Talk:Gdańsk: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:09, 5 March 2004

Latest revision as of 08:42, 23 August 2025

Line 1:

{{Skip to talk}}

I think that [[Gdansk]] edits are very usefull. Current version is not acceptable by people of Gdansk. Shall we create own entry [[Gdansk, Poland]]? [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 11:47, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

{{GA nominee|07:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Luxtaythe2nd|Luxtaythe2nd]] (_{[[User talk:Luxtaythe2nd|Talk to me...]]})|page=3|subtopic=Places|status=onreview|note=|shortdesc=City in Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland}}

-------------------

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

Never! Please! It would probably work for [[Kaliningrad, Russia]], but not for Gdansk. It's very complex and diverse history should be combined in one article. [[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]] 14:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

{{Article history

|action1=GAN

|action1date=30 November 2022

|action1link=Talk:Gdańsk/GA1

|action1result=failed

|action1oldid=1124801742

|action2=GAN

-------------

|action2date=24 March 2023

Earlier discussion:

|action2link=Talk:Gdańsk/GA2

*[[Talk:Gdansk/archive1]], [[Talk:Gdansk/archive2]]

|action2result=failed

|action2oldid=1146112301

|currentstatus=FGAN

History vs. Nationalism:

|topic=places}}

One must conclude that those who assert that the city was known by its Polish name through most of its history are motivated not by a desire to present a historic story, but rather are ethnic nationalists, zealots or idealogues who cannot bear to entertain the thought that this city was predominantly German for many centuries, and at the height of its pre-World War II development was 96 percent German.

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B |vital=yes |1=

Even these zealots must know that the city's records, and during the interwar period its currency and stamps, were written or inscribed in German. They must know that all of the discussions about the city at Versailles and in the League of Nations -- and indeed at Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam -- referred to the city by its German name. The must further be aware that Nobel laureate Günter Grass's novels are referred to as "The Danzig Triology," not the Gdansk triology.

{{WikiProject Poland|importance=Top}}

There is no arguing about the fact that today the city is called Gdansk and is inhabited by Poles. There should be no arguing either about the fact that, before March 31, 1945, it was called Danzig and was inhabited by Germans.

{{WikiProject Hanseatic League|importance=Top }}

The story of how the ethnically German city of Danzig was transformed into the Polish city of Gdansk is a fascinating and in many way disturbing one that contains lessons for all of humanity. I suggest that those who cannot bear to examine this story in its entirety -- and indeed the story of all the annexations and expulsions after WWII -- are in no better positiion intellectually or morally than those who brought about the German aggression against Poland in 1939.

{{WikiProject Cities}}

-- Steven Anderson, author of "Revenge: The Expulsion of the Germans," Jan. 19, 2004.

{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Former countries|Prussia=Yes |HRE-taskforce=yes |HRE-taskforce-importance=top}}

{{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}}

}}

{{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}}

{{section sizes}}

<!-- PLEASE DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE -->

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 14

|minthreadsleft = 5

|minthreadstoarchive=1

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Gdańsk/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}

== Pronunciation==

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

== no rebellions? and where is 1302? and payment? ==

Where is the mention of the site's rebellions in 1030 in 1090?

==Voting on the compromise==

And, if I'm not mistaken, the Order entered the city in 1302 to stop the rebellion against Polish rule. This isn't even included in the write up. Why only 1308? The events of 1302 set up 1308 in every way. It's only then that representatives in the city reach out to Brandenburg and representatives of the Polish lobby call on the Teutonic Order again.

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

The other detail missing is the issue of payment. The article jumps right into the massacre claim coming from the Polish lobby, where is the issue of payment for the services performed by the Order?

'''YES'''

*[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

*[[User:John Kenney|john]] 09:16, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

*[[User:Nico|Nico]], although I still think we could discuss the pre-1793 usage a little bit more

*[[User:Szopen|Szopen]] Yes, with addition that alternative name should be added in parantheses, t avoid confusion.

*[[User:Guillermo3|Guillermo3]], no parantheses in paragraphs were Danzig is used.

'''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 <u>currently</u> used name in English.

Also, where is the issue of the Knights offering to pay for the land, but claiming Poland didn't control it and declaring that it will pay Brandenburg?

These are key developments in the history, instead the only thing the article seems to care about is "muh 10,000", which is an entire paragraph of text.

'''abstention'''

*[[User:Baldhur|Baldhur]]; an abstention may be useless, but after proposing a vote I wanted to participate

<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:1002:A012:CAEF:FCBE:CDDA:B5F7:7C27|2600:1002:A012:CAEF:FCBE:CDDA:B5F7:7C27]] ([[User talk:2600:1002:A012:CAEF:FCBE:CDDA:B5F7:7C27#top|talk]]) 00:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

'''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.

== Gdańsk Shipyard photo in the infobox collage ==

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.

I cropped the image and it now fits best as possible. It's one of the most important landmarks of Gdańsk. And it adds diversity to the collage. Why remove it?

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.

[[File:Gdańsk IMG 2550 (cropped).jpg|thumb]] [[User:Chick Pea Corea|Chick Pea Corea]] ([[User talk:Chick Pea Corea|talk]]) 23:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

---

[[File:Gdansk Shipyard 2015 013.jpg|thumb|Image nr 2]]

When do we finish the voting?[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

:pinging @[[User:Merangs|Merangs]] [[User:Chick Pea Corea|Chick Pea Corea]] ([[User talk:Chick Pea Corea|talk]]) 23:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

==Famous people born in Gdansk/Danzig/Gydanytzk/Dantiscum==

::How is this dark, uneven and blurred image depicting a landmark? This is pure [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] on your part and I will escalate it if you do not cease. It's not that I am against your contribution, but it is not constructive and the imagery you propose is not good (in my opinion). I have repeatedly asked you, with discussion, to stop. [[User:Merangs|Merangs]] ([[User talk:Merangs|talk]]) 19:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You think you have ownership over all Poland-related pages? You don't. And Assume Good Faith, otherwise you're breaking [[WP:AGF]]. I will level the image out promptly. [[User:Chick Pea Corea|Chick Pea Corea]] ([[User talk:Chick Pea Corea|talk]]) 21:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I have leveled out the picture. I think [[Gdańsk Shipyard]] absolutely must be included for two reasons: significance and diversity of imagery in the infobox collage. What picture would suit you if not this one? [[User:Chick Pea Corea|Chick Pea Corea]] ([[User talk:Chick Pea Corea|talk]]) 21:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Chick Pea Corea}} - This image (nr 2) is much better in my opinion. It can replace the Westerplatte photo which is seldom nice and doesn't really illustrate the place, but rather a communist monument far from the city's core. Moreover, this outcome would also enlarge the other images which are now quite small and barely visible, which is a shame. Please let me know your thoughts. [[User:Merangs|Merangs]] ([[User talk:Merangs|talk]]) 21:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was thinking about it, but you'd have to crop it. However I feel the 1st still better captures the Shipyard itself. I'd leave the Westerplatte pic and in general I'd leave everything, though the Shipyard image could be swapped (in the same place) if you cropped your pic up real good. The lower the image, the bigger the mid-row images [[User:Chick Pea Corea|Chick Pea Corea]] ([[User talk:Chick Pea Corea|talk]]) 22:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The 1st image is of very poor lighting, one can barely see anything and it distorts the place. It could show a heat/power station and it would be believable (which I think it does in the background). The images in the current configuration/collage are much too small, with Gdańsk's most important sites not being visible. That's because there are too many. The Westerplatte image can be moved into the "History" section where it appropriately belongs with the right caption. [[User:Merangs|Merangs]] ([[User talk:Merangs|talk]]) 22:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You're talking about the grain in the image? If you crop your pic neatly, it'll take it. As for kicking some collage images out, I think Westerplatte should stay as it serves an educational purpose, informs people. The Mannerist Armoury and the Neptune Fountain can be relegated to the sections below, though. [[User:Chick Pea Corea|Chick Pea Corea]] ([[User talk:Chick Pea Corea|talk]]) 22:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Actually I have an idea, just remove the Mannerist Armoury and relegate it to some section below. I'll apply it. [[User:Chick Pea Corea|Chick Pea Corea]] ([[User talk:Chick Pea Corea|talk]]) 22:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It's a shame that such a good image of Gdańsk's great architectural landmark was replaced by a poor and dark image of a non-operative industrial base. I do not see this as constructive and I feel that it needs to go to the original at this stage. Please seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] and RfC. In the meantime, I will revert to the original. [[User:Merangs|Merangs]] ([[User talk:Merangs|talk]]) 21:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Just use the second one? I'm not sure I understand the big problem here, it looks really nice. [[Special:Contributions/50.235.121.106|50.235.121.106]] ([[User talk:50.235.121.106|talk]]) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

== Neptune's Fountain or Neptune Fountain? ==

Which is the correct translation? Fontanna Neptuna implies it's a fountain with a depiction of Neptune, does it not? I don't think its name in Polish suggests Neptune somehow "owns" it. So a more accurate translation would be "the Neptune Fountain" wouldn't it? [[User:Chick Pea Corea|Chick Pea Corea]] ([[User talk:Chick Pea Corea|talk]]) 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

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 do not mind either. I am only in disagreement with the shipyard picture which is of poor quality. [[User:Merangs|Merangs]] ([[User talk:Merangs|talk]]) 19:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

* [[Ryszard Grodnicki]], b. 1947, painter, photographer

::I have leveled it out. [[User:Chick Pea Corea|Chick Pea Corea]] ([[User talk:Chick Pea Corea|talk]]) 21:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

* [[Krzysztof Kolberger]], b. 1950, actor

* [[Jan de Weryha-Wysoczanski]], b. 1950, sculptor

* [[Janusz Kupcewicz]], football player

* [[Donald Tusk]], b. 1957, politician, jornalist and historian

* [[Andrzej Markowicz]], b. 1957, painter

* [[Krzysztof Polkowski]], b. 1958, painter

* [[S&#322;awomir Witkowski]], b. 1961, painter

* [[Jaros&#322;aw Flici&#324;ski]], b. 1965, painter

* [[Marek Rogulus Rogulski]], b. 1967, painter

* [[Dariusz Michalczewski]], b. 1968, boxer

== Self-contradicting History section ==

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]].

"In Polish documents, the form Gdańsk was always used. The Germanised form Danzig developed later, simplifying the consonant clusters to something easier for German speakers to pronounce."

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

This beginning for the second paragraph is in direct contradiction to the paragraph leading up to it which lists historical name variations. This contradiction is further emphasized when following the sources provided 19-24 downstream. We are provided a German name variation which is 10 years younger than the Polish name, and while 23 alleges simplification of consonants this is not being substantiated. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:1210:1C27:2900:18CB:3B8F:9B38:8D61|2A02:1210:1C27:2900:18CB:3B8F:9B38:8D61]] ([[User talk:2A02:1210:1C27:2900:18CB:3B8F:9B38:8D61|talk]]) 17:16, 17 May 2025 (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 [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Marek+Rogulus+Rogulski%22]. I cannot see why he should be listed with people like Günter Grass etc. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 01:59, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:: But Grass is also at least 25% Pole, though he is German language writer. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 16:10, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:Sadly, pretty much every article about formerly-German cities in what Polish nationalists like to call the "recovered territories" are tainted with revisionism and myth designed to make this lands seem Polish and only Polish throughout time. Never mind that Polish people were a minority, at most, in many of these areas as recently as my mother's youth. Never mind that before slavs even existed, these lands were inhabited by Germanic and Celtic peoples. I get that history is complicated and I certainly don't blame Poland for the ethnic cleansing and communist horrors that were agreed upon upon by Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill - 1946 Poland was smaller than 1938 Poland, after all. I just wish this history could be approached in a more holistic and honest way that isn't about selling Polish people as "indigenous." That kind of blood-and-soil thinking is exactly what caused all kinds of Polish suffering in the last century and is hardly a solution to anything.

: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.[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:36, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

{{Talk:Gdańsk/GA3}}

:Just an idea: how many return google hits do you propose as a borderline for famous people? Is 5.000 ok with you?[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

:: I admit not all of them should be deleted. I didn't check all of them. Sorry. -- [[User:Nico|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. [[User:John Kenney|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:

* [[Ryszard Grodnicki]], b. 1947, painter, photographer

:'''13''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Ryszard+Grodnicki%22&btnG=Google+Search]

* [[Krzysztof Kolberger]], b. 1950, actor

:'''1,250''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Krzysztof+Kolberger%22&btnG=Google+Search]

* [[Jan de Weryha-Wysoczanski]], b. 1950, sculptor

:'''5,800''' [http://www.google.de/search?q=Jan+de+Weryha+OR+%22%2B%22+OR+Wysoczanski&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de&btnG=Google+Suche&meta=]

* [[Janusz Kupcewicz]], football player

:'''108''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Janusz+Kupcewicz%22&btnG=Google+Search]

* [[Donald Tusk]], b. 1957, politician, jornalist and historian

:'''5,530''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Donald+Tusk%22&btnG=Google+Search]

* [[Andrzej Markowicz]], b. 1957, painter

:'''68''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Andrzej+Markowicz%22&btnG=Google+Search]

* [[Krzysztof Polkowski]], b. 1958, painter

:'''51''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Krzysztof+Polkowski%22&btnG=Google+Search]

* [[S&#322;awomir Witkowski]], b. 1961, painter

:'''10''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Slawomir+Witkowski%22]

* [[Jaros&#322;aw Flici&#324;ski]], b. 1965, painter

:'''62''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Jaroslaw+Flicinski%22]

* [[Marek Rogulus Rogulski]], b. 1967, painter

:'''27''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Marek+Rogulus+Rogulski%22&btnG=Google+Search]

* [[Dariusz Michalczewski]], b. 1968, boxer

:'''6 510''' [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Dariusz+Michalczewski%22]

I guess at least four of them should be included in the list. -- [[User:Nico|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. [[User:John Kenney|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? [[User:82.83.0.47|82.83.0.47]] 00:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:: My mother gives more than 50 google hits ;-) (although she is not from Danzig) [[User:Nico|Nico]] 13:21, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:::How about answering to my question then?[[User:Halibutt|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. [[User:John Kenney|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!<br>[[User:Space Cadet|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. [[User:John Kenney|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? [[User:Nico|Nico]] 07:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

------------------------------

To [[User:John Kenney|John]]:<br>

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.<br>

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". <br>

BTW, Szopen is a great guy but sometimes very emotional.<br>

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. <br>

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.<br>

Hope I cleared up my stand on this.<br>

I might not be able to visit WIKI for a while.<br>

[[User:Space Cadet|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. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 07:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The current formulation by Wik "(until 1945 known as Danzig)" looks good to me. [[User:John Kenney|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''. --[[User:Delirium|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. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 17:14, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:: I think that is a quasi argument. [[User:Nico|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. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 17:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-------------------Dear [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]], <br>

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. <br>

Out of curiosity, you really didn't know that Lwów became part of Poland, long before any German wandered to Gda&#324;sk, did you?<br>

::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. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 19:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Delirium|Delirium]], <br>

Why is "Danzig" a historical name and "Gda&#324;sk" isn't? Because you have a strong hunch? Because you count the number of clicks on Google? Do those clicks represent encyclopedic entries?<br>

"Present day Gda&#324;sk" strongly suggests that the name "Gda&#324;sk" never existed or was used before present day. [[User:John Kenney|John]] already explained to you, that this is not the case, therefore your Constantinople example is way off. <br>

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?<br>

Thank you for your time! <br>

Sicerely, <br>

[[User:Space Cadet|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?) [[User:John Kenney|john]] 19:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---------------

[[User:John Kenney|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. <br>

[[User:Jwrosenzweig|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).<br>

[[User:Space Cadet|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. [[User:John Kenney|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. <br> [[User:Space Cadet|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. -- [[User:Nico|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. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 03:28, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who inserted the quote? [[User:Nico|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. [[User:John Kenney|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... [[User:Szopen|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? [[User:Pakaran|Pakaran]][[User talk: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,<BR>

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

-----------------

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

:Oh my, oh my... Let's see what happens...[[User:Halibutt|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. [[User:John Kenney|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 :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|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. --[[User:Delirium|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. [[User:John Kenney|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. [[User:RickK|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 - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 23:38, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

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

<table border=1>

<tr>

<td>

:''<strike>This article is about the city of Gda&#324;sk; for the musical band named Danzig, see [[Danzig (band)]].</strike>'''

<td><strike>Here the former name seems pretty much out of place.</strike>

<tr>

<td>'''Gda&#324;sk''' (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]].

<td>

*"Baltic city" is such an ambiguous term. Maybe "Baltic Sea city" is better?

*capital of voivodship moved up here

<tr>

<td>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]].

<td>

*<nowiki>[[Eastern Pomerania|Eastern]] [[Pomerania]] or [[Kashubian]] region</nowiki> is maybe not neccessary, in particular as the Kashubian article is about Kashubians and not the Kashubian region.

<tr>

<td>

The name of the city was ''Danzig'' during the long period of [[Germany|German]] rule, but is now ''Gda&#324;sk'', the [[Polish language|Polish]] equivalent. However, the old German name is still often used colloquially in German, English and Scandinavian languages. In [[Kashubian language|Kashubian]] it is known as ''Gdu&#324;sk''.

<td>

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.

</td>

</tr>

</table>

--[[User:Ruhrjung|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.) - [[User:David Gerard|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?--[[User:Ruhrjung|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 League|Hanseatic]] times to 1945, but is now ''Gda&#324;sk'', the [[Polish language|Polish]] equivalent.

--[[User:Ruhrjung|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 League|Hanseatic]] times to 1945"?--[[User:212.181.86.12|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. [[User:John Kenney|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. -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|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 Gda&#324;sk's most famous products, a liqueur named Danziger Goldwasser ("Gda&#324;sk gold water")''. Translating "Danziger Goldwasser" as "Gdansk gold water" seems bordering on the silly. --[[User:Delirium|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! [[User:Stern|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. [[User:Nico|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 [[User:Nico|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. [[User:Nico|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 ''[[K&ouml;nigsberg]]'', which is now ''[[Kaliningrad]]'', but shouldn't be called such in historical context. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 12:12, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

::That's what I think, too. [[User:Stern|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. :-(

:::--[[User:Ruhrjung|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".

[[User:John Kenney|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. -- [[User:Baldhur|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? [[User:Yeti|Yeti]] 12:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::::I don't want to enter this discussion but I would like to quote [[User:Space Cadet|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. -- [[User:Baldhur|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 [[User:Yeti|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.[[User:Space Cadet|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) [[User:John Kenney|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...[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

::Obviously, yes. The chaos would be incredible. [[User:Yeti|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...? --[[User:Palapala|Palapala]] 10:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 15:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Space Cadet: How about if I the next time changed all occurences of Gda&amp;#324;sk to its ''Germanic'' name - Danzig - in order to make the article consistent? This is a Germanic encyclopedia, after all. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 16:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)