Talk:Gdańsk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the priority scale.
Poland Portal
Gdańsk is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the Hanseatic League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11


Contents

[edit] Neutrality

I put a POV tag on the history section of this article. It seems entirely oriented to the German POV (and this is coming from an American) and needs to be cleaned up. Helmandsare 3:39 UTC, 24 May 2006.

84.190.90.113 added some quite POV edits that passed under the radar of regular editors for quite a while. I have reverted to an earlier more neutral version of the article. Thanks for pointing the discrepancy out. Olessi 03:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing some pretty blatant POV

Article had read like this:

On 30 March 1945, the Red Army entered a city to occupate it and to expell its population. According to the current state of knowledge, it was the Red Army, not the Germans, who turned about 90% of the city into ruins. It is estimated that 25 percent of the pre-war population had been killed by the allies in times of peace after 1945. After the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, Gdańsk was illegaly assigned to Poland along with other German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line, a decision originally taken by Dictator and mass murderer Stalin and supported by Britain and the United States. The remaining German residents of the city who survived the war were expelled to what remained of Germany, and the city henceforth became a wholly Polish city known as Gdańsk.


I've changed it to this:

On 30 March 1945, the Red Army entered a city to liberate it from the Nazi occupation. After the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, Gdańsk was assigned to Poland along with other German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line, a decision supported by the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States. The remaining German residents of the city who survived the war were expelled to what remained of Germany, and the city henceforth became a wholly Polish city known as Gdańsk.

The city was not "liberated from Nazi occupation". The Soviet Union occupied the city and expelled its population. Can one call this "liberation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.246.39 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna tag the article as a whole for a more thorough NPOV check. ENpeeOHvee 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good removal, ENpeeOHvee. Olessi 19:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Bad removal. The following sources: Website of Tri-City, The website of Gdańsk, The website of the Izba Skarbowa (roughly: Tax Agency or Budget Agency) of Gdańsk state that: The biggest damage occured in march 1945, during the so called "liberation" of Gdańsk by the Soviet and Polish armies; after the robbery made by the "liberating" armies and stroms of autumn of 1945 the historical centre of the city virtually ceased to exist, captured in March 1945 by the soldiers of the 2nd Belarussian Front, Gdańsk was soon torn down into a sea of ruins and after the soldiers' of the 2nd Belarussian Front entering Gdańsk the historcal Centre was almost completely destroyed respectively. POV is one thing, but the other is that ENpeeOHvee has removed actual historical info. LukaszG 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add and reference that material into the article. I would add it, but don't speak Polish, unfortunately. Be bold. :-) Olessi 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the decision to give Gdansk to Poland was insisted upon by the Soviet Union, and acquiesced in by Britain and the United States? john k 14:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV template

Any objections to removing the POV check Template currently at the top of the article? There does not seem to be a current discussion regarding POV issues for this article. Olessi 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion here I am removing the template. Olessi 16:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The never-ending brouhaha

Still going on, I see. I thought we settled all this a year or so back. I'll just offer once again my poetic comment:

The city of Danzig once lay
In the north, near the Vistula Bay
But there was a war
That the Germans verlor,
And the city's called Gdańsk today.

Sca 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite nice, were it not, that Polish chauvinism and outright nationalism spoil most historical pieces on the history of cities in historical eastern Germany. It's logical, that Germans react. I myself am Dutch, not "Deutsch", but it is annoying nevertheless. I can't stand people calling German-founded medieval settlements like Elbing, "Elblag" frenetically, even though that name did not even exist back then. Compared to the Russians, the Polish are still far from accepting them. Of course, that might seem necessary, considering that nearly one third of modern Poland is annexed former German territory and given the fact, that the eastern Poland the Soviets annexed in 1945, was largely non-Polish Belarussian or Ukrainian already. It's only historical uncertainty which cannot tolerate the plain facts. It is a fact, that from 1225 to 1945 Danzig was "Deutsch", and it is a fact too, that Gdansk has been Polish since 1945. Giving some space to German historical names however is not wrong. The polonizing of the name Krahntor in this article is already reminiscent of Polish nationalism. That medieval crane was never called that way by neither Kashubian Danzigers nor by the German Danzigers. I ain't calling Lodz "Litzmannstadt" and "Litzmannmonument" either in its articles. It's pathetic. But anyhow.Smith2006 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Polish chauvinists need to lighten up. Changing the name of a wiki page would not boost polish per capita GDP, which is (surprisingly to the Poles) much lower than Germany's, not to mention other Germanic nations like Switzerland. It's sad that the once glory of Danzig is gone and now it's slowing being transformed into a slavic city. The civilised world now treats Danzig as a lost city like Athens and Constantinpole. The city is still there but it will never be the same. Blonde Knight of Teuton 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
According to archeologists, the Gdańsk stronghold was built in the 980s by Mieszko I of Poland, after a series of local wars. In 1997, the year 997 was celebrated by Poland as the date of the foundation of the city, this being the year when Saint Adalbert of Prague (sent by the Polish king Boleslaus the Brave) baptized the inhabitants of Gdańsk (urbs Gyddanyzc).
In the following years Gdańsk was the main centre of a Polish splinter duchy ruled by the Dukes of Pomerania. The most famous of them, Świętopełk II of Pomerania, granted a local autonomy charter in ca. 1235 to the city, which at the time had about 2,000 inhabitants. But at this time, the town had already obtained the city charter under Lübeck law (Lübisches Stadtrecht) in 1224 and the official spoken language was German.
By 1308 Gdańsk had became a flourishing trading city with some 10,000 inhabitants, but in the Gdańsk Massacre of November 13, 1308, it was occupied and demolished by the Teutonic Knights. This led to a series of wars between the Knights and Poland, ending with the Peace of Kalisz in 1343 when the Knights acknowledged that they would hold Pomerania as "an alm" from the Polish king. Although it left the legal basis of their possession of the province in some doubt, the agreement permitted the foundation of the municipality in 1343 and the development of increased export of grain from Poland via the Vistula river trading routes.
I do not feel that there is a need for me to point out, line for line, how much of a distortion of reality this is. There is so much that is inherently wrong in this treatment that I do not even know where to begin. If you find yourself scratching your head over this one and you find this perfectly acceptable for an online encyclopedia that is trying to prove its merits, I'm afraid this just isn't your subject... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] My edits

The Talk:Gdansk/Vote has been superseded by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which does not specify that "Danzig" should be in bold. Alternate/historical names can be used when relevant; as the introduction to the article discusses the present-day economic situation of the Tricity, there is no reason to mention Zoppot or Gdingen there. Those names should be mentioned in historical contexts and in their own articles, of course. Olessi 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If it does not specify and there are 2 recognized variations, then why not have Danzig boldened? r9tgokunks 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Olessi, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) does specify that Danzig be bolded, it states: It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line. It is customary to bold names frequently used in English, and italicize foreign names represented in Roman script. the name Danzig is frequently used in English, as is obvious by the previous discussion on this page. Also, if you will note: Saint Petersburg has all three names bolded (Petrograd and Leningrad)

--Jadger 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Danzig a historic/foreign name for Gdańsk ? --Lysytalk 10:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Foreign to whom? it all depends on your viewpoint, Gdańsk is foreign to English speakers, as is obvious by the spelling, unless you can show us some common English words that use ń. My point still stands that the previous discussion on this talk page clearly shows that Danzig is still a very common English language term for the city.

--Jadger 10:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is in its relevant historic content, e.g. Free City of Danzig, but this article is about the city Gdańsk, therefore "Danzig" here is purely historic (or the name of the town in German), both qualify for alternate (italicized) names. --Lysytalk 12:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There are still plenty of people alive today who speak English and use "Danzig" as the name of the city. There are also plenty of books all over that still have it written as Danzig, unless we're going to advocate a book burner.... The city has too much history under "Danzig" for people still alive today to not include this name in bold, even though it would be improper to call it that. This bolding of this name is a common courtesy to the reader, who, seeking information on Danzig under the Nazis, will get redirected to the proper article and see instantly that this is another name for the city. There are even improper names bolded in articles, because they are or were commonly used. KP Botany 22:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph

From the early 13th century until 1945 the vast majority of Danzig's population had been of German ethnicity and German had been the language officially spoken since its city charter was granted in 1224 under Lübeck Law. For example, in the course of a poll executed in 1923, 96% of the citizens of Danzig stated German to be their mother tongue whereas 3% stated Polish to be so. Danzig enjoyed far reaching privileges concerning its self-autonomy (e.g. laid down in the Second Peace of Toruń) while it was under protection of the Polish Crown between 1466 - 1793. Due to its mainly German population the city resisted the Counter-Reformation and stayed predominantly Protestant until 1945. In 1945, the surviving German population was expelled to the western parts of Germany and the city was eventually re-populated by Poles, many which had been expelled from territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union.

How can a poll from 1923 be an "example" of what was the ethnic make-up of the city in "early 13th century?
There was no actual "self-autonomy" only lower taxes for enterpreneurs.
How is German ethnicity related to "resisting the Counter-Reformation"? And what about Bavaria and Austria (not to mention Switzerland)? How come German ethnicity didn't help them in "staying predominantly Protestant"? Finally, why then East Prussian Mazurs remained "predominantly Protestant" despite lack of German ethnicity?
Space Cadet 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Also, since when "Gdańsk" is not a historical name? Well, if it is, then why only "Danzig" needs to be emphasized as "historical"? See where I'm going with this? Space Cadet 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this and many other discussions about German/Polish historical topics. It's a real shame that there is so much nastiness and vindictiveness it them. I am a Silesian by birth, of a German (Ostpommern) father and Polish (Cracow) mother. My education has primarily been in Australia from an independent perspective, so I see myself as an objective viewer.

Discussing pre-19th century political history is very fraught since the notions of nationality didn't emerge until then - in medieval Hanseatic Cracow (eg) the majority of people may have been German ethnically and linguistically, but most likely saw themselves as Cracovites (i hope that's correct) first, and under the subjectship of whoever was the King of Poland at the time - even though the king was sometimes not Polish: Henry Valois = French/Swiss; Stefan Batory = Hungarian; the Vasas = Swedish etc. The same applied more or less everywhere. The Plantagenets were French, Tudors Welsh, Stuarts Scottish... Even to this day the British royals are actually ethnically a German family.

The point I'm making is that prior to the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, ethnic nationality didn't count for much. Calling a city whose national provenance is controversial (like Gdansk/Danzig) Polish as opposed to German in a particular historical period primarily refers to royal belonging, not ethnicity or language. That's because the people at the time would overwhelmingly identify with that belonging rather than ethnicity. This is contrary to present day when such identification is primarily ethnic. That's why critique of pre 19C history aling nationalistic lines doesn't make sense.

There are really 4 dimensions to calling a place German, Polish or anything else. Ethnicity, language, geography and political belonging. You can call (eg) Prague a German city in some of these dimensions, and Czech/Bohemian in others.

There is too much nationalistic fervour in these articles and discussions. It is true that Polish authors may be unsympathetic to the cleansing of Germans postwar - that isn't necessarily their fault since such historical facts were largely glossed over in the Communist teaching of history. Likewise German authors understanably resent the postwar border moving to the Oder-Neisse. Neither is automatically being deliberately biased.

The point of WP is to state those views in an objective way. There is nothing wrong with an article including a section on differing historical views of a city.

I for one hope that the continuing integration of European countries in the EU will slowly assign to the past these nationalistically-motivated views of OUR JOINT history.

-- Gabe76 - 21 Feb 2007

I am likewise of one German and one Polish parent ethnicity. I appreciate your comments, especially on JOINT history. JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed pop table from article

Historical population
of Gdańsk

ca. 1000 1,000
1235 2,000
1308 10,000
1600 40,000
1650 70,000
1700 50,000
1750 46,000
1793 36,000
1800 48,000
1825 61,900
1840 65,000
1852 67,000
1874 90,500
1880 103,701
1885 108,500
1900 140,600
1910 170,300
1920 360,000 (whole FCD)
1925 210,300
1939 250,000
1946 118,000 (Germans expelled)
1950  ?
1960 286,900
1970 365,600
1975 421,000
1980 456,700
1990 464,600
1994 464,000
2000 456,600
2004 460,524

Compare: population of Tricity

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.160.148 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tag

I just spent considerable amount of time locating User:155.247.166.29 who in his Revision as of 17:04, 7 December 2006 (lacking edit summary) placed {{POV-section}} tag inside “Foundation and the Middle Ages.” The corresponding comment made by the user on Talk Page anonymously seems already supported by the content of the disputed section. Therefore, I’m removing the tag, which by the way, was placed incorrectly making the rest of the article hard to notice. --Poeticbent  talk  16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different spellings

While researching a Paris monument built in Napoleonic times (1808 to be precise), and commemorating the Battle of Danzig, I found a 'DANTZICK' spelling of Danzig at Image:Place du Chatelet fountain and memorial.JPG (you need to zoom in on the top word below the golden statue). A Google search convinced me that Dantzick was an acceptable alternative spelling (at least at some point), but I'm still wondering whether the Dantzigk spelling is more common. Anyone know enough about the history of the spelling of the name to explain all this a bit more? Carcharoth 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter how the French spelt Danzig. as they can not even spell Rheims and Lyons as they are spelt in English? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it doesn't matter, really. It's Lyon in French. Lyons refers to lots of other stuff as well. I wonder how the French spell Danzig nowadays? Carcharoth 16:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
On WIKI they spell it "Gdańsk": [1] Space Cadet 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I checked again and it's "Dantzig". Space Cadet 17:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official language (1224)

In section "Foundation and the Middle Ages" the following statement was rephrased by User:213.70.74.164 without edit summary, as of 09:13, 30 March 2006:

Świętopełk II of Pomerania, granted a local autonomy charter in ca. 1235 to the city, which at the time had about 2,000 inhabitants. The town had earlier obtained a city charter under Lübeck Law in 1224.

Firstly, Lübeck law came into efect in 1226 (as the Lübeck article indicates), two years after the city of Gdańsk obtained its city charter. There might have been similarities between them, but the actual dates of the implementation of their municipal constitutions don't match. City charter obtained by Gdańsk preceded that of Lübeck, if the Wiki sources are correct.

Most importantly though, at the very end of that same paragraph User:213.70.74.164 added an outlandish claim without giving his sources. Here's what it said: "in 1224 the official language spoken was German."

Article Dukes of Pomerania however, would indicate something different. Here's what it says:

In three military campaigns of 1116, 1119, 1121 the whole of Pomerania was reconquered by the Polish monarch Boleslaus III (Bolesław Krzywousty), and divided into four parts. Eastern Pomerania with Gdańsk was put under direct Polish control and the duke had nominated his governors. This area is frequently known as Pomerelia. (...) Polish governors in Pomerelia gradually gained more and more power and evolved into semi-independent dukes, who ruled the duchy until 1294.

The official language of Gdańsk in 1224 must have belonged to its rulers and their own administrative body. Therefore, it was unquestionably Polish. I corrected the article accordingly. --Poeticbent  talk  09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk

The choice in the "vote" was between Danzig and Gdansk not Gdansk with a funny foreign squiggle. So AFAICT using Gdańsk is not in line with the "vote" survey. A Google search returns

  • about 375,000 English pages for -Gdansk Gdańsk -wikipedia
  • about 1,170,000 English pages for Gdansk -Gdańsk -wikipedia

So why use Gdańsk, the common Polish spelling, and not Gdansk the common English spelling? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't start. 193.95.165.190 15:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

This user comes from Gdańsk,
home of Solidarity



I created the missing userbox for those of Gdańsk origins. Thought the most important thing of last 27 years, which the world knows the city of, is the famous shipyard trade union - so I mentioned it in the box. --Kochas 03:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

In the after ww2 section of the article, there is a list of the various states that ruled the city. Is this list necessary? Isn't this information already included in the article? Ostap 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for it either. It seems quite extraneous as long as the information is already in the text. Olessi 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danzig is spoken in English; e.g. Glenn Danzig and Danzig (band)...

I can't even begin to make heads or tails out of Gdansk, but it appears to be a spelling of the same word in another language. With the inflection or whatever over the letter "n" in Gdansk, I'm lost. Danzig is easy to pronounce for both British and Americans, as well as anybody who speaks or reads English as a native language. BTW, my former step-mother is Polish/Czech or whatever and I have no love whatsoever for Germans. I'm just stating the normal convention in the English language, that Gdansk is unpronounceable, so would not be the preferred title in an English directory. Sure, in the language of those who can pronounce it, it would be great. It's the same thing for Peking in China, but don't tell the Chinese that--they want it to be written as Beijing or whatever. Screw walking on eggshells. I can say Peking or Danzig if I so choose and so can Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.11.149 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 November 2007

Right... let's forget how the name is said in that language, if you can't read it, it must be wrong! We'll make it English and everyone will be happy! And by happy I mean a little more stupid. And by everybody I mean you. Saturday Contribs 19:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the English speaking Wikipedia; get over it! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You get over it! Ivory Coast is both easy to pronounce and easy to spell, but we consistently use Côte d'Ivoire on the WIKI, so there! Space Cadet (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting gay, so have it your way...buh-bye! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


The only correct name would be "Danzig". Nürnberg is also called Nuremberg in the English Wikipedia. English name first, than the original name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.111.56 (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion of English forms of city names is becoming tiring. I do not see why not to use forms which bacame traditional in English and not the ones imposed by political or nationalistic considerations. Personally I prefer to use Peking, Danzig, Warsaw, Cracow, Lisbon, ... than Beijing, Gdańsk, Warszawa, Kraków, Lisboa, ... This is quite different from real name changes like the case of Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) or Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City), etc. Tsf (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What I find offensive are 'some' Poles trying to dictate to native English speakers that we are to use the Slavic Polish language names for places like Danzig. Please keep your Polish politics in Warsaw (Its also Warsaw to us in English NOT Warzawa. Do the Poles have a problem with that?). I have a brother living in Danzig and he also calls it Danzig specifically as thats the English name we use for the city. His Polish friends in the city have no problem with that and he has told me they never insist he call the city by its Slavic Polish form. Amazingly its mostly Poles in all the other places that hate the English name for the city. Its obvious why of course but the Poles need to lighten up with the proper English language usage. Cheers. Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.139.240 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read/listen to the UK news when Lech Wałęsa was around in the early 1980s? The events were always set in Gdansk, never Danzig. You see Danzig in history books, but these days it's always referred to (in serious sources at least) as Gdansk/Gdańsk. That's why this article uses both names depending on the historical context. (And the diacritic is included, because you know how to take it off but not necessarily how to put it on.) --Kotniski (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Looking at the link to the apparent government in exile, well I can't see it helping the article. It is a fringe group that doesn't really contribute to the article and I'm pretty damn sure that many of its writings are illegal in some European countries. But, the most basic thing is, it doesn't contribute to the article in any way. Saturday Contribs 19:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I'm removing it. Saturday Contribs 20:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heading

I am not exactly sure how to apply Danzig/Gdansk vote to the heading. There are some reverts and thus some clarification of the expert about the topic should be welcomed here please. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The city was widely known in English for decades, if not centuries, as Danzig; it was known as such while a free city and as late as 1945. While it is increasingly known by its Polish name (with or without 'ń'), it is still occasionally known as Danzig today. As evident on this talk page's history, there are many people who have felt that the article should be moved to Danzig altogether, feeling that is the proper English name. While I do not agree with that, I think including Danzig in bold in the intro is a good compromise. Just because other articles (Vilnius, Lviv) have different presentations than this article does not mean those conditions should be applied here. The merits of bolding should be discussed at their respective talk pages. Olessi (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's true but I always thought that other names are not bolded in any case. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding WP:NCGN, Gdańsk (or Gdansk) is the most common English name for the city now, and warrants bolding and usage according to criteria 1. Danzig was by far the most common name of the city in English prior to 1945, however, and even for some time afterwards. WPGN is an advisory guideline, but not a set-in-stone policy. The Manual of Style states "The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given. Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface." Because of the controversial history of this city, it makes sense to me to have both Gdańsk and Danzig in bold as a compromise. Olessi (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Many cities have many historical names, Gdańsk is no exception, and I see no reason to treat it in different way.History of the city is in history section and in the name section already. --Molobo (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both, with Olessi that this is controversial and with Molobo that double naming is the case of much more cities. I restored bolding until we will reach some consensus here, if necessary. I would rather to keep this as a friendly talking instead of voting, google searching etc. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Molobo is correct to say that many cities have historical names and it is problematic if Wikipedia apply different guidelines for different cities. In general, I'm all for having the historical names of cities clearly marked. Especially if a name change is rather recent and if the city has been known under a different name for a long period. Gdansk, the form I always use for this city, seem to fulfil all these criterion. JdeJ (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Define "long period" and "recent"--Molobo (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the Gdańsk vote mention anything about "long period" or "recent"? Space Cadet (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Gdansk vote was for "Gdansk" and not "Gdańsk". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it was clearly for Gdańsk-it is written so on the template.--Molobo (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you are confused, please look at the edit history of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The template is quite clear to me and speaks clearly about Gdańsk. If you want to change the results start a new vote.--Molobo (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you are still confused. Just because the template says Gdańsk does not mean that the vote was for Gdańsk. It was for Gdansk which is the common English spelling of the word. There is no need for another vote, as the vote was for Gdansk and the template is meant to be a reflection of the vote. The template was altered with this edit. It was an arbitrary edit that replaced Gdansk with Gdańsk for which there was no support in the vote. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So undo that edit. Or ask an admin, as it is protected. -- Matthead  DisOuß   00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danzig

I have heard there are moves to rename the city Danzig and to allow the expelled Germans that originally lived here to move back. Extremeist groups have threatened the Polish government because they want the city to go back to its German roots that were not given back after the fall of the Soviet Union. They would also make it an international city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theerasofwar (talk • contribs) 11:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

I recently made a few changes to some of the most egregious examples of POV, only to have them promplty reverted by someone claiming to be restoring NPOV. Phrases like "in the hands of the German Reich," "temporarily lost its Polish roots," and "regain the city" absolutely reek of Polish nationalism and revisionist history. Indeed, the user who reverted my changes has Polish coats of arms and "medals of honor" prominantly featured on his user and talk pages. Neutral Point of View, indeed! 75.37.144.221 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Polish and Prussian eagles facing each other is NOT the Polish Coat of Arms. Check your sources before you start posting incorrect info on the WIKI. And get an account, please. Space Cadet (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Cute, and extremely disingenuous. Your homepage shows a crudely rendered CG image of a fighter jet with the Polish eagle on the side. At the nose of the plane, are German eagles crossed out - indicating kills. You use THAT as your avitar image and then DARE post the dishonest retort you just posted above?!?! Ubudoda (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I's not a fighter jet but a spaceship (where did you see a fighter jet with no wings?) indicating that the whole thing is set in Science Fiction. Eagles are not German but East Prussian, representing a no longer existing province. Kills represent revanchist and revisionist users who believe that East Prussia should be removed from Poland (Poland only, mind you, Russia is a great power so they leave it alone). Space Cadet (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. On one hand one big word (disingenuous), on the other "post (...) you just posted". What are you - a wannabe preschool teacher?

Just imagine someone would use a similar picture, crossing out some Polish eagles. How would you call him? Nationalist, Chauvinist, a Nazi ...or simply sick?
P.S. good old times, when Russia protected Poland against German revanchists??(217.184.130.146 (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

For the last time: those are not German eagles but East Prussian. You can cross out coats of arms of all former Polish provinces as much as you want without bothering me the slightest. Space Cadet (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Post Scriptum comes after the signature not before.

The original phrasing in question seems to favor the Polish point of view considerably. The text suggested by the anonymous editors is more neutral in terminology. Olessi (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


How is "regain the city" an example of Polish nationalism and revisionist history? Ostap 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Exactly! Space Cadet (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


I guess once again reality just has a pro-Polish bias. Ostap 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Interesting that you only address the phrase that by itself is the least POV-laden... "Regain", especially when surrounded by the other phrases I mention, implies that the city was "naturally" Polish. It implies that Danzig's incorporation into the modern Polish state was somehow a return to the "natural" order, or the way things "should" be. Ubudoda (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because it disagrees with your POV doesn't mean it violates WP:NPOV. Ostap 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a simple statement of fact. Gdańsk was part of Polish state long before Germany was created.--Molobo (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Ostap R - What kind of crack are you smoking? I want some too! It's biased and POV-drenched. Just because it fits your opinion does not make it fact.
Molobo - You talk about the Polish state in a modern sense that didn't exist until the 20th century. Before that, the Kingdom of Poland - during the periods it existed - was always a multi-ethnic kingdom. One might as well claim that everyone in the Hapsburg Empire was an ethnic Austrian. It's absurd.
Since we are talking about "Facts" - Celts and Germans lived in the region where most of the modern Polish state is currently located for ONE THOUSAND YEARS before ANY Slavs (Poles didn't exist as a people yet) ever appeared on the scene. Did you get that? 1,000 years before the people who were the PRE-CURSORS to the Poles ever set foot in the area. You don't have to take my word for it. Just do a little research.
Well many tribes wandered around many continents, that's why I am not interested in that when talking about countries. As to Poland being multiethnic, it still is, so I see no problem in that.--Molobo (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
All of you Polish nationalists on here are extremely (to reuse a word from my post to Space Cadet) DISINGENUOUS. You have no interest in creating an accurate article - You are all trying to pass off post-WWII Polish propaganda as truth. I suppose that is what you were reared on and indoctrinated with. I'm sure an alternate view, no matter how accurate or true is totally unthinkable.Ubudoda (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, that's all from me. Ostap 03:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, you're right. I'll ignore you and your buddies. Ubudoda (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danzig from 1224 - 1945 a German city

For people, who are interested in real history and not the twists and turns of the Wikipedia-kind, here are a number of books on the foundation of Danzig as a German city, seperate from but near the castle of Gdansk.

In 1181 Pomerania became an integral part of the Holy Roman Empire and in 1224/27 the Duke of Pomerania regained independence from the Polish dukedom. The city of Danzig was uninteruptedly a "German" city until 1945. MfG 28 Feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.64.78 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Sorry your claim is bizarre and unfounded in facts:

Throughout its long history Gdańsk faced various periods of rule from different states before 1945, 997-1308: as part of Poland 1308-1466: as part of territory of Teutonic Order 1466-1793: as part of Poland 1793-1805: as part of Prussia 1807-1814: as free city 1815-1871: as part of Prussia 1871-1918: Imperial Germany 1918-1939: as a free city 1939-1945: Nazi Germany

Altogether combining the number of years, the city was under rule of Poland for 641 years, under the rule of Teutonic Order for 158 years, 125 years as part of Prussia and later Germany, 29'years of its history are marked by the status of a free city, and 6 years under the occupation of Nazi Germany until it was given back to Poland in 1945.--Molobo (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Danzig was not a part of the Herzogtum Pommern, which became a part of the Holy Roman Empire. It was conquered by the Teutonic Order in the times of the fragmentation of Poland, and then reconquered by Poles as a part of Royal Prussia, which was never included in HRE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.36.55 (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some conflicts

First, I also agree with the last two comments that referring to Gdansk as a "German" city is bizarre, except in the sense that German was a common language. If anything, the area surrounding the city is the place of origin of Prussians as an ethnic group, not as a Hapsburg kingdom. Old Prussian is closely related to Latvian and Lithuanian and forms separate language group with them that is associated with Slavic languages. The German part is indeed due to the Teutonic Order. But I am also puzzled with Molobo's claim that it was "part of Prussia 1871-1918" and "Imperial Germany 1918-1939". If anything, 1871-1918 was Imperial (with Prussia and Germany constituting a single state) and 1918-1939 was the Weimar Republic (hardly Imperial). Prussian aristocracy might have run Germany from 1871-1933 and the German military all the way through WWII, but let's keep our empires straight.

Another problem is in the text. The entries for both Gdansk and Wroclaw claim that they are the fourth largest city in Poland. The slight variation that refers to "metropolitan area" rather than city is not likely to change the designation. This needs to be fixed. Lone.cowboy (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old buildings

Jindobre Gdansk-experts. I am currently in your fascinating city, indulging my hobby of photographing old buildings. Today I visited the Akademia Muzyczna on Ulańska, which according to my old German maps was a German army barracks before the war. But when I got there I found two buildings: a large yellow-brick building which is labelled as the Akademia Muzyczna, and a very large red-brick building a little further east which is clearly pre-war and certainly looks more like an army barrack than the yellow one. The red-brick one faces away from Ulańska, and its front is fenced off and inaccessible. On the other hand the yellow-brick building, while built in pre-war style, looks too new and immaculate to be a pre-war army barracks. My questions: what is the red-brick building now used for, or what has it been used for since 1945? Is the yellow-brick building pre-war or just a good imitation? If it is pre-war, what was it before 1945? Djienkuje. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at these old maps [2], [3], they are showing the barrack area (Infanterie- Kaserne / Infant.-Kas.) quiet detailed. If we´re talking about this [4] yellow building, it looks like a typical pre - WWI barrack, maybe you compare it with the exact location shown on the map.(HerkusMonte (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for that. The map is better than the one I was using. It shows that both buildings were pre-war infantry barracks. The Music Academy building has been very well restored, it looks almost new. I still don't know what the red building has been since 1945. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: Weidengasse is now Łąkowa [5], while Ulańska is apparently a new freeway extending Reitergasse via parts of Hintergasse to the northeastern Langgarten /Długie Ogrody. Google maps has rather dark aerial photos apparently taken in winter, but both the western barracks at Reitergasse/Kasernengasse [6] and the eastern ones at Hintergasse [7] seem to correspond to the modern situation. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have established that both buildings are pre-war and that both were German army barracks. The question now is: what has been the postwar history of the red-brick or eastern building? It seems to be currently unused, but it is not derelict. It has no visible signage that I could see. The area in front of it, which looks like an open square in the Google photo, is in fact fenced off and inaccessible even to hardy snoopers like me. My guess is that it was until recently used by the Polish military but is now abandoned. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch it, you are violating WP:NOR. ;-) -- Matthead  Discuß   21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)