Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

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)

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The Talk:Gdansk/Vote has been superseded by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which does not specify that "Danzig" should be in bold.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 ? --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Largest Port

This article claims Gdansk is the largest seaport in Poland but the article for Szczecin makes the same claim. Which is correct? 63.26.192.3 (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)adam

01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I see here below a lot of PARTIAL ('both' sides) and few nutral messages. I place this above and just short to explain that a partial-cry on POV is no POV but a paw to own desireliking. One correction I make first; hapily also "more"nutral persons wrote history, like Romantime romans and Jews and Gothic(swedisch north german, perhaps partly keltic aswell slavic folk from Gotha, an island North from Poland and South from Sweden. In Aera of Dansk-Sicurat (Dans(i)c=Danish, Z/Sicurat=Protectorat) unto Kurland(S.Estonia, a finnic aera!) Goths as mixfolk came, aswell to mingle(mix) the germans, poles, finish, russians found with jews(jiddic as northern-mixed) feeled commonness while familiarities due Gothics as mix too, the name pruszin entered for its language (accounted to old Swedish with aswell german and slavic-polish&lithuanian influence) but near Danskzic (a very old abbreviated name, exchanged with Dansik) (Danzig/Gdansk (also before 1308 the name changed, the danish orriginal is to be prefered better with "(Gdan'sk(pl)/Dantzig(d))" scottish and much danish aswell dutch influence were felt too; also at some times between and after 14-17th Century! Best is to view its melting position, at times of polish rule, german and other elements were often erased to a hight, by suppressing to polish culture and language, but by nutral historicans also from outside partial countries backed, the germans went further, even german christians in the Kreuzzeitung, partly co-leaded by a dutch Groen van Prinsterer after 17/18th Century accused its own leadership of unchristian bad behaviour to polish. Massacres most and more immense often came from germanhands but after Worldwar II Some Mobs and Units of Polish were equal worse, but in both cases nutrals of poles and germans also recognize this. A return to Poland was as bad as a return to Nazis, it is a country which should be independent by opinion of most original Dantzigian wanted, before 1871 more in direction to (only "abouts";) 35% poles, 35% german and restfolk; many of all groups mingled to danish and gothic(here 'pomerian pruszin') older roots, . Hard to accept for "ownhomers"(a dutchsay for folk who are too fond on themselfs they are a bit crazy and intens ownculture but with no good objectivity..) of aswell German as Polish background. To stop nazism which by the way got NOT majority of all germans in Dantzig but minority support, armies had to attack hardway while nazis did same, not all soldiers on both sides backed this, but it went so hard by the ultra hate on both sides, seen bothsided cruelties -in propagandig overzoom bothsided-, ignorance may make an gorilla out of a mouse.. Too-Many germans ASWELL TooMany poles and reds army and normal folks(of all parties) became victim. The Etnicgroups and Cityhistory must never be demonized or victimized; black&white can be a movie, history has mostly devlish and angel sides at BOTH sides. Cruel things to Jews, aswell Poles AND Germans or Russians is Bad, but History i s n o t a fightground, it solves questions of geo and self and has as perspective harmony to all its folk. I prefer doublenames or new older gothicnames in Pomeria & EastPruszin(Prussia (aint german alone but keltic also slavic and swedish and danish+scotish+dutch co-mixed in south)) and keltic in ketic Silesia, aswell "occupied"(meaned in sense of living aswell rule, but friendly; dispite hard hands on both/all 3 (3=original older original(s) mixfolk!) sides) by "Neigbours" as Poland and Germany. These both too much striven to hero-view(can deform awayward away from truth!, could by youth and sense-having oldies choose for harmony; Dantzig for centuries as Hansatown kept high; to be a port of nations, perhaps english should be a could bridge language and its Parlament giving some Parliamentarians to Warsaw, some to Germany and some to Danmark, but "nutral" thirdway-viewers are not much in a 'selfhero-crazy' world. OPINION is ofcourse good, but on such uneasy parts of history more is needed to find consensus, an armbadge Dantszik(Gdansk/Dantzig) kept high. (i used some other varriants; be free in this, not bite but 'goodsmile').

`82.215.55.201 (talk) end of above partition aswell mine insert helptext to take off heat at all sides, it is a compasstext. ~~ I undersign as dutch!-Werner drogi narodow/liebe menschen/dear folk! ========

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think its clear that the wikipedia concept doesn't really work when it comes to history of areas that have changed ethnic groups back and forth over the years. There are too many passions that get in the way of historical accuracy. Why can't just the facts be stated as to when the city was German and when it was Polish? To say its inherently one or the other is not valid. As mentioned above, going back to who orignially inhabited the area will always come out German. You could say the Germans were the aboriginal people of Europe. Everyone else is the product of an invasion of some sort or other. The French are a mixture of Germans and Romans, Slavic people a mixture of Germans and Huns, etc. Of course the present day Germans are all mixed as well. Nationalism should not have an influence in histories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipcyk (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points! The Germans came from god-only-knows how many tribes. The Huns stopped by to interbreed with both the Germans and the Poles, although I don't think most Slavs would agree they're anything close to a mixture of Huns & Germans. Many would say that some extended Celt/Kelt ethnic group predated the Germans (& then the Celts that didn't get blended drifted to boundary areas such as Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Northern Spain, etc). The German connection to the French is easiest to decipher -- the West Franks settled west of the Rhine & eventually became "French" (German name for France: Frankreich) & the East Franks settled in Franconia/Franken. My greatgrandmother's obituary was once mis-translated by a scholar to say that "many French from the surrounding villages came to her funeral" (the real context was "Franks", not French, but the same word applies in German). My father's parents were of Polish ethnicity & my German grandmother was born in Dietel/Oleshna, Volga German Settlement, Russia. I am extremely aware of ethnic mixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Gdańsk, not Danzig... however Wilno not Vilnius... Polish double naming standards

A little bit OT, but a very important question. Many Poles here have led a quite absurd battle to stop the usage of the name Danzig, to the extent that we have this idiotic box on the begining of the site. However the same people continue to use and sometimes even while righting in English, the name Wilno, for the city of Vilnius, which is actually more offensive (if any of this is really offensive to someone except extremists) to Lithuanians, then Danzig is to Poles, because Vilnius was Polish for a relatively short time, and Gdańsk was German for the majority of it's history. So why, the two standards, my fellow Poles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.150.49 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Gdańsk was more time under Polish rule than any other's country (~1310, 1466-1762, 1920-1939 [if you don't count that silly Freistadt thing], 1945-) and it's currently a Polish city, so I don't see a problem with the name Gdańsk. As for Wilno, during the interwar period majority of its citizens was Polish, and rebuilt Polish army entered it after Russians left, there are many descendants of people sent to People's Republic of Poland from Wilno, Grodno, Lwów, Tarnopol. 83.25.209.57 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

the Lithuanian or Balts Pamarenians cities Gdansk and Gdynia are slavised Gadynia (gadinti=corrupt) and Gedonia (gedoti=mourn). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.242 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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 would call it liberation, liberation from the nazi's at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sade.lafleur (talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 May 2009 (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)

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)

LOL. Best answer ever! Witty Lama 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's consistent with the Wikipedia entries for other Polish cities, such as Poznań, Wrocław and Kraków, which tend to be spelled without the diacritics in English. 82.132.136.198 (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sorry but Danzig was a Free City the realtionship with Poland was about like the Relationship between Andorra and France or Monacco and France. Nobody would say that Monacco is frensh. In this way Danzig was actually never a polish City before 1945 but it had till the frirst halfe of the 19 th cetury a minority of Polish speakers from about 1/3 Johann

Gdansk was found by Polish dukes and was part of Poland in early medieval times. Later it was not a free city, no matter what some Gdansk inhabitants thought. It was part of POland, with significant authonomy. I already posted coins minted by Gdansk. You may check what was minted on the sides of the coins: on one side, Coat of Arms of Gdansk, on second, Polish king. Szopen (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

true, actually there have never been any Germans in Gdansk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.236.197 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm English, and generally sympathetic to Poland, but the state in which I found this article showed very clear and indisputable anti-German bias. There is nothing anti-Polish about recognising that it was a predominantly German city for much of its history, that is just a simple fact. In the same way it is a fact that Warsaw was a Polish city, even when it was ruled by the Tsars. Choalbaton (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

homepage of the city of Gdansk. (www.gdansk.pl)

I visited the homepage of the city of Gdansk. (www.gdansk.pl) There I read an article about the history of the city of Gdansk/Danzig. As a German i think the information on the official website about the history of the city is not acceptable.

1)14/15th century

It is not mentionend that the merchants who built the city in the 14 /15 th century spoke German. Even in the time when the city belonged to the Polish Kingdom, the majority was german-speaking. The Germans only appear as destroyers in this text. This is not very objective. The architects, who created the architecture in Gdansk/Danzig have Dutch and German names. Not a single architect had a Polish name. Not a single mayor of this time had a Polish name. The Polish are proud of the city of Danzig/Gdansk, although they didn`t built this city. This is somehow typically Polish.

2) The situation after 1919: In the polish text expressions like “struggle for liberation“ and the „bravery of its citizens“ is mentioned. Gdansk is a “ synonym for the liberation aspirations of Poles“.

Bravery of its citizens? What does that mean?

98 % of the city poulation were German, not Polish. So, what means „liberation aspirations of Poles “ ?

The majority of the city`s population favored reincorporation into Germany. In Gdansk/Danzig after 1919, the citizens fought for liberation because they didn` t want to be part of a Polish state. The citizens of Gdansk/Danzig struggled for liberation. And for them liberation meant to be part of Germany and NOT to be part of Poland. So, it makes no sense if Poles are talking about the liberation aspirations of Poles. In Gdansk/Danzig it is about the liberation aspirations of German-speaking inhabitants.

On the official website, Poles are talking about freedom and liberation. But in fact, it was the Polish who wanted to force the German speaking inhabitants into a Polish state. This has nothing to do with freedom. This is hypocrisy at the expenses of the Germans.

Here polish officials don`t tell the history which really took place. They tell the historical version which is good for polish interests. PeterXXX1978--PeterXXX1978 (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? This is wikipedia. If the gdansk.pl site bothers you so much - please tell them: umg@gdansk.gda.pl about it. --Barry Kent (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. "polish interests"? Is the current border in question?

--78.43.157.229 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

minor improvements needed

1 - There are periods lacking at the end of many sentences. 2 - "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively" would be clearer with a phrase like "in the text" inserted between "later" and Danzig." Kdammers (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Danzig and Oliva

(Poguttke (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)) Thank you for the warm welcome to this page, I am new here and it will take some time untill I know how to use everything properly. My english is not very good and now i have got headaeche from reading this name discussion. I think it is ok to name it in the historical way. Danzig is well known since 1224 with this name,and you find this name in all libraries in Europe. I am Danziger myself and know the history of Danzig very well and I have a Danzig library with Danziger writers. But Danzig never had a polish history, just look at old maps to understand why. Evenso Danzig is not german, or otherwise Poland also is, because it was ruled by german Kings. Before 1224 we find only a castle and a village with fisherman here, the pommerelles, pommeranians or today called kashubians. It was a poor country and a hard life here in the vistula delta, which was only wather and swamp. The castle of the pommerelles prince was the only stone building. When he called for the hanse merchants, that was the birth of Danzig as we can see it even today.

Pronunciation of Danzig

Presently, this is what we have for the pronunciation of Danzig:

German: Danzig pronounced [ˈdantsɪç]

The problem is that the IPA doesn't match the recording. On the authority of Skäpperöd, the colloquial North German pronunciation has the ending -ig pronounced more like a German "ich", matching the IPA on the article (and this Nazi propaganda film, see 1:02). The Standard High German pronunciation, by contrast, has it pronounced hard, like "-ig" in English, matching the recording. The IPA of that would be:

German: Danzig pronounced [ˈdantsɪg]

This discrepancy is confusing and ought to be fixed; the question is, though, which pronunciation is actually used by present and former German inhabitants of the city? That would be the most reasonable one to use here. I suspect it is colloquial North German, given the background of the German inhabitants, but I can't be sure. Can anyone with more knowledge shed some light on this? Wikiacc (¶) 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a big problem here, apart from the sound recording seemingly being truncated. Many words in German end on -zig, even more on -ig, and while the second version (g) is more "proper" and official, the first (ç, "ich") is probably more common in everyday use, when pronouncing Danzig, Leipzig, Fünfzig etc.. -- Matthead Discuß 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as it stands right now, won't people be possibly confused by the IPA being colloquial and the recording being Standard High? --Wikiacc (¶) 00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is how Wik/En gives Leipzig (the German Wik doesn't have an IPA for it) Leipzig (German: [ˈlaɪptsɪç] .Kdammers (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the recording for Leipzig (File:Leipzig.ogg) pronounces it in the colloquial way (ç). Perhaps a re-recording of File:Danzig.ogg is in order? --Wikiacc (¶) 21:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the /ɪç/ pronunciation is now standard, at least according to my Collins German dictionary and our own article at German phonology#Ich-Laut and ach-Laut (Another good source for standard pronunciation is the Duden Aussprachewörterbuch, which unfortunately I don't have access to at the present.) I would support acquiring a north German recording. Shouldn't be too hard. Lesgles (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this building?

Can someone identify this building? It's on the north-western side near the railways administration building on Ul Blednik. I'd like to know both its current name and function and its prewar name and function. Thanks. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Gdanskbuilding.JPG

Gdansk building

It's a school (Liceum Ogólnokształcące Nr. 1), take a look at Google Earth, there's a picture of it at 54 21'31.92 N 18 38'50.72 E. It has been the Oberrealschule at the Hansaplatz as shown on this map. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Here are some old postcards, showing the "Oberrealschule St. Petri" prior to WWI. (link doesn't work properly, use "Old postcards" - Gdansk - page 2, hope you'll find them) HerkusMonte (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dziekuje HerkusMonte! Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you happen to know whether the Milchkannenturm is so named because it looks like a milk can, or for some other reason? And does Stągiewna mean milk can in Polish? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

a) Yes, the larger tower was called milkcan, the smaller one "cream pot" b) I have no idea, my Polish is rather rudimental. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

deceptive informations

i think this paragraph should be deleted or altered since it tries to suggest that Gdańsk was and is primarily affected by polish culture, which is not the case:

Throughout its long history Gdańsk faced various periods of rule from different states before 1945:

997-1308: as part of Poland 1308-1454: as part of territory of Teutonic Order 1454-1466: Thirteen Years' War 1466-1793: as part of Poland 1793-1805: as part of Prussia 1807-1814: as a free city 1815-1871: as part of Prussia 1871-1918: as part of Imperial Germany 1918-1939: as a free city 1939-1945: as part of 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.

this list and the text don't show that gdańsk was inhabitated mainly by german speaking people for most of its formative phase i think that it is not neutralJadran91 (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Article (still) has significant POV issues

This article has significant POV issues. There is a thread that runs through it that deliberately attempts to portray the city as inherently Polish, that portrays the city's German history as an aberration, and that glosses over the fact that nearly the entire population of the city was violently removed and dispossessed in order to be replaced with an imported population. This is a problem endemic to nearly all the articles for cities that underwent this process. This process was not wished for by the Polish people; it was desired and brought about according to the wishes of Stalin (with Allied consent) and imposed upon BOTH Poland and Germany (without local input, of course). It represents an upheaval with few parallels in history, and one that will hopefully never be repeated. This article deliberately obfuscates an inherently crucial part of Danzig/Gdansk's history, and neither truth nor learning benefit. One is left wondering what POV is left benefiting at the expense of accuracy.

A typical sentence showing the article's lack of POV is: " [Gdansk] has a complex political history with long spells of Polish rule interspersed with periods of German control and two spells as a free city. It has been part of modern Poland since 1945." "Rule" implies order and stability while "interspersed" and "control" imply temporary, foreign occupation. These word choices are deliberate and very clear in their message. Moreover, neither of the city's two bouts as a free city were welcome or desired by the residents of Danzig. The first time was forced upon it by Napoleon. The second instance was forced upon it by the Treaty of Versailles - against the expressed will of the city's inhabitants. The history of those two instances is hardly hinted at by the innocuous word "spell."

From reading the article, the reader gets little sense of the fact that Danzig/Gdansk had a German-speaking majority throughout almost all of its significant years save the last 60 or so. The article is written to give the impression that Danzig/Gdansk was always majority Polish-speaking. The article consciously and deliberately blurs the very real distinction between sovereignty of the Polish Crown and a city having an ethnically Polish population. There were hundreds of years in which the city was German-speaking majority but under the Polish Crown. According to the implied logic of the article, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and half of the Americas were Austrian! Similarly, the implication made by the article simply does not accurately reflect the real history of Danzig/Gdansk.

The article ends with city's German period in typical style: "In line with the decisions made by the Allies at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, the city returned to Poland." How can a city be "returned" to a nation to which it had never been a part? It was under the sovereignty of the Polish Crown, never part of the Polish-nation state; and even that not in recent enough time to be characterized as a simple "return." Violently removing nearly the entire population of a city and replacing it with an imported population totally transformed the city, and is inconsistent with the word choice "return."

I recently tried to rectify some of these problems by using the same words for periods of Polish (crown) and German sovereignty. Using the same term for both brings a degree of NPOV. Long story short, if Wikipedia is going to be plagued with POV and incomplete histories, it is useless. Let's attempt to make this article a) accurate b) balanced, and c) give it a modicum of NPOV.Udibi (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Udibi

It represents an upheaval with few parallels in history, and one that will hopefully never be repeated. - yeah, like Nazi invasion of Poland. But seriously, the point is that this isn't the most important thing about the present city. While it should obviously be mentioned and even discussed the entire article should not be about the expulsions or German irredentism.

Moreover, neither of the city's two bouts as a free city were welcome or desired by the residents of Danzig. - speaking of POV I think you pretty clearly show yours here. Right now the article doesn't say that it was welcome or desired either. So right now it is NPOV. You want to POV it.

How can a city be "returned" to a nation to which it had never been a part? It was under the sovereignty of the Polish Crown, never part of the Polish-nation state - sorry but Gdansk, even if it had a large German speaking population was in fact part of the Polish-nation state. In fact, most of the city's inhabitants historically can be characterized as "German speakers who wanted to be Polish citizens rather than subjects of oppressive "German" states or princes".radek (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You confuse early modern feudal realms and post-19th cty nation states. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand the difference quite well. I mean, I guess it's true that Gdansk wasn't part of a post-19th cty Polish nation state until 1945 but how significant is that?radek (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you understood the difference, how do your above comments fit in? Especially

"Gdansk [...] was in fact part of the Polish-nation state." - that Polish "nation state" existed only after 1945, one could maybe stretch that to after 1918 with caveats, no way to any time earlier.
"wanted to be Polish citizens" - same problem, these events took place in the 1450s. They wanted to be as independent as possible, not "citizens" of any nation. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As an approximation it's a perfectly valid statement. You can nit pick it but that doesn't change that Gdansk was part of a Polish state (ok, not a "nation-state" - but so what?) and that most of its inhabitants preferred to be part of that state rather than some other, Germanic state, the language they actually spoke not making one bit of a difference in their choice.radek (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Radeksz

Your initial sentence pretty much sums it all up. Basically, you are arguing that the Nazi invasion of Poland justifies anything and everything that subsequently followed and therefore an accurate portrayal of the truth is unnecessary. Then you go on with "In fact, most of the city's inhabitants historically can be characterized s "German speakers who wanted to be Polish citizens rather than subjects of oppressive "German" states or princes"" Wow, there is so much fact spinning going on here that I don't not know where to begin. Basically, you are weaving an anachronistic mythology to justify a later story. You take details/POV/persectives from variously centuries at will - cherry picking those that are convenient to the argument you wish to make. In the US, at least, this is known as faith-based reasoning. Basically, you are starting with your already existing belief and trying to force the facts to fit what you already believe. It is bad science, it is bad history. It only serves an agenda, and never impartial truth.

As for your free city arguments, omitting relevant information is every bit as much POV as outright POV statements. I'm sure you are aware of this.

Why are you so determined to protect Stalinist-era newspeak and distorted takes on history? This is the 21st century. Poland and Germany are friends and a part of the same Union, with completely open borders. The social engineering which Germany and Poland were subjected to came from outside, and certainly was not pleasant for Poles either. Nobody wants to be taken from a place where they and their family have lived for centuries and centuries. The ethnic cleansing after WWII in Danzig and other eastern parts of Germany, and that also occurred in eastern parts of Poland would not be considered acceptable policy today - regardless of what proceeded it. Today ethnic cleansing is categorically considered unacceptable (by democracies at least). To limit this discussion to Danzig/Gdansk, remember that the pre-1945 population of Danzig never had a chance to decide their fate in a free election. It's much more complicated than that, but it is also that simple. After WWII, as is unfortunately the case much of the time, those who caused and benefitted from the war payed very little, those who had little say and who benefitted little payed a lot. What I am trying to say is, rather than begin with the premise that the expelled population of Danzig "deserved what they got," and gloss over and/or downplay their fate - let's tell the whole story. Basically, Gdansk 1960 was almost a completely different place than Danzig 1940 - there is a dramatic and significant BREAK in continuity here that is barely hinted at by the article. Indeed, the article's greatest fault is that is goes to great lengths to portray continuity where there isn't any. Unless we tell the whole history, with the relevant context and perspective, why even bother? Wikipedia is not here to be a collection of fairy tales - it is here to be the world's most complete encyclopedia.Udibi (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I would like to add that in no way am I advocating for "the entire article [to be] be about the expulsions or German irredentism." What I would like to see is a removal of POV words (such as "rule" for Poland and "control" for Germany) and 3-4 sentences that give an accurate idea of the radical transformation the city underwent after WWII. This is hardly excessive or irrelevant to the modern city - it is a key part of understanding its history. Again, the article is currently written to imply constant Polish presence and Polish continuity. Not only does this rely upon anachronistic and inaccurate idea of what is Polish (such as equating sovereignty of the Polish king with inclusion in some type of modern Polish ethnic nation-state), it is factually incorrect. Danzig/Gdansk went from being 98% German in 1938 to nearly 0% German 10 years later. That is a radical change. To accurately portray the complete demographic transformation of the city is not German irredentism - it is real history.Udibi (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well you know Warsaw in 1960 was also completely different place than Warsaw in 1940. Why? Because not only the Germans murdered most of it prewar population but also because the Nazis destroyed 90% of city, by means of dynamite for example. Under direct orders of Hitler, Himmler and other nice gentlemen. So you just can't put the Poles and the Germans on the same level. Now regarding your statement that Danzig/Gdansk went from being 98% German in 1938 to nearly 0% German 10 years later. It doesn't address one important thing and that is that those 98% wasn't a normal situation for Gdansk (which always throughout history had a very mixed population) but a direct result of first strong Germanisation and then full throttle ethnical cleansing by the Nazis. Loosmark (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources for what exactly? which part you disagree with? Loosmark (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That the German majoritty in 1938 resulted from "full throttle ethnical cleansing by the Nazis"? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nazis weren't even there until a year later Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Loosmark - You are exactly proving my point. You are making emotional and nationalistic arguments about what is a "normal situation," categorically dismissing the fact that 98% of the population was self-identified German as an apparently unjust effect of "strong Germanization" and "full throttle ethnical cleansing by the Nazis" - all because those hard facts and percentages do not fit your take on history. Sorry if you don't like it, but if people SELF-identify as a certain ethnicity it is not up to you to decide that they really should "normal[ly]" be Polish (or at least very mixed). For this self-identification, they were deprived of their homes, all their possessions, and forced to leave their homeland. As for the Nazis role in the overwhelmingly German population of Danzig, what about the 98% self-identified German population of 1918? Was that the Nazis doing too?

You have demonstrated the strong nationalist-Polish POV of this article perfectly. To sum it up: Germans are bad, they never should have been in Danzig in the first place, and now that they are gone, we are going to pretend that they were never here - even if it means putting a very strong spin and POV on 90% of the city's history. This is not a valid approach to an encyclopedia article, and is exactly the kind of tired old nationalism that the EU will hopefully erode. In the meantime, how is this article ever going to meet encyclopedic standards and represent Danzig/Gdansk accurately and without heavy POV? There is never going to be consensus on this apparently, but by objective standards the current form of the article is tainted and compromised. Udibi (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Udibi I suggest you drop the self-righteous tone it is a bit ridiculous. You obviously have some heavy German nationalistic POV and therefore every other position for you is "anti-German POV", "Polish POV", "article compromised" etc, etc. And yes, there was a very strong Germanization even before the Nazis. Finally your Germans are bad, they never should have been in Danzig in the first place is a straw man because nobody ever claimed anything remotely similar not here and not elsewhere. Loosmark (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, Oh yes. Let's take that route and shoot down all discussion. You have no problems with the distortions in the article, so my (valid) complaints must simply be POV. I am proposing using same words for Polish and German rule - how much more neutral can one get than by using the same word? - and you try to shoot me down by saying I am self-righteous and "obviously have some heavy German nationalistic POV." Your personal attacks are unnecessary and unfounded. Again, I am talking about using the SAME word - something difficult to argue against as NPOV - and accurately/adequately describing the complete transformation of the city in the mid 20th century, and you accuse me of having "some heavy German nationalistic POV." That is simply absurd. Apparently neutrality, balance, and impartial tone are highly offensive to you when it comes to this topic. THAT is the real issue going on here with all those who seek to protect the biased and inadequate history presented in this article.Udibi (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

History

There seems to be a discrepancy regarding "vita of St. Adalbert, written in 999". If you read St. Adalbert on www.wikipedia.com, it states that he was martyred on April 23, 997. Now I wonder if this vita was written posthumously by another cleric, based on Adalbert's earlier account, or was there an erroneous translation made from Latin to Polish to English about the year of the writing. Musicwriter (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

When referring to a medieval saint vita means hagiography, so yes, written posthumously by another cleric. In Adalbert's case it seems to have been written soon after news of his death reached the court. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I second Angusmclellan's comment. If you are interested and able to read Latin, here is a link to Johannes Canaparius, Vita Sancti Adalberti episcopi Pragensis, in: MGH SS 4, pp. 581-595. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)