Talk:Gołdap

Prussian etymology

I believe (it's in local tourist literature) that the name refers to a bend in the river, derived from Old Prussian (79.190.69.142 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Geldapė

If Goldap had a Lithuanian minority hundreds of years ago, then of course we should mention it in the history section. But it makes no sense to put the Lithuanian name in the header, because today it is not used at all among English speakers. It might belong in Lithuanian Wikipedia, but not English Wikipedia. Balcer 20:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate, a search for Geldapė in English language webpages on Google gives only 2 hits [1]. In comparison Goldap on English pages gives 4,380 hits. Balcer 20:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it does not matters that it was many years ago; other Lithuania Minor cities' Lithuanian names are usually mentioned; same as are mentioned Polish names of towns in "Eastern Poland" with formerly Polish majority (pre-WW2) or significant minorities. Although majority was lost then, but I believe Lithuanian minority of few percents remained up until WW2. If we would take this policy, then no alternate names should ever be listed, maybe with the exception of situation where there is an ongoing dispute over the territory (e.g. Serbian/Albanian names in Kosovo, Hebrew/Arabic names in Palestine). However, the policy in Wikipedia seems to be different, see e.g. how many names are provided for Kaliningrad and such; also both Polish and Lithuanian influences there were hundreds of years ago, but still, they were there; also names are significatly different from official one, which is also important IMO. DeirYassin 20:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is whether the name is in significant use among English-speakers. As I have just shown, the Lithuanian name of Geldapė is practically never used in English. Hence including it in the header only confuses Wikipedia users. Balcer 20:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, same many other names are not in use among people speaking English natively, e.g. I am sure Kroliewiec really isn't. Only pages in English made by Poles might use that name; same for Lithuanian sites made about Lithuania Minor; the point is that Lithuanians are small nation, and there are still quite few historical sites about Lithuanian history, and most of them are in Lithuanian; English is still not as widespread second language as in some other places of Europe. So I think this should not be any reason for anything. Any English documents on Lithuania Minor would also use Geldapė very likely. DeirYassin 20:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only pages in English made by Poles might use that name. Ok, I guess only one counterexample is needed to disprove this ridiculous assertion, so here it goes: Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition article on Konigsberg.

As for the complaining about Lithuania being a small country with few English-speakers, that's just a fact of life. Wikipedia is not meant to be shaped by tiny minorities, but instead is meant to reflect common use. If the number of English-speaking Lithuanian users grows in the future and Lithuanian names come into wide use, then Wikipedia might start using them more. Balcer 21:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This your "comment" very good shows what is slavic poland and slaves poles. And I am not surprised that poland has such "good" name worldwide. All your provided "English" names are almost 100% from polish revanshists' webs. As I know here are operating few immature polish nazis - "administrators" Piotrus and Witkacy, and unpleasantness Halibutt and you Balcer. There are 2 Lithuanians - DeirYassin and me Zivinbudas here. So relatively here should be 20 poles (to 2 Lithuanians). Results speak for themselves. Zivinbudas 09:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Zivinbudas, you're boring. Apart from Piotrus, none of us is an administrator here. Also, Slavery was abolished in Poland quite some time ago (that is in early middle ages). Whether 1911 Brittannica is a "Polish revanshist web" or not is a matter of dispute apparently, but I seriously doubt it. Also, if you prefer to discuss the nationality of editors rather than their contributions or beliefs, then perhaps you might try some other place in the web, for instance some internet forum?

Finally, there are much more Lithuanians in the English wiki. User:LinasLit, User:Linas, User:Midom, User:Inyuki, User:Meier... Does it prove anything? Halibu tt 10:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Lithuanian town Geldapė in Lithuania Minor

Geldapė town was established by Lithuanians in XVIth century in Southern part of Lithuania Minor. Until XIXth century Lithuanians consisted absolute majority of the population of this town and its surroundings (other part were mostly Germans). After WWII the town and all Southern part of Prussia were illegaly ceded to Polish People Republic by the Soviets. Zivinbudas 22:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder on what census are you basing your statements. Halibu tt 23:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Balcer, how often are used in English "Wilno", "Kowno", "Szawle", "Poniewierz" etcr.? There are historical reasons. It is only your demagogy. Zivinbudas 23:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilno - 34,100 English pages

Szawle - 158 English pages

Poniewiez - 80 English pages (corrected)

Kowno - 4,720 English pages

BTW, I am not necessarily saying that all those cities should have the Polish name listed. But at least a reasonable argument can be made there. In case of Geldapė I can't see a reasonable argument for inclusion.

Look, there are 2 extremes:

1. List only current name - obviously not good because for English speakers some towns are much better known with former names. With this policy Wikipedia users may find it difficult to find information.

2. List all names of historical significance - for many European cities that will run to a dozen names, especially if we include names going back hundreds of years. With this policy Wikipedia users may find themselves overwhelmed by too much irrelant information.

Clearly those two extremes are not useful, so some happy medium must be found. The criterion of "common use" seems reasonable to me. Balcer 23:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be funny. Those are all polish references. Nobody in the West knows your slavinised names of our cities. More, all Lithuanians hate them and all mentionings of them inspire negative and unfriendly reaction. Zivinbudas 00:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Fixed. Balcer 00:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, not all Lithuanians are as obsessed with Poland and Poles as you are. Halibu tt 01:15, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

It only seems for me as arguements which are just said because of the need to support quite an unsupportable thing. I mean, your arguement is more articles, my arguement is actual minorities/majorities of people who used to call city this way and live there; and many people who still calls the city this way; in English too, e.g. Americans who immigrated from Lithuania. Yes, there are ten times more Poles than Lithuanians. Yes there are more historical websites made by Poles. But that does not makes usage for Lithuanian cities such as Panevezys the Polish name in English text any more viable. Neonazis maybe will use German names for all Polish cities, and who knows maybe for some of them there'll be even more than 80 9hits for Panevezys) hits in English on some neonazi sites, but I dont think you'd accept this arguement then. Furthermore, what is the limit between number of English articles online acceptable to write that name in brackets?.. Sounds like gum arguements to me, and if I'll for example find the previosu example with neonazi sites and start to add German names to cities in Eastern Poland (where it was German only during WW2), then I am sure I'll be reverted and when I'll ask for arguements here again, then some different arguements will be thought off again. Same as previous arguements was that Polish names are added to Lithuanian cities because of "common history" and they were quickly repelled these arguements once I added Sandomiras for same reason. There were arguements that in old maps Polish names are used, then again, in all maps where Lithuania Minor is depicted for example Geldapė would be used. In other words, the only real arguement I can read here, is that whatever will be said Lithuanian names won't be added to cities in Poland and Polish names will be kept for cities of Lithuania.DeirYassin 08:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so much easier to hold a discussion with you if you were a bit more coherent and tried to keep your thoughts short. I must say I find it difficult to figure what you really want. Maybe I will try to simplify things for you. Which option do you prefer?

1. All articles about Lithuanian cities list Lithuanian name only, all those about Polish cities by Polish name only.

or

2. Any Lithuanian or Polish city with shared Polish and Lithuanian history should have both names listed.

Please, indicate which one of these options you would prefer. My impression is that you have still not made up your mind.

I myself choose option 2, provided that the shared history is significant, and this is reflected by at least some usage of the name in question in the English language. Unfortunately, the bare fact that a city had some Lithuanians living in it hundreds of years ago is not a good enough reason to prominently list the Lithuanian name in article header. Balcer 22:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say in case of common history it should be included, and Lithuanian majority living in city once is enough of common history IMO. What is also important to me is that whichever option would be chosen, it'd be equal from both sides. I think probably a vote on policy will be needed here with those two and some more options I thought of, so whole people involved here would decide; as even if me, you and Halibutt would agree here for example, there are others who still would continue reverting and such. While if there would be vote, it's result could be reffered to in those cases same as one of Gdansk/Danzig vote. DeirYassin 04:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too few people (around 5-10) are involved in this whole business. With Zivinbudas out, you are probably the only person involved on the Lithuanian side (correct me if I am wrong). What would be the point of voting in such a small group? Let's reach a compromise through discussion. I am quite curious what policy you have in mind. Balcer 07:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point of voting would be I guess to write a policy here, as if we will discuss and find a solution here and then try to enforce it there will be few more users who will revert for example removal of Polish name for Lithuanian city or adding of Lithuanian name to Polish city anyways. If there'd be vote, I'd put these possible policies to vote on:

All Polish cities would have Lithuanian names and all Lithuanian cities would have Polish names mentioned on the "common history" arguement
Only those Lithuanian and Polish cities would have other names mentioned, where the names in both languages clearly differs and therefore it might be hard to understand that it is same city. The different name would not be mentioned if the only differences are the ending of the word (e.g. no ending in Polish and "as" in Lithuanian), or if similarly spelled letters are used (e.g. "sz" in Polish and "š" in Lithuanian).
Only those cities names would be mentioned in another language, where there is/was a significant number of that language speakers currently or historically.
Only those cities names would be mentioned in another language, where there is a significant number of that language speakers currently. E.g. Lithuanian names of Punskas, Seinai would be mentioned, same as Polish names of some cities/towns in southeast Lithuania.
Lithuanian names would be mentioned for cities in territories considered occupied during interwar (Suvalkai region), Polish names would be mentioned for cities which were controlled by Poland during interwar (Vilnius region).
(also possibly some combined options)

I personally probably for the cities where there is or was a community of that language speakers historically, and for the cities in Vilnius and Suvalkai regions. In some other cases, if city names sounds differently in both languages, it might be good to use other name in brackets too. That way I think it would be the most information, so if someone gets Lithuanian map he would be able to understand things and if someone gets Polish map he'd be able to understand things too; while usage of both names for every city is unneeded of course as some names can be very similar.DeirYassin 08:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one reason why polish want to add slavinised names to our cities' names and delete all Lithuanian names from all places related with Lithuania - because polish nazis want that. And because they are very scared - it shows that their position is very weak. And they are absolutely right - always think about Lithuania and Germany. Zivinbudas 07:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Placenames in this Wikipedia in other languages

I'd like to remind everyone that just because city X has name Y in language Z (where Z is not English) does not mean that we need to mention that fact here. For instance, if you look at London, it does not mention that its name in French is "Londres" - and trust me, I suspect that's a fact that's likely to be more useful than knowing the Polish/Lithuanian names of some fairly obscure (to the rest of the world) places in Lithuania/Poland. This is the English Wikipedia, and in discussing these naming issues, you need to look at this from the perspective of English-speakers.

I think a rule that gives its current name in English (if this is different from the next one), the placename in the current "native" language, along with any placenames that have been used in the past and are likely to be seen in English-language works (e.g. we list "Beyrouth" in the Beirut article, as this was its name during the French mandate, and is therefore occasionally seen in older English-language works) is what is needed. Other names may be introduced in the body of the text, as neeeded, e.g. in the "History" section - as in the Beirut article, which mentions the Phoenician name "Beroth" further down in the article (although note that we do not feel we need to give its name in Latin, even though it was part of the Roman empire at one point).

As a side-comment, people who think it makes any difference in geo-political terms whether or not the English Wikipedia makes mention of their favourite Polish/Lithuanian place in Lithuanian/Polish is seriously confused - and IMO needs to get a life, frankly. Noel (talk) 21:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, it is certain people from Poland who sparks this by addng Polish names to every Lithuanian city. I added them only to a very few Polish towns with Lithuanian history, while they adds them to every town and city, most of them not related, and after removal of thos enon related names claims that it is vandalism. DeirYassin 21:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, all the territory of modern Lithuania was using Polish at least as the official state language for once and that language was used by at least 10% of its population (the szlachta). On the contrary, the area where Lithuanian was spoken was tiny, even if we compare that to the modern area where it is the dominant language. So, saying that the Polish names are not relevant to some places is simply wrong. Halibu tt 22:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Area where Lithuanian was spoken originally was larger than it is currently is, it included Lithuania Minor and also parts of northwest Belarus. Once official state language for Poland was Russian, and even Latin script banned, during nazi occupation German language was preffered, etc. (same for Lithuania) but we are not adding all these names in all these languages; also the nobles did not polonize immidietly either, LGD nobles were speaking Lithuanian or Byelarussian mostly depending on their place at first, only then they changed it to Polish. And Polish names are certainly way less relevant to for example Panevežys than Lithuanian name to Goldap (where majority of population was Lithuanian once, not only nobles). Anyways, I hope vote and discution at the special place will help to decide on this issue. DeirYassin 22:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions/Vote_on_city_naming#Vote - discution and vote on the topic DeirYassin 22:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scots in Goldap

Is it worth mentioning th population in early 1600's also included a tiny community of Scots? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Masurians

The remaining German-speaking populace, including Masurians.... My understanding is that the pre-1945 Masurians, though mainly Protestant and culturally oriented toward Germany, spoke Polish or a dialect thereof. Sca (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]