Talk:Gdańsk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Gdansk)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Poland (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hanseatic League (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Hanseatic League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire / Prussia  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Prussia.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Marek's edits[edit]

It does say at the top of the page that non-sourced material may be challenged and removed, but you have not challenged the sourced material, you have simply removed it. And done so, after hollering about "POV" because I've put a few [citation needed] tags out there and removed a few vague/misleading sentences, i.e. that Meswin II had only one brother, that the forces under the descendant of Meswin II's father, who tried to take the city in 1301, could somehow be referred to as "the Danes".

In conclusion, please find a source for your claim that the Kingdom of Poland held Gdansk until 1308. Is it just that it doesn't fit with your easy interpretation? Every time Prussia had a name change, we broke it into a separate heading. And the Order State era of control is not lumped together under the era of "Kingdom of Prussia" control, either, even though it is technically, at first, headed by at least some of the same authorities.--92.228.247.104 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)--92.228.247.104 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You put [citation needed] tags into middle of sentences which already had citations at the end. For the rest, you're pushing the typical POV that somehow Royal Prussia wasn't part of Poland and splitting hairs over Kingdom of Poland vs. fragmented duchies of Poland. Also, you're adding unsourced claims about Brandenburgian claims to the city (how many brothers Mestwin had is irrelevant).
You've also blind-reverted some copy editing and general clean up. Volunteer Marek  18:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
you put tags into middle of sentences which already had citations at the end
that's because blanket assumptions like "primary sources state x" are lumped together with other claims in the sentence, and the other claims are what is being cited, not the blanket assumption that "primary sources state x". "Primary sources"...is not NPOV because it is weasel wording in vagueness to make it sound like all sources from that period support this view. It is perfectly natural to put citations in the middle of the sentence for controversial claims, by the way.
I've reverted your "copy editing" because it is unfair for you to throw away all my changes and force me to reintegrate them into what you chose to do to the article, i.e. "copy edit" the facts you wanted removed, some of which are sourced.
I'm sorry if you don't like my "typical" point of view, which is skeptical of faulty claims that are based on what appears to be little more than a romantic fantasy. In what way shape or form did the Kingdom of Poland exist throughout the period you claim and, in what way, shape or form is a duchy that obtains its independence from a kingdom that, for quite some time, disappears, not to be considered a separate entity?
you're adding unsourced claims about Brandenburgian claims
where did I do that?--92.228.247.104 (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


The sentence is Primary sources[citation needed] record a massacre[14] of 10,000 people. Now, I could be wrong but the I'm assuming the "[14]" isn't just referencing the word "massacre" but also the primary sources. Do you have access to the source? Have you verified what exactly is the case? Or are you just assuming and tagging? This game of "I'm gonna slap [citation needed] tags into every other word of text I don't like" IS disruptive (and I believe you tried playing the same game over at Konigsberg). Volunteer Marek  18:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Brandenburgian claims - you added "Mestwin II, pledged an oath of fealty to the margrave of Brandenburg" - he did make a feudal oath, but for Świecie and Białogard, not Gdansk. Volunteer Marek  18:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The other tagging: 997–1308: POL Przemysł II 1295 COA.svg [[Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385)|Kingdom of Poland] - yes, during this period Poland wasn't always a kingdom, sometimes it was a duchy and in the 13th century it fragmented into semi-autonomous duchies. These were still nominally under the rule of the Grand Duke, several of whom held Pomerania as part of their direct realm. The thing is that sources often just describe the state in entire period here as "Kingdom" just for ease of exposition (while not technically accurate). I'd be fine to changing "Kingdom of Poland" to Kingdom or Duchy of Poland or something. Volunteer Marek  18:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Example:

Europe mediterranean 1190 cropped.jpg

 Volunteer Marek  19:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


I never even looked at the Koenigsberg article. But thanks for the accusation. You don't even want to know what it suggests to me when you keep tabs on articles like that.
If the part with Brandenburg bothers you, then propose something. The point is, it isn't the topic of the article, we are trying to be concise, yet neutral. And that is hard to do. Brandenburg got the site as a lien; Mestwin's own people turned against him, he needed allies and support, he got that and needed Brandenburg to hold the fort. I don't see what you are challenging here.
That's a nice map, but you are missing the point. This is not about what Poland looked like in the year 1190; it is about Poland from 900 to 1300. If Poland did not control the settlement from 900 to 1300, then it didn't control the settlement from 900 to 1300. And if a Kingdom of Poland did not exist from 900 to 1300, then that's false too. What is so hard to understand? A map of Russia in the 1800s is no indication as to who controls what 200 years later anymore than your map of poland in 1190 shows what the area looked like administratively in 1000 or 1300. Poland didn't have a stable long-term dynasty at the Vistula site until the mid 1100s. Then you have a civil war, brandenburg is there, then a pomeranian-gdansk duke, then the king of poland (murdered), then a polish duke (future king), then a descendant of swietopelk from ruegen, then brandenburg, then the order. At what point in time does "The Kingdom of Poland", have control of the site from 1296 on? If you state that this is all inconsequential and rebellions should not be noted, then what is so special about napoleon's free city that this period gets noted?--92.229.38.216 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I never even looked at the Koenigsberg article. - I'll take your word for it, but there was another IP which geolocates to the same place as you on that article recently, doing essentially the same thing.
As for the rest of your comment. I have proposed something - to remove the incorrect comment about Brandeburg. Your claims need a source or they're original research.
In terms of the "Kingdom" the point is obviously that while Poland was not a kingdom for every single year between 900 to 1300, the Polish state during the period in question is often described by the term "Kingdom of Poland" in sources. Like I said, we can change it to "Kingdom or Duchy" if you want. But the Polish state did control the city during this time, although during a (fairly short) portion of the time, the control was only nominal, due to Feudal fragmentation of Poland. I don't know about Napoleon's free city - I guess it's listed separately because it was an international agreement. Regardless, that has no bearing on the early history. Volunteer Marek  20:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I just checked my ip page, I see only this article. Or are you referring to the fact that it geolocates to "the same place" - i.e. an internet provider for probably 30+ million people. Meh, whatever.
I hardly consider it disruptive to ask for missing information on an article. And I am curious, because "primary sources state..." is quite a claim. One of the few resources to even mention this incident which can be considered "primary", aside from the petition to the pope, are the works of jan dlugosz. And that's a century later. I'll try to track down the resource cited for the "primary resources" and give it a look. But the whole things is pretty suspicious, to be honest. I mean, a local judge called upon the Knights to come to the area...why would they slaughter 10,000 in a city of 2,000 and, on top of that, target "Polish women and children" as jan dlogosz claimed? And why are they polish? Is it because of they were subjects of a new, suddenly emerging polish king who they did not accept? I mean, the people in the city let the Brandenburg army in, one way or another. But who knows. I just find something wrong when Wikipedia becomes the mouthpiece for romantic nationalist fantasies like those of jedrzej giertych. It's tiring, especially when the facts don't add up.
I have proposed something - to remove the incorrect comment about Brandeburg Well, ok. But I don't understand what you claim to be incorrect about this sentence: "Amidst the conflict, the older son, Mestwin II, pledged an oath of fealty to the margrave of Brandenburg, and Brandenburg got Danzig as a lien."
I mean, those are facts. Mestwin turned to Brandenburg, pledged an oath. And yes, Brandenburg got Danzig as a lien. Nothing says in this sentence that Danzig became a fief, as I think you are implying it implies. The facts are all valid. Or is the issue that this city is referred to as Danzig? Well, that can be fixed easily..
Under what condition do we consider the site to be "under x's control" for the guidelines? We would have to do very thorough research to find each and every point in time when the Kingdom existed and didn't exist and during which extended periods the site was not under the control of dukes from poland or the polish crown early on. If you do, however, come across a source which declares that the kingdom of poland stood and controlled gdansk from 997 to 1308, then please, all we need is a footnote, but from a neutral and thoroughly knowledgeable source about the era (i.e. not some side comment by a historian in a book about a different subject).--92.229.38.216 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

<<- It geolocates to the same city and your edit are very similar, but like you say, whatever. Adding in [citation needed] tags to every other word of a sentence IS disruptive. And seriously, the petition to the pope IS a primary source. We are also not arguing here about the extent of the massacre, whether it was 2000 or 10000, but what the primary sources claim. And the claim, correct or incorrect - and there is a qualification in the very next sentence - is that it was 10000. Don't bring Giertych into this, who cares about him? Is James Minahan also a "romantic nationalist fantasist"? Is Raphael Lemkin? Edward Thomas Appleton? Anyway, if you have an actual source for the claim that the city's population was 2000 please present it. I'd be quite happy to see an estimate of Gdansk's population going that far back because I've looked high and low and could not find anything close to that level of precision. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.

The incorrect part about Brandenburg IS that it implies that Mestwin held it as a fief of Brandenburg, which is incorrect. You haven't even sourced the lien part. Just claimed it. Unsourced information (and here we're not talking about a portion of a sentence but a whole thing) can and should be removed.

Finally, as to the kingdom topic, as you are yourself admitting we have a source there. And you can't just dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your pre-set view of the situation. Like I said we can change it to "Kingdom or Duchy" if that will make you happy. Volunteer Marek  21:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Now you are exaggerating to make a point because you don't have a point. I added two tags to two controversial points, that is not after every sentence as you claim. If you have to exaggerate to make a point, then maybe you shouldn't be making it in the first place. And what are those two controversial points for which I would like to see sources?
That "primary sources" - that's a plural - say that 10,000 were massacred. It is POV to write "primary sources say..." unless you are quoting an actual historian who says this. Firstly, because the only primary source we can find to support your claim was no third party source or witness, it was the self-proclaimed king of Poland himself, who didn't have control over the site, couldn't win control over the site and wasn't even called upon to win control of the site - yet wanted the site. So in review: non-neutral, one source; to put it in perspective, we don't write an article about Gulags, quote the author of Gulag Archipelago and, instead of writing "he says it was like x" write "primary sources say x". As for your sources, these are not primary sources, nor do they quote primary sources except the case made by Wladislaw to the Pope, which was, by the way, eventually dismissed. The all-so-knowledgeable sources you cite apparently didn't feel inclined to mention this, and I wonder why. We can figure that out by looking at at least one of your sources, though. Written in 1944 and not about Danzig, but written to implicate the Germans as imperialists from the east. I rest my case.
Second, I want a source for the claim that the Kingdom of Poland existed from 997 to 1308 and controlled the city along the Vistula River Delta. Your source above, James Minahan, even says that the Kashubs had their independence in 1227 and the area "was retaken by the Poles" in 1295. We broke up the time that the region was engulfed in the Thirteen Years War, we broke up the unofficial time that it belonged to the Weimar Republic, we broke up the time Napoleon chilled out there...so why are we referring to a time that Poland had no control over the region and did not exist as much more than a region as a time that Poland existed and had control over the region?
Finally, as to the kingdom topic, as you are yourself admitting we
No, I am not admitting we have a source there because we don't. Don't assume that.
The incorrect part about Brandenburg IS that it implies that Mestwin...
No, it doesn't imply that at all. These are two ideas, the oath pledging and lien idea, linked together with an "AND" statement. You should stop assuming things. I apologize that I'm not sitting atop a library right now and can give you a source, but I will find one. Are you actually claiming that Brandenburg did not get the city as a lien?--92.229.38.216 (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


No, it doesn't imply that at all.' - implies or not, get a source.
Lots of that stuff about Brandenburg is WP:UNDUE anyway. Likewise there are several sentences off topic in the names section. Also I don't see a point in labeling Lech Walesa a "political activist" since he really wasn't yet at the time.
The primary source thing is obvious and has a citation. Until you look at it there's no point in discussing this further. Nobody doubts that primary sources - which were Polish - claimed a massacre of 10000 people. I guess we could go with modern day reliable secondary sources which repeat that claim at face value and depreciate the existing dispute about the actual number. The current text is:
In 1308, the town was taken by Brandenburg and the Teutonic Knights were hired by the Polish prince (later king) Władysław I the Elbow-high to restore order. Subsequently, the Knights took over control of the town. Primary sources record a massacre[13] of 10,000 people, but the exact number killed is subject of dispute in modern scholarship:[14] Some authors accept the number given in the original sources,[15] while others consider 10,000 to have been a medieval exaggeration.[14] The events were used by the Polish crown to condemn in a subsequent papal lawsuit.
and I think that succinctly summarizes what happened and also alerts the readers that there is some question as to the numbers. Keep in mind that this is an article about the whole city, not exclusively about its history, and not about this one particular incident. So too much detail is undue. I think what we have in there so far gets the gist of it accurately.

 Volunteer Marek  20:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


I'll track down a source for the Brandenburg information. I'm on it.
Ok, but Kingdom of Poland, Pomeranian/Polish Duchy are not all the same thing. By making 997 to 1308 one period of "that", all linking to the Poland page, you are denying that these people ever achieved independence or were independent. And "they" - i mean the Pomeranians and, later, the immigrants, did achieve this. The 13th century, for example, was a spell in which the ruling dynasty there was also independent. Like I said, the one source you gave lists 1295 as the year it was back in the Kingdom of Poland's hands. I'll see what else I can find and propose it here. But I'd be careful about a source trying to race-bait or justify state presence there by white washing, a trend that the rather neutral Peter Loew notes - i.e. the great effort to try to "prove" a strong state-to-gdansk connection. And you have to be careful about historians who just parrot whatever they came across in their research, particularly if it fits their thesis.
That brings me to the 10,000 figure. I'm still looking for the claim that "primary sources" claim x. Because we have only one primary source, and this is dishonest POV. The bull is not a primary source, it is merely a reiteration of what that one source has said. Why don't we just find the claims made by Wladislaw and attribute them to him? They've got to be out there somewhere, right?--92.224.196.144 (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The bull is a primary source. It's just that primary sources are not always accurate or unbiased (this is part of the reason why we avoid primary sources on Wikipedia). I'd be fine with writing that this was a claim made by Wladislaw to the Pope.
The thing about Pomeranian "independence" - if you were talking western Pomerania (Szczecin etc.) then that'd be right. But this - Gdansk Pomerania - was basically in the same situation as other parts of Poland during the 13th century. Wielkopolska, Malopolska, Silesia, Sandomierz all achieved a degree of "independence" during this time - although technically they were all subject to the High Duke of Poland (and the rulers of one of them might have been that High Duke). Still the area covered by these is generally referred to as "Poland" during this time. Volunteer Marek  16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


Now just wait a second here, your behavior is completely out of line.
1) you reverted the entire section, thus reinserting false information as stated above (ie clearing out the "danes", wladislaw calling on the knights, etc.). According to you, you did it "as per discussion"...which is a lie, because there never was any discussion to do a full revert like that. By the way, in the midst of your revert, your so-called revert to a "copy-edit", you have removed a quoted source that states the ethnic makeup of the city. This removal is something we never discussed "as per discussion". In fact, we never discussed it at all. Here is what you removed: Since the 16th century,[1] the majority of the city's inhabitants were German-speakers Here is the diff: [1]. Please explain yourself: removing sourced information, reinserting mistakes into the text carelessly.
2) And yes, I'm looking for a source that uses the word lien, but that is such a petty quibble compared to your inappropriate behavior. I see you've just pulled that whole section out anyway, so I guess I won't even bother.
3) You know "according to primary sources" is weasel wording, so stop using it. You are referring to the Bull, so you should write: according to the bull. Not all primary sources have stated what you claim they state. For example, this source Paul W. Knoll, “Regnum Poloniae” Medievalia et humanistica Issue 17. (Boulder, Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company 1966), 60. says that one witness claimed around 16 Polish knights were killed. Peter Oliver Loew also cites this example. So stop manipulating facts.
4) That said, it is not accurate to say Poland controlled the site when it did not. You know this. My suggestion:
990 - 1090 kingdom of poland
1090 - 1116? local rule [Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 117-118.]
Mapa podziału Księstwa Polskiego w 1102.jpg
 ??? - 1227 kingdom of poland [Państwowe Przedsiębiorstwo Wydawnictw Kartograficznych, p. 7]
circ. 1227? - 1266: duchy.. [Państwowe Przedsiębiorstwo Wydawnictw Kartograficznych, p. 7]
1266 - 129?: civil war
1295 - 1308: duchy of poland/kingdom of poland
In 1116 Pomerelia was captured by Poland. So for how long before that was it not under Polish control? Is it noteworthy enough to include this blip during the time that the site was controlled by Poland?
From 1138 onward, the Samborides gradually evolved into independent dukes, who ruled the duchy until 1294. But c'mon, during that period, at least since the death of Mestwin's father, this area was involved in the civil war. These events should all be noted if you care about the truth at all.

1. I have no idea what you are talking about. 2. Find the source that talks about a lien. 3. I already said I'm fine with referring to the papal bull rather than "primary said". 4. In the 13th century the idea of "Poland" is a bit fluid because of the feudal fragmentation of the state. Still for the most part it was part of fragmented Poland. I believe I changed the wording there too (though it was a week or two ago so i don't remember exactly.

 Volunteer Marek  18:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Environmental issues[edit]

User:HerkusMonte, in my opinion the environmental issues deserve place in every area. Look Category:Environmental issues by country. This is popular in Wikipedia. Environmental issues in Poland is an open opportunity for everybody. Please start! I recommend to add the point also in this article. [2] Watti Renew (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with addition - it's poorly added (which I admit could be fixed) but more importantly is vague in its definition - where is "near" - and the only supporting ref is in Finnish. Removed again. Please do not edit-war by re-instating until you have a consensus. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
ok, good points. I suggest the following change:

Helsingin Sanomat journalists revealed a leak of the gypsum storage facility near Gdansk. The closed factory of Fosfory plant by Vistula may be leaking estimated 220 tonnes phosphorus (PO4) annually into the Baltic Sea. This would be more than all the Finland’s cities. Phosphorous is a key trigger of eutrophication and blue-green algae in the sea. Environment Minister Ville Niinistö has discussed the issue with his Polish counterpart. In autumn 2011 Finnish Environment Institute researcher Seppo Knuuttila found an even higher phosphorus leak of EuroChem factory in Russia. In Kingisepp leaked phosphorus estimated in the volume of 1,000 tonnes annually in the Luga River. Russian officials arrested environmental expert Seppo Knuuttila, who had been working on behalf of the Finnish Environment Institute and the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission HELCOM. He was interrogated for a total of fourteen hours by the officials, who demanded to have his computer at customs. Knuuttila was examinating Luga river phosphate content, as agreed. Knuuttila expects more polluting fertiliser plants to be discovered around the Baltic.

Refs: Environment Minister to pressure Poland over phosphorous leak yle 19.6.2012HS: Puolan Gdanskissa suuri fosforipäästöjen lähde yle 15.6.2013
Suomalaiset pääsevät mittaamaan EuroChemin fosforipäästöjä yle 13.3.2012 (Finnish)Venäläisviranomaiset pidättivät Syken tutkijan Pietarissa oppilaistaan yle 13.4.2012 (Finnish)Suomalaiset pääsevät mittaamaan EuroChemin fosforipäästöjä yle 13.3.2012 (Finnish)Venäläisviranomaiset pidättivät Syken tutkijan Pietarissa oppilaistaan yle 13.4.2012 (Finnish)
Watti Renew (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly is "near Gdansk" and how important is this factory for the city? Maybe Baltic Sea is a better place for this kind of info. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Good suggestion. The environmental issues of Baltics may be supplementded with the phosphorus emissions. The specific emissions in Gdansk fit good here, don't you think so? Watti Renew (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tricity vs. aglomeracja gdańska[edit]

Aglomeracja has more than 1 million inhabitants.Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gyddanyzc or Gyddanzyc[edit]

According to actual quotation the first mentioning of the city was urbs Gyddanzyc, not Gyddanyzc. This can also be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Canaparius

So, Polish nationalists are again tampering in order to establish Gdansk?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.58.220.165 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

alm?[edit]

"After a series of Polish-Teutonic Wars, in the Treaty of Kalisz (1343) the Order had to acknowledge that it would hold Pomerelia as an alm from the Polish Crown." Is "alm" really the correct term to be used here? I would see "fief" more fitting in the context ConjurerDragon (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Climate - daily mean temperatures[edit]

Something is wrong with Daily mean temperatures - these are too high in december, january and february. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek c (talkcontribs) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).