Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Poznań (1945)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inaccuracies?

[edit]

History_of_Poznań#Pozna.C5.84_in_Nazi_Germany_.281939.E2.80.931945.29 has a different account of the battle. The biggest difference is that that article claims that the major fights did not begun until mid-February ("The Soviets gathered their strength, not beginning the ground assault until February 18", when the city was flanked - or encircled?). The article on pl wiki about the battle is more detailed but not finished (goes only up to 24 January); it does mention that the Soviet failed to take the city during 'from march' and decided to flank it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the article lacks detail and in aspects may be inaccurate. As I understand the history, most of the forts in the ring around the city had to be defeated; to my mind this implies deliberate assaults with sappers, etc. I think the "major fights" referred to above is actually the culminating assault on the Citadel. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I am dismayed that you have moved the name of the article to include the ń character. I have nothing against the Polish alphabet - but this is the English language Wiki, and in the English language the city is known as "Poznan", and references to the battle written in English also use "Poznan". Ziemke and Duffy's works are examples of this. I kindly request you move article's name to the original title. "Battle of Poznań" would be good as a redirect for the occasional Polish user of the English Wiki. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the city is Poznań. When you succeed in moving it to Poznan, I promise I will support moving the battle back to battle of Poznan (1945).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, that is disingenuous. This is an English-language Wiki. In English works, the city's name -is- Poznan with no characters used from other languages. See, for example, the article Munich. The name of the article for the city is given in its English name which makes good sense for users of an English Wiki, even though the city's residents call it München.
Frankly, your name move is unhelpful and exactly the sort of thing that kicks off edit wars. I've seen very fine editing on your part and find it hard to understand both your edit and your attitude in this case.
And rest assured I know the Polish name for Poznan and many other Polish locales as well. I am no enemy of Poland. It is simply that are some rules that make sense for an English-language Wiki, and imposing foreign language characters on article names makes little sense. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
W. B. The issue of diacritics has been discussed in the past. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) notes the issue is has not been resolved but there were more in favor of diacritics in titles than not. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) and note it was rejected. Finally, use of diacritics has become a standard practice over the years. If you feel strongly about it, feel free to start a WP:RM to the original title; I believe the one with diacritic is more correct.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. My time here, however, is limited and I prefer not to spend it engaging Wikipedia processes in cases that in my consideration are fairly obvious. For the same reason, I find edit wars to be wasted time.
This article may become what it will. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I consider the naming disputes a giant waste of time compared to creating content so I hope this indeed will not be a major issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naming disputes are created by people like yourself who insist on nationalisation of English Wikipedia. This is regardless of the fact that I will still type in Poznan every time because I am not going to change the keyboard layout for every instance I need to look at a location in Poland. However, there is such a thing called History, and it is recorded regardless of personal preferences of those who try to rewrite it.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I resent being accused of nationalism. Please mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Redirects where created for a reason, and we are not going to be dumbing down complex words to simple ones. I don't have é on my keyboard, but I certainly don't mind café. And I don't expect you to type Poznań with ń, but it is the name of the city, not Poznan. Thousands of English language publications agree. My, nationalism is on the rise, indeed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ń in English, or café for that matter. There is no need for a redirect if the title of the article is Battle of Poznan. Changing an English title into a Polish one is nationalising of the title. WP:AGF and WP:NPA have nothing to do with it! You are changing the spelling from English to Polish. What would you call it?!--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being correct.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you are only correct in Polish! In English, and we are editing in English Wikipedia, you are not correct. You would also not be correct in Russian, Turkish, Hindu, and Chinese to name a few. Do you see my point? You are imposing your own POV and spelling convention on the English language users, and using redirects for which there is absolutely no need.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me a policy that this name contradicts. And WP:UE is invalid since in my post from 14:39, 15 February 2008 above I have shown that the ń version is extensively used in English. Hence it is Poznan that is the misspelling (or a Redirect from title without diacritics, to be precise). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Piotr, you have not shown anything! Please see here [[1]] for use of accents in English and English words with diacritics. I also refer you to the English alphabet. If I choose to write cafe, no one is going to fault me for it in common English usage. It is just unreasonable to impose the need to have knowledge of all the different languages that use diacritics on the English language users of Wikipedia. That would be the result of what you are suggesting if applied consistently throughout the English Wikipedia projects. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the world is bigger then just its English speaking part. This is also why we have redirects. I don't expect most English speakers to know most diacritics. That doesn't mean they don't exist in English language. Ignorance is not an excuse.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that non-use of diacritics is a sign of ignorance?! Not one school in Australia teaches it, and I got though a university degree without using it while being taught by lecturers from six different countries! Redirects are also used for disambiguation of English events (in this case) and the tag is {{R from historic name}}. However if you see the page Wikipedia:Redirect#Alternative_names you will see the example Byzantium, Istanbul and Constantinople, and not {lang-tr|İstanbul}--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 07:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People should familiarise themselves with the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Based on this policy, the geographic names need to use naming that reflects English usage, and use during historical period. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And the name was Poznań. Hence, everything is fine.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed nothing. Please answer the following questions:
  • Is the editing being done in English language Wikipedia?
  • Does the English language have a usage for letter ń in its alphabet?

--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, User_talk:Piotrus asserts that:
I have no intention to continue this discussion, particularly when you insist of misrepresenting my arguments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could misrepresent your arguments Piotr, because you haven't offered any other then to suggest that I am ignorant in the use of English language. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that Poznań may have a different spelling outside of Poland, and in this case in an English language society. Would you have been so insistent if the similarity had been less apparent in another language, as in say Greek Πόζναν?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 08:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm native speaker of Polish language, but it doesn't mean that I am specialist in writing foreing names in Polish. On the other hand I often use name of Poznań in dialogues with native English speakers. Currently the most spread form is "Poznań" in favor of "Poznan" and most rarely derived from German "Posen" (which is usually treated as "faux pas" if it is used in other that historical context) Radomil talk 10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was going to be my next avenue of discussion before Piotr decided he no longer wanted to participate. You see, at the time discussed by the article the city was still a part of Germany and was indeed called Posen. As it clearly says in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) "If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context.", and that is Posen, so the article aught to be called the "Battle of Posen".--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err.. It was part of occupied Poland incorporated to III Reich, not simply part o Germany. You won't call Nijmegen during World War II "Nimwegen", will You? Radomil talk 10:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A great may places in Europe changed countries over the centuries. I am only concerned with what country's territory the city was located in during the events being described, not before and not after. I can not at this stage concern myself with every city in Europe, and prefer to keep discussion to one subject at a time.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So let's keep them: Annexation of pre-war Polish territories was violation of international law. Non of neutral countries recognized this annexation. So using German name here would be invalid. According to international law Poznań in this time was Polish city under German occupation (as well like some cities in Western Europe, like Paris and others). Radomil talk 11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a different article that deals with the issue of German annexation of Polish territory and its legality or otherwise. Neither I, not this article is concerned with the wider issue of the causes of war or annexation of territories. It is only concerned with the events that took place during the combat in the given period. During that period the city was named Posen and was administered by Germany. Neither I nor you or anyone else can change that. Its what is known as irrevocable historical fact. It is documented by at least four state authorities, German, Polish and Soviet.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. But probably Yore not very familiar with situation in occupied Europe at all? According to Your proposition we should rename Battle of Iwo Jima to "Battle of Iōtō". Radomil talk 11:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to discuss the naming of the Battle of Iwo Jima, the the talk page for that article is probably the best place.
I don't really care what the "situation in occupied Europe" was. For the purpose of this article its immaterial. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that You don't care of any context. In this way of thinking Your proposition are also... immaterial. Why? Why not. As for now thats Your way of argumentation (Also I can write "German administration in this time is immaterial fact"). So what relevant arguments You have? Radomil talk 12:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know anything about me, so don't make statements you may have to retract.
Retention of context is something I have consistently advocated everywhere I have edited since I begun this project. However, this article describes a tactical or maybe an operational military operation. The issues of international law, territorial annexation and rights and wrongs there of are at the context of strategic politico-military decision making. At the time of the event being described in the article these contexts simply do not apply. It is obvious that a war was being waged to defeat Germany which invaded numerous sovereign states, and not just Poland. This fact need not be restated in every Eastern Front article that deals with the continuing military operations. It is a matter of historical fact that the city and its area was under German administration. In any case the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) is linked to in the very introduction to the article. What else do you expect in terms of context?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just use name of Poznań as most of English speaking people in the world without any POV. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Radomil talk 22:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you can prove that most English speakers use Poznań when they write, and not Poznan? In any case, as you will see above, the name of the city during the period covered by the article was Posen, and I dare suggest there was not one English speaker in the area at the time.
Wikipedia requires sources. See WP:V.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed at WP:NCGN page and the consensus was that no, short occupation does not legitimize changing of a name.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it in either current or archived discussion. However I did find you questioning the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#Official_name_takes_precedence_over_the_local_name.3F
The answer you received seemed fairly explicit: common English use of the official use during the period under discussion applies--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I found the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29#What_about_a_person_born_during_occupation.3F
This is an entirely different case. A person can be born in a territory annexed by another country, in which case the birth certificate would be issued by the annexing country. A person born in the occupied territories will be issued a birth certificate by the civilian authority appointed by the military occupation authority.

Now the history of Poznań/Posen in question is that "Poznań was the capital of the Greater Poland area when it came under the control of Prussia in 1793 and had its administrative area renamed to South Prussia. During the Greater Poland Uprising of 1806, local Polish resistance fighters rebelled, thereby assisting the efforts of Napoleon while simultaneously driving out the occupying Prussian forces. The city became part of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 and was capital of the Poznań Department. Napoleon's defeat led to the Congress of Vienna, where the boundaries of Europe were redrawn by the victors. Greater Poland was returned to Prussia and became the capital of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Posen."

  • Grand Duchy of Posen, autonomous province of Prussia, 1815-1848
  • Province of Posen, Prussian province, 1848-1918
  • Posen (region), the southern part of the Province of Posen
  • Posen-West Prussia, German province, 1922-1938
  • Reichsgau Posen, part of German-occupied Polish territory, 1939
I note that although last entry says "part of German-occupied Polish territory" in fact the Reichsgau Posen was occupied, annexed and directly incorporated into the German Reich. Considering that it had been a part of Prussia and Germany since 1815 until 1945, 130 years (over 6 generations) I would not call this a "short occupation" regardless of the fact that the population of Posen was 2/3 Polish. We are not talking about the 1939-1945 period here --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Poznań was never a part of Posen-West Prussia. So your calculations are incorrect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so its 114 year and not 130. Spoils of war. In any case, during the events of 1945 Posen was a part of the German Reich, and not occupied territory, regardless whether it was right or wrong. Frankly its not something I'm concerned with in this case since the Soviet and Polish officers conducting the offensive would have used Poznan. What I object to is used of Diacritics where none are used in English to write the name.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your still have some mistakes... Grand Duchy was oficialy bilingual, with majority of Polish speaking citizens and authonomy of Poles. Moreover Province Posen was also de facto bilingual. For instant, tram company in Poznań bncrupted because it was boycoted by Polsih majority due to only German signs. New owner of tram lines had to introduce bilingual signs. Radomil talk 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly very interesting historical information (I would have expected this given 2/3rds of the population was Polish) but very irrelevant for the purpose of this article.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

[edit]

Quickfailed for WP:POLAND due to insufficient refs, following MILHIST review fail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Poznań_(1945)&oldid=1206179922"