Talk:German exonyms

West Bank vs. Palestine

Using "West Bank" instead of "Palestine" is not biased -- it is more accurate. There may be a Palestinian state named "Palestine" some day, but at the moment the West Bank is a diplomatic no-man's land, not claimed by any sovereign state. "West Bank" is also a politically neutral term, unlike "Palestine" or "Judea."

As for Jerusalem, it is under the full control of Israel, much as that may irk some people. While other countries formally maintain the legal fiction that eastern Jerusalem is not part of Israel, that doesn't mean the eastern part is part of a geographic entity called "Palestine." -- Mwalcoff 23:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is recognized as being part of a Palestinian State by several counries. Most still regard it as being legally part of Jordan. To stay neutral, this fact has be be expressed somehow. I chose "Palestine" as a fairly neutral, as that region existed long before the states of Israel, Jordan or the Palestinian government ever existed.

As for West Bank, that's fine by me, if you prefer that. Travelbird 00:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well West Bank is more neutral -- while "Palestine" is technically correct from a strictly geographic standpoint, the word has become so closely associated with Palestinian Arabs that using it in conjunction with Jerusalem indicates identification with the Palestinian side. Incidentally, I think some countries consider eastern Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory, but I don't think anyone would consider it part of a Palestinian state, since no Palestinian state yet exists. No country considers it part of Jordan, since no country ever recognized Jordan's right to the city (see Rule of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan). To Western diplomats, eastern Jerusalem, like the West Bank (or rest of the West Bank, if you prefer), is terra nulla. But I don't really want to argue about this; this is an article on German exonyms, not Mideast politics. -- Mwalcoff 01:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave West Bank but I'll revert Jerusalem back to Israel/Palestine for neutralities sake (since both parties concerned regard all of Jersulaem being part of their territory. Travelbird 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well now there are two issues here. There is the issue that the international community for political reasons does not recognize the annexation of eastern Jerusalem and considers it to be part of the West Bank. For that reason, you can say "Israel/West Bank." What you're saying is that because the Palestinians claim Jerusalem for themselves, we should say "Israel/Palestine." I think there are a few problems with this reasoning. For one, few Palestinians who recognize Israel are pushing a claim for West Jerusalem. The only real area of dispute is East Jerusalem and the Old City. The Palestinians who would claim West Jerusalem would also claim all of Israel. Using that logic, we should list Bratislava as "Slovakia/Hungary" since some Hungarians want to reverse the Treaty of Trianon. So I think "Israel/West Bank" is preferable to "Israel/Palestine." -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the "claim" does have a fair degree of validity, since it is recognized by several UN member states. That is what differenciate it from right wing Hungarian claims to Slovak territory, which is not recognized by anyone (including the Hungarian government). Travelbird 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any UN member state except perhaps Iran sees West Jerusalem as part of a Palestinian state. Anyway, as mentioned above, there is no Palestinian state yet, so referring to anything as "Palestine" is somewhat misleading. -- Mwalcoff 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A large number of countries, especially from Africa and Asia recognize the existance of the State of Palestine with the borders of 1967. The problem at hand here is similar to that of Western Sahara, which is also a recognized country but almost completely occupied by Morroco. And in the same way, a statement such as "El Aaiún is a city in Morocco" would also be POV since it only provides for the (in this case) Moroccan side of the arguement. Travelbird 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, the best way to resolve the Israel/Palestine issue when referring to the disputed territories is to use the neutral term "West Bank." -- Mwalcoff 03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian places with German names

I removed Yekaterinoslav since it soesn't have any German components. Yekaterina is Russian for Catherine, and the ending -slav is also Russian. So no German there. The fact that Catherine the Great was German doesn't make the town name German. There are however quite a few exonyms still missing, so feel free to add those if you have time. Travelbird 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Competing theories

I think that if competing theories to the origin of the name are known to exist it should be either mentioned or the claim removed. What do you think ? --Molobo 13:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, and provide refs?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Toruń article provides three theories regarding the origin of the name. In this article we have only one theory presented in a way that suggests it is the only one and the only right one. --Molobo 14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Any referenced theory should be noted. Depending on a format of the article, footnotes may be preferable. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Translations

Some of the translations seem to be original research ("low castle" for Neidenburg?), while the etymology of Thorn is much too long. Olessi 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my previous statement of the translations seeming to be original research (Kolberg, Neidenburg, Lahna). Additionally, I find the inclusion of Kolberg in the "Polish cities with German names" section questionable, as it was derived from the originally Slavic name (to the best of my knowledge). The proper place to discuss the etymology of each name is within the individual articles, not here and not in a haphazard way. Olessi 17:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I again reiterate that literal translations are inappropriate unless sources can be provided. "Turning mountain" for Heilsberg? "Low burrow" for Neidenburg? "Ship's axe" for Schippenbeil? "Schippen" refers to Ludwig von Schippen, while "beil" is a Germanization of a Prussian word. To me, these translations seem to be the equivalent of describing Meadville, Pennsylvania, as "city of wine made of fermented honey and water, when in fact it was simply named after someone with the surname "Mead". Olessi 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

... which surname, in turn, is more likely to mean ‘meadow’. —Tamfang (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Czechia vs. Czech cities

I came to add Pribram = Pibrans, but don't understand the heading Czechia and subheading Czech cities with italicized note about "Cities in the Czech republic ..." Kindly explain. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Africa and the South Pacific?

What about former possessions like Namibia or Samoa?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why do such lists exist? Who uses them, for what? Do we really need endless examples of the trivial fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology? —Tamfang (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep spamming this message on every single discussion on all lists of exonym? The answer to your questions should not be hard to figure out. A lot of people who have interests in linguistics and history find these pages useful since not everyone of us want to go to the article pages of every city we want to learn more about just to hover on the link to other languages' wikipedias. Also, how is Agram even remotely phonologically similar to Zagreb? Or Atrecht to Arras? Seriously, a lot of exonyms are historic and no longer used today especially the German ones. These pages, even if they are certainly far from complete, have more nuances and uses than you ever gave them credit for. Why don't you open another mass deletion discussion for these pages if you hate them so much? It's been more than ten years since the last one after all. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is obvious: because the same question applies to all of them, and nobody had answered.

I'm still not grasping why you find such lists useful. If you "want to learn more about" a city, wouldn't you look at its article anyway? And okay, if you're making a list of German names for places in Denmark, it would be a chore to look up all the places in Denmark – but why are you making such a list?

I did not mean to imply that all exonyms are transparent, or without historic interest. If the exonym lists were limited to the nontrivial, I'd have no objection! I am all in favor of keeping the lists of German names formerly used in places like Czechoslovakia — but not for preserving entries like "Chicago Chikago", which are the bulk of most such articles. —Tamfang (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Fan-made names

Edits by 79.178.130.57, 46.116.148.93 and 217.132.50.24 should be cancelled. These anonymous editors added German exonyms taken from a fan-made map showing a Nazi victory scenario. They are absolutely not real and are an embarassement to this page. --188.218.94.33 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)