Talk:Bydgoszcz/Archives/2013/January

Twin towns

MOS:FLAG applies to the flag icons on this page. To wit: Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations: In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state (e.g. the United States of America or Canada) not of a subnational entity, even if that entity is sometimes considered a "nation" or "country" in its own right. Even if this policy didn't exist, the Bydgoszcz Twin Cities sign picture clearly shows the British flag. Owain (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting the guideline you considered before making the change. I can now see how the misunderstanding arose. You seem to have selected only part of the guideline. Other parts are more relevant. The second sentence of the heading MOS:FLAG says: Note: Terms such as "country" and "nation" as used below should be understood to also apply to other uses of flags, such as national subdivisions, international organisations, etc.. Wales is both country and nation, so the guidance applies. Also, the part you quoted, from the section Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations is preceded by the paragraph stating: The exact definition of a "state", "nation" or "country" is often politically divisive and can result in debates over the choice of flag. For example, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are referred to by the British government as "countries" within the United Kingdom [1]. Further, the part you quoted is followed by: This is partly for the sake of consistency across Wikipedia, but also because a person's legal citizenship is verifiable, whereas "nationality" within a country can be porous, indeterminate and shifting. indicating that that particular sentence relates to the biographies of individuals. However, I have found no indication on Swansea City Council's website or on Bydgoszcz's website that Swansea is twinned with Bydgoszcz. Bydgoszcz's website shows only Perth (from the UK). You will note that they describe the city as Perth, Szkocja. Wielka Brytania (United Kingdom in Polish) is not even mentioned. Consequently, I have removed Swansea from this page and reverted Perth to show the Scottish flag. Daicaregos (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not Prussia

This is a little bit more emotional, I think, than the twin towns issue, but I feel like I should go ahead with it, okay.

Look-- I'm really not sure why English Wikipedia has to give the *German* name for every *Polish* city.... I'm just not sure that this is a good example of "objectivity", and, uh, .... diversity....?

I'm not sure that Poles would *really* like having their towns called Deutscher-berg, any more than Germans would like having their towns called Polski-goszcz. Does that make sense?

And I realize that we're giving the Latin name, too-- but not everything is the same, really.... I mean, I notice that we don't actually Anglicize the name in English at all-- unless we decide to use the *German* name, which wouldn't be the most sensitive thing.... no, we seem to just call it, Bydgoszcz-- we don't try to call it Bydgoshire or something, that would be absurd, I think. The name is what they call it.

But the *Germans* are allowed to be special, why, exactly? (Every time that you have a name, Poland-- I, Germany, have one that's better.) Oh, that's right, because they're secretly the Lords of Prussia....

On the Kaliningrad page the *former*, German name is given-- I think that this is far more appropriate.... and especially, since, basically-- what are we doing. We're giving the "German" name for historical purposes, so that, during the section on the town's history, we know what Nazi Name it was assigned and what Hitler and his lieutenants called the place in their death-chamber diaries.

But, I doubt that the people who actually live there call it that, or, are even especially fond of the name, really. So, to be honest, I don't think that this is an instance of cultural sensitivity or diversity or anything, so much as it is of extreme insensitivity.... and especially since it's kinda a, Oh, goodie, *Bromberg*, how much more *English-y*, or whatever, than 'Bydgoszcz'. But, uh.... this that something that we seriously want to go around reminding people? Really? Is the Polish name that much worse than the Nazi one that we can't just let it stand by itself? If ever there was a time to play grammarian and say that whatever is proper is the right answer, even if it doesn't seem easy right straight off-- this has got to be one of those times, right.

I mean, Poland is not 'Ostland', and it's not the 'Ostfront'. Poland is Poland, right. Germany is on the other side of the *Odra*.

And, sure, let them have the river-name if they want; a river is just a river. It's hardly the same thing, as, you know....

'Oh, no-- we'll be calling that, New East Germany. Bromberg, New East Germany. What's Poland? This is Germany, just the eastern bit, that's all.'

This is not, like, a cute little naming dispute, that we're talking about. This is, like, the Nazis. Remember the Nazis? They were bad. So, if they want us to call the place one thing, I think that we'd do well to call it, uh.... whatever the real name is.

I mean, are there even any Germans living in Bydgoszcz? Or, better yet, *if you were a German living in Bydgoszcz*-- say the weather agreed with you, right-- would you want people going around calling it 'Bromberg' and such? I'm not sure that they do. I can't imagine there being large numbers of Germans in the place, demanding that their own name be used....

And, yes, in the Polish and German Wikipedias, 'Bromberg' is included as a secondary name. But, for all you know, they might just be following the precedent of English Wikipedia, English being the Big Special language, and so on. But, I mean, my point is-- if you check the Polish Wiki, they seem to know everything about the place-- and there's even a long, long talk page with stuff on Sport in Bydgoszcz and near everything else there besides. The German article, on the other hand, is very sparse even in comparison to this one, which is kinda average-length, let alone the Polish one, which is pretty longish and has a long talk page too. The Germans, too, are sparse to nil on the actual life of the city-- they do *not* seem to know that much about sport and such, or anything that you'd know about the place if you actually sorta went there.... as though like, you know, they don't know, and they don't care, 'cause they never been. You see.

This, is not Prussia.

It's actually a bit more like Russia, when you come to it-- notice the flag? Does that flag, remind you of any other flag?

I mean, to be honest, it's really not Germany, any more than it's Scotland or France.

I mean, why not just put, La Ville De Byd, or something. I mean, really.

Actually, that might even be less insulting. More weird, maybe, but, also less insulting.

Because it's really not Prussia.

It just isn't, you know.

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite agree - removed. Daicaregos (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:PLACE relevant foreign names should be mentioned in the lead. The town of Bydgoszcz had a sizeable German minority prior to WWII and an ethnic German majority prior to WWI, it was part of the German Empire and several notable Germans were born there. Older english-language sources probably also use only the German name of Bromberg, thus it's an essential information. BTW, even the Polish article pl:Bydgoszcz mentions the German name right in the lead. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So any German city with a sizable Polish minority population should have its Polish name in the article? Hmmm, let's give it a few more years.Volunteer Marek 18:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

re: "relevant foreign names should be mentioned in the lead" But I think that the word 'relevant' is a little subjective. Just because it's a German name doesn't automatically make it relevant. I mean, mostly Poles live there now-- the population of Poland today is pretty much all Polish. German might be about as useful as Latin.

Bydgoszcz did have a lot of Germans living there *before Hitler*, but, you know, now it's after. Several Germans were born there, including some Nazis, I guess, and I'm not sure, really, if say, Blixa Bargeld, or somebody like that, who was actually born in Germany, would appreciate us giving out which Nazis won which type of Knight's Cross, and making a big, big, deal out of mentioning that, as part of our diversity thing, right. I guess that there are some Germans who live there now or who were born there-- it's not like it's *so* far from Germany, geographically speaking, but I can't imagine, say, Vivian Schmitt, calling the place 'Bromberg' and explaining how many Knight's Cross guys were from there, any more than I can imagine Blixa Bargeld, for example, say, after doing the 'Haus der Luge', 'House of Lies', song.... I mean, he actually said that he'd practically never been in *East Berlin*, and that various places in East Berlin didn't have any significance for him, because he's never been there.... I don't think that he's actually worried that these Polish cities are called by their Polish names, or is worried about *that*, you know.

'Older references use the German name': Yeah, that was kinda my point, that just because that older sources say or do something or act in a certain way, doesn't mean that it's appropriate or anything. It doesn't mean that it's right or that you should do it, automatically, just from it being that way in the older sources. I mean, back then-- in the 1911 encyclopedia, everything German was 'progress' right.... Bismark's culture war against the Poles and so on in the wonderful German Empire-- well, good, progress, Germany, so on, and so on. I mean, it's kinda goofy if you think about it. Progress, yeah, *always* progressive.... *rolls eyes*

I mean, that's really the whole point that I was trying to make, I *know* that they would have had it in the older sources, but just because it was in the older sources doesn't mean that....

That's harder to phrase, somehow, than I thought that it would be, even though it's so simple, really.

I mean, sometimes academics have this peculiar kind of conservatism-- you may never, not ever, take down that Latin sign which has been there since....

But that's not always appropriate....

And it certainly doesn't actually reflect the reality of Eastern Europe, which has changed alot since the war.

But, anyway, I am glad that I have got some interest, at least, a few responses, and I'd like to thank you guys for that. And while I guess that we can't change it just yet without a consensus, I'm glad that we're talking about it, at least....

I mean, my opinion is that if you really really looked at your reasons and your reasoning and analyzed them, and thought about everything that you're really saying, then eventually you would come to agree with me. That's my point of view, anyway. :)

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to WP:PLACE. The relevant section says: “Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages”. No evidence has been produced that Bromberg is used by at least 10% of sources. Indeed, I found very few references to Bromberg being used to reference this city. I consider neither Bromberg, nor Bydgostia to be relevant in the context of WP:PLACE. So far only one editor appears to favour their inclusion in the first line of the article lead. My vote is for their removal. Other editor opinion would be welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You forgot the second alt of WP:Place "..used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". I don't think there's anything disputable here.

We also have a special policy for places sharing a Polish/German history, outlined in the Gdansk vote above. In short: we mention the "other" name in the lead. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, no evidence has been provided for the claim that Bromberg is "..used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". Nevertheless, Talk:Gdansk/Vote appears to be relevant here. I was not aware of that convention before, for which I apologise. Please note for future reference that it would have saved a lot of time & trouble had our attention been drawn to that from the start. Daicaregos (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You wan't to deny that Germans lived in that area or that Bromberg is the German name of Bydgoszcz? HerkusMonte (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Where did I say that? Don't be a WP:DICK and re-read what I said. Daicaregos (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"no evidence has been provided for the claim that Bromberg is "..used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place"." What kind of evidence do you expect for what kind of claim? Germans used to live in that area and Germans call it Bromberg. This is exactly what WP:PLace requires. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the other name would be blatant recentism. I monitor this article because I wrote the article about Martin Gorecki, whose official government biography described him as being born in Bromberg, even though he was himself a proud Polish-American activist, because at the time of his birth, that was the official name of the town, and the Polish state had not yet been reunified at the time of Gorecki's election to the legislature. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, 'Orangemike', but I don't think that I've said anything so inflammatory-- I've done my best to raise the issues that I think are important as respectfully as possible, and I don't think that I deserve to be snapped at or lectured about 'blatant' 'recentism'-- recent, this, recent, that, blatant, this, blatant, that-- as though I were some kind of a moron who doesn't understand anything, and who needs you to show up to lecture me about the way that things are going to be. Because I guess that God appointed you to inform the rest of us about all the *activists* there are in the world who take an upstairs/downstairs attitude towards the world, with all of us being the 'downstairs', right, in the red manor house.

I mean, if you think that you're *persuading* by flaunting your *eternal vigilance* in favor of imposing German place-names into Poland.... well, no, you haven't persuaded me of anything, thanks.

Anyway. If the *procedure* is literally to count an arbitrary number of randomly selected thick-set books, against some arbitrarily-determined *percentage* of something.... well, if that's our strategy, then why don't why just do away with "human" editors entirely and just hand it all over to the machines, if that's how much thinking we've assigned to ourselves. And I guess what's we'll have to program them to wait about 200 years to acknowledge the demographic changes of about sixty or seventy years ago-- when I suppose that my *grandparents* were alive, at any rate....

Anyway, as I said before, I don't support any changes to the article at the present time, in light of the fact that we lack a consensus. But not in light of this 10% talk-- the Germans are alot less than 10% of Bydgoszcz, that's the only 10% I'm aware of in this context.

And certainly not because some *activist* thinks that it's his political duty to monitor the page on behalf of his favorite Lord Salisbury, or *whatever*.

Maybe we should just do a seance and ask the Last Nazi Mayor of Bromberg what he thinks of it all, and if more than 10% of his aides vote against it, then, that's good enough for us, too, then.

Kwiataprilensis (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the city name in the article Martin Gorecki to match the Gdansk (Danzig) Vote cited above, since he was as clearly Polish as they come. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)