Talk:Duchy of Pless

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was move. The argument for using the English-language name is clear. The arguments from the opposers are not clear to me. DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support As nominator. Charles 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but there is evidence for rejection of the move: in Google Print, "Duchy of Pszczyna" vs "Duchy of Pless" wins 1:0 :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Piotrus. The English summary of Zarys dziejów kartografii śląskiej do końca XVIII wieku (Warsaw, 1976), which is what your one hit is, is perhaps the weakest testimony to the usage of actual anglophones that I have ever seen.;-> Who is the translator? Could he actually speak English? Had he done so in the previous thirty years? And as for 1-0 meaning anything, see WP:NCGN#False positives.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I guess I should be sorry for writing encyclopedic content. I am afraid you'll be disappointed, but I plan on doing so in the foreseeable future, no matter how much insults are thrown my way.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia (including (including now Germanized Pless) was conquered by Prussia; 
I have removed the three marked words for two reasons, besides the duplication:
*The most natural reading is that Pless became a German-speaking town and district, just like, say, Leipzig. This does not appear to be true; we should not mislead the reader, if we ever have one.
*I gather it is intended to mean that the name Pless, or rather Pleß, came into use around 1740. I don't see any evidence of this, and I think it unlikely; Pless had been under Habsburg suzerainity for two centuries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Second point doesn't contradict the fact that originally this wasn't a German town with a German name so change to German population and name is germanisation.--Molobo (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It had a name in Polish (and I presume Poles still used it even in the nineteenth century); it had a name in German, which is likely to go back far beyond the Renaissance. It became noted in English when it was ruled by the von Hochbergs, as part of Prussia. They spoke German, although partly of Polish descent (which is their claim to the duchy); German was also the administrative language of Prussia.  Therefore the English adopted a variant of the German name. No, that is not Germanization; it's not what the word means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Precisely; it was not Germanized, and saying it was is inaccurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name, however, was.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in English. Charles 11:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought English used Pless? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, but "Germanization", whether it did or did not occur, did not change the English name. Charles 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not, but it most certainly was the reason Pless, not Pszczyna, became the 'English' version for that time and context.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The administrative language of Silesia became German, I suspect some time in the late Renaissance; but that is not clearly presented to the reader by the language under discussion. I do not think we should go into the matter without evidence. I see no reason to believe that Pleß was invented for the occasion; the place must  have had a name in both languages, like Bolzano/Bozen.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Now germanized

message: :In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia was conquered by Prussia; but the Dukes, later Princes, of the Duchy would remain owners of the soil, and lords of the inhabitants, of Pless; 
"Princes of the Duchy" is nonsense; the Princes of Pless, who are so called in English, were rulers of a principality. I regret the pointless effort to deny that the nineteenth-century area was called Pless at the time, in English, and (when speaking of the nineteenth century) still is. Since there was consensus to move here, there is unlikely to be consensus to suppress the name in the text. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Brittanica online, which was cited, only returns an article on the modern city. Charles 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same city, If you believe it should be renamed to Pless, start a vote, the vote here was regarding the Duchy's name not the name of the city itself.--Molobo (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The request to move the page (last month) ended in no consensus, therefore let's leave it at Duchy of Pless. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that (nobodies asking for a page movement). In the content Pless (only) should be used, the Polish version need only be mention in the opening line. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry but the vote was regarding the Duchy naming, not the name of city itself which is Pszczyna.If Charles believes Pszczyna should be renamed to Pless on Wikipedia he is free to start the vote.--Molobo (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be so much simplier to have Pszczyna in the opening 'only'. Can't we leave Pszczyna where it belongs, in the Polish Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Molobo, you obviously don't understand that Psyczyna on EB, a SINGLE source, is about the city up to the present day and is hence given the present name. This article is about the past duchy and its capital was in the past named Pless (now Pszczyna). The form of the article was completely and totally fine but it is being mutilated in bits and pieces to include ridiculous phrasing like "princes of the duchy" and "dukes of the duchy". What are you trying to accomplish? Charles 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The relating article Pszczyna is in Polish. This article's content is a continuing struggle between pro-English and pro-Foreign spelling editors. It's two conflicting agendas. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The relating article is writen in English, the name is English accepted version. If you believe another one exists you should start a Request to Move the article to its proper English name. What is the English name of Pszczyna rather then Pszczyna according to you ?--Molobo (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The English name for the capital of the duchy of Pless is Pless. This is not about present day Pszczyna. The duchy was called Pless because that was the name of the capital. Charles 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "its capital was in the past named Pless (now Pszczyna)". That's only partially correct. While true for probably more than half of its history, for the first few (two? four?) centuries the dominant language was Polish (and Latin), and hence the name was Pszczyna (or its latin variant, whatever it may be). Hence when speaking of the early history of the duchy, it's capital should be referred to as Pszczyna; when of latter, as Pless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've no desire to move Pszczyna to Pless. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: PS - Space Cadet & Molobo, do you both have to edit war over this article's content. By doing so, you're only creating the impression of disruptive editing. Get a consensus on this talk page for your changes, first. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just no more 'edit warring' please. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Time after time, this flawed argument is presented to push a point of view. Wikipedia is not consistent. The name of Pless now has no bearing one what it was called when the Duchy existed. This argument was also attempted with Cracow. Sorry, it does not work. Whether Pszczyna is at the right name or wrong name does not negate that "Duchy of Pless" and "Pless" are the right names for this article. Charles 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the capital is not constant even in the context of the Duchy. It was not called 'Pless' until several centuries after the Duchy's creation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Charles but the Duchy and city are two different things.--Molobo (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed they are, Molobo, which is exactly why the history of the present city and the historical duchy are separate. But nice try, considering I'm the one who has been saying that and you are trying to turn it around (but it's not working). In the context of the duchy, it's capital was at Pless, even if it may be called Pszczyna in the present day. Piotrus, was the duchy called Pless and the city called Pszczyna at the same time? The duchy may have been created long before Pless came to exist as a name, but there came a point where the duchy and its capital were both called Pless. It's like calling the capital of the Kingdom of Hanover "Hannover" when it would have been called Hanover (now Hannover, Germany) at that time. Charles 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *WP:NCGN is clear; we should use what English-speakers now use to refer to the town, and the principality, in a particular historic context. This is why we use, say, Leningrad or Wilno at all: because it is usual to call those cities thus when speaking about particular periods of the past. If anyone can come up with an English source which calls the past town Pszczyna and the duchy Pless, referring to the same time, please let us see it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Princes of the Duchy

message: :In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia was conquered by Prussia; however the Duchy retained its separate rulers. 
The first clause of this sentence acknowledges that a small portion of Silesia remained Austrian. The second part asserts that Pless retained "separate rulers" (i.e. separate from Frederic II of Prussia?) ; this is nonsense. Please stop it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate rulers

message: This edit is absolutely unacceptable. The use of the one Google hit for "Duchy of Pszczyna" (''
Zarys dziejów kartografii śląskiej do końca XVIII wieku (Warsaw. 1976) as though this single usage by a Polish translator proved equal weight to the standard and well-attested English usage, strains my assumption of good faith to the breaking point. The removal of the Pless-Rybnik contest, the longest reference to Pless in any on-line journal, is simply dishonest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The omission of the victory of the Centre Party is equally bad with the rest of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Autorstwa? Texts in Polish should determine usage on the Polish Wikipedia, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Then please supply a link to the alleged Google results; these citations are unintelligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the link requested. The hits in question are #3, 11, and 14 of the 28 hits on Duchy + Pszczyna. All appear to be printed in Poland, and one of them is an off-hand translation of the title of a Polish article cited. Most of these hits are irrelevant, and5 of them also use Pless, mostly in the construct Pless (Pszczyna), which we should also do, per WP:NCGN. This does not imply that we should move Pszczyna; merely that we should call it Pless in those historic contexts where English does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Note by contrast  these 86 hits for Pless and Duchy; there are more references to the Duchy of Pless on the first page alone than all hits for Duchy of Pszczyna combined, and most of them are by native speakers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The latest

message: I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Duchy of Pless. All who want to join in are welcome; but, if you do, you should both list yourself as a party and sign agreement to mediate.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Poeticbent really wants the Mediation, he must sign his agreement to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I do not see why Poeticbent insists on describing the Duke of Ratibor as a "protegé" of the Prince of Pless. This implies in English, as in French, that the protegé is a lesser man, and requires protection. Not true here: the two men were neighbors; the Duke may not have been quite as wealthy, but he was older and of higher social rank. He also owned substantial land in the district, even if not half of it. 
In English, unlike French, it is also a rare and high-faluting word. "Candidate" is the normal unmarked word for someone running for elective office.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protegé

message: This was never part of the Czech Republic; I doubt we should, but if we're going to elaborate, let's get it right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bohemia

message: So why do we have two, substantially identical, paragraphs on Germanization? I have moved them next to each other; but do let's merge them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Germanization

message: If this means "saintly", that is, as indiciated, a summary of Margaret Anderson's quotations from contempotary sources. If not, what is its intended meaning?
But this edit is almost enritely disruptive. The restoration of a  tag, while removing the citation which answers it is particularly bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacock?

message: The Times describes Hans Heinrich XVII as using Prince of Pless in 1943; since his father died in 1938, the synthesis that he used it in 1933 was unwarranted. But it is Original Research to suggest that he ceased to use the title at all. I have added his biography; enjoy.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Duchy of Pless is naturally going to be about the Dukes; but we can move to Prince of Pless if it will make anybody happier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nineteen thirties

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duchy of Pless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117033947/http://www.slawistyka.ath.bielsko.pl:80/historia/regionalne01.html to http://www.slawistyka.ath.bielsko.pl/historia/regionalne01.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117033947/http://www.slawistyka.ath.bielsko.pl:80/historia/regionalne01.html to http://www.slawistyka.ath.bielsko.pl/historia/regionalne01.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified