Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names)/Archive 1

A suggestion for a consistent naming convention of disputed places
Note: so far this is only a suggestion .

There is no English name
1. Use the current local name as the aricle title, e.g. Gdansk. 2. Create redirects from names in all other languages which were important in that place's history, e.g. Danzig --> Gdansk. 3. List all the alternative names in the first paragraph of the article, e.g.
 * Gdańsk (formerly known in English by its German name, Danzig, ...)

4. In other articles list the 2-3 most important names when the place is mentioned for the frist time, then use only the current name.

There is an English name which happens to be same as in one of the important languages in the place's history
1. Use the English name as the aricle title and note which language it comes from, e.g. Cologne (French). 2. Create redirects from names in all other languages which were important in that place's history, e.g. Köln --> Cologne. 3. List all the alternative names in the first paragraph of the article, e.g.
 * Cologne (French; German Köln,...)

4. In other articles use the English name.

There is a separate English name
1. Use the English name as the aricle title, e.g. Warsaw. 2. Create redirects from names in all other languages which were important in that place's history, e.g. Warszawa --> Warsaw. 3. List all the alternative names in the first paragraph of the article, e.g.
 * Warsaw (Polish Warszawa, German Warschau,...)

4. In other articles use the English name only.

Kpalion 03:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Response to Kpalion's suggestions

 * On the first suggestion, I think this is to oversimplify matters. I think it is somewhat dubious to say that "Cologne" is the English name for the German city of Köln, while "Danzig" was not until recently the English name for that city.  There is simply the name most commonly used in English.  I'd also note that for cities in Central Europe where there was a population transfer, or a serious political change, the change in the common translation of the name in many cases amounts to a name change.  For instance, Bratislava was not, so far as I am aware, particularly called that before 1919.  And Gdansk was called Danzig pretty exclusively both in English and by its own inhabitants for hundreds of years before 1945.  I don't see what is to be gained by ignoring that.
 * On the second rule, I'm not sure, as I said, how this is a different situation in kind from the first situation. Why is "Cologne" an English name, but "Danzig" is not?  "Ratisbon" was also an English name for Regensburg for a long time, as well as being the French name.  Are we to call the city that?
 * I have no disagreement on the third rule, save that I see no reason why names for the city other than the English one and the native language one ought to be used. Given that Warsaw was under German control only between 1795 and 1806 and again 1939 to 1945, that the latter time this was not recognized, and that it was never predominantly a German city, I see no reason to give the German language name of the city.
 * More broadly, I see no reason to try to establish rules beyond the rule that we use the name normally used in English. For some cities, different names are generally used in different periods.  I see no reason why this should cause problems. john 04:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe there is no reason for problems, but it's evident that problems do exist. Perhaps, you're right that the first and second cases are essentially the same. In any case, it would be better if it was native English speakers who decide which version is most typically English. Alas, it seems to me that the biggest problem with English speakers is that they can't stick to one name for a given place and they always change it for the sake of -- I don't know, political correctness or what? I mean, why has Ratisbon been "changed" into Regensburg, and Peking into Bejing? Maybe evetually, Moscow will be "changed" into Moskva, Prague into Praha, and Alexandria into Al-Iskandriyah...
 * Anyway, our main goal is not to make all possible nationalists happy but to facilitate search for all possible users who may know different names of the same place. This is why I believe we should list Warsaw, Warszawa, Warschau, and Варшава. Kpalion 05:12, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that there's a difference between English speakers starting to use a different version of a name, when nothing about the city has actually changed (as the case for Ratisbon and Regensburg, or Mayence and Mainz, or Peking and Beijing, or what not), in which case it makes sense to simply use the same name; and English speakers changing the name they call the city because there's been a massive political and/or demographic change in the city in question, as for the Polish cities after World War II (both demographic and political) or the Slavic cities of the former Austria-Hungary (just political). Of course, English speakers tend to lag behind in making changes like that - it took quite some time for Gdansk to take - but the basic reason for the change is that there was a major change in the city itself.  This is reflected in the fact that present-day English language discussion of the history of those cities tends to use the older name, while, say, Ratisbon, or Mayence, are not generally used.  Does this make sense? john 05:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * An added point: you say that native speakers of English should decide these issues. I absolutely concur, and I think that if only native speakers were involved in this discussion, we would have very little problem coming to a decision that everyone could agree on.  The problem is and always has been non-native speakers with a political agenda to push. (Not to say that all or even most non-native speakers have a political agenda to push, but there have certainly been a few serious offenders in that regard.)john 05:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) Kpalion 03:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Nikola Smolenski and I have been discussing the issue of placenames in Kosovo. Virtually every locality in the region has alternative placenames in Serbian and Albanian. Some are straightforward adaptations or translations (e.g. Pristina/Pristine) but others are radically different (Urosevac/Ferizaj). The issue is quite a politically sensitive one - Serbian nationalists prefer the Serbian names, Albanian nationalists the Albanian ones - so I'm hoping that we can get some advice from people here on what names to use. This discussion also has potential relevance to how we treat other disputed placenames (e.g. Londonderry/Derry, Nicosia/Lefkosa, etc).

My concern is that if we use exclusively one version or the other, whatever choice we make will be interpreted as biased: Albanians see the Serbian placenames as a symbol of Serb dominance, Serbs see the Albanian names as a symbol of illegal Albanian separatism. The matter is complicated by the fact that the Serbian placenames are the more widely used internationally, for the simple reason that the maps produced by the Yugoslav and Serbian governments (on which foreign maps are based) tended to give only the Serbian spellings. In Kosovo itself, since 1999 the local (Albanian-run) administrations have reportedly switched to using only the Albanian versions of placenames and I've seen maps on sale that give only the Albanian versions.

The international community is trying to steer a path between the two extremes by using both versions of the placenames and giving each version equal status. See, for instance, the OSCE report at http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/hr/part1/p0cont.htm or the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) website at http://www.unmikonline.org. The approach they use is to give the two alternatives at the start of an article, then use the Serbian version thereafter.

I have proposed using a similar approach on the Wikipedia articles about Kosovo and its localities. At the moment, articles on specific localities give both versions: hence the article on Urosevac also gives the name Ferizaj. The point of debate between Nikola and myself is whether general articles on Kosovo's history, politics, economy etc should also use the same approach. The article Kosovo War, for instance, includes many Kosovo placenames but Nikola prefers these to be given exclusively in the Serbian versions. I have argued for the OSCE/UN approach to be used - to use both versions the first time a place is mentioned in an article and standardise on the Serbian version thereafter in the same article.

This would have two advantages: first, it's NPOV (an exclusive preference clearly isn't), and second, searches using one version of a name will return an article named after the other version. Hence a search for Ferizaj would return the article about Urosevac but it would also (if the convention was adopted) return related articles that mention the area, such as Racak incident (which occurred in a neighbouring municipality).

What do you think? Is there a general principle on how to deal with disputed placenames that we could add to the Naming conventions (places) article? -- ChrisO 16:59, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Kosovo is politically and historically a part of Serbia (nowithstanding the current anarchy enforced by the NATO), so Serbian names should be used, with possibly the Albanian names given where needed. We're not going to edit all U.K. articles to change them to Latin/Breton/Saxon versions (London to Londinium etc.), or change all occurances to say Connectitut to "Quonectacut", Kentucky to "kenta-ke" etc.. Jor 21:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Transliteration of Russian place names

 * For people and places this is what I propose:

Typical English spelling of full name (Russian spelling in cyrillic) (pro-nun-ci-A-tion) (b. Month Day, Year, Place - d. Month Day, Year, Place), brief description of who the person was and why he/she is relevant.

Example:

Yury Alekseyevich Gagarin (Ю́рий Алексе́евич Гага́ри&#1085) (YOO-ree gah-GAH-reen) (b. March 9, 1934, near Gzhatsk, Russian S.F.S.R. - d. March 27, 1968, near Moscow), Soviet cosmonaut who in 1961 became the first man to travel into space.

I get my "typical English spelling" from Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is a mixture of transcription and transliteration. Best of both worlds, or a necessary compromise.

Thoughts? --Cantus


 * Thanks for posting, Cantus. Let me copy what Mikkalai wrote at the Village Pump, as I agree with the sentiment expressed here:
 * Ladies and gentlemen, it came to my attention that transliterations in articles about Russia became ridiculously fat (I don't know a better word). The most recent example:


 * Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), also called Soviet Union (Russian: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик (СССР) or Сове́тский Сою́з, transliteration: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (SSSR) or Sovetsky Soyuz, ISO transliteration: Soûz Sovetskih Socialističeskih Respublik (SSSR) or Sovetskij Soûz), a state in northern Eurasia that existed from 1922 until 1991.


 * I understand that all of them are of certain use, but the first sentence of the article becomes unreadable, not to say about a series of microedit wars. I am urging to find a better solution. Mikkalai 02:26, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to propose instead:
 * Typical English spelling of full name (Russian spelling in cyrillic) (Month Day, Year - Month Day, Year), brief phrase that captures who the person is in a few words.


 * So we'd have:
 * Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin (Борис Николаевич Ельцин), (born February 1, 1931) President of Russia 1991-1999, was the first President of Russia.


 * Instead of the current:
 * Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin (Бори́с Никола́евич Е́льцин) (bah-REES YELL-tsin) (b. February 1, 1931, Sverdlovsk [ now Yekaterinburg ], Russia, U.S.S.R.), became the first president of Russia in 1990, the first to be popularly elected in the country's history.


 * So, for example, I would put the birthplace and place of death, and more descriptive info like the first to be popularly elected in the country's history farther down in the article. It is much closer to the convention that is used throughout the English Wikipedia. I believe it's pretty important for similar articles throughout the Wikipedia to be formatted similarly, as well as be easily comprehended by people with varing levels of proficiency in English.


 * Also, I'm not a big fan of the accented Cyrillic characters, since they aren't normally used in Russian, but I'm not particularly opposed to them either.


 * Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:34, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I still believe that providing accurate pronunciation is important. --Cantus
 * well on the Gorbachev one it wasn't even got right - i've only ever heard it as "Gor-bah-chov" not the previous "Gah-bar-choff". PMA 06:55, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's because you haven't heard it from someone Russian ;). I believe my pronunciation to be accurate, although not being a Russian myself, I would love to get some input from those who here who ARE Russian. -- Cantus


 * I don't think providing a pronunciation is important. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If they are included, it definitely should not go in the first sentence. That needs to be the most important part of the article, and a pronunciation is never going to be that. Angela. 17:18, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * If a pronunciation guide is provided, it should be in IPA, and preferably also in SAMPA for people using crappy web browsers or operating systems. Jor 17:53, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that if anything, it needs to be both, but I'd rather it was neither. Pronunciation guide might be a better place to discuss it as it doesn't apply only to Naming conventions (places). Angela. 03:57, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

&mdash; And here is my opinion. It should be like this:

Typical English spelling of full name (Russian spelling in cyrillic with accents) (b. Month Day, Year, Place - d. Month Day, Year, Place), brief description of who the person was and why he/she is relevant.

Some people do not like accents, but they are REALLY important. And pronunciation guide is in fact of little use, since reading of accentuated Russian text is rather straightforward. It is not so difficult to learn Russian letters &mdash; it is not Chinese! // &mdash; Monedula 19:30, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * But then you are expecting people to know Russian, which is not the point and shouldn't be the point. Your idea of providing accents and mine of providing pronunciation, both want to acheive the same purpose: we want people to know how to say the name properly, only that in your case you expect people to know/learn Russian first.
 * But then you are expecting people to know Russian, which is not the point and shouldn't be the point. Your idea of providing accents and mine of providing pronunciation, both want to acheive the same purpose: we want people to know how to say the name properly, only that in your case you expect people to know/learn Russian first.


 * By the way, cursive cyrillic script is even harder to read for non Russians. If you want accents, fine (even though they're only standard on text books), but please don't make it even harder to read by making them cursive.


 * --Cantus




 * &mdash; Yes, we cannot demand that everybody knows Russian. However, Cyrillic spelling with accents gives you more information than any kind of transcription &mdash; in fact, transcription can be generated from it automatically.


 * Perhaps it is true that cursive letters are harder to read. But it is a way to separate Cyrillic spellings from the surrounding text. // &mdash; Monedula 22:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)




 * You are already separating it by using parenthesis around it.


 * --Cantus


 * &mdash; Parentheses look like insufficient. Still it really seems better not to use cursive. &mdash; Monedula 00:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The closest thing to what's in the manual of style would call for something like:

Typical English spelling of full name (Russian spelling in cyrillic with accents, Month, Day of birth, Year-Month, Day of death, Year) was a [etc. etc.].
 * I vote for that. Mikkalai

Places of birth and death should be incorporated into the body of the article, not in the intro. In my opinion pronunciation should only be included when it's commonly done incorrectly, in which case an explanation of this could probably take up its own short paragraph. - Hephaestos|§ 14:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Most Russian names are pronounced incorrectly :)


 * --Cantus
 * ... and nearly all English ones. :-) Mikkalai 00:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Notice that some articles contain separate sections for discussing a name, when there are many choices and explanations are due. Mikkalai 00:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A phonetic transcription should not be necessary - there is a pronunciation guide at the Cyrillic page. The page is to deal with the person/idea/issue first in the introduction, then one can digress later in the article. Dysprosia 09:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add my five cents worth to the total confusion by proposing the following transliteration guide. So far it seems to be the most consistent with the practices currently used in most of the articles containing Russian name (both personal and geographic), and if there is one area wikipedia can be improved in, it's consistency. The system would look redundant and over-complicated to an untrained eye, however, I believe that it would be the most accurate in representing both original cyrillic spelling AND pronunciation (for those who cannot read Cyrillic), as well as require only minor corrections to existing articles. Please specifically note that this system is not to be used for reverse transliteration, i.e. it is sometimes impossible to restore original Cyrillic spelling from English transliteration. Also note, that this is not a proposition to rewrite all Russian names across all wikipedia articles. This system is proposed to be used in cases when English spelling convention is either not strongly established or is non-existent. It should be not by any means used to replace well-established (although often phonetically and orthographically incorrect) and widely recognized spelling variations (e.g., Khruschev).

Please let me know what you think. If this could be put out for voting somewhere, that would also be great.

--Ezhiki 16:33, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

English/Polish/German/Russian names of towns in Central Europe
This is also related to other placenames in Central and Eastern Europe

There are currently some 100 edit wars over the naming convention for geographical objects in Poland (cities, rivers, provinces etc.) The historical background of the conflict is that Poland was partitioned in 1772-1793 between Prussia, Austria and Russia, ceased to exists as an independent state for 100 years, put to heavy Russification and Germanization practices, and emerged againg as an independent state after World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945).

This is why all of modern Poland was subject to some sort of German-language rule in its history. During the Bismarck's times Poles were persecuted and expelled from their lands, and during the Hitlers times Poles were exterminated and expelled. Both German leaders thought that this was a good idea that Polish language should be forbidden and German language used for the geographical objects in occupied Poland.

The problem users are Nico, John Kenney and RickK who think that it is still a good idea that Polish cities should be called by their German names in English Wikipedia. On the other hand there are dozens of Polish editors, who are disgusted and feel insulted by using the German names for Polish cities. The worst massacres were commited by the Nazis during World War II to the Polish people just because they wanted to be Poles, not Germans. That's why the German names of the Polish cities are no longer just neutral alternative names, they are the Nazi names, and that's why they are so offensive and insulting to the Polish people.

Most of the conflicts are over the city names, there is also some conflict over intepretation of the historical events.

Suggested solution: Naming convention for geographical objects in Central-Eastern Europe.

Rule 1. Geographical object should be called by its English name if there is one. In case there is no accepted English name: Rule 2. If there's a conflict over a city name, official name should be used. Rule 3. If an geographical object has different names in several languages; the official language of the country the geographical object is located in, should be used as a preffered name in English Wikipedia.

Mestwin of Gdansk 17:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

examples of articles involved: Gdansk, Szczecin, Poznan, Warsaw, Wroclaw

besides the renaming of Polish cities some users use offensive languagem for example Nico writes that western Poland should be called Eastern Germany, and Gdansk, Poznan and evev Warsaw should be called former German city

Mestwin of Gdansk 18:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The wikipedia convention is in theory rather straight forward, although not always what people in Poland like the best. The convention is that Wikipedia should not try to change language customs, but to adhere to the language as it's written and spoken today. Hence, rivers, towns, cities and other things currently under Polish sovereignty is to be called what they usually are called in English texts. If several names might be relevant for the reader, then they are to be mentioned in the initial paragraph. I do not think this convention needs much change. --Ruhrjung 20:58, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? All people in Poland LOVE Wikipedia naminng conventions. They bought "Oder", "Neisse" and "Sudeten", didn't they? But here we're talking about some non-polish users (including you), who don't want to acknowledge the English names, like Gdansk, and start all those endless, non-value-adding polemics, patronizing and name calling, to bring back XIX century naming conventions. Space Cadet 21:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The reader might decide for themselves how your tone and attitude reflects on you.--Ruhrjung 21:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Bismarck said: "If run out of points, complain about your opponent's attitude. But don't worry, if the reader knows you from other articles, he knows your attitude, too. Space Cadet 21:34, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * You have a splendid way of making friends!
 * This all reminds me on the intelligent fellow who with much energy argued for deleting references to all other meanings of Scandinavia than that of the Scandinavian Peninsula. He was most certainly acting in good faith, trying to improve English speakers' understanding of these matters. --Ruhrjung 22:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Places affected by Czech, German, and Polish influence
(this material is largely transferred from Conflicts between users)

This is the stuggle against the German names of the Polish geographical objects. Some German editors do insist that the German names like Danzig, Schlesien and Oder are in fact the English names which is not true -- Caius2ga 04:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The facts are the names like Gdansk, Silesia and Odra are widely and commonly used in English texts: for example:
 * The flooding event of Odra river: Measurements and calculations of the impact in the Odra estuary
 * In Your Pocket Guides Wroclaw: Attracting mostly Polish businessmen and conferences, the Park Plaza is a big glass-and-marble hotel with enviable views of islands in the Odra river.


 * I hardly think a document which refers to the "Republic of Tchekia," as the first one does, can be considered a model of English usage. john 05:42, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Heh heh - in fact the first time I ever saw "Odra" was in WP, and it took a moment to realize "oh, they must mean the Oder river". Non-native English speakers (other than Joseph Conrad of course) should not presume to tell native speakers what is and is not normal usage. Stan 06:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Surely Vladimir Nabokov also warrants an exemption. But yeah, we don't seem to be getting anywhere.  No matter how many of us say that "Oder" is the name for it in English, there'll be Polish users arguing that this is extremely offensive and validating German imperialism, and so on and so forth.  If Wikipedia has taught me anything, it's that Central European nationalism is very much alive and well... john 07:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * JOhn, what's wrong with demanding of using CURRENT names? You have no problems with using Beijing, aren't you? Also, ai wouldn't call it "nationalism". Maybe "oversensitivism". We remember times, when it was forbidden to using POlish names, and Lodz was renamed to Litzmanstadt, Gdynia to Gotenhafen etc. szopen


 * http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108587; http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=73677 --141.76.1.121 20:11, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is not the point here. The point is that the English Wikipedia use those names known to speakers of English. I don't think any Germans are seriously offended because the English name on Köln happens to be Cologne (French name, French imperialism from Buonaparte's days, you know). Oder happens to be the current English name, both in accordance with NIMA and in actual use (88 % English pages, English domains) Nico 23:17, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Frankly, i don't know why they insist about Odra over Oder. I'm concnerned only about cities and regions in Poland :) Szopen]]

He claims in Wikipedia, that some Polish or Russian areas, are rightfully German and are under occupation. Do we want to start again border disputes in Europe?? WolfgangPeters
 * about Nico. He posted few revisionists sentences on the different talk pages. Examples: Even the migrants must be considered expellees, since their homeland was under occupation and Germans generally was discriminated and threatened in these areas.  Source User talk:Nico I thought it would be correct to name them expellees, as that is what they name themselves. When they emigrated, Germany had not recognised the current borders. But do as you want. And in any event, what is wrong with considering East Prussia rightfully German, in accordance with international law (the Geneva protocols states: "It is illegal to permanently keep land militarily taken over and to expell and to replace the inhabitants") -- Nico 01:43, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC) Source Talk:Landsmannschaft Ostpreussen


 * I actually don't see what is "revisionistic" with these sentences. I just stated a fact: The (West-)German government actually considered these areas "occupied" when the people we are talking about emigrated. And it's not just "revionists" who thinks East Prussia should return to Germany. There are even Russians who thinks that. And after all, this is also just my private opinions, not what I write in any articles. Nico 13:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Based on, what you stated yourself, it seems to be irresponsible to give you the rights to edit articles in Wikipedia. Attempt to violate existing borders is a crime in every state. WolfgangPeters


 * Pfff, don't make yourself ridiculous. It's a difference between being of the personal opinion that Russia should voluntarily and legally return the province to Germany, and "Attempt to violate existing borders". Nico 15:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * When Russia has granted Chechnya, Tatarstan and Sacha full independence, gave Kurils to Japan, I knew that the time for giving Kaliningrad to anybody ;-) Did you forget how difficult is to deal with Russians?? Japanese had offered $80 bln inn exchange for 3 tiny islands without any meaning and Russia didn't get it. Germany have no money or intention to spend it on territorial acquisition, while Russians in thousands immigrate to exclave. It used to have 700 000 people, now they counted it at 1 200 000. Kaliningrad is the land of bright future. Seriously for your jokes. You make bad work for Germany and Germans. WolfgangPeters


 * about Poznan
 * Wik, Nico and perhaps others are quarreling about (if I understand it correctly) whether or not German names for Polish cities should be used. Please stop it, discuss it, or find some solution. And dont report this as vandalism, it's an edit war and a difference of opinion, alright?--Kosebamse 21:28, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * A major problem, in my opinion, are certain contributors habit to revert instead of discussing, which when done from similar-looking IP-adresses and accounts, is not much different from other kinds of vandalism. Maybe we should consider Protecting pages more often in order to allure the combatants into discussing on the Talk-page instead?--Ruhrjung 04:01, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * about Silesia and Wroclaw
 * The dispute if Silesia is/was a province of Poland, Bohemia, Germany, Roman Empire, and what should be put into introductory paragraph, and what should go to history section. Difficult to resolve Polish-German controversy flavored by the 19th-20th century nationalisms. I think we need someone neutral to prevent the revert wars.--Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 19 Oct 2003
 * about Prussia
 * Similar problems. To some degree derived from the post-war expulsion of Germans, and in particular from the dispute whether medieval and modern time German presense east of Oder-Neisse ought to be stressed or ought to be neglected. Also East Prussia, Ducal Prussia and Royal Prussia has been affected.--Ruhrjung 09:05, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Possibly about Pomerania, Szczecin and Gdansk, Polish Corridor
 * The dispute over the Polish and German influences in Pomerania, and strict interpretations of historical facts. I think the dispute is under control now, but it can blow up in the future. Difficult to resolve Polish-German controversy flavored by the 19th-20th century nationalisms. I think we need someone neutral to prevent possible revert wars.--Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 19 Oct 2003
 * Cieszyn/Těšín/Teschen
 * As could be expected, the dispute widens: Within minutes after my stub on Těšín [under its anglified or German name Teschen] it was moved to Tesín and a state of war was established. Personally I couldn't care less, except that I suspect the "Tesín"-spelling to be an hybrid. If the "š" is abolished, why keep on to the "í"? There has existed red links for Teschen for quite some time, but none for Tesín. The problem is the brutalizing effects of war in the wiki-world. The pages would be favored from protection. Maybe then the combatants could find a compromize?--Ruhrjung 06:30, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I took the liberty to join the three paragraphs above under one heading. Besides, I am not even sure that it is a German-Polish warfare. The only contributor I for sure know as a German (me) ended up on the "Polish" side. --Ruhrjung 04:01, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Lower Silesia (Prussian province) - edit war between User:Nico and an anon. I warned them on the talk page that the article would be protected if the edit war doesn't stop; Silesia is an issue that I feel is minor enough that I can be impartial on it. -- Pakaran 00:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Repeated reversions as to whether Gdansk and Danzig are equally recognizable terms. RickK 04:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Szczecin is the English name of the city
May I suggest a compromise solution, which is consistent 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.

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

User:Gdansk on Gdansk, second proposal
May I suggest a compromise solution, which is consistent with the Wikipedia naming convention:
 * English Wikipedia - English name of the city Gdansk is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Kashubian Gduńsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
 * German Wikipedia - German name of the city Danzig is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding Polish Gdańsk, Kashubian Gduńsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
 * Polish Wikipedia - Polish name of the city Gdańsk is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Kashubian Gduńsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
 * Kashubian Wikipedia - Kashubian name of the city Gduńsk is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Polish Gdańsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
 * Latin Wikipedia - Latin name of the city Gedania is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Polish Gdańsk and Kashubian Gduńsk are mentioned ONCE in the headline.

Mestwin of Gdansk 20:43, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you in favour of the proposed naming compromise? Talk:Gdansk


 * No, any more than I would want Ireland, Kingdom of Ireland, Irish Republic, Irish Free State, Éire, or Republic of Ireland to have a single name. Your changing Free City of Danzig to Free City of Gdansk reduces your credibility --Henrygb 01:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The compromise is inconsistent with en Wikipedia naming practices, which are to use the English name and in historical times the English name at the historic time. So, no, it's a compromise which suggests changing the en naming convention to reflect your own preference, that of someone I assume is not a native English speaker. Danzig and Gdansk are both appropriate for the city, Gdansk when referring to it in modern times, Danzig under German control when that was dominant in English consciousness, notably during the free city period. Both need to be used in the article about the city, to reflect its names throughout history, just as London is called London sometimes and Londinium, the name given by conquerors, at others. Jamesday 00:51, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proper English usage
I'm throwing in another datum about proper English usage, in respect to the name places under dispute: what my dictionary says. This is an old, hallowed means to settle arguments -- at least in the US -- & I hope it puts to rest this assumption that native English speakers are pushing for German names when we are insisting on the names we are familiar with.

Said dictionary is the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, published by G. & C. Merriam Co., & copyright 1974. In the Geographical Names section in the back it reads:


 * Gdansk or Danzig
 * Oder or Odra
 * Poznan or Posen
 * Szczecin or Stettin
 * Teschen or Tesin or Cieszyn
 * Wroclaw or Breslau
 * Warsaw or Warszawa

Where the name listed second appears in this gazetter (e.g. "Odra"), there is a redirect to the primary name. The use of the redirect indicates that the names are listed in order or preference or familiarity to the English reader.

Even though I'm more familiar with "Stettin" & "Breslau" as the names of towns, because my dictionary says the Polish names are more accepted, I would acquiese to their forms over my familiarity. However, Oder is listed first as the most familiar name of this river -- which is why so many English speakers react quite vociferously when an obvious non-native insists that "Odra" is the preferred form. And I suspect that people consulting the British, Canadian, Australian & New Zealand equivalents would find results that are similar. (And I hope they are shared, whether they agree or disagree.) -- llywrch 21:03, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

English names like Warsaw for Warszawa, Cracow for Krakow, Munich for muenchen, and Prague for Praha; are commonly accepted and used in English.

In other cases (no English equivalent) if there is a conflict between various placenames - the native or official names should be used. For example Polish names for Polish cities (Gdansk, Szczecin, Wroclaw); Lithuanian names for Lithuanian cities (Vilnius, Kaunas); Ukrainian names or Ukrainian cities: Kyiv, Lviv; German names for German cities: Bautzen, Greifswald, Cottbus. - Mestwin of Gdansk 20:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are accepted and well known English usages for several of those: Stettin, Breslau, Kiev and Lvov. Jamesday 00:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should be noted that Krakow is the site for the article on that city. That Breslau, at least, is pretty clearly the German name, and the former English name, but not the English name anymore, and that arguably the same is true for Stettin/Szczecin. That Lvov was the Russian name of a city which has also been called Lwow and Lemberg. john 01:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to use multiple names for cities in articles?
This question seems to me to be the key question here. After all, nobody (well, a few people, but who cares about them) is suggesting that we just call these cities "Danzig" and "Stettin" throughout their history, up to the present. Clearly, "Gdansk" and "Szczecin" and so forth are the current English-language names of these cities, and should be used for all references to them at present. However, it remains equally true that the current standard in English is also to use the German names when referring to these cities' earlier history. I'm not sure why this is so unusual. Numerous cities are known by different names throughout their history. Istanbul is called "Constantinople" before 1930 (or thereabouts). The various Dalmatian cities are generally known by their Italian names (Fiume, Spalato, Ragusa, and so forth) when discussing them before the foundation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in 1918. French and English cities are frequently known by Roman names (Eburacum, Lugdunum) when discussing them during the Roman period. St. Petersburg is called "Petrograd" from 1915 to 1924. Bratislava is usually called "Pressburg" before 1919. "Lwow" is usually used for Lviv before 1772 and between 1918 and 1939, at least (and sometimes for between 1772 and 1918). "Laibach" for "Ljubljana" is also common. We use old colonial names as well - Leopoldville/Kinshasa, Salisbury/Harare, and so forth. Mumbai is still frequently called "Bombay" in the west, and is certainly still called that in historical references. So I'm not sure why there is a problem with Wikipedia just following conventional English usage and using different names when referring to cities throughout history? Certainly in some cases it is necessary to do this. Discussing the 900 day siege of St. Petersburg, or the Battle of Volgograd, or the crowning of Friedrich III of Brandenburg as King in Prussia in Kaliningrad just wouldn't make sense. Neither would talk of the ancient Greek foundation of Istanbul on the Bosporus, or of the fall of Istanbul to the Turks in 1453. (And Constantinople/Istanbul, by the way, could easily be described as a "translation" in much the same sense as Gdansk/Danzig). Or of the great Gothic victory at the Battle of Edirne in 378. I think discussion of the Free City of Gdansk is just as bizarre and out of place in English. So, would someone please enlighten me as to why it's so much better to use a single name, even when that is not the standard English usage? john 22:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that we should use Lviv and Vilnius when writing about all historical and modern city event, despite the fact that my Polish friends just love the Polish names of the cities, Lwów and Wilno respectively. - Mestwin of Gdansk 01:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * English for those would be Lvov and Vilnius, though the currently preferred by locals Lviv should be mentioned prominently outside historic contexts. Jamesday 00:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It might be relevant to compare with the usage in wikipedia articles on capital cities in the neighbourhood: Helsinki (formerly known under its Swedish name Helsingfors), Tallinn (formerly known under its German name Reval), Oslo (formerly known under its Danish name Christiania), Saint Petersburg (formerly known as Petrograd and Leningrad) and Vyborg (formerly known under the German and Swedish spellings Wiburg/Viborg) – or other cities which have been under German laws for some of its history, as Flensburg/Flensborg, Bratislava/Pressburg and Strasbourg/Strassburg. In the main articles, the historical names are used rarely. --Ruhrjung 13:53, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Not sure that Vyborg reflects normal English usage - that one I expect to see as Viborg. The rest look right to me, with the first you gave being the usual English version. Jamesday 00:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice there'd been any response here. It is certainly true that the historical names are generally used rarely. This is in part because most articles on cities don't have very much detail on the history of the city. For instance Tartu (Dorpat) only really discusses the city's history after 1918, so there'd be no reason to use Dorpat very much. In many articles the history is short enough that the article can generally avoid using any name for the city in the period when it was not named what it is named today. At any rate, the question of what articles are like now is not an argument as to why they should continue to be like that, if the way they are now is wrong. For instance, at one time, articles on royalty were at places like Charles Windsor, and so forth. Ultimately, the problem here is not at all one about Wikipedia usage. It is a political argument. If it were just you and me discussing this, Ruhrjung, I'm sure we'd be able to come up with some perfectly reasonable formula in no time at all. I edited Kinshasa to change early references to Kinshasa to say Léopoldville. There has been no dispute about this. There is no dispute about Constantinople/Istanbul, either. Nor about Russian cities whose names have changed due to Communism. Hell, the Turkish city of Antakya redirects to the ancient name Antioch, and no one has ever objected. Nor about all kinds of other similar casesI mucked about a bit with some Estonian city articles (Tallinn and Tartu) in order to make the historical names more prominent, and generally have encountered only politeness. The problem here is that there's a bunch of users who are insisting on a particular convention for political reasons. john 01:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Worse, the ones objecting don't seem to be native English speakers so much as people with an agenda inmporting their disputes here. Not the best people to make claims about what normal English usage is. Jamesday 00:57, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation
See also discussion at:
 * Requests_for_mediation/Polish_cities%2C_etc_archive

Mestwin of Gdansk 00:57, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some suggestions to solve this dispute forever
It is nearly impossible to create ONE article that pleases both sides. There are just a few possibilities to solve this dispute forever:

1. Bilingual names everywhere (e.g. always "Gdansk/Danzig", "Szczecin/Stettin", "Wroclaw/Breslau").

2. A technical preselection of the preferred name. A command like would insert the preferred name of the city from the REDIRECT page. The server software could be extended with an IF-clause: #IF ="Gdansk" THEN WRITE "Szczecin" ELSE IF ="Danzig" THEN WRITE "Stettin" ELSE IF ...

3. Two different articles for disputed cities that give a slightly national POV (simply choosing one name is already a national POV). Contributors need a common goal if they want to write a good article. Creation of two different articles would create two competing, but not opposing groups. Whereever a separation in two different articles is not possible, links should show both articles (e.g. Schopenhauer was born in Gdansk/Danzig). Readers could choose which article they want to read. Deleting OR REDIRECTING articles of the other side should be regarded as vandalism.

4. If you have another idea to avoid a national bias when using disputed placenames, please add here.

Please regard these ideas carefully, as the permanent edit war discourages many users. Two competing articles need just a little bit more storage, but they could reduce conflicts that makes the whole project a madhouse. Remember that this project lives from donations and nobody wants to donate any cent for an institution that makes his contributions a subject of permanent edit wars. Two different articles for such a disputed issue could create a willingness to donate that exceeds the costs for additional storage by far.

This encyclopedia has many special interest pages (e.g. special arms), so a few number of competing pages for the same issue should be allowed. If not, you should try to insert a technical preselection as quickly as possible in order to make such disputes as invisible as possible. --80.134.126.118 17:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Two competing articles is a complete abandonment of NPOV, and should not be seriously considered. As to the other suggestions, there is the simple solution of simply using the name that is more commonly used in English for whatever period one is talking about, which is consistently ignored, as far as I can tell. When there is more than one name in use in English for a particular period, we can err (if err it be) in favor of the one that is the modern name. I'd also like to see an argument against doing this in general on any other basis than "well, other articles don't do that, so it would be a lot of work." john 01:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is the logical objection by anyone -- Polish, German or other member of the human species -- to referring to a city or place in historical articles by the name by which it was generally known at the time being written about -- most importantly by its own inhabitants? It's a simple historical fact that Poland was shifted westward in 1945, and that it thereby acquired cities and places that for centuries up to that time had been German. One can't escape the impression that those who oppose such a naming practice are trying to obscure this simple fact by claiming that the territories in question always had been Polish, which is not true.

If Gdansk never had been Danzig, Szczecin never Stettin, Wroclaw never Breslau, there would be no issue here. But they were. It's history. It happened. Tell it like it is, and was. Either that, or give up on the whole idea of Wikipedia, and rely instead on real encyclopedias edited by real editors and real historians, not by a motley rabble of self-appointed, chauvinistic national 'saviors' whose mission in life is to tart up the history of their own country to make it sound grand and glorious. And by the way, comparisons to Moscow for Moskva, Warsaw for Warszawa, Munich for München, etc., are red herrings, as we're not talking about peculiarities of English, we're talking about historical names of places -- names that have changed.

User:sca 3may04