Talk:Duchy of Oświęcim

Name

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)

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)

Note, if necessary, I will gladly present past incidents which fully justify the above comment. Charles 02:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Our policies make a pretty good belief. Unlike a Google test.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Requested move

Duchy of Oświęcim → Duchy of Auschwitz — Google Scholar and Google Book Searches of "Duchy of Auschwitz" -wikipedia, "Duchy of Oświęcim" -wikipedia, and "Duchy of Oswiecim" -wikipedia clearly show that "Duchy of Auschwitz" is the form most commonly used in English scholarly literature. Auschwitz is also the historical English name for the entity and it doesn't matter if it is the same as the German name, it is the English form nonetheless. Polonization is just as bad as Germanization for English Wikipedia and Auschwitz is just as English as it is German. Same cannot be said for Oświęcim. The page was moved back to the Polish, non-English name on the "belief" of an administrator who always does this. —Charles 02:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support As nominator. This is getting frustrating and it is the third or fourth repeat of similar events. Charles 02:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Opppse. No evidence presented other than personal attacks on those who disagree with the nominator; bozarre claim that Auschwitz is the proper English name for Oświęcim (try to move that article first, perhaps?). Saddening, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• The present day city of Auschwitz and the duchy are not the same. Again, a lame attempt to obfuscate the matter as you did with Cracow. There are serious, serious issues with abuse of administrative powers here. "Saddening" indeed. I didn't beg for a withdrawal of a vote to keep admin powers. Duchy of Auschwitz is the proper name for Duchy of Oświęcim. I didn't say Auschwitz for Oświęcim because I haven't looked into it. The two are different, Piotr. You know that but refuse to admit it because it does not support your skewed version of how things should be. Charles 03:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Where did I write down anything about Cracow/Kraków? Oświęcim and Duchy of Oświęcim or Auschwitz and Duchy of Auschwitz is logical, since Duchy was named after the town (the camp is another matter, as it was named by the Germans, unlike the Duchy or the town).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• note: the concentration camp is not called "Auschwitz" in Poland. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. It is, to underline it was created and run by German Nazis. Just check out all TV stations when the anniversary will be held and you will hear only "Auschwitz" and "Auschwitz-Birkenau". - Darwinek (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Perhaps that's what the TV stations now call it. While I was in Poland (for almost a decade), the camp was always called Oswiecim in popular parlance. Of course those were the days when the "Orbis" travel agency called Krakow, Cracow in their English brochures and time tables. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak support Having some some searches on the matter and checked my history books, there seems to be nominally more results for Auschwitz (Not suprising considering I imagine Auschwitz is the far more famous name for the area). However we are talking about very low numbers regardless. Would be quite useful if either Charles or Piotr could provide some prominent 'big name' uses of either term by historical texts or encyclopedias. Narson (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to a Oppose with the caveat that I would support a move to the anglisised version of 'Duchy of Oswiecim', per Andrewa's vote below. Narson (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Why dislike diacritics--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)?

• Oppose just because somebody prefers an other name doesn't make it a valid reason for change. With claims about supposed "hated form" "lame" "saddening" "I didn't beg" "your skewed version" it makes impression that the author of nomination is not neutral in his proposal. --Molobo (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just as much could be said about Piotr. What evidence supports your choice, might I ask? Or is it a vio of WP:ILIKEIT? I support English on English Wikipedia. So much for preferring policy. People aren't stupid you know, for the most part. Charles 04:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better for discussion if you would try to concentrate on the subject rather then on people.So far besides PA's on Piotrus nothing has been provided of serious note.--Molobo (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How about you concentrate on the subject, comment on some evidence and provide some for your point of view rather than commenting on the people as you did right above my previous comment? Charles 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been provided of note by you, Molobo. Charles 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Auschwitz is also the historical English name for the entity". Really. Do try to change it to it if you are so convinced. Why didn't you start it yet ?--Molobo (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I did change it, but an administrator prefers the term Oświęcim. Charles 05:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You changed Oswiecim to Auschwitz without RM ?--Molobo (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed it per policy (WP:UE), which was reverted per whim. Remember though, comment on the situation at hand, not on people! Charles 05:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So you will now start RfM in Oświęcim to move it to Auschwitz is that right ? --Molobo (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you not listen? Auschwitz (its general history) and the Duchy of Auschwitz are not the same thing and are not subject to the exact same naming conventions, nor can the names be changed on the basis of the same evidence. You are purposefully trying to obfuscate the matter at hand. Charles 06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Again using personal attacks, sigh. Are you or you not starting RfM in Oświecim if you claim it should be Auschwitz.--Molobo (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Obfuscating, again. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. Enough of what I might do, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Please reply to the relevant information in the discussion, such as your question of how I read WP:NC(GN). No further replies from me on the matter of what I might do or regarding claims I have not made, it is distracting and unnecessary. Charles 06:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, very reluctantly. I would support a move to anglicise the orthography by removing the diacritics from the article name. The Google data is too close to call regarding whether the German or anglicised Polish version is to be preferred. It seems to rule out the non-anglicised Polish version currently in use, but doesn't support the move as currently proposed. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Bad faith nomination. All those boldened comments with exclamation marks, capitalised words etc. only prove that. Google is not deciding element, Auschwitz is there more often only because it is easier for English-language writers to write Auschwitz instead of Oświęcim. - Darwinek (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, not a bad faith nomination, a means to an end to get the article in a better place. As you can note from the discussion, a user is baiting the discussion and obfuscating the matter and succeeding in the process. Note also that the article was moved and then reverted with the reason given that it was the admin's "belief" and also an obscure reference to a presumably non-binding Danzig vote. Note also the same admin's very, very long history of doing such things and imagine the frustration at seeing English Wikipedia not acting like English Wikipedia. If you are opposing because you think it's a bad faith nomination, I kindly ask that you simply withdraw your vote because you cannot speak for the reason why I nominated this article, or that you specify if you support the current name. Obviously it was not going to move after Piotrus came in and moved it, ignoring the fact that Duchy of Oświęcim is not the English name, unless it went to RM. Given that I helped Piotrus in saving his skin before, I am incensed that he has not changed his biased ways, covert and overt. Given also that some editors repeat things over and over, accusing me of saying things which I did not, etc, I'm sure you can imagine the need for capitalization and bolding. This seems to be a game for others because it's the same people over and over. I think this was investigated before or something, but I can't remember what it was called or else I'd find it. The word reminded me of cabbage for some reason. Charles 10:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• If "Auschwitz is there more often only because it is easier for English-language writers to write Auschwitz instead of Oświęcim" then shouldn't you support the move under WP:UE? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not withdraw it, it is your problem you aren't able to write with diacritics. If you don't like it, just use diacritics-free redirects. As for your nomination rationale, I am still amazed by further and further RMs when genuine German names are presented as English. - Darwinek (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not "my problem". Oświęcim simply is not an English name. Auschwitz is an English name (a German name which found itself to be the predominate name used in the English language) and Oswiecim is arguably more English than Oświęcim because it is used far more. Perhaps you wish for Oświęcim to be the English name, but it is not. I think I know exactly which is your choice of the three. It's not a matter of me not liking it, which doesn't matter anyway because it's just a word. Do you like it? Charles 11:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My preference is following: 1.) Oświęcim and 2.) Auschwitz . Polish diacritics-free name is just weird, it is like writing New York as Neu Iurc. So my vote is clear. If it would be a tie between Auschwitz and Oswiecim, I would support the German one. - Darwinek (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am thinking this as well, Philip. Charles 10:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Move to "Duchy of Oswiecim". There is little to choose between Oswiecim and Auschwitz in the Books and Scholarly articles named and the returned sample is very small, but there is clear evidence that the use of diacritics is none existent. Falling back on common usage with a Google search gives far more common usage for "Duchy of Oswiecim". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Molobo. Space Cadet (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Molobo did not have a point at all. Might as well oppose for no reason. Charles 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support: as per nomination. There are far too many Polish and even Russian nationalists at work on the English-language Wikipedia attemping to change the historical place-names in eastern Europe (not to mention the rewriting of history also). No-one in the Englsh speaking world has ever hear of Osweicim. So we need a bit of common sense to prevail here. Christchurch (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly. Charles 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• While I instinctively prefer names that I am more familiar with (thus Auschwitz rather than Oświęcim), gut feeling is no rationale for selecting the most appropriate name. The duchy is clearly a Polish entity, and it doesn't really have an English name. It makes sense to me to use the Polish name. Diacritics aren't a problem - that's why we have redirects. Oppose move. Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NC(CN), WP:UE and WP:NC(GN) effectively kill the point of having this article at a name with diacritics. Charles 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed move is absurd. Auschwitz is a loanword from German commonly reserved for the most notorious concentration camp in history. I realize that Polish diacritics are not used in English literature including the Historical Dictionary of Poland by George Sanford, and the Historical Dictionary of Poland by Jerzy Jan Lerski among others[1], however, Wikipedia has a policy about toponyms, effectively promoting the use of extended European alphabets of many languages. --Poeticbent talk 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• False. WP:NC(GN) does not mandate or promote diacritics except where it is primary usage. The English language does not use diacritics in the name of this entity as primary usage. Charles 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Closely analysing the Google Books results is interesting. Looking at the "Duchy of Oswiecim" has only 5 results with visible text extracts. Of these 3 (the second, third and fourth) actually use Oświęcim with diacritics - despite "duchy of Oświęcim" coming up with 0 results(!), because at some time after the optical character recognition Google parses the ś as s and ę as e before it is passed to the searching algorithm. There may even be cases where the ś and ę get parsed to other things too - I've had this problem when using searching repositories of OCR'ed material before (can't find a page with ū in? try replacing it with o...) so other occurrences Oświęcim may be being missed altogether. Further, the site doesn't notice that nearly half the results for "duchy of Auschwitz" are from essentially just two texts - Encyclopaedia Americana and the American Cyclopaedia. So what have I learnt?
  • Google's book search OCR and the search engine parsing suck at diacritics
  • Google's algorithm for counting distinct results could be refined a little
    • These limitations render Google pretty useless at making decisions on things like this - a useful case study and lesson for the future
  • and most importantly:
    • some scholars use Auschwitz, some use Oswiecim, some use Oświęcim. A fair proportion of people will come here having read and searched for each of the three. If the redirects work all will be happy. So the google evidence is wobbly, and there's precious little else to go on. So move it or don't, or have it at one on weekends and the other on weekdays - I doubt there'll be much noticeable change to the quality of the encyclopaedia either way. Knepflerle (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The evidence Piotr says (really, wishes) doesn't exist:

Google Books

• "Duchy of Oświęcim" -wikipedia - 0 results
• "Duchy of Oswiecim" -wikipedia - 10 results
• "Duchy of Auschwitz" -wikipedia - 16 results

Google Scholar

• "Duchy of Oświęcim" -wikipedia - 0 results
• "Duchy of Oswiecim" -wikipedia - 1 results
• "Duchy of Auschwitz" -wikipedia - 2 results

Scholarly English usage does not support the diacritics. Coup de grâce: Auschwitz always has been and always will be far more common in the English language, even if it's the same spelling as the hated German form. Charles 03:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• My Google search count gives

• 418 "Duchy of Oswiecim" -wikipedia

• 10 "Duchy of Auschwitz" -wikipedia

• Google books :

Duchy of Oswiecim: [2] 10 hits

• Also different versions:

• Oswiecim Duchy[3] 4 hits.

• Principality of Oswiecim [4] Further 3 hits.

The number remains now at 17 from google books which use Oswiecim. -Molobo (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• "Duchy of Oswiecim" maxes out at 25 results only. Also, interestingly, most of those results omit the diacritics, so it splits Oświęcim down further. "Duchy of Oswiecim" -wikipedia -wiki maxes out at 13, "Duchy of Auschwitz" -wikipedia -wiki maxes out at 14. Auschwitz is also the overwhelming English name for all state forms of Oświęcim/Auschwitz. There isn't even support to keep the diacritics. Going back to scholarly usage, Auschwitz comes out on top. PROVE that Oswiecim is English accepted, and forty times more so at that. I would like to see, as a native speaker of English. But MOST IMPORTANTLY, prove it for the DUCHY, not for every instance or incarnation of the name Auschwitz. Charles 05:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually its 418: Google results should always be reviewed to determine appropriateness. "Duchy of Oswiecim" (-wiki) gives me 20 Google Search hits, including several wiki-mirrors ([5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]) and an Answers.com link that does not mention the duchy.[11] "Duchy of Auschwitz" gives me 12 hits, none of which are wiki-mirrors. Olessi (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So Olessi estimate is 15 Duchy of Oswiecim to 12 Duchy of Auschwitz.

However my estimate remains: [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molobo (talk • contribs) 05:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, you have to actually investigate Google results and not take the first figure that pops up. From the link you provided, the first page of hits says 1-10 out of 419. However, checking the last page of hits shows 11-17 out of 17, with the (English) disclaimer In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 20 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included. Google's hit numbers are skewed by how many results the user wants on a single page. Your search preferences are set to 1-10 per page; I set mine to 1-100 to cut down on misleading results. Olessi (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be nine and then 8, 11 or 500+ for Auschwitz. Charles 06:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

500 ? Please not even 11, since it includes blogs.As usuall outnumbered by English accepted form Oswiecim--Molobo (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Also forgotten different versions: Oswiecim Duchy[13] 4 hits. Principality of Oswiecim [14] Further 3 hits. The number remains now at 17 from google books which use Oswiecim.--Molobo (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A few irrelevancies

It's amazing to me that people think they can further their case by messing up the survey. This makes it harder for the closing admin. We try our best not to let annoyance cloud our judgement, but take it from me, dialogues conducted in the discussion section are at least as likely to be read and considered as those put in the survey. And maybe more likely, we're human.

Just a few points below that caught my eye as obvious irrelevancies... If you can put any of them better, maybe here would be a better place. These are just ones from the survey, dialogues already in the discussion section can continue there, if you feel they are worthwhile.

And maybe one more similar point... formatting such as bolding for emphasis, all caps, strange indentations, stuff like that may catch the eye, but it makes the whole dialogue a lot harder to read. IMO it's often counterproductive: Unlikely to impress your opponent, and no more likely to impress others trying to untangle the arguments. Keep it to a minimum is my advice, even in the discussion section. Andrewa (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

the concentration camp is not called "Auschwitz" in Poland - Maybe. I see the accuracy of this has been questioned. But why? We're talking here about what the Duchy is called in English. Connection? Andrewa (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the concentration camp is an irrelevancy to the survey. Although I didn't bring the subject up originally, I thought it might be useful information to those involved in the discussion. However, more relevant, a few points that caught my eye. Several "oppose" votes categorize the suggested move as "absurd", as "a bad faith nomination", and being a WP:PA on them. I hope it caught the eye of others. This may also have to do with my reluctance to cast a vote here. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And the essence of the policy on personal attacks isn't be nice to one another (which is also a policy, but it's not this one), it's comment on content, not on the contributor. Much of the above debate falls foul of the personal attack policy, and is at best a waste of the time of both those who have written it, and those who must now wade through it. It won't help the writers' cause, and may even cause others to prematurely dismiss their views as baseless.

The other issue you raise, of other Wikipedians being wary of joining a fiery debate, is problematical. Mostly, when a debate gets really personal, both sides are at fault, so perhaps both sides lose supporters, but perhaps not equally. One-sided aggression tends to eventually lead to action against the Wikipedian in question, and then any damage they have done is gradually removed as the issues over which they appointed themselves gatekeeper are revisited. Andrewa (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why dislike diacritics - Do you mean why do I (I don't) or why do English speakers generally (if they do, then doesn't that count against using them here)? But in any case, the question isn't about whether we like them, it's about whether we use them. And this is a big topic! Andrewa (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See below for more on this! Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics

Diacritics in article names are a recurrent discussion point. The Oświęcim article was moved from Oswiecim, without going through WP:RM but with some previous discussion now at Talk:Oświęcim. This previous discussion however focusses on what is correct, whereas WP:NC of course focusses on what is English usage. Perhaps this should be revisited. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

From the survey above:

Wikipedia has a policy about toponyms, effectively promoting the use of extended European alphabets of many languages. --Poeticbent talk 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To which policy do you refer? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (toponyms) is marked as obsolete. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you check through the naming guidelines you will find that the use of diacritics is disputed and no consensus was ever reached in discussions on it so it remains a grey area within policy. Can't recall where I read that, either WP:NC or WP:UE. One of the two I think. I think if the English use is for it /with/ diacritics or they are relativly unknown in English, use the diacritics, if the anglicised form is widely used, then we go without. Whether it is wrong or not (I mean, we are talking about place names in whole other languages, they shouldn't necessarily be correct, they should be recognisable. I seriously doubt many Londoners would agree they live in Londres) Narson (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that diacritics is a policy area which needs work. There's a lot of archived discussion, and more discussion to come I predict. This is part of it. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this boils down to the following principle of WP:NCGN: If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. Albeit, the local official name of Oświęcim includes diacritics. --Poeticbent talk 19:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. In terms of this guideline, I'd say that we have two names to choose from that are widely accepted in English: Duchy of Oswiecim, and Duchy of Auschwitz. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, not Duchy of Oświęcim. This article name is currently against policy. Charles 21:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Points from WP:NC(GN)

• 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)

Sources show that the prefered English term is Duchy of Oswiecim.--Molobo (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Use English.

This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government. One of the things to communicate about a place is its local name; in general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.

Please remember that many local names, like Paris or Berlin, are widely accepted in English. Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon. On the other hand, there are cases in which English widely uses the local name without adopting some non-English spelling convention or diacritic. In either case, follow English usage. When the diacritics are used in the article title, however, please create a redirect at the title without the diacritic, as not all Wikipedia users can readily type accented characters.

If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. Foreign names should be used only if there are no established English names; most places which are notable, in Wikipedia's sense, do have established English names, which often are the local name. Rationale for historical usage should be explained on the article's talk page and in the name's section of the article about the geographical place in question.

Even if any form of Oświęcim is English usage, the form with diacritics is not. Charles 05:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC) You don't even read what you quote: Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon. --Molobo (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

It was consulted and results show English accepted name Oswiecim outnumbers the Germanised version.--Molobo (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Huh ? The discussion is about Duchy of Oswiecim and Principality of Oswiecim not about the Nazi concentration camp. --Molobo (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

"I present this: Oswiecim vs Auschwitz" I am surprised, actually I estimated your knowledge somewhat in different way. Auschwitz is common name for Konzentrationslager Auschwitz , and as such it will always turn up more results then a little Polish town. You didn't present a credible argument this way--Molobo (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Charles, the camp and the town are two different seperate places.--Molobo (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Emphasis is mine. --Molobo (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Suggestion

Instead of fighting about a name, may I suggest expanding the article or filling red links? Few outside our little world care about the name, and with redirects they will find this article one way or another. Remember we are here to build encyclopedia, and it consists of more than a title.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly good advice. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this would have been a cause for concern if the name had not come up, actually. Evidentially, people do care about the name. Don't minimize something that havoc is wreaked over. Charles 21:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)