Talk:Świętopełk II, Duke of Pomerania

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:

For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

Name?

I doubt that Świętopełk is used in English with these three diacritics. Why not the alternative, Swantopolk? No sources given, too. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 23:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to original title, and added refs. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 02:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting indeed what is the English name of this person. Swantopolk seems to be used primarily by German sources ([1]); Świętopełk by Polish ([2]), both have been used in English but only by a few publications (...Świętopełk, the duke of Eastern (Gdańsk) Pomerania...The local duke, Swantopolk (1222-1266), for example, defended his rule victoriously...). None of them seem to have any significant advantage over the other in terms of which one is used more. Perhaps there is a variant we are missing; if not, whether to use German or Polish variant is not an easy question. Which language was primarily used by the subject, and did he use a Slavic or a Germanized version of his name himself?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My glance through GB gave only Polish books for the current title, Świętopełk. Swantopolk, Swantepolk, Swatopluk have a few English books, though most are German. I found more English examples for Swietopelk. The latter would at least be a more fitting article title, since the diacritics are not used in English for this medieval individual. Olessi (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Swietopelk II, Duke of Pomerania accordingly. -- Matthead Discuß 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Swietopelk" is much more common in English publications than "Swantopolk" [3] (400) vs. [4] (155) (most of which actually turn out to be in German) this article should be at Swietopelk II, Duke of Pomerania. I see that it was but Skapperod moved it to its present name "for consistency". But the above is clearly a reason to move Swantopolk I, Duke of Pomerania to Swietopelk I, Duke of Pomerania rather than vice versa (particularly as all the other guy's got is a stub). Consistency is a good thing, but only if in the right direction.radek (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The booksearch results for Swietopelk include other Swietopelks as well. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, those Google searches ... if English use is enforced by requiring eg. "+Swietopelk +duke", the numbers drop to 57 vs. 45. The first page for Swietopelk shows mainly Polish author names, a children's book, and the annoying "Mentioning By Icon Group International, Inc.", which also includes Wikipedia (Rumia). First page for Swantopolk shows international authors, and many works from the interwar period in which the early history of Danzig and the Polish Corridor areas are examined. It's safe to say that German POV was not popular outside Germany then (nor during WW2 or the Cold War). BTW, in 1244 [5] the Duke lost a naval battle on the Nogat to the Order. -- Matthead Discuß 11:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 1) it still happens that 57>45 (although I actually get 62>45), 2) I don't see any Polish language sources in the 57, although there are some authors with possibly Polish names. On the other hand the Swantopolk 45 includes things like various fictional novels by Gunter Grass, 3) the vast majority of the Swantopolk sources are pre 1950's. While there are some such for Swietopelk, most of them are recent and 4) the proposal for Swietopelk was your idea and I'm only supporting it here.radek (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double naming rules

Are clear that the name Gdańsk is to be used till 1308.--Molobo (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and further reads "...should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig)", which you removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no reference. Also this section is clear in regards to Biographical persons and would seem to contradict point one.Thus you are incorrect--Molobo (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reference that Gdansk is also known as Danzig? What do you think the vote was about? Please be reasonable. Also, Gdansk (Danzig) perfectly fits the rules you mentioned, I'd really like to know which part of the rule makes you think it was ok to remove Danzig? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that Germanic writers Germanised the Polish name Gdańsk into Danzig but you have to provide reference for this Germanised form in use for that particular event/person. You are incorrect as to your interpretation, as solely Gdańsk is used prior 1308 and Danzig afterwards, are you claiming we should use form Danzig(Gdańsk) past 1308 ?--Molobo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City of Danzig

The arbitrary 1308 date is incorrect,but was pushed on Wikipedia by a group of Molobos. The German Law city of Danzig existed before 1308 see:

coin of Zwantepolc de Danceke, Duke of Pomerania,(part of Holy Roman Empire). (71.137.197.160 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Fiction

Much if not most of this article is invented Polish nationalist history and appears in no other European history books. Danzig and Pomerelia were never part of ethnic Poland and there is no evidence that during their various conquests of neighbours' territories that when they did march in it was a short time before they were thrown out. These pages on Wikipedia are a total discredit to history. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:CD0A:3F55:1684:7998 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]