|
'''Carol Yager''' ([[1960]]-[[1994]]) holds the distinction of having been the [[obesity|most obese]] person ever to live. When she died in 1994 at the age of 34, she weighed about 1200 [[pound (mass)|pounds]]. Some estimates place her weight at as much as 1600 pounds at her peak, but these are unverified. At death, she was 5'7" tall, and able to fit through her custom-built 48" wide front door, although some sources claim she was more than 5 feet wide.
Archives:
*[[Talk:Gdansk/archive1]]
*[[Talk:Gdansk/archive2]]
*[[Talk:Gdansk/archive3]]
*[[Talk:Gdansk/archive4]]
*[[Talk:Gdansk/archive5]]
*[[Talk:Gdansk/archive6]]
*[[Talk:Gdansk/archive7]]
Like others in the 900+ pound weight class, Yager was not able to stand or walk, as her [[muscle]]s were not strong enough to lift her due to [[atrophy]].
Consensus on naming convention (Gdansk vs. Danzig), presently still evolving:
*[[Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention]]
----
She lived in Mt Morris Township, near [[Flint, Michigan]], and was cared for by health care professionals, friends, her daughter Heather, and other family members, many of whom visited daily.
== Protection ==
Yager claimed to have started her massive weight gain deliberately as a child to discourage the sexual attacks of a "close family member," although in later interviews, she indicated that there were other contributing factors, or "skeletons in my closet", and "monsters" as she was quoted.
The protection status of this page is being administered by [[user:Mkweise|Mkweise]] and [[User:John Kenney]]. One of them will unprotect this page once consensus is reached.
In January, 1993, she was admitted to Hurley Medical Center, weighing-in at 1189 lbs. She suffered from [[cellulitis]] (her skin was breaking down due to the stress of holding in her mass). She stayed in the hospital for three months, where she was restricted to a 1200 [[calorie]] diet, and while there, lost 519 pounds, though most of this was fluid. (Massively obese people often suffer from [[edema]], and their weight can fluctuate with astonishing speed as fluid is taken up or released.) Yager sufferred from many other obesity-related health problems as well, including breathing difficulty, a dangerously high sugar level, and stress on her heart and other organs. Yager's death certificate lists kidney failure as the cause of death, with obesity and multiple organ failure as contributing causes.
==Danzigers population losses==
It took a lot of teamwork among as many as 15 - 20 fire fighters and ambulance workers to convey Yager to the [[ambulance]], in relay fashion. One team inside the house would pass her through the doorway to another team on the outside, who would in turn pass her off to another team inside the ambulance, where she would ride on the floor, for her many trips to the hospital (13 times in two years). Eventually, she was moved into the [[nursing home]] where she lived after leaving the hospital. She appeared on the [[Jerry Springer Show]], and was the subject of attention from several [[dieting]] gurus.
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.
A short time before her death, Yager's latest boyfriend, Larry Maxwell, who was characterized by her family as being 'an opportunist who courted media attention for money-making possibilities', married her friend, Felicia White. Maxwell had claimed that the only donation in Yager's name he ever received was for $20.00, although numerous talk shows, newspapers, radio stations, and other national and international media are reported to have offered her cash and other gifts in exchange for interviews, pictures, etc. Diet maven [[Richard Simmons]] is said to have been 'angry that Yager's story was actively peddled to tabloid and television media by Maxwell and others'.
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. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 20:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yager was buried privately, with about 90 friends and family members attending memorial services.
== See also ==
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).
* [[List of the most obese humans]]
Djiekuje bardzo,
-- Steven C. Anderson, 15 March 2004
--
== Sources ==
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.
* [http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/dimtext/kjn/people/heaviest.htm Dimensions Magazine, people known to have weighed more than 900 pounds]
101
* ''Bizarre'' magazine 64, p. 81
* [http://www.mlive.com/fljournal/ The Flint Journal]
* ''The Flint [Michigan] Journal'', Wednesday, August 18, 1993, page A1, "Weight loss brings star status" by Mike Stobbe (Journal health writer)
* ''The Flint Journal'', Tuesday, May 24, 1994, page C1, "Obese woman's losing bid to lose hits TV show"
* ''The Flint Journal'', Friday, June 17, 1994, page A1, "What next for 1,200-pound woman?" by Marcia Mattson (Journal staff writer)
* ''The Flint Journal'', Tuesday, July 19, 1994, page A1, "1,200-lb Woman dies" by Marcia Mattson
* ''The Flint Journal'', Wednesday, July 20, 1994, page B1, "Richard Simmons mourns Yager" by Marcia Mattson
* ''The Flint Journal'', Sunday, July 24, 1994, page B1, "1,200-lb. woman more than curiosity" by Ken Palmer (Journal staff writer)
* ''The Flint Journal'', Monday, July 25, 1994, page A6, "Americans must work harder to overcome weight problems"
[[Category:World record holders|Yager, Carol]]
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.
[[Category:Obesity|Yager, Carol]]
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.
[[Category:1960 births|Yager, Carol]]
102
[[Category:1994 deaths|Yager, Carol]]
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. [[User:Cautious|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. [[User:Szopen|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. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 11:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
==Murdered postman==
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.[[User:Cautious|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. [[User:Nico|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. [[User:Cautious|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. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 22:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
==Gdansk/Danzig issue Reference Page==
Ladies and gentlemen, since this page is now very long, messy and hard to follow, I decided to prepare a short list of all arguments used and proposals submitted.
It's available '''HERE''' - [[User:Halibutt/Gdansk]]
If I omitted any arguments - please add them, but please be so kind as to respect neutrality. I'm personally involved in the discussion, but I hope this won't be a problem here.
Please feel free to add new arguments to the list, but please be brief, informative and do not repeat the already-existing statements.[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
---
Günter Grass is not a native of Gdansk; he is a native of Danzig, which no longer exists.
Mickiewicz wrote, "Lithuania, my fatherland" -- not "Prussia" or "Pomerelia, my fatherland" -- in "Pan Tadeusz."
Pilsudski's heart is buried in Vilnius, not Gdansk.
One further comment, or rather anecdote:
When I lived in Warsaw in the mid-'90s, a young woman from Wroclaw told me the following joke.
Two Poles meet on the train. Where are you from? one asks. I'm from Wroclaw, the other one says. No kidding, small world, says the first, I'm from Lwow, too!
[[User:sca]]
:Günter Grass is half Kashub, half German, grown-up during Nazi times. By the way, Mickiewicz refers to Gdansk by Gdansk in "Pan Tadeusz". "City of Gdansk that used to be users, will be again ours" [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 11:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
=== We were in Gdansk, we are in Gdansk, we will be in Gdansk ===
Gdansk was and is a Polish city. The Poles are hospitable people and many nations and etnic groups were invited to Poland (including Gdansk) to stay here and find a better life. They were guaranteed an etnic, language and economic freedom and tolerance. So the many etnic groups lived together peacufully for the common good and prosperity. The problems in Gdansk started when the Germans started to do nasty things to the Poles claiming that this is no longer a Polish city. During WWII the German Nazis started even to kill the Poles and expell them from a Polish city. It is disgusting that the people like Nico were thoaght nothing from the WWII lesson and they still do nasty things to the Polish cities and Polish pople. -- [[User:Gdansk|Mestwin of Gdansk]] 22:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This absurd and historically false comment shows only that some Poles still hate the Germans, nearly 60 years after the end of the war, and that this passion overrules whatever sense of reason these people have. My experience of Poland has been otherwise. For example, a Polish man I met in Olsztyn two years ago, who was born in Olsztyn, was quick to acknowledge with a wry smile that before 1945 Olsztyn was the German Allenstein. (His father was from what is now Lithuania.) Poland can no more ignore the history of the 20th century, which involved wholesale changes in her borders and territory, than can Germany, which has long since accepted the changes. Why continue to hate?
[[User:sca]]
==Stop forbidding, start listening and learning==
Absurds of history are facing absurds of the data model.
I am an IT professional and my 12-years experience learned me one well-known rule: '''Keep it simple stupid'''. And what it means to me, is that the data should be in connection with the real world. So, if there is any well established localized name of the geographic place, it should be used in the "namespace" of the respective language. Moreover all such alternative names are our common European heritage. So let's stop to forbid using Danzig for Gdańsk; Lwów, Lemberg, Lvov for Lviv (and why not for example Lwiw); Pozsony or Pressburg for Bratislava; Kolozsvar, Klausenburg, Koloszwar for Cluj; Koenigsberg, Królewiec or Karaliaucius for Kalinigrad and so on, so on...
All these names are part of linguistic treasures of European languages. Don't we have enough tools, enough experience to use many names for one thing. Are we in XXI centure or are we troglodites. Or ... we are deep in the inferiority/superiority complex. [[User:Marqoz]]
:You are right - partially. I agree 100% with what you say about our common european heritage and names of places that changed so many times. I admit that personally in a friendly chat I see no problem in using German names for Polish cities or Polish names of places in the Ukraine. However, when I talk to Poles about Wroclaw, I am always somehow anxious to use the names that are clearly connected in minds of many to the Nazi nightmare and everything that followed - up to 1989.
:Also, another problem is that this is not a friendly chat where everyone is aware what we are speaking about. This is encyclopedia, where everything should have one name and be darn simple. As simple as it gets. There's really no place for two different [[World War II]] and [[World War Two]] articles. One should be redirected to the other - in order to avoid confusion. Also, it wouldn't be that good to use five different versions of a persons name - at random. The creator of the article would understand that he's still speaking about the very same guy. However, a simple wiki user would have to guess.[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to refer everyone to:
http://www.gopoland.com/wheretogo/gdansk/history/
which seems to me to contain an eminently sensible short history of the city, using the historically appropriate names at various times.
[[user:sca]]
Yes, that looks pretty good to me. Halibutt: the names would not be used at random, but in accordance with what name is generally used to refer to the city at that time. This is not all that difficult, unless you make it so. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 23:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:The problem is that timeframes can always be questioned. Also, what criteria should be used if there's no ''common sense''? For instance: what name to use for the 1308–1454 period? According to international law the city was Polish (Pope mediation and so on), so perhaps Gdansk or Gdańsk. However, the city was de facto Teutonic. So maybe Danzig? The problem is that the only official language of the Order was Latin. So perhaps Dantiscum..? Or maybe some contemporary name, like Dantzig or Dantzk?
:I agree that it seems like a perfect solution. Unfortunately it's not.[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]
As I've said before, we should stick to standard English usage. Perhaps the determination of what this is should be left to us native speakers of English, but in my experience, the city is called "Danzig" for the whole 1308-1945 period. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 02:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Sounds reasonable to me (and it certainly would seem weird to me to not to refer to it as Danzig in the context of the Hanseatic League.) For clarity, though, I think all articles using the German name should use "Danzig (present-day <nowiki>[[Gdansk]]</nowiki>)" at first mention. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 04:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::Yes, I absolutely concur that the current name should be mentioned (as it should for any city whose name is now different from the time being talked about.) [[User:John Kenney|john]] 05:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:P.S. I've been through very similar debates about [[Kolkata]] (formerly Calcutta) and [[Chornobyl]] (formerly Chernobyl), both of which are now handled in a similar manner. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 05:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
== Summation ==
This page has been protected for nearly a month. What issues still need to be resolved before we can unprotect it? [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 22:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The same. Unfortunately. And it's hard to say more without hurting either one or anohter, ...and that's a stupid thing to do. :-)<br>
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 22:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I believe that the [[User:Halibutt/Gdansk|Gdansk discussion reference page]] sums it up pretty well. Most serious issues are listed and I'm sure we can start working them out - one by one.[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:I don't think your options (2) or (3) have any chance of achieving a [[consensus]], and (4) wouldn't really solve the problem as it would cause disputes as to which of the two articles each article that currently links here should link to. I'm a bit confused by your option (1), because I'm under the impression that it was best known by its German name during the Hanseatic period. Is that not so? [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 05:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:These are not my proposals, all of those were proposed by different contributors here, in this discussion (see archives).
:Also, you assume that the Hanseatic League equals itself to some proto-Germany. Of course it started as an union of German cities. However, a plethora of non-German cities also joined it. Most of the [[Low Countries]] major ports must not be referred to with their German names just because they joined Hansa. Also, [[Casimir the Great of Poland|Casimir the Great]] subscribed most of the Polish cities to the League. Does this mean that Krakow should be referred to as Krakau?[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Based on what I've read, the city was under German control from 1308 to 1454 and from 1793 to 1945. I'd suggest using the German name in historical contexts referring to those periods, and the Polish name the rest of the time. Can everyone live with that? [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 05:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Mkweise, I am tired of this discussion. I accept the compromise. By the way, Gdansk and Danzig came from the same name written phonetically in Polish or German languages. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 11:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Well, the basic history is that the city was under the Teutonic Knights from 1308-1454. From 1454-1793 it was under Polish sovereignty, but was ''de facto'' an independent city-state which was largely German. During that period, it is still ''usually'' called Danzig in English, although it seems to be being called "Gdansk" sometimes, as well. So I think that it could easily be seen to be under "German rule" from 1454-1793, depending on how that is defined. As far as English usage in this period, some of the standard textbook histories of Europe in this period - Elton's ''Reformation Europe, 1517-1559'', Elliott's ''Europe Divided, 1559-1598'', Parker's ''Europe in Crisis, 1598-1648'', and Stoye's ''Europe Unfolding, 1648-1688'' all call it Danzig. The books were written some decades ago, but revised quite recently (they are all in the same series, so I suppose it is rather an editorial decision than necessarily a decision by the individual authors, but who knows?). Robert I. Frost's ''The Northern Wars'' (published 2000) also calls it Danzig for discussion in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. I ''have'' seen it occasionally called "Gdansk" in this period, but usually this is done rather self-consciously, with the author saying "We must get away from using German names to refer to these cities, bla bla bla," suggesting that they are aware that this is ''not'' the standard usage. So I think the best solution would be to use Danzig for the ''whole'' 1308-1945 period (which would also be rather simpler, no?). If, however, those who have been arguing that it should ''never'' be called Danzig are willing to agree to this compromise, I would be willing to accept it. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 05:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::You make an excellent case—and now that I think about it, it does make sense that the inhabitants would have continued to speak the language they'd grown up with after kicking out the Teutonic Order. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 06:09, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::Independent? It considered itself and was considered by Poland part of Polish Commonwealth. In today's terms it could be called autonomous part of federation. [[User:Szopen|Szopen]]
::NO, John! Danzig was the English standard from the end 18th century till 1945. Not earlier. And sorry, but I can not accept naming used by 19th century British historians.[[User:Yeti|Yeti]] 13:02, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::Your complete refusal to even consider other points of view is unfortunate, Yeti, because I cannot unprotect the article until a consensus is reached. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 19:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::Sorry, but I did consider other points of view. I want a compromise. But compromise means step back by both sides. Sorry, but proposal to use the German name instead of Polish name for Polish city throught almost all its history, even if this city was a part of Poland, is not a compromise. The theory that Danzig has been the only English name was proven to be disputable. I proposed a compromise in discussion with John and he accepted it. I think that it is a compromise acceptable by all parties.
::::#Consequent usage of Gdansk throught the article. Clear mention of other historical names.
::::#Usage of Danzig in other articles when Danzig is part of historical name entirely accepted in English for example: Free City of Danzig.
::::#Usage of Danzig in other articles for the period 1793-1945.
::::[[User:Yeti|Yeti]] 20:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::::Oh, glad to hear that I misunderstood your previous comment. I thought you were saying you can't accept use of "Danzig" in ''any'' context. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 21:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Well, I said I would not stand in the way of such a compromise, assuming that this was the general consensus. I would suggest that this is ''not'' at present the general consensus. Personally, I would once again suggest some attempt be made to set a general policy on how cities whose names have changed are to be dealt with in both 1) the article about the city; and 2) other articles mentioning the city. There seems to be some general consensus that the article about the city should use the current name, even if an older name may be more familiar to English-speakers. There also seems to be a near consensus that in other articles mentioning the city we can use the more common name (although this is more complicated, especially for Gdansk). The real question remains what is to be done about the text of the main article about the city. I would favor a policy of using the name commonly in use in English in that period, so long as there is a logical explanation to the shift from one name to the other, but if the consensus is in favor of consistent naming, I am willing to accept that.
:A question, though, for Yeti, Cautious, Space Cadet, and whoever else. Can you formulate a general rule which requires us to use "Gdansk" for 1793-1945, but also allows us to call "Constantinople" that for 1453-1930, or to call St Petersburg "Petrograd" from 1914-1924? [[User:John Kenney|john]] 21:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
==What is the Standard English usage?==
I said it was ''de facto'' independent. ''De jure'', it was, of course, part of the Polish Commonwealth. I think the idea of autonomy is somewhat anachronistic for the early modern period - that idea really shows up in the 19th century. In the early modern period, sovereignty is generally so complicated and uncertain (how do the various estates of the Holy Roman Empire fit in, exactly? What about the various crowns of the Spanish monarchy, or the Austrian?), that I think a term like autonomy gives a false impression of the status. Danzig was, at that period, a self-governing city-state under the suzerainty of the Polish Commonwealth. What does this say about what we should call it? I'm not sure it says anything. It would be reasonable to call it either Danzig or Gdansk, I think. In which case, as I ''keep saying'', we ought to figure out what English-speakers ''do'' call it in this period. I've provided numerous examples where they call it "Danzig." So far, all we have arguing for the other side is Space Cadet's citation from the Encyclopedia Britannica, some vague memories on ''my'' part of seeing "Gdansk" used, and ''my'' citation of a couple of articles from JSTOR in which the city is referred to as "Gdansk" for this time period. If it would be acceptable, perhaps we ought to try to come to some sort of tally of how the city is referred to for the 1454-1793 period to determine typical English usage. I'll start with the books I just cited, and then we can go on and find other examples. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 07:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
===Danzig===
*Elton, ''Reformation Europe 1517-1559''
*Elliott, ''Europe Divided 1559-1598''
*Parker, ''Europe in Crisis 1598-1648''
*Stoye, ''Europe Unfolding 1648-1688''
*Frost ''The Northern Wars 1558-1721''
===Gdansk===
*Encyclopedia Britannica
(1911 edition uses Danzig: http://89.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DA/DANZIG.htm )
===inconsistent===
*Columbia Encyclopedia
*Microsoft Encarta (Danzig in history, Gdansk in current article on city. In other articles dependant on subject (European history Danzig, Polish history Gdansk)
All should add other examples - preferably from books either published or revised recently, since the usage of Gdansk has increased over the last twenty years or so. Certainly no sources from before 1945 should be counted. I would suggest that if we come to a clear preponderance in favor of "Danzig", that name should be used, but that if it is fairly close to equal, or Gdansk predominates, that Gdansk should be used. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 07:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:I disagree with the last statement. Certainly Gdansk is the current name of the city in Poland and in English when dealing with the now-Polish city, but Danzig is an equally valid name for the city. Use should depend highly on context: when highlighting the Polish side or post-1945 history use Gdansk, when discussing pre-1945 history Danzig. [[User:Jor|— Jor ]][[User talk:Jor|(Talk)]] 11:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::''when discussing pre-1945 history Danzig''. Why? Why should we use a German convention from 19th century? Why not official LATIN name of the Teutonic Order: Gedanium or Dantiscum, why not commonly used (also on English maps)Dantzik etc. Why? Danzig WAS NOT the English name in 16th or 17th century. For every example of Danzig usage in English I would show you 10 without Danzig.[[User:Yeti|Yeti]] 12:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Poles always used the name Gdansk (as well as Wroclaw or Szczecin) even before 1945, because they refered to cities that used to be Polish. As far as I am concerned English, when dealt with the Commonwealth, also used Gdansk. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 11:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Back to the beginning. Are you sure what was the English name of the city in 1600? I do not know. I have checked several maps from that period and on every map was different name: Gedanium, Dantzik, Danzik, Danzigt, Dantiscum, Gdanzc etc. So what is the English name for that period. I think the answer is obvious: there was nothing like that! The Latin and local names were used without consequent writing convention. On the English maps Danzig started to be used consequently not earlier that at the end of 18th century. So there is absolutelly no reason to use Danzig before 1793. I repeat: any doubts should be resolved in favour of present naming and the naming of the state to whom the city belonged at that time: Gdansk.
The argument that city's language was German is ridicoulous. First: official language in majority of European towns was Latin. Does it mean that we should use Latin name for the cities without recognized English name? Second: what do you mean German? Plattdeutsh, Hoch Deutch? German users know very well that differences between both languages were and are extremally serious. And such were differences in pronunciation of the city's name. Why does we should use Danzig, official Hoch German convention from 19th century? Sorry, but the arguments in favour of Danzig are artificial.[[User:Yeti|Yeti]] 12:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Yeti is absolutely right. The theory of the Gdansk as the Free City throuout the history, was invented by German nationalists in 19-th century. Despite the autonomy inside the Commonwealth of Poland, people of Gdansk were proud of their Kingdom. On the other hand, the real reconciliation between Gdansk people and Prussia happenned around 1830. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 12:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. The point is not what people called it at the time, as I've said many times before. The point is what English-speakers ''call it now'' when discussing the city during the time period under discussion. How many fucking times do I have to say that? So, if you have examples of English historical works that call it "Gdansk" in this time period, please bring them forward, but don't keep wasting our time with this tendentious nonsense. Do you people even read what I say? Space Cadet is the ''only'' Polish proponent who has even ''tried'' to address this argument, and even he has only been able to a) bring up Britannica as an example; and b) assert that English sources now use Gdansk. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 18:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It just seem so obvious to anyone who has read European history that the city was generally known throughout most of the world as Danzig before 1945. Have you seen the 1939 National Geographic article on Danzig? It's quite obvious from it that at that time it was a German-speaking city. There's no real logic to the present-day German-media practice of still referring to it as Danzig, since that's not its name anymore. Nor is there logic to referring to it as Gdansk for some centuries -- I don't know for sure how far back -- before 1945. No one's condoning aggression on any country's part by referring to the city as it was called at the time in question. It's just a matter of basic historical truthfulness to call things by the names by which they have been known.
I don't know whether most Poles still refer to Vilnius as Wilna (I think they do), but they shouldn't, as Vilnius today is 85 percent Lithuanian and 8 percent Russian, with only a small Polish minority. If you go to Vilnius, the language you're most likely to hear on the street is Lithuanian. Nor should they insist that the rest of the world refer to Danzig before 1945 as Gdansk, because before 1945 it had only a small Polish minority, spoke German, wrote in German, etc., etc. Today St. Petersburg is once again St. Petersburg, but if you were writing about it during the Soviet perioid it would be absurd not to refer to it as Leningrad, because that was its name! No one writes about the German siege of St. Petersburg; it was the siege of Leningrad. No one writes about the Battle of Volgograd; it was the Battle of Stalingrad. By the same token, it was Danzig, not Gdansk, the was separated from Germany by the Versailles Treaty in 1919, and which Hitler used as a pretext for attacking Poland in 1939. It only became Gdansk in 1945. Why is this even a divisive issue at all? History is history! Danzig is now Gdansk. Gdansk used to be Danzig. Let's move on!
[[user:sca]]
::: Please note that the immediate pretext for the invasion was a supposed 'attack' on a German radio station by Polish forces (which was, of course, staged by the Germans). Also, you're leaving out one crucial sentence from this argument: "Danzig is now Gdansk. Gdansk used to be Danzig." Add. "And Danzig was Gdansk before that. Etc." The "etc." is key: people's emotions ''will'' will run high if anyone, even unwittingly, implies that their view is incorrect and that someone (say, British historians) have the only correct view. You can call the place "Smurftown" if you want as long as you include a note on the dispute... having said that, the subsection on the city's name in the entry does a pretty job of doing what I just suggested. :)
:::BTW, also take care to distinguish between what Poles call a place in Polish and English. They can't call Vilnius Vilnius in Polish since, as the entry below notes, the Polish name is Wilno. W's are used in place V's in Polish... When speaking in English however, it makes sense to use the currently accepted English name... --[[User:Krupo|Krupo]] 02:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
:It has nothing to do with the discussion, but I would like to precise. Poles constitute 19 percent of the Vilnius population, and Lithuanians 54 percent. Poles constitute 7 percent of Lithuania population. The Polish name is Wilno. I do not see any reasons not to use Wilno in POLISH. If you right Vilnius before 1945 shoud not be called Vilnius, because there were almost no Lithuanians (about 1,5 percent in 1939). Please, inform Lithuanian users about this fact.[[User:Yeti|Yeti]] 23:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
>''There's no real logic to the present-day German-media practice of still referring to it as Danzig,''
Of course it is. It is the German name, just like "Munich" is the English name of München, "Warsaw" of Warszawa and "Copenhagen" (from German Kopenhagen) of København. Also Polish media practice is to refer to cities ''now in Germany'' by their Polish names, Lipsk (Leipzig), Lubeka (Lübeck) etc. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 19:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Polish people don't call Vilnius neither "Vilnius", nor "Wilna" but WILNO, because in Polish language it is the name of the city, no matter who lives in it.
Naming of battles and other historical events doesn't change the fact that Gdansk is the official English city name to be used throughout it's history. Let's move on! Continuing to call the city "Danzig" is absurd! It's living in the past! [[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]] 19:54, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:In no way is it ''living in the past'' to use past terminology when discussing the past. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 20:09, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Space Cadet, in the first place, you're absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as an "official English city name". The best we can do is look at usage, and determine what the predominant usage is. I think I've ''repeatedly'' shown that ''Danzig'' is the ''only'' name used to refer to the city for 1793-1945 in pretty much all historical literature. I've also shown that Danzig is very commonly used for the pre-1793 period. So it is not ridiculous to call it Danzig unless every English-language historian is ridiculous. In the second place, even if it would be logical to say we ''should'' call it "Gdansk" throughout its history (an argument of which I'm rather dubious, for reasons I'm outlined above), that doesn't matter. Wikipedia's job is ''not'' to help determine what usage ''should be''. It is to determine what the common usage ''is'', and use that. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 20:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Cadet, you and Nico are right that Germans and Poles have a perfect right to use German and Polish place names when speaking '''their respective languages'''. However, as John wrote, there is no such thing as an official English name for Gdańsk. It's so important I'm going to wirte it again in Polish to make sure you understand: ''Nie ma czegoś takiego, jak oficjalna angielska nazwa Gdańska.''<br>
As it happens, most of what native English speakers know about pre-20th century history of Central Europe, they know form 19th century German historians. You may not like it - I don't like it either - but it's a fact and you can't change it. Britons and Americans are much more familiar with German names for Polish and other Central European towns than with their Slavic names which tell them nothing. '''The only sensible way to solve that problem is to use Polish and German names for cities like Gdańsk depending on what they're called by a majority of present-day English speaking historians talking about a given period in those towns' history.'''<br>
''Jeszcze raz na wszelki wypadek: Jedyny sensowny sposób na całe to zamieszanie z polskimi i niemieckimi nazwami Gdańska jest taki, żeby używać odpowiednio nazw "Gdańsk" i "Danzig" w zależności od tego, którą nazwę stosuje '''większość współczesnych anglojęzycznych historyków w odniesieniu do danego okresu''' w dziejach Gdańska.'' I hope now you understood. <br>
--[[User:Kpalion|Kpalion]] 22:05, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::Keep in mind, however, that native English speakers born in the past 10 to 20 years have had the luxury of learning about said histories from non-19th-century-German historians. YMMV. ;) On a related note, it's silly to argue that you don't have commonly accepted English names ("CAEN" for simplifcation). And I say CAEN in case you don't like the word official and all its connotations: Warszawa's CAEN is clearly Warsaw, even though it makes absolutely no sense to me [sounds like a lazy translation rather than an attempt to get things right]. But then, that's how much of the English language works, IMHO. :) --[[User:Krupo|Krupo]] 02:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
:Nobody says about "official English name". The problem is that in case of doubts there are no reasons to use Danzig instead of Gdansk.[[User:Yeti|Yeti]] 23:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Kpalion, this is what I've been trying to say for a long time. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 22:24, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Reason to use Danzig before 1793
1. ''Majority of population were Germans''.
It is not acceptable argument. There were many places populated by a particular ethnic group but the English name is the name in the language of state the place belongs.
:This is true. ''Majority of population were Germans'' is an argument as to why historians might generally call it Danzig, but has no particular bearing on what an encyclopedia should say. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 23:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. ''Danzig was the name used by local population''
It was proven to be untrue. The local population used several different names throught history.
:Yes, but Danzig, predominantly. But I think this is still irrelevant, for the same reasons as the first point. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 23:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. ''Danzig was the English name''
It was proven to be untrue. The English used several names used by local population as well as Latin name: Danzik, Danzigt, Gdanzc, Gedanium, Dantiscum etc.
:I will concede that there was no standard English name until late in the period in question. I would strongly suspect, however, that by the 18th century "Danzig" was the standard spelling used. Unfortunately, I have no real means of checking this. The other spellings mentioned were used at a considerably earlier period. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 23:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. ''Danzig is at present commonly used name for that period in English''.
It was proven to be untrue. Danzig is more often used but Gdansk is used as well. Google: History of Gdansk gave me 91 hits (+ 13 History of Gdańsk), but History of Danzig just 22 (half of them from one site)! I repeat: any doubts should be resolved in favour of present naming.
:Ah, now here we disagree. Your proof here is the very definition of "weak and artificial". A google search on the phrases "History of Gdansk" and "History of Danzig" is about as meaningless as one can possibly imagine - it says nothing about the period under discussion specifically. Indeed, given that the city is currently named "Gdansk", it would make sense that "History of Gdansk" would be used more frequently. At any rate, I would advise that we continue looking for examples of what the city is called in the 1454-1793 period in various ''historical'' sources, in order to determine what standard usage is. When I get the chance, I'll do JSTOR searches on "Gdansk" and "Danzig" to try to figure out the balance in scholarly articles. As I've said, if the number of uses of "Gdansk" approaches closely that for "Danzig", I think that's a fairly strong argument for using "Gdansk". But if Danzig is the overwhelming favorite, I think it should be used. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 23:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To summarise: Arguments in favour of Danzig usage are very weak and artificial. Danzig was the name accepted in English only in 19th and in the first half of 20th century. The present commonly accepted English name is Gdansk. There are no reasons to use the 19th century accepted name instead of present accepted name.
I would like to stress that I do not intend to negate commonly accepted historical English names for specific institutions etc., for example: Danzig Research Society.
I hope this will finish discussion about the correct name before 1793. [[User:Yeti|Yeti]] 22:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if this will help, or if any of you have seen it, but I did a very very small [[User:Adam Bishop/Gdansk vs. Danzig|comparison between instances of Gdansk and Danzig]], based on newspaper articles from a few newspapers in Canada over the past 15 years. (In short - current usage is always Gdansk.) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 04:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is disputing what the city is called when referring to it since 1945. That's pretty clearly [[Gdansk]]. The question is before 1945. My general feeling, which has been supported by most of the actual looking into it that I've done, is that it's still mostly called Danzig, with a few exceptions (like Britannica - but even they call it Danzig in articles other than the main Gdansk article, at least some of the time). [[User:John Kenney|john]] 05:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
==Danzig (disambiguation)==
When unprotected, a link to [[Danzig (disambiguation)]] should be inserted. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 19:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Nico is saying this because he is reverting the current disambig page at [[Danzig]] while refusing to discuss it on the talk page. There are currently four items called "Danzig" disambiguated there. Nico, if you can talk on this talk page you can talk on the talk page of a different article - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:45, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
::I've already discussed this several places. Most recently here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RadicalBender]. And I've already said this at least five times: An obscure band and a completely unknown adjunct Associate Professor does ''not'' justify making so an important city name a disambiguation. Neither should Washington, Berlin or Rome be disambigs, despite the fact that a lot of people have such surnames and a lot of small places in the US etc. are known under these names. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 19:50, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::And I've already said this at least five times: [[http://www.google.com/search?q=Danzig&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 NOT OBSCURE]. [[User:RadicalBender|R<small>ADICAL</small>B<small>ENDER</small>]][[User talk:RadicalBender|<small>★</small>]] 19:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::The only reason I even added those names was that I can't stand useless disambig pages like this, and I only found them by searching Google for "Danzig -Poland -Germany -city". I've personally never heard of this Danzig band or its singer. But of course many others may never have heard of bands I listen to. As for Berlin: I immediately think of the Top Gun soundtrack. [[User:Jor|— Jor ]][[User talk:Jor|(Talk)]] 19:56, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::[[Danzig (band)]] are actually reasonably important in the history of US punk rock and heavy metal - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:59, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
:::::May be. But it's not so important as the city. A lot of Americans are named "Hamburg" as well, because their ancestors came from Hamburg, just like this Danzig guy most likely is of Danzig origin. But I do not think Hamburg should a disambiguation page. I also think users like Wik have other reasons than concern for the history of US punk rock to insist that Danzig should not redirect to the main article dealing with the city. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 20:03, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::::Re:Wik - he may very well have other reasons for the Gdansk-Danzig ongoing battle. But I'm not Wik and I don't care what his reasons are. I'm also not German or Polish and find the whole ongoing debate mind-numbingly trivial. That said, Danzig should be a disambig page because ''there are multiple things that can be referred to solely as the word "Danzig."'' Discount the other things on the Danzig disambig page, I don't really care, but "Danzig" (the word alone) can refer to two important things: the city and the band. That's why it's a disambig page. [[Washington]] is not a disambig page because only one thing is called "Washington": the state of Washington. The city is [[Washington, D.C.]] (not Washington) and the president was [[George Washington]] (not Washington). ''That's'' why we do disambiguation pages. [[User:RadicalBender|R<small>ADICAL</small>B<small>ENDER</small>]][[User talk:RadicalBender|<small>★</small>]] 20:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::::You seem not to be so keen to discuss this on [[Talk:Danzig]] ... that being the page it would actually be relevant to. Why not? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 20:35, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
:::::A genre and subgenre I neither am familiar with or interested in, so I'll take your word for it :-) [[User:Jor|— Jor ]][[User talk:Jor|(Talk)]] 20:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::[[Danzig]] is a different article to [[Gdansk]]; please explain the basis of this theory of yours that this talk page binds that article. What do you have against posting on [[Talk:Danzig]]? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:55, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
:::What do you want me to say more? As Danzig is or should be a redirect to the main article, it can perfectly well be discussed here. And by the way, I've already explained my position at Talk:Danzig. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 20:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:This is so silly: [http://www.google.com/search?q=Danzig&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Reason for disambig]. [[User:RadicalBender|R<small>ADICAL</small>B<small>ENDER</small>]][[User talk:RadicalBender|<small>★</small>]] 19:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Devil's advocate again: compare [[Berlin]]: city is the main link, with a comment on disambiguation at the top. Which is what Nico proposes here. [[User:Jor|— Jor ]][[User talk:Jor|(Talk)]] 20:49, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Mkweise deleted a lot of other comments, by accident I suppose, so I reverted the page. Here was his comment ([[User:Nico|Nico]] 21:40, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)):
Actually, [[Washington (disambiguation)]] '''should''' be at [[Washington]]. I think the only reason this hasn't been done yet is that nobody wants to do the work of fixing all the links currently pointing to [[Washington]] to point to [[Washington State]]. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 21:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:I'll fix that with my bot if I remember tomorrow... [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 03:10, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
==Intro to this Article==
Alright, a new suggestion for how to explain the new names, derived from the formula I put in at [[Tartu]]:
:'''Gdansk''' (before 1945 known primarily in English by its German name, '''Danzig''') bla bla bla
Would this be acceptable to everyone? [[User:John Kenney|john]] 17:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Did you really mean to write '''''...known primarily in English by...'''''? '''''...known in English primarily by...''''' makes more sense to me. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 22:35, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::Yes, that does make more sense. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 00:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Anyone out there? [[User:John Kenney|john]] 21:55, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::It's OK with me, but where are the extremists? --[[User:Kpalion|Kpalion]] 22:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::As far as I can tell, we do have a consensus. There are a few people with extreme positions on each end of the spectrum, but they haven't been involved in the disucssion in a long time. I think it's time to unprotect the article and hope for the best. Any objections? [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 22:35, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, as soon as we actually unprotect, we'll get edit wars of great size. I'd like to hear particularly what Wik and Nico have to say, as they've been the most active at warring over this. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 00:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Both Wik and I were perfectly happy with "formerly Danzig". Wik does not like "German: Danzig" because in his opinion it's not [sic!] the German name (although even the German wikipedia as well as all newspapers, encyclopedias etc. in Germany uses it). I think the new version maybe is a bit too long and detailed for an introduction. Also, why "primarily"? Show me a single Englishman who called it "Gdańsk" before 1945. In fact, the city was primarily known in English as Danzig even for decades after 1945. In short: I would prefer a shorter version, and all details regarding its name explained in the name section. In the first sentence, the reader only have to recognize what the article is about: Gdańsk=Danzig. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 04:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::"Formerly Danzig" '''is''' better than "German: Danzig" because, while both statements are true, the fact that it's the former English name is far more significant than the fact that it's the current German name. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 04:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::I agree. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 05:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::Well, it is not a fact that it is "''the'' current German name", at best it is ''a'' current German name, along with Gdansk. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 04:57, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
I was kinda busy, but I don't know where the other extremists are. I like the intro. What were the results of the vote on the use of Gdansk/Danzig? [[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]]
That seems a bit long-winded and confusing. What was wrong with "formerly Danzig"? --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 04:14, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
:Giving the year (or even the exact date) of the name change in the intro seems like a good idea. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 04:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::In English usage the change did actually not happen straight in 1945. I think most English encyclopedias used Danzig until the 70-ies or so. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 05:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Most English sources were using "Danzig" as the city's current name until late 60's, some until late 80's and the tendency to call the city "Gdansk" throughout the history has reached global status only recently.[[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]]
::Space Cadet, you have yet to show that there has been such a tendency. As yet, you've cited Britannica. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 05:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd be fine with "formerly Danzig", too, but someone or other is always reverting that when the page is unprotected. So, if another acceptable formula can be worked out, that's fine with me. Space Cadet, we've had so many votes on the Danzig/Gdansk thing as to be worthless - why don't we wait on that bit for a while, and see if we can work out the beginning? [[User:John Kenney|john]] 05:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So, does anyone, then, disagree with just having "formerly Danzig"? [[User:John Kenney|john]] 05:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yup, "formerly" strongly implies that "Gdansk" was invented 1945..[[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]]
:As an English name it was. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 05:15, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
: Here's the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica, if it helps: http://89.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DA/DANZIG.htm [[User:Phr|Phr]] 02:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)phr
Okay, how about "before 1945 known in English by its German name, '''Danzig'''"? [[User:John Kenney|john]] 05:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Another possibility would be to use "formerly '''Danzig'''", but then make sure to explain the complicated situation somewhere else in the article, so as to counteract whatever implication (I'm not sure it's strong - would to say that St. Petersburg was "formerly Leningrad" imply that the name St. Petersburg was made up in 1991?) there is that the name Gdansk was made up on the spot. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 05:24, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
==100 000 dead Danzigers==
Cautious asked for a source for the 100 000 dead Danzigers. Here is one, from Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen (http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles/?id=56 ). It's also the German view on the history of the city, which is quite different from that of our Polish friends here. As most Poles learn German I think I may post this here. At least Cautious said he speak German.
<blockquote><small>
Als deutsche Stadt wurde Danzig 1224/25 noch innerhalb des Fürstentums Pommerellen (etwa Gebiet des späteren Westpreußen westlich der Weichsel) gegründet. Als Kaufmanns-, Handels- und Hafenstadt erlangte sie große Bedeutung im Ostseeraum. Als Stadt eigenen Rechts war sie vom umliegenden - damals noch slawischen - Umland klar getrennt, wurde aber bald zu einem Ausgangspunkt der deutschen Besiedlung des weithin brachen Weichsellands. Mit Pommerellen kam Danzig 1308/09 an den Deutschen Orden und begab sich 1454 unter Wahrung seiner Rechte und Eigenständigkeit unter die Schutzhoheit der Krone Polens. Es behauptete sich mehr noch als andere Städte des sogenannten "Königlichen Preußen" auch nach der einseitigen und somit rechtswidrigen polnischen Eingliederungsakte von 1569 in den folgenden Jahrhunderten als nahezu unabhängige Stadtrepublik. In seiner wirtschaftlichen Blütezeit um 1650 hatte die deutsche Kaufmannsstadt Danzig fast 80.000 Einwohner (zu dieser Zeit: Hamburg 60.000, Breslau 30.000, Berlin 6.000).<br><br>
In Zusammenhang mit der 2.Teilung Polens 1793 beschloß die Stadt aus eigenem Recht ihren Anschluß an das Königreich Preußen, dem sie bis 1918/20 angehörte - unterbrochen nur von einer von Napoleon erzwungenen Scheinselbständigkeit als "Freistaat" 1807-14. Von 1815-29 und seit 1878 war Danzig Hauptstadt der Provinz Westpreußen.<br><br>
Der Versailler Vertrag trennte Danzig mit Umland von Preußen und Reich ab, sprach es jedoch nicht dem wiederhergestellten Polen zu, sondern konstruierte es 1920 als eigenen Staat "Freie Stadt Danzig" unter "Schutz" und Aufsicht der Alliierten, vertreten durch den Völkerbund bzw. einen Kommissar des Völkerbundes. Diese bizarre Konstruktion war zum einen dem polnischen Bestreben geschuldet, Danzig vom Reich zu trennen, zum anderen der Tatsache, daß man das Gebiet wegen seiner demographischen Verhältnisse unmöglich ohne weiteres Polen zuschlagen konnte:<br><br>
Von den 330.000 Menschen, die 1910 in dem knapp 2.000 qkm großen Gebiet lebten, sprachen über 95 Prozent Deutsch, knapp drei Prozent Polnisch, weniger als ein Prozent waren Kaschuben oder Masuren. 1923, also nach der Abtrennung vom Reich, gaben sogar 97,6 Prozent der Bevölkerung Deutsch als Muttersprache an (Polnisch, Kaschubisch, Masurisch: zwei Prozent). Bei den freien Parlaments-(Volkstags-)wahlen vom Mai 1933 entfielen 3,2 Prozent der Stimmen auf polnische Listen.<br><br>
Noch am Tag des Kriegsbeginn 1.9.1939 wurde der Wiederanschluß des Gebiets der "Freien Stadt Danzig" an Deutschland proklamiert. Bis 1945 war Danzig nunmehr Hauptstadt des "Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreußen". <br><br>
Etwa 22.000 deutsche Danziger fielen im Krieg. Von den 1945 etwa 407.000 im Gebiet der Freien Stadt Danzig lebenden Menschen sind über 100.000 bei Flucht, Vertreibung und Deportation umgekommen.<br><br>
Nach der Einnahme Danzigs durch sowjetische und polnische Truppen am 27.3.1945 kam während der Besatzungszeit und während der Ausweisungen jeder fünfte Danziger gewaltsam oder aufgrund der Umstände ums Leben oder blieb vermißt.<br><br>
1950 lebten in Westdeutschland 225.000 Danziger, in der SBZ etwa 60.000. Ab Juni 1945 bestand in Lübeck bereits ein "Danziger Hilfskomitee". Im April 1946 zunächst von den Alliierten verboten, wurde dann im August 1948 der Bund der Danziger als landsmannschaftliche Vereinigung gegründet. Ausgehend von der Völkerrichtswidrigkeit der zwei Annexionen von 1939 und 1945 und vom de-jure-Fortbestand der "Freien Stadt Danzig" besteht seit 1947 die "Rat der Danziger", der die Interessen der deutschen Danziger nach außen wahrnimmt. Patenstadt der Danziger ist Düsseldorf.</small></blockquote>
[[User:Nico|Nico]] 08:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this passage: ''Etwa 22.000 deutsche Danziger fielen im Krieg. Von den 1945 etwa 407.000 im Gebiet der Freien Stadt Danzig lebenden Menschen sind über 100.000 bei Flucht, Vertreibung und Deportation umgekommen.'' say that ''22.000 Germans of Gdansk fell during the WWII, while out of 407.000 inhabitants of the city in 1945 over 100.00 were subject of expulsion, evacuation and deportation''?[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 10:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::No, "umgekommen" does mean "lost their lives". However, we should be cautious about blindly copying numerical estimates from a possibly biased source like that and either verify from other sources be explicit as to the source of the estimate. I just checked the German article [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig]; it does not give any casualty figures. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 16:52, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
== See also: ==
=== interlinks ===
[[csb:Gduńsk]]
[[da:Gdansk]]
[[de:Danzig]]
[[en:Gdansk]]
[[eo:Gdansko]]
[[fr:Gdansk]]
[[is:Gdańsk]]
[[it:Danzica]]
[[ja:グダニスク]]
[[la:Gedania]]
[[nds:Danzig]]
[[nl:Gdansk]]
[[no:Gdansk]]
[[pl:Gdańsk]]
[[ru:Гданьск]]
[[sv:Gdansk]]
=== Major corporations ===
* [[Grupa Lotos SA]], [[Gdansk]]
* [[Energa Gdańska Kompania Energetyczna SA]], [[Gdansk]]
* [[GE Capital Bank SA]], [[Gdansk]]
* [[Gdańska Stocznia Remontowa SA]], [[Gdansk]]
* [[Elnord SA]], [[Gdansk]]
* [[Elektrociepłownie Wybrzeże SA]], [[Gdansk]]
* [[LPP SA]], [[Gdansk]]
* [[Polnord Energobudowa SA]], [[Gdansk]]
:I'm not sure we need those. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:31, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
=== Table ===
Be sure to include the table at '''<nowiki>{{msg:Poland}}</nowiki>'''
{{msg:Poland}}
[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:31, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
== Header ==
Ok, seems like we reached some sort of a compromise and the only thing that sparks edit wars now is the header. Currently the most frequently used versions are
* Gdańsk (formerly Danzig)
* Gdańsk ([[German language|German]] Danzig)
I'd stick to the latter. We agreed that the city should be referred to with either German or Polish name in different periods of time. This way we'd have to use the frase ''Gdańsk (formerly Danzig, formerly Gdańsk, formerly Danzig, formerly Gdańsk)'' - and so on. I think that the earlier version is misleading and the latter version is definitely more correct. Especially that just below the header there is a whole chapter explaining the city's name. No need to rewrite it in the header. What do you think? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 17:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Danzig is an important name because it used to be the name the city called itself, and the name by which the city was known in English. That is to say, because it is a former name. The fact that it may or may not be the name that is used in the German language is irrelevant to the English Wikipedia. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 20:17, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
| 