Talk:Seredžius

Średniki?

Why not ? Polish name is justified, as that place historically was not "ethnic clean" (think of the Jews), not purely lithuanian and belonged to the polish-lithuanian state. It's not that serious, to purge the memory in that Orwell-1984-like manner. See polish wikipedia. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

129, why not? Because it would be as ridiculous as adding the Lithuanian name for every Polish hamlet currently in Poland with a claim that the village once "belonged" to the Lithuanian-Polish state 300 years ago. 1984 aside, it's not that serious, it's simply undue claptrap. It's a unnecessary provocation and has nothing to do with the "Jews". If your so bent on improving information concerning the history of the Jewish people why don't you get over to the Żydokomuna article, or the Pinsk massacre. Both articles could use your help. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that not very helpful contribution. I don't want to add to every Polish hamlet currently in Poland the Lithuanian name. You know very well, that's a personal and offside suggestion. You think, to give the polish name for, e.g., Kaunas and Vilnius is also unjustified ? You know very well the dimensions and influence of the polish and lithuanian people and language, respectively, set in comparison. Who, do you think, was the majority and domineering side ? Do you really think, the lithuanian people was and is now at the same level of quantity, influence and importance as the polish ? So then, why don't you eliminate that ridiculous polish names for places now in Lithuania ? Go on, you wouldn't have much success with that, I suppose. Suppose, too, that there is a quite narrow-minded ultra-lithuanian point of view behind your argumentation, like that: Seredžius is and was in the past only Lithuanian and there were no other factors. That's what I mean with 1984-Orwell-Like: Eliminate every aspect from history, you don't like, and present a one-dimensional, ethnically-cleansed version. We know that very well, it's the mental illness in Mid- and Eastern Europe, look at the Baltic, Balkans, or other places like Hungary now. Polish sight on this thing seems quite fair, in comparison. They have no problems to give the actual Lithuanian name first. In regard of all that, it's not that far-fetched to state a Lithuanian-nationalist, high-handed, pigheaded mentality here. Not that surprising. It's quite typical for small, isolated, complacent and extremely self-referred societies (better say: tribes) one finds in Eastern Europe, take the Albans, the Lithuanians and so on. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. Thank you for your very helpful contribution, unlike mine. It's quite illuminating, as I was unaware who "was the majority and domineering side", and it especially would be presumptuous to think "the lithuanian people was and is now at the same level of quantity, influence and importance as the polish". Now that you've explained it so well, I can't understand why this "small, isolated, complacent and extremely self-referred, "tribe" (sic), chose not to become reunited with Poland in 1918. They must have been crazy to pass up an opportunity like that. In the meantime this article will survive without the undue weight of its name in Polish. And really, "as that place historically was not "ethnic clean" (think of the Jews)" (sic), good grief! Yeah, that made a lot of sense and was quite helpful too. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Back at it Again

Question for Kotniski, or anyone else. What is the importance [1] of telling us what the Polish name of this town is? To be clear, I do not think it is important to include "Čenstakava" in the Częstochowa article either. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not important, no, but the article would not be harmed by having the information (it already has the German and Russian names). Meanwhile Polish names are significant in the history of Lithuania (for reasons I presume you're aware of), so this one is of somewhat greater importance, and certainly not something to be deleted. Even better would be to know about the history of the names - was one derived from the other? both from an older form? meaning what? - but until someone can produce such detailed information, the partial information we do know about is still potentially valuable to readers.--Kotniski (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Polish name of this town, which is not in Poland, which is not a border town either, with a population of less than 1000, is not important information for the English Wikipedia article. We are in agreement there. It is undue and unnecessary, and that is my objection. Not that it's harmful. Your belief that "Polish names are significant in the history of Lithuania (for reasons I presume you're aware of), so this one is of somewhat greater importance, and certainly not something to be deleted", is pure poppycock, and is not a good reason for placing Polish toponyms in any Lithuanian city, town, village, hamlet, or neighborhood just because you feel like it, or just because you can. Specifically what is your explanation for having the Polish name for this town in this article? Specifically in relation to your assertion "...so this one is of somewhat greater importance..."? Why is the Polish name important in the Seredžius article? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's information that readers are likely to be interested in knowing. If you don't think it's helpful to add information to Wikipedia (and indeed, actually seem to think it beneficial to remove information), I don't know what you're doing here - can't you spend your time on some kind of activity that doesn't involve creating a public information source?--Kotniski (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

interested in knowingis simply silly and speculative argument for having foreign names attached to Lithuanian villages. By same speculative argument all villages in WP can have numerical foreign names with zero encyclopedic value. M.K. (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If a village has foreign names, then if I'm interested in the village, I'm interested in the names (well unless they're just standard transpositions into another not specially relevant language, which is obviously not the case here). And Wikipedia routinely includes such information in its articles - there's no reason to treat Polish names for Lithuanian places differently.--Kotniski (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or crystal ball which tells that readers will be interested in interested in knowing "information". M.K. (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) "It's information that readers are likely to be interested in knowing", is not a reason, it's Kotniski's opinion (rather weasely phrased too). Removing the information because it is undue is a reason. A very concrete reason. Exactly who do you mean when you say "readers are likely to be interested in knowing" (the Polish toponym for Seredžius)? Poland shares a history with many countries. France, Germany, Lithuania, Russia are only a few of them. Walewski was the foreign minister of France and since he was half Polish, claiming that readers are likely to be interested in knowing that "Francja" is the Polish term for France, on English Wikipedia, is absurd. The logic of that claim truly escapes me. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's your statements that are absurd. What are you doing here if not providing readers with information that might be of interest to them? If we don't know which information readers will be interested in knowing (of course I don't mean that all readers will want to know a particular piece of information), surely we play safe and include it? Surely you can see that your statement about Francja is irrelevant and stupid - oh, you can see perfectly well why you're wrong and I can see perfectly well that you don't care, you're both just here to push your view of the world; sorry, there's no point discussing with you, I just hope that someone sometime finds a way of stopping people like you (and your counterparts from other nations) from damaging this valuable resource.--Kotniski (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Kotniski, there's no reason to get all huffy here. All you need to do is give everyone a rational reason to why the Polish toponyms should be included in this specific article, about this specific village. That's all you need to do. If you can't, I suggest you remove the undue information. That way I won't have to bother to do so myself. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not undue; I don't know why you keep saying that. I've already given the reason for including it - this is the sort of information Wikipedia routinely provides, and which people may well want to know. I just can't think down to your level - why would anyone think that removing information from an encyclopedia makes it better?--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please focus, like a laser, "I just can't think down to your level"... The question is why would anyone think that adding information, with no basis, with an obvious agenda, into an encyclopedia would make it better? Specifically this village of less than a thousand people? Specifically this village in Lithuania, not in Poland? Specifically this village which is not on the border of Poland and Lithuania? What makes the information relevant? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this "obvious agenda" that Kotniski has Dan?radek (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well this is nothing specific to this village. Why is it relevant what its population is or where it is? If there's a disused duckpond in Bolivia that has a Wikipedia article and that for some historical reason has acquired a particular accepted name in Japanese, we'd want to know about it. I think actually the smaller the place, the more interesting the foreign names, but anyway, certainly not less. Like I say, this information is woefully incomplete (we'd want to know the etymology and history of the names, as well as others such as Russian and Latin ones that may well also exist), but some information is better than no information at all (having the information there is not only potentially of interest to readers, but may also inspire some knowledgeable editor to add further information on the topic). Eliminating the information is just negative and destructive. I can assure you that the only agenda on this side is to make Wikipedia better and fuller.--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would not anyone be interested in Rzym, Moskwa, Londyn or Jerzy Waszyngton (I'll skip the Cracow and Varšuva this time)? It's over and over and over again. User:Kotinski has clearly stated what he thinks of Lithuanians (nats - one should read his answer to my question. I do doubt that nats is a neutral term, although the same user thinks that "other" names belongs to the lead in foreign countries cites, towns and villages. I'm a bit confused here.Lokyz (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So am I after reading that. (Of course, I don't think that "Lithuanians are nats" - this is just another of the bizarre and obviously illogical accusations that get thrown around here to avoid addressing the point. The rest makes no sense to me.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Kotnitski, everything you are saying in this discussion is becoming more and more disappointing and less and less elucidating. "Of course, I don't think that "Lithuanians are nats"", you were talking about somebody else, right? [2]. Presumably you [3] are "the well meaning editor" that is throwing out a mild insult because you are being driven to your breaking point, or do you mean someone else? Then we get "If there's a disused duckpond in Bolivia that has a Wikipedia article and that for some historical reason has acquired a particular accepted name in Japanese, we'd want to know about it." Really? And to think you called my allusion to Walewski, stupid. What is the historical reason that this village has a particular accepted name in Polish (whatever that means), that warrants an inclusion in English Wikipedia? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, if we could say what the historical reason is, that would be even more interesting. But for the moment all we know is that there is one - by mentioning the information we do know (the Polish name), we not only provide the information (I've said this once already), but encourage other people to come along and add more information to make the story more complete. This now seems to be happening in a way, which is encouraging, but certain editors still seem religiously committed to censoring any mention - even in passing - of the Polish name.--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Then how about Varšuva, Krokuva, Liublinas, Poznanė, Vroclavas and thousands more. Those names do exist, as you've said for the moment all we know is that there is one and by mentioning the information we do know (the Lithuanian name), we not only provide the information (I've said this once already), but encourage other people to come along and add more information to make the story more complete.Lokyz (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough (funny as in sad-funny) "Varšuva" is already in the article on Warsaw and no Polish editor seems to give a crap.radek (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, the source (very useful one) about the names gives the Polish ones. You are now removing sourced information for no purpose. How is this helping? I've made the Polish name as inconspicuous as it possibly can be (I suppose we could try it in a footnote to make it even less visible), despite there being no valid reason to hide it away in the first place.--Kotniski (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

More funny-sad stuff is this; Kotniski, it just doesn't matter what you say, what arguments you make, what Wikipedia policies you cite - they will remove it. Always. Over and over again. Polish words must not be allowed to pollute the purity of Lithuanian articles.radek (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A willingness to compromise does indeed seem to be sadly lacking. By normal Wikipedia standards all this information would be in the first sentence, in brackets after the town's current name (Russian:...; Yiddish:...; Polish:...), and all would be perfectly happy. I was going to quote some examples of Polish towns with Lithuanian names in the first sentence, but unfortunately there seems to have been nationalistic removal there too - just as bad, but in no way justifying the "reprisals" taking place here - but look at this absolutely astounding diff - the very editor fighting so earnestly to keep Polish names out of this article is actually inserting a Lithuanian name into a Polish one - right into the first sentence!! (And good for him - that's how it should be, and I'm just off to do the same thing at Sejny - but it makes his position here look absolutely ridiculous.--Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it does make my position more sounding. Parity principle. In short - when editors like the ones who call other nationality editors nats will stop looking on others form a higher ground, and will start adding Lithuanian names to the settlements of Baltic people, we might find a common ground. There is a lot of work to do [[4]]. Then we'll might be ready for Jewish names to Polish settlements. And there is a strange blindness as one user put it here "pure Lithuanian articles" was this a hint about Nazism? The same user should note, that there is a name section in all major cities, and spelling of names in multiple languages are present. Ouch. Where are Jewish, and German, and Russian names of Polish cities?Lokyz (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In the articles, usually. I've certainly added German names to many Polish place articles; so have others, as they have with Yiddish names, etc. There is, as you say, a lot of work to do (lots of relevant names missing from articles all over the place) - hopefully people will now address themselves to doing that work (i.e. adding information) and not undoing it (deleting information).--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing: [5] :)Lokyz (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) This is another standard tactic - when confronted about this kind of disruptive behavior (removing Polish names that should be there while adding Lithuanian names), always bring up some other article where something is not to one's liking. This "Parity principle" appears to be a principle - where exactly is it as a Wikipedia policy or guideline? - which says "because something somewhere on Wikipedia is not the way I like it, I can do anything I like on other Wikipedia articles". I can't understand the rest o the statement - some kind of suggestion that Polish editors should go edit Lithuanian Wikipedia or something? A violation of Goodwin's law. An "Ouch" for no apparent reason. And another sentence which appears to be completely ignorant of the fact that Jewish and German names are all over the place and in lots of Polish cities. Again, this is just the standard tactic of changing the topic when one's own bad behavior is pointed out.radek (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Standard tactics" is a name caling opponents "nationalists". Loosmark this time. There is not a thing to discuss beyond this point. [6] [7]. So much "for attempts to talk from one side". C'ya.Lokyz (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Annnnnnndddddd.... we're changing the subject again. Anyways, the fact that "nationalism" is a very likely motivation for lots of these kinds of edits and removal is not beyond the realm of possibility, is it?radek (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First the issue of German names in Polish articles. Practically a third of Germany was wrested from them in 1945, under Stalin's direction. That's not an apple to apple comparison. We're not talking about Cologne or Munich, although Leipzig has gotten a work over in the past [8]. Wikipedians "needed" to know or were probably interested in that information because of the German railway system? Secondly, although lot's being said has relevance to the subject let's get back to my question concerning the subject. What is the "historical" reason or any reason that Seredžius needs to have it's Polish version included in the article? You guys keep talking about this and that, but I'd like the reasoning behind its inclusion in this specific town. What is it? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And same as Stalin wrestled German territory, he wrestled Polish as well.  Dr. Loosmark  15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan, I've answered that question about ten times. Why not go to any of three million other Wikipedia articles, pick a fact from the article, and then harangue people on the talk page for week after week to give you a "reason" for including that specific fact in that specific article (and anything they may say in response, simply dismiss as "stupid" or "poppycock").--Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Kotniski, I was asking for a "historical" reason (still unanswered), not your belief that it might be "of interest to our readers". Yes, I believe that is poppycock. As for bringing stupidity into the fray, I believe that was your choice of words, first. If you can't come up with a "historical" reason then at least tell me if this concept of "interest to the reader" needs to be applied at all articles? Was this edit appropriate [9] and should the information be restored there? I'm asking you if it might be of interest to our readers? Does it belong there? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

got logged out mid edit

[10] - that'd be me.radek (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the town's Yiddish name is Srednik and since the town was majority Jewish before WWII it makes obvious sense to include the name.radek (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I put in it there, סרעדניק. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I see. Anything but the Polish name. Typical.radek (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd object to the Icelandic name as well. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Iceland is nowhere near this place and Icelanders never lived there. The same is not true for Poland and Poles.radek (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) How about Afrikaans? It's a Germanic language (like Yiddish). A large segment of Lithuanian Jews emigrated to South Africa prior to WWII. I wouldn't doubt if some went there from Seredžius. Why don't you look into it? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there are sources which discuss the diaspora of Lithuanian Jews who emigrated from Sredniki to South Africa (and of course, WHY they emigrated) then that information should most certainly be included in the article. And if the Afrikaan name for Sredniki is used in English language sources then that should be included as well. I'm not sure what your point is. It seems... irrelevant. But keep trying to change the subject over and over and over again. You'll have a whole school of Red herrings soon.radek (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly a school of "Red Herrings" here already. Maybe you can break the deadlock and give a historical reason for including the Polish name in this specific article, concerning this specific Lithuanian town. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

More or less the same reason for which Łódź has Ukrainian and Russian name is the lead. Although come to think it, the analogy is not very good since: Łódź was de-facto occupied during the partitions while the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was a voluntary union.  Dr. Loosmark  15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree "...the analogy is not very good...", maybe you should consider reviewing the lead of the Łódź article. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I leave that to you, after all you are not preoccupied with removing just the Polish names all over, but for you it's a matter of principle that the wikipedia policies are followed everywhere, right?  Dr. Loosmark  16:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please all including marginal names

This is silly, soon in article various marginal names will occupy more place then the remaining article itself.Please stop it M.K. (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - the marginal names aren't going to increase much in number (though etymological information is badly wanted), whereas the other sections of the article can be extended. If you want to improve the balance of the article, I suggest you (or someone else who reads Lithuanian) add some more historical and other information from - for example - the Lithuanian Wikipedia page. We don't take information away while an article is still very much under construction.--Kotniski (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So much for trying to compromise

[11]. Seriously Kotniski, this is how it plays out EVERY TIME. Not even a footnote.radek (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRAMA indeed. Although no reason for that provided.Lokyz (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Very Strange

It's really very strange how many questions posed here remain unanswered when it doesn't suit someone's POV. If you 'd like a compromise, at least try to answer some of the questions. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what question remain unanswered. No, I don't think I agree with the edit from 2005 you asked me about - but what has that to do with this case? People are removing sourced information, of the sort the Wikipedia routinely supplies, and which our readers are interested in (just because your interests may not include the etymology and variants of toponyms doesn't mean no-one wants to know about them - I'm not interested in basketball, but I don't go around removing information on basketball teams from cities' articles - and indeed you don't go around removing alternative toponyms from articles generally, AFAIK, only Polish ones from Lithuanian articles). Why is it necessary to supply a "specific reason" for including this information? What's the reason for Wikipedia existing, if not to supply reliable information that people reading about a topic are likely to be interested in finding out? Why should Lithuanian place articles be treated differently from everywhere else in the world? --Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress, maybe? Kotnitski you say, "No, I don't "think" I agree with the edit [12] from 2005 you asked me about - but what has that to do with this case"? Can you explain why you think you don't agree with that edit? Perhaps it has everything to do with this case. Please explain your interpretation of the edit and your problem with it. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I note you're not answering my questions, but I'll try to answer yours. A passing mention, in some other article, in a context unrelated to Poland or Poles, of a German city known in English exclusively by its German name, clearly has no reason for its Polish name to be inserted. But in that city's own article, then it's perfectly normal and valuable for other forms of its name, including foreign ones such as Polish, to be mentioned somewhere in the article. People want to know such things, believe me. The two situations are very (and obviously - surely even to you) different.--Kotniski (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Which questions? This [13] might be of interest to some readers. And Saxony (August II), has had a much greater relationship to Poland than Seredžius ever did, and Poland has had a much longer historical relationship and interaction with Germany than Seredžius ever had. But according to you, the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform our reader with "information". So actually by that logic the questionable edit shouldn't have been deleted and might even need to be re-instated. The problem with the undue edit is that it was a provocation, not meant to inform but rather create another drama based contentious situation. Just like here. When a small village like Seredžius without any current significant relationship to Poland, except by the flimsiest of arguments, needs its Polish toponym in it's lead [14], Kotniski, it's a sad day for Wikipedia. Surely the article on the Wojna kokosza needs some more attention. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan, please try to avoid personal attacks.  Dr. Loosmark  20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, if you have to drop by, please try to say something useful. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan if you make an accusation that an edit is a, quote, provocation, then that might count as a personal attack. My comment was useful I believe.  Dr. Loosmark  21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, let me retract "provocation". I should have called the edit [15] a good faith contribution that was placed only to inform our readers. How would you characterize the edit? Dr. Dan (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Mackensen's removal of the Polish name? A natural disaster and a catastrophe equal to a large earthquake or a tsunami. Now I have question for you: how did you manage to find this 5 years old edit and what does it have to do with anything? I am really curious.  Dr. Loosmark  21:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) No Loosmark, I was thinking about Halibutt's insertion [16] of the Polish name, not Mackensen's removal of it. Since we're old friends, may I warn you that if you bring up things like earthquakes or tsunamis here, Radeksz might begin chiding you for unnecessarily bringing up "red herrings", and I wouldn't want that to happen to you. Tell you what, I'll answer your question about how I managed to find the edit, after you answer my question. How would you characterize Halibutt's edit, and should it be re-instated? Sound fair to you? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you really not understand my answer, as to why the two situations are totally, totally different? Maybe it would help to explain the concept in abstract terms - a passing mention of X in an article about Y doesn't require any additional facts about X to be mentioned (unless very relevant to the context of Y), whereas the article about X should contain as much encyclopedic information about X as we can find (subject to the possibility of splitting extensive information into subarticles).--Kotniski (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the math lesson. I never believed, or said, that the two situations are totally, totally the same. They illustrate a mentality, and what I believe to be an unfortunate agenda, that is explained with many different reasons, on many different occasions, at many different venues. On one day it's shared history (1569), on another day it's Polish was the official language of the PLC (which ended in 1795), currently the gist of the argument is "it might be of interest to some of our readers". My point is simply that this small Lithuanian village, which on top of it all is not even a border town, has nothing remotely connecting it with Poland that would warrant the undue information requiring its Polish toponym to appear in the article. If this goes to the village pump or an RFC you may get a lot more examples like this [17] . And Loosmark, were you planning to respond here to my question about that edit? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever mentality or agenda others may have, with me it's just trying to get information into Wikipedia to make it better. Doesn't matter how small a place is or whether it's a border town, or whether it's in Poland or Germany or Ecuador or wherever - I've answered all this before. Yes, "it might be of interest to some of our readers" is the argument - if that's not important, we may as well close Wikipedia down, since I don't see any other purpose for its existence.--Kotniski (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Dan: Regarding Halibutt's edit from 5 years, personally I don't think it's necessary to have the Polish name for Dresden attached if Dresden is only mentioned. But that's about it. I have seen much more controversial "alternative names" edits by other people, including yourself and since I have not characterized any of those edits I don't think there is a great need for me characterize a 5 years' old edit made by Halibutt. And frankly Dan, claiming that a 5 years' old edit on an article which has nothing to do with this one is a proof of an unfortunate(sic) agenda!?!? Oh please, to say that is a stretch would be like the understatement of the year. Now I hope you will answer my question from above.  Dr. Loosmark  16:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark you like to ask a lot of questions, so before I answer you, please reiterate the specific question. I don't want to give you an erroneous answer. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ok. how did you manage to find the 5 years old edit by Halibutt?  Dr. Loosmark  08:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, why the **** does it matter how he found a particular edit? If we could all focus our discussion on the questions that matter - what information to include in the article and how best to present it - without constantly bringing up other editors' behaviours, imagined agendas and so (in fact, best simply not to mention other editors at all), then we might get somewhere - at least as far as identifying the explicit points of disagreement on which we can solicit outside opinions.--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Loomark, short answer. I don't only edit the project, I read it, and it's history pages. I use Wikipedia virtually every day. I thought the recent main page article, Constantine II, was quite good. So good, that I checked out who the contributors were at it's history section [18]. That's essentially how "I managed to find the 5 year old edit." O.K.? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. As far as I can see Hallibut's edit is buried under thousands of other edits. So as soon as a conflict situation emerged here you remembered that Hallibut made an edit on the Leipzig page, 5 years (61 months) years ago!? Or it is that you randomly sniffed in the Leipzig's page thousands of edits for fun? Anyway it's not really important it just looked bizarre to me, but Kotniski is right, let's not go off-topic.  Dr. Loosmark  14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Sniffed"? That's very friendly. Really now! Dr. Dan (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) So then Loosmark, let me ask you a question. And like you said "let's not go off-topic." How do you personally feel about Kotniski's argument that 1. the purpose of this encyclopedia is to provide "information" to our readers? How do you feel about Kotniski's argument that 2. This information [19] is likely to be of "interest" to our readers? My argument is that in this specific case, regarding this specific town, the information is undue information and unnecessary information. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC).

Yes, this is what no-one on this side of the debate can understand - why, in the case of this specific town (well actually, it's most towns in this specific country), is information on foreign-language names considered undue and unnecessary, while all over Wikipedia, in relation to other countries and languages, such information is routinely supplied? --Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan, this is the Seredžius talk page not a Loosmark Q & A session. For further questions please switch to my talk page.  Dr. Loosmark  11:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Loosmark, it's the Seredžius talk page alright, but occasionally it's also the Dr. Dan Q & A session [20] too. But considering many of your edits concerning other geographical matters on English Wikipedia, I can understand why you wouldn't want to touch my questions with a ten foot pole. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan, I am always ready to answer questions asked by a colleague. But since it seems that you are interested in my edits concerning geographical(sic) matters I suggest you ask them on my talk. I'm sure you would hate to hijack this thread, wouldn't you.  Dr. Loosmark  22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

...(well actually, it's most towns in this specific country)...

Kotniski, what exactly are you trying to tell our readers with that [21] remark? Dr. Dan (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so much our readers, but you - that I would like an explanation of why your campaign to remove foreign names of places from articles as "undue and unnecessary" is focused, seemingly entirely, on places in Lithuania.--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the explanation you're seeking can be found in answering my question, what do you mean with your remark..."well actually, it's (placing Polish names in) most towns in this specific country (Lithuania)"? If not for the benefit of our readers, then for my benefit. Especially the "most" part. Try giving the question an answer. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I just have. What I meant to convey was what I wrote just above. Namely: that I would like an explanation of why your campaign to remove foreign names of places from articles as "undue and unnecessary" is focused, seemingly entirely, on places in Lithuania. Now your turn to answer.--Kotniski (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Kotniski, I'm truly sorry to appear to be so dense but your answer escapes me. Please try giving me a simplification of what your reasoning is. If I understand your comment correctly you're saying that most cities, towns, villages, hamlets, neighborhoods, etc. in Lithuania should have the Polish language equivalent in their respective articles on English Wikipedia. But not the other way around. I don't want to put words into your mouth. I realize you only used the term town, but I believe occasionally you have pursued some of the other entities. I understand what the comment "conveys", I'm only interested in a simple explanation of your rationale for it. And again, the "most" part is especially intriguing. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So I think you know what I mean (but not "but not the other way around" - I want it to be the other way around as well). Why do you want to remove information about non-Lithuanian names from Wikipedia articles about places in Lithuania, when (as far as I know) you have no problem with non-Polish names in articles about places in Poland, non-Italian names in articles about places in Italy, etc. etc. (and as you must surely be aware, information about such alternative names is a regular element of countless articles).--Kotniski (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, there is a difference between Druskininkai and Panevėžys, just like there is a difference between Strasbourg and Marseille. We don't put Massilien in the lead of Marseille. Zgorzelec might have Görlitz in the lead or in some other capacity, but Munich needn't have Miunchenas or Monachium placed there. Not on English Wikipedia anyway. Does any of that make sense to you? But we're at the Seredžius talk page. What could have possessed you to [22] have put the Polish name in the lead of this town of 700 people far from the Polish border? What is the significant "historical" reason for the edit? What is the significant "current' reason for the edit? Is there a significant, or for that matter any, Polish minority living in this town? Look, "once upon a time" (as fairy tales begin) your argument was that "it might be of interest to our readers". That argument doesn't hold water here. The edit was undue. Unfortunately it smacks as being a provocation, plain and simple. Surely you must have something better to do. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC) p.s. Concerning your belief that I have no problem with non-Italian names in articles about places in Italy, let me assure you I do not believe Venise or Benetke or Venedig belongs in the lead of the Venice article on English Wikipedia either. Those countries share a border and history with Italy too.

The comedy. Now you ask if there is a Polish minority living in this town!? Pity only you that in the case of Niemenczyn you also wanted the Polish name out of the lead. And there is a Polish minority living there, actually a Polish majority.  Dr. Loosmark  19:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The real comedy is you pop in Loosmark, and the questions are unanswered. Let's talk about Red Herrings and [23] hijacking. Shall we? Or how [24] about this? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get why you think adding non-Lithuanian names to this or any other article about Lithuanian places is not going to be of interest to our readers, when clearly all over Wikipedia alternative names are included in articles on places, presumably because it's the sort of thing readers are interested in (I know I'm always interested to know such things about the places I visit). And "provocation" is a ridiculous accusation - since when has adding encyclopedic information to Wikipedia been provocative? (Whether the information goes in the lead is another matter, but your actions have not apparently been to move information to better places in the article, but to remove it from articles altogether - that, if anything, is what seems provocative to me.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Kotnitski, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just the same, do you understand the difference between Druskininkai and Panevėžys and Strasbourg and Marseille? Do you at least get that? Dr. Dan (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, four places, zillions of differences between any two of them, what exactly is your point? Which particular difference between which ones do you want me to understand?--Kotniski (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) What I'd like you to understand, Kotniski, is that although "clearly all over Wikipedia alternative names are included in articles on places" it is done when it is appropriate and there is a logical basis for it. It is not done pell mell, it is not done because somebody might be interested in it, it is not done as in this case [25], it is not done like in this case [26]. Or should I say, it ought not be done. That my friend, is what I would like you to understand. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not again with that 5 years old edit...  Dr. Loosmark  16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You bet again. It, [27] only illustrates an agenda that is more than five years old. Old and tiring. Old and disruptive. Old and laughable. Maybe if you read it again and again, you'll finally understand what the problem here is. Perhaps Loosmark, you think the five year old edit is appropriate. Kotniski has indicated that he doesn't think so. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agenda? Whois agenda? What are talking about? The only one with an agenda here is you - digging out 5 years old edits, connecting them with totally unrelated editors and articles, and making up paranoid theories about agendas. Kotniski might be right or might be wrong, but the only thing he seems interested in is to improve the project. Frankly your continuous insinuations are both uncivil and tiring. If you are so interested in that Halibutt's edit from 5 years ago leave him a note on his talk about that and you guys can have a detailed discussion about the 5 years old edit on the Leipzig page.  Dr. Loosmark  16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The two edits you refer to are totally different, as everyone can see and as I've already explained once. Of course we don't mention a German town's Polish name every time that town is mentioned, but we do mention it in that town's article. Well, it might not happen to be mentioned in a particular case, because no-one's got round to adding it, but once such information is added, it stays (not necessarily in the lead of the article, but somewhere) - except with Lithuanian places, where there seem to be a few editors dedicated to removing such information. The question remains: why treat places in one country differently from places everywhere else? Why do you think no-one's interested in learning alternative names for Lithuanian places, when clearly they are interested in learning alternative names for places elsewhere?--Kotniski (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, there are undoubtedbly many more people of Polish heritage in New York (pop, 8,391,881) as opposed to Seredžius (pop. @700). Why don't you satiate the desire of those "who are interested in learning alternative names for places elsewhere" by placing the Polish toponym for New York City, "Nowy Jork", in that article's lead, just like you did here [28]? I'm interested how your argument will be received. It might be welcomed as an important necessity to the success of English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

New York is a quite different situation - it's an internationally known place which naturally has names in all sorts of languages, and there isn't room for them all in the lead (though if a section was created about the different names for the place, like there is at Warsaw, then I'm sure it would increase the value of the article). Lithuanian places (with the possible exception of Vilnius) are not internationally known in the same way - the alternative names they have come in the languages of the different people who have lived in or had close connections with the area over the years, just like the alternative names for Polish, Romanian, Ukrainian etc. villages - so why treat the Lithuanian ones differently? Obviously there is a group of Lithuanian editors who want to keep their articles "pure" - but why do you cooperate with them, when you could be continually criticizing them like you do with their Polish counterparts? --Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by pure? Is there 'Name section or not? It is my turn to ask, Why so, is it not satisfactory? What makes me wonder, why someone does not go for Rzym or Wenecja, nevermind the Wlochy. Origins of those names are as Polish as most as Lithuanian settlements names - i.e. altered phonetics, according to most used in some one nation. Why the readers would not be interested? Moskwa, Lotwa, Rosja, Kijow, Wieden, Paryz, Lizbona and many many others.--Lokyz (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they would, even though most of the places you mention fall into the "New York" category - they have Polish names because they are internationally known, not because of a particular historic connection with Poland or Poles. Anyway, the "Names" section solution is perfectly satisfactory to me, though in the past we've seen Lithuanian editors remove even those.--Kotniski (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Past is, well, a past. I do remember being called names just for creating 'name section. And now it's A solution. Good to know.--Lokyz (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Go to RFC

This is the wrong forum for discussing a question which applies to a wide class of articles, and it would appear that no consensus is forthcoming between the group of editors here.

The best route for progress is to open a WP:RFC on the subject, and advertise this at suitable venues such as WP:NCGN and WP:VPP. It will be easier to reach a decision on this matter with wider participation, fresh perspectives and external mediation to keep the discussion strictly on the subject. I will certify the statement of existence of the dispute, the ongoing failure to reach consensus and the need for resolution. Knepflerle (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very well said, that seems to be the only way forward. But aren't RFC and Mediation two mutually exclusive options? Can they be combined somehow?--Kotniski (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh, personally, I think it's a waste of everybody's time, but, if if comes to that, I will participate. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

At least it would perhaps get us somewhere - as Knepferle notes, the endless discussions at this page and elsewhere (I wouldn't call most of them discussions in fact, just name calling) are certainly wasting everyone's time while not achieving anything.--Kotniski (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, Kotniski. You think it's a good idea, so open the RFC. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it won't be necessary, if the "names section" solution finds general acceptance.--Kotniski (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with that, maybe it won't be necessary. May I suggest that you begin by placing the "name sections" solution in Polish towns and villages first. Especially Yiddish names. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that Poland had the largest Jewish population in Europe prior to the Second World War and had an enormous amount of shtetls. There's lot's of work to be done in that regards. It's quite a job, but it might be of interest to some of our readers.. Plus, since historically Poland was partitioned and governed by German and Russian speaking overlords, you should also begin placing German and Russian (Cyrillic) names in the leads of most Polish cities, towns, villages, etc. Just like you are wont to do at Lithuanian geographical articles. Or you can create a "names sections" in the articles about Polish geographical entities where appropriate. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's generally what happens in Polish articles - people (including me) do add such information, and resist the occasional attempts by nationalists to take it out. If you come across any problems regarding such articles, please let me (or the Polish WikiProject) know. --Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You've said it not forced by any influence. I hope, we'll see some progress soon.--Lokyz (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Perspective on Former Names

This comes from someone with no nationalist interest in this debate, having been born American of equally both Lithuanian and Polish descent. I spend quite a bit of time researching my family's genealogy. My father's side came from what was once called Nowe Troki--now present-day Trakai. According to contemporary records, my grandmother was born in 1896 in a town known as Średniki.

Trying to research these towns on Wikipedia using period names is always made more difficult by certain individuals playing duplicitous games in pretending that for a significant period of time, a town wasn't officially known by something other than a Lithuanian name.

Case in point, it's helpful to know that present-day Szczecin was once officially known by a German name: Stettin. I had a number of ancestors who emigrated from that port city using its German name. The entry for Szczecin even indicates that. I suppose the difference is there aren't respective nationalists wringing their hands over an uncomfortable fact for them.

As for the attempted reductio ad absurdum argument of whether we should include every name a town may have been known by: if it was an official name at some point in the town's history, then that is a fact worth noting. After all, the last time I checked, the purpose of this site was the dissemination of knowledge. As much as some may not like it, historical fact does fall under that.

This really isn't meant to be inflammatory, but I won't deny there's a certain degree of frustration on my part about this behavior in general.

Oddtom (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)