[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV disputes inPolish-German articles

Thu Oct 30 03:25:14 UTC 2003

Constantinople was officially the name of the city far past the Byzantine 
period, I think...the Ottomans always called it that, and according to the 
Istanbul article it was not officially changed to that name until March 28, 
1930 (and interesting, Istanbul comes from Greek "stan poli", not Turkish).

(I know that's not really the point, but I thought I might clear up this 
particular example :))

>From: Delirium <delirium at rufus.d2g.com>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV disputes 
>inPolish-German	articles
>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:03:56 -0800
>
>Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
>>You have wrong idea about the problem. The disputed area wasn't 
>>exclusively
>>Polish or exclusively German at that time. Usually, it's hard to even 
>>decide who was
>>the "majority", as we don't have detailed data from the epoch, and it's 
>>known
>>to differ from town to town. It's also not possible to tell what was the 
>>official
>>language - the concept of "official language" is a recent one - then some 
>>mix of
>>Latin and local languages was used, depending on context. Also, the name 
>>of a city
>>could be the same in both German and Polish at that time, only to diverge 
>>later
>>with phonological changes. "Torun'" is example of a name which isn't 
>>originally Polish
>>nor originally German. According to modern etymology it was Polish name 
>>equivalent to
>>"Tarno'w", later to be imported to German language during times of the 
>>Teutonic Order,
>>then to be reimported to Polish in significantly changed version. "Warta 
>>Boleslawiecka"
>>is another such example, except that reimporting happened after the Second 
>>World War.
>>
>>The only sensible policy is to consequently use contemporary names, with 
>>possibly
>>versions in the other languages parenthesized.
>>
>>
>This makes sense for some of the names, but I don't think for all.  For 
>example, "Danzig" was until 1945 the generally accepted English name for 
>that city, so I think speaking of someone like Arthur Schopenhauer (a 
>German born in 1780) being "born in Gdansk" is a little bit anachronistic, 
>and speaking of him being "born in Danzig (modern-day [[Gdansk]], 
>[[Poland]])" is more accurate.  I think we should generally use the name 
>that would've been used by the person if it's clear, and otherwise prefer 
>the modern name.  So, Constantinople (not Istanbul) for the Byzantines; 
>Danzig (not Gdansk) and Koenigsberg (not Kaliningrad) for 18th-century 
>Germans, but Warsaw for everyone in all time periods, etc.
>
>The main impetus behind this suggestion is that it seems odd to say someone 
>was born in a city that they wouldn't have called by that name--if 
>Schopenhauer thought he was born in Danzig, and in fact mentioned Danzig in 
>his writings, then that's what we should call his birthplace.
>
>However, I do think your argument has convinced me to use the modern names 
>when discussing the general history, if former names are unclear, which I 
>think is how it currently is: [[Gdansk]] refers to the city by that name 
>throughout the history section, including the 16th/17th/18th/19th 
>centuries.  That seems fine to me.  It's be wrong to refer to 16th-century 
>[[Kaliningrad]] though.
>
>So perhaps unfortunately we need to do it on a case-by-case basis?
>
>-Mark
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963