Talk:Duchy of Oświęcim

message: I believe that per our policies (WP:NCGN and Gdansk vote) Oświęcim is correct as it has no shared German history till times of partitions of Poland. Hence we should use Polish, not German name, for what was through its history a Polish, not German, principality.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you offended because the ENGLISH name happens to have the same spelling as the German name? Ridiculous really, it's stunts like this that make me hate editing. Thank you for doing your bit as usual. Charles 02:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, if necessary, I will gladly present past incidents which fully justify the above comment. Charles 02:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No thanks to you for assuming bad faith and replying with personal attacks instead of presenting evidence to support your argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. After believing and assuming good faith for so long, time after time it's a huge disappointment. Charles 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, Piotr has not supported his argument at all. A "belief" which is clearly opposed by scholarly usage is not good enough for Wikipedia. Charles 03:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our policies make a pretty good belief. Unlike a Google test.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  11:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are our policies, Piotrus? How about WP:UE? English usage is at the very least Duchy of Oswiecim, not Duchy of Oświęcim. In scholarly literature it seems to be Duchy of Auschwitz, a spelling adopted into English as the English name. Charles 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Voting is not a substitute for discussion! Whether one agrees or disagrees, saying "support" or "oppose" only and referring to other users who basically are doing the same does not help at all. In some cases, it lends to the appearance of a cabal; in other cases it doesn't persuade or change reasonable minds. Charles 13:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find a poll very helpful in sorting out the sometimes tangled arguments. But it only works when the procedures are followed, and unfortunately that's not happening here. See more comments on this at Suggestion below. Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: *1.
The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.
English usage is for "Auschwitz" in this case. Remember, this deals with the duchy, a particular time frame. Charles 05:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do read and I do not see where is says English usage always includes local diacritics. You said, "Sources show that the prefered [sic] English term is Duchy of Oswiecim". "Duchy of Oświęcim" certainly is not the preferred English term. Please consult scholarly usage on the matter as well. Charles 05:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Anti-German bias? Auschwitz is the historical and currently most used name in English, therefore it is the English form. On the same note, Oswiecim is the polonized form. Charles 06:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh ? What are you talking about ? There is nothing anti-german in writing in correct English, as can be clearly seen Oswiecim is the English accepted form. --Molobo (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Evidently it is not so clear. We are talking about the duchy only. If we were going to go on "correct English", as a native English speaker, I present this: Oswiecim vs Auschwitz. If you want to simplify it, let's go ahead. All votes for Oswiecim then have already lost. Like I said though, this is about the duchy. Please do not tell people what "correct English" or "English accepted form" is when you are clearly wrong when using the argument of simplifying the whole thing to everything but just the duchy. Charles 06:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Evidently it is not so clear."It's quite clear, however with statements about pursuing some antigerman policy or "all votes for Oswiecim are lost" it seems NPOV is not observed and serious attachment contrary to presented data is pursued.--Molobo (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it, Molobo. It's right above you. You are simplifying the argument to what is more common Oświęcim/Oswiecim or Auschwitz, which are only components of this duchy's name. If that is the case and the route you wish to take, English usage already dictates that Auschwitz is the English form. In all actuality, Oswiecim is a polonization, especially when retroactively renaming historical entities in English (which we don't generally do). Tell me what is quite clear about Oswiecim being correct English and on the same note trying to bring in the matter of the article called Oświęcim. Charles 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am truly under the impression that your English is not the best, and I am not holding that against you, but only to say that you were taking the route of simplifying this to Oswiecim vs Auschwitz, rather than about the duchy. If that was the route you were going to take, I pointed out that Auschwitz is more common in that respect. I said nothing of the concentration camp. Charles 06:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I said nothing of the concentration camp."
Of course you mentioned the concentration camp:
Perhaps if the concentration camp never existed it would not have had an influence on the name, but remember also that we cannot throw out one influence when English is a language entirely composed of them.
It's a simple fact that Auschwitz is common used name for concentration camp, by using search just on this name you brought into discussion. It really was bizarre argument, especially as those are two different places.--Molobo (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said nothing in this line of the conversation about the camp. Again, you are putting words in the mouths of others. If you follow the formatting this page, very clearly a later line of discussion included comment of why the English language uses some forms. It doesn't matter about the camp though, English usage is English usage. Start talking about the duchy, will you? Charles 06:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English is a language where naming is influenced. It is wholly credible. If the Olympics in Italy caused a majority of scholarly usage to call Turin "Torino", that is what we would do because those are the conventions by which English operates. Perhaps if the concentration camp never existed it would not have had an influence on the name, but remember also that we cannot throw out one influence when English is a language entirely composed of them. Charles 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles, the camp and the town are two different seperate places.--Molobo (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but don't be a hypocrite. Again, read: You are simplifying the argument to what is more common Oświęcim/Oswiecim or Auschwitz, which are only components of this duchy's name. If that is the case and the route you wish to take, English usage already dictates that Auschwitz is the English form. Obfuscating, again. I am the one who told you that. I said this was about the duchy, but no, you want to go on about the nuances of English language and how it is influenced. Charles 06:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know then why propose to name Oswiecim after a different place. What's hypocritical opposing your claim that Oswiecim has to be name Auschwitz, then name reserved for Nazi concentration camp ? And I see you couldn't discuss the subject without attacking another editor, sigh, can you really stop this ?--Molobo (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not proposing to name "Oswiecim" after a different place, I am proposing to name the duchy with its correct English name. I said nothing of renaming other articles. Can you stop putting words in other people's mouths? You attack others as well, you are just a little more covert. Merry Christmas. Charles 06:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As results show the correct English name should be Duchy of Oswiecim, arguing that that is should be renamed because of a name of concentration camp established in WW2 seems incorrect argument.--Molobo (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show where I made the argument that the article should be renamed on the basis of the name of a concentration camp. Otherwise, stop obfuscating this. Charles 06:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English is a language where naming is influenced. It is wholly credible. If the Olympics in Italy caused a majority of scholarly usage to call Turin "Torino", that is what we would do because those are the conventions by which English operates. Perhaps if the concentration camp never existed it would not have had an influence on the name, but remember also that we cannot throw out one influence when English is a language entirely composed of them. Charles 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Emphasis is mine. --Molobo (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not and never has been my argument. If it was the case, when presenting evidence on the naming of this article, I would have only done a Google search on "Auschwitz". I, before you or anyone else, made it clear that this was about the duchy, not general use of the name. I made the argument that the article should be named "Duchy of Auschwitz" because that is what it is properly called in English, not on the basis of what other incarnations of Auschwitz are called. Charles 07:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out several times, that Duchy of Oswiecim is the proper name in English as the English versions outnumber German ones. It is true in Germany they called it likely Auschwitz, but this is English wikipedia not German one.--Molobo (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Points from [[WP:NC(GN)]]

message: I'm restoring the move header to this page, as the move is still listed at WP:RM, and consensus seems a way off yet. Suggest relisting when the time comes... perhaps as a three-way decision rather than two-way, or can we give up on the German spelling? Andrewa (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closure?

message: I have reverted the article to readd "Duchy of Oswiecim" as an English name, as demonstrated by use in numerous English sources. It has not been demonstrated that Oswiecim is a misspelling in English (whether it is in Polish is irrelevant to the English usage). Long-standing English practice shows that native forms can evolve into English forms without diacritics and these are considered correct in English. Charles 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A name without diacritics is not 'another' name, it's just a misspelled name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Polish, perhaps, but not always so in English. Please provide evidence that this is a misspelling in English. Charles 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note the following edit summaries: , . Provide a reason for them, otherwise they are baseless. Sources support the use of Oswiecim in the English language. Again, whether this is a misspelling in Polish or not is irrelevant to English usage. Charles 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I am not for mandating the removal of diacritics but where forms exist in English without them (especially if prevalent), they ought to be presented. Just because a proposal has been rejected, it does not mean that the elements within it that might have been banned have been cemented as mandatory. 2) That is a matter of your opinion and seemingly a way to lock an article in to the version which best suits your views. Your "argument" isn't an argument at all. In fact, it says absolutely nothing. Charles 02:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Oswiecim is present in a large number of English sources discussing the various incarnations of Oświęcim/Auschwitz. Are Polish spelling conventions applied to the English language or is Oswiecim as much an English form as any other English language place name for a "non-English" location? The issue discussed here (there are others, above) applied to including Oswiecim as an English form. Charles 02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With zero hits, "Duchy of Oświęcim" is even unverifiable original research. "Oswiecim" is incorrect in Polish but why should it be in English or since when are the letters ś and ę part of the English alphabet? But that's not the only time where names are simply coined - see for example Talk:Union of Kraków and Vilna‎ or Battle of Poniec. Sciurinæ (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sciurinæ, your assumption is false due to Google's faulty optical character recognition algorithm. Please take time to read a detailed analysis of Google Books' results provided for your convenience by User:Knepflerle in Section Survey right above. Not all English books listed in hits  feature limited preview, but among those that do, about half spell Oświęcim with Polish diacritics. The best examples are listed in my rationale for the Oppose vote. --Poeticbent talk 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, my first sentence is indeed faulty (which doesn't change the truth value of the others, though), Poeticbent. I apologise. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Elimination of diacritics from the article title has the advantage of making the URL work with older equipment and software. 70.51.9.71 (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important thing is that it would reflect English usage. Charles 14:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important thing should be accessibility. 7-bit ASCII should be preferred for all article titles, because it increases accessibility. However, that is not policy, so we use English usage, which instead should be a header on every article at the top. In any case, anything with diacritics will appear in some English language publications, if it ever appears at all in English, without diacritics. Weighing the diacritic and non-diacritic usages seems to be difficult, from the discussion here. (aside from claims that correct Polish must be correct English renderings, even though correct English renderings aren't always correct, depending on where you live) 70.51.11.191 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am prepared to accept it as an English version in use. Those English-language books where it is so, convinced me enough. Henq (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, titles without diacritics are not always mispellings. In Polish, maybe, but this is not Polish Wikipedia.  exists for cases where a term with diacritics is predominate usage, but has forms which do not use diacritics or general misspellings. English usage is for Oswiecim, not Oświęcim, however, and therefore it is not a misspelling in English regardless of its status in Polish. Charles 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has not been demonstrated.  Oswiecim is an English usage.  Oświęcim is another one, however.  Look at the (otherwise useless) Google Books results, and that is what we see.  And prevalence of one has not been demonstrated.  The paucity of evidence doesn't prove any stronger statements on English usage. Knepflerle (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Closing as an outright fail for this move. Consensus to default. --Maxim(talk) 13:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Oswiecim an accepted English form for Auschwitz/Oświęcim? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duchy of Oświęcim. 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/20080123000248/http://www.auschwitz.org.pl:80/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=stale&id=413 to http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=stale&id=413
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235413/http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/publikacje/index.php?language=EN&ksiazka=136&mode=ksiazka&submode=info to http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/publikacje/index.php?language=EN&ksiazka=136&mode=ksiazka&submode=info
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) 10:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Duchy of Oświęcim. 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/20081007103404/http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=stale&id=434 to http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=stale&id=434
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified