User talk:Majan
Isn't the town name Lviv? Historically it was known at times as Lemberg (German name when it was part of Austria), but why the Polish Lwów spelling when it appears that the city was not part of Poland during almost all the references that you changed. In any case in itself just a redirect to Lviv, and it is not a big deal.
- Can you please answer before you continue making all these revisions? KosherJava (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
From 1772 city of Lwów was occupied by Austria, it wasn't a "part" of this country, such like Paris during IIWW wasn't a German city. It's beyond doubt that Lwów was Polish, such like Kraków and Warsaw. As You can see in wikipedia Polish cities are not refered by German names although they were under German rule. (Majan (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
Your edits
[edit]Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is based on facts and reflects political and historical realities. It does not interpret them.
I have seen you making constant changes that didn't seem to be in accordance with Wikipedia rules. For example the change you made in Leo Sirota simply contradicts historical facts.
Concerning the various names of Lviv I'd like you to read History of Lviv. There it is clearly stated that Lviv's name was Lemberg when the city belonged to Austria. Your statement that the city was "occupied" appears to be POV, as the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria was a part of Austria, later Austria-Hungary. Stating that it was Polish would imply that the city was a part of Poland, which again contradicts the historical facts as well as the ethnic background that constituded by diverse ethnic groups. European history is a history of changing borders, with cities and regions first belonging to this country, then to another. Wikipedia articles can only refer what was or is going on, we are not to judge or change this. If you have sources that prove that Lemberg was – constantly or temporarily – officially called Lwów in the period between 1772 and 1918, then cite them as evidence for your changes and put them in the articles. But please refrain from changes unless you can cite the sources. This also applies to the above mentioned region of Galicia. If you have sources that prove that this region was called Polish Galicia then you may change that citing the sources, otherwise not. Anyway, in Galicia (Central Europe) I cannot detect anything that gives proof of that.
When you state that "It's beyond doubt..." then you must know that what is or is not beyond doubt is unfortunately not relevant for Wikipedia articles. It must always be proven by sources, otherwise it constitutes undesired WP:POV and has to be reverted. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which is an offical policy on the English Wikipedia.
Regarding the other cities you are referring to, this is another matter and must be dealt with in the respective articles and talk pages. Generally speaking, the problem you are concerned with is not seldom to be found. Therefore take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) which says: When mentioned in a historical context, if there is not a common English name for the city in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name, with the current local name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the city is mentioned. And regarding current Polish cities formerly belonging to other statal/national entities: When mentioned in a historical context, if there is not a common English name for the city in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name with the current Polish name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the city is mentioned.
I'd also like to allude to Wikipedia:Naming conflict. You will see that Danzig is a similar case that you could take as an example for how those matters are resolved. Allow me to cite: The Polish city of Gdańsk was called Danzig for many years. The name "Danzig" is not the definitive term today, but it is correctly used in an historical context (e.g. before its annexation by Poland following the Second World War). (In this context see also Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice) And: Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo.
I hope this will clarify the whole thing, and prevent further disputes. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --Catgut (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)