Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gdańsk: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:38, 2 November 2005 editTirid Tirid (talk | contribs)167 edits User Molobo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:57, 19 December 2024 edit undoMerangs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,544 edits Danzig in lead. 
(735 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
==Other subjects==
{{Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Calm}}
]
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=30 November 2022
|action1link=Talk:Gdańsk/GA1
|action1result=failed
|action1oldid=1124801742


|action2=GAN
Archives:
|action2date=24 March 2023
*]
|action2link=Talk:Gdańsk/GA2
*]
|action2result=failed
*]
|action2oldid=1146112301
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


|currentstatus=FGAN
== Gdansk or Gdańsk ==
|topic=places}}
The Amerian Government and the European Union in the main use Gdansk. Google:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B |vital=yes |1=
* about 32 English pages for -Gdansk Gdańsk site:gov
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=Top}}
* about 13,900 English pages for Gdansk -Gdańsk site:gov
{{WikiProject Hanseatic League|importance=Top }}
* about 122 English pages from eu.int for -Gdansk Gdańsk
{{WikiProject Cities}}
* about 539 English pages from eu.int for Gdansk -Gdańsk
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=mid}}
--] 1 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Former countries|Prussia=Yes |HRE-taskforce=yes |HRE-taskforce-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}}
{{section sizes}}
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE -->


{{User:MiszaBot/config
The English alphabet does not have an accented 'ń', therefore, should the title not be "Gdansk"? The article for ] is not München! ] 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 14
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive=1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Gdańsk/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
== Pronunciation==
I don't know Polish, but I came here to figure out how to same the name of this city because Gd is a bit difficult to say with English consonants. I still have no idea, but I got to write about my experience for a moment.
== Polish City? ==


What does that mean? "Gdańsk is a city in Poland" would sound much less nationalistic and reflect the fact that Gdańsk/Danzig has a much more diverse history than just being a Polish city (today).
== Pronunciation ==


The whole article seems to be infested with polish nationalism, especially the history section. Too bad.] (]) 11:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Pronunciation is provided for Gdańsk (thanks!) but not for Gduńsk, Danzig, or Gedania. If somebody knows how to pronounce these, it would be nice to have a key. &mdash; ] 19:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


:Gdańsk IS a Polish city built on the ruins of Danzig. If all the buildings in a city are destroyed, culture scrubbed and people ethnically cleansed, then new cheap buildings built on top and new people from somewhere else with a different culture (far east Poland) are shipped in is it still the same city? ] (]) 21:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
== Government in exile ==
::But the communists copied the old buildings architecture and rebuilt it, not like the USSR was interested in building newly designed gothic architecture ] (]) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
:I remember years ago there were multiple news stories about intentional editorialization of Wiki articles by a coordinated group of nationalists. It could be that many articles were never reviewed in this manner, or that reviews were struck down for some reason including possibly lingering elements of (Polish) nationalists preventing their edits from being reversed. ] (]) 00:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:It was German only for a while, and Polish most of the time. It could have been german had they not been stupid and started ww2 along with a massive genocide. Quit being salty and get over it. ] (]) 06:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
::As the greater article reflects, it had been ethnically German not only for a while but for centuries. Even under periods of Polish territorial control. Hitler's pretext for invading Poland was its refusal to return Danzig, so any statements that the city could've been returned without the war is mere speculation. ] (]) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)


== Confusion about Gdansk/Danzig ==
My ancestors are from The Free City of Danzig. Perhaps someone ought to comment on the fact that TFCD was established by the Treaty of Versailles (as a demilitarized neutral city-state) and under the protection of the League of Nations, and yet after WWII did not revert to its status as established by the Treaty of Versailles, but was effectively "given" to Poland.


Hi, I am confused about the Gdansk/Danzig different names and I think it might be useful to clarify this in the article. Specifically, is Danzig a translation of Gdansk or a wholly different name? Was the city officially renamed or do we just use a more accurate translation now?
There is a government in exile...


It also might be useful to add a sentence in Names saying the name Danzig was used a lot by english speakers in WW2 and sources about that if anyone (like me) clicks over from ww2 articles. ] (]) 00:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
== Former English name ==


:Gdańsk is the original Polish name of the city, Danzig was derived from it, I will try to write something about it in the article ] (]) 08:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Mention should be made somewhere in the article that the city was known for centuries in English as ''Dantzic'' or ''Dantsic''. British and American books published before c. 1900 use this form pretty exclusively, and it continued in informal use into the 20th century (see the 1911 Britannica for example) --] 17:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
{{Talk:Gdańsk/GA2}}


== Has the vote not become outdated? ==
== City of Gdańsk ==


]
I think the development of Gdańsk article is going into the wrong direction. Almost all valuable information about the modern city is moved into separate articles, and at the same time we have growing historical section in 3 placesL in the header, historical summary (a really BIGGGG sumamry), and a separate article.


First of all, the decision was based on a simple counting of votes. I do not know what it was like in 2005, but we certainly do not make decisions in this way now. Moreover, the differences are negligible (e.g. for the period 1466 to 1793, it is 10 votes), which clearly indicates that there is no prevailing opinion.
In my opinion this article is (should be) about the MODERN city of Gdańsk, the historical summary should be a real minimum, and if you feel there's something really important in Gdańsk's history, please go and develop a section at ]


What's more, the usus in relation to other cities with a similar history is quite different. Making Danzig and other Polish cities (], ] etc.) with a partly German history into special cases. Without any logically identifiable justification. For example, why is Prague not referred to as "Prag" in topics concerning the period when it was inhabited mostly by German-speaking people and was part of the German states? What about Maribor/Marburg? Why do we not use the name "Kijów" for Kyiv when it was part of Poland, or even when it was mostly Polish-speaking (mid-18th century)? What about Lviv? There are many other examples.
== Site for Polish propaganda and demented versions of historical fact ==


For me, as someone who started editing English Misplaced Pages long after 2005, this balance is incomprehensible. Above all in relation to cities like Gdańsk, Toruń, Elbląg, which from 1454 almost until the end of the 18th century were part of the Polish state. On what basis do we use the German names to them for this period?
Misplaced Pages's editors need to get to grips with the garbage on this and some other sites. It is akin to reading Polish propaganda sheets. Fortunately for us here in Britain we still have history books going back to the Dark Ages and we have histories of Europe based upon fact rather than gossip and hysterical nationalism. Someone calling himself 'Space Cadet' is clearly a lead player in wiping out the comments of others and keeping this Polish propaganda in place, which, frankly, is insulting to any educated individual. You need to act.


It seems to me that this topic has taken on a new significance with regard to decisions made in the last few years on Ukrainian place names (most notably ]), which clearly indicate that the preferred place name also in a historical context is the modern Ukrainian version "Kyiv". Only "unambiguously historical topics" allow for the Kiev version. Why not apply an analogous rule to Gdańsk and other Polish cities with a similar history? ( Incidentally, I should note that ] does not provide for names containing the form "Kijów" even for the period when the city was part of Poland, e.g. ]. This is a separate topic, but shows the imbalance I am talking about).
]


I hope that my proposal will be met with an open-minded approach and a willingness to have an informative discussion. ] (]) 21:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I second this. ] 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


== Danzig in lead. ==


] redirects here and is commonly used in English to refer to the city historically. Such a term should be in the lead cf. ], ], and ]. ] (]) 22:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree...the same issue of "Polish influence in Danzig" has come up on the "Prussian Peoples" page. I made the same point. There needs to be some clarification with this sentence as to what actually happened in order to ENLIGHTEN the Polish visitors to this page. We deal with the same issue when examining Native Americans here in the States, but we don't completely ignore the subject of conquest and expansion!


:@] you've refused to express an actual reason for opposing this nor have you engaged on the talk page about this. ] (]) 22:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
''"the date of the foundation of the city itself, as the year in which Saint Adalbert of Prague (sent by the Polish king Boleslaus the Brave) baptized the inhabitants of Gdańsk (urbs Gyddanyzc). In the following years Gdańsk was the main centre of a Polish splinter duchy ruled by the dynasty of Dukes of Pomerania."''


::{{ping|Traumnovelle}} - Please make sure to find a consensus before implementing the change, and allow me to respond. Commonly used today (apart from a historical context) is quite a POV statement, unless you're a native German speaker. Do you have any statistics to press the claim for the English-language Misplaced Pages? I do understand your point and I don't personally disagree, however, the former name "Danzig" is widely mentioned throughout the article where necessary (and chronologically correct), including in the top footnote. Placing it in very first sentence, in the lead section, and in bold would make the wrong statement as it is quite a contentious and delicate topic for many. Thus, I am undoing an edit that would have been undone by someone else. ] (]) 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I chose this example randomly, but here is an article about ]. Notice the introductory passage about the natives, even though they have little to do with the city but are still referenced in terms of the "city area".
:::How is it any different that the examples I've provided? If a reader searches for ] and ends up here they should be able to easily find out why they've arrived here from the lead - they should not have to scroll to a section to find that out.

:::Britannica also includes the name Danzig at the top:
If this could be done on the Gdansk page, I would have no problem using the language of conquest when speaking of the Germans, just as long as it applies for the Polini as well!
:::This tertiary source says it is known as Danzig:

:::This travel guide source states 'you may know it as Danzig':
== related category votes ==
:::Having it in the footnote makes it unlikely to be seen by a reader and is not of much use to someone who types in ] and ends up here. ] (]) 22:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Actually, when you first arrive on the page you are notified that "Danzig redirects here. For other uses, see Danzig (disambiguation) and Gdańsk (disambiguation)". Isn't this sufficient? Moreover, the Berkeley source is for historical context and also mentions 'Gedanum' – is that found anywhere in the first paragraph apart from the footnote, where the German name is also mentioned? The New Zealand Herald comprises information dug out of the internet at first best opportunity. I believe that all former names are already placed in the footnote and, for instance, I do not see how "Danzig" could be more important than the native Kashubian name for the place in contemporary times. ] (]) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Please see the ] and the ]. -- Reinyday, 02:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
:::::No that isn't sufficient, that doesn't tell me why it redirects here.

:::::>I do not see how "Danzig" could be more important than the native Kashubian name for the place in contemporary times.
== Tourism ==
:::::Because Danzig is a name commonly seen in English where as I have never seen Gdunsk used in English and has never been used as the English name of the city.

:::::Just look at the search data: Danzig is searched for as much (or even more) than Gdansk in English speaking countries.
The tourism section seems quite small compared to the history. It would be good if people with relevant knowledge could please expand the tourism section. I understand that Misplaced Pages is not a tourist guide, but still a number of visitors to the site would be interested in this aspect. It appears to me that the history section has received a lot of attention (partly no doubt because of all the controversy that this page has received). That is not a bad thing in itself, but it does rather dominate the article. Thanks. <font size="-2">]<font color="green">]</font></font> 11:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Why would this be different to ], ], ], ], etc.. All these articles use former English names in the lead to help aid the reader. ] (]) 23:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::The stat you provided shows a major difference between the two names in popularity. I think other users need to voice their opinion as I am very neutral on this, though I emphasize that other numerous names are in the footnote and the lead shows the title of the article. I just anticipate that it might cause an edit war. {{ping|Piotrus}} - what is your take on this?
== Revert discussion ==

I am trying to come to a compromise to resolve this recent edit war. Including "Polish/Baltic seaport" seems to be a major bone of contention, so I have simply removed any adjective there. It is inaccurate to say that Wałęsa broke down the Communist bloc in its entirety, but he certainly was a major factor in bringing down the People's Republic of Poland.

Regarding "The name '''Danzig''' is often still used in colloquial English speech", I have changed ''often'' to ''sometimes''.

Regarding usage of Gdańsk and Danzig, I have followed "For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945. For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945".

I anglicized "King Jan III Sobieski".

The '']'' is described in its own article as a battleship, while the corresponding ] describes it as a Linienschiff, or ]. However, a ship of the line as described on the English wiki refers to craft from the ], not from the WWII era. I think battleship is the best term to use.

I have also removed the unnecessary Gdańsk/Danzig while referring to the Post Office. The resistance of its defenders, while brave and admirable, should be at ].

I feel that the History section of this article is much too long and duplicates a lot of information already present at ]. The History section of the main Gdańsk article should be a concise survey of the city's history, while the details are found in the History of Gdańsk article. ] 19:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


::As to your changes, I noticed that some of them are factually inaccurate, others are against the talk:Gdans compromise and voing, yet others smell of POV, even if you did it uncounciously. So, on to examples:
:::It is never my intention to be POV, although I am sure that in some ways I am, as are all contributors.

1. ''Historically an important Polish seaport since the ]'' - you deleted the word Polish, so as to suggest that it was not a notable seaport before that (wrong) or that it was not a part of Poland (wrong)
:1A. I removed both "Polish" and the "Baltic" alternative because the adjective preceding seaport has been a ] for revert wars on this article in the past.
2. ''the largest city in Poland.'' changed to ''the largest city on the Baltic coast.'' - again, either you try to delete all mentions of Poland for some reason or... nyah, I don't see any other reason. Anyway, Gdańsk was the biggest city in Poland, but the biggest cities of the Baltic coast were at times Lubeck and Koenigsberg. In early times even Kołobrzeg might've been bigger.
:2A. Text added by another user. I will readd the largest city in Poland and clarify that with "medieval".
3. ''] movement with its leader ], who broke down the ] bloc.'' changed to ''] movement with its leader ], who broke down the ] rule in Poland.'' - partially right, but only partially, as the Solidarity also tore down the commies in all Eastern Bloc, not only in Poland, which is what you suggest.
:3A.Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that he was only effective in Poland. It is not my understanding of the situation that Solidarity was the '''sole''' cause of the fall of the Eastern Bloc, however, which is what the original statement inferred to me. I have changed the text again.
4. ''The name '''Danzig''' is sometimes still used in ] English speech.'' - any proof of that?
:4A.Added originally be another user. I have no qualms with removing it.
5. ''1308, it was occupied and demolished by the ], who referred to the city as '''Danzig'''. '' - factually inaccurate as the Teutonic Knights referred to the city as ''Dantzik'', ''Danyzyg'' or ''Danzk''; the name ''Danzig'' became widespread long after the secularization of their state
:5A. True, but I wanted a way to explain the sudden change in usage from Gdańsk to Danzig in the article. How about "While under the control of the Knights, German influence increased and the city began to be referred to by variations of "Gdańsk", ultimately developing into the ] German name "Danzig."? Please change it if you think of something better.
6. '']'' into '']'' - again, wrong. The official name in Polish was ''Poczta Polska w Gdańsku'', the German was ''Polnische Post« in Danzig''. The reason was that after WWII all post services in the free city were operated by Polish state-owned Post office company.
:6A. I had been thinking about "while the city's post office was defended until its capture." It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but I will change it to the correct Polish Post Office. It was another instance of removing a flashpoint ("Polish" vs. "Danzig"). Thank you for offering the official name. Did you mean WW'''I'''?
7. You also deleted the mention that the postmen who defended the post office were executed. It seems like whitewashing, doesn't it.
:7A.I have no qualms with adding it back in, although I think such details should be mentioned in the ].
Waiting for you to reply - or to correct your mistakes yourself. ]] 05:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:I would like to hear your thoughts on drastically shortening the History section, as much of it is duplicating the History of Gdańsk article. I think the ideal length would be something similar to that of or . ] 07:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

----

==Sanitizing history==

In the interest of historical veracity, I ask the Polish "editors" of this article on the English-language Misplaced Pages site to please desist from "sanitizing" the section about what happened to the ethnic-German inhabitants of Danzig toward the end of WWII and afterwards.

Dziekuje bardzo.

] 18:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, there really needs to be an RfC. I've had the same problem with Molobo, who feels his mission is to emphasise German war crimes, in a large number of other articles and with the annexion of Space Cadet, who feels his mission is connected to striking out Prussian helmets as his user and talk page show, their propagandizing of Misplaced Pages becomes unbearable. ] 20:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The only thing NB I am adding are historical facts.The only problem you have is that you don't like them.
--] 21:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
----

Kłamcy! It is a blatant and outrageous distortion of history to say that Danzig "was liberated from Nazi occupation by Polish and Soviet forces" in 1945. This is pure commie propaganda, which somehow is living on despite the bankrupty of communism and all it entailed. I thought communism ended in Poland in the '80s. It's now the 21st century. Wake up!

The then-German city of Danzig, which overwhelmingly welcomed reincorporation in Germany in 1939, was no more "liberated" (don't make me puke!) by the Soviets in '45 than Warsaw was "liberated" by the Nazis in '39. In both cases, the conquest meant misery, death and destruction for the inhabitants. In the case of Danzig, it also meant expulsion from their homeland – for those, that is, who survived.

No place in what then constituted Germany was "liberated" by the Soviets. Eastern Germany was conquered. Millions were killed, millions of women raped, millions deported to the Gulag, and everyone else expelled! This is liberation? Give me a break!

Give up trying to make it sound as if Gdańsk/Danzig doesn't have a strange, violent and tragic recent history. You can't change history, and when it's this recent, the details are thoroughly recorded. Quit trying to hoodwink the world.

Grow up!

] 19:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The then-German city of Danzig, which overwhelmingly welcomed reincorporation in Germany in 1939
The citizens welcomed Nazi rule and aggression you say ?
--] 20:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Pan Molobo, they didn't welcome Nazi "aggression," and I'm sure there were many Danzigers who had misgivings about the Nazis or who, like the Social Democrats, had been reduced to political silence by the Nazi Party's takeover of the Danzig city government some years earlier. What they welcomed was being part of Germany again after being forcibly separated from Germany for 19 years. The city, as has been said countless times, was 96 or, according to some sources, 97 percent German. Read the history and get your head out of the sand piled up by half a century of Communist propaganda about "reclaimed territories." Try telling the families of those German Danzigers who survived the cataclysm of WWII that Danzig as it existed in modern times had been Polish in some essential cultural or political way.

Again, as has been said so many times, this is not to excuse or exonerate Hitler and the Nazis by one iota! What many Poles seemingly refuse to understand is that Hitler and the Nazis' whole political appeal was based mainly on a pan-German nationalist program of altering the decisions of the Versailles Treaty. Those provisions included the separation of Danzig and their nearby area from Germany supposedly in order to give Poland a "free and secure outlet to the sea." (There was never any suggestion at Versailles that the Germans be expelled and replaced by Poles.) The Versailles changes left German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia, and it was primarily these minorities that Hitler and the Nazis used as a PRETEXT (look it up in your English-Polish dictionary) for aggression against Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Thank goodness the period of extreme nationalism in MOST of Europe is over. Unfortunately, the scourge of ethnocentrism and nationalism lives on in some backward countries, and I fear Poland is one of them due to its tragic history -- and to all those years of propaganda.

In the U.S. we have many people who are nationalistic in some political way, unfortunately, and others who still are racists, but at least we have a hugely variegated mix of ethnic origins and a basic commitment to human rights for people of all ethnicities.

Hey PL, how about joining the 21st century?

] 18:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

:Many Germans accept the view that in 1945 Germany was '''liberated from the Nazi regime''', see ]. Let me quote the key sentences of that article:

:''In the years after, V-E day was predominantly perceived as the day of defeat. But over the decades, this perception changed, culminating in the speech by West German President Richard von Weizsäcker on the 40th anniversary of V-E day in 1985, in which he called 8 May "the day of liberation" from the Nazi government.'' ] 03:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

----

Yes, of course, many if not most Germans were very glad to be rid of the Nazis, glad that the war finally was over, and glad that the future (in the West) promised political and individual liberty. But it is a serious distortion to say that the Red Army "liberated" the Germans, when in fact conquest by the Red Army meant more misery and hardship. This is particularly true of the pre-1945 parts of Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line, where Soviet occupation meant, if not rape, starvation and death, at least expropriation and expulsion.

In what became the DDR, 12 years of Nazi tyranny were followed by 40-plus years of Communism, which, while certainly not as savage as the Hitler regime, suppressed all political opposition and meted out stern retribution to any who deviated from the offically accepted norms of "socialist" thought and behavior. This, of course, all was at the behest of the Soviets themselves, who installed the likes of Ulbricht and Honneker to do execute their will.

The issue here, however, is not the comparative evils of Nazism and Communism, but the spurious suggestion that what happened to the Germans of the Oder-Neisse territories in 1945 and thereafter was liberating in any normal sense of the word.

] 20:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


== User Molobo ==

I formally accuse the User Molobo of the attempt to falsify history. The User Molobo tries to play down the expulsion of the Germans from Gdanks/Danzig while in contrast exaggerates the ethnic Polish nature of the city throughout history. As the basis of my allegation I use his last edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gda%C5%84sk&diff=26972049&oldid=26944005) with short explanations and examples for it.

1. Molobo deletes the words "formerly English "Danzig"" that an uneducated person may think that the city has always been known by its Polish name Gdansk in the English speaking world. Wrong!

2. He goes on with deleting "a predominantly German-speaking" and adding "an important Polish" . False! In reality, Danzig/Gdansk was predominantly German speaking before WW2 (up to 95%).

3. Furthermore, he deletes the German name of the river "Mottlau" in order to minimize the German "wording" of a "Polish" area.

4. He goes on with the deletion of "After its German majority population was expulsed in 1945, it became part of Communist Poland". This shows that Molobo wants to sanitize the expulsion from the history of the city. Bad faith!

5. At the end he reverts Sca contribution by writing "liberated from Nazi occupation" by Polish forces. He did this although he did not and could not challenge Sca's reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gda%C5%84sk#Sanitizing_history) for his version: "occupied" by Polish forces. He changed the content without challening Sca's arguments. Bad habit!

If you look at Molobo's contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Molobo) you may see that this edit was not a "mistake". He routinely edits pages in favour of Polish history by often changing some few words in order to give the page a "pro-Polish" sometimes "anti-German" face. After the given examples it is fair to say that Molobo is a Polish nationalist who wants to rewrite history in favour of Poland. Therefore, I ask the community and all the other people who are having problems with Molobo's edits: What are the next steps to avoid such bad faith edits in the future? Quak 14:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


1. Molobo deletes it because it's not the format accepted on Wiki. Your accusation is childish and ridiculous, because any reader (educated or uneducated) can find out what the city name was, with respect to historical period, in the history section.

2. You're false! The city belonged to Germany only from 1871 to 1919.

3. The German name of this small river belongs in the article ], where it's always been and nobody is trying to delete it from there to minimize anything.

4. This paragraph belongs further down in the city history.

5. He already not only challenged but won the discussion, see Molobo's talk page.

Molobo is not a nationalist, but simply enlightens us about the aspects of Polish history, that are generally unknown to the English speaking world. You, on the other hand, are clearly prejudiced against the Poles, their culture and history. ] 23:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:57, 19 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gdańsk article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Former good article nomineeGdańsk was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
March 24, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPoland Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHanseatic League (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League
WikiProject iconCities
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFormer countries: Holy Roman Empire / Prussia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Holy Roman Empire task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconGermany Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
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 Misplaced Pages: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.

Section sizes
Section size for Gdańsk (38 sections)
Section name Byte
count
Section
total
(Top) 12,876 12,876
Names 11 5,728
Origin 1,532 1,532
History 2,729 2,729
Ceremonial names 1,456 1,456
History 58 60,921
Ancient history 1,806 1,806
Early Poland 3,023 3,023
Pomeranian Poland 3,468 3,468
Teutonic Knights 5,915 5,915
Kingdom of Poland 11,963 11,963
Prussia and Germany 5,346 5,346
Free City of Danzig and World War II 17,182 17,182
Post World War II (1945-1989) 7,457 7,457
Contemporary history (1990-present) 4,703 4,703
Geography 404 11,884
Climate 11,480 11,480
Economy 3,273 3,273
Main sights 141 14,475
Architecture 11,064 11,064
Museums 2,415 2,415
Entertainment 855 855
Transport 6,428 6,428
Sport 4,597 4,597
Politics and local government 3,188 3,785
Districts 597 597
Education and science 1,681 1,681
International relations 28 3,479
Consulates 689 689
Twin towns – sister cities 896 896
Former twin towns 893 893
Partnerships and cooperation 973 973
Demographics 8,912 8,912
People 49 49
See also 425 425
Notes 24 24
References 33 33
Sources 3,092 3,092
Total 141,662 141,662

Pronunciation

I don't know Polish, but I came here to figure out how to same the name of this city because Gd is a bit difficult to say with English consonants. I still have no idea, but I got to write about my experience for a moment.

Polish City?

What does that mean? "Gdańsk is a city in Poland" would sound much less nationalistic and reflect the fact that Gdańsk/Danzig has a much more diverse history than just being a Polish city (today).

The whole article seems to be infested with polish nationalism, especially the history section. Too bad.217.22.143.23 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Gdańsk IS a Polish city built on the ruins of Danzig. If all the buildings in a city are destroyed, culture scrubbed and people ethnically cleansed, then new cheap buildings built on top and new people from somewhere else with a different culture (far east Poland) are shipped in is it still the same city? The Impartial Truth (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
But the communists copied the old buildings architecture and rebuilt it, not like the USSR was interested in building newly designed gothic architecture Crainsaw (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I remember years ago there were multiple news stories about intentional editorialization of Wiki articles by a coordinated group of nationalists. It could be that many articles were never reviewed in this manner, or that reviews were struck down for some reason including possibly lingering elements of (Polish) nationalists preventing their edits from being reversed. 2A02:1210:1CA7:D700:3DDB:CA7D:A7C3:337C (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
It was German only for a while, and Polish most of the time. It could have been german had they not been stupid and started ww2 along with a massive genocide. Quit being salty and get over it. Awhileo (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
As the greater article reflects, it had been ethnically German not only for a while but for centuries. Even under periods of Polish territorial control. Hitler's pretext for invading Poland was its refusal to return Danzig, so any statements that the city could've been returned without the war is mere speculation. 213.112.245.97 (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Confusion about Gdansk/Danzig

Hi, I am confused about the Gdansk/Danzig different names and I think it might be useful to clarify this in the article. Specifically, is Danzig a translation of Gdansk or a wholly different name? Was the city officially renamed or do we just use a more accurate translation now?

It also might be useful to add a sentence in Names saying the name Danzig was used a lot by english speakers in WW2 and sources about that if anyone (like me) clicks over from ww2 articles. Safes007 (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Gdańsk is the original Polish name of the city, Danzig was derived from it, I will try to write something about it in the article Marcelus (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gdańsk/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  • File:Johannes Canaparius (Jan Kanapariusz) Gyddanyzc Gdańsk Danzig.jpg says it's CC 3.0 but I don't see any evidence on the source website that the library states that those are the licensing terms. However, as an image of a two-dimensional work that is out of copyright in itself, it's public domain, so no change is needed.
  • File:Mapa miasta Danzig - lata 20. XX w.png says it's PD in Poland because the author has been dead for 70 years. The author is given as Edward Carstenn; if that's accurate we would need some evidence that he died before 1953. I don't think this is the correct licence.
  • File:Arrested defendants of the Polish Post Office in Gdansk.jpg is used under a claim of fair use. I can see that it's an important photograph, and a claim of fair use seems reasonable somewhere, but I don't think it's necessary to understand an article about Gdańsk. It would be better in an article about the history of the Polish Post Office, or about Gdańsk in World War II, or about the Nazi occupation of Poland, or probably in several others, but I don't think it can be justified here.

I'll look at the sources next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I started looking at the sourcing, and I've decided to fail the article on sourcing and, to a lesser extent, on being too long and too detailed. I see the previous review also failed the article for lack of sourcing, and that reviewer added some "citation needed" tags, but judging from how you've sourced this article I don't think the message about what sourcing is needed came across. The way to think about it is that everything in the article needs to have a source. For example, if you look at the "Economy" section, you have a source for the first sentence, and for half-a-dozen of the companies listed, but you don't have a source for the second or third sentence, or for the great majority of the companies. Everything needs a source. This is far too much work to be done during a GA review.

However, the article is also too long. Some examples of excessive detail, and places where more sources would be needed if you keep some of that detail:

  • We don't need a list of 60 companies in the city.
  • Details of earlier composition of the city council -- even in a "history of Gdańsk" article this would be too much detail; it belongs in an article about the history of the Gdańsk city council.
  • We don't need to list every school in the city, and some are unsourced anyway.
  • Similarly are all four scientific and regional organizations worth including? And again some are unsourced.
  • Much of the "Sports" section is unsourced.
  • There are too many images -- if you cut other material you'll have to cut some images anyway, but the point of images is not simply to introduce as many as possible, it's to inform the reader.
  • Much of the transport section is unsourced.
  • The history section could probably also be cut quite a bit. Have a look at WP:SUMMARY, which explains "summary style". Sub-articles can be used to hold material that is too detailed for a parent article. Here you have a good deal of information that would be good in "History of Gdańsk" but is excessive here.

I won't go through every section in this way, but the same problems are apparent throughout the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Has the vote not become outdated?

Talk:Gdańsk/Vote

First of all, the decision was based on a simple counting of votes. I do not know what it was like in 2005, but we certainly do not make decisions in this way now. Moreover, the differences are negligible (e.g. for the period 1466 to 1793, it is 10 votes), which clearly indicates that there is no prevailing opinion.

What's more, the usus in relation to other cities with a similar history is quite different. Making Danzig and other Polish cities (Szczecin, Wrocław etc.) with a partly German history into special cases. Without any logically identifiable justification. For example, why is Prague not referred to as "Prag" in topics concerning the period when it was inhabited mostly by German-speaking people and was part of the German states? What about Maribor/Marburg? Why do we not use the name "Kijów" for Kyiv when it was part of Poland, or even when it was mostly Polish-speaking (mid-18th century)? What about Lviv? There are many other examples.

For me, as someone who started editing English Misplaced Pages long after 2005, this balance is incomprehensible. Above all in relation to cities like Gdańsk, Toruń, Elbląg, which from 1454 almost until the end of the 18th century were part of the Polish state. On what basis do we use the German names to them for this period?

It seems to me that this topic has taken on a new significance with regard to decisions made in the last few years on Ukrainian place names (most notably WP:KYIV), which clearly indicate that the preferred place name also in a historical context is the modern Ukrainian version "Kyiv". Only "unambiguously historical topics" allow for the Kiev version. Why not apply an analogous rule to Gdańsk and other Polish cities with a similar history? ( Incidentally, I should note that WP:KYIV does not provide for names containing the form "Kijów" even for the period when the city was part of Poland, e.g. Kiev Voivodeship. This is a separate topic, but shows the imbalance I am talking about).

I hope that my proposal will be met with an open-minded approach and a willingness to have an informative discussion. Marcelus (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Danzig in lead.

Danzig redirects here and is commonly used in English to refer to the city historically. Such a term should be in the lead cf. Myanmar, Thailand, and Swaziland. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Merangs you've refused to express an actual reason for opposing this nor have you engaged on the talk page about this. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle: - Please make sure to find a consensus before implementing the change, and allow me to respond. Commonly used today (apart from a historical context) is quite a POV statement, unless you're a native German speaker. Do you have any statistics to press the claim for the English-language Misplaced Pages? I do understand your point and I don't personally disagree, however, the former name "Danzig" is widely mentioned throughout the article where necessary (and chronologically correct), including in the top footnote. Placing it in very first sentence, in the lead section, and in bold would make the wrong statement as it is quite a contentious and delicate topic for many. Thus, I am undoing an edit that would have been undone by someone else. Merangs (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
How is it any different that the examples I've provided? If a reader searches for Danzig and ends up here they should be able to easily find out why they've arrived here from the lead - they should not have to scroll to a section to find that out.
Britannica also includes the name Danzig at the top:
This tertiary source says it is known as Danzig:
This travel guide source states 'you may know it as Danzig':
Having it in the footnote makes it unlikely to be seen by a reader and is not of much use to someone who types in Danzig and ends up here. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually, when you first arrive on the page you are notified that "Danzig redirects here. For other uses, see Danzig (disambiguation) and Gdańsk (disambiguation)". Isn't this sufficient? Moreover, the Berkeley source is for historical context and also mentions 'Gedanum' – is that found anywhere in the first paragraph apart from the footnote, where the German name is also mentioned? The New Zealand Herald comprises information dug out of the internet at first best opportunity. I believe that all former names are already placed in the footnote and, for instance, I do not see how "Danzig" could be more important than the native Kashubian name for the place in contemporary times. Merangs (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
No that isn't sufficient, that doesn't tell me why it redirects here.
>I do not see how "Danzig" could be more important than the native Kashubian name for the place in contemporary times.
Because Danzig is a name commonly seen in English where as I have never seen Gdunsk used in English and has never been used as the English name of the city.
Just look at the search data: Danzig is searched for as much (or even more) than Gdansk in English speaking countries.
Why would this be different to Siam, Burma, Swaziland, Ceylon, etc.. All these articles use former English names in the lead to help aid the reader. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The stat you provided shows a major difference between the two names in popularity. I think other users need to voice their opinion as I am very neutral on this, though I emphasize that other numerous names are in the footnote and the lead shows the title of the article. I just anticipate that it might cause an edit war. @Piotrus: - what is your take on this?
Categories: