Wikipedia

Talk:Sobibór (village)

(Redirected from Talk:Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Buidhe in topic Requested move 30 September 2021
Learn more about this page

Information is lacking

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article has only one source, a government directory. What is the population? What is the area? What is there that is of encyclopedic interest besides its historical connection to a Nazi concentration camp? Edison (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Etymology

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this -bór ending the same as -burg(h) as in Maribor? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 18:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 9 April 2019

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship → Sobibór – Following the concluded nominations at Talk:Sobibor extermination camp#Requested move 14 March 2019 and at Talk:Sobibor trial#Requested move 21 March 2019, there is no reason to retain the identifying suffix ", Lublin Voivodeship". As can be seen in the main headers of entries under Category:Villages in Włodawa County, suffixes of this nature should be appended only when there are two or more places bearing the same name, while uniquely-named places need no identifying suffixes. Sobibór [with the diacritic] is such a unique name, although it should have a hatnote pointing to the World War II German death camp which has the name without the diacritic. The standalone name Sobibor [without the diacritic] redirects to Sobibor extermination camp where a hatnote indicates: "Sobibor redirects here. For other uses, see Sobibor (disambiguation)." — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

As has been already established by the concluded nominations, Sobibór [with the diacritic] does not refer to the German death camp, but only to the Polish village, while Sobibor [without the diacritic] refers only to the German death camp and not to the Polish village.
Since most English keyboards do not contain diacritics, the primary method of accessing the stub for the village is to type Sobibor, which redirects to the death camp and then click the hatnote for the Sobibor (disambiguation) page where the village is listed, among other links related to the death camp.
The redirect Sobibor, Lublin Voivodeship [without the diacritic] would, of course, still exist as a direct link to the village, as it currently does. Users with a diacritics-equipped keyboard will naturally be able to type the current title, Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship [with the diacritic], which would become another redirect to the village.
The proposed streamlined title, Sobibór, will be still directly accessible through a diacritics-equipped keyboard or via the above-mentioned redirects. There would be no confusion since, for almost all users, the name with the diacritic can only be accessed through redirects and/or hatnotes and there is nothing to be gained from keeping the suffix ", Lublin Voivodeship" since, as pointed out in the nomination, such suffixes are only used for multiple-named Polish localities, not for those with a unique name, such as Sobibór. Moreover, all uses for the name are sorted and explained at the Sobibor (disambiguation) page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 April 2019 (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.

Requested move 6 September 2021

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Valid arguments made by both sides here, but there clearly isn't a consensus either way. Number 57 21:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sobibór (village) → Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship – Nearly two-and-a-half years ago, at Talk:Sobibór (village)#Requested move 9 April 2019, above, there was no consensus to move from Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship → Sobibór and yet, less than four weeks later, on May 4, the main title header was unilaterally moved from Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship → Sobibór (village). However, as confirmed by a glance at Category:Villages in Włodawa County, there is not a single other village that is disambiguated in this form. The standard disambiguation is, in fact, Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship or, alternatively, Sobibór, Włodawa County. I am posting a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland to determine if there is indeed a preference for the form Sobibór, Włodawa County, otherwise the main header needs to be returned to the form that it had from June 2011 until the move. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Although Sobibór does indeed redirect to this article, there was no consensus at Talk:Sobibór (village)#Requested move 9 April 2019, above, to move the header to the plain name. There was, however, consensus at Talk:Sobibor extermination camp/Archive 1#Requested move 14 March 2019 to separate the name [with the diacritic] of the Polish village from the name [without the diacritic] of the World War II German death camp. Both are listed on the Sobibor (disambiguation) page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Also, according to this posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland, the disambiguation should indeed be at the voivodeship level (Sobibór (village) → Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship) and should only disambiguate at the county level (Sobibór (village) → Sobibór, Włodawa County) if there is more than one same-named village at the voivodeship level. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Although at first glance, "Place Name, Country Name" might seem to be a logical form for Poland as well as for every other country in the world, such a form only seems to be used if there is the same place name in another country, i.e. Lincoln, England / Lincoln, New Zealand and only if that is the sole such place name in each respective country.
Otherwise, there is further subdivision — Preston, Dorset, Preston, Hertfordshire / Preston, Victoria, Preston, Queensland. Such place disambiguation gradations seem to be applicable to Poland and to every other country in the world. The disambiguation form for Sobibór is exemplified by entries under Category:Villages in Włodawa County.
Of course, places with names that are unique in the entire world use the plain name, except in countries such as the U.S. where [other than exception for 30 best-known cities] additional disambiguation is the norm even for unique names. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Places in Australia and England are disambiguated by sub national units even if there is only 1 in the country, see Dolton, Devon or Heybridge, Tasmania. WP:PLACEDAB "Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient." and Australia and UK countries are among the exceptions, for the section for Poland it links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Poland-related articles and it says to use Poland and the voivodeship if ambiguous in Poland and also gives the Wolin (town) example. So if it was ambiguous with something else in the world it would be Sobibór, Poland but as noted the camp is also there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the provided example — Wolin (town) — there is literally a tiny handful of such parenthetical qualifiers used for Polish places and only when standard disambiguation "Xxxx, Xxxx Voivodship" or "Xxxx, Xxxx County" is insufficient for disambiguation. Also, the village is not ambiguous with the death camp since the village's name is Sobibór, the sole place with such a name, and the death camp's name is Sobibor extermination camp or simply Sobibor — again the sole place with such a name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Since only two Wikipedians participated two-and-a-half years ago in Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship → Sobibór at Talk:Sobibór (village)#Requested move 9 April 2019, above, perhaps a resubmission of that RM would indeed achieve a better result in the event this nomination does not succeed. It should still be noted that the May 2019 move of Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship → Sobibór (village) was a unilateral one and in violation of "No consensus to move", above. Furthermore, not a single other entry under Category:Villages in Włodawa County uses "(village)" or any other parenthetical qualifier. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
It should be emphasized that Sobibor extermination camp was outside the village of Sobibór and the camp itself was not a city or a town or a village. Thus, the camp would not be accessed using the form Sobibor, Lublin Voivodeship, which is a redirect [without the diacritic, as is standard for all headers with diacritics] to the Polish village per Talk:Sobibor extermination camp/Archive 1#Requested move 14 March 2019 that achieved consensus for separating the Polish name [with the diacritic] of the Polish village from the German name [without the diacritic] of the German death camp.
The standard disambiguation in other such instances is:
It needs to be noted that the same user who unilaterally moved Sobibór, Lublin Voivodeship to Sobibór (village) also unilaterally moved at the same time Bełżec, Lublin Voivodeship to Bełżec (village), although the form "Placename (village)" is not used for Polish localities. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
That's really irrelevant. The site is still in Lublin Voivodeship, leading to incomplete disambiguation of the village (and the others) per our usual naming conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The fact that the death camp's site is in Lublin Voivodeship is likewise irrelevant. The camp was not a Polish entity, but a German entity located upon Polish occupied territory and therefore would never have been identified via Polish Voivodeship/County naming forms, especially in view of the fact that it was not a city, a town or a village. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ah, but you're forgetting that the camp still exists as an historical monument! It is therefore still in Lublin Voivodeship! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per opposers. The opposers at the previous RM made the point (correctly IMO) that this article needs to be disambiguated from Sobibor extermination camp. The move made by K.e.coffman was consistent with that position. Other villages in Poland are being disambiguated from villages of the same name in different places, so "(village)" would not work, but equally giving the voivodeship in this case would fail to distinguish this village from an extermination camp which is also in the same voivodeship. Havelock Jones (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Exactly, if there is a consensus that it needs disambiguating then it should be done correctly which indeed was likely the consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The argument that the village needs to be disambiguated from the extermination camp ignores the fact that in English Wikipedia, no one searching for the extermination camp Sobibor would type "Sobibór" in the same manner that no one searching in English Wikipedia for Socrates would type Sócrates therefore, WP:ASTONISH notwithstanding, there was no consensus for Sócrates → Sócrates (footballer) at Talk:Sócrates#Requested move 28 August 2021
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 30 September 2021

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago29 comments15 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a lack of evidence that the primary topic of "Sobibór" is the village. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

– The points raised in the recently concluded Talk:Sócrates#Requested move 28 August 2021 may well be applicable to this RM. A key argument posited that it would be counterintuitive to move Sócrates to Sócrates (footballer) if in the aftermath of such a move, the plain name Sócrates were to continue as a redirect to Sócrates (footballer). To quote two of the arguments there, "The philosopher is never spelt with a diacritic in English, so it can only really refer to the footballer as a primary topic" and "this leads to a completely nonsensical conclusion: either Sócrates redirects to Sócrates (footballer), which is absolutely absurd (see WP:R, among other policies); or Sócrates redirects to a dab page or to the philosopher, which is ridiculous because pretty much anyone who bothers to put the accent is looking for the soccer player." The same applies in these two cases — Sobibór redirects to Sobibór (village) and Bełżec redirects to Bełżec (village). Likewise, pretty much anyone who bothers to put the diacritics is looking for the Polish villages, not the World War II German death camps. Of course, as in the articles for the philosopher and the footballer, there are hatnotes atop the entries for the villages and the death camps for the 1% who may be confused. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thus, the standalone link Sobibór [with the Polish diacritic and without the need for the parenthetical qualifier ("village")] links directly to the Polish village bearing that name, while the redirect Sobibor [without the Polish diacritic] flows to the full name Sobibor extermination camp.
Likewise, the standalone link Bełżec [with the Polish diacritics and without the need for the parenthetical qualifier ("village")] links directly to the Polish village bearing that name, while the redirect Belzec [without the Polish diacritics] flows to the full name Belzec extermination camp. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@King of Hearts: In 2020, the redirect target was changed from the extermination camp to the village: diff. "Sobibor", with or without the diacritic, is still the primary topic for the extermination camp. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't really care what the primary topic of Sobibor is. I just care that that the village can't simultaneously be the primary topic of Sobibór and not be the primary topic of Sobibór. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose; there is some use of Sobibór and Bełżec in reference to the death camps([1],[2],[3],[4], for example), and given the camps are very clearly the primary topic it would be inappropriate to redirect to the villages. Instead, I propose, as a few others have, to redirect to the disambiguation page. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose: the current disambiguation distinguishes "Sobibor (village)" from "Sobibor (extermination camp)". The diacritics are not present in the English language, so it would be uncommon for an average Anglophone reader to look for the village under "Sobibór". --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
As mentioned in the nomination, WP:SMALLDETAILS of this nature gained consensus at Talk:Sócrates#Requested move 28 August 2021. In that discussion, it was likewise pointed out that the diacritics are not present in the English language, so it would be uncommon for an average Anglophone reader to look for the footballer under "Sócrates".
Also, arguments that the German death camp is sometimes written as "Sobibór" did not prove to be persuasive at conclusion of the nomination you submitted at Talk:Sobibor extermination camp/Archive 1#Requested move 14 March 2019, which is to some degree analogous to the argument that the philosopher's name is sometimes rendered as "Sócrates" and therefore we should avoid WP:ASTONISH and depict the footballer's main title header as "Sócrates (footballer)". However, such an argument likewise did not succeed and consensus for the use of plain header Sócrates prevailed over Sócrates (footballer). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. As King of Hearts pointed out, something needs to be moved, so I urge the closer to take that in mind. I'm not persuaded by the argument that the camps are sometimes referred to by diacritic titles, and particularly not by the argument that "average Anglophone reader won't look under the village under 'Sobibór'"; we have redirects, wikilinks and Google to take care of that, as witnessed by hundreds of Polish village articles with diacritic titles. The two villages are exclusively referred to by diacritics, I don't see the point of redirecting those to dab page. A hatnote pointing to the concentration camp articles would be sufficient. No such user (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. I don't really agree that something needs to be moved: primary redirects can and do exist and I'm not convinced that the current arrangements cause any problems for readers. If something does need to change, then Lysy's edit of 22 January 2020 should be reverted as an undiscussed change which did not reflect the discussions above. The village and the camp have the same name: it just happens that because of the different range of the discussions, the most common way they're written in English is slightly different. I would also be happy for Sobibór to redirect to Sobibor (disambiguation). In any case, for the reasons stated by the opposers here and in the previous two RMs, I oppose moving this article to the base name. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC) The same argument of course applies to Bełżec. Searching in Google or Google scholar for Bełżec shows it is nearly always used in English language sources for the camp so the redirect should be to Belzec extermination camp. If this RM fails to reach consensus, the proposer's edit to Bełżec on 30 September 2021 (the same day the RM was proposed) should be reverted. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
    The spelling Sobibór is certainly sometimes used in RSs writing about the camp: 1, 2, 3. Given how much more has been written about the camp than the village, I'm fairly sure the camp is the primary topice for Sobibór, so the redirect should just go back to Sobibor extermination camp. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
    @Havelock Jones: A primary redirect from Sobibór to Sobibór (village) means that, by definition, the village is the primary topic of "Sobibór" and hence the "(village)" qualifier is unnecessary. If the village is not the primary topic of "Sobibór", then Sobibór should redirect to Sobibor (disambiguation) (or Sobibor extermination camp as you suggest). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Once again, mention needs to be made of the consensus at Talk:Sobibor extermination camp/Archive 1#Requested move 14 March 2019 regarding the fact that the Polish village Sobibór [with the diacritic] and the WWII German Sobibor extermination camp [sometimes referred to, without the diacritic, as simply Sobibor] are two separate entities that should not be commingled, but identified via hatnotes.
Particularly important is the point that the Polish names Sobibór and Bełżec [with the diacritics, which no one in the English-speaking world would type in any case] should not redirect to the German death camps Sobibor and Belzec since the villages and the death camps are two separate entities and commingling them once again raises the specter of the "Polish death camp" controversy.
As for the death camps being primary over the villages, Socrates, the founder of Western philosophy and the first moral philosopher of the Western ethical tradition, is primary over the Brazilian footballer Sócrates and yet there was consensus that the accent over the footballer's name was sufficient to disambiguate him from the philosopher and that Sócrates should not redirect to the philosopher or to the Socrates (disambiguation) page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
That was clearly a poor decision and doesn't create a precedent for all other names with diacritics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • As I read the 2019 RM, the consensus was (I think correctly) that "most Holocaust literature" omits the diacritic from the camp name. Nobody other than you mentioned redirects. The most likely way that "Sobibór" will be entered into our search bar is if somebody has copy and paste an unfamiliar term. "Sobibór" with a diacritic is widely used in Holocaust literature, even though it is not the most common term, so it is very likely that the reference will be to the camp. See Google scholar results for Sobibór. The case of Sócrates is entirely different, because I doubt you could find a single English language RS which spelt the philosopher's name with that diacritic. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Older sources did indeed refer to the German death camps Sobibor and Belzec [without the diacritics] by their Polish names Sobibór and Bełżec [with the diacritics], thus giving rise to the "Polish death camp" controversy.
Currently Polish sources, including Polish Wikipedia, take care to mention that the German death camps were named SS-Sonderkommando Sobibor and SS-Sonderkommando Belzec and that mentions of Sobibór or Bełżec [with the diacritics] refer to Polish entities, such as Sobibór village, Sobibór Museum or Sobibór train station as well as Bełżec village, Gmina Bełżec or Bełżec train station.
Thus, since this is English Wikipedia, there is no reason to redirect the Polish names with the diacritics to the main title headers for the German death camps. Even in the rare instance of a user researching the death camps who would cut and paste the names of the Polish villages with the diacritics into "Search", the already-existing hatnotes atop the articles for the villages — For the Nazi German extermination camp, see Sobibor extermination camp. and For the Nazi German extermination camp, see Belzec extermination camp. — would resolve any ambiguity. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. What sometimes gets forgotten is that other languages use diacritical marks very differently. (This was the cause of User:Eubot's mistaken creation of redirects where "ö" and "ü" were not German to be transliterated "oe" and "ue", and why at RfD the general consensus was that Goed does not exist but Göd does. (I mentioned this at the first discussion so I am not sure if my Support !vote should count separately, please count my support as one !vote not two.)
In English we don't really care about them, they're bits of eye-candy, so that to choose to write naive or naïve is not very important. But in other languages diacritical marks are more or less essential to distinguish meaning: in French they distinguish prounciation and sometimes meaning: compare fr:pèche ("sin") – article does not exist – "sin" with fr:Pêche ("fish, peach") to which fr:Peche redirecs. Our DAB at EN:WP is at Peche without either diacritical mark.
In Spanish the diacritics distinguish stress, in Hungarian the letterforms with diacritical marks are considered distinct letters, as ll (letter) used to be in Spanish. With Socrates there is an argument from the opposite direction, modern transcriptions of Greek might add a bit of fluff but it is not in the original Ancient Greek, so what you have is an English transcription of a modern Greek transcription of the ancient Greek. Here we don't have to jump through two hoops.
So forget Socrates, you can't make the same argument here. WP:SMALLDETAILS does apply: and nobody who has English as her first language and has heard of the Second World War will type "Sobibór" or "Bełżec" unless she really wants the villages: "ó" is usually easily got at through AltGr+O on English-language layouts, but on UK layouts "Ł" is really hard to find because the keyboard driver can substitute ALT+0163 POUND SIGN. (It shouldn't, but it does: My non-UK layout suffers the opposite problem when I try to type a pound sign, something in the Windows keyboard stack substitutes "Ł" when I don't want it to.)
In short, nobody will type the diacritics unless she wants the villages. There's no need for the disambiguation. WP:SMALLDETAILS is good enough. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 09:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Working from the fact that the death camps are sometimes referred to with the diacritics, as I do not believe this is in dispute:
First, a monolingual English speaker could easily copy and paste the names with the diacritics with the intent of reading about the camps.
Second, while a significant number of en.wikipedia's audience is monolingual English speakers, a majority are almost certainly multilingual, many of whom will not face the difficulties with diacritics that you have laid out.
Both of these points cover circumstances where considering the diacritics as sufficiently distinguishing to fall under WP:SMALLDETAILS is incorrect, but they both are caused by the overarching issue with applying WP:SMALLDETAILS to this case; that "Sobibór" and "Bełżec" are in use in reference to the extermination camps, and thus there are no details, small or otherwise, distinguishing them from the extermination camps. BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have removed an exchange involving a blocked sock. @Havelock Jones: This edit also removes a comment of yours, since it was in reply to that user. If you would prefer have the exchange preserved, let me know and I'll restore it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sobibór_(village)&oldid=1204306517"