but so far he is unfortunately not interested in a discussion to find a solution as he sad on his page "there is wrong and right and i will make sure the right will be" ...Sicherlich 23:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Usage in German differs: some use only the official Polish namnes, some only the German ones, most mix them up and several people write Polish names but use in oral communication the German ones because they are easier to pronounce. I agree with Sicherlich and you Halibutt: As long as there is a significant number of Germans who use the German name (and there is) it is still a valid German name; maybe in some cases you could talk about an "outdated form" but it still exists. Why can't people simply write articles instead of arguing about names and names and names... -- Zeitgeist 23:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Former names still exist too. They are just, well, former names. "Outdated form" is saying the same thing. No longer generally used, that's the point. If only a minority uses it, it is not "the" German name as Halibutt and Sicherlich want to suggest. If you prefer to write "outdated form" instead of "former name", I can agree to that. But not simply "German", which is misinformation. There is a very clear difference between a real German name like Warschau and a mere historical name like Schneidemühl. Gzornenplatz 23:45, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * But former names are not used anymore while outdated forms are. I admit "oudated" is a step on the way down to "former" but it is not the same. The problem with Pila/Schneidemühl is that hardly anybody German talks about the town anyway, but of these a significant number uses the German name. Maybe this will become extinct somewhere in the future but by now it is not. (and by the way "Schneidemühl Polen" is awful German grammar, because a verb or pronomina belongs between these two words - I don't think many German speakers would use this term regardless of the town-name. -- Zeitgeist 00:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Former names always keep being used by some. See Bombay or Calcutta. Those were clearly renamed at specific dates some years ago, so they are former names now; still significant minorities use them. And those Polish cities were effectively renamed in 1945, and the usage of the old names has gone downhill since then. We don't have to wait until no one at all ever uses them before we can call them former names. The other argument is irrelevant, since "Schneidemühl Polen" is the same grammar as "Pila Polen", so it doesn't affect the relation, and it's perfectly correct with a comma in between (commas are ignored by Google). Gzornenplatz 00:11, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, Bombay or Calcutta were officially renamed, Schneidemühl was never officially changed. For example I say Ljubljana and not Laibach and most people I know do the same. But Laibach is still the German name, I (and many people) simply choose to use the Slovenian name instead of the German one. Schneidemühl is still used by a signifcant number of speakers and therefore it still exists. IMHO even "Pennsylvanien" is the German name for "Pennsylvania" although it is hardly ever used except by a small minority in private conversations. -- Zeitgeist 00:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The names were changed when the Polish administration took over; it started to use the Polish name, the German name ceased to have any official status. But however you define "the German name", don't you think the fact that a name is hardly ever used is relevant to convey in a Wikipedia article? If you just write "German Schneidemühl" the implication is that everyone calls the city Schneidemühl is German. Gzornenplatz 00:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * "So, he suggests that the current German name of Wroc&#322;aw is Wroc&#322;aw and not Breslau," - The official Website of the german Embassy in Breslau: http://www.gk-breslau.de/ : "Willkommen beim Generalkonsulat in Breslau" 217.82.23.150 04:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) (AN)

As per your request at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Names_issues page:
 * If you insist:
 * The expression "Pila Polen" (or any other name, for that matter) is rare in Geman since in German no one is supposed to add a name of the state after the name of the town. German language differs from the American English. So, if one searches for an unusual expression - he gest unusual results.
 * The search term "Pila Polen" will not show any links to the articles that state that "Schneidemuehl, which is currently known in Polish as Pila", or any other longer term.
 * Search for "Pila Polen" (or "Pi&#322;a Polen", for that matter) will not show any links to German language encyclopedias, not even the German Wiki.
 * The term "former German name" is just as ambiguous as "former name". It might denote three different things, each of them highly disputable or misleading.
 * Your proposals are acceptable to you yourself only, there are countless wikipedians who find them wrong (it's not only me and Emax who at some point reverted your changes)
 * Your proposals are equally unacceptable to the German wikipedians (despite revert wars), see, , , , , , , , , , , , , [
 * The German state uses Danzig, Breslau and Oppeln rather than Gda&#324;sk, Wroc&#322;aw and Opole
 * Are these "shameless lies", as you call it?

--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:18, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

No, those are irrelevancies. Gzornenplatz 11:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Already answered above. If "Pila Polen" is rare, so is "Schneidemühl Polen". It doesn't affect the relative frequency of the two, and it still gives a large enough sample.
 * 2) Same fallacy as 1.
 * 3) So? What is your fascination with the German Wikipedia anyway? It does not carry any particular authority.
 * 4) The term is quite clear. A former German name is a name that was formerly used in German.
 * 5) We discuss things by arguments first, not by force of numbers (though we may later have a poll).
 * 6) "The German Wikipedians" here being three revisionists named AHZ, AN, and Sicherlich.
 * 7) The German state is not consistent about what names it uses. This government webpage, for example, speaks explicitly of "Wroclaw, the former Breslau". (And even if the government would always use the old names, it has no authority to define the names of foreign cities, and thus would be just one voice, not carrying more weight than other German speakers whose representative usage is indicated by the Google search.)

Most german wiki users don't read the english wikipedia. I don't think that the using of german names for cities in Poland will indicate a political statement. So don't call other users "revisionsts". Your edits in the german wikipedia causes a lot of trouble you was banned for 24h for that. The agreement in the german wikipedia is to use the german names. MatthiasKabel 16:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about the statements Gzornenplatz gives here. In the german languge the german names are still used and will be used in future. The way you go to add a german name is better than to ignore the reality. You'll find no german in a normal talk, who would use the new names. sorry for my english ;-) --Steschke 17:44, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)


 * I see our revisionist friends are mobilizing. Unfortunately the Google results make it clear to everyone that it is you who is ignoring the reality. Gzornenplatz 17:47, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * My statement to the expression of Gzornenplatz: I still select my friends myself. And whom does he mean with our revisionist friends? He might have a splited personality when he talks in majority. I don't need to defend myself, but be insured I'm not a revisionist. The problem is the personal structure of Gzornenplatz. There is a reason, why he became locked out in the German Wikipedia. I would like to excuse to our colleagues from the english Wikipedia for his behavior. He isn't typical for german winipedians. --Steschke 17:16, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * Not that the goings-on in the German Wikipedia should be relevant here, but since Steschke brings it up, I will respond. His last sentence is true - I am not typical for German Wikipedians because I'm not a revisionist. The fact that I was blocked on the German Wikipedia almost immediately I went there while I have never been blocked for even an hour on the English one after over 6,000 edits on its own proves that something's rotten in the state of Denmark here. The German Wikipedia is largely controlled by a bunch of nationalists. Needless to say none of them has made the slightest attempt at honestly answering my points. They know very well they're wrong but are pushing their "expellee" POV, supported by the sysops there, who blocked me on a ludicrous charge of "vandalism". Everyone can check out my edits there - it's the same I did here, I correctly identified former German names as former German names. However people may disagree with those edits, it's by no stretch of the imagination even getting close to bordering on the slightest hint of "vandalism". What happened was that my edits were reverted without explanation, edit wars ensued, and although I obviously did nothing worse than the other side (on the contrary, I gave a reasoned explanation for my position, the other side didn't), it was me who was blocked. I want to condemn particularly sysop Elian here, who I privately talked to and who all but said "get lost, we're in control here". I asked her about ten times what I supposedly did differently from the other side that could possibly justify me and not the other side in the edit war being blocked, and she could not answer it. Gzornenplatz 17:36, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt confirmation of my description. ;-) --Steschke 17:54, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Gzornenplatz 18:18, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * The official Website Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany calls the city also today still Schneidemühl --217.246.145.138 18:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) (ahz)
 * See point 7 above. Gzornenplatz 18:31, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * It does affect relative frequency, since uncommon statements can show different numbers than those used in everyday language. Also, the ratio changes from case to case. So far you support the absurd statement that "Name Polen" shows the correct ratio while all other searches show bad ratio. You base it on the fact that many of the searches refer to the current city and not the historical one. However, your logic is somehow flawed since on one hand you say that the usage in German language has shifted towards using the Polish names, but on the other hand you don't accept that the webmasters use the German names more frequently in all instances, regardless of the period in history. Apparently the German usage of German names is more common, just compare with . The webmasters do refer to Breslau rather than to Wroc&#322;aw or Wroclaw. The context is not important since they do refer to the town now, and not before WWII. I hope you understand that there were no web pages before WWII. Also, there are more people referring to Breslau without explaining that the city is now called Wroc&#322;aw than those who use the Polish name without explaining the German name. The ratio is roughly 2:1 here. Also, there are significantly more links for "Aachen Niemcy" than for "Akwizgran Niemcy", although that does not mean that the Polish name of that city is Aachen.
 * It's not my fascination with German Wikipedia in particular, it's simply that the usage in other encyclopaedia proves your statements wrong. Compare your version of Gdansk/Danzig with: a)Probert Places of the World; b) Brittanica; c) Polish wikipedia; d) German wikipedia; e) MSN Encarta; f) Brockhaus; g) Fact Monster...
 * "former German name Schneidemuehl" (almost like "formerly Schneidemuehl") could mean or suggest any of the following: a) The name was used in German, but currently it's not (which is IMO not true and not supported by anything but your Google search); b) The town was named Schneidemuehl while in Germany, but the German name was changed (which is partially true since indeed there is a growing number of people who use the Polish instead of German name, but this is still a minority in most cases); c) The town was named Schneidemuehl up to certain point in history, but then the name was changed (which again is only partially true since the name was there before the German name was invented in most cases). Perhaps there are more German language encyclopaedia on the web, I simply know only the two. However, I won't quarrel for the former or no former as long as the statement is true. Your claims are not.
 * We discuss things by common sense, that's why it's you vs. all the rest so far. I'm afraid that you won't accept neither my arguments nor the common sense so discussion with arguments might be fruitless, but it's worth a try, perhaps this would let us avoid a revert war.
 * So far the commonly accepted version is the one supported by those guys, it's you who would like to revise it. So who is the revisionist here?
 * The government has indeed no authority, but the fact that it has its consulates in Breslau, Oppeln and Stettin and not in Wroclaw, Opole and Szczecin should give you some hint at least.

--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:54, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) You - just - don't - get - it :( If I search for "Pila Polen" then virtually all, not just some, of the hits will refer to the Polish city. With your search format, you get lots of historical hits. The result will say nothing as to what the current name is. And a "city, country" format is not at all uncommon in German. There is no conceivable reason why this would skew the results in terms of the relation between the two names. It can be assumed to be a representative subset of all mentions of the current city. And what is that bizarre argument about there being no Internet before WWII? Tons of sites still refer to the historical city. In the German language, in fact, those historical references may easily be a majority because while there are many "expellees" talking about those former German cities, there is comparatively little to report from the modern cities. Today's Pi&#322;a is rarely in the news in Germany - but when it is, it will usually be called Pi&#322;a, not Schneidemühl, and that's the point. And as far as I can see, Aachen is indeed the name usually used in Polish for that German city. The Google result suggests that Akwizgran is at best an antiquated form, like the English Ratisbon for Regensburg.
 * 2) Can't you think for yourself? Do you think other encyclopaedias have some magic philosopher's stone where they get the Real Truth from, which is unreachable to us? You're committing the fallacy of argument by authority here. Any encyclopaedia can be wrong, and if a claim by them is challenged with hard data like the Google figures, you better find actual counterarguments. "These encyclopaedias can't be wrong" is not a valid one. (And the German Wikipedia in particular has no credibility whatsoever; I discovered the revisionists are firmly in control there, which is not surprising as differently-minded people tend to concentrate on the English Wikipedia anyway; probably most of the non-English Wikipedias have disproportionate numbers of narrow-minded nationalists.)
 * 3) Bizarre statements again. "Not supported by anything but your Google search"? Well, the Google search is primary data, and therefore more convincing than some individual secondary opinions. "Still a minority in most cases"? The numbers prove you wrong. And as to your options, c) does not apply to "former German name", and I don't see the difference between a) and b).
 * 4) Your resort to personal attacks is noted...
 * 5) It's them who want to revise reality. I want to revise articles to reflect the reality.
 * 6) It gives the hint of nothing more or less than that one (1) government website uses the old names. As opposed to hundreds or thousands in my representative Google searches. Gzornenplatz 22:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I do get your statements yet I happen to oppose. Your argument is that the more popular name is the German name. If it is so, then there should be no difference between historical and current times. The city is primarily referred to as Schneidemuehl and Google shows just that. And why is searching for "Pila Polen" any better than searching for "Pila 2002" or Pila Polen? According to your theories the ratio should be the same - while it's not.
 * I do think for myself. Other encyclopaedias mention the most common usage usually and in my honest opinion some of them are credible. If you find all encyclopaedia not credible then why do you waste your time on Wikipedia? Indeed, an encyclopaedia can be wrong. But you are basically claiming that most of encyclopaedia are wrong.
 * Why is your google search better than mine? And Google is not a primary data, it only gives a hint as to the usage of certain words (and, less commonly, constructions). Depending on the criteria you chose it gives you results you want.
 * None intended, I have no idea what made you understand just that.
 * If a) encyclopaedias use their version b) more webmasters use their version c) German government uses their version d) even most of Poles know their version as right - then what is it here to revise? This is the most common version used since ages, so far it's you who is trying to revise it. Official municipal webpage and.
 * The official web page of that country's embassy, to be precise. There's also a webpage of that country's Foreign Office. Or perhaps those embassy links refer to the pre-war cities?

--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:33, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Huh? Why should there be no difference between historical and current times? Your arguments are now getting more abstruse by the minute. "Pila Polen" is better because it refers to the current city, which is what we're talking about. "Pila 2002" does not even ensure it is about the city at all. And Pila Polen without quotes as I explained a thousand times already will find pages where the two words are completely unrelated.
 * Most of them may be wrong on this specific question, yes. That doesn't mean "encyclopedias are not credible". The difference is I can think for myself and if all evidence indicates an encyclopedia is wrong, I will not think that I must be wrong because the encyclopedia can't be.
 * I have explained this only a thousand times, eh? Probably not enough... And yes, when it comes to how words are used, Google is primary data.
 * Sure.
 * No matter how often you repeat the lie, "more webmasters" use Pila when referring to the current city. Your insistence on this idiotic claim, which is based on a search that includes historical references, makes me truly question your mental state. Encyclopedias cannot negate the raw data here. If you agree that encyclopedias don't have magical sources unattainable to us, then you should be able, instead of appealing to authority, to use the sources which must have informed the encyclopedias. Why can't you find them? Personally I believe none of the encyclopaedia editors has spared much thought on this question; Britannica once (probably shortly after the war) changed from "Schneidemühl, Polish Pila" to "Pila, German Schneidemühl" (at a time when Schneidemühl was indeed still more commonly used in German). And then it just never occurred to them later to verify if this usage is still common. And Encarta may just have copied Britannica's usage etc.
 * Again, for the who knows how manyth time, the German embassy is not defining German names of foreign cities. This would be like saying that because the U.S. government uses the term "homicide bombing", that "the English name" for suicide bombings becomes "homicide bombing", regardless of whether the general population follows the government in its usage. Gzornenplatz 14:21, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've had enough, Gzornenplatz. Your language is unacceptable and I won't participate in any more discussions with someone who considers me to be an "idiot", "dense", or questions my "mental state". I'm afraid it is a waste of time and nerves. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:08, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, no offense intended, I have no idea what made you understand just that. Anyway, if you end the discussion, I expect you now to leave the articles alone. Gzornenplatz 22:13, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

IMO, Gzornenplatz is just a nit-pick-er, with little regard (or is it capability) for reasonableness. Who cares what the "current German name" for a Polish town is? It doesn't belong in any article that we've been talking about. The references to the German names in the first line of articles about towns that are now in Poland, but once were part of Germany and it's predacessor Prussia is there due to the long-standing and recent historical importance of the name in former times. If Gzornenplatz insists on using revert wars to keep pressing his own narrow and unsupported viewpoint, we'll get him banned, and then three or four of us will take turns reverting what he changes while using another or no user name. Bwood 02:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Hm? You're confusing things. I agree the current German name shouldn't matter to the English Wikipedia. But it's Halibutt and others who, by calling them simply "German names", want to include the implicit claim that those names are still the current German names. I agree the importance of those names is the historical importance in former times; accordingly, I want to call them "former German names" which is what they are. The fact that they are no longer regularly used in German is eminently supported by the exact Google searches, and does not need Halibutt's agreement. We are not deciding facts by voting, and the idea of getting me banned is accordingly absurd. I have every right to revert based on facts, unless arguments are presented against the facts. So far no one has explained what's supposedly wrong about the Google searches, or, if the searches are right and the names can no longer be considered "the German names", what supposedly should be wrong in calling them "former names". Gzornenplatz 02:30, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am in favor of using "former" or the even the more lengthy variant that I last proposed to try to satisfy every camp, but unlike you, I am also willing to go without using "former" if that's the group consensus, because unlike you, I am not a nit-picker in matters like this where it doesn't really matter. Those who want to read the worst possible conotations into the text are hindering the progress. I could have been so much farther along in adding material to articles. I'm willing to abandon former because the reader can readily see why the German name was listed in the first line when they glance through the article and see the history. Also, the shorter the text the better, there's no need to include a lengthy arguement-based nit-picked, satisfy every sensability item in the first line. The only reason that I would insist on using "former" in the first line, is to try to head off the mis-informed that aren't aware of the history of this struggle, who come in late and feel they have to "correct" it by either deleting the German reference or some other edit. Leaving the "former" out, does not necessarily imply that the German version is *the* current German version. It just means it's *a* version. To claim that the Polish spelling is the current German version is just plain ludicrous. Just because today's Germans are most (and correctly) using the Polish spelling, doesn't mean that the Polish spelling is a German version, current or otherwise. Any use of the German spelling is German. Any use of the Polish spelling is Polish, whether done by Poles or Germans or Americans. So "German: Schneidemühl" just means that the German spelling is "Schneidemühl", without making any claims to currency. Bwood 20:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"German: Schneidemühl" definitely implies that that is the name Germans use today, and that is plain wrong, as the Google data indicates it is used only in 11% of the cases. That is not nit-picking, nor has it anything to do with "sensibilities", only with accuracy. Gzornenplatz 22:35, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a point where increasing accuracy hinders usability and function. You are just plain wrong in saying " "German: Schneidemühl" definitely implies that that is the name Germans use today". It can mean many things, and the typical reader is likely to assume that it means that it is the German spelling. Let's hire a polling firm to find out how the typical English speaking user, who would be browsing articles like this, would interpret the wording. I'll bet 6 large pizzas, that you are wrong. But, seriously, find 2 or 3 Wikipedia authors to support your position, and I'll reconsider. Until then, I suggest that you lay off the edit wars, and try to make positive contributions to the Names Issue discussion. Bwood 19:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * How does "former German name" hinder usability and function? "Schneidemühl" is obviously not just the German "spelling" of Pila. It is of course a German word, but the article suggests that it is the German name for the city, which implies the city is regularly called that (that's what a name is) in the German language. If that's no longer the case, the reader would expect a qualifier like, well, "former". Why would you reconsider when others support my position? Does that mean you don't form your own opinion and your present opposition is just based on the opposition you see from Halibutt and others? That's regrettable. I haven't bothered to cart in supporters as my arguments stand on their own, and I don't think the mere repetition or affirmation of them by other users would or should make a difference to the arguments. But you may note that a reasonable user like John Kenney favours "formerly", which I would agree with. As to edit wars I'll lay them off when the other side does. Gzornenplatz 22:20, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Bwood, why can't I put the things as straight and simple as you do? You'll have to teach me that one day. In other words - I couldn't agree more. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:37, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * just to say again more to this discussion; please check Talk:Gdansk and Talk:Pila as well;
 * example Danzig vs. Gdansk;


 * the German dictionary (Duden - www.duden.de) knows Danzig and says it is a german name
 * the German government is using Danzig on its page (www.auswaertiges-amt.de)
 * the city Danzig itself is using on its official page for the German translation the name Danzig
 * and finally just to use the same "prove" for the german name as Gzorenplatz is always doing google; result 141,000 pages, search for Gdansk  66.400 ... i searched for German pages only...even i dont believe in google to much; you can prove everything ...Sicherlich 20:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) ... and as halibutt asked for .. the search only for pages updated within last 3 month; http://www.google.de/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=de&btnG=Google-Suche&as_epq=Gdansk&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_de&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=m3&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=] = 54.800 and Danzig  105.000
 * and please as german to say Danzig does not mean anything more then to say the name of the city; or to make it maybe more cleare; what do english native talking people think when they say Munich and not (like the official name is) München? - greetings from Germany ...Sicherlich 22:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Like Halibutt, Sicherlich is incapable of reading and/or understanding, as I have disproved all those points about a hundred times on this very page and on other pages. How intellectually-challenged must you be not to grasp that a search simply for "Gdansk" versus "Danzig" says absolutely nothing about how the current city is called in German, even if you restrict the search to recently-updated German pages. Obviously if you write about the historic Danzig, it doesn't matter when you write the text, if you refer today to the pre-1945 city, Danzig remains the correct name to use. But if you refer to today's city, Gdansk is generally used. And to prove that, you obviously have to restrict the search to references to today's city, for which the immediate addition of the word Polen to the search term is the easiest method. Gzornenplatz 22:32, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * oh yeah i forgot; you proved it with your google search .. i mean with the one and only best ever google search ... and of course; the german government is wrong because they are all revisionist, the Duden is wrong because they probably forgot to update it since 1945, the google-search is wrong because google is not a good way to prove (i mean it is but only with your perfect search of course), and the city ... ah of course; the people of the city are afraid of Germans and thats why they put the German name ... i start to like the discussion it´s so funny to watch how many people start a discussion because of you and specially that you probably really believe what you say and that you are so sure that everybody is wrong ! .. excellent fun!! really only the edit wars at the german wikipedia are a bit disturbing but there are so many reverting you that it is no big thing ...Sicherlich 05:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have rarely seen anyone as eager to make an idiot out of himself as you. But congratulations, you are doing it with great success. Gzornenplatz 06:28, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * wow that makes me really happy!!! ... at least you learned one thing ;o)...Sicherlich 16:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Really funny to see who's calling who an idiot here. Very entertaining watching you beat a dead horse here Gzornenplatz.  Laura Scudder 21:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Gzornenplatz, I said I won't discuss anything with you and believe me, I had no intention to. It is not a pleasure to listen to your offensive language and tone. However, I decided that you need a word of advice: offending people is not the way to go. So far the English wiki is very liberal and does not ban people so easily. However, your language and incivility might make you banned one day, just like you were banned in the German wiki. I believe that it's high time you understood that people do not have to be blind, "stupid", "idiotic", "dense" or "dumb" not to agree with you. I do not want you to reply to this note, I want you to understand it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:38, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, they don't have to be blind, stupid, idiotic, dense, or dumb to deny the undeniable, such as that a word search simply for "Danzig" and "Gdansk" includes historical references and thus cannot say anything about how the present city is called. They may just simply be bullshitting, i.e. deliberately saying things they don't believe themselves. Anyway, it's either of the two. Gzornenplatz 22:20, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * yeah and the german government, the duden, the press, the homepage of the city ,.. everything historical .. sure ... ;o) ...Sicherlich 22:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You know, it would help if you could speak in full sentences, and ... maybe ... with ... less ... ellipses ... Gzornenplatz 22:52, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * It would also help if you could address the points he mentioned before, instead of dismissing him as an idiot. CohenTheBavarian 15:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any sense in discussion with gzornenplatz (in fact, he does not discuss anything, he just repeats his opinion again and again). Today's Germany has some people of his kind, who, in a mix of political pseudo-correctness and national self-hate, think that anyone on earth will have a happier life if germans learn how to pronounce Szczecin correctly. As it happened here, their reflex to people who do not share their bizarre opinion is calling them revisionists if not fascists. I have no idea how to cope with these people. Hating their own nation is the most typical of all typical german behaviors. And, to confirm the above statements, *nobody* speaks of Gdansk or Sczcecin, not even my (polish) friends who grew up in what they (speaking german to me) call Stettin. --Magadan 09:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * who could really say if the German name ist still the german name? ... Duden and german government are worth nothing ... hmm the google search done by me is wrong ... so .. the only one who could say .. is ... the City itself ... yes but Gdansk sad so on his homepage but it was not good as well for Gzornenplatz ... but maybe (only maybe!) the Polish government itself is allowed to say it? ... by accident i went to the page of the polish embassy in germany (i wrote about Kapu&#347;ci&#324;ski and they had informations) ; http://www.botschaft-polen.de/index.htm ... and when you click around there; e.g. "Kultur" you see they use the german names .. they write the polish as well ... but they dont write "the former german name Breslau ... not they wrote: "in Breslau (Wroclaw)" .. or: "New York und Krakau gewidmete", "Sammlungen der Eremitage in Marienburg (Malbork)" ... and a lot more you might check by yourself...  and; it is about the time after the WW ... Sicherlich 22:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hesitate to get involved in this discussion, if I may use such a neutral word, in part because my views presumably are well known from the various city entries. But in my opinion as a) a journalist and editor, and b) an amateur historian, the key issue in all of this is not the present-day usage in various countries. What makes these entries confusing and misleading for the audience Wikipedia supposedly is intended to serve is the history of these territories.

For centuries, they were inhabited by Germans, and for centuries, the cities in question were known (outside of Poland) by their German names, which indeed were the names by which they knew themselves during those centuries. (I do wonder whether Stettin, at least, really was commonly known as Szczecin in Poland during those centuries, but that's another topic.)

To speak of them in a historical context by their present Polish names on an English-speakers' page will lead the casual user to assume that the cities in question always have been (ethnically) Polish, which is not true.

Also, a casual user -- particularly an American -- who does not know the history may wonder why a "German philosopher," to use the example of Schopenhauer, was born in "Gdansk, Poland." In a newspaper story, such an anomaly would be termed an "unanswered question" by an editor, and the reporter would be directed to explain.

As a native English speaker, and as an American, I think it's important and logical to use the "formerly" or "formerly known as" or "formerly known by its German name as" approach. That gives the reader some inkling that the ethnicity of the place has changed. If he wishes to find out how or why, he can consult a relevant city entry, or read further into the history section of the city entry he already is reading.

This approach implies no value judgments about the transformation of the territories ethnically in 1945-49. It simply explains that a change occurred. While from the Polish (and German) point of view "everyone knows" about that change and how it came about, the English-speaking world -- particularly America -- does not; it's simply not been a major part of whatever history most Americans gleaned from their school years.

I fail to see how this approach offends Poland, or is in any sense "revisionist." It's history.

Sca 20:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * haie sca; thanks for your explanation; I'm not so active on en so i was wonder why to take the german name into the article anyways ;o) .. now i know and agree that it makes sense ;) ... but i dont think you should use the term "formerly" .. because a lot of cities are in Germany still known by there german name (compare it to Munich --> München, not the same but no american says München i think? ;o) ) ... different reasons for this .. of course specially for small cities the use is getting less .. still there are a lot people in Germany who know and use this name .. so i think it should be handled like it is done on pl and de; just say "German: XYZ" .. as it is used on de and pl .. and nobody has any problems with this (okay besides GZ but he never visited wikipedia.pl as it seems he does not speak polish [but knows what is right]) .. the explanation that had been German you can then find in the history part of the article ...Sicherlich 21:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another approach I'ven seen on several websites – including The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001 – is: "It's German name was ...." This, too, would be acceptable.

Sca 19:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote
Hi. I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 07:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)