Talk:Szczecin/Archive 1

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

message: source: Rocznik Statystyczny 1981, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa 1981, Rok XLI
 1960: 269.400 inbabitants 
 1970: 338.000 inbabitants 
 1975: 369.700 inbabitants 
 1980: 388.300 inbabitants 
cc
Nico, please stop inserting German names everywhere. This is ridiculous. Edit something else. -- cc 18 Nov 2003, 06:31
CC, please stop insert foreign names elsewhere. English name at English Wikipedia, please! Let me remind you what Rick told you before:
Names of cities
Please stop renaming cities to Polish names. The names in use are those known to English speakers. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and needs not be done again. I'll revert all of your changes. RickK 05:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  City population 

message: As this page was unprotected I think it is time to reach a consensus about how Szczecin/Stettin supposed to be named within Wikipedia. Let us like civilised Wikipedians discuss the issue here, then perhaps after some 2 weeks time, let's vote similarly like in VfD, then change the page according to reached consensus and stick with it against foreign intrusions ;-).
I think there are 3 options:
# Use Szczecin everywhere
# Use Stettin everywhere
# Use Stettin for events before 1945, Szczecin after 1945.
I suggest we put arguments for and against in this format:
===Szczecin everywhere===
====Arguments for====
* Szczecin is current name of the city. Przepla 15:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone convince me otherwise, I think that creating of History of Szczecin where Stetin, Stettin, and Szczecin are used in apropriate historical context, i.e. as you suggested is currently best solution. I am quite upset by change made by User:AntiNaziWatch despite my pleadings in the article. Przepla 15:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

message: ====Arguments for====
* Szczecin is current name of the city. Przepla 15:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Szczecin everywhere

message: * Szczecin is current name of the city. Przepla 15:25, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments for

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

message: ====Arguments for====
* Argument 1
* Argument 2
====Arguments against====
* The city is no longer called Szczecin. john 21:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stettin everywhere

message: * The city is no longer called Szczecin. john 21:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments against

message: ====Arguments for====
* It definitely would create some consensus, and perhaps it would end useless edit wars. Przepla 15:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stettin for events before 1945, Szczecin otherwise

message: * It definitely would create some consensus, and perhaps it would end useless edit wars. Przepla 15:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments for

message: * My source Nowa Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN (Warsaw, 1995-1998) [Polish equivalent of best encyclopedia) says that in the 12th century city was named Stetin (without double letter t) and German name was Stettin (with double t). Apparently initial Slavic name is Stetin. Przepla 15:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments against

message: I live in Szczecin, and I would be very glad if issue of naming my home city within Wikipedia would be finally settled. Let's show others Wikipedians that we are able to settle our debate as it should be. Let's show that despite our different opinions we can reach consensus without calling each other names and using edit wars and forcing page protections. Thank you. Przepla 22:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone convince me otherwise, I think that creating of History of Szczecin where Stetin, Stettin, and Szczecin are used in apropriate historical context, i.e. as you suggested is currently best solution. I am quite upset by change made by User:AntiNaziWatch despite my pleadings in the article. Przepla 15:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

message: May I suggest a compromise solution, which is consisten with the Wikipedia naming convention:
* English Wikipedia - English name of the city Szczecin is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Stettin and Latin Stetinum are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
* German Wikipedia - German name of the city Stettin is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding Polish Szczecin and Latin Stetinum  are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
* Polish Wikipedia - Polish name of the city Szczecin is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Stettin  and Latin Stetinum are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
I make an official protest against the Neo-Nazi practices of Nico, who is starting the World War II again, translating the city name from English into German, and making no significant improvement to the article.
Mestwin of Gdansk 17:17, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is redirection from Stettin to Szczecin, and Stettin is mentioned on the first line of article. One might also insert section about name into the article. Przepla 13:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we agree again.--Ruhrjung 14:41, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes ;-). When I was writing the above I thought about inserting section about history of the name, but somehow wthe word history was missed. Neverthless, I think we may consider your version of a first paragraph as a consensual. Now what about Szczecin/Stettin in history section? What version can be seen consensual? Przepla 16:31, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I would strongly suggest that Stettin is no longer the normal English form.  Do you have any citations to prove your argument?  john 01:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See much above (arguments for Szczecin only), where I posted Google results and major encyclopeadia data. Szczecin is more common in English. Przepla 10:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Szczecin is the English name of the city 

message: I changed header of the article as agreed on this page. I hope, that this will at least solve some of our problems (namely Wik's inserting former), as former in current context should mean how the city is called by it's officials. I believe that we reached consensus about header since no serious objections were raised and one person stating that Stettin is more popular English  name didn't gave any rationale. Frankly the person I am fearing most is Wik himself, as he is illogically stubborn and apparently can object only by his famous rv method and can easily have this page protected again. Neverthless I still intend to have this page finally edit war free (and this discussion archived). If you feel that I am wrong please say why and don't just revert. Przepla 00:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wik is hard-limited to three reverts a day, so this may make reprotection unnnecessary. Martin 00:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

text: Why don't you provide some of that research here?  So far, I've provided a lot of references to the rarity of use of Gdansk, and the commonness of Danzig when discussing before 1945.  You've mentioned the EB.  So, let's see the results of these 15 years of research.  Name books that refer to the city as Danzig in 1918, and so forth.  I'd love to see it, if you can do that.  john 17:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  John, I know my statement has little value to you without any hard evidence. I admit, that I conducted my "research" very non-scientifically, without documenting anything whatsoever. I never thought I would ever be sharing the results with anybody. Kind of a little hobby (or paranoia) of mine. For about fifteen years I've been regularly (once a month) visit libraries and bookstores and review atlases, historical atlases, tourist guides, history books and publications. For the last 10 years my search was also backed with the net surfing. I observed a drastic change in naming conventions regarding "Eastern Europe" around 1990 (which according to my highly educated friends, can be attributed to tha break of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Cold War). Write me on my e-mail, perhaps I can share more without wasting server space: spacecadet123@inorbit.com  Space Cadet 15:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

text: I apologize if you felt patronized, this was not my intention. Moreover, after considering what I wrote earlier, I think now that I shouldn't write that at all. It appears that I consider the matter of this article too emotionally, and therefore I am much too often blinded by emotions, and as a result I am behaving un-wikipedian like. Perhaps I should take a break with this article. Once again I must apologize all parties involved. Przepla 14:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool, dude! We all appreciate your passion! Cadet
- - -
Another Wikipedian referred above to a Google search. Perhaps the results I got on 4/16/04 show how fast Google is expanding. At any rate, Szczecin got 1,270,000 hits, while Stettin got 226,000. 
Google displays only a portion to avoid repetition. In a broad and probably representative sampling of the displayed pages, I found that most of the Szczecin hits were from Polish-language sites of current entities in Szczecin or in Poland, or travel/tourism sites providing information about Szczecin. Most of the Stettin entries came from German-language history sites or English-language sites relating to pre-1945 events.
To me this clearly supports the argument (also advanced by john) that it would be logical to refer to the city since 1945 by its current name, Szczecin, but to refer to it by is former name, Stettin, when discussing its pre-?45 history. If this contravenes Wikipedia naming conventions, then perhaps the conventions ought to be re-evaluated. The overriding issue is historical veracity.
That Szczecin and Stettin are two different forms of the same name is irrelevant because that?s not the issue, either. The issue is, what was the city called before and after 1945 by most people, including its residents? What was its identity? The city of Szczecin and the city of Stettin are not the same city, although they occupy or occupied the same site, because their populations are wholly different. That the Poles may have referred to pre-1945 Stettin as Szczecin on nationalistic-historical grounds is of no more relevance than today?s German practice of referring to Szczecin as Stettin. In neither case was or is the actual name of the city affected by practices of people in other countries.
The existing ?(formerly Stettin)? approach is truthful. It corresponds to history. One can?t change history, whatever one?s ethnic or national origins or passions. And the history is that, before 1945 the city was Stettin. Przepla's suggestion of "formerly known in English as Stettin" is off the mark, because it wasn?t just ?in English? that it was ?known as? Stettin; it was Stettin and was known as such by everyone except, apparently, the Poles (and maybe some other Slavs?).
Regarding pronunciation: Having lived briefly in Poland, I can confirm that Polish is indeed a very difficult language for English speakers to pronounce. (One Pole with whom I worked remarked, ?Even we have trouble with it sometimes.?) It?s not too hard to understand what makes Lodz "woodzsh" and Wroclaw "vrotswav," but "sh?ch" is a tough one. So I guess that?s why some English speakers refer to Szczecin as Stettin (which I believe actually is pronounced "Shtet-teen" in German). But if an English speaker were in Warsaw and asked for a train ticket to Stettin, a Pole would instantly correct him by saying Szczecin and might show some irritation. Underlying this reaction would be the knowledge that the city of Stettin no longer exists. That being the case, I think English speakers should at least make an attempt to say Szczecin, however imperfectly (as pointed out by Space Cadet above).
Regarding Space Cadet?s recent intemperate comments, I don?t understand why the ?official? status of the phrase ?recovered territories? has anything to do with telling the story. In English, ?recovered? connotes something quite different from what happened in 1945, as Space Cadet himself notes. My concern is that the true history of these territories long has been obscured ? on the Polish/Soviet side by design, on the Western side by ignorance and sympathy for Poland?s truly tragic past. The Cold War is over and it?s time for these misconceptions to be corrected. And one must keep in mind that the Polish people had no voice in the territorial changes of 1945, which were instituted by Stalin et al.
As an aside, I was  not aware that intemperate, rude language was acceptable on this site. Nevertheless, I do regret any offense given to Space Cadet.
User:sca 16apr04
Sca, a couple of thoughts.  Firstly, as far as I am aware, there is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy which prevents us from referring to a city by different names at different points in its history.  There have been arguments made, however, that a) it is confusing to refer to the topic of an article by different names at different points in the article; and b) that this would open a can of worms with respect to a great number of cities.  I think the first argument is simply wrong, and I don't think that the fact that a lot of articles may be written in a way which is wrong is a good reason for not trying to change one to be better (or whatever).  But whatever.  I'm getting sick of the whole issue. john 20:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected