Jump to content

Talk:Kraków uprising

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Kraków Uprising)
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 22, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that one of the leaders of the Kraków Uprising in 1846 was killed while leading a religious procession?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 20, 2014, February 20, 2017, February 20, 2018, and February 20, 2021.

Requested move

[edit]

Related to Talk:Free City of Kraków#Requested move, please discuss there, no separate RM. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cracow

[edit]

This article is about a HISTORICAL EVENT in a HISTORICAL CITY, not the current city of Cracow! Historic naming applies. The content of the EB has been twisted as "evidence" for Krakow and even an administrator is saying to move Krakow first! Ridiculous! The proper name of this article is either Republic of Cracow or Free City of Cracow... NOT the name that Piotrus has locked it into! Charles 06:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss it at Talk:Free City of Kraków, since you double posted at both pages.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is anyone watching this page and not that one (and what are the odds?), there is a move discussion at Talk:Free City of Kraków#Requested move; it should probably just be applied here, however it comes out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle?

[edit]

Why should this article have two battle stubs? Battle of Cracow, Battle of Kraków, Battle of Krakau? -- Matthead discuß!     O       20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

[edit]

Confirmed for WPPOLAND following a MILHIST review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Galician slaughter

[edit]

It should be obvious, but I wanted to note that this article should not discuss the Galician slaughter too much; that's what the dedicated article is for. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 May 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The !votes are pretty much split evenly between support and oppose, and both sides make valid arguments. The main argument for "support" is that historically most sources used the C form, and it's consistent with "Free state of Cracow". The main argument for "oppose" is that it's consistent with the modern name of the city, and that more recent sources use predominantly the K form. I don't see a consensus either way.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kraków uprising → Cracow Uprising – Free City of Cracow is the preferred title of the city-state that was involved in this uprising, as determined by consensus through WP:RM, so this article should probably be at Cracow Uprising instead of Kraków uprising (notice the capitalization of Uprising, since it is part of a proper noun) Genealogizer (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia prides itself upon its capability to reflect changing historiography on a daily basis, it is not bound to slavishly follow outdated historical references and continue to use outdated names. On the basis that the city's name was, indeed, rendered as the Free City of Cracow in the English-speaking world of the time, strong arguments were made in favor of returning Free City of Kraków → Free City of Cracow at the recently-concluded Talk:Free City of Cracow#Requested move 30 April 2017. The move proposal proved to be ultimately successful and all the points in favor and against the use of "Kraków" are there, with one of the participants, Necrothesp, seeing "the arguments for keeping the old-fashioned name for an historical entity", but also indicating opposition to "moving Kraków uprising, since this is the common name in modern British sources." —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cracow is neither archaic nor outdated, and Tiflis/Tbilisi is a bad comparison. As I said in the Free City of Cracow RM discussion, "Even for the modern city, it is still used by several universities located in Cracow, several dictionaries, Bing Maps, and a lot of books and scholarly works from this century. As of 2008, (the most recent year that data is available for) Cracow and Krakow are virtually tied in n-grams, with Kraków a distant third." Now let's compare that to Tiflis. No modern Tbilisi-based institutions claim to be in Tiflis in English, no dictionaries or modern maps prefer Tiflis (although most maps of the Russian Empire prefer it for the same reason maps of the Soviet Union call Volgograd Stalingrad), and Tbilisi overtook Tiflis in 1979. Genealogizer (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice were you to favour us with an example of this current historical usage, which you assert has superseded the usage that is to be found in (for example) the 1996 Historical Dictionary of Poland – hardly an archaic publication. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Various discussions on this subject, starting with Wikipedia's earliest years, may be found in the archives of Talk:Kraków, particularly in Talk:Kraków/Archive 4, starting with section headers "Names, lead" and "Cracow vs Kraków", with further exchanges continuing to the end of the archive. All the arguments and examples are there and the city article has remained under the main title header "Kraków" for most of its existence with, obviously, sufficient support as an aspect of the community consensus for keeping that form. We'll have to see if the same arguments that prevailed at Free City of Cracow with also prevail at Kraków uprising. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a requested move to Krakow (without the diacritic) failed, but I couldn't find a failed RM to Cracow. And all of that was 8 years ago, and consensus can change over time. Genealogizer (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been discussions going back to 2004, but no !vote. The discussion at Talk:Kraków/Archive 1#English name(s) is from 2007. Various examples are given — the European Union's English-language texts use Kraków, but then the EU also uses, in its English texts, such forms as Firenze and München. Same for the United Nations' English website where one form or the other is used, seemingly dependent on the context — historical or otherwise. Then of course there are guidebooks, most of which use "Kraków", but a few use "Cracow" — old forms die hard. In the instance under discussion, we should also try to correlate uppercase/lowercase "U/u" and use of parenthetical qualifiers, if any, in "Kraków uprising" as compared to "Kraków Uprising (1944)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that EU texts are a bad measure of English usage - they intentionally use native names for almost everything (countries being the major exception to this), even when the English name is much more common. As for the UN, it is actively trying to reduce exonym use, so the fact that it still uses Cracow fairly regularly shows that it is still a current and widely accepted exonym, unlike Tiflis. The point is, Cracow is still a current and common name, and good arguments could even be made for moving the article on the city to Cracow. Therefore, it is especially appropriate to use it in this historic context. Genealogizer (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the English-speaking world of 2017, however, only Warsaw continues to be entirely referenced by its English exonym. The modern-day era finds Kraków mostly referred to by its Polish name. Thus, unlike such official name changes as Constantinople, Leningrad or Stalingrad which must be kept in relation to their historical context, Kraków's name has always remained the same and the change in the English-spaking world has been the gradual move away from the use of the English exonym in favor of the local form which is now predominant in guidebooks, travel itineraries and media references.
As for historical events, since the city's name has remained unchanged, there is no need to reach for a gradually-dscontinued exonym to describe a past uprising (both 1846 and 1944) while also keeping in mind that if this header is moved from Kraków uprising to Cracow Uprising, it would additionally represent a glaring inconsistency from the header for the World War II event — Kraków Uprising (1944). I would, however, support an uppercase "U" for the 1846 event, per its use in naming the 1944 event. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Krakow (without the diacritic) has been gaining ground in English, but Cracow is still in current use, and slightly more common than Krakow. (Kraków, the proper Polish spelling, is a very distant third) A lot of academic works still prefer Cracow, and those are generally better researched than media or travel sources. Also keep in mind that travel sources tend to prefer native forms because those are the spellings that appear on the signs in the country, and some travel guides from the last 5 years still prefer Cracow. In addition, I've never heard an English-speaker pronounce it Kraków (CROCK-oof), i've only ever heard it pronounced Cracow. In other words, Cracow is a lot more like Turin or Kiev than it is like Tiflis or Peking. Genealogizer (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not based on personal views.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the Georgian capital Tiflis/Tbilisi which, being on the relatively remote cusp of Europe and Asia, rarely if ever appears on lists of major European cities, Kraków appears to be the only major European city whose name has transformed to a predominant degree in the English-speaking world from an exonym to an endonym. A number of European capitals, such as Sarajevo, Ljubljana, Skopje or Reykjavik, may be difficult for English speakers to pronounce and one (Chișinău) has two diacritics, but none has an English exonym, although Chisinau is very likely to be generally rendered without the diacritics.
As for travel sources preferring native forms, Kraków again seems to be an exception, since there is little or rather no possibility of seeing English-language guidebooks titled Warszawa, Roma, Bruxelles, București or Lisboa. Transliterations from non-Latin alphabets present varying forms of reasoning in that some (such as Kiev) exactly recreate the Russian (not Ukrainian) pronunciation of the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, while others (such as Tiflis) create an English exonym for Tbilisi. Still others (Peking and Beijing) represent an exonym and a labored attempt to recreate the native sound of the Chinese capital's name.
Those knowledgeable in this area of discussion can point to argumentation, on the talk pages of numerous localities and geographic features, parsing the historical spelling and use of diacritics in rendering such names in English. One such discussion, at Talk:İzmir#Names, followed by "Why Turkish name?", gives examples of various accented headers for cities (São Paulo, León, Cádiz, Córdoba, Málaga) which are referenced in English without diacritics, but are still spelled the same, unlike Cracow/Kraków whose exonym/endonym spelling forms differ from each other, thus offering a presently unique case of a Latin-alphabet endonym which has gained such widespread use in the English-speaking world that a very strong argument can be made for its widespread use without creating a precedent. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're acting as though Cracow is archaic and obsolete. It is neither of those things. And a lot of European cities used to be referred to by an English exonym, but no longer are, such as Mechlin for Mechelen, Pampeluna for Pamplona, and Doway for Douai. Those are virtually nonexistent in modern English, whereas Cracow is still used relatively frequently. Genealogizer (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - most modern sources have switched to "Krakow" (with or without diacritic) so I see no reason why Wikipedia should strive to preserve archaic forms.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cracow isn't archaic. See my response to User:MyMoloboaccount's comment below. Genealogizer (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT - I would like to remind everyone reading this that Volunteer Marek once said "I can never understand why some people think that archaic and frankly silly 17th - 19th century inventions like "Ladislaus" or "Stanislaus" and yes, "Cracow" (though that goes back a bit earlier) constitute "English usage". These are neither real Latin, nor real English nor actual Polish, just some weird-ass mix of all three that sounds horrible to anyone with an aesthetic ear. It's like a drunk two year old baby with a major speech impediment trying to speak... Latin, or English or Polish and slurring so badly that it speaks neither." Cracow is still used about half of the time in English, and therefore is not archaic, no matter how aesthetically displeasing he may find it. Unfortunately for him, "aesthetics" are not a consideration on Wikipedia. Genealogizer (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the English accepted name is Krakow. In addition we should review if some other articles use the outdated and archaic "Cracow" and rename them properly.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cracow is neither outdated nor archaic, as it is still used by several universities located in Cracow, several dictionaries, Bing Maps, and a lot of books and scholarly works from this century. As of 2008, (the most recent year that data is available for) Cracow and Krakow are virtually tied in n-grams, with Kraków a distant third. Genealogizer (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I make my living by ensuring the correct use of the English language in a variety of publishing and commercial contexts, and it is news to me that "the English accepted name" (sc. "the accepted English name") is "Krakow". In fact, the usual English name is "Cracow", but out of deference to Polish sensibilities English speakers frequently use "Krakow" as an approximation of the Polish name instead, and occasionally actually use the Polish name itself, "Kraków". None of these are either correct or incorrect in themselves, but context-dependent. Wikipedia's guidelines include WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH, so that is what we should do here – ruling out the use of "Kraków" entirely. Cracow is a city with the same sort of historic significance as Warsaw, Prague, Moscow, Vienna, Venice, Florence or Antwerp, and should linguistically be treated as such, certainly in historical contexts, rather than like a postcolonial Mumbai or Beijing. You can insist on Poland getting the same linguistic treatment as third-world countries, but I doubt you'll ever find unanimity for that position. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've already said, depends which country you come from. American sources do usually still use Cracow. However, British sources now usually use Kraków with the diacritic. And this is not American Wikipedia; it's English Wikipedia. So there's no special reason for assuming USEENGLISH only applies to American English. Given this article already uses Kraków, given the article on the city itself calls it Kraków, and given many English sources do use Kraków there is no reason to change the title. Doing so would be pushing us towards Americanising Wikipedia, which is not on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the first page of the Cracow uses alone, eight out of ten works are by Polish, not British, authors. So I fail to see why you're placing any store on that ngram. Foreign authors often wrongly assume that native English-speakers prefer old-fashioned Anglicised versions of names. It's very common. And Americans probably do. But they're not representative of all native English-speakers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One again, Cracow isn't old-fashioned. And just because someone isn't a native speaker of English doesn't mean that they know nothing about the language. Keep in mind, those books had to be reviewed and edited to be published. If Cracow was truly archaic, it would have been eliminated in the editing process. I haven't seen any modern books about Peking.Genealogizer (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although this discussion about the city's name more properly belongs at Talk:Kraków, some aspects of this matter may also be discussed here. As has already been mentioned, this is a unique case which does not set a precedent — no other proposals for renaming comparably relevant English exonyms to the native form have found any substantial support. In this instance, however, the references to "Kraków" instead of "Cracow" gradually underwent a natural transformation and are now predominant in the English-speaking world — as pointed out by Necrothesp, "[M]ost British sources, at least, now seem to call it the Kraków uprising".
It may also be noted that unlike such English exonyms as The Hague or the Anglo-French Cologne, which radically diverge from native forms Den Haag and Köln, the problems with the name "Kraków" are only associated with the ignored (or omitted) diacritic and the pronunciation of the city's native name as "KRAH-koof" (native pronunciation is a common impasse in language study for some English speakers, starting with the most obvious example of remembering to pronounce "Paris" as "Pah-REE"). The written form, however, varies only minimally (since the "C/c", as used in "Cracow", is pronounced in English as "K/k"), thus making no perceptive difference to English speakers (in Polish, it does make a difference, since the letter "C" is pronounced as "tzeh").
As a final point, it must be conceded, of course, that in comparison with the exonym Tiflis, now considered outdated, for the relatively remote capital, Tbilisi, the form "Cracow" continues to be used, including by various Polish institutions. The reason may rest in the feeling of national pride that, representing Poland as "Cracow" in the English-speaking world, Kraków is (or has been) one of only two Polish cities which was considered sufficiently important internationally to rate its own English exonym. Thus, an impression may persist in certain Polish circles (academic or otherwise) that the conversion of a rare and valued English exonym to native form may represent the city's downgrading or the loss of what may be perceived as a status symbol. Such views, however, even if still in existence, are obviously in the minority. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PAIR-iss instead of pah-REE isn't a mispronunciation or a mistake, anymore than Cracow is. Significant foreign cities usually get English name. Once again, Cracow and Krakow are approximately tied in English, and Kraków is a very distant third.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Genealogizer (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who on earth pronounces it PAIR-iss?! That really would be a mispronunciation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those of us whose regional variants of English have undergone the Mary-marry-merry merger. I, and everyone else around me, pronounce "Pair", "Pare", and "Pear" identically. "War" and "Poor" rhyme for me, as well. Genealogizer (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All, however, should at least agree that either as an addenda to this discussion or as a separate follow-up, the "u" in this "uprising" and the "U" in the article titled Kraków Uprising (1944) should be made analogous, alongside hatnotes for both articles and/or parenthetical qualifier "(1846)" added to the main header of this article. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Polish name has changed is irrelevant. The issue is the English name. I don't remember ever coming across WP:USEPOLISH. Stating (without evidence) that "Cracow" is obsolete, but then arguing that it shouldn't be used for the past, also strikes me as special pleading. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of why we should not simply follow the usage of such sources as the Historical Dictionary of Poland, or indeed the books of Norman Davies, the foremost English-speaking historian of Poland. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes that until the later decades of the 20th century, the city of Kraków was primarily referenced in the English-speaking world as "Cracow" and much/most English-language historical writing is heavily influenced by that fact. Other examples such as Peking, Bombay or Calcutta are not particularly applicable because of cultural and linguistic particularities of transliteration. Polish city names, however, are in no need of transliteration and the names of Polish historical events are not ingrained in the culture of the English-speaking world to such a degree as, for instance, the Black Hole of Calcutta, that they must be kept in their historical perspective. Bombay and Calcutta as well as other Indian cities continue to be referenced by those so-called "outdated" forms in many parts of India's English-speaking media and culture, while the name Kraków has always been part of Polish culture in that form.
There is no need of special pleading for the name Kraków — it has naturally evolved to its native form in the English-speaking world and is now completely predominant as Kraków in English-language travel itineraries and mostly predominant in English-language guidebook titles and media references. In such a context, as of 2017, it would be counterintuitive to refer to the modern-day city as Kraków, but to events in its past as having taken place in "Cracow". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Cracow and Krakow are about equally common. Kraków is by far the least common of the three. Some newspapers, notably The Economist, still prefer Cracow, and Cracow is still slightly more common in academia. Who cares about travel itineraries? They are probably the least relevant and scholarly source there is. Travel-related sources tend to prefer native forms much more than other usages, in part because the native name is what a traveller will actually see on signs in that country. Rick Steves calls Nuremberg Nürnberg, despite the fact that it is incredibly uncommon in English. Genealogizer (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least agree that Norman Davies and the Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania (Oxford University Press, 2015) are better sources for English usage in the writing of Polish history than are " travel itineraries and guidebook titles"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although Rick Steves chose to use "Nürnberg" as one of the entries in his "Germany" guidebook, a glance at the display of his book titles confirms all the familiar English exonyms — Prague, Copenhagen, Athens, Munich, Milan, etc. I am frequently at New York's JFK Airport and the city names I see on the departure boards are those exonyms, not Praha, Kobenhavn, Athina, etc. The one exception for a city name that was once referenced via an exonym is Krakow (indicated without the diacritic). I don't know in what year or under what circumstances the departure boards switched from displaying "Cracow" to displaying "Krakow" but I have not seen "Cracow" displayed on a departure board since the 1980s.
When writing, in 2017, about the 19th century, it would be normal to describe events as occurring in Constantinople or Tsaritsyn, but not normal to describe them as occurring in Peking or Tiflis unless one takes care to explain that these specific references (in such cases as Peking or Tiflis) are being done for deliberate effect.
Norman Davies and the 2015 Oxford History are indeed excellent sources for the study of past events, but in the very selective instance of this particular city name and the use of that city's gradually discontinued exonym, even in reference to that city's past, those sources have unfortunately fallen out of step with the flow of continuous change. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that Cracow is less universally used than Prague, Copenhagen, etc..., but it's still in current use by a lot of sources, and therefore is not archaic. Airport departure boards are not a good source to use for an encyclopedia. This is a collection of academic knowledge, not a travel itinerary. And you're wrong about Peking and Tiflis being used in a historical context today. And once again, Cracow isn't anywhere close to "discontinued". Discontinued is something like Plescow or Eyraca Arabic. Your argument is to a large degree built upon your belief that Cracow is "obsolete", "archaic", and "discontinued". Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. You seem to be obsessed with eradicating the word Cracow because it is "out of step with the flow of continuous change," despite the fact that it's an English word with centuries of history that is offensive/politically insensitive to no one and still used by a lot of modern works. Why? Genealogizer (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: if two names are roughly as popular, or let's say 60/40 for K/C, we should try to avoid confusing readers through semi-random use of them. We chose K for the main article, and we should stick with it for all others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was determined by consensus that the articles on the Free City and Grand Duchy belonged at Cracow. There's never been an official vote on the city (There was one on Krakow vs Kraków, but never one involving Cracow), but that will change in a few days. Also, you seem to be on a quest to purge Wikipedia of mentions to Cracow, an English word with centuries of history.Genealogizer (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There was some selective invitation for this RM In ictu oculi (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

There seems to be a problem with some of the dates given in this article. According to the article he uprising began on the 20th of February, and is apparently over by the time of the battle of Glodice on the 26th of February. Yet the article also says "On 27 September a struggle for power developed, and Wiszniewski, after a failed attempt to take power, was exiled by Tyssowski and Dembowski within a matter of hours." sounds like the uprising was still going as late as late September. Yet Wandycz 1975, in the work cited in this article, places the end of the uprising as 4 March 1846 when Dembrowski was killed. TwelveGreat (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cracow vs. Kraków

[edit]

Strange, in view of the debate above, that ngram viewer has roughly equal hits for Cracow uprising, Cracow Uprising and Krakow uprising, but the title of this article doesn't register at all. Just saying. Bermicourt (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kraków_uprising&oldid=1208036756"