Misplaced Pages

Talk:Grand Duchy of Posen

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Olessi (talk | contribs) at 02:43, 8 November 2006 (→Requested move: archive move discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:43, 8 November 2006 by Olessi (talk | contribs) (→Requested move: archive move discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Grand Duchy of Poznan/Province of Poznan

Hmm...I hate to ask, but, Grand Duchy of Posen? That's certainly what it would have been called in English during the time when it actually existed. john 07:14, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So, You want us to rename some articles to "Gyddanzyc" or "Dantzk" because that how they were called in English in proper time frame? szopen 08:22, 10 December 2003 (UTC)

Sigh...no. (Do you actually have evidence that such spellings were used in English? I would imagine that "Dantzig" was used in English at some point, but certainly "Gyddanzyc" would seem highly unlikely to have been used in English). At any rate, Gdansk is a current city, and the article should obviously bear the current name. On the other hand, the Grand Duchy under discussion was one which existed from 1815 to 1918. As such, it was known in most English literature as the "Grand Duchy of Posen". I would imagine that term continues to predominate in post-1918 and post-1945 works. Google provides little help on this - "Grand Duchy of Posen" has slightly more hits than "Grand Duchy of Poznan", but not decisively so. (Although a great number of the references to the latter seem to be from Polish or Polish-American sites, as well as to Misplaced Pages). Britannica also seems to use Poznan, though. So I'll withdraw the call that the article be moved, since this is likely only to introduce anger and revert wars, and so forth. I will suggest that Posen ought to be bolded in the article, since this name does seem to be at least slightly more common in English than the Polish name. john 09:19, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

John, i saw only several maps and articles in paper books and articles, so of course i can't decide that Dantzk was used, or Gyddanzyc. But i bet that in some period of history English were using LATIN name. So i think those all rules "use name which was used in history" are absurd.
Current usage is best thing, Since Poznan will stay in Polish hdans, i bet number of references to "Poznan" will increase in future. Therefore, i recommned using Poznan as first form and rediretion from "Grand DUchy of Posen" or so. -- szopen 11:48, 10 December 2003 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Poznan is fine, especially since the province was, even during partition, considered to be a Polish one (as opposed to, say, West Prussia, which was not). I do think that Posen ought to be bolded. As far as the "use name which was used in history," my understanding is that this is the official Misplaced Pages policy, so make your argument there, not with me. I'd note that English-language users generally use, for instance, Danzig to refer to that city before 1945, and so forth, even today, so it's not so much "use name which was used in history" as "use the name which is most commonly used to refer to the city today." I suspect that there are almost no scholarly works of history in English which discuss the "Free City of Gdansk," for instance (A.J.P. Taylor might do it to be contrarian). Would you urge that we discuss how Kaliningrad was founded by the Teutonic Knights and became the capital of East Prussia, as well? Or that the 900 day siege of St. Petersburg was one of the most notable events of the Second World War? Or that the Battle of Volgograd turned the tide in the same war? Or, for that matter, that Peter Minuit founded the city of New York in 1624? john 16:50, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well no, but there is one little difference: Gdansk is Polish ORIGINAL name of the city, and was known in Poland as GDANSK almost always. Germans had problems with pronouncing the name, henve the "Danzig" szopen 08:13, 11 December 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But the question is not what it is called in Polish, or what it is called in German, but what it is called in English. Gdansk is still almost universally called "Danzig" for at least 1793 to 1945. It used to be called that for the pre-1793 period, as well, although I think that's changing. (see Talk:Gdansk) john 16:21, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that Grand Duchy of Poznan sounds contrived. As it was a German posssesion, English speakers would use the official name before they would use the Poznan. I doubt that you would find this wording used in any English scholarly text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.65.164.68 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 1 February 2004 (UTC)

On change to Province of Posen

Can someone resolve when the change occurred to become Province Posen? Was it 1846 or 1848? Bwood 04:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was in 1863, but I'm not sure. john 05:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Poznan/Province of Poznan, again

The two names of Grand Duchy of Poznan and the Province of Poznan were used in the same period of history for the one political entity. The Grand Duchy of Poznan was the political name, and the Province of of Poznan was the administrative name. But both name were in use till 1918. PolishPoliticians 03:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have to fervently disagree, even though it is unappetizing to Polish persons.
Two factors have power of the name here: 1) English usage, 2) English usage at the time of the period of history involved. The comparison to the town of Danzig is irrelevant, as that article is timeless and there is little argument that the current name should be dominant. I've read several texts in English and don't recall seeing either Grand Duchy of Poznan or Province of Poznan. Grand Duchy of Poznan would be the correct English version for the Napoleonic state, and I would entertain proof that the Prussians retained it until they stopped pretending it wasn't a province. Please provide citations. Otherwise, the only references they I've Googled so far are from modern translations of Polish authors.
So, in fact, the name of this article is probably incorrect for the English portion of Misplaced Pages. Sorry, but you can't change history, it was, what it was. Bwood 22:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Province refers to the Prussian province. The official name at that time was German. English speakers used the German version, because that was the official contempory name in use. Provinz could be translated into Province by English speakers, but there is no English translation for Posen, so the correct, official English version was Province of Posen. Furthermore, the Wiki article that deals with this later name for the Grand Duchy is Province of Posen. Bwood 07:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm pulling "but the name of the Grand Duchy was in use till 1918." until the author can provide proof of a nature sufficient to justify the mention. Certainly no official usage that late. Perhaps wishful thinking by Polish patriots? Bwood 17:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The name of 'Grand Duchy of Poznań' was used until 1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poz (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 December 2004 (UTC)
Prove itBwood 15:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article is about the Grand Duchy of Poznań, a political body that existed in years 1815-1918. I think we can ignore the stupid remark's of bwood until he can prove that he really exists, which I don't believe. Resident of Poznań. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.235.166 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 December 2004 (UTC)
So you, bwood, claim that milions od people who lived in the Grand Duchy of Poznań were wrong, people who established societies in 1841 and 1861 were wrong, hundreds of historians who write about the Gdand Duchy of Poznań period in 1815-1918 are wrong, and YOU alone are right, and you are going to erase everythig that doe not fit into YOUR point of view. Don't you? Grand Duke of Poznan 22:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Societies with the GDP in name

Grand Duke of Poznan 22:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

English name is Poznań

The English name of the capital city is Poznań, thus the The Grand Duchy of Poznań and the Province of Poznań. Nazi/German names like Posen are very painful and should be avoided here. Is it clear?? Resident of Poznań. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.235.166 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 December 2004 (UTC)

Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie w Encyklopedii PWN

WIELKIE KSIĘSTWO POZNAŃSKIE, utworzone 1815 na mocy decyzji kongresu wiedeńskiego z zach. części Księstwa Warsz. i przyznane Prusom; obszar — 28 951 km2, ludność ok. 776 tys.; władcą Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego był król prus., jego przedstawicielem — namiestnik (do 1831 ks. A. Radziwiłł); na czele administracji stał nacz. prezes; Księstwo podzielono na regencje — pozn. i bydg., te zaś na 26 powiatów zarządzanych przez landratów; 1824 utworzono sejm prowincjonalny (o charakterze stanowym) jako organ doradczy. Po upadku powstania listopadowego 1830–31 autonomię Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego ograniczono, rozpoczął się proces germanizacji. W 1848 parlament frankfurcki uchwalił wcielenie większej części Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego do Rzeszy; nie doszło jednak do tego i jedność „prowincji poznańskiej” — jak wówczas urzędowo zaczęto nazywać Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie — została utrzymana; do walki z konspiracją rozbudowano aparat policyjny. Od lat 80. XIX w. wzmożenie germanizacji (Komisja Kolonizacyjna, Hakata, Kulturkampf); 1904 zapoczątkowano ustawy wyjątkowe podcinające pozycję gosp. ludności pol. (1908 ustawa o wywłaszczeniu pol. własności ziemskiej). Pod względem gospodarczym Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie było żywnościowym i surowcowym zapleczem Prus; wcześniej niż w innych zaborach nastąpiło tu przejście do kapitalist. gospodarki rolnej (ustawa o uwłaszczeniu 1823, uwłaszczenie chłopów). W latach 40. XIX w. Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie było ośr. spisków (Związek Plebejuszy, Centralizacja Poznańska); liberałowie pozn. rozwijali program pracy organicznej; 1848 ludność Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego brała udział w Wiośnie Ludów (powstania wielkopolskie), a 1863 poparła powstanie styczniowe (udział w nim spowodował nasilenie represji władz prus.). Po I wojnie świat. w wyniku zwycięskiego powstania wielkopol. 1918–19 i na mocy traktatu wersalskiego, 1919 większość ziem Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego weszła w skład II RP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.235.166 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 December 2004 (UTC)

First, why post the above Polish text on the English site?
Second, why do none of the histories that I've read mention "but because of the protest of Polish parliamentarians these plans failed,", but instead criticize the Prussian state for promising to split the Duchy and give the "Polish" part greater autonomy and freedom, but then not carrying out their promises? As is often the case, you seem to emphasizing pro-Polish pride versions of history that are totally absent from mainstream histories. Bwood 03:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion if you don't speak Polish, you have no access to the huge Polish litaruture about the subject, so you might be missing something. This is an entry from Encyklopedia PWN published by Polish Scientific Editors (Polskie Wydawnictwa Naukowe) a most notable and respected scientific publisher in Poland. It describes the Grand Duchy of Poznań ... and the last sentence says: After the WWI as a result of victorious Greater Poland Uprising 1918-1919, and as decided by the Versailles treaty, in 1919 the majority of territories of the Grand Duchy of Poznań, took part in formation of the Second Polish Republic Grand Duke of Poznan 07:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inne wydawnictwa

Chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na następujące wydawnictwa i przede wszystkim na zawarte w nich daty:

  • S.Truchim, Historia szkolnictwa i oświaty polskiej w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim 1815-1915, Łódź 1967
  • J.Stoiński, Szkolnictwo średnie w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim w I połowie XIX wieku (1815-1850), Poznań 1972
  • W.Molik, Kształtowanie się inteligencji wielkopolskiej w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim 1840-1870, Warszawa-Poznań 1979
  • T.Klanowski, Germanizacja gimnazjów w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim i opór młodzieży polskiej w latach 1870-1914, Poznań 1962
  • (autor) Przewodnik pod Poznaniu i Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim, Poznań 1909

Polskie organizacje w WKP

Czy w tej sytuacji nadal można tweirdzić, że WKP nie istniało po roku 1848 ??? I co to oznacza??

  • że mieszańcy Poznańskiego, którzy zakładali te stowarzyszenia się mylili, twierdząc że mieszają w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim
  • że autorzy gazet wydawanych w Poznaiu się mylili, twierdząc że mieszają w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim
  • że polscy posłowie do pruskiego i niemieckiego parlamentu się myli, kiedy twierdzili, że mieszają w Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim
  • że autor przewodnika wydanego w 1909 się mylił opisjąc sposób podróżowania po Wielkim Księstwie Poznańskim
  • że Hohenzolernowie się mylili utrzymując między swoimi tytułami do 1918 tytuł Wielkiego Księcia Poznańskiego
  • że autorzy Encyklopedii PWN i kilku innych encyklopedii się mylą opisjąc Wielkie Księstwo Poznańskie w latach 1815-1918
  • że znakomici polscy historycy się mylą opisując różne aspekty rzeczywistości Wielkiego Księstwa Poznańskiego w latach 1815-1918

I tylko ty kilka osób ma racje twierdząc, że jest inaczaej - a Ci wszyscy panowie z XIX i XX wieku zmówili się w tajemną konspirację, aby robić zamieszanie w Wikipedii???

Czy nie lepiej zabrać się do jakieść pozyteznej roboty, zamiast się ośmieszać tymi głupimi gierkami i przepychankami. Grand Duke of Poznan 06:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The asnwer was put on your user page, but to the point: yes, it have not existed. However, it persisted as informal name in the same way as calling GDL even after it was not merely in personal union with Poland, but after real union. The Hohenzollerns title has nothing to do with existing og WKP as separate political entity in personal union with Germany. The article does impy that the name was used by Poles, you may reword this if you like, but do not ty to imply that there was separete political entity. Had it ve separate government forms? Separate administration? No? Thank you. You have just proved that this was not in personal union. Raed what personal union is and then you may return here to made comments. Szopen 15:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And in Polish, also posted in his userpage:
Ale o co koledze chodzi? Nazwa oficjalna byla Prowincja Poznanska po 1848. W powszechnym uzyciu byla nieoficjalna nazwa, jednakze to jest zaznaczone w artykule, a przynajmniej bylo jeszcze ostatnim razem gdy patrzylem (ze nazwa byla nieoficjalnie uzywane przez POLAKOW mieszkajacych na terytorium WKP).
Przez analogie: Polscy krolowie uzywali tytulu ksiecia Prus (Mzowsza IIRC tez) zas NIEKTORZY mieszkancy Prus bardzo czesto uwazali, ze sa tylko w unii personalnej z Polska, co nie zmienia faktu, ze Prusy Krolewskie byly czescia Polski, a nie zwiazana unia personalna.
Hohenzollernowie uzywali tytulu wielkiego ksiecia poznanskiego, bo to byla czesc ich tytulatury, tak samo jak Polscy krolowie uzywali np tytulu ksiecia Mazowsza (a jednak Mazowsze bylo po prostu czecia Polski, a nie osobnym ksiestwem zwiazanym z Polska unia personalna).
Tak wiec WKP bylo terminem uzywanym przez POLAKOW do 1918, jednakze
a) po 1846 nie bylo zwiazne unia personalna (nie posiadalo osbnych wladz tak ak np Szkocja, czzy Litwa w faktycznych wladzach personalnych)
b) Nie bylo osobnych koronacji
c) Nie bylo osobnych urzedow czy odrebnosci prawnej
d) Oficjalnie nazwa nie byla uzywana.
I tyle. Inaczej dochodzi do absurdu: skoro WKP bylo panstwem w unii personalnej z Hohenzollernami, to oznacza, ze Polacy w WKP byli przesladowani przez WKP. Szopen 15:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zgadzam się z Tobą, że autonomia została najpierw organiczona (ok. 1848), a potem zniesiona (1868-1871), i te fakty należy odpowiednio opisać. Ale to nie znaczy że WKP nagle zniknęło, po prostu nazwy WKP, Prowincja WKP, Prowincja Poznańska to były różne nazwy tego samego terytorium stosowane w różnych konstektach. Niemcy stosowali i nadal stosują określenie 'Prowicja Poznańska' do całego okresu 1815-1918, również do okresu przed 1848, a więc o zdnej zamianie ni może być mowy. Nie widze powodu dla którego po tylu latch germanizacji mielibyśmy promować hakatystyczny punkt widzenia. Konstanty Kościński w 1909 roku wydał przewdonik po WKP, i ja temu autorowi ufam, ze wiedział co pisze. Pozdrawiam Grand Duke of Poznan 04:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Poznan (1815-1918)

To make a summary on the discussion:

  • The political body of 'Grand Duchy of Poznań was created in 1815 on the peace congress of Vienna and later nothing changes till the World War I {1914-1918)
  • The title of the Grand Duke of Poznań was created in 1815 on the peace congress of Vienna and this title was held by the Hohenzollern family till tha fall of monarchy in 1918
  • people of the region described hemselves as inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Poznań in the 19th century and early 20th century
  • modern historians describe the Grand Duchy of Poznań as a political body that existing in years 1815-1918

There is no doubt that the Grand Duchy of Poznań existed in years 1815-1918, and any further amendments to this article years span will be terated as pure vandalism. Grand Duke of Poznan 22:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nop, modern historians use WKP to describe different political entities which were on this territory. That's not the same. I am not against "WKP is a name for territory under German control until 1918" but against "WKP was in personal union with Germany" since it's not true. Am i clear?
WKP was NOT in personal union. I will agree to that words if you will change the Royal Prussia to being in personal union with Poland until 1790s, Masovia to be in personal union with Poland until 1790, or for that matter Lithuania to be in personal union with Poland until 1790 (it was until 1570s, but later it was real union).
Or just prove that it was indeed not just the title and the name, but it was real separate STATE which is only in PERSONAL UNION (that is, tied only by the person of the rule, with some signs of separation). Separate army, separate jurisdiciary system, separate laws would be enough to prove your point.
Szopen 08:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Official name of this territory after 1849 was 'Provinz Posen, Polish representatives used name Prowincja Poznańska. Many Poles used name WKP as a sign of their fight with Prussian/German germanisation Politic but it won't change facts. Radomil 12:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is doubtful. Could you show us the evidence you are right? Grand Duke of Poznan 18:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think this was/is a political issue. The position of the Polish politicians in the Prussian and German parliaments at this time was that: The Grand Duchy of Poznań was created by the decision of the Allied powers, so its status cannot be legally changed by the Prussian government. And because the Congress of Vienna assured the Poles of their special rights in the Duchy those special rights cannot be revoked by the decision of any Prussian authority of any level. Do you agree?? Those dispute are long over, and I don't see why we should present the German propaganda point of view in this article. Grand Duke of Poznan 18:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The de facto situation is not simply the "German propaganda point of view". It is how things actually were, and how the area was actually governed. That many Poles rejected the changes made by the Prussians, and continued to feel that the status of the former Grand Duchy could not be changed by the Prussian government should of course be mentioned. But we should not ignore the actual changes made by the Prussians who actually ran the area. john k 23:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hakata

I do not know how to properly correct it, but the Hakata link points to a wrong article. It should point to one about Deutscher Ostmarkenverein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.220.34 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Poznań vs. Posen revisited

I see from the above discussions that I'm not the first person to raise an eyebrow when seeing the name of the article. I notice that no reference is made in the text of the article to what the grand duchy's official language was. If the grand duchy's only official language was Polish, then it seems reasonable to me that the article name should stand. If the only official language was German, then it should be "Grand Duchy of Posen". If it was both, then I have no idea! Silverhelm 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

Well, Both were. Grand Duchy was created to secure authonomy of Polish majority in this area. So one of oficial languages was language of majority of citizns - Polish. But as a Part of Prussian Kingdom, Grand Duchy has another official language, language of monarch, German. So, theoreticaly and practicaly GD was bilingual. Im for Polish version, because Polish was language of majority. Radomil talk 05:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The name of the article is odd indeed. Regardless of how Poles, Germans, French or Chinese refer to this place, the English books I have seen use the German name Posen when refering to this period.
For example, The Times Atlas of World History, Fourth Edition, London, 1994, ISBN 0-7230-0534-6, uses:
  • Poznań for the medieval period up to the 17th century (p.117-119, 138-139, 185).
  • Posen from ca. 1500 to 1918 (p.142, 186-187, 207, 212, 249, 261), in page 212 using Posen both for the city and the Province of Posen.
  • Posen for 1941-1942 (p.268).
  • Poznań for 1945 onwards (p.270).
My experience on this issue is very limited, but I haven't seen a single English book use Poznań for the purposes of this article. My guess is that the article's odd naming is a consequence of the "References" section consisting exclusively of Polish books.
Can someone provide English sources for Poznań ? If not, I propose moving the article to "Grand Duchy of Posen".
Best regards, Evv 01:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Amazon.com test":
Searching for Grand Duchy of Posen: 63 books, of which 4 use Grand Duchy of Posen (Poznan) and 3 Grand Duchy of Posen (Poznania) - (The total given is 64, because one uses Grand Duchy of Poznan (Posen).
Searching for Grand Duchy of Poznan: 12 books - (The total given is 17, because 4 use Grand Duchy of Posen (Poznan) and another one is in German).
Best regards, Evv 04:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Greater Poland all time (at least since 10th century) was inhabited by Polish majority. Till 1793 was part of Polish state... In 1794 was first uprising against Prussian occupation, in 1806 was nest one. In years 1806-1815 it was again under Polsih control (and protection of napoleonic France). In 1815 was created Grand Duchy of Poznań. Polish name should be usea because it was authonomic part of Hochenzollern's monarchy that was created to guarantee free development of Polish nation. German authorities were trying to abolish authonomy few times (at last in 1848 the succede), meantime there were nex two uprisings (1846 and 1848). Last one, succesfull Polish uprising was in years 1918-1919. Short period 1939-1945 - Poznań was occupied by German Forces (like Paris or Amsterdam). So Your propositions does not have any historical background. Radomil talk 07:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Radomil, we're talking about two different things :-)
You're talking about the inherently Polish nature of Poznań throughout its history, even when ruled by other peoples at different times. I agree with you on this :-)
I'm only refering to the article's name, which per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English) should use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article. It seems to me that this would be Grand Duchy of Posen; therefore I propose, again, to move the article there.
Best regards, Evv 16:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 to Grand Duchy of Posen.

Grand Duchy of Poznań → Grand Duchy of Posen — per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English): If you are talking about a country , use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. A quick "Amazon test" (see below in the Discussion) gives 12 and 63 books respectively. - Evv 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Sources

Amazon.com test

  • Searching for Grand Duchy of Posen: 63 books, of which 4 use Grand Duchy of Posen (Poznan) and 3 Grand Duchy of Posen (Poznania) - (The total given is 64, because one uses Grand Duchy of Poznan (Posen).
  • Searching for Grand Duchy of Poznan: 12 books - (The total given is 17, because 4 use Grand Duchy of Posen (Poznan) and another one is in German).

Copied here just to keep all discussion in this section. - Evv 18:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Google Print test

Regards, Evv 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Britannica

It should be noted that Britannica: Duchy of Warsaw uses Grand Duchy of Poznan. - Evv 18:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Articles in tertiary sources:

I haven't found any yet.


Mentions in tertiary sources: (4 Posen, 1 Poznań)

  • Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, Volume 3: N-S, by Edmund Jan Osmanczyk & Anthony Mango, Third Edition, Routledge, New York, 2003, ISBN 0415939232, page 305:
...the uprisings in Silesia and in the former grand duchy of Posen in 1918-1921...
  • Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought, by John Henry Blunt, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, ISBN 0766130053, page 608:
...being shewn in Silesia and in the Grand Duchy of Posen...
  • The Encyclopedia of World History, by Peter N. Stearns (Editor), Sixth Edition, Houghton Mifflin, New York, 2001, ISBN 0-395-65237-5, page 513:
...through the creation of the grand duchy of Posen (Poznan)...
  • Encyclopedia of Eastern Europe: From the Congress of Vienna to the Fall of Communism, by Richard Frucht, First Edition, Garland, New York, 2000, ISBN 0-8153-0092-1 page 607:
In Prussian Poland -named the Grand Duchy of Posen (Polish Poznań)-...
  • Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945, by George J. Lerski, Greenwood Press, Westport, 1996, ISBN 0-313-26007-9, pages 79 & 472:
...after giving Prussia the Grand Duchy of Poznan (Posen)...
...was given to Prussia as the capital of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Poznań.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

  • Comment. Mixed feelings. Britannica would be more important to me (and I would eventually oppose if there were a separate article "Duchy of Poznan"), but the ratios given by the other tests are not negligible and there is no Britannica article I've mentioned. Actually, I would support if there were "Dutchy of Posen" entries/examples in some other encyclopedias or reliable tertiary sources of any kind. --Beaumont (@) 22:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
On those tertiary sources, you're welcomed :-) Evv 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Comments on particular votes:

  • Comment on Lysy's opposing vote. Two points:
1). "Use English" does not mean "Use German", but it doesn't mean "Use Polish" either. In this case, there isn't a "pure English" name for this city/duchy in the lines of Warsaw or Moscow, and so, in different times, contexts and circumstances, and for different reasons, English writers have adopted the German name Posen and/or the Polish name Poznań (including the simplification Poznan and the variation Poznania).
This lack of an "absolute English name" has lead us to the present situation, in which different authors use different versions when referring to the period before 1918-1921. As the tests & sources presented above show, for the particular case of this Duchy, the German name Posen is more commonly used.
Best regards, Evv 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this exactly was my point. Neither Poznań/Poznan nor Posen is English. Therefore it's rather poor argument to support the rename either way, as switching from German to Polish or the other way round does not make it any more English.
2). The WP:UE guideline states as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works, and not "as was mostly used by the local inhabitants".
In other words, in choosing the article's name the idea is to merely reflect the usage of authors from the UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. As the tests & sources presented above show, for the particular case of this Duchy, the German name Posen is more commonly used.
The names by which Poles and Germans refer to this Duchy (both the former inhabitants of the Duchy and the current inhabitants of the corresponding Polish voivodeships) are very important, and should be mentioned, but, according to WP:UE, have no bearing on the naming of this particular article.
Best regards, Evv 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the nationality of local inhabitants was one of the major arguments to use German name in the Gdańsk/Danzig vote, so I think it's reasonable to respect it here as well for consistency. Otherwise it might seem that the "German minded" editors (which are of course always more numerous than "Polish minded" and would be able to impose any result in a simple voting) are very selective in the application of their arguments. I thought this should be mentioned. Yet, I'm changing my mind after a closer look at the sources. Thanks. --Lysy 08:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing new, frankly. Remember the fuss when I applied Talk:Gdansk rules to modern German cities? :D //Halibutt 09:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Happy to see you changing your mind, Lysy, and thank you for bringing this issue to my attention :-) Evv 18:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There is, most definitely, a double standard between German and Polish names. That double standard is rooted in customary English usage, however, and it's not wikipedia's job to "correct" usage. I don't think it's a terribly big deal where this article is one way or another, but "Grand Duchy of Posen" is certainly more commonly used in English. Given that we call Danzig under Polish rule "Danzig," this is unfair, but that's the way things go sometimes. john k 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on Radomil's opposing vote.
I haven't really undestood the reason/s for this vote. Two questions for Radomil:
1). Could you comment on the applicability or not of the WP:UE guideline to this particular article ?
2). How would the move be detrimental to the clear exposition of Poland's history ?
Thanks already. Best regards, Evv 18:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on Logologist's opposing vote.
First, I would refer you to John K's 20:07, 30 Oct comment.
The WP:V & WP:NOR policies imply that instead of actively describing a subject, as an author would do in a good book, we should constrain ourselves to passively reflect how most reliable sources describe it. As John K eloquently said, it's not Misplaced Pages's job to "correct" usage, but merely to reflect it.
And for a good reason :-) To "correct" English usage would present exactly the same problems of describing the truth, plus the added ones of Who do all those foreigners think they are to tell me what words to use in MY language!!??-type of reactions :-)
Of course, by a reductio ad absurdum, we should be doing things like moving pl:Obwód lwowski to something similar to pl:Obwód lvivski, thus avoiding "Polonophone" confusion about the history of that part of Ukraine.
Any anglo, franco- or russophone confusion about the history of this part of Poland, if there's any at all, would be "corrected" in the article's body, not by "correcting" English usage itself.
Best regards, Evv 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved

I have moved the article per the consensus demonstrated above. Alphachimp 03:47, 3 November 2006 (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.