| Revision as of 02:04, 13 November 2005 edit68.45.21.204 (talk) →Site for Polish propaganda and demented versions of historical fact← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:09, 13 November 2005 edit undo68.45.21.204 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| ==Comment on Early History== | |||
| - 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! | |||
| ''"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."'' | |||
| 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". | |||
| If this could be done on the Gdansk page, only then would it be acceptable to use the language of conquest when speaking of the Germans in the 19th and 20th centuries. Neither the Poloni or any Germanic tribes were anywhere near where Gdańsk would rise up - in fact, if anything, the Germans were closer. It needs to be stated that the land wasn't Polish either, since this plays well in the anti-German, pro-Polish rhetoric that is common in basic education. | |||
Revision as of 02:09, 13 November 2005
Other subjects
 |
This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
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. |
Archives:
- Talk:Gdansk/archive1
- Talk:Gdansk/archive2
- Talk:Gdansk/archive3
- Talk:Gdansk/archive4
- Talk:Gdansk/archive5
- Talk:Gdansk/archive6
- Talk:Gdansk/archive7
- Talk:Gdansk/archive8
- Talk:Gdansk/archive9
- Talk:Gdansk/archive10
Gdansk or Gdańsk
The Amerian Government and the European Union in the main use Gdansk. Google:
- about 32 English pages for -Gdansk Gdańsk site:gov
- about 13,900 English pages for Gdansk -Gdańsk site:gov
- about 122 English pages from eu.int for -Gdansk Gdańsk
- about 539 English pages from eu.int for Gdansk -Gdańsk
--Philip Baird Shearer 1 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
The English alphabet does not have an accented 'ń', therefore, should the title not be "Gdansk"? The article for Munich is not München! Antman 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Pronunciation
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. — The Storm Surfer 19:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Government in exile
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.
There is a government in exile...
Former English name
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) --Mmartins 17:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
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.
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 History of Gdańsk
Site for Polish propaganda and demented versions of historical fact
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.
- I second this. Antman 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
related category votes
Please see the vote to delete Category:Natives of Danzig and the vote to rename Category:Natives of Gdańsk. -- Reinyday, 02:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Tourism
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. TerraGreen 11:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
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 Schleswig-Holstein is described in its own article as a battleship, while the corresponding German article describes it as a Linienschiff, or ship of the line. However, a ship of the line as described on the English wiki refers to craft from the age of sail, 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 History of Gdańsk.
I feel that the History section of this article is much too long and duplicates a lot of information already present at History of Gdańsk. 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. Olessi 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.
- 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:
1. Historically an important Polish seaport since the 10th century - 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 flashpoint 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. Solidarity movement with its leader Lech Wałęsa, who broke down the Communist bloc. changed to Solidarity movement with its leader Lech Wałęsa, who broke down the Communist 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 colloquial 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 Teutonic Knights, 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 Modern Era German name "Danzig."? Please change it if you think of something better.
6. Polish Post Office into Post Office - 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 WWI?
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 History of Gdańsk.
Waiting for you to reply - or to correct your mistakes yourself. Halibutt 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 Britannica or Columbia. Olessi 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.
Sca 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. NightBeAsT 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. --Molobo 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!
Sca 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 ? --Molobo 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?
Sca 18:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Many Germans accept the view that in 1945 Germany was liberated from the Nazi regime, see Victory in Europe Day. 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. Balcer 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.
Sca 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 Motlawa, 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. Tirid Tirid 23:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment on Early History
- 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!
"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."
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".
If this could be done on the Gdansk page, only then would it be acceptable to use the language of conquest when speaking of the Germans in the 19th and 20th centuries. Neither the Poloni or any Germanic tribes were anywhere near where Gdańsk would rise up - in fact, if anything, the Germans were closer. It needs to be stated that the land wasn't Polish either, since this plays well in the anti-German, pro-Polish rhetoric that is common in basic education.