No edit summary |
Pmanderson (talk | contribs) →The latest: Blanking |
||
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
The land of Pszczyna, which once constituted a duchy by itself |
The land of Pszczyna, which once constituted a duchy by itself |
||
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Texts in Polish should determine usage on the Polish Wikipedia, not here. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Blanking== |
|||
The following text has been blanked: |
|||
:''but the Dukes, and later Princes, of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants. The Dukes of Anhalt-Cöthen-Pless inherited in 1765, being descended from the earlier dukes in the female line; the last of them died in 1847, and was succeeded by Count Hans Heinrich X of Hochberg, his son-in-law. The Hochbergs <ref>Hans Heinrich X, XI, and XIV; the dynastic numbering was, like other princely families, given to all males of the House</ref> were among the wealthiest families of Germany, and lived in great state; they maintained a herd of [[wisent]], given to them by [[Alexander II of Russia]] in 1864, but it was reduced to three survivors during the [[First World War]]. |
|||
:The [[Duke of Ratibor]] ''was defeated in the first election to the Imperial German Reichstag, in 1871 by [[Eduard Müller]], one of the founders of the [[Centre Party (Germany)|Centre Party]], although Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed him, but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote; he also threatened, for example, to end wood-gathering rights for those who displeased him.'' |
|||
:*This has been edited so as to claim that the Duke of Ratibor in question was defeated by the Polish Nationalists in 1903. Certainly not the case; the Centre Party held the seat in the intervening thirty years; I am not sure he was still alive. |
|||
:'' Hans Heinrich XIV succeeded in 1907; he had married [[Daisy, Princess of Pless]], the diarist, whose memoirs are cited by [[Barbara Tuchman]] and other social historians. |
|||
Since these are the materials for which the sources are cited, they are now valueless. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:35, 14 January 2008
Poland Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move. The argument for using the English-language name is clear. The arguments from the opposers are not clear to me. DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
Duchy of Pszczyna → Duchy of Pless — Pless shows up more often than Pszczyna among literature written in the English language regarding its existence as a duchy and as a title. —Charles 18:30, 31 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. Charles 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose' as creator, disruptive move (suggest speedy close) - see also Talk:Duchy_of_Oświęcim#Requested_move. The town was known during the times of the Duchy and is known currently as Pszczyna, not Pless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- How is this a disruptive move? I made a change at Duchies of Silesia to reflect the English name and when the article didn't reflect that, I put it up for a move. Also, it is important distinction to make (one of language and also one of location (town vs duchy)): What is the duchy known as in English? Charles 18:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (same comment at Talk:Duchy of Oleśnica)
Is there any evidence for the assertions given in the move request? Knepflerle (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, but there is evidence for rejection of the move: in Google Print, "Duchy of Pszczyna" vs "Duchy of Pless" wins 1:0 :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, Piotrus. The English summary of Zarys dziejów kartografii śląskiej do końca XVIII wieku (Warsaw, 1976), which is what your one hit is, is perhaps the weakest testimony to the usage of actual anglophones that I have ever seen.;-> Who is the translator? Could he actually speak English? Had he done so in the previous thirty years? And as for 1-0 meaning anything, see WP:NCGN#False positives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Piotrus and common sense. - Darwinek (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- What common sense, Darwinek? How does common sense dictate your choice of a vote? Really now. Charles 13:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Until we have an article on Prince of Pless, or the Principality, follow the most common referent in English: Daisy, Princess of Pless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I had heard of Princess Daisy before Wikipedia existed; she is a significant source for Edwardian social history, as in Barbara Tuchman or George Dangerfield. Some English-speakers will find the fact, so far unmentioned, that this was Pless to be among its greatest claims to notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support per WP:UE. User:Pmanderson's note shows that a native English speaker clearly familiar with the Duchy referred to it herself in English as Pless. Current Polish or German usage is of less concern here. — AjaxSmack 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Same story as in most Duchies of Silesia. Time to clean up this mess caused by P.P. -- Matthead DisOuß 11:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I should be sorry for writing encyclopedic content. I am afraid you'll be disappointed, but I plan on doing so in the foreseeable future, no matter how much insults are thrown my way.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per common sense, evidence and other responsible editors.--Molobo (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Common sense how, evidence how and what do you mean about other responsible editors? Hopefully an admin will see the last incivility. It's funny that anyone can say that and think it will be taken seriously. Charles 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, yes it is time to clean up the mess that some editors create, right Matthead?. Tymek (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
Although I disagree with either, I wonder: why Pless, not de:Pleß? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- For my part, because Pless is what we normally use in English, as Daisy attests. I would oppose Pleß as artificial nationalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do remember, especially the two editors inclined to use such language as mess, that Eastern Europe is under a general sanction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Changes
Since it has been established that Pless is used in English, I have changed the article to use that form throughout and also maintained Pszczyna as an alternative at the top. The name reflects what the lands were called in English when the duchy existed. Charles 16:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the reason for removal of the alternative name of Duchy of Pszczyna. Also, Pszczyna should be called Pszczyna, not Pless. PS. The Germanization reference is added to explain the shift in naming from Pless to Pszczyna. PSS. See also Talk:Gdansk/Vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is contrary to WP:NCGN. Nineteenth century Pszczyna was then, and is now retrospectively, called Pless in English. Please note also that it does not appear to ever have been called Pless in German - the German is Pleß; assertions to the contrary are errors of fact. I remove "now Germanized" as particularly misleading; it appears to have been among the least Germanized areas in Silesia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The alternative name is still there at the top. There is no evidence provided for why Pless should apparently be called Pszczyna. There is also no source given that a "shift" even exists for Pless/Pszczyna in English usage with reference to its history as a duchy. Also, what is with this Gdansk vote? Don't quote something without explaining how it applies. Really, how does it apply here? Also, for clarity, can we leave spaces between the replies? The replies are running into one another and it gets confusing between that and edit conflicts. Thank you. Charles 16:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Gdanzig vote was before WP:NCGN, and inspired its formation; but it itself has no force of precedent (that was part of the agreement, IIRC), and in some ways defies present consensus.
- I have no reason to disbelieve that this place, as part of the medieval Kingdom of Poland is (retrospectively) called Pszczyna; but Duchy of Pszczyna appears to be original research. Similarly, I have no reason to doubt that the modern town is also called Pszczyna, as our article is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Article is now under German (or English, ehm) name, so I see no problem with having Polish variant of name there. Also content disputes are different from name disputes. There is no controversy in Germanization statement, it explains the evolution of the name of that entity, although I agree it should be explained more precisely. I don't think Piotrus wants to move article back or something like that. - Darwinek (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no problem having the Polish variant listed, it's in the very first line after all. There is also controversy in the "Germanization" statement, since really, the name was not Germanized, it was Anglicized to a form which was similar to the German form. That's it. Really a note on Polonization would be more appropriate (but still not appropriate), since going from Pless to Pszczyna is exactly that. Charles 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Pless can be used for 19th century Duchy, sure - but for its origins under Silesian Piasts before 14th century Pszczyna is the correct one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- How so? Why is that allegedly the correct name? Charles 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Simply due to Talk:Gdansk/Vote. In the context of creation of creation of the Duchy in 12th century the name Pszczyna, not Pless, should be used. The Duchy may be more often known as Pless, but its capital is Pszczyna, not Pless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would you please point to the passage of the vote that states that? Also, it has been determined that the duchy is called Pless. Why, at the same time, would its capital be called Pszczyna? Charles 17:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Piotrus, please supply a source, in view of this negative result for [Duchy of Pszczyna]. In fact, where did you find the medieval history of the Duchy at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- We are not discussing 'Duchy of...'. That discussion has ended in the preceeding section. We are discussing the naming of the town, which is pretty simple.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Now germanized
- In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia (including (including now Germanized Pless) was conquered by Prussia;
I have removed the three marked words for two reasons, besides the duplication:
- The most natural reading is that Pless became a German-speaking town and district, just like, say, Leipzig. This does not appear to be true; we should not mislead the reader, if we ever have one.
- I gather it is intended to mean that the name Pless, or rather Pleß, came into use around 1740. I don't see any evidence of this, and I think it unlikely; Pless had been under Habsburg suzerainity for two centuries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Second point doesn't contradict the fact that originally this wasn't a German town with a German name so change to German population and name is germanisation.--Molobo (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It had a name in Polish (and I presume Poles still used it even in the nineteenth century); it had a name in German, which is likely to go back far beyond the Renaissance. It became noted in English when it was ruled by the von Hochbergs, as part of Prussia. They spoke German, although partly of Polish descent (which is their claim to the duchy); German was also the administrative language of Prussia. Therefore the English adopted a variant of the German name. No, that is not Germanization; it's not what the word means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The town remained Polish despite heavy Germanisation efforts-even in 1829 according to German sources the po Polish population was 94,3 %[1]--Molobo (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely; it was not Germanized, and saying it was is inaccurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The name, however, was.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not in English. Charles 11:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thought English used Pless? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not in English. Charles 11:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- It does, but "Germanization", whether it did or did not occur, did not change the English name. Charles 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps not, but it most certainly was the reason Pless, not Pszczyna, became the 'English' version for that time and context.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The administrative language of Silesia became German, I suspect some time in the late Renaissance; but that is not clearly presented to the reader by the language under discussion. I do not think we should go into the matter without evidence. I see no reason to believe that Pleß was invented for the occasion; the place must have had a name in both languages, like Bolzano/Bozen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps not, but it most certainly was the reason Pless, not Pszczyna, became the 'English' version for that time and context.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- It does, but "Germanization", whether it did or did not occur, did not change the English name. Charles 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Princes of the Duchy
- In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia was conquered by Prussia; but the Dukes, later Princes, of the Duchy would remain owners of the soil, and lords of the inhabitants, of Pless;
"Princes of the Duchy" is nonsense; the Princes of Pless, who are so called in English, were rulers of a principality. I regret the pointless effort to deny that the nineteenth-century area was called Pless at the time, in English, and (when speaking of the nineteenth century) still is. Since there was consensus to move here, there is unlikely to be consensus to suppress the name in the text. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The RM determined that the English name is Pless. Molobo and Space Cadet, please do not change this unless you have irrefutable evidence proving that the name of this duchy/prinicipality and its princes and dukes was not Pless. Otherwise, you are violating NPOV and UE. Charles 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Brittanica online, which was cited, only returns an article on the modern city. Charles 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::The request to move the page (last month) ended in no consensus, therefore let's leave it at Duchy of Pless. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Molobo, you obviously don't understand that Psyczyna on EB, a SINGLE source, is about the city up to the present day and is hence given the present name. This article is about the past duchy and its capital was in the past named Pless (now Pszczyna). The form of the article was completely and totally fine but it is being mutilated in bits and pieces to include ridiculous phrasing like "princes of the duchy" and "dukes of the duchy". What are you trying to accomplish? Charles 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The relating article Pszczyna is in Polish. This article's content is a continuing struggle between pro-English and pro-Foreign spelling editors. It's two conflicting agendas. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The relating article is writen in English, the name is English accepted version. If you believe another one exists you should start a Request to Move the article to its proper English name. What is the English name of Pszczyna rather then Pszczyna according to you ?--Molobo (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The relating article Pszczyna is in Polish. This article's content is a continuing struggle between pro-English and pro-Foreign spelling editors. It's two conflicting agendas. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The English name for the capital of the duchy of Pless is Pless. This is not about present day Pszczyna. The duchy was called Pless because that was the name of the capital. Charles 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- "its capital was in the past named Pless (now Pszczyna)". That's only partially correct. While true for probably more than half of its history, for the first few (two? four?) centuries the dominant language was Polish (and Latin), and hence the name was Pszczyna (or its latin variant, whatever it may be). Hence when speaking of the early history of the duchy, it's capital should be referred to as Pszczyna; when of latter, as Pless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The English name for the capital of the duchy of Pless is Pless. This is not about present day Pszczyna. The duchy was called Pless because that was the name of the capital. Charles 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think its rather clear that Pszczyna shouldn't be named Pless-the Duchy is another issue. If Charles wants this name to be standard on Wikipedia, like I said, a move request should be issued in proper article.--Molobo (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Time after time, this flawed argument is presented to push a point of view. Wikipedia is not consistent. The name of Pless now has no bearing one what it was called when the Duchy existed. This argument was also attempted with Cracow. Sorry, it does not work. Whether Pszczyna is at the right name or wrong name does not negate that "Duchy of Pless" and "Pless" are the right names for this article. Charles 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- The name of the capital is not constant even in the context of the Duchy. It was not called 'Pless' until several centuries after the Duchy's creation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Time after time, this flawed argument is presented to push a point of view. Wikipedia is not consistent. The name of Pless now has no bearing one what it was called when the Duchy existed. This argument was also attempted with Cracow. Sorry, it does not work. Whether Pszczyna is at the right name or wrong name does not negate that "Duchy of Pless" and "Pless" are the right names for this article. Charles 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Charles but the Duchy and city are two different things.--Molobo (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed they are, Molobo, which is exactly why the history of the present city and the historical duchy are separate. But nice try, considering I'm the one who has been saying that and you are trying to turn it around (but it's not working). In the context of the duchy, it's capital was at Pless, even if it may be called Pszczyna in the present day. Piotrus, was the duchy called Pless and the city called Pszczyna at the same time? The duchy may have been created long before Pless came to exist as a name, but there came a point where the duchy and its capital were both called Pless. It's like calling the capital of the Kingdom of Hanover "Hannover" when it would have been called Hanover (now Hannover, Germany) at that time. Charles 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NCGN is clear; we should use what English-speakers now use to refer to the town, and the principality, in a particular historic context. This is why we use, say, Leningrad or Wilno at all: because it is usual to call those cities thus when speaking about particular periods of the past. If anyone can come up with an English source which calls the past town Pszczyna and the duchy Pless, referring to the same time, please let us see it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Charles but the Duchy and city are two different things.--Molobo (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Separate rulers
- In the War of the Austrian Succession most of Silesia was conquered by Prussia; however the Duchy retained its separate rulers.
The first clause of this sentence acknowledges that a small portion of Silesia remained Austrian. The second part asserts that Pless retained "separate rulers" (i.e. separate from Frederic II of Prussia?) ; this is nonsense. Please stop it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The latest
This edit is absolutely unacceptable. The use of the one Google hit for "Duchy of Pszczyna" ( Zarys dziejów kartografii śląskiej do końca XVIII wieku (Warsaw. 1976) as though this single usage by a Polish translator proved equal weight to the standard and well-attested English usage, strains my assumption of good faith to the breaking point. The removal of the Pless-Rybnik contest, the longest reference to Pless in any on-line journal, is simply dishonest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The omission of the victory of the Centre Party is equally bad with the rest of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There are more results with Pszczyna Duchy: Studia historiae oeconomicae Economic history - 1966 [The Feudal Obligations of Peasants to the Landowners in the Pszczyna Duchy in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century Śląsk - Page 41 autorstwa Gustaw Morcinek - Silesia (Poland : Voivodeship) - 1935 The land of Pszczyna, which once constituted a duchy by itself --Molobo (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Texts in Polish should determine usage on the Polish Wikipedia, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Blanking
The following text has been blanked:
- but the Dukes, and later Princes, of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants. The Dukes of Anhalt-Cöthen-Pless inherited in 1765, being descended from the earlier dukes in the female line; the last of them died in 1847, and was succeeded by Count Hans Heinrich X of Hochberg, his son-in-law. The Hochbergs [1] were among the wealthiest families of Germany, and lived in great state; they maintained a herd of wisent, given to them by Alexander II of Russia in 1864, but it was reduced to three survivors during the First World War.
- The Duke of Ratibor was defeated in the first election to the Imperial German Reichstag, in 1871 by Eduard Müller, one of the founders of the Centre Party, although Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed him, but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote; he also threatened, for example, to end wood-gathering rights for those who displeased him.
- This has been edited so as to claim that the Duke of Ratibor in question was defeated by the Polish Nationalists in 1903. Certainly not the case; the Centre Party held the seat in the intervening thirty years; I am not sure he was still alive.
- Hans Heinrich XIV succeeded in 1907; he had married Daisy, Princess of Pless, the diarist, whose memoirs are cited by Barbara Tuchman and other social historians.
Since these are the materials for which the sources are cited, they are now valueless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Hans Heinrich X, XI, and XIV; the dynastic numbering was, like other princely families, given to all males of the House