From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Łódź:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : needs info on governance
  • Verify : needs more inline citations; verification of paragraphs and major points is a pre-requisite of B status

Old talk[edit]


Note that some of the pictures form this article may be deleted soon due to copyright issues. See Portal:Poland/New_article_announcements#Images.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Population density[edit]

What? 13,280 people per sq. km? That has got to be 280 meant to be after the decimal?

More on the "liberation"[edit]

[1] There are several witness reports on how Red Army soldiers beheaved in the area of Lodz. --Molobo 17:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous people from Łódź[edit]

I'm not sure about the meaning of having "Famous people from Łódź" and "others" mentioned separately. Are the "others" not famous ? Then why they ar mentioned at all ? --Lysytalk 10:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Why the reference to Torino in the first paragraph. I don't even get it, coat of arms are by definition symbolic, you could list dozens of other entities with CoA elements derived from their names.

Tank parade photo[edit]

The basic problem with that photo is that it is completely generic. It simply shows some Soviet-produced tanks, a completely anonymous crowd, and some cobblestones. No Lodz landmark is visible. A photo like this could have been taken anywhere in Poland in 1944-1945 during the entry of the Soviet army. In short, the photo contributes nothing to this article, and should not be here, especially since we have better images related to World War II, which are recognisable as being taken in Lodz.Balcer 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that when the Lodz Ghetto was liquidated in August, 1944 and its 70,000 remaining inhabitants were sent to their deaths, the Soviet army was a mere 120 km away. If the political decision had not been made to stop the Soviet summer 1944 offensive on the Vistula (to let the Germans crush the Warsaw Uprising and to send the Red Army into the Balkans before the war was over), much of Lodz's prewar Jewish population might have survived. This is one more reason to avoiding presenting the Soviet entry into the city as a glorious liberation. Balcer 14:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Related discussion: Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939–1945)#Picture_caption.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: considering the controversial nature of the photo, I do think that the best solution would be simply to remove it from the article. I am sure we can find non-controversial WWII photos from Łódź if needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the picture controversial itself, or your interpretation of it? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What is this all about? The picture is a documentary chronicle, thankfully preserved in the archives. It's opposer never brought any sources disputing its authenticity, while the source is reliable. Labeling it "propaganda" as done by Lysy is nothing but, again, unreferenced personal opinion. If we allow removal of information per WP:IDONTLIKEIT we could strip the Wikipedia from entire content. --Irpen 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No answer here, Piotrus and Molobo? Just reverts. Is Gadu Gadu involved by any chance? --Irpen 23:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

title of this article[edit]

Why is this article titled "Łódź"? Shouldn't the article title be what the city is called in the English language? For example, compare Florence (not Firenze), Montreal (not Montréal), or for that matter Warsaw (not Warszawa). Certainly I understand that in its own language the name of the city is Łódź, but in English it is called Lodz, so shouldn't that be what the article is called? See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). --Mathew5000 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please learn the history first before throwing around with guidelines just for the sake of formality! The form "Lodz" is heavily linked to Nazi Germany and is therefore discouraged in today's usage. --2001:16B8:2E2D:1000:2906:EB5:A350:DC8D (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are scholary[edit]

Resources removed ? --Molobo 04:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New Edit War?[edit]

The recent flak over the photo of the Red Army entering Lodz seems strange to say the least. Is it really propaganda? If so, just how was Lodz "liberated" from the Nazis? Was it by the AK or the Armia Ludowa?[[:image:Lodz liberation3.jpg|thumb|200px|Red Army enters Łódź January 1945]] How's this caption? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No answer? OK, I am restoring the picture and I hope there would be no more removals based I WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Irpen 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Very important and interesting photo. Why exactly is it being removed? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Łódź"[edit]

The last sound in the word "Łódź" is a voiceless affricate, so the aproximate English phonetic transcription should be "wootch", not "woogde"! You pronounce the word "łuć" not "łudź", if you are a Pole it is obvious. Pippirrup (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's true. The sound file included in the article is wrong, too. The final sound should be devoiced (Polish has final devoicing), so the pronunciation of the city's name with a voiced consonant in the end is a case of hypercorrectness. Oddtail (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The IPA is also wrong in that sense. --我輩は犬である (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Skin Hunters[edit]

"In 2002 the city came to national attention due to the "Skin Hunters" scandal: doctors and paramedics in one of the city's hospitals were caught murdering patients and selling their details to funeral homes for them to contact the relatives."

Actually "scandal" took place not in the hospitals but in the ambulance cars. It was a really great scandal but, still, I'm not sure is it import information to put in such article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of Lodz Ghetto in English[edit]

The Wikipedia article on the Lodz Ghetto is entitled Ghetto Litzmannstadt. See [2] . Surely, in English the name is Lodz Ghetto. An advanced Google search (English language sites) yields:

Lodz Ghetto - 88,600 pages
Litzmannstadt Ghetto - 6,640 pages

The difference is certainly striking. I have also raised the matter on the talk page at [3]. The use of Litzmannstadt as the place-name seems anomalous and POV. The word order, with Ghetto placed first, is German and is contrary to English usage. Norvo (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest a move at Talk:Ghetto Litzmannstadt. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • noted change to city article with addition of "(commonly rendered Lodz)" In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

completely unwarranted move[edit]

There is no reason to move to the non existing "Lodz". And yes, "Łódź" is used in English, for example, Ghettostadt: Łódź and the making of a Nazi city, or Łódź Ghetto: a history. Use of "Łódź" is no different then including the accent in "Vendée", the use of umlauts in Düsseldorf and many other places. Why is it that Polish cities or names always get singled out for this treatment? Please move it back.radek (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I also believe this move to be misguided.
In this case the difference in pronunciation between 'Łódź' (roughly 'Wudz') and 'Lodz' is significant
Using Lodz is IMO increasing the potential for confusion and inaccuracy in the encyclopaedia.
I second the motion to move it back. Marek.69 talk 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have moved it back. An editor had requested that the page be moved (tagging the redirect as G6). From reading WP:PLACE, it was my understanding that "Lodz" indeed would be the best title since that was the term mainly used in English, so I moved the page. Following the cycle of WP:BRD, I've reverted the move. Sorry folks, and best of luck :) JamieS93 22:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not sure that (due to GBooks poor handling of diacritics) we can indeed judge whether Lodz is more or less popular than Łódź. See also m y comments on Jamie's talk - and thank you Jamie for reverting your changes. Feel free to continue this discussion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I came here from what is (possibly) an irrelevant reference in the rugby union world. However, I would suggest that it (sorta) demonstrates how it is almost impossible to manage Polish diacritics in English. Therefore, anyone who would like to make references to this city (as a concept, not this article as an independent thing...), while speaking English will be far more likely to type in "Lodz" than ... I can't type it in but you know what I mean AshleyMorton (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but people are also more likely to type in "Dusseldorf" rather "Düsseldorf" or "Bernauer Strasse" rather than "Bernauer Straße" but that's not an argument for a move.radek (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I get your point (well taken), and you might be right - this is not something close to my heart, and I would be happy to be wrong, but I've got to be convinced first! :) So - I will argue that the names of cities, towns, other things that would reasonably used while speaking English should be presented as an English speaker would type them - That's why the concept of a Voivodship (which, really, only exists in Polish) should hold as many diacritics as you feel like, while Lodz, Warsaw and other cities that would commonly be typed without diacritics by English speakers (because they have already been an element of the English language, before anyone built an airport or formed a voivodship, should contain only English-typable characters.AshleyMorton (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
"As an English speaker would type them" - well, I'm an English speaker and I type in Łódź. More importantly I don't think this is the criteria that Wikipedia uses for what title articles should be under - it is not used for German, Czech, Serb, Slovak, Slovenian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Estonian etc. So this is a WAYYYYY major and controversial move.radek (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt that most people will type in Lodz rather than Łódź (whatever language they speak), but that's irrelevant - we have a redirect anyway, so if you type in Lodz you get to the same article. If you look around Wikipedia, you'll see that diacritics from foreign alphabets are almost universally used, except in cases where there's an undoubtedly established English form as with Aragon or Napoleon. It provides extra information without making it any more difficult to find the article.--Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think that really I should be taking this up at the page where naming conventions are discussed, in general. There needs to be some more systematic way to handle names that do not have "English versions", yet cannot be represented by English letters. I disagree with the conclusion you folks have clearly come to, but I also clearly understand that I am in the minority, and won't continue the fight over this specific entry until / unless we can come to a different consensus, either here, or at a more general location. AshleyMorton (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This was discussed in the past, and the end result of those discussions was the conclusion presented above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I would like to take this up more generally - Piotrus, you say that this was discussed in the past, and I've found three proposed policies: Wikipedia:Use diacritics, Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) - but every one says in big letters across the top "This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community." Is there a policy that I'm missing somewhere? ...because I can't conclude that there was/is an "end result". AshleyMorton (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There's always been a lot of opposition to these spellings, though it has never been concentrated or energetic enough to prevail (in contrast to the activities currently under review at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list). Łódź is a word with four letters, only one of which can be typed from a normal keyboard in the English-speaking world. No-one in English is gonna write that unless they have some dedication to "accuracy". I don't personally mind too much ... users from Poland seem to think the diacritics are important, so I just normally respect that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
To get to this page, use standard letters 'Lodz' and Wikipedia redirects here, as Kotniski has already stated.
In order to type the name in correctly, just use copy/paste, as I suspect everyone who has 'typed' Łódź on this page has done.
I am also British and I don't see the problem. -- Marek.69 talk 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem isn't really whether someone gets here by typing "Lodz" or not, or whether we could copy-paste the diacritics in - it's whether these diacritics are English. We all agree that we're supposed to Use English - that's the easy part. The tough part is reaching any sort of consensus about what the "English name" of a place that's not frequently discussed in English is. This is complicated by the fact that many editors here of Polish articles have familiarity with Polish, and thus see "Lodz" as not only "anglicised", but explicitly wrong (I understand the problem - I see "Alesund" and "Bodo" as "wrong", too, because I speak Norwegian. However, are Ålesund and Bodø (correct spellings in Norwegian) English? I would say "no", but as I've agreed above, it's a discussion for another place... AshleyMorton (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- I would actually think that Ålesund and Bodø are the "correct" forms in English. Part of this has to do with the fact that there is no "official" English, unlike say French - it's a language governed by convention. Which is part of what makes it so flexible and adoptable. So I wouldn't say that an "Ł" or a "ø" are "not English" - they're just rarely used in English. But that makes a lot of difference, particularly when reliable sources use these.radek (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In most of the cases of significant Polish place names, there is no question that the non-diacritic version is more popular in English. But as I've argued elsewhere, it shouldn't overcome issues of accuracy (Lo and Ło are different sounds) so long as there are redirects. English has no authentic name for Łódź, and if we were in pre-mass literacy days with no German influence it would probably emerge as something like Wodge or Woodge. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to refer to another example, Ełk, another town in Poland. Would it be of benefit to the encyclopaedia to rename/move it to Elk or, (as I as suspect) would that just create more ambiguity? -- Marek.69 talk 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that would be Elk (Poland). Hmmm, we can just move Łódź to Boat (Poland)... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, surely you mean Łoś (Poland)? ;-) -- Marek.69 talk 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I dislike any diacritics, be it Polish, Czech, or German, and in articles written by me, I never use them. However, as Piotrus wrote, since google automatically redirects us after typing Lodz, I do not think this redirect is needed. If we create a precedent, then we will have to move almost all Polish cities. Tymek (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually we'd have to move many German, Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, etc etc etc cities and names too. It just doesn't make any sense at all. The situation as it is now is the best possible solution. Loosmark (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. Tymek (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact, that is the most effective argument, really, against removing diacritics - that it would be so bloody much work to actually 'implement' the policy - work of the most mundane, bureacratic type, which could have been used adding content to Wikipedia. The thing that worries me with that argument is the degree to which Wikipedia is used as an authority on English names for things. It's a way more reliable translator than almost anything else for place names and technical terms - go to the place name you know in your own language (say, "Venise" in French), then click the interwiki for your language of choice (Say, Danish), and "poof" (we now know that they call it "Venedig"). We on the English wiki always talk as if we are slaves to common usage (and most of us try to be, most of the time), but more and more we are in fact the arbiters of what common English usage is. that means that if we're getting it wrong, we should be fixing it, even if it's a lot of boring work. AshleyMorton (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the Elk argument above is fairly frivolous. All Polish place-names will usually be spelled without diacritics in English, irrespective of any amusement side-effects it may occasionally have to Polish speakers, and the idea that such anglicization necessitate "translating" the names is complete straw man, as this never happens by principle. Inbhir Nis is Inverness, not Nessmouth. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
In the Elk example, I was simply trying to use a little humour to illustrate my point, i.e. that using diacritics is simply more accurate, and will avoid much confusion. (as well as disambiguation pages)
The main reason, historically, why diacritics have not been more widely used in the English language, is that English typefaces did not contain them before the advent of the computer. (with the exception, maybe, of the é)
As this created a difficulty in printing them, they were simply left out and not used. This is however changing with the introduction of computers with international typefaces. Words such as née, fiancée, façade and déjà vu are becoming more commonly spelt with their appropriate accents. (maybe this is happening more in the UK than in the US?)
Now we have the ability to use diacritics relatively easily, I see no reason why we shouldn’t. -- Marek.69 talk 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

B-class review failed[edit]

This article does not meet B-class criteria, due to missing key sections (ex. culture) and insufficient inline referencing (there are entire sections unreferenced). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Article layout[edit]

  • I have redesigned the layout from scratch to make Łódź article look more like a metropolitan city (which it is). I have used Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure as a guideline. Stacks of photographs were moved to gallery → more info available at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Some of the World War II info was slightly rearanged according to subject, and the population template (with proper title) moved to the right. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 22:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


Someone please edit the constiutuency details - the MPs are from before the 2011 elections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Łódź. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Łódź. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Subtitle under photo compilation is not correct[edit]

I looked at the compilation picture above the article, and it has little to do with the subtitle under it. I found the "Manufactura" building on the second row on the right, while it should be the first from left to right. The number of subjects does not correspond with the number of photo's. What happened here? Has the photo been changed? Could not find anything in the history. (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer is (better late than never...?) there actually was a change made to the photo montage on 31 August 2017 – see Special:Diff/798235517. Reverted 15 September Special:Diff/800719516. --CiaPan (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)