Wikipedia

Talk:Gdańsk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ruhrjung (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 20 March 2004 (time to shape up!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Learn more about this page

Voting 2 on the compromise

May I suggest a compromise solution, which is consistent with the Wikipedia naming convention:

  • English Wikipedia - English name of the city Gdansk is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Kashubian Gduńsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
  • German Wikipedia - German name of the city Danzig is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding Polish Gdańsk, Kashubian Gduńsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
  • Polish Wikipedia - Polish name of the city Gdańsk is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Kashubian Gduńsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
  • Kashubian Wikipedia - Kashubian name of the city Gduńsk is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Polish Gdańsk and Latin Gedania are mentioned ONCE in the headline.
  • Latin Wikipedia - Latin name of the city Gedania is used in ALL references to the city: historical and modern. Alternative language names, inluding German Danzig, Polish Gdańsk and Kashubian Gduńsk are mentioned ONCE in the headline.


Are you in favour of the proposed naming compromise?

YES

  • Yes Mestwin of Gdansk 20:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Halibutt (although with some serious doubts that "other wikipedians" will respect the cease-fire)
  • Yes Yeti 11:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NO

  • Jamesday 20:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) The English place names at the time of the events should be used in the English language Wikipedia, even if those names are offensive to the current occupants of the place. That is, Gdansk should be used for recent events and Danzig in articles while the place was under German control. That includes in the article Gdansk when discussing the period under German control.
  • David Gerard 11:50, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC) Other English-language reference works do it the other way, so we would be doing it this way to push a blatant POV. Doing so sets a bad precedent for other contentious articles.
  • ?

abstention

  • ?

Voting on the compromise

Are you in favour of the proposed naming compromise (the city referred to as Danzig in the 1793-1945 period, Gdansk otherwise)?

YES

  • john 09:16, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Nico, although I still think we could discuss the pre-1793 usage a little bit more
  • Szopen Yes, with addition that alternative name should be added in parantheses, t avoid confusion.
  • Guillermo3, no parantheses in paragraphs were Danzig is used.
  • David Gerard 11:50, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC) This is the way it's done in other works and avoids pushing a POV.

NO

  • User:Space Cadet
  • User:Yeti - What about other cities with similar history: Vilnius, Lviv, Brezlau, Koenigsberg, Bratislava and many, many others?
  • User:Ruhrjung - I think it would suffice to state once and for all, in neutral language in the introductory paragraph, that Gdansk was formerly known as Danzig, and that this name still may be used in other languages, but that Gdansk is the currently used name in English.
  • Mestwin of Gdansk 22:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)the city name is Gdansk. The above proposal is not a compromise.
  • Halibutt - changed my mind. We'd probably understand the fuzz, but the people who use wiki would not.

abstention

  • Baldhur; an abstention may be useless, but after proposing a vote I wanted to participate

no voting

  • Are we going to change the city name every time there is a majority change???

I do not want to enter into this voting, but I am strongly for calling all cities by their modern/official names, also when refering to historical events.

Additionally this case is clear as the city name of Gdansk was in use for more than 1000 years without anu interruption (997-2004). In years 1793-1945 both names Polish and German were in use as the city and the region were bilingual. Official documents were published in German and Polish. Only after the Kulturkamf (enforced Germanisation) in the 1870s the German name was enforced and Polish name forbidden. The German post-office delivered mail to German and Polish addresses and it started to refuse Polish placenames in the 1910s. Free City of Gdansk/Danzig (1919-1939) had a German majority 90%, but also special ties to Poland (cumstoms union, foreign policy, post office etc.) so both names (Gdansk/Danzig) were in use.

The big problem arised during World War II, when people were murdered or sent to concenteration camps (Stutthof) just because they wanted to call the city with its Polish name. This is why the German names of Polish cities are very insulting to Polish people. I don't know why you call it a compromise.

--- When do we finish the voting?Halibutt

I think this voting was ended reaching no compromise. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Famous people born in Gdansk/Danzig/Gydanytzk/Dantiscum

This is the list deleted by Nico for some reason. I've re-inserted some of the most popular names (Tusk, for instance) and left the artists for further discussion.

I understand that some of the artists may not be as popular in the mass-media as, let's say, Caravaggio or Breughel family, but still they are famous artists. And I don't see a reason for which Nico considers them to be less important than Bernhard von Reesen.

Disclaimer: I moved it here not to provoke anyone to start another edit war.Halibutt 01:37, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I explained why they were deleted. They are posted by caius2ga, obviously only to balance the list because most of the famous persons from Danzig were Germans. I've never heard about any of those people, and made a quick search in google for a couple of them. For instance, this Marek Rogulus Rogulski gave 27 hits [1]. I cannot see why he should be listed with people like Günter Grass etc. Nico 01:59, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But Grass is also at least 25% Pole, though he is German language writer. Cautious 16:10, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So why did you delete all the others? Michalczeski returns with 8140 hits, Donald Tusk with 11.600 hits, Kolberger with 'only' 1320... Just comparing this with this Bernhard von Reesen you left unchanged (124 hits) makes me think that the reasons for your deleting all Polish names are not as clear as you state.Halibutt 03:36, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Just an idea: how many return google hits do you propose as a borderline for famous people? Is 5.000 ok with you?Halibutt
I admit not all of them should be deleted. I didn't check all of them. Sorry. -- Nico 11:12, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As far as the politicians, this should be worked out. Clearly we shouldn't have not famous people, but we shouldn't privilege not very famous Germans over not very famous Germsn. john 09:16, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now I've checked all of them, and the majority gives hits under 100. Here are the complete list, though:

33 [2]
2,110 [3]
9,980 [4]
207 [5]
  • Donald Tusk, b. 1957, politician, jornalist and historian
13,300 [6]
103 [7]
84 [8]
92 [9]
174 [10]
186 [11]
10,900 [12]

I guess at least four of them should be included in the list. -- Nico 11:26, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think our Polish colleagues would be best-positioned to determine if the others are famous or not. A lack of google results is not necessarily dispositive. john 22:50, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What about a new article Famous people from Gdansk listing all with mor then let's say 50 google-hits? 82.83.0.47 00:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My mother gives more than 50 google hits ;-) (although she is not from Danzig) Nico 13:21, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How about answering to my question then?Halibutt
I think this is rather silly. In this instance, I'd say we should defer to the knowledge of Polish editors as to whether or not these people are sufficiently famous. john 19:31, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In defense of my "NO" vote. We shouldnt be sentimental about the encyclopedic articles. I respect and cherich all the German culture in the present Polish lands. During my last trip to Poland I made about 900 pictures of Prussian architecture, Prussian ruins, traces of Prussian influence on these lands. I just freak out about the criterion for this or that name, to be the number of entries in thr Google. In any English Encyclopedia, especially post 2000 the history of Gdansk uses the Polish name. This is a perfect way to avoid confusion, and also to avoid a dangerous precedent leading to using German names for every northern and western Polish city, village, river, lake etc. Plus this precedent would lead to complete chaos in history articles about Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. My family lived for generations in the Polish city of Lwow, but for thr sake of professionalism I'm willing to leave te current name L'viv, even when describing the Polish history of thr city. We should take example for Brittanica and other encyclopedia on this one. A separate paragraph discussing the demographics of Gdansk, it's most popular name in English speaking world is necessary in my opinion. Brackets are not enough. Going further I propose existance of separate articles for Koenigsberg (Krolewiec), Tilsit (Tylza) etc., because the issue here is completely different than Gdansk, Elblag and Torun. Again, the deciding factor should be how other post 2000 encyclopedias deal with the subject, not clicks in Google!
Space Cadet 00:18, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While Britannica calls it Gdansk throughout, the columbia encyclopedia is inconsistent - it calls it sometimes Danzig and sometimes Gdansk in the period in question. However, to be honest, this is a rather thorny issue. While Danzig and Gdansk are clearly the same name, the city alternately known as Bratislava, Pressburg and Pozsony is rather tougher - these names don't seem very similar to each other, and it's unclear whether Bratislava should be considered a new name created in 1919, or an old name returned to. While I would find it just barely acceptable to call the city Gdansk throughout the article, I do very strongly feel that the Free City as a political unit simply has to be called Danzig. It should also be mentioned (as Columbia does) that the city was universally known as Danzig (both to itself, and to English-speakers) throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, and that the name Gdansk only returned in 1945. At any rate, I agree that the whole issue is problematic. I would say, though, that other articles which mention the city should generally call it Danzig when referring to it before 1945. Arthur Schopenhauser was born in Gdansk seems weird. As Szopen suggested, Arthur Schopenhauser was born in Danzig (Gdansk) seems a better way to do it. john 20:55, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Economy

Economy of Gdansk has moved to Economy of Gdansk. Please write a short summary about the economy of Gdansk, five sentences would be great. Even after outsourcing, this article has still more than 34kB which cannot be handled by many browsers.

Then maybe we do not need tons of book references in Polish, if you have problems with the page size? Nico 07:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To John:
Why does " Arthur Schopenhauser was born in Gdansk" seem weird? Mainly because the name is "Schopenhauer", without the "s". Everything else, is the long process of getting used to the new. It took Britannica about 8 years to make sure the consistency of using "Gdansk", in any reference, reached 100%. Columbia still takes it's time.
If we keep our efforts consistent, and make tools for gaining knowledge better and better, in 10 years only an ignorant will think that "Arthur Schopenhauer was born in Gdansk seems weird".
BTW, Szopen is a great guy but sometimes very emotional.
We cannot be. What if we make this exception for "Gdansk"? How are you going to handle "naming throughout history" in for example L'viv, Vilnius, Hrodna etc. What objective criterion are you going to find to determine when should a city be called by which name, when there just is no such criterion at all, that would work in any case (or at least in majority of most dominant cases). That's why it is a good idea to first spend as much time as necessary to explain the evolution of the demograpics in respect to class dependant language persuasion, as a function of popularity of certain name - German or Polish - in the English speaking world. This would quiet down all the cry babies. And then consistently use the agreed English name. Even if that English name was different 10, 20, 150 or 300 years ago.
Why should it seem weird for me to write "My grandmother was born in L'viv, lived in L'viv, was expelled from L'viv, visited L'viv in the 90'ties"? What good would it do to write : "My grandmother was born in Lemberg, lived in Lwów, was expelled from Lvov, visited L'viv in the 90'ties"? In a letter to a friend, perhaps, but not in the encyclopedia. Of course I can only imagine what would happen if I told my mom that "My grandmother was born in Lemberg". But these are emotions that do not belong in the encyclopedia. When I write to my friend of East Prussian descent I use both names (Polish and German) randomly. He seems to observe analogical rules. Again, emotions.
Hope I cleared up my stand on this.
I might not be able to visit WIKI for a while.
Space Cadet 01:14, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it does get tricky. I would suggest that the use of Lemberg for that city before 1918 and the use of Gdansk for that city before 1793 are roughly comparable - both are the name by which the city was known by the country of which it was a part, but were not in particular use by the inhabitants of the city. As such, I think it would be fine to say of a Polish person born in Lemberg that they were born in Lwów (L'viv). More notably, though, one should, in an article about World War I, note that the Russians entered Lemberg (L'viv) in late 1914, since that is what would be used in most history books. The article on Schopenhauer should say he was born in Danzig (Gdansk). The case for Danzig is, I think, made stronger by the fact that Danzig was not only the name of the city, but also the name of a sovereign state. (Ought we to also talk of Germany's annexation of Klaipeda in March of 1939?). I agree that the issue is tricky, especially when talking about cities that changed name several times in the twentieth century. But I think a policy of using the usual English name at the time, and having the current name in parentheses, is a good policy for how to do it in articles that are not specifically about the location. If you wish to insist on uniformity within the article about the location, I am willing to come to some sort of compromise (just so long as we keep it clear, for instance, that in 1919, Gdansk was taken from Germany and made into the Free City of Danzig.) Otherwise we have to refer to the Treaty of Bratislava of 1809, or the Battle of Slavkov u Brna. The Captiulation of Olomouc. The Congress of Ljubljana...you get the idea. john 07:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The current formulation by Wik "(until 1945 known as Danzig)" looks good to me. john 06:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I still feel fairly strongly that we should use historical names in context where appropriate. So, we should say Schopenhauer was born in Danzig, which is what he would've called it. A parenthetical note that this is "present-day Gdansk" is fine as well. And, to take a more clear-cut example, we should say that Byzantine events happened in Constantinople, not in Istanbul. --Delirium 06:39, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

well, the argument is that cities that changed their names are different from cities which translate their names, or where the dominant translation changes, or whatever. john 17:14, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think that is a quasi argument. Nico 17:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think we sometimes forget our responsibility to history when we worry about modern individuals. Whether or not someone's grandmother cares to recognize the name of the city that was in place when she was born there (no offense intended to any user or their family), the fact is that there were thousands and thousands of people who lived and died under that name. Keeping track of a city name that was in use for less than a decade, I can understand setting aside, but when we're talking about centuries, I think in fairness to the long-since dead (who have no one's close allegiance to give them voice here), we need to represent the names historically. I certainly understand the concerns of the Polish editors, but in this instance I think we need to be fair to those who lived in that city long before we and our grandmothers. Jwrosenzweig 17:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jwrosenzweig,

No offense taken. All I was trying to emphasise is the danger of putting emotions into encyclopedia article. I have lots of emotional reasons of calling the city of my ancestors - "Lwów" for 800 years of it's history (not just my grandmother's time, please look it up before making a ridiculous statement), until 1990. I can spend lots of time and space arguing that the Ukrainian name makes no sense, because there was never a country Ukraine, Ukrainian language or nation. For what? "For our responsibility to history"? That's Demagogy (IMO). All it will create is chaos. Listing forever the horrible fates of Poles of Lwów, the brutally destroyed monuments of Polish history, cemetaries changed into wheat fields, all polish inscriptions removed from the buildings, catholic churches changed into barns etc.? Same thing - emotions! The people you call "Polish contributors" don't defend the "polish POV", but common sense, free of sentimentality, nostalgia and bias. BTW, I never declared myself as "a Polish contributor", so if you intentionally included me in that term, please don't do it again.
Out of curiosity, you really didn't know that Lwów became part of Poland, long before any German wandered to Gdańsk, did you?

SC, sorry, I wasn't thinking about Lwow here but Gdansk...I've been following this conversation loosely for months and hadn't realized Lwow was added as a point of discussion rather than simply as a similar example (obviously I skimmed your entry too quickly). Sorry about that. Your comments about Lwow...I don't feel qualified to respond to, as I am less familiar with its history than that of Gdansk. I think trying to settle the very different issues of two very different cities might be unwise on one talk page, but I am certainly not blaming anyone for this, and offer it as a thought. The argument here for a number of months was between Poles (who used their status as Poles to bolster their argument....not wrongly, in my opinion) -- I thought that I had remembered you as one of them, and apologize if I cast any aspersion on you, though it occurs to me that to be mistakenly thought Polish is no insult, but simply an error on my part (and one which I will not commit again). I understand that the history of Lwow is one filled with troubles and emotions that I am by no means even partially aware of, so I won't respond, except to say again that I had thought the discussion here at Talk:Gdansk was focused essentially on the city of Gdansk, and if this fact has changed in recent weeks, I apologize for not having kept better track of it. I hope these are satisfactory responses: I still hold to my original posting re: Gdansk, but will instantly yield the field if Lwow is being discussed. Jwrosenzweig 19:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Dear Delirium,
Why is "Danzig" a historical name and "Gdańsk" isn't? Because you have a strong hunch? Because you count the number of clicks on Google? Do those clicks represent encyclopedic entries?
"Present day Gdańsk" strongly suggests that the name "Gdańsk" never existed or was used before present day. John already explained to you, that this is not the case, therefore your Constantinople example is way off.
And what do You mean: "we should say Schopenhauer was born in Danzig, which is what he would've called it"? How do you know this? Wasn't he born and raised in Poland? Aren't you speculating too far in the past and isn't your speculation slightly biased?
Thank you for your time!
Sicerely,
Space Cadet 15:58, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet, don't want to get into this, but Schopenhauer was a German-speaker, and almost certainly called his home-city Danzig. And, no, he wasn't born and raised in Poland. He was 5 years old when Danzig/Gdansk was annexed by Prussia. (although, I forget, did Danzig remain with Prussia after the Treaty of Tilsit, or was it briefly taken away again?) john 19:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

John, you're absolutely right, it was incorporated in 1893, when little Artie was 5. (Treaty of Tilsit didn't return it to Poland, but made it a Free City). Then I can respond that he was raised by a family residing in Poland for centuries and so on. I was just questioning the entire line of reasoning based on speculation.
James, I'm sorry I brought in Lwów, but I did it solely to illustrate:

  • that I'm not a "polish POV" defender
  • that if we go by emotions, we will open a bag of worms
  • that the system of consistently using one name, might hurt feelings of some, who declare themselves as "Polish contributors", also, if they decide to go with solely their emotions, but is the only system that can solve majority of most popular inconsistencies (Kaliningrad excluded).

Space Cadet 21:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But what is the rule here? What about Bratislava? That's certainly a name change, rather than a translation change, for instance. And so is Lemberg/Lwow. Or Laibach/Ljubljana, I'd say. The distinction is rather artificial, in fact. Is St. Petersburg/Petrograd a name change, or a translation issue? I think we should simply use the name in use for the time in question, so far as that is clear. john 01:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If that's what the majority wants, I'm in. I was just playing Kassandra, trying to see the future and seeing lots of problems there.
Space Cadet 02:32, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No one denies that Danzig and Gdansk have a common origin. But I still think they must be seen as different names, and should be used in historical context. As for the Space Cadet, he should read the statement at the top of the page. -- Nico 03:11, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nico, at this point Space Cadet seems to be willing to compromise. Also, as to quote at the top, what's the source of that? A google search on Steven Anderson doesn't seem to reveal anything obviously interesting, and the only result for "Revenge: The Expulsion of the Germans is this page. john 03:28, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who inserted the quote? Nico 03:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it appears it is not a quote at all, but a comment by Mr. Anderson. It was inserted by user:209.98.197.185 on January 12. john

People.. stop this please... i've just read Cautious edits and then from 66.47 something - it seems that User:H.J. is back.. I think i will leave wikipedia again.. I just don't want to waste my time with ever-lasting revert wars... Szopen

Name of the City

Ok, this page is about a fifth of Recent Changes, for "fixes" to its first sentence, largely due to the name of the city. Does this need to be protected again? Or can we play nicely? Pakaran. 03:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, or why this page has to be "protected". Why can't we just say that certain people call the city Gdansk and certain other people call it Danzig? Why all the reversions?

Is someone trying to get Wikipedia to say that the "real" or "proper" or "current" name of the city is G. or D.? If so, then that person is the problem and should be ignored or, if necessary, asked to leave.

In all cases of controversy, and this is clearly a controversy! -- the Wikipedia must not and cannot take sides. The article cannot endorse any viewpoint, even something as small as what is the name of the city.

You guys really piss me off! I've read the article and the talk pages and page history so many times, but all I can remember is the fussing and fighting, the threats to revert the page or quit the project!!

I know more about which users fought each other than about which historians or ethnic groups or governments gave WHAT NAME to the city in question!!!!

So:

  • I am unprotecting the article.
  • I am putting it on my watchlist.
  • I will find a way to settle the "name controversy" once and for all

Forcefully,
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

This is historically the first time, that I agree with you on all counts, Uncle Ed. Space Cadet 15:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh my, oh my... Let's see what happens...Halibutt

Sigh, Ed, I must say that I do not like your version. In the first place, everyone agrees that the city's current name is "Gdansk". Of course, earlier in its history it was frequently known as "Danzig". The question is the best way to indicate this. I, of course, think that my way, which actually explains the situation (that it was usually called Danzig before 1945) is the best, but I think an article which tries to claim that both names are equally valid today is simply wrong. As to the edit war, that had nothing to do with the disputes going on on the talk page, which I think were basically simmering down. What happened was that a [name for user trying to cause trouble deleted], user:Gdansk, decided to start messing with the article in order to minimize the importance of the name Danzig by flooding the article with other, hardly used, names. I won't edit the introduction just yet, but I think the current version is quite poor. john 18:56, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good for you, John! I don't know a thing about Danzig or Gdansk or whatever it's called, except what I've read right here at Wikipedia. I'm counting on people like you and Wik and Space Cadet and Delirium and everyone else to contribute content. All I do is copy-edits and pray for world peace :-) --Uncle Ed 19:37, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I made some hopefully acceptable edits to Ed's version. My edits were to move slightly in favor of the Polish argument, which hopefully is okay since I've mostly been taking the German side. I clarified that Gdansk is currently the predominantly used name, while Danzig is a previous name, and one that was once the predominant English name. --Delirium 09:41, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to note, in case there's an edit war, that the version which Wik has just reverted to is, I think, substantially correct and should be maintained. john 19:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually:

Danzig google search = 520.000


Gdansk " " = 513.000

Hamburg is Germany's second largest city and its principal port; Gdansk is the 6th biggest city in Poland and its principal seaport

That is as may be, but your deletion was not appropriate, as it deleted the importance of German history to the city and its German name, which has been argued about for months now. I reverted it. I will add the extra information you included, which is useful. RickK 23:24, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Slightly reorganised the intro - 1st para is what the city is, 2nd is more of what it is, 3rd is the Polish/German name issue (cognisant of all that has passed on this talk page) which segues into the 4th para discussing history with even more names for the place. I hope that's workable for all - David Gerard 23:38, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

I return to this page very reluctantly to make the following proposition for the first paragraphs:

This article is about the city of Gdańsk; for the musical band named Danzig, see Danzig (band).'
Here the former name seems pretty much out of place.
Gdańsk (formerly Danzig) is a famous Baltic Sea city with a long and colorful history. Gdansk is the 6th biggest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship.
  • "Baltic city" is such an ambiguous term. Maybe "Baltic Sea city" is better?
  • capital of voivodship moved up here
The city lies on the southern coast of the Gdansk Bay (of the Baltic Sea), and is with a population of 460,000 (2002) the biggest city in the historical province of Eastern Pomerania.
  • [[Eastern Pomerania|Eastern]] [[Pomerania]] or [[Kashubian]] region is maybe not neccessary, in particular as the Kashubian article is about Kashubians and not the Kashubian region.

The name of the city was Danzig during the long period of German rule, but is now Gdańsk, the Polish equivalent. However, the old German name is still often used colloquially in German, English and Scandinavian languages. In Kashubian it is known as Gduńsk.

The usage of the old name occur maybe rather in some (Germanic) languages than in some countries. There is no reason to believe that inhabitants of Germany should be more prone to use the old name than Austrians or the Swiss. I added the Scandinavian languages, since I know that it's valid for at least Danish and Swedish - and hence probably for Norwegian too.

--Ruhrjung 00:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Band name thing: remember that Danzig redirects here. Perhaps that entry should be made a disambiguation page.
Old name: read the edit history and this talk page ...
I don't feel very strongly about it, but the intro as was did not make very readable prose in English. (This is often the case after a protracted edit war.) - David Gerard 00:40, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

A disambiguation page at Danzig, what an improvement! Typical that no-one had thought of that before! Good, very good! What about "a famous Baltic Sea city" - does that make idiomatic English prose?--Ruhrjung 00:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As it's sensitive whether the German phase of Gansk's history was long or short, why not word it:

The name of the city was Danzig from Hanseatic times to 1945, but is now Gdańsk, the Polish equivalent.

--Ruhrjung 01:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Polish/Pomeranian city name of Gdansk was in use for more than 1000 years without any interruption (997-2004). As Gdansk was an international trade centre it had also other names, but Gdansk was in use all the time.

What about the wording "known to the world as Danzig from Hanseatic times to 1945"?--212.181.86.12 01:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There were times that Poles and Germans managed to live together peacefully for the common prosperity. But this changed drastically during World War II, when the Nazis murdered 20% of Polish population just because they refused to became Germans/to use German language (e.g. Stutthof, Piasnica). Since that time the German names of Polish cities are very insulting to Polish people, and they should not be used in English Wikipedia.

German names of Polish cities

In the first place, the idea that using the names by which these cities were known for hundreds of years is offensive to Polish people is just about the most POV statement that I can possibly imagine. Obviously, the article should refer to cities by their present names, primarily, but when discussing them historically there is absolutely no reason not to refer to them by the names by which they were known at the time. In the second place, I will once again express my feeling that Danzig ought to be a redirect, and not a disambiguation page. Almost all links to Danzig are indicating the city, and probably almost none (or maybe even none) refer to the obscure band. john 01:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No matter what ill-will may exist between Poles and Germans, it is absolutely accurate to refer to Gdansk as "Danzig" when speaking of a time prior to 1945. -- Emsworth 03:24, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that, and doing otherwise seems awkward and disinguous at times. For example, the article currently reads one of Gdańsk's most famous products, a liqueur named Danziger Goldwasser ("Gdańsk gold water"). Translating "Danziger Goldwasser" as "Gdansk gold water" seems bordering on the silly. --Delirium 12:03, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

In Germany we use the name Gdansk. When talking about the historic city, we are using the name Danzig, i.e. when we are talking about the city in which Günter Grass was born. Of course, this text should be Gdansk, not Danzig, because the city is Polish today. In the German Wikipedia there is a naming convention, which uses always the names in the language of the country in which the city is situated today. There are only a few exceptions: Rom instead of Roma, Warschau instead of Warszawa, etc. for very important cities which are often in the news (there is a web page of the University of Leipzig which counts the importance of a city's name in newspapers and we have a fixed threshold). Danzig is such an exception, because in this catalogue it is important enough. Why don't you use such a method in the English Wikipedia, to avoid struggles, too? Of course, there are several, non-German nationalists editing here, which missed the last 50 years in Germany and want Gdansk to be a German city. In Germany the people would laugh about such backwardness. We are living in a united Europe, war is over! Stern 12:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Newspapers and travel agencies in Germany still use the name Danzig - without any nationalistic background. Only communist newspapers like Junge Welt and Neues Deutschland use the Polish name Gdansk for anti-nationalistic reasons whereas big newspapers like Bild, Spiegel and Süddeutsche Zeitung still use the name Danzig. The term we seems to refer to a small group who has captured the German Wikipedia and tries to discourage contributors with alternative opinions.
The arbitrary threshold which was introduced by two users within two hours and opposed by three users within three weeks. It is ridiculous to call a minority of two people we in Germany since there are 98 million German-speaking people. Unfortunately many of these 98 million don't have enough time to waste for edit wars in Ridipedia (or Rumopedia).
According to the Goethe-Institut, there are over 120 million people who have German as their native language. Besides, it's the most popular foreign language after English in Europe, and I guess most people who speak it as a foreign or second language use Danzig as well. Nico 14:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)---

This is not a European Encyclopedia. (Besides, in Europe it's still Russian and French before German). In the world, as a second language, German is way after Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, French and Russian. [[User:Space Cadet|Cadet}

In the first place, I'm not talking to you, but to the user above. In the second place, you are wrong according to the German language. You shouldn't make such statements without knowing anything about the case Nico 17:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You are wrong. I use Danzig when I speak German. And the German wiki use Danzig as well. By the way, Danzig is also the primary name in many other languages, most notably the scandinavian ones. Nico 17:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree we should use Gdansk in most cases, but not in historical context where it would be anachronistic. We can't really talk about Arthur Schopenhauer or Günter Grass being born in Gdansk without seeming silly. Similarly, we wouldn't want to talk about the Byzantine Empire having its capital in Istanbul, when it was clearly in Constantinople. Similarly with Königsberg, which is now Kaliningrad, but shouldn't be called such in historical context. --Delirium 12:12, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
That's what I think, too. Stern 12:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The problem here is not that Germans or Poles are generally nationalist or insensitive or whatever, but that sensitive people get tired - if they don't shun these kind of potential conflicts already to start with. Left are the worst extremists, who unfortunately have the most energy to waste. :-(
--Ruhrjung 12:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The analogy does not match. Constantinopol was the only (if we don't count Bisantion) name of the present day Istanbul untill 1453. The Istanbul is entirely new name. The same is about Koenigsberg. The case of Gdansk is different. Gdansk is the first known name of the city used solely till German settlement started in the second half of the 13th century (of course there was also Latin wersion). From that time it was used by local population around the city and by Polish suveren of the city. I would like notice that I don't intend to quarell about the name. According to me the English name should be used consecquently. Native English speakers should decide what is English name of Gdansk-Danzig. User:Yeti
There is no one English name. The English name was "Danzig" from the time when an English name can be said to have developed until 1945, and "Gdansk" thereafter. For the period before 1945, I'd say that "Danzig" remains much more the English name than "Gdansk" (especially for the modern period), but it's more ambiguous. There's no clear cut answers on this. As to otherwise, is it correct to speak of the Battle of Tsaritsyn as the turning point of the Second World War? Or of the 900 Day Siege of St. Petersburg? In 1915-24, should we speak of St. Petersburg or Petrograd? I'd also note that from 1453-1924, Constantinople remained the official name of that city, although "Istanbul" was already a local Turkish name for it. That is to say, there is no easy answer as to what the name of a foreign city is in English. But, it seems to me that it makes sense to use a 1945 cut-off. Before that time, going back into the high middle ages, the inhabitants of the city themselves largely called it Danzig. Thereafter, the inhabitants have called it Gdansk. English-users have generally made the same division. This seems like the obvious way to go about it, despite the fact that there were a few hundred years after foundation when the city was probably called something closer to "Gdansk" than to "Danzig".
john
In such circumstancies I do not see any reason why we should use the German name for the historically and present time Polish city. It makes dangerous precedence. It is interesting that there are no edit wars about the names of former Polish cities in present day Ukraine or Lithuania. Former Lwow is conswquently called Lviv in English Wikipedia - by Polish editors as well. The same about Vilnius (former Wilno) and Hrodna (Grodno). It should be noted that untill 1945 Polish speling was standard in English. The naming conventions HAVE TO be used consequently. If we start using German names to describe history of Gdansk, Torun or Wroclaw, the same should be about Lviv, Vilnius, Hrodna etc. And this will cause not necessary edit wars. I have noticed that for many contributors from Germany the World War II still is on. But it is over, I hope. User:Yeti.
Please give me a list of those "many contributors from Germany for which the World War II is still on" - I am interested in seeing it. -- Baldhur 11:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Check history under articles about cities and territories of present day northern and western Poland as well as persons born there. There are permanent edit wars. What is s reason of that. Why what is acceptable for Polish contributors who can appreciate Ukrainians, Belarusians or Lithuanians - even it does not agree with Polish national myths - is unacceptable for so many German and German origins contributors? Yeti 12:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't want to enter this discussion but I would like to quote Space Cadet (and I hope he doesn't mind): I would like to emphasize that the nature of the past problems was never "the conflict between German and Polish ways of looking at the history of borders and place names". Let's not simplify complex things and let's avoid labeling. No contributors are required to state their nationality, and even if they declare it, it should not be a factor of their reliability.
I have seen irrational and revanchist viewpoints from both sides, and I don't want to see a battlefield opened here about the question, if German or Polish contributors are more guilty. That is not helpful and will only worsen this sad situation. -- Baldhur 12:48, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that the people who consistently tend to change names of Polish cities are even German. The declared German contributors seem to avoid those controversial issues. But Yeti makes an excellent point about consistency. Use the same method for current polish western lands as for former eastern. Instead of counting clicks on the Google we should use only encyclopedic references.Space Cadet 19:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the same method should be used. I think all cities should be referred to by the name by which they are commonly referred to in English for the time under discussion. That is, if English language historians use "Lwow" to refer to that city before 1772 and between 1918 and 1945, as "Lemberg" from 1772 to 1918, as "Lvov" from 1945 to 1991, and as "Lviv" since 1991, the article should do the same. If, on the other hand, historians simply call it "Lviv", we should do that. In the case of those cities, I'm not sure the answer is all that clear-cut. In the case of Gdansk, it is very clear that historians continue to refer to it almost exclusive as Danzig when discussing its history before 1945. Given that, the question of what to do here does not seem to be all that difficult. Once we've worked that out, I'd be happy to go and work out what is to be done with other cities in Central Europe like Lviv or Vilnius, or whatever (I'd say "Vilna" should be used before 1945, or whatever, since that's what it's generally called in English). At any rate, the point is not to take a Polish or German perspective, or whatever, but simply that we should use the most commonly used name. (And Space Cadet, many encyclopedias do still refer to "Danzig" before 1945. Columbia, for instance, does so intermittently) john 20:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But what to do with Cracow? For historical reasons call it Kraków prior to 1861, Krakau or Cracovia prior to 1918, then again Kraków, and Krakau again (1939-1945)? This does not make too much sense to me...Halibutt
Obviously, yes. The chaos would be incredible. Yeti 10:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I saw that the city's Latin name is referred to (looking inconsistant to me) in two ways: "urbs Gyddanyzc" and "urbs Gyddanzyc", the latter sounding more reasonable (to me). Since I'm not a historian, I didn't edit the page in either way, though I think it may be simply a typo. Could somebody (more knowledgeable) have a look...? --Palapala 10:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

new section

Space Cadet, it is very upsetting that you would try to change this article in a way that the discussion on this page shows is strongly opposed without any further attempt at discussion. john 15:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Space Cadet: How about if I the next time changed all occurences of Gdańsk to its Germanic name - Danzig - in order to make the article consistent? This is a Germanic encyclopedia, after all. Nico 16:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I propose we simply make two articles out of this, one article dealing with the old German city of Danzig (until 1945, although the city de jure was German until 1990), one article dealing with the current Polish city located where Danzig previously was found. A such solution could end this argument. Nico 16:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To John: Wasn't my intention to upset anybody. Some how I don't see the "strong opposition". The aggreement was only temporary and, quite frankly very badly defined and flaky. Also none of the other analogical issues (former eastern Poland) have been addressed, which was a condition of my aggreement. I acknowledged your message about Columbia. It only shows that the British act quicker, more thoroughly and more consistently. 20 years ago Britannica was using Danzig consistently. Times changed, which I and many others (not necessarily using acceptable measures) were trying to explain. Insert as many paragraphs as you want describing when, who and why (but please avoid your annoying speculations: "it is ridiculous to me...", "Schopenhauer thought...", "Fahrenheit felt...", "city inhabitants surely considered themselves..." etc) called the city Danzig. But then run the article smoothly with one name only.
BTW: I haven't been to library for a while, but this "American Heritage Dictionary" from 1992 fell into my hands with an entry "Free City of Gdansk". Interesting.
What are you saying Nico? Change Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast! Or better start your own "Germanic" encyclopedia. English language name for the city is Gdansk (sometimes with ogonek, sometimes without), and that pertains to historic times, too.

Cadet

Nonsense. The English name of the city was Danzig, and I guess most (all?) English-speaking people didn't even know the name Gdańsk. Why do you want to change the usage during centuries of English-speaking people who lived and called the city by one name, to a new name they never knew? I have also noticed that you insist that the Oder river should be called Odra, although the English name is Oder and nothing else.

You are not very cooperative now, and you know I tend to be uncooperative as well if other people are. Nico 16:48, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Odra" wasn't me! It's "ODER", period!
I deeply respect the heritage of centuries of good English language people using the name "Danzig" in sickness and in health. Why don't you write an article about them? Let us get to know them, as well as you do.
Even, if the English name changed yesterday, I don't care. The name is Gdansk now even in reference to WW II names, and please, acknowledge it. How come I don't see You changing to German all cities occupied by Nazis during WW II in other coutries than Poland? Why do You single Poland out? Biased? Then it's not a good place for you!
And please, don't threaten me, even if you want to make me laugh.
Where is user 66.47.... ? I need her input on this.
Cadet

I do not acknowledge something which is wrong. But you should acknowledge that city was never called Gdansk, not officially nor in English, before 1945 (in English eventually later, and the city was officially considered German by Germany as well as their allies until 1990). Noone is threaten you, and don't be so bloody ridiculous. Nico 17:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, dear Cadet, we can agree that Poland (like also Bohemia/Moravia) seem to be a more sensitive spot then many other - at the time being, at least.

Polish sensitivness has to be handled pragmatically, as we all know that there are reasons for this sensitivity; and we do not wish to see these prolonged conflicts. The quality of the articles suffer (see John's revertion as an example of that) aswell as the wikipedia community as a whole.

But even beside this need for pragmatism, I would like to remind you all, that you shouldn't get fooled by some users stating their opinion again and again. They don't grow in number for each time they repeat themselves.

Maybe it's time for a poll?
(A new poll, that is. I.e. on a new compromise, which could break the stallmate.)

What's required, then, is to work out a new compromise proposal, isn't it?

(And me? ...I support consistent usage within each wikipedia article.)

--Ruhrjung 17:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

TO NICO:
Maybe the English language people were generally ignorant about Eastern Europe in the past. Maybe when visiting, judging by the language, they thought they were in Germany (kind of like when visiting East LA, one might think he's in Mexico - no racial comment intended). "De iure" is a dangerous way of reasoning. The 1308 Teutonic invasion was illegal. All the German settlement following the invasion was the result of this illegal act. Therefore "de iure" Gdansk was never German to begin with.
But seriously: The English name to be used in reference to any period is Gdansk. This is the fact of the case and it is undisputed.
When you resort to calling me names, are you compensating for lack of knowledge, lack of common sense or for anti-polish bias?
TO RUHRJUNG:
Maybe, dear Ruhrjung, we can agree that Poland (like also Bohemia/Moravia) does not seem to be a more sensitive spot then many other - at the time being, at least, but is just less known and therefore more subject of misconceptions, stereotypes from XIX century and other non-scientific inconsistencies.
Cadet

You can hardly argue that Gdansk/Danzig should be a lesser known topic! :-)
Compare, for instance, with Vyborg, which in many ways shared a reflecting fate (of Gdansk's) during the same centuries.
--Ruhrjung 18:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But you do agree that if I ask a thousand randomly picked, humanistically educated, English language people about Royal Prussia, none of them will associate the name witth a polish province that it was.
I don't know much about Vyborg, that's why I don't write about it, to avoid possibility that I'm following some false (although popular!)stereotype.
Cadet

Cadet, you have no right to decide that an issue is "undisputed". John has even proved that Danzig is called Danzig in most historical sources when referring to the pre 1945 period.

Anyway, when you are talking about "Polish province" etc., you must know that these kings of Poland, at least in the past, usually were Germans, that they often were German souvereigns as well and that they spoke German, not Polish. Nico 20:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I never heard that any Polish kings (before 1699) were Germans. I know that king John Casimir, before his election was known to consider himself 100% Austrian, when by origin he was Swedish. But maybe you're referring to the fact that three Jagiellon kings were born from a Habsburg princess? That doesn't make them German. Royal families intermarry constantly for centuries. Now, I am aware of a couple of kings (way before Teutonic knights), who were nominally subjected to the Holy Roman Emperor. But as far as the rest, they were all independent rulers of Poland (and sometimes Lithuania), even the Saxon Wettins were rather (unofficially) dependent on the Russian rulers than German.
Once again I hope I cleared things out for you.
Space Cadet 21:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet says:

But seriously: The English name to be used in reference to any period is Gdansk. This is the fact of the case and it is undisputed.

I don't want to get into the whole argument again, but this is absolutely and completely untrue. Look at the archives. I did a JSTOR search through the major English language historical journals from 1990-1999 (the time when "Gdansk" is most likely to be used) and was able to find absolutely no articles which referred to the city as "Gdansk" during the 19th century, or the 20th century up to 1945. There were some references to it as Gdansk in the 18th century and earlier, but not very many. Most references to Gdansk referred to the post-1945 period. I'd add that almost every historical work, whether a monograph or a textbook, that I have ever read, refers to the place as "Danzig" before 1945. I will admit that Britannica, and perhaps other encyclopedias, does refer to the place as "Gdansk" throughout its history, but I'm not sure why we should avoid what is both the popular and the scholarly usage of the name "Danzig" to refer to the city before 1945. At any rate, Space Cadet, seeing as I pointed this out months ago, I can only feel you are being willfully dishonest to suggest that "Gdansk" is the only proper way to refer to the city in English at any time period.

Further, to the question of how other cities which have had name changes like this should be referred to, unless you want to start a meta page to discuss a general policy on such pages, we're going to have to start somewhere. I'd be happy to try to work out some general policy on how to deal with such things, but I don't see why such a project not occurring means you have the right to make massive changes that a pretty clear majority is at least very skeptical of. While there is, perhaps, an argument to be made for uniformity, that argument isn't strengthened by making dishonest claims about standard English usage, certainly.

I'd also like to apologize if my edit warring this morning caused damage to the article. At any rate, the whole discussion here has not been at a very high level. Why don't we try to rationally discuss the pros and cons of the different ways of doing this? I begin below. john 05:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reasons all references to the city should call it "Gdansk"

  • Consistency is to be striven for
  • The city was originally called Gdansk, and has always been called Gdansk among certain sectors of the population of the region (not necessarily the city). If we are to call it "Danzig" for part of its history, it is difficult to determine at what point it should begin to be called Danzig.
  • It would cause chain reaction chaos on all other articles about cities with complex history.
    • given that there is currently no standard way of doing this, I don't see why this causes any more chaos than anything else. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The method of using different names for different periods of time is being proposed only for Polish cities. This is biased and unfair. Poland is being singled out and trated differently than other countries.
    • This is not true. We may note that many cities already use different names for different periods of time. I would also suggest that cities like Lviv (Lemberg/Lwow), Vilnius (Vilna/Wilno), Bratislava (Pressburg/Pozsony), Ljubljana (Laibach), Helsinki (Helsingfors), Oslo (Christiania), and so forth also be referred to by different names for different periods of time. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's why I'm thinking of withdrawing my support for the compromise. If we want to remain consistent, we'd have to use highly-offensive names. Lutzmanstadt for Lodz (1939-1945) is just an example from the top of my head, but Laibach and Pozsony work the same way for Slovenians and Slovakians, respectively.
Moreover, the city I live in would become a complete mess. As the name Warsaw is relatively modern in English, it would have to bear the name of Warszawa 'til the partitions, then Warschau for a short period of time, then Varshava (1831-1918), then again Warschau (1915-1918), and finally Warsaw (after WWI)...Halibutt 02:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think city names used as briefly, and controversially, as Lutzmanstadt, would really not fall under this. As to other examples, I don't think the idea is for the rule to be to use the name used at the time. The rule is to use the name that people use when writing in English about the city at a given time. "Warsaw" is just about always called that in English, so no need to worry. "Pozsony" is, I think, rarely used in English. Before 1919, "Pressburg" would probably be appropriate. "Laibach" was used, and I don't think it's fair to say that "Pozsony" and "Laibach," which were long time names for cities (the former of which was not, I think, primarily inhabited by Slavs at the time, and the latter of which at the very least had a substantial German population - my understanding was that there were very few Slovene bourgeois until quite late) are equally as offensive as "Lutzmanstadt," which was a Nazi invention. But, at any rate, the point is "How do English-speakers now refer to the city in the period under discussion?" In the case of Laibach/Ljubljana, for instance, the 1821 Congress held in that city is always called the "Congress of Laibach." It would seem odd to me for Wikipedia to call it the "Congress of Ljubljana," which is an utterly unrecognizable name. So, while what people called it at the time is in some ways important - especially if the city has no English name (not the case of Warsaw) - it is only important if it also represents what English-speakers call it now when referring to it at the time under discussion. Since using "most common form in English" is official Wikipedia policy in any case, this seems like a good way to go about it. Of course, in the case of some cities it would be hard to say. Is Lemberg or Lwow more commonly used for that city in the 19th century, for instance? Or, again, Pozsony vs. Pressburg (I don't think Bratislava is ever used to refer to that city before 1919 - that change is more in the manner of a name change than a mere translation change). This would also allow us not to use archaic foreign language names for cities that were once used in English, but aren't anymore - like "Mayence" for Mainz, or "Ratisbon" for "Regensburg" (both French names for German cities); or "Ofen" for Buda (a German name for a Hungarian city). Anyway, I still fail to see how such a policy is either particularly difficult to implement or particularly confusing. john 08:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The proposers of the "different period - different name" approach intentionally ignore the issue of the Polish cities annexed by Soviet Union in 1945.
    • Again, I would be happy to deal with this, although Lviv is an odd case, for instance, given that its official name was "Lemberg" for some time, despite the inhabitants still calling it Lwow. One might also note that Lwow/Lvov/Lviv are all pronounced approximately the same way in English. Danzig and Gdansk are not. At any rate, I'm perfectly happy to refer to these cities by different names over the course of their history. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • "Different period - different name" is based on strictly emotional and non scientific reasons, like "Fahrenheit would turn in his grave..." and so on.
    • Have you even read the many, many, many times I've explained that historians continue to refer to the city as Danzig for earlier periods? john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Leading encyclopedias use the name Gdansk consistently for every reference, and for any point in history.
    • Some encyclopedias do, others do not. Most non-encyclopedic historical works absolutely do not do this. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • It is not an "extermination of German names" if you mention the German name in introduction of every pertaining chapter (in italics) and explain the details of its use.
    • I concur. I am not particularly concerned with the question of the extermination of German names, which is an overblown argument. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • The "traditionally (...) German city" argument refers only to tradition from 1871, when the Polish Tradition dates back to 997.
    • This is nonsense, and based on the idea that the adjective "German" can only refer to a nation-state entitled "Germany". The city was ethnically and linguistically German, and thus its own inhabitants called it "Danzig," from a point in the late Middle Ages at least. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Gdansk is now the Official English name for the city. If the Official English name changes to Danzig again, we will use it consistently, throughout the ages up to present time, with Gdansk in parentheses in introduction.
    • The official English language name of St. Petersburg is St. Petersburg. Does this mean we should not call it Petrograd from 1915 to 1924, or Leningrad from 1924 to 1991? In the case of stuff like this, I think consistency ought to be trumped by usage. john 19:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reasons that the city should be called "Danzig" for at least some, if not all, of its history before 1945

  • This is what it was usually known as in English from the time that standard spellings arose.
  • This is what most of the actual inhabitants of the city called it, from at least late Medieval times until 1945.
  • This is what contemporary English-language historians usually call it for the period before 1945.
  • Many German (and other) contributors are offended by the extermination of German names in this traditionally overwhelmingly German city. Although expelled or killed, at least some respect for their history - and the history of the city - should be in order in the English Wikipedia. (added by Nico)

Feel free to add any others. Perhaps this might usefully enable us to come to some assessment of what, exactly, we are arguing about. john 05:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Danzigers population losses

I removed numbers from the following paragraph The official German history estimates that about 100,000 Danzigers — 40% of the city's pre-war population — lost their lives in the war, including the evacuation and Soviet capture of the city.

The reason I doubt the numbers shown. I read recently about 295 000 refugees from Danzig officially registered in W.Germany after the war. Taking into account pre-war population of 380 000 we have the gross deficit of 85 000, that might contain also postively verified Danzigers, that stayed. So the number doesnt look reliable. The second reason, I supose that Danziger means more citizen of the FSD then the dweller of the city. In this case 100 000 means 25% of deficit. Anyway the numbers are dubious. Cautious 20:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)


With regard to the number of citizens of Danzig who were killed in the war and its aftermath, my estimate of which was questioned by 'cautious,' I offer the following excerpt from an academic paper I wrote more than a decade ago. By the way, let me state for the record that I am politically a liberal and philosophically a humanist, and I have lived and worked in Poland (and have visited what today is called Gdansk). 

    Djiekuje bardzo,

-- Steven C. Anderson, 15 March 2004 --

The official history, using prewar population figures, wartime estimates and postwar figures from both German states and Poland, concludes that 2,167,000 people from the Oder-Neisse territories died as a result of the war and the subsequent expulsions, but estimates that about 500,000 of these were military casualties, reducing the number of civilian deaths to about 1.6 million. To this it adds the deaths of 100,000 Danzigers and 217,000 German residents of prewar Poland, for a total of about 1.9 million civilian deaths. 101

No breakdown is given of the proportion who died in the flight from the Red Army, during the occupation or during the expulsions, but an analysis of the figures indicates that about a third of the casualties must have occurred among those who fled during the conquest; the balance apparently occurred during the period of expropriation and expulsion. Roos says approximately 7.2 million fled or were expelled from the Oder-Neisse territories put under Polish control, along with 380,000 Danzigers and 880,000 German-Poles. “Of these,” he says, death claimed about 1.2 million from the territories, 90,000 Danzigers and 200,000 German-Poles, for a total of nearly 1.5 million civilian fatalities, not including those in northern East Prussia. 102

Szaz mentions the 2.16 million cited by Schieder, which includes military casualties, but elsewhere says “over 1 million” of the 3.5 million expelled from the territories lost their lives. 103 From these estimates it is evident that 1.5 million to 2 million German civilians lost their lives in the Soviet conquest of eastern Germany and subsequent expulsions. In other words, one-sixth to one-fifth of the population died in the revenge of the East. ______________________

101. Schieder, Theodor, ed. Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe. Bonn (no date)., pp. 122-23.

102. Roos, Hans. A History of Modern Poland. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966, pp. 215-16.

103. Szaz, Zoltan Michael. Germany's Eastern Frontiers: The Problem of the Oder-Neisse Line. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1960., pp. 96, 126.Earlier discussion:

Again we have the same hard numbers 380 000 prewar population of Frei Stadt, 295 000 registered in W. Germany after the war. Simple calculation give you 85 000 for all war casualties and people verified positively by Polish authorities. This number include Jews and Poles murdered by Nazis, victims of bombing, German soldiers killed in action, German POW kept in Soviet Union after the war, victims of the city capture, citizens of FSD verified as Poles after the war, victims of the Soviet orgy after the capture, victims of criminals after Polish take-over, and alleged victims of population transfer. In addition, possibly both those numbers have slight error. This makes statement about more then 100 000 of the city inhabitants died wrong and of course 25% is out of the question. Another point is confusion of the inhabitants of the city with the citizens of FSD. I am right. Cautious 09:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cautious, you have to remember, that people were born during war in Danzig too, some may emigrate into Danzig, so the number of casualties is not simply difference between those two quoted numbers. Szopen
This is understood. What I mean is, that nobody has seriously defended that 100 000 number. The number includes also factual error, since it is related to all citizens of FSD. I am favour of giving proper numbers if they are known. Cautious 11:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What was protected

Following text was removed by Nico:

On September 1, 1939, German troops invaded Poland, initiating World War II. On September 2 Germany officially annexed the Free City. The Nazi regime murdered the Polish postmen defending the Polish Post Office after the COF: this was one of the first war crimes during WWII.

Please restore the proper version.Cautious 22:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "proper" version is written from a strong Polish-nationalistic point of view, it is denying the deaths of a large number of (German) Danzigers, it is calling the Danzig Research Society "Gdansk Research Society" and has a number of typos. Nico 22:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not denying the fact that some number of Danyigers died. I dont see a point in puting 100 000 instead very great number, because 100 000 makes no sense at all, see above and 40% makes no sense at all accordingly. Typos are OK, but changing murdered in killed is a falsification. Cautious 22:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Article protections are arbitrary. I protected this article the moment I discovered the edit war. I don't take sides. I simply protect immediately. The current version will have to live until the article is unprotected. Kingturtle 22:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

taken from Wikipedia:Protected page

Which version was protected. It is what Nico tries to remove On September 1, 1939, German troops invaded Poland, initiating World War II. On September 2 Germany officially annexed the Free City. The Nazi regime murderedthe Polish postmen defending the Polish Post Office after the COF: this was one of the first war crimes during WWII.Cautious 22:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Article protections are arbitrary. I protected this article the moment I discovered the edit war. I don't take sides. I simply protect immediately. The current version will have to live until the article is unprotected. Kingturtle 22:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh no, not again! I thought we reached some sort of a compromise...Halibutt 00:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

GUYS!! Again : what's wrong with version: Gdansk (Danzig) and Danzig (Gdansk) used respectively for deifferent period of times or Gdansk/Danzig???Szopen

Szopen, this time the problem is different. Nico insist to the number of German victims, that I critically discuss above. And he insist on using word killed instead of murder for Polish postman. Cautious 14:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unrelated to the naming issue

Hi, I just came here to add a link to St Mary's Church in Gdansk. I couldn't do it, so please, let someone do it as soon as the page is unprotected. I hope it won't take too long, I can see there's still a lot to write about here, epecially a list of major sights and this is blocked by that silly debate. Kpalion 02:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • typo: seperate needs changing to separate Richard cocks 17:17, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

What Gdansk is and was

Strange things happen to the Gdansk article, and especially to the initial paragraph. The encyclopedia entry about a city should tell the reader what the city is, where it is situated, and what is is famous for. Here is a couple of facts about Gdansk, that I consider to be essential Mestwin of Gdansk 22:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk today

  • Gdansk is the 6th largest city in Poland with 460,000 inhabitants (2002);
  • Gdansk is Poland's principal seaport, and one of the biggest seaports on the Baltic Sea
  • Gdansk is part of the Tricity (Gdansk+Gdynia+Sopot) and also of the Gdansk Metropolital Area consisting of Gdansk+Gdynia+Sopot+Rumia+Reda+Wejherowo+Zukowo+Pruszcz Gdanski with some 1 million inhabitants
  • Gdansk is an important Polish centre of business, culture, education, politics, etc.
  • Gdansk is the capital of Pomerania (historical-geographical region; Pomerania in wider sense)
  • Gdansk is the capital of Gdansk Pomerania or Eastern Pomerania (historical-geographical region)
  • Gdansk is the capital of Pomeranian Voivodship (administrative and local government unit - Pomerania in stricter sense)
  • Gdansk is main city of Kashubia or Cassubia region inhabited by the kashubians - the 2nd most numerous etnic minority in Poland (400,000)
  • Gdansk is also the site of Kashubian-Pomeranian Association (Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie - the biggest non-governmental organization in Poland Mestwin of Gdansk 22:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk is famous for

Historical Gdansk

  • Gdansk is famous as one of the oldest Polish towns (the stronghold built in 980 by Mieszko I, first historical duke of Poland
  • Gdansk is famous for Saint Adalbert, who baptized the citizens of Gdansk, and died later attempting to baptize the pagans in Prussia
  • Gdansk was the capital of the Duchy of Pomerania (Ducatus Pomeraniae) in 12th-13th centuries
  • Gdansk was the international trade city having inhabitants from various ethnic groups: Poles, Pomeranians, Prussians, Swedes, Danes, Saxons, Germans, Englishmen, Jews, French and others.
  • Gdansk was the biggest city (upto 70,000) of historical Poland in 15th-18th centuries
  • Gdansk was the biggest Polands's seaport accumulating upto 80% of Poland's exports and imports in 15th-18th Mestwin of Gdansk 22:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alternative city names

Gdansk is today inhabited mainly by ethnic Poles, but also by ethnic Kashubians or Pomeranians, and some ethnic Germans. Gdansk used to be and international city open for various nations, etnic groups, languages and cultural influences. Gdansk had also many alternative city names and spelling was changing in time.

Im my opinion it is necessary to state that:

The Polish name is most important as Gdansk is the Polish city, the Pomeranian/Cassubian name is second most important name as there are 400,000 Cassubians in the region; Latin name is the 3rd most important name as the Latin language was the official language of the administration for 800 years; German is the 4th most importamnt language as it was the alternative official language for 400 years.

So the standard headline will be:

Gdansk (Polish: Gdańsk, Kashubian-Pomeranian: Gduńsk, Latin Gedania, Dantiscum, German Danzig) is the 6th largest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship.

Don't suggest that there is a separate English name, just because people often can't write diacritics. It should be:
Gdańsk (former German name Danzig; Kashubian-Pomeranian Gduńsk, Latin Gedania, Dantiscum) is the 6th largest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship.
My Big Polish-English dictionary says that the Polish city of Gdańsk (with diacritics) has an English equivalent of Gdansk (without diacritics) or Dantzick - Mestwin of Gdansk 19:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wik's is certainly better than Gdansk's version of it. I would, however, suggest that a) Danzig be bolded; and b) we make some indication that Danzig was the name by which the city was formerly known not only in German, but in English as well. On the whole, I'd prefer to simply have "Gdańsk (formerly Danzig) is the 6th largest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship." And then detail all the various other names at a later point in the article, as well as explaining that Danzig was the German name. Can one argue that the city was not formerly called Danzig? john 00:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names)
Kpalion 03:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion Danzig is the modern German name of the city. Former German name was spelled Dantzick or Dantzig. I don't like the idea of bolding only the German name and ignoring other languages. There are more Kashubians that Germans in the city, and the Latin language was much more importamt in the city's history. Mestwin of Gdansk 18:50, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this "former German name" one used hundreds of years ago? The Latin language was more important in the city's history? What utter nonsense. If it was used for official records there (as it was in other cities) that doesn't negate the fact that most of the actual inhabitants were Germans. You can try to pretend that "Danzig" isn't the name by which the city was primarily known in English for a long, long time, and isn't still the name by which it is called in English for much of its earlier history, but you aren't fooling anyone. john 19:48, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please stop calling a nonsense everything you disagree. Latin was the official language of Poland (including Gdansk) at least in years 1000-1795. Polish and German were also used first for private and trade contacts, and later, since the 15th century, also for official purposes. It doesn't matter how many times you continue to repeat Danzig it will not change the fact that the English name of the city is Gdansk. Mestwin of Gdansk 19:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It would depend what you mean by "English name of the city", I suppose. The name Danzig has been used as the English name of the city, moreso in previous years than recently. Most English writing that referred to the city prior to 1950 or so referred to it as Danzig, and almost never as Gdansk. This is clearly changing, but historically Danzig was the name most commonly used in English for the city, so it should at least be mentioned for those who may be more familiar with the older usage (which is a lot of people). --Delirium 20:04, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
Delirium, it is more than this. Most English writing since 1945 that refers to the city before 1945 still refers to it as "Danzig". I have repeatedly demonstrated this, and repeatedly been ignored, but I still see no particular problem with referring to a city by two different names in the course of the article. john 23:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Most of the historical maps published in English and Latin before the partitions of Poland use double name for the city: Gdansk/Dantzick. The bilingual status of the city is clearly indicated. The German name of Danzig was enforced during the Prussian/German domination of Poland (1815-1918) and that's why it meets such resistanse: it's an enforces name.

How is it an enforced name? The vast majority of the population was indisputably German in the first half of the last century, at least. But, once again, this is irrelevant. The question is what name is currently used in English to refer to the city before 1945. And that name is Danzig. It doesn't matter what it was called in English at the time, or what it is currently called in German, or anything like that. All that matters is what the standard English usage is today. The standard English usage at present is to use "Danzig" to refer to the city before 1945 and "Gdansk" to refer to it after. Occasionally, "Gdansk" is also used for the city's history before 1793, although Danzig still predominates. Since that is the case, the article should use "Danzig" for the period when present day English writing generally uses "Danzig." john 01:27, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Gdansk was not only the city, it was also a region around. Despite the fact, that official German statistics were proud of having only 3% Poles in Frei Stadt (later they were proud of having 0% of Jews in Germany), at least 25% of population of the city was also of local Kashub origins. It was a times of German chauvinism, so there is no doubt that people were afraid of being different then majority. It is how we got to those 3%. 3% were people, that were strong enough to say that they are Poles (and public enemies of the German state). In matter of fact, in peacefull times, Gdansk would have been mixed city with both names in use. As for the region around, there were clear Polish majority and Gdansk were used to call the city. Your statement, that in the first half of 20-century Danzig had vast German majority is only partly true. Therefore it cannot be the proof against anything. Todays Gdansk dwellers are proud of the ancient history of the city of double name (Gdansk/Danzig) hmm with notable exception of the 30-ties and 40-ties of 20-century. Cautious 09:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, point 1: this article is about the city of Gdansk, not the region. Point 2: my understanding is that the Kashub population of the region by 1900 generally considered itself German, and probably would have called the city Danzig (this occurring, BTW, before there would have been issues of Polish/German enmity). Point 3: this is irrelevant, anyway. The city is known as Danzig in English when referring to it before 1945, and everyone except Space Cadet has completely ignoring this. john 17:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where comes this assumption from? Kashubes elected Polish MP's in the period of Empirial Germany. Cautious 09:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hard data from the German sources?

http://www.literad.de/regional/dan_berent.html Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Berent-Pr.Stargard (Preußisch Stargard, Berent, Dirschau) 1907 1912 Nationalliberal 36,0 % 35,4 % Zentrum 1,2 % 2,3 % Polenpartei 62,2 % 60,9 % SPD 0,6 % 1,4

Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Berent-Pr.Stargard (Preußisch Stargard, Berent, Dirschau) 1907 1912 Nationalliberal 36,0 % 35,4 % Zentrum 1,2 % 2,3 % Polenpartei 62,2 % 60,9 % SPD 0,6 % 1,4 Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Neustadt-Karthaus (Karthaus, Neustadt i. Westpreußen, Putzig) 1907 1912 Deutschkonservativ 28,0 % - Reichspartei - 26,7 % Zentrum 5,9 % 7,6 % Polenpartei 65,5 % 64,5 % SPD 0,5 % 1,2 % Zersplittert 0,1 % 0,1 %

Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Konitz-Tuchel 1907 1912 Deutschkonservativ 25,0 % 20,7 % Nationalliberal - 2,9 % Zentrum 12,0 % 16,3 % Polenpartei 61,3 % 58,1 % SPD 1,7 % 1,9 % Zersplittert 0,0 % 0,1 %

Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Neustadt-Karthaus (Karthaus, Neustadt i. Westpreußen, Putzig) 1907 1912 Deutschkonservativ 28,0 % - Reichspartei - 26,7 % Zentrum 5,9 % 7,6 % Polenpartei 65,5 % 64,5 % SPD 0,5 % 1,2 % Zersplittert 0,1 % 0,1 %

(and in case you also have doubts about Silesia, one example:) Die Reichstagswahlen von im Wahlkreis Pleß-Rybnik 1907 1912 Wahlbeteiligung 75,0 % 69,2 % abgegebene gültige Stimmen insgesamt 30.594 31.407 Reichspartei 6.992 6.988 Zentrum 3.205 5.652 Polenpartei 20.038 16.339 SPD 347 2.420 Zersplittert 12 8 

Cautious 09:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, if you don't want to go with common sense, let's again go to temporary agreement of "Danzig 1793 - 1945".
This proposal doesn't seem to have any sense, and is was not agreed as far as I know; There were three languages in use in the city in this period: The Poles called the city Gdansk, the Kaszubians or Pomeranians called it Gduńsk and the Germans called it Danzig'. The problem was that the German administration tried to enforce the German name, and forbid any altelnative names. The city was of no interest to the English speaking population except the WWI and WWII period, and unfortunately the only available maps were in German. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is not true. Hansa-English trade was very important to both sides. To colonise America, English used Polish wood cutters. However, this doesn't chnage the fact, that Danzig should be used, when it is necessary. Cautious 21:32, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, the real question is what name do english ENCYCLOPAEDIC sources use to describe the city prior to 1945. And the answer is Gdansk!

Space Cadet 01:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, Britannica does. Columbia, as we've noted before, does not. And even Britannica certainly uses "Danzig" to refer to the city before 1945 in other articles. For instance, the article on Günter Grass says he was born in "Danzig (now Gdansk, Pol.)". At any rate, Wikipedia's official naming policy is not "do what other encyclopedias do." It's "use the name most commonly used in English." That's different. Obviously, other encyclopedias provide a model, but we shouldn't slavishly copy them, either. john 01:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions

See also:

This is merely a proposal, and has no authority. john 23:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All the copies of Newsweek and The Economist, I have seen, use Gdansk sometimes also Gdańsk) in all references to the city, present and historical, and never Danzig, so this seems to be the English name of the city. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been, kurwa, trying to tell everybody! IT IS a pierdolone name of the city for past and for present! Unless you have a time machine and want to write an article in XIX century, you better write GDANSK, chuju jeden z drugim! Space Cadet 20:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is simply not true. I am a native English speaker, and I always heard Danzig as the historical name, and Gdansk as the modern name. I heard them both enough that I was 20 when I realized that they were referring to the same city, and not two different cities. -- Walt Pohl 20:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you really believe that what you heard, can be considered an encyclopeadic source, or are you just playing dumb? Space Cadet 20:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're telling me that I don't know how we name things in my own language? Now that's funny. -- Walt Pohl 21:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes I do! Maybe you grew up in a ghetto, or maybe you never went to school. To this day instead of " ...I've always heard...", you write "I always heard"!

So, there! You still didn't answer, if "what you always heard" belongs in an encyclopedia! I am an English speaker, myself. From California, pinche mamon! Space Cadet 21:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Polite, very polite and rude name of Gdansk

The encyclopedia is designed not only for researchers, but also for tourists. I think it is essential to tell the reader planning to visit the city that it the polite city name is Gdansk, very polite name is Gdańsk (with diacritics over n) and it is extremely rude and barbarian to call it Danzig. Just be warned. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! What does politeness have to do with a problem of the city name throughout history? I don't think a tourist will go to Wikipedia and read about Teutonic knights or Royal Prussia, but rather buy a guide. I met some very nice German tourists in Gdansk and I told them: "Herzlich wilkommen in Danzig". I din't feel like a traitor. But I certainly wouldn't greet English tourists like that! Space Cadet 21:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that this is ridiculous. I'm glad we have some common ground. It seems that our dispute, then, revolves around what people in English today call the city now called Gdansk before 1945. I've already shown fairly exhaustively that the English-language historical literature continues to use Danzig when discussing the city prior to 1945. (see the archives) Now the mainstream media has been brought in, so I've taken the liberty of doing a lexis-nexis search for "Danzig". It was a difficult task, to be honest. In particular, there are a fair number of horses with "Danzig" in their name, and that uses up a lot of the material. There's also references to the band Danzig. And there aren't very many lexis-nexis articles

  • "Danzig, Prussia (now Gdansk, Poland)" is listed as the birthplace of Arthur Schopenhauer in an "anniversaries" article in The Times from this February 21.
  • A Time magazine article from April 15, 2002, on a war crimes trial, discusses, "the 1945 sinking of the ship Wilhelm Gustloff by a Russian submarine as it steamed from Danzig (present day Gdansk, Poland) back to Germany."
  • Another Time article, from April 28, 2003, is a review of Günter Grass's novel about the Wilhelm Gustloff, and says, "[Grass's] mother was never able to talk to him about what she experienced when the Russians moved into Danzig." No parentheses at all, here.

Having become frustrated with Lexis-Nexis, I turned to searching through specific publications. The Economist was specifically mentioned by User:Gdansk as a publication which does not use "Danzig". Here are some counterexamples.

  • February 16, 2002: "Lacking the baroque flourishes of other of Mr Grass's works, the story is neatly told. It helps that Mr Grass has returned to his home turf (he was born 75 years ago in the German-speaking, free city of Danzig, now the Polish Gdansk)."
  • December 22, 2001: "A fiery German from Danzig, the independent city- state seized by Hitler in 1939 and later given to Poland, runs a soi- disant government in exile in distant Australia."
  • July 29,2000: "It is said of the Poles that they are among the few people who would send out cavalry to fight tanks but that they are the only people who would expect to win. By their refusal to give way to Hitler over Danzig, they did as much as any nation to start the destruction of German Nazism."
  • December 31, 1999: "China's rulers could ban some advance, and their ban was obeyed. Europe's regimes might try such things. Some did: Florence issued an edict in 1299 forbidding bankers to use Arabic numerals; in 1397 Cologne ordered its tailors not to use machines; after the invention of the ribbon loom in 1579, the city council of Danzig is said to have ordered the inventor to be drowned."
  • April 18, 1998: "Six hundred years ago, the Hanseatic League, a confederation of city-states, made the Baltic the most prosperous part of Europe. To travel and trade between Riga, now the Latvian capital, and Danzig, now Gdansk in Poland, was as natural as, these days, the hop from London to Frankfurt. "

From this it would appear that not only does The Economist use "Danzig", it doesn't even feel the need to use "(now Gdansk)" on references to the city. Newsweek was also mentioned. In this case there's not much to go on - a proquest search of the last several years of Newsweek finds only one reference to either Gdansk or Danzig, and it's from 1989, and discusses how the West German government was still calling "Danzig" a German city in tourist publications, and that the Poles had asked them to stop. So it's hard to say what Newsweek does.

Here's the New York Times (and here we discover a Navy Secretary under Clinton named "Danzig"):

  • An article on Grass's Nobel Prize in 1999 refers to Danzig without qualification.
  • Another 1999 article discussing Israeli sympathy for Kosovo, talks about an Israeli "native of Danzig, a target of Hitler's aggression that later became Gdansk, Poland."
  • An article from 1990 about German reunification, discussing Germany's history, talks about how after 1945 "old German cities like Danzig (now Gdansk)" became part of Poland.

At any rate, it seems clear that English-language publications simply do not simply use "Gdansk" when refering to the city before 1945. Sometimes they may (I've generally been searching for "Danzig" rather than "Gdansk," as the latter would presumably contain so many references to current events as to be hard to find any historical references), but "Danzig" also clearly continues to be used. Space Cadet, you continue to assert that this isn't the case, but so far all you really have to back you up is Encyclopedia Britannica. john 22:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think your effort is worth a lot, John, and maybe I am supposed to act according to nationality, but the conclusion I draw is that a link/redirect from Danzig, and a bolded notion of Danzig in the first line of the article, is very much warranted for. However, I think it would be an important principle for wikipedia articles to refer to the subject of an article with the same name through the whole of each article. In other words, and according to my personal judgement, an article on the history of the city for many periods prior to 1945 could maybe better use the name Danzig, but for the main article on Gdansk, I hope we'll end up calling it Gdansk, maybe with stray insertations of "(then known as Danzig)" where appropriate.
--Ruhrjung 22:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As a native Gdanziger I agree with the reasonable proposal of Ruhrjung. I would prefer people to associate myself with Danzig then know nothing about my city. Cautious 23:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Modern city guides refering to historical Gdansk

A famous In Your Pocket Guide, written by an international staff and published by a German company for English speakers uses Gdańsk and never Danzig in all references to the city's history and present day.

http://www.inyourpocket.com/poland/en/category?cid=3132

  • Bolesław I the Brave is recognised as the first king of Poland in 1025. Merchants from Lubeck arrive in the town of Gdańsk in 1224, bringing with them the Lubeck Law which codifies trade issues. Gdańsk welcomes vessels from England, Sweden and the Walloon Lands, among others, and is noted as a potentially great port.
  • Austria, Prussia and Russia impose the first partition of Poland in 1772-73. As a result Gdańsk loses its trade routes and falls into decline.
  • [...]1807-13 by Napoleon. During this time Gdańsk is established as a free city, with French troops stationed there. After Napoleon's defeat and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Poland is partitioned anew: Gdańsk is given back to Prussia
  • After the defeat of Germany in WWI, the partition of Poland collapses. Gdańsk is caught up in a tug of war between Poland and Germany who turn to the League of Nations for assistance'
  • In 1939, WWII starts with Nazi Germany's September 1 attack on Poland's military posts at Westerplatte in Gdansk

http://www.sopot.net/history.htm

  • Later Sopot becomes tourist attraction for its big neighbor Gdansk
  • On 8 October 1901 Sopot was promoted to town status by Prussian government in Berlin. After the conference at Versailles (1918) Sopot, which many foreign citizens inhabited, went under the jurisdiction of Free Town Gdansk

Mestwin of Gdansk 23:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Ruhrjung, I'm not sure that anybody other than User:Gdansk is demanding that we not have a bolded reference. Currently, Danzig is a redirect page, due to the fact that there is a band called Danzig. Wik and I at one point went to great lengths to make sure that all the links to Danzig that were talking about the city were piped to Gdansk, so that there wouldn't be a problem. I'd be happy to change it back, but it would be odd to have a disambiguation notice linking to a band whose name is not the same as that of the article it's disambiguated from, which would be the result of such a move. My feeling with regard to other articles is that, when appropriate, they should say "Danzig (now Gdansk)" or "Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland)" on first reference, and then just "Danzig" thereafter. But only for discussions before 1945. Before 1793, references could be to "Danzig (or Gdansk)" or "Gdansk (or Danzig)" as appropriate.

I'm not sure I can agree that article subjects should be called by one name throughout the article.

It's not in any way particularly important for me, and I have no problem to accept beeing in substantial minority, but I wished (and wish) to state that although I appreciate your arguments, they don't sway me on the principial point, since I am convinced people read www-texts in a less consecutive way than they read printed texts.--Ruhrjung 10:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This isn't usually done for people, for instance. The convention for British peers, for instance, whose names change throughout their lives, is generally to use the name by which they were known at the time. So that Spencer Compton Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire is known as "Lord Hartington" before he succeeds his father as Duke in 1891. In cities this can be even more awkward when the city's actual name has changed, and the new name is completely new. For instance, talking about Kaliningrad before 1945 is just bizarre, and I don't think the article should insist on that. I guess I'm just not sure why an article shouldn't use multiple names throughout, if that is the convention in English. Part of the problem with Gdansk is that the history section is so long, that the name must be referred to repeatedly. Unlike, say, Saint Petersburg, where the history section is short and name references can be elided. At any rate, if we came to a general policy that geographical locations have to be referred to by their current name throughout any article about them, that would be one thing. So far as I am aware, this is not the current policy. In which case I'll continue to advocate for using the different names at different times, in keeping with standard English usage. If such a policy were enacted, I wouldn't particularly agree with it, but of course in that case the city should be referred to as Gdansk throughout (the case for doing that with Gdansk is certainly stronger than the case for doing it for other cities).

A question for Space Cadet: Do you object to using "Danzig" to refer to the city before 1945 only in this article, or do you object in any article? For instance, should an article on the origins of World War II talk about the German demands for Gdansk? Because I can kind of see the case for keeping it consistent within this article (although I'd still argue against it), but I think that absolutely it shouldn't be done in other articles. Would a compromise whereby the city is generally called "Gdansk" in this article, but called "Danzig (now Gdansk)" in other articles referring to the time period when it was called Danzig, be acceptable? Could we have Free City of Danzig rather than Free City of Gdansk? john 23:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • It is ridiculous to compare cases of Gdansk and Kaliningrad or

St.Petersburg. Kaliningrad is entirely new name given to Koenigsberg after 1945 (the Russian version of Koenigsberg is Kralieviec). The same is about Istanbul and about usage of Leningrad and St.Petersburg. Hovewer, both Danzig and Gdansk are merely German and Polish historical names of the city. It is like usage of Strassburg (German) and Strasbourg (French). Gdansk is at least 250 years older version. Could you explain me what would be "English" name for Gdansk in 1200 AD - the name Danzig did not exist yet. Yeti 00:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First point: Istanbul was a name in local use in Constantinople between 1453 and 1930, but the city was officially "Constantinople" and is still usually called that in English, so that's what we use. Also, "Istanbul" is a Turkish form of "Constantinopolis". Second point: I agree with you that the cases are somewhat different. But the point is that two names are commonly used in English when referring to the city in different periods. When people writing in English refer now to this city in pre-1945 contexts, the standard usage is to call it "Danzig". Since we have to accept that some cities are going to be called by different names, I don't see why we should resist this with respect to Gdansk, which I think I've repeatedly demonstrated is still commonly called "Danzig" in references to it before 1945, and almost exclusively called that for the period 1793-1945. At any rate, I'm going to officially come out that my position is that I will agree to the city being consistently called "Gdansk" in this article so long as a) there is a bolded reference to the name "Danzig" at the top of this article; b) the "Free City of Danzig" is called as such in this article, even if the city (as opposed to the state) is still called "Gdansk"; and c) that other articles referring to Gdansk before 1945 use the name "Danzig" where appropriate. Would this be an acceptable compromise? john 00:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


No, sorry. Free City of Gdansk and Fahrenheit born in Gdansk. Space Cadet 03:29, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Space Cadet: Free City of Gdansk and Fahrenheit born in Gdansk. Mestwin of Gdansk 03:32, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason why the name of Danzig should be used for this period of 1793-1945. The city and the province was at least bilingual, only after 1900 the German post office started to refuse to deliver to Polish languages addresses. Mestwin of Gdansk 03:42, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Danzig ist deutsch ???

Maybe this is a good new picture for Danzig (now Gdansk) http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/postcard/pc-danz.jpg

Thanks, Mestwin. Nice picture! Where did You get it? From Nico or from John? Cadet

It's a present for Nico. Do you think he will like it?. Mestwin of Gdansk 03:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He would love it, if there was today's date on it.Cadet

Is there any level that is low enough for you? What do you want to accomplish? I am pissed off by this habit of calling other people Nazis (even John Kenney, who deserves better than that). It is outrageous that some people around here have no problem to side with a user calling other users Nazis and just behaving in a completely destructive manner.
I told you before that I believe that Nico is a real problem user and just has an interest in pushing his POV but not in building an encyclopedia. But on the other hand Caius2ga (or Mestwin or Gdansk or AntiNaziWatch or whatever name he uses) is far worse. Even users which I thought to be good Wikipedians don't have a problem to side with him. For all these reasons I stopped discussing and contributing here, and it was obviously a good decision. Have fun -- Baldhur 12:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well put! Now it's high time for the Poles to shape up and exert peer pressure on the worse among them. --Ruhrjung 13:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Headline proposal

My proposal for the headline is still:

Gdansk (Polish: Gdańsk, Kashubian/Pomeranian: Gduńsk, Latin Gedania, Dantiscum, German Danzig) is the 6th largest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship.

Is it something wrong with it ?? Mestwin of Gdansk 03:30, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've agreed to a fairly substantial modification of my position, and you're completely unwilling to compromise at all. You've also both implicitly accused me of being a Nazi. Needless to say, I have absolutely no interest in pushing a pro-German POV, and certainly not a Nazi one. You both completely ignore any evidence I submit that the city is still called "Danzig" in English when discussing its earlier history. (A further example: The Blackwell Classic Histories of Europe series, revised edition, uses "Danzig" in all references to the city in the Early Modern Period.) I am convinced that neither of you is at all interested in coming to an agreement, just in pushing your POV. I am deeply disillusioned with this whole situation, and sick of individuals whose command of English is questionable at best telling native English speakers how we refer to a city. So, game on, buddies. john 04:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the headline should give some more explanation:
Gdańsk is the 6th largest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship. From 1793 till 1945 it was in German hands and was better known by its German name, Danzig and this is what it is referred to as in Wikipedia when talking about that period. Other names of the city include Kashubian/Pomeranian Gduńks, and Latin Gedania.
Kpalion 11:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When the page is unprotected please remember to add to the famous people section, a link to a new article about Alfons Flisykowski a commander of Polish Post Office in Gdansk murdered in 1939. -- Mestwin of Gdansk 06:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gdańsk&oldid=2843511"