Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Gdańsk  (Redirected from Talk:Gdansk/archive8)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9


The protection status of this page is being administered by Mkweise and User:John Kenney. One of them will unprotect this page once consensus is reached.

A page has been created under the Cities Project: /Names issues, for the purpose of creating a consensus agreement for the wording of the intro paragraph of all cities that had alternate official spellings. Please join us there and help us hammer out a wording that we can all live with, and use to prevent endless, eternal edit wars, not just for Gdansk, but for all cities with alternate official spellings in "modern" history. Bwood 00:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Danzigers population losses

I removed numbers from the following paragraph The official German history estimates that about 100,000 Danzigers — 40% of the city's pre-war population — lost their lives in the war, including the evacuation and Soviet capture of the city.

The reason I doubt the numbers shown. I read recently about 295 000 refugees from Danzig officially registered in W.Germany after the war. Taking into account pre-war population of 380 000 we have the gross deficit of 85 000, that might contain also postively verified Danzigers, that stayed. So the number doesnt look reliable. The second reason, I supose that Danziger means more citizen of the FSD then the dweller of the city. In this case 100 000 means 25% of deficit. Anyway the numbers are dubious. Cautious 20:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With regard to the number of citizens of Danzig who were killed in the war and its aftermath, my estimate of which was questioned by 'cautious,' I offer the following excerpt from an academic paper I wrote more than a decade ago. By the way, let me state for the record that I am politically a liberal and philosophically a humanist, and I have lived and worked in Poland (and have visited what today is called Gdansk).

    Djiekuje bardzo,

-- Steven C. Anderson, 15 March 2004 --

The official history, using prewar population figures, wartime estimates and postwar figures from both German states and Poland, concludes that 2,167,000 people from the Oder-Neisse territories died as a result of the war and the subsequent expulsions, but estimates that about 500,000 of these were military casualties, reducing the number of civilian deaths to about 1.6 million. To this it adds the deaths of 100,000 Danzigers and 217,000 German residents of prewar Poland, for a total of about 1.9 million civilian deaths. 101

No breakdown is given of the proportion who died in the flight from the Red Army, during the occupation or during the expulsions, but an analysis of the figures indicates that about a third of the casualties must have occurred among those who fled during the conquest; the balance apparently occurred during the period of expropriation and expulsion. Roos says approximately 7.2 million fled or were expelled from the Oder-Neisse territories put under Polish control, along with 380,000 Danzigers and 880,000 German-Poles. “Of these,” he says, death claimed about 1.2 million from the territories, 90,000 Danzigers and 200,000 German-Poles, for a total of nearly 1.5 million civilian fatalities, not including those in northern East Prussia. 102

Szaz mentions the 2.16 million cited by Schieder, which includes military casualties, but elsewhere says “over 1 million” of the 3.5 million expelled from the territories lost their lives. 103 From these estimates it is evident that 1.5 million to 2 million German civilians lost their lives in the Soviet conquest of eastern Germany and subsequent expulsions. In other words, one-sixth to one-fifth of the population died in the revenge of the East. ______________________

101. Schieder, Theodor, ed. Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from Eastern-Central Europe. Bonn (no date)., pp. 122-23.

102. Roos, Hans. A History of Modern Poland. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966, pp. 215-16.

103. Szaz, Zoltan Michael. Germany's Eastern Frontiers: The Problem of the Oder-Neisse Line. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1960., pp. 96, 126.Earlier discussion:

Again we have the same hard numbers 380 000 prewar population of Frei Stadt, 295 000 registered in W. Germany after the war. Simple calculation give you 85 000 for all war casualties and people verified positively by Polish authorities. This number include Jews and Poles murdered by Nazis, victims of bombing, German soldiers killed in action, German POW kept in Soviet Union after the war, victims of the city capture, citizens of FSD verified as Poles after the war, victims of the Soviet orgy after the capture, victims of criminals after Polish take-over, and alleged victims of population transfer. In addition, possibly both those numbers have slight error. This makes statement about more then 100 000 of the city inhabitants died wrong and of course 25% is out of the question. Another point is confusion of the inhabitants of the city with the citizens of FSD. I am right. Cautious 09:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cautious, you have to remember, that people were born during war in Danzig too, some may emigrate into Danzig, so the number of casualties is not simply difference between those two quoted numbers. Szopen
This is understood. What I mean is, that nobody has seriously defended that 100 000 number. The number includes also factual error, since it is related to all citizens of FSD. I am favour of giving proper numbers if they are known. Cautious 11:59, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Murdered postman

Following text was removed by Nico:

On September 1, 1939, German troops invaded Poland, initiating World War II. On September 2 Germany officially annexed the Free City. The Nazi regime murdered the Polish postmen defending the Polish Post Office after the COF: this was one of the first war crimes during WWII.

Please restore the proper version.Cautious 22:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "proper" version is written from a strong Polish-nationalistic point of view, it is denying the deaths of a large number of (German) Danzigers, it is calling the Danzig Research Society "Gdansk Research Society" and has a number of typos. Nico 22:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not denying the fact that some number of Danyigers died. I dont see a point in puting 100 000 instead very great number, because 100 000 makes no sense at all, see above and 40% makes no sense at all accordingly. Typos are OK, but changing murdered in killed is a falsification. Cautious 22:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Article protections are arbitrary. I protected this article the moment I discovered the edit war. I don't take sides. I simply protect immediately. The current version will have to live until the article is unprotected. Kingturtle 22:50, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig issue Reference Page

Ladies and gentlemen, since this page is now very long, messy and hard to follow, I decided to prepare a short list of all arguments used and proposals submitted.

It's available HERE - User:Halibutt/Gdansk

If I omitted any arguments - please add them, but please be so kind as to respect neutrality. I'm personally involved in the discussion, but I hope this won't be a problem here.

Please feel free to add new arguments to the list, but please be brief, informative and do not repeat the already-existing statements.Halibutt 14:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Günter Grass is not a native of Gdansk; he is a native of Danzig, which no longer exists.

Mickiewicz wrote, "Lithuania, my fatherland" – not "Prussia" or "Pomerelia, my fatherland" – in "Pan Tadeusz."

Pilsudski's heart is buried in Vilnius, not Gdansk.

One further comment, or rather anecdote: When I lived in Warsaw in the mid-'90s, a young woman from Wroclaw told me the following joke. Two Poles meet on the train. Where are you from? one asks. I'm from Wroclaw, the other one says. No kidding, small world, says the first, I'm from Lwow, too!


Günter Grass is half Kashub, half German, grown-up during Nazi times. By the way, Mickiewicz refers to Gdansk by Gdansk in "Pan Tadeusz". "City of Gdansk that used to be users, will be again ours" Cautious 11:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We were in Gdansk, we are in Gdansk, we will be in Gdansk

Gdansk was and is a Polish city. The Poles are hospitable people and many nations and etnic groups were invited to Poland (including Gdansk) to stay here and find a better life. They were guaranteed an etnic, language and economic freedom and tolerance. So the many etnic groups lived together peacufully for the common good and prosperity. The problems in Gdansk started when the Germans started to do nasty things to the Poles claiming that this is no longer a Polish city. During WWII the German Nazis started even to kill the Poles and expell them from a Polish city. It is disgusting that the people like Nico were thoaght nothing from the WWII lesson and they still do nasty things to the Polish cities and Polish pople. – Mestwin of Gdansk 22:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This absurd and historically false comment shows only that some Poles still hate the Germans, nearly 60 years after the end of the war, and that this passion overrules whatever sense of reason these people have. My experience of Poland has been otherwise. For example, a Polish man I met in Olsztyn two years ago, who was born in Olsztyn, was quick to acknowledge with a wry smile that before 1945 Olsztyn was the German Allenstein. (His father was from what is now Lithuania.) Poland can no more ignore the history of the 20th century, which involved wholesale changes in her borders and territory, than can Germany, which has long since accepted the changes. Why continue to hate? User:sca

Stop forbidding, start listening and learning

Absurds of history are facing absurds of the data model. I am an IT professional and my 12-years experience learned me one well-known rule: Keep it simple stupid. And what it means to me, is that the data should be in connection with the real world. So, if there is any well established localized name of the geographic place, it should be used in the "namespace" of the respective language. Moreover all such alternative names are our common European heritage. So let's stop to forbid using Danzig for Gdańsk; Lwów, Lemberg, Lvov for Lviv (and why not for example Lwiw); Pozsony or Pressburg for Bratislava; Kolozsvar, Klausenburg, Koloszwar for Cluj; Koenigsberg, Królewiec or Karaliaucius for Kalinigrad and so on, so on... All these names are part of linguistic treasures of European languages. Don't we have enough tools, enough experience to use many names for one thing. Are we in XXI centure or are we troglodites. Or ... we are deep in the inferiority/superiority complex. User:Marqoz

You are right - partially. I agree 100% with what you say about our common european heritage and names of places that changed so many times. I admit that personally in a friendly chat I see no problem in using German names for Polish cities or Polish names of places in the Ukraine. However, when I talk to Poles about Wroclaw, I am always somehow anxious to use the names that are clearly connected in minds of many to the Nazi nightmare and everything that followed - up to 1989.
Also, another problem is that this is not a friendly chat where everyone is aware what we are speaking about. This is encyclopedia, where everything should have one name and be darn simple. As simple as it gets. There's really no place for two different World War II and World War Two articles. One should be redirected to the other - in order to avoid confusion. Also, it wouldn't be that good to use five different versions of a persons name - at random. The creator of the article would understand that he's still speaking about the very same guy. However, a simple wiki user would have to guess.Halibutt 23:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to refer everyone to:

which seems to me to contain an eminently sensible short history of the city, using the historically appropriate names at various times. user:sca

Yes, that looks pretty good to me. Halibutt: the names would not be used at random, but in accordance with what name is generally used to refer to the city at that time. This is not all that difficult, unless you make it so. john 23:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that timeframes can always be questioned. Also, what criteria should be used if there's no common sense? For instance: what name to use for the 1308–1454 period? According to international law the city was Polish (Pope mediation and so on), so perhaps Gdansk or Gdańsk. However, the city was de facto Teutonic. So maybe Danzig? The problem is that the only official language of the Order was Latin. So perhaps Dantiscum..? Or maybe some contemporary name, like Dantzig or Dantzk?
I agree that it seems like a perfect solution. Unfortunately it's not.Halibutt

As I've said before, we should stick to standard English usage. Perhaps the determination of what this is should be left to us native speakers of English, but in my experience, the city is called "Danzig" for the whole 1308-1945 period. john 02:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me (and it certainly would seem weird to me to not to refer to it as Danzig in the context of the Hanseatic League.) For clarity, though, I think all articles using the German name should use "Danzig (present-day [[Gdansk]])" at first mention. Mkweise 04:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I absolutely concur that the current name should be mentioned (as it should for any city whose name is now different from the time being talked about.) john 05:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I've been through very similar debates about Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) and Chornobyl (formerly Chernobyl), both of which are now handled in a similar manner. Mkweise 05:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


This page has been protected for nearly a month. What issues still need to be resolved before we can unprotect it? Mkweise 22:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The same. Unfortunately. And it's hard to say more without hurting either one or anohter, ...and that's a stupid thing to do. :-)
--Ruhrjung 22:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the Gdansk discussion reference page sums it up pretty well. Most serious issues are listed and I'm sure we can start working them out - one by one.Halibutt 02:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think your options (2) or (3) have any chance of achieving a consensus, and (4) wouldn't really solve the problem as it would cause disputes as to which of the two articles each article that currently links here should link to. I'm a bit confused by your option (1), because I'm under the impression that it was best known by its German name during the Hanseatic period. Is that not so? Mkweise 05:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
These are not my proposals, all of those were proposed by different contributors here, in this discussion (see archives).
Also, you assume that the Hanseatic League equals itself to some proto-Germany. Of course it started as an union of German cities. However, a plethora of non-German cities also joined it. Most of the Low Countries major ports must not be referred to with their German names just because they joined Hansa. Also, Casimir the Great subscribed most of the Polish cities to the League. Does this mean that Krakow should be referred to as Krakau?Halibutt 11:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Based on what I've read, the city was under German control from 1308 to 1454 and from 1793 to 1945. I'd suggest using the German name in historical contexts referring to those periods, and the Polish name the rest of the time. Can everyone live with that? Mkweise 05:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mkweise, I am tired of this discussion. I accept the compromise. By the way, Gdansk and Danzig came from the same name written phonetically in Polish or German languages. Cautious 11:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, the basic history is that the city was under the Teutonic Knights from 1308-1454. From 1454-1793 it was under Polish sovereignty, but was de facto an independent city-state which was largely German. During that period, it is still usually called Danzig in English, although it seems to be being called "Gdansk" sometimes, as well. So I think that it could easily be seen to be under "German rule" from 1454-1793, depending on how that is defined. As far as English usage in this period, some of the standard textbook histories of Europe in this period - Elton's Reformation Europe, 1517-1559, Elliott's Europe Divided, 1559-1598, Parker's Europe in Crisis, 1598-1648, and Stoye's Europe Unfolding, 1648-1688 all call it Danzig. The books were written some decades ago, but revised quite recently (they are all in the same series, so I suppose it is rather an editorial decision than necessarily a decision by the individual authors, but who knows?). Robert I. Frost's The Northern Wars (published 2000) also calls it Danzig for discussion in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. I have seen it occasionally called "Gdansk" in this period, but usually this is done rather self-consciously, with the author saying "We must get away from using German names to refer to these cities, bla bla bla," suggesting that they are aware that this is not the standard usage. So I think the best solution would be to use Danzig for the whole 1308-1945 period (which would also be rather simpler, no?). If, however, those who have been arguing that it should never be called Danzig are willing to agree to this compromise, I would be willing to accept it. john 05:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You make an excellent case—and now that I think about it, it does make sense that the inhabitants would have continued to speak the language they'd grown up with after kicking out the Teutonic Order. Mkweise 06:09, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Independent? It considered itself and was considered by Poland part of Polish Commonwealth. In today's terms it could be called autonomous part of federation. Szopen
NO, John! Danzig was the English standard from the end 18th century till 1945. Not earlier. And sorry, but I can not accept naming used by 19th century British historians.Yeti 13:02, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Your complete refusal to even consider other points of view is unfortunate, Yeti, because I cannot unprotect the article until a consensus is reached. Mkweise 19:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but I did consider other points of view. I want a compromise. But compromise means step back by both sides. Sorry, but proposal to use the German name instead of Polish name for Polish city throught almost all its history, even if this city was a part of Poland, is not a compromise. The theory that Danzig has been the only English name was proven to be disputable. I proposed a compromise in discussion with John and he accepted it. I think that it is a compromise acceptable by all parties.
  1. Consequent usage of Gdansk throught the article. Clear mention of other historical names.
  2. Usage of Danzig in other articles when Danzig is part of historical name entirely accepted in English for example: Free City of Danzig.
  3. Usage of Danzig in other articles for the period 1793-1945.
Yeti 20:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, glad to hear that I misunderstood your previous comment. I thought you were saying you can't accept use of "Danzig" in any context. Mkweise 21:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I said I would not stand in the way of such a compromise, assuming that this was the general consensus. I would suggest that this is not at present the general consensus. Personally, I would once again suggest some attempt be made to set a general policy on how cities whose names have changed are to be dealt with in both 1) the article about the city; and 2) other articles mentioning the city. There seems to be some general consensus that the article about the city should use the current name, even if an older name may be more familiar to English-speakers. There also seems to be a near consensus that in other articles mentioning the city we can use the more common name (although this is more complicated, especially for Gdansk). The real question remains what is to be done about the text of the main article about the city. I would favor a policy of using the name commonly in use in English in that period, so long as there is a logical explanation to the shift from one name to the other, but if the consensus is in favor of consistent naming, I am willing to accept that.
A question, though, for Yeti, Cautious, Space Cadet, and whoever else. Can you formulate a general rule which requires us to use "Gdansk" for 1793-1945, but also allows us to call "Constantinople" that for 1453-1930, or to call St Petersburg "Petrograd" from 1914-1924? john 21:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is the Standard English usage?

I said it was de facto independent. De jure, it was, of course, part of the Polish Commonwealth. I think the idea of autonomy is somewhat anachronistic for the early modern period - that idea really shows up in the 19th century. In the early modern period, sovereignty is generally so complicated and uncertain (how do the various estates of the Holy Roman Empire fit in, exactly? What about the various crowns of the Spanish monarchy, or the Austrian?), that I think a term like autonomy gives a false impression of the status. Danzig was, at that period, a self-governing city-state under the suzerainty of the Polish Commonwealth. What does this say about what we should call it? I'm not sure it says anything. It would be reasonable to call it either Danzig or Gdansk, I think. In which case, as I keep saying, we ought to figure out what English-speakers do call it in this period. I've provided numerous examples where they call it "Danzig." So far, all we have arguing for the other side is Space Cadet's citation from the Encyclopedia Britannica, some vague memories on my part of seeing "Gdansk" used, and my citation of a couple of articles from JSTOR in which the city is referred to as "Gdansk" for this time period. If it would be acceptable, perhaps we ought to try to come to some sort of tally of how the city is referred to for the 1454-1793 period to determine typical English usage. I'll start with the books I just cited, and then we can go on and find other examples. john 07:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


  • Elton, Reformation Europe 1517-1559
  • Elliott, Europe Divided 1559-1598
  • Parker, Europe in Crisis 1598-1648
  • Stoye, Europe Unfolding 1648-1688
  • Frost The Northern Wars 1558-1721


  • Encyclopedia Britannica

(1911 edition uses Danzig: )


  • Columbia Encyclopedia
  • Microsoft Encarta (Danzig in history, Gdansk in current article on city. In other articles dependant on subject (European history Danzig, Polish history Gdansk)

All should add other examples - preferably from books either published or revised recently, since the usage of Gdansk has increased over the last twenty years or so. Certainly no sources from before 1945 should be counted. I would suggest that if we come to a clear preponderance in favor of "Danzig", that name should be used, but that if it is fairly close to equal, or Gdansk predominates, that Gdansk should be used. john 07:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the last statement. Certainly Gdansk is the current name of the city in Poland and in English when dealing with the now-Polish city, but Danzig is an equally valid name for the city. Use should depend highly on context: when highlighting the Polish side or post-1945 history use Gdansk, when discussing pre-1945 history Danzig. — Jor (Talk) 11:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
when discussing pre-1945 history Danzig. Why? Why should we use a German convention from 19th century? Why not official LATIN name of the Teutonic Order: Gedanium or Dantiscum, why not commonly used (also on English maps)Dantzik etc. Why? Danzig WAS NOT the English name in 16th or 17th century. For every example of Danzig usage in English I would show you 10 without Danzig.Yeti 12:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Poles always used the name Gdansk (as well as Wroclaw or Szczecin) even before 1945, because they refered to cities that used to be Polish. As far as I am concerned English, when dealt with the Commonwealth, also used Gdansk. Cautious 11:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Back to the beginning. Are you sure what was the English name of the city in 1600? I do not know. I have checked several maps from that period and on every map was different name: Gedanium, Dantzik, Danzik, Danzigt, Dantiscum, Gdanzc etc. So what is the English name for that period. I think the answer is obvious: there was nothing like that! The Latin and local names were used without consequent writing convention. On the English maps Danzig started to be used consequently not earlier that at the end of 18th century. So there is absolutelly no reason to use Danzig before 1793. I repeat: any doubts should be resolved in favour of present naming and the naming of the state to whom the city belonged at that time: Gdansk. The argument that city's language was German is ridicoulous. First: official language in majority of European towns was Latin. Does it mean that we should use Latin name for the cities without recognized English name? Second: what do you mean German? Plattdeutsh, Hoch Deutch? German users know very well that differences between both languages were and are extremally serious. And such were differences in pronunciation of the city's name. Why does we should use Danzig, official Hoch German convention from 19th century? Sorry, but the arguments in favour of Danzig are artificial.Yeti 12:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeti is absolutely right. The theory of the Gdansk as the Free City throuout the history, was invented by German nationalists in 19-th century. Despite the autonomy inside the Commonwealth of Poland, people of Gdansk were proud of their Kingdom. On the other hand, the real reconciliation between Gdansk people and Prussia happenned around 1830. Cautious 12:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. The point is not what people called it at the time, as I've said many times before. The point is what English-speakers call it now when discussing the city during the time period under discussion. How many fucking times do I have to say that? So, if you have examples of English historical works that call it "Gdansk" in this time period, please bring them forward, but don't keep wasting our time with this tendentious nonsense. Do you people even read what I say? Space Cadet is the only Polish proponent who has even tried to address this argument, and even he has only been able to a) bring up Britannica as an example; and b) assert that English sources now use Gdansk. john 18:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It just seem so obvious to anyone who has read European history that the city was generally known throughout most of the world as Danzig before 1945. Have you seen the 1939 National Geographic article on Danzig? It's quite obvious from it that at that time it was a German-speaking city. There's no real logic to the present-day German-media practice of still referring to it as Danzig, since that's not its name anymore. Nor is there logic to referring to it as Gdansk for some centuries – I don't know for sure how far back – before 1945. No one's condoning aggression on any country's part by referring to the city as it was called at the time in question. It's just a matter of basic historical truthfulness to call things by the names by which they have been known.

I don't know whether most Poles still refer to Vilnius as Wilna (I think they do), but they shouldn't, as Vilnius today is 85 percent Lithuanian and 8 percent Russian, with only a small Polish minority. If you go to Vilnius, the language you're most likely to hear on the street is Lithuanian. Nor should they insist that the rest of the world refer to Danzig before 1945 as Gdansk, because before 1945 it had only a small Polish minority, spoke German, wrote in German, etc., etc. Today St. Petersburg is once again St. Petersburg, but if you were writing about it during the Soviet perioid it would be absurd not to refer to it as Leningrad, because that was its name! No one writes about the German siege of St. Petersburg; it was the siege of Leningrad. No one writes about the Battle of Volgograd; it was the Battle of Stalingrad. By the same token, it was Danzig, not Gdansk, the was separated from Germany by the Versailles Treaty in 1919, and which Hitler used as a pretext for attacking Poland in 1939. It only became Gdansk in 1945. Why is this even a divisive issue at all? History is history! Danzig is now Gdansk. Gdansk used to be Danzig. Let's move on! user:sca

Please note that the immediate pretext for the invasion was a supposed 'attack' on a German radio station by Polish forces (which was, of course, staged by the Germans). Also, you're leaving out one crucial sentence from this argument: "Danzig is now Gdansk. Gdansk used to be Danzig." Add. "And Danzig was Gdansk before that. Etc." The "etc." is key: people's emotions will will run high if anyone, even unwittingly, implies that their view is incorrect and that someone (say, British historians) have the only correct view. You can call the place "Smurftown" if you want as long as you include a note on the dispute... having said that, the subsection on the city's name in the entry does a pretty job of doing what I just suggested. :)
BTW, also take care to distinguish between what Poles call a place in Polish and English. They can't call Vilnius Vilnius in Polish since, as the entry below notes, the Polish name is Wilno. W's are used in place V's in Polish... When speaking in English however, it makes sense to use the currently accepted English name... --Krupo 02:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the discussion, but I would like to precise. Poles constitute 19 percent of the Vilnius population, and Lithuanians 54 percent. Poles constitute 7 percent of Lithuania population. The Polish name is Wilno. I do not see any reasons not to use Wilno in POLISH. If you right Vilnius before 1945 shoud not be called Vilnius, because there were almost no Lithuanians (about 1,5 percent in 1939). Please, inform Lithuanian users about this fact.Yeti 23:12, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

sorry, but you're simply wrong about the ethnic composition of vilnius. i've been there many times. my best friend grew up there. it's not 19 percent polish anymore. and anyhow, no matter what poles call it, the name of the city is vilnius because that's what the people who live there call it, that's what it says on all the city documents and signs, etc, etc. you poles must stop living in a partly imagined grand and glorious past. it hasn't been 'wilna' or 'wilno' since 1940. granted, that's what it was called when napoleon came through in 1812, but the 'wilna' his armies traversed has been replaced by vilnius – just as danzig has been replaced by gdansk, stettin by szczecin and breslau by wroclaw. can't you poles content yoursevles with what you have? i don't think a polish speaker would find it so difficult to pronounce 'vilnius.' certainly it's more difficult for we english speaker to say 'gdansk' – not to mention 'szczecin.' [user:sca]

>There's no real logic to the present-day German-media practice of still referring to it as Danzig,

Of course it is. It is the German name, just like "Munich" is the English name of München, "Warsaw" of Warszawa and "Copenhagen" (from German Kopenhagen) of København. Also Polish media practice is to refer to cities now in Germany by their Polish names, Lipsk (Leipzig), Lubeka (Lübeck) etc. Nico 19:50, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Polish people don't call Vilnius neither "Vilnius", nor "Wilna" but WILNO, because in Polish language it is the name of the city, no matter who lives in it. Naming of battles and other historical events doesn't change the fact that Gdansk is the official English city name to be used throughout it's history. Let's move on! Continuing to call the city "Danzig" is absurd! It's living in the past! Space Cadet 19:54, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In no way is it living in the past to use past terminology when discussing the past. Mkweise 20:09, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet, in the first place, you're absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as an "official English city name". The best we can do is look at usage, and determine what the predominant usage is. I think I've repeatedly shown that Danzig is the only name used to refer to the city for 1793-1945 in pretty much all historical literature. I've also shown that Danzig is very commonly used for the pre-1793 period. So it is not ridiculous to call it Danzig unless every English-language historian is ridiculous. In the second place, even if it would be logical to say we should call it "Gdansk" throughout its history (an argument of which I'm rather dubious, for reasons I'm outlined above), that doesn't matter. Wikipedia's job is not to help determine what usage should be. It is to determine what the common usage is, and use that. john 20:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cadet, you and Nico are right that Germans and Poles have a perfect right to use German and Polish place names when speaking their respective languages. However, as John wrote, there is no such thing as an official English name for Gdańsk. It's so important I'm going to wirte it again in Polish to make sure you understand: Nie ma czegoś takiego, jak oficjalna angielska nazwa Gdańska.
As it happens, most of what native English speakers know about pre-20th century history of Central Europe, they know form 19th century German historians. You may not like it - I don't like it either - but it's a fact and you can't change it. Britons and Americans are much more familiar with German names for Polish and other Central European towns than with their Slavic names which tell them nothing. The only sensible way to solve that problem is to use Polish and German names for cities like Gdańsk depending on what they're called by a majority of present-day English speaking historians talking about a given period in those towns' history.
Jeszcze raz na wszelki wypadek: Jedyny sensowny sposób na całe to zamieszanie z polskimi i niemieckimi nazwami Gdańska jest taki, żeby używać odpowiednio nazw "Gdańsk" i "Danzig" w zależności od tego, którą nazwę stosuje większość współczesnych anglojęzycznych historyków w odniesieniu do danego okresu w dziejach Gdańska. I hope now you understood.
--Kpalion 22:05, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind, however, that native English speakers born in the past 10 to 20 years have had the luxury of learning about said histories from non-19th-century-German historians. YMMV. ;) On a related note, it's silly to argue that you don't have commonly accepted English names ("CAEN" for simplifcation). And I say CAEN in case you don't like the word official and all its connotations: Warszawa's CAEN is clearly Warsaw, even though it makes absolutely no sense to me [sounds like a lazy translation rather than an attempt to get things right]. But then, that's how much of the English language works, IMHO. :) --Krupo 02:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Nobody says about "official English name". The problem is that in case of doubts there are no reasons to use Danzig instead of Gdansk.Yeti 23:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Kpalion, this is what I've been trying to say for a long time. john 22:24, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reason to use Danzig before 1793

1. Majority of population were Germans. It is not acceptable argument. There were many places populated by a particular ethnic group but the English name is the name in the language of state the place belongs.

This is true. Majority of population were Germans is an argument as to why historians might generally call it Danzig, but has no particular bearing on what an encyclopedia should say. john 23:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

2. Danzig was the name used by local population It was proven to be untrue. The local population used several different names throught history.

Yes, but Danzig, predominantly. But I think this is still irrelevant, for the same reasons as the first point. john 23:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

3. Danzig was the English name It was proven to be untrue. The English used several names used by local population as well as Latin name: Danzik, Danzigt, Gdanzc, Gedanium, Dantiscum etc.

I will concede that there was no standard English name until late in the period in question. I would strongly suspect, however, that by the 18th century "Danzig" was the standard spelling used. Unfortunately, I have no real means of checking this. The other spellings mentioned were used at a considerably earlier period. john 23:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

4. Danzig is at present commonly used name for that period in English. It was proven to be untrue. Danzig is more often used but Gdansk is used as well. Google: History of Gdansk gave me 91 hits (+ 13 History of Gdańsk), but History of Danzig just 22 (half of them from one site)! I repeat: any doubts should be resolved in favour of present naming.

Ah, now here we disagree. Your proof here is the very definition of "weak and artificial". A google search on the phrases "History of Gdansk" and "History of Danzig" is about as meaningless as one can possibly imagine - it says nothing about the period under discussion specifically. Indeed, given that the city is currently named "Gdansk", it would make sense that "History of Gdansk" would be used more frequently. At any rate, I would advise that we continue looking for examples of what the city is called in the 1454-1793 period in various historical sources, in order to determine what standard usage is. When I get the chance, I'll do JSTOR searches on "Gdansk" and "Danzig" to try to figure out the balance in scholarly articles. As I've said, if the number of uses of "Gdansk" approaches closely that for "Danzig", I think that's a fairly strong argument for using "Gdansk". But if Danzig is the overwhelming favorite, I think it should be used. john 23:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To summarise: Arguments in favour of Danzig usage are very weak and artificial. Danzig was the name accepted in English only in 19th and in the first half of 20th century. The present commonly accepted English name is Gdansk. There are no reasons to use the 19th century accepted name instead of present accepted name. I would like to stress that I do not intend to negate commonly accepted historical English names for specific institutions etc., for example: Danzig Research Society. I hope this will finish discussion about the correct name before 1793. Yeti 22:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, or if any of you have seen it, but I did a very very small comparison between instances of Gdansk and Danzig, based on newspaper articles from a few newspapers in Canada over the past 15 years. (In short - current usage is always Gdansk.) Adam Bishop 04:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing what the city is called when referring to it since 1945. That's pretty clearly Gdansk. The question is before 1945. My general feeling, which has been supported by most of the actual looking into it that I've done, is that it's still mostly called Danzig, with a few exceptions (like Britannica - but even they call it Danzig in articles other than the main Gdansk article, at least some of the time). john 05:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Danzig (disambiguation)

When unprotected, a link to Danzig (disambiguation) should be inserted. Nico 19:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico is saying this because he is reverting the current disambig page at Danzig while refusing to discuss it on the talk page. There are currently four items called "Danzig" disambiguated there. Nico, if you can talk on this talk page you can talk on the talk page of a different article - David Gerard 19:45, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
I've already discussed this several places. Most recently here [1]. And I've already said this at least five times: An obscure band and a completely unknown adjunct Associate Professor does not justify making so an important city name a disambiguation. Neither should Washington, Berlin or Rome be disambigs, despite the fact that a lot of people have such surnames and a lot of small places in the US etc. are known under these names. Nico 19:50, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And I've already said this at least five times: [NOT OBSCURE. RADICALBENDER 19:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The only reason I even added those names was that I can't stand useless disambig pages like this, and I only found them by searching Google for "Danzig -Poland -Germany -city". I've personally never heard of this Danzig band or its singer. But of course many others may never have heard of bands I listen to. As for Berlin: I immediately think of the Top Gun soundtrack. — Jor (Talk) 19:56, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Danzig (band) are actually reasonably important in the history of US punk rock and heavy metal - David Gerard 19:59, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
May be. But it's not so important as the city. A lot of Americans are named "Hamburg" as well, because their ancestors came from Hamburg, just like this Danzig guy most likely is of Danzig origin. But I do not think Hamburg should a disambiguation page. I also think users like Wik have other reasons than concern for the history of US punk rock to insist that Danzig should not redirect to the main article dealing with the city. Nico 20:03, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Re:Wik - he may very well have other reasons for the Gdansk-Danzig ongoing battle. But I'm not Wik and I don't care what his reasons are. I'm also not German or Polish and find the whole ongoing debate mind-numbingly trivial. That said, Danzig should be a disambig page because there are multiple things that can be referred to solely as the word "Danzig." Discount the other things on the Danzig disambig page, I don't really care, but "Danzig" (the word alone) can refer to two important things: the city and the band. That's why it's a disambig page. Washington is not a disambig page because only one thing is called "Washington": the state of Washington. The city is Washington, D.C. (not Washington) and the president was George Washington (not Washington). That's why we do disambiguation pages. RADICALBENDER 20:09, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You seem not to be so keen to discuss this on Talk:Danzig ... that being the page it would actually be relevant to. Why not? - David Gerard 20:35, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
A genre and subgenre I neither am familiar with or interested in, so I'll take your word for it :-) — Jor (Talk) 20:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Danzig is a different article to Gdansk; please explain the basis of this theory of yours that this talk page binds that article. What do you have against posting on Talk:Danzig? - David Gerard 19:55, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
What do you want me to say more? As Danzig is or should be a redirect to the main article, it can perfectly well be discussed here. And by the way, I've already explained my position at Talk:Danzig. Nico 20:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is so silly: Reason for disambig. RADICALBENDER 19:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Devil's advocate again: compare Berlin: city is the main link, with a comment on disambiguation at the top. Which is what Nico proposes here. — Jor (Talk) 20:49, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mkweise deleted a lot of other comments, by accident I suppose, so I reverted the page. Here was his comment (Nico 21:40, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)):

Actually, Washington (disambiguation) should be at Washington. I think the only reason this hasn't been done yet is that nobody wants to do the work of fixing all the links currently pointing to Washington to point to Washington State. Mkweise 21:15, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll fix that with my bot if I remember tomorrow... ugen64 03:10, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

The links to Danzig seem to be about the city, and so should go to the city's page. Gdansk could copy Derry and start with:

For alternative meanings of Gdansk and Danzig, see Gdansk (disambiguation) and Danzig (disambiguation)

--Henrygb 19:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro to this Article

Alright, a new suggestion for how to explain the new names, derived from the formula I put in at Tartu:

Gdansk (before 1945 known primarily in English by its German name, Danzig) bla bla bla

Would this be acceptable to everyone? john 17:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did you really mean to write ...known primarily in English by...? ...known in English primarily by... makes more sense to me. Mkweise 22:35, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that does make more sense. john 00:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Anyone out there? john 21:55, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's OK with me, but where are the extremists? --Kpalion 22:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we do have a consensus. There are a few people with extreme positions on each end of the spectrum, but they haven't been involved in the disucssion in a long time. I think it's time to unprotect the article and hope for the best. Any objections? Mkweise 22:35, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, as soon as we actually unprotect, we'll get edit wars of great size. I'd like to hear particularly what Wik and Nico have to say, as they've been the most active at warring over this. john 00:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Both Wik and I were perfectly happy with "formerly Danzig". Wik does not like "German: Danzig" because in his opinion it's not [sic!] the German name (although even the German wikipedia as well as all newspapers, encyclopedias etc. in Germany uses it). I think the new version maybe is a bit too long and detailed for an introduction. Also, why "primarily"? Show me a single Englishman who called it "Gdańsk" before 1945. In fact, the city was primarily known in English as Danzig even for decades after 1945. In short: I would prefer a shorter version, and all details regarding its name explained in the name section. In the first sentence, the reader only have to recognize what the article is about: Gdańsk=Danzig. Nico 04:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Formerly Danzig" is better than "German: Danzig" because, while both statements are true, the fact that it's the former English name is far more significant than the fact that it's the current German name. Mkweise 04:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Nico 05:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, it is not a fact that it is "the current German name", at best it is a current German name, along with Gdansk. --Wik 04:57, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I was kinda busy, but I don't know where the other extremists are. I like the intro. What were the results of the vote on the use of Gdansk/Danzig? Space Cadet

That seems a bit long-winded and confusing. What was wrong with "formerly Danzig"? --Wik 04:14, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Giving the year (or even the exact date) of the name change in the intro seems like a good idea. Mkweise 04:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In English usage the change did actually not happen straight in 1945. I think most English encyclopedias used Danzig until the 70-ies or so. Nico 05:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Most English sources were using "Danzig" as the city's current name until late 60's, some until late 80's and the tendency to call the city "Gdansk" throughout the history has reached global status only recently.Space Cadet
Space Cadet, you have yet to show that there has been such a tendency. As yet, you've cited Britannica. john 05:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "formerly Danzig", too, but someone or other is always reverting that when the page is unprotected. So, if another acceptable formula can be worked out, that's fine with me. Space Cadet, we've had so many votes on the Danzig/Gdansk thing as to be worthless - why don't we wait on that bit for a while, and see if we can work out the beginning? john 05:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, does anyone, then, disagree with just having "formerly Danzig"? john 05:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, "formerly" strongly implies that "Gdansk" was invented 1945..Space Cadet

As an English name it was. Nico 05:15, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Here's the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica, if it helps: Phr 02:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)phr

Okay, how about "before 1945 known in English by its German name, Danzig"? john 05:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to use "formerly Danzig", but then make sure to explain the complicated situation somewhere else in the article, so as to counteract whatever implication (I'm not sure it's strong - would to say that St. Petersburg was "formerly Leningrad" imply that the name St. Petersburg was made up in 1991?) there is that the name Gdansk was made up on the spot. john 05:24, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

100 000 dead Danzigers

Cautious asked for a source for the 100 000 dead Danzigers. Here is one, from Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen ( ). It's also the German view on the history of the city, which is quite different from that of our Polish friends here. As most Poles learn German I think I may post this here. At least Cautious said he speak German.

Als deutsche Stadt wurde Danzig 1224/25 noch innerhalb des Fürstentums Pommerellen (etwa Gebiet des späteren Westpreußen westlich der Weichsel) gegründet. Als Kaufmanns-, Handels- und Hafenstadt erlangte sie große Bedeutung im Ostseeraum. Als Stadt eigenen Rechts war sie vom umliegenden - damals noch slawischen - Umland klar getrennt, wurde aber bald zu einem Ausgangspunkt der deutschen Besiedlung des weithin brachen Weichsellands. Mit Pommerellen kam Danzig 1308/09 an den Deutschen Orden und begab sich 1454 unter Wahrung seiner Rechte und Eigenständigkeit unter die Schutzhoheit der Krone Polens. Es behauptete sich mehr noch als andere Städte des sogenannten "Königlichen Preußen" auch nach der einseitigen und somit rechtswidrigen polnischen Eingliederungsakte von 1569 in den folgenden Jahrhunderten als nahezu unabhängige Stadtrepublik. In seiner wirtschaftlichen Blütezeit um 1650 hatte die deutsche Kaufmannsstadt Danzig fast 80.000 Einwohner (zu dieser Zeit: Hamburg 60.000, Breslau 30.000, Berlin 6.000).

In Zusammenhang mit der 2.Teilung Polens 1793 beschloß die Stadt aus eigenem Recht ihren Anschluß an das Königreich Preußen, dem sie bis 1918/20 angehörte - unterbrochen nur von einer von Napoleon erzwungenen Scheinselbständigkeit als "Freistaat" 1807-14. Von 1815-29 und seit 1878 war Danzig Hauptstadt der Provinz Westpreußen.

Der Versailler Vertrag trennte Danzig mit Umland von Preußen und Reich ab, sprach es jedoch nicht dem wiederhergestellten Polen zu, sondern konstruierte es 1920 als eigenen Staat "Freie Stadt Danzig" unter "Schutz" und Aufsicht der Alliierten, vertreten durch den Völkerbund bzw. einen Kommissar des Völkerbundes. Diese bizarre Konstruktion war zum einen dem polnischen Bestreben geschuldet, Danzig vom Reich zu trennen, zum anderen der Tatsache, daß man das Gebiet wegen seiner demographischen Verhältnisse unmöglich ohne weiteres Polen zuschlagen konnte:

Von den 330.000 Menschen, die 1910 in dem knapp 2.000 qkm großen Gebiet lebten, sprachen über 95 Prozent Deutsch, knapp drei Prozent Polnisch, weniger als ein Prozent waren Kaschuben oder Masuren. 1923, also nach der Abtrennung vom Reich, gaben sogar 97,6 Prozent der Bevölkerung Deutsch als Muttersprache an (Polnisch, Kaschubisch, Masurisch: zwei Prozent). Bei den freien Parlaments-(Volkstags-)wahlen vom Mai 1933 entfielen 3,2 Prozent der Stimmen auf polnische Listen.

Noch am Tag des Kriegsbeginn 1.9.1939 wurde der Wiederanschluß des Gebiets der "Freien Stadt Danzig" an Deutschland proklamiert. Bis 1945 war Danzig nunmehr Hauptstadt des "Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreußen".

Etwa 22.000 deutsche Danziger fielen im Krieg. Von den 1945 etwa 407.000 im Gebiet der Freien Stadt Danzig lebenden Menschen sind über 100.000 bei Flucht, Vertreibung und Deportation umgekommen.

Nach der Einnahme Danzigs durch sowjetische und polnische Truppen am 27.3.1945 kam während der Besatzungszeit und während der Ausweisungen jeder fünfte Danziger gewaltsam oder aufgrund der Umstände ums Leben oder blieb vermißt.

1950 lebten in Westdeutschland 225.000 Danziger, in der SBZ etwa 60.000. Ab Juni 1945 bestand in Lübeck bereits ein "Danziger Hilfskomitee". Im April 1946 zunächst von den Alliierten verboten, wurde dann im August 1948 der Bund der Danziger als landsmannschaftliche Vereinigung gegründet. Ausgehend von der Völkerrichtswidrigkeit der zwei Annexionen von 1939 und 1945 und vom de-jure-Fortbestand der "Freien Stadt Danzig" besteht seit 1947 die "Rat der Danziger", der die Interessen der deutschen Danziger nach außen wahrnimmt. Patenstadt der Danziger ist Düsseldorf.

Nico 08:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this passage: Etwa 22.000 deutsche Danziger fielen im Krieg. Von den 1945 etwa 407.000 im Gebiet der Freien Stadt Danzig lebenden Menschen sind über 100.000 bei Flucht, Vertreibung und Deportation umgekommen. say that 22.000 Germans of Gdansk fell during the WWII, while out of 407.000 inhabitants of the city in 1945 over 100.00 were subject of expulsion, evacuation and deportation?Halibutt 10:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, "umgekommen" does mean "lost their lives". However, we should be cautious about blindly copying numerical estimates from a possibly biased source like that and either verify from other sources be explicit as to the source of the estimate. I just checked the German article [2]; it does not give any casualty figures. Mkweise 16:52, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See also:


csb:Gduńsk da:Gdansk de:Danzig en:Gdansk eo:Gdansko fr:Gdansk is:Gdańsk it:Danzica ja:グダニスク la:Gedania nds:Danzig nl:Gdansk no:Gdansk pl:Gdańsk ru:Гданьск sv:Gdansk

Major corporations

I'm not sure we need those. Halibutt 21:31, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Be sure to include the table at {{msg:Principal cities of Poland}}

Halibutt 21:31, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Ok, seems like we reached some sort of a compromise and the only thing that sparks edit wars now is the header. Currently the most frequently used versions are

  • Gdańsk (formerly Danzig)
  • Gdańsk (German Danzig)

I'd stick to the latter. We agreed that the city should be referred to with either German or Polish name in different periods of time. This way we'd have to use the frase Gdańsk (formerly Danzig, formerly Gdańsk, formerly Danzig, formerly Gdańsk) - and so on. I think that the earlier version is misleading and the latter version is definitely more correct. Especially that just below the header there is a whole chapter explaining the city's name. No need to rewrite it in the header. What do you think? Halibutt 17:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Danzig is an important name because it used to be the name the city called itself, and the name by which the city was known in English. That is to say, because it is a former name. The fact that it may or may not be the name that is used in the German language is irrelevant to the English Wikipedia. john 20:17, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

The word "formerly" does not suggest that "Gdansk" is an entirely new name. "St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad)" would be perfectly appropriate, as well. john 21:44, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

See Yekaterinburg:

Yekaterinburg; alternative spelling: Ekaterinburg (Екатеринбург) is a city in Russia, formerly known as Sverdlovsk john 21:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
So we are left with three options:
  • Gdańsk (formerly Danzig)
  • Gdańsk (German Danzig)
  • Gdańsk (formerly also Danzig)
I was in favour of the second option, but apparently there's plenty of opposition (if one can call constant revert wars a opposition). So how about the third option? Halibutt 01:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
The second one will be fine with me.Space Cadet
Or with four options:
  • Gdańsk (formerly Danzig)
  • Gdańsk (German: Danzig)
  • Gdańsk (formerly also Danzig)
  • Gdańsk (in English formerly known as Danzig)
I support the first one, of course!
--Ruhrjung 10:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC) (this is not fun, not fun at all)
The problem is that the first option might be interpreted as if the city was called Danzig up to a certain point and then it changed its' name, while it's not true. The second one seems the best to me as there is definitely no hidden agenda in it and it's definitely true that the German name of the city is (and was, for most of the history of both the language and the city) Danzig. However, many wikipedians oppose it (without stating their reasons, but still). So perhaps some other option will suit them well?

The third one is sort of a compromise, while the fourth one is fully explained in the ==Names== section, no need to state this three times in a row. Halibutt 11:55, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that only :* Gdańsk (German: Danzig) is acceptable. If use form "formerly Danzig" it is suggesting that the name Danzig exists no more. People of Gdansk are open and tolerant, so anybody can use their name. Therefore there is German, Polish, English and whichever name, and let rest for intelligence of the reader. Cautious 13:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...everyone who opposes "formerly" seems to do so for different reasons. A couple of points:

  1. Danzig is not exactly the German name of Gdansk. Among other things, I think one could argue it's not really the German name anymore - there are 70,000 google hits for "Gdansk" in German, and 100,000 for "Danzig".
  2. The fact that Danzig may or may not be the German name of Gdansk is unimportant. Putting it that way just encourages the trend of adding in all kinds of other languages' names for the city and cluttering up the intro. Who cares what German-speakers call a city in Poland that does not have a significant German minority? What is important is that the city used to call itself, and used to be known internationally, as "Danzig."
  3. People have said that the situation is not like there has been a name change, and one day the city was Danzig, and the next day it was Gdansk. But this is essentially what happened at the end of World War II. Yes, I know that Poles had always been calling it Gdansk, and that non-Poles continued to call it Gdansk for some time thereafter. But the name by which the city called itself was changed. I think this essentially amounts to a name change, just as occurred in numerous other cities, and that "formerly" is an appropriate way to describe it.
  4. So, in conclusion, I vote for "formerly Danzig." There is no need to make this so ridiculously complicated. Any ambiguity and complexity should be discussed in the name section. I'd also suggest that those of you not so familiar with English might want to stay away from telling English-speakers what different English phrases might imply. john k 15:33, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I'd suggest that those of you not so familiar with reading might want to read again what other wikipedians imply and what they don't. But seriously, while I'm not the person to judge the correct usage of English, the word formerly might imply that the name was changed while it wasn't. Definitely it is so in many other languages: Polish dawniej, German früher, Spanish antes. While the English word formerly might suggest that there were many names used in the past and Danzig was simply one of those, why don't we just make it specific and concrete by accepting the compromise version Gdańsk (formerly also Danzig)? Halibutt 18:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of anything, Halibutt. But at any rate, the word "formerly" is, like most words, ambiguous. Certainly it does not suggest that "Gdansk" is a new name, any more than saying that St. Petersburg was formerly Leningrad implies that Leningrad is a new name. At the same time, I suppose it might suggest "the name was changed." But I would argue that the name very clearly was changed. Before 1945, the city called itself Danzig. Afterwards it called itself Gdansk. That this was a function of it suddenly being inhabited by people who spoke a language that had always called it Gdansk doesn't change the fact that the name was changed. For instance, the name "Istanbul" was in common use in Turkish for a long time before 1930, but that doesn't mean that it's incorrect to say that the name was changed in 1930. At any rate, I don't see any way that saying that the city was "formerly Danzig" is wrong. As such, we should stick with a simple formulation. The details of it can be explained in the name section. I wouldn't especially object to "formerly also Danzig," but it seems unnecessarily awkward. And it might slightly exaggerate the importance of the name "Gdansk" in former times. Which could lead to debates about phrasings like "formerly primarily Danzig", or to demands for even longer explanations. And why not just leave that for the name section, and keep it simple in the intro. john k 21:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

You said it yourself: "formerly" is, like most words, ambiguous. If so, then why won't we make it more specific? The rest could indeed be explained in the names section. Also, one can argue that the version formerly Danzig slightly exaggerates the importance of the name "Danzig" in former times. This way we won't get anywhere. So how about my proposal? Halibutt 22:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Because the assorted suggested alternate constructs - "formerly also", "formerly German", etc., are bad and clumsily-written English. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Polish or German one - David Gerard 23:04, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. We have a whole "name" section where the intricacies can be discussed. All that it is necessary to say in the introduction is that the city used to be called "Danzig". This is undoubtedly true, and it is all the intro says (that is to say, the formulation "formerly Danzig" simply means "this city used to be called Danzig"). Any misconceptions that might be raised by use of the term "formerly" will surely be laid to rest by a reading of the section on the name. (Which, of course, we still need to work out fully, which is why the continuing conflict over the first line remains irritating). john k 23:12, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Formerly Danzig" also means that it was not formerly called Gdansk. And if you want to leave clarification of "any misconceptions that might be raised" to reading of the "name" section, then fine - why not go all the way and call the city Gdansk throughout the article and clarify "any misconceptions that might be raised" in the "name section". Duh. Space Cadet 14:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And I reiterate: this is the English Wikipedia, not the Polish one. The name in English (not Polish or German) is currently "Gdansk" and it used to be "Danzig". Contrary to your edit summary, I'm not "sneaking" this in anywhere - I'm stating it outright.
You have a lot to add to Wikipedia in terms of Polish information, but you're clearly not a native English speaker and don't seem to grasp this point - David Gerard 15:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Your authoritative assumption about my linguistic background is wrong! I happen to be a native speaker of three different languages (English being one of them), plus I'm fluent in two other. So I do grasp more than you can imagine. I also grasp that you ignore my points and keep repeating yourself. Let me then repeat myself also: DANZIG is not an English name but a German name, formerly in English use; GDANSK is not an English name, but a Polish name (minus the diacritics), currently in English use. You were "sneaking" (willingly or not) a between-the-lines message, that in some unspecified past GDANSK was NOT a name of the city and DANZIG was. If your English language horizons are so "clearly" broader than mine, then go ahead: fix my edit without implying invention of the name GDANSK in 1945.

Another thing: If we have a separate, special section dealing with the city name, whose purpose is to clarify "any misconceptions that might be raised", then why not use the current name in English use consistently throughout the article, leaving all the historical peculiarities for the name section to deal with? Space Cadet 17:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I say that because I find it extremely hard to believe that a native English speaker would think that the "formerly also" grammatical construction was acceptable or usable in the introductory sentence of an encyclopedia article in English. How, where, when and at what age did you pick up English natively? I'd also be interested to know how you pick up three languages natively - David Gerard 20:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And I see that, in response to this argument, you bluster: "(Too bad this is not a job interview and I don't have to present my credentials. Now, why exactly do you question my credibility and accuse me of lying? Lack of arguments, perhaps?)" No, I've given my arguments; you're blustering. I'm only not reverting your bad grammar because I'm at three reverts in 24 hours, as are you. - David Gerard 20:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I do not have a lot of education to speak of, plus I grew up in very low class environments. I still speak and write better English than 90% of native English speakers I work with. I will refrain from telling you my own life story, if you don't mind, for privacy reasons. But my own cousin grew up in America with Polish, Czech and Yiddish as native languages, with English having been introduced in grade school. She still has traces of accent, when speaking fast and under emotional pressure. Another example I know is a friend of mine who grew up with an Armenian father and German mother, in a Latino neighborhood who can honestly say his native languages are Armenian, German, English and Spanish.

But changing the subject drastically, I find it hard to believe that you might have a lot of creative imagination and therefore should be accusing people of lying.Space Cadet 21:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then how on Earth do you find "formerly also" defensible grammatically? It's really crappy English - David Gerard 21:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Easy! I just always find content more important than form, truth more important than beauty and mind more than matter. - Space Cadet 03:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That's obviously false since you're spending so much effort on the form of the statement - David Gerard 07:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Lying is offensive only sometimes. Accusing someone of lying is offensive always. My statement is not false, because as long as the content is fine, my second priority is, in fact, form. SC 12:50, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Around and around we go. Saying Gdansk was "formerly Danzig" does not imply that Gdansk is a new name. As I pointed out before, the exact same thing is done for Yekaterinburg, where it says that it was "formerly called Sverdlovsk", even though the city was called Yekaterinburg before it was called Sverdlovsk. At any rate, both in English and among the inhabitants of the city, the city was

Info AGAIN erased by John Kenney

Missing sections: Please add when possible


There are many popular professional sports team in Gdansk and Tricity area. Amateur sports are played by thousands of Gdansk citizens and also in schools of all levels (elementary, secondary, university).

Sports in Gdansk

Sports in Tricity (Gdansk Metro Area)


Members of European Parliament (MEPs) from Gdansk

  • Janusz Lewandowski, PO - economist, leader of Gdansk liberals, former minister of privatization
  • Anna Fotyga, PO - economist, Solidarity adviser, former vice-president (mayor) of Gdansk

Gdansk constituency

Members of Parliament (Sejm) elected from Gdansk constituency

PolishPoliticians 04:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Final compromise solution

I think we are ready for the final solution of all editing issuses at Wikipedia.

  • Rule 1: User:John Kenney is ALWAYS right. +
  • Rule 2: if User John Kenney is WRONG apply rule 1. +

Please cast your votes now:


  • Yes, yes, yes, Yes, yes, yes,
  • Yes, yes, yes, Yes, yes, yes, Yes, yes, yes, Yes, yes, yes.


  • apply rule 1


  • apply rule 1

Sounds good to me...I'd prefer the rule "User:Whateverthefuckyourecallingyourselftoday is always wrong", but, as Mick Jagger reminds us, we can't always get what we want. john k 07:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What are going to do now, John ??? Editing in Gdansk seems to be suspended, and you are the priviledged person that can edit here. I kindly ask you to incorporate the Politicians list and the Sportsmen list and the title line (city names) and Lech Walesa+Solidarity back to the Gdansk article. You have erased them so you are the right person to put them back

The alternative is to send all those Polish politicians and sportsmen to Zaspa or Piasnica forest for an immediate execution or transfer them to the Stutthof concentration camp, as your favourite party did (oooop... the legally elected government did)

PolishPoliticians 07:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am certainly not going to incorporate your title line into the article. I'm ambivalent about Walesa in the first paragraph - if that is to be mentioned, the city being the pretext for the outbreak of WWII should also be mentioned. As to other stuff, the article is too long as it is, largely due to you adding in any tiny snippet of information about the city that you can find. I'm certainly not going to violate the article protection by adding in material that I don't even really think should be in it. Once the article is unprotected, if you were to add such information in, without changing the introductory paragraph, I would not revert you. But I don't feel any particular need to go through and cherry pick through your edits (you always do the most offensive edits first, I notice) so as to save some edits that are pretty silly anyway. I'll ignore the implicit (or, I suppose, explicit) claim that I am a Nazi. Such arguments only make you look like a bufoon. john k 07:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I my opinion you, John, are oversusing you priviledges to edit the protected article, Your privileges are given to you, to PROTECT the article from the vandals, and in this case YOU ARE THE VANDAL HERE. And erasing the info from the Talk page is VERY RUDE behaviour. PolishPoliticians 21:51, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John, I do not want to take part in your dispute with PolishPoliticians since I find it a bit too barbaric (from both sides, to be sincere). However, I believe that if it's you who erased a part of the article without even looking at it (I guess it was just a reversion of someones' edit), then you should feel obliged to correct the mistake. It's been two weeks since PolishPoliticians posted the links to two new Polish MEPs and the sport clubs - and there was not even a single voice against adding them back. If I were you, I would put them back and apologize for erasing them. Halibutt 22:43, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Polish MEPs

I do insist that links to the articles about two new Members of European Parliament: Janusz Lewandowski and Anna Fotyga are included in the Gdansk article. I have gathered info and written the articles, please do NOT arease them again, OK? PolishPoliticians 21:57, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lechia Gdańsk: Polish Cup winner 1983

Please add this line to the sporting section when possible:

Football in Poland 16:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Energa Gedania Gdańsk

EBL 20:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nata AZS AWFiS Gdansk

EBL 20:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Massacre of Gdansk, 13 November 1308

moved to Talk:History of Gdansk

The Royal Polish City of Gdansk

(restored section removed by John [[]])

On what special occasions is it known as this? This is one thing about the namewar that's interesting! - David Gerard 22:08, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

As you might guess mostly cerremonial occasions. Opening of the City Council, doctorates honoris causa, nominating bishops and so on. Perhaps this name is a bit less well-known that the Royal Capital City of Kraków (Królewskie Stołeczne Miasto Kraków), but it is used once in a while. Halibutt 05:06, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Dear anon, please post your objections here instead of deleting. If you don't like the idea of the longer version of city's name in the header then move it to where it belongs. Halibutt 09:54, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I put my objection in the edit summary one of the times I moved it - it's too long for the intro, and are we going to list every name Gdansk has ever had in the intro? And I did move it to the proper place - look in the names section - David Gerard 12:21, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, beside noting that 1/ there exists a section called "Name" as the very first section of the article. The introductory paragraph must be ment to sumarize the very most important things that are detailed later on in the article. And that 2/ this issue is extensively discussed at this talk page, and that the discussion did not result in support for listing dozens of names in the introduction. I've done nothing but restored the version supported by the discussion at this talk page.
Chiefly, I think this kind of stubborn punching-through one's one nationalist agenda (or whatever agenda one has) lead to the usenetification of Wikipedia and ultimately rendering edits by in any way serious contributors totally irrelevant. It's up to you if you wish to make this into a playground of flamers and trolls – have fun!
You might be surprised, but I agree too! But you chose the wrong way: if everyone noted the existance of the Names chapter, then why deleting the whole part instead of moving it down, to where it belongs? I can't see no other purpose but to provoke another edit war. Just move it instead of deleting this piece of info. It's important, you know Halibutt 20:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
In the edit I'm looking at [3], it's right there at the end of the names section. I've now added the Kashubian - David Gerard 21:26, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
You are wrong. I did not remove anything from the names section. But there were plenty of reasons not to DUPLICATE that information to the intro aswell. /your dear anon :-((

Restored the Royal Polish City of Gdansk section, the name was used for ceremonial purposes and on all official documents by the municipal authorities. The kings prefer to write 'our city Gdansk'.

The Kashubian Capital City Gdańsk

Please kindly remove the Kashubian translation: Kashubian: Królewszczi Polszczi Gard Gduńsk.

This name is never used in Kashubian. Its mentioning is only aimed at irritating Kashubians. Besides, masculine adjectives in Kashubian never end with -szczi, but always with -sczi. If you want to add an additional Kashubian name, you may add: Stoleczny Kaszëbsczi Gard Gduńsk. UCZK

The name The Royal Polish City of Gdansk...Regia Civitas Polonica Gedanensis comes from the book Historia Gdańska (there also a picture there). It was the official name used by the local government authorities. I think the section should stay PolishPoliticians 19:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Uczk information and after a short examination of the kashubian sources I have added the following Kashubian section:

The Kashubians prefer the name: Our Capital City Gdańsk (=Nasz Stoleczny Gard Gduńsk) or The Kashubian Capital City Gdańsk (=Stoleczny Kaszëbsczi Gard Gduńsk).

Removing mysterious Gothiscandza land

I have removed the controvercial text, as they do not belong to the Gdansk article: The coast was called 'Gothiscandza' by Jordanes; Tacitus also referred to it in his 'Germania'. Both historians believed the area to be populated.

Jordanes about the Goths:

Jordanes book is full of legends, an it says the Goths sailed from the island of Scandia/Scandza to the lower coast of the Ocean with 3 ships and their new land was called 'Gothiscandza'. As a next step they attacked the 'Ulmerugii' (Island Rugians).

As you can see the Jordanes says nothing about Gdansk, and gives no clue where the Gohiscandza land was located. Scandia island is usually identified with Scandinavia peninsula or Gotland island, the ocean is usually identified with the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, Ulmerugii are usually identified with the inhabitants of Ruegen island.

The results are:

  • We don't know where the mysterious Gothiscandza land was located
  • Gothiscandza was most probably located in Holstein or Mecklenburg not necessary oposite to Ruegen island
  • Gothiscandza (Gothic End??) could also be the Scania peninsula, southern part of Scandivavia

PolishPoliticians 23:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Naming policy: Gdansk and Vilnius

The naming compromise here on this page has been settled and that's great. However, now a problem arises that there are lots of other cities and they use different naming systems. Shouldn't we start and settle a common policy on all articles about cities? See the recent Talk:Vilnius for reference. Halibutt 13:32, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

THE Wikipedia naming convention

The Polish page for Vilnius is called Wilno ( It uses the Polish name (Wilno) 19 times in the article for all historical periods. The Lithuanian/English name of Vilnius is mentioned only once in the header.

The German page for Vilnius is called Wilna ( It uses the German name (Wilna) 25 times in the article for all historical periods. The Lituanian/English, Polish and Yiidish names are mentioned each once in the header.

The Lithuanian page is called Vilnius ( . It uses various Viln* names 20 times for all historical periods. Other versions are not nontioned.

I don't see why we should not use this good convention also in the English Wikipedia. Polish convention is Wilno, German convention is Wilna, Lithuanian convention is Vilnius, The English name of the city is Vilnius and this should be the English convention. In this English language article the city should be called Vilnius in all historical and modern references. Other names could be mentioned in the header. Once only.. I think this is THE Wikipedia naming convention and should be used in all English language articles.

The same applies to Gdansk and other English language articles. PolishPoliticians 23:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As well as the Free City of Gdansk. Space Cadet 03:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you PolishPoliticians 04:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hope this is a joke, and you are not just trying to undermine the compromise which seemed to have been reached on this page. This is not how English language encyclopedias work. There was not a siege of Saint Petersburg in World War II or siege of Mafikeng in the Boer War. If you want the Polish Wikipedia to be POV, fork it, but please leave the English one in peace. --Henrygb 10:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Lenigrad/St.Petersurg/Piotrogrod case is a bad example here because these were the names officialy introduced by the Russians. This was NOT the case of Gdansk. The name of Gdansk was used by the Poles for the last 1000 years of so. Gdansk was never renamed. It was always Gdańsk. Polish people will never accept the Nazi naming scheme. PolishPoliticians 22:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The name of Danz*** was used by the German bandits and the Nazi murderers, and today is consirered to be offensive. The Gdansk/Danzig quarrel led to the outbreak of WWII, and according to most of the people the Nazis were the bad gyus in that conflict. If we accept the Nazi naming convention (that is the Danz*** thing), the next step will be the acceptance of the theory that the peace-loving Nazis were the victims of the agressive Allies. I hope this will never happen PolishPoliticians 22:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me? What a compromise if to former German speaking cities are used different conventions than to former Polish ones? If you want to keep the status quo, please try to convince Lithuanian users to the same convention for Vilnius. Do not accuse anybody of POV if you defend f... biased POV yourself. Bye. Yeti 10:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Look at the page history for Vilnius and you will see I have used Vilna for an event in 1943 - I have no idea what other language that is (apparently it isn't Lithuanian Vilnius, Polish Wilno, or German Wilna and as far as I can see it isn't Russian Вильнюс, though it looks a bit like Belarusian Вільня though I would transliterate that as Vilnya) but it was the name used in English before 1945, particularly common among English language Catholic and Jewish sources. My position is consistent: for historical events, it is acceptable to use the commonly used English name of the time. I see little wrong with using a variety of names, and I welcome the diversity in the Derry/Londonderry article. --Henrygb 13:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I understand, that you will be consequent in the event of voting.Yeti 16:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Henrygb: I'm not trying to undermine any consensus, because, to my knowledge, there never was a consensus, only a temporary solution, agreed on for the sole purpose to unprotect the page. Also, don't use as an example cities that were officially RENAMED. Gdansk was never renamed. The city's name was "Gdansk" way before the Thirteen Years War, and it was also "Danzig" way before any Crossbacks arrived in Poland. You can save your patronizing tone and your sarcastic advices for your retarded wife (if you have one). If you really think your "position is consistent", then I'm very happy for you, but please acknowledge that not everybody will share your optimism on this one. Even if there is "little wrong with using a variety of names", can you please explain the value adding benefit of using different names for the same subject in one story? Especially a story that already mentions all those names and explains in detail their history dependent usage. Explain how it is not just a huge chaos-creating redundancy. Also, how on Earth can you determine with certainty what was the "commonly used English name of the time" for, let's say, Warsaw in 1505 or Moscow in 1373. You can't, that's why for those periods, as for any other, you will use the English name of today! Plus, even if you could, there will always be plenty of people opposing your view and pointless discussions and disputes will never end. Space Cadet 14:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As to this article, I don't see how you can say that Gdansk was never renamed. It was renamed in 1945 at least as much as any city has ever been renamed. In 1944, its mayor was the Mayor of Danzig. Afterwards he was the mayor of Gdansk. All signs were changed to say that the city was nemd Gdansk, rather than Danzig, and so on and so forth. How on earth is this not a name change? Yes, the name Gdansk was used to refer to the city in Polish before this, but it was not used in the city itself in any official way. Similarly, the name "Danzig" continued to be used after 1945, but not officially. Obviously, it is more complicated to explain the city's name in early modern times, because the whole situation is less clearcut. I'm also not really certain about Vilna/Wilno/Vilnius, especially since the city was never locally known as "Vilna", which was the name English-speakers used before 1945, and perhaps for some time thereafter. That makes the situation not really analogous - while the city's name may have been changed from Wilno to Vilnius in 1945, that doesn't exactly mean that the English name changed from Vilna to Vilnius at the same time... At any rate, I can see absolutely no defense whatsoever for Free City of Gdansk. There is an argument to be made, I think, for being consistent within the article on the city itself. I can see absolutely no reason not to use the contemporary name when referring to historical events. john k 15:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, John, but you catch your own tail. Your basic (and really only acceptable) argument was that Danzig was ENGLISH name and nobody in the English speaking world knew tha city as Gdansk. Ok. But who ever heard about Vilnius before 1945 or even 1990??? Now you defend your position claiming that the situation in case of Vilnius is different because Vilnius was never locally known as Vilna. Unfortunatelly, I have proven to you that Danzig also was not the commonly accepted local name before end of 18th century. The German inhabitans used many versions, and at least untill the 18th century the most popular was: DANZTIK. Similary the most popular name for Vilnius before 18th centary was Vilnia, almost identical with English name. Besides, at that time Poles constituted important part of Gdansks's population and constituted majority around the city. They used Polish name: GDANSK! Unlike in the case of Gdansk, where Poles always constituted at least several percent of population and majority on surronding areas, there were no Lithuanins in Vilnius before 1939 (less than 2 percent) as well as in sorroundings of the city. So, basically the name Vilnius was not used neither by English speakers, nor by the local population. And last, but not least untill 1793 Gdansk was the name in the officlial name of the state, Vilnius definitelly not, as the name in the "official" language was Vilnia - as similar to Vilna like Dantzik to "English" Danzig.
John, you lost all your arguments. Please, be consistent and defend your opinion in ALL cases or give it up. Bye.Yeti 17:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poles were approximately 3% of the population in Danzig before 1939, as I any rate, the thing about Danzig is that it was both the local name (for a long time, at least, and certainly for the 1793-1945 which is the principle period that Wikipedia is calling it "Danzig" for) and the English language name. Vilna is more awkward, as I've tried to explain. But, anyway, fine, if you want, I'll go argue that we should call it "Vilna" before 1945...this is complete silliness. john k 19:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nazi symbols and names are criminal offence

Until 1930s a swastika was a glorious symbol of sun used by the ancient Indo-European tribes, but it was profanated by the Nazis. The same applied to Danzig, which wsa profanated by the nazis. Panting Polish cities with these Nazi names is like painting Jewish graves with swastikas. First this is profanation, second this is a criminal offence. PolishPoliticians 20:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So does that mean that we cannot use Lublin German Lublin Polish Lublin because the Nazis used it? Your comments are becoming stranger and stranger. --Henrygb 21:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What law makes certain names a criminal offence? Please quote the law in question. Your comment seems strange - David Gerard 22:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, isn't it profaning clean Polish names like Szczecin and Gdansk to use them to refer to cities inhabited by awful German Nazis? This is nonsense, pure and simple, as is just about everything done by this German user. (See Talk:Vilnius for more silliness, if you're interested). john k 22:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't get it either. However, David Gerard insists on putting the Nazi name to Gdynia as well, which is an absurd. The city bore the name of Gotenhafen for some five years in its history and the renaming was due to Nazi germanization policies. I asked David Gerard why does he insist on adding the Nazi name to Gdynia at his talk page, but he apparently ignored me. There is a problem with Nazi names, but not in this article (at least I don't see any problem here). PolishPoliticians, could you explain the whole fuzz to me in Polish on my talk page? Perhaps this is but a misunderstanding? Halibutt 03:08, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the name Gotenhafen is familiar to World War II buffs as a place where U-Boats came and went, and so forth, I think. As such, it's a good idea to mention it in the article. Google "Gotenhafen" - there's almost 4,000 returns, most of them World War II related sites. If we don't explain early on that they are the same city, people redirected to Gdynia from Gotenhafen will be confused. john k 08:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Similarily, all cities in Belgium, France and Holland should have German names in the header - after all they became famous after some WWII battles... Come on, it's a nonsense. You yourself argued that the names in last 100 years or so are more important than the earlier ones. However, does it mean that every single city seized by someone for five years should have such a name in the header? IMO this belongs to the History section. Also, if this U-boot base was that important - why don't we change the header to Gdynia (Kashubian Gdynio, German Gdingen) is a town in Poland where the famous U-Boot base was located? It is important and interesting, but I doubt we should mess up with the header. Halibutt 18:21, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this is not the case. We do not speak of the siege of Lüttich in World War I simply because the Germans besieged the town. People do talk about boats sailing out of Gotenhafen. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. And "Gdynia is a town in Poland where the famous U-Boot base was located" (assuming that sentence is accurate - I'm not enough of a WWII buff to know the details) doesn't make any sense, since you're not actually giving the name that people know the U-Boat base by. It seems to me that any alternative names which someone would plausibly come across in an English-language source ought to be mentioned in the header, to minimize confusion. By the way, isn't this in fact analogous to use of Auschwitz to refer to the Concentration camp? By your logic, the header of Oswiecim should not mention the name Auschwitz, but should say that "Oswiecim is a town in Poland and the location of the famous concentration camp." john k 18:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't really get it. Please note that Auschwitz does not redirect to Oświęcim and the latter article does not have the German name in the header. However, the way it is handled there seems fine - the header is not too long, but the whole matter is explained a little lower and then in the history section. Also, perhaps there are people who use the name in reference to the city, but IMO the city is much more important than a German naval base that existed there for 3 years. This piece of information is important, but not that important. Halibutt 17:32, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be discussing at Talk:Gdynia. At any rate, my point was that the name "Auschwitz" is mentioned early on in the Oswiecim article. Obviously, Auschwitz concentration camp is more important than the German naval base at Gotenhafen, but I think the situations are roughly analogous. On the other hand, the Columbia article on Gdynia does not mention the name Gotenhafen at all. (It's a very short article). The Britannica article, also very short, mentioned neither the Gotenhafen name nor Gdingen. Gdingen, by the way, seems like a completely irrelevant name - the place was a fishing village when it was part of Germany - I don't think we need to mention it in the intro. As to Gotenhafen, I'm willing to not have it there, given other encyclopedic practice. Perhaps Gotenhafen should be its own article, a stub saying that this is what the Germans called Gdynia during World War II? john k 17:48, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. Halibutt 18:46, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree. It should definitely be mentioned in the article (not necessarily in the beginning, though). Ausir 19:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gotenhafen definitely needs to be mentioned in the article - I was just saying I'd be willing to not have it in the intro. I'm not sure about Gdingen. john k 22:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Polish Royal City of Gdańsk =

Please be adviced that other Polish cities also use the celebrative names like:

I think the name of The Polish Royal City of Gdańsk and the Kashubian Capital City of Gdańsk should stay in the article's header. PolishPoliticians 23:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) PolishPoliticians 23:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't. You haven't even reached consensus in the Polish Wikipedia about long names for Gdansk in the header. As an ignorant foreigner, I thought that Poland had one current capital: Warsaw. I believe your suggestions will confuse casual readers. --Henrygb 01:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Danzig issue

My compromise:

For alternative meanings of Gdansk, see Gdansk (disambiguation).
Gdańsk is the 6th largest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship. German occupiers during WWII called it Danzig. -SV 02:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Except it's wrong. It wasn't called Danzig only during WW2, it used to be a German city for a long period of time. Ausir 12:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's a completely ridiculous "compromise." C.f. [4], anticipating the German occupiers by 28 years. john k 15:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Only 49 (+ 6 during Nazi occupation) years out of over a thousand years of it's history.Space Cadet 12:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, come off it. At the very least you have to add in the 78 years when it was part of Prussia and the 19 years of the free city if you want to be at all honest. And why do you consistently ignore the fact that the city was inhabited by Germans for hundreds of years before 1793, probably since at least the 14th century or so. A little intellectual honesty would help you tremendously in making your case. john k 15:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A completely ridiculous proposal. How about "Polish occupiers after WWII called it Gdansk?

Danzig has been a predominantly German city since its foundation in 1224. In 1923 it had a population of 97,6 % Germans and less than 2 % Poles. After the First World War Germany was forced to accept that the German city of Danzig became a Free City under the overlordship of the League of Nations, called Freie Stadt Danzig. The city became again part of Germany in 1939 because the elected parliament - the Volkstag of Danzig - wanted reunification. After the war it was occupied by Stalin and his Polish stalinist puppet regime (People's Republic of Poland) and the German majority population, nearly the entire city's population, which had lived there for around thousand years, brutally slaughtered or expelled. Burschenschafter

I won't even address this nonsense. I always thought the annexation happened because Germany invaded. No Nazis on Wikipedia! john k 15:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Pardon, which nonsense? The elected parliament of Danzig strove for reunification with Germany during most of the 30'ies. Germany liberated a German city which wanted to be liberated and again be part of the nation, that's it. Your (and PolishPoliticians') habit of name calling is inappropriate. Burschenschafter
The Danzig government was run by the Nazis "during most of the 30s". Indeed, the Danzigers wanted to be part of Germany again, but you're certainly not helping your case by spouting Nazi propaganda. And comparing me to PolishPoliticians is ridiculous - he's constantly accusing me of being a Nazi because I think that the name Danzig should be used in the article. But you're only making that less likely by pretending that what happened in 1939 was a "liberation". john k 22:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If the liberation was not a liberation, what do you think it was? Isn't the opinion of the people of Danzig important at all? Do they not have a right to decide to which country they belong just because the city was occupied by foreign powers after the first world war? At least Danzig was a German city which officially wanted to be reunified with Germany - while the "liberated" Iraq certainly not wanted to be ruled by your Mr. Bush. You also fail to see the difference between national conservatism and nazism, which have been opposed to each other at least since Stauffenberg. Thus you are actually helping the Nazi case. And just because Mr. Polish accuses you of being a Nazi, I see no reason that you also should turn out to accuse everyone else of being it. It is childish, and it does certainly not help your case. Burschenschafter
What makes you think I like Mr. Bush? Also, one might note that the Danzig government was dominated by Nazis - it had a Nazi President of the Senate from June 1933 (or November 1934, if you don't want to count Rauschning). Certainly, non-Nazi German nationalist sentiment also wanted Danzig back. Furthermore, in what sense is it a "liberation" to annex an independent city-state? Was the Anschluss also a liberation? The use of the term "liberation" also is ridiculous when considering (as you don't seem to) that the reannexation of Danzig by Germany was accompanied by a German conquest of most of Poland, and by rather horribly brutal policies there. As to "national conservatism", it was "national conservatives" who allowed Hitler to come to power, because they agreed with many of his ideas and foolishly thought they could use his popularity to their own advantage. A more short-sighted, despicable bunch than the Kamarilla around Hindenburg would be hard to find. That a few people of this viewpoint later decided they had made a terrible mistake, and that Hitler was a monster, is to their credit. But Stauffenberg, et al's courage does not absolve more important personages like, say, Franz von Papen or Field Marshal Hindenburg from responsibility for the Nazis. At any rate, the general opinion in the years since World War II has been that German nationalism of the old Prussian style was irrevocably tainted by the horrifying legacy of the Nazi Period. That you are so unwilling to accept this fifty year old judgment is disturbing. At any rate, I'm certainly not against saying that people in Danzig wanted to be part of Germany again during the whole Free City period. But what you want is to enshrine this POV (a POV which is generally seen to be discredited by Nazism) in the narrative voice of the article. This is just unacceptable. john k 16:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You might very well note that the Danzig government was dominated by Nazis, but on the other hand, I might also note that the current American government is dominated by Republicans (and we know what they are doing, on Guantanamo or in Iraq), that the Labour now is governing the UK and the government of Israel is dominated by zionists like Sharon. And that the government of the Soviet Union was dominated by stalinists. So what? Did the Danzigers not have the right to elect the government they wanted? Who should have elected the government of the city? You?
The presence of a Nazi government in Danzig had only a moderate amount to do with popular will, and a lot to do with the willingness of your "National Conservatives" to enter into deals with the Nazis. At any rate, surely you are not arguing that any government which comes to power through quasi-popular means is thus legitimate, and all its nationalistic demands deserve to be respected? john k 20:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I respect that the Bush regime is the legitimate government of the US, even if he wasn't actually elected in a way Europeans like me consider fair. I respect the government of Danzig as legitimate as well, even if I personally do not like the Nazis. Burschenschafter
It was a liberation in the sense that Danzig constituted a rightful part of Germany, just like Berlin, Hamburg, Breslau, Frankfurt/Main, Königsberg or München (or Mannheim!), which was only occupied by foreign powers for a short period between the two wars, and which wanted to be reunified with the nation. I'm sure New York would wish to return to the US if the city had come in the position of Danzig in case the US lost the Iraq war. Or London to the UK, for that sake.
Why on earth was it a "rightful part of Germany"? In what sense? Germany had given up its territorial claims to Danzig by the Treaty of Versailles. So only in the sense of "national self-determination." I suppose one is free to believe in such, but that's certainly a POV. At any rate, do you feel the same way about, say, Poznan? john k 20:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Danzig had: a clear majority of German population, the population and its government wanted to be reunified with Germany, and Germany had no choice after the first world war and signed the treaty only under protest (in fact, the treaty was signed by military leaders from the General Staff). Why on earth should Danzig not be part of Germany? Tell me, I'm curious! Burschenschafter
It's not up to you to decide what is "unacceptable" or "discredited by Nazism". It may be the general opinion of you, but it is not the general opinion of me, or among German conservatives. There are many national conservatives in Germany. For instance, in the army, the majority of the soldiers and officers are national conservatives, they have found out. I'm proud to be a patriot and a national conservative "of the old Prussian style", just like many Americans are proud to be patriots and neocons and so forth. German patriots have the same legitimate right to use the word liberation as the American government has to use it in regard to Iraq and in other contexts - which they do extremely frequently.
Well, I don't want to get into the intricacies of what German people think, a subject with which I am no expert. But all major German political parties have officially rejected such forms of nationalism. I don't think any post-war West German government laid claim to Gdansk, and since 1971, they've all renounced any claims to the former eastern territories lost after the war. john k 20:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The national conservatives are an important group within the CDU/CSU. The government didn't renounce any claims before 1990, and only because they were forced to do it. This caused outrage among many CDU/CSU voters and within the parties. And the organisations of the expellees haven't renounced any claims at all and have no plans to do it. They represent 2 million members. Burschenschafter
Concerning Stauffenberg, let me remind you that the Nazis took a horrible and brutal revenge against the national conservatives in the Wehrmacht and killed thousands of officers, including some of the most distinguished, after the failed plot. After this, there was no support for Nazism among national conservatives. The Nazis were for the national conservatives the political enemy which were destroying the country.
Eventually...although a lot of your "national Conservatives" remained loyal to the end - Most of the military hierarchy, after all, did not join in the coup attempt. I agree that the coup attempt was a noble failure. But that doesn't excuse the fact that it was these very same groups who had helped bring Hitler to power in the first place, and at a time when his popularity was rapidly declining. john k 20:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, come on! This is ridiculous. Left-wings in Europe generally supported Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their likes. They couldn't know. The Russians gave the power to Stalin, who killed at least 20 million and ethnically cleansed large parts of Europe. The communists are even still represented in the parliament of Russia. Burschenschafter
And, what I wished was basically to respond to the "compromise" proposal by SV above, nothing else for now. Burschenschafter
Well, we do agree that SV's proposal is ridiculous, certainly. But I suspect I'd equally object to any proposed compromise coming from you... john k 20:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why? I'm pragmatic. I'd be happy with "German: Danzig" (bolded!) or "formerly Danzig" and Danzig used in all references when the city was known and is known as Danzig in English (prior to 1945/46). Also, that it was formerly an overwhelmingly German city needs to be mentioned in the introduction. Burschenschafter
The point about Gdansk and Danzig in the title and introduction is not whether the city was populated or ruled by German speakers or Polish speakers, nor what good or evil things they may have done to each other, but whether it is and was called Gdansk or Danzig in significant English language references which casual readers might want to look up in the English language Wikipedia. My opinion is that it is called Gdansk in English - so Gdansk is the title and in the first words of the introduction (being an English speaker, I don't care whether it has a diacritic or not in the introduction, because I ignore such things), and it was called Danzig in English for important parts of its history (and for centuries, but that is less significant), so Danzig needs to be early in the introduction too. --Henrygb 15:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Henry, I agree, although I'd note that not only was Gdansk called Danzig in English for important parts of its history, but it is still called Danzig in English when discussing those periods of history. For instance, just about any history book written today on the origins of the Second World War will still use "Danzig". john k 15:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

szopen's proposition

I am on vacation now. My only access to internet is in my work, and - of course - normal people are NOT going to work when on vacation. My wife made this absolutely clear. In fact, i'm affraid my life would be in danger if she would only knew why i came here :)

Anyway, that means that there would be another week before i could participate in any discussion. But i wanted to made a simple, modest proposition: a lot, and I mean a LOT of articles deals with people born in Danzig/Gdansk etc. And I am affraid that despite of compromise made with a lot of efforts those articles will be subject of endless revert wars every time when some new person will discover wikipedia. They of course would after some time find the compromise, stop behaving the radical way and respect the compromise, but while some may find repeating that process in some weird way amusing, i am not one of that persons. Well, i - as all Poles - i DO like arguing, but not that much.

Therefore, what you would think about creating simple message attached to every article dealing with cities from Royal Prussia, not only Danzig/Gdansk, saying something like that:

The question on using proper names for cities from region of Royal Prussia was object of long debate amongst wikipedians (E.g. whether someone was born in Danzig or in Gdansk). After many endless wars the compromise in form of "..." was made. Before you will start editing the article, please read what's in the _compromise_. You could also be interested in _debate_ about status of Royal Prussia and Danzig/Gdansk. (_links_ are _underlined_)

That way the newcomer will see that THERE IS worked out solution and maybe will stop to start new revert wars. In linked articles they could learn about compromise and arguments of all sides. It ain't pretty, it ain't perfect, but it would work. And in article itself the standard could be: first time in artcile when name appears, most controversial names appear in form Danzig/Gdansk, later the name most used in historical period is used. What do you think? - Szopen

I don't think such a message should be in the article itself - could it be one of those no-show up things that come up when you edit? john k 11:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could be, plus see also in the bottom?Szopen 12:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. By the way, did you see that in Talk:Vilnius we were discussing the possibility of coming up with a more comprehensive way of dealing with this issue (although, I think, talking more about how to refer to places in their own article than how to do so in other articles)? Unfortunately, nobody's actually started up the discussion - I was kind of waiting on Halibutt, but maybe I should just start up with it. john k 12:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do start. Halibutt 19:06, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've started discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). john k 22:23, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk, not Danzig

The question of how to refer to the city is clear, its Gdansk. The person who said that current history books refer to it as Danzig has outdated textbooks. Nowhere do I see it called anything but Gdansk in my history books. The anti-communist protests started in "Gdansk", the solidarity movement began at the "Gdansk" shipyards, Lech Walesa was from "Gdansk", and so on. I will admit that if you are refering to the city in a historical context (especially in the interwar period) then Danzig is appropriate. But this article is supposed to be on the current status of the city, not a 19th Century historical perspective, and so with 99% of the people there being Polish only Gdansk makes sense. Katarzyna 10:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But I suppose you agree that when 97,6 % of the population were Germans, only Danzig makes sense? Burschenschafter
I don't know if the city was ever 97,6% German, but certainly I have no objection to it being refered to as Danzig in a historical context (i.e. when it was a part of Prussia.) Just be sure to call Leipzig and Dresden by their slavic names of Lipsk and Drezno when they were founded and ruled by Sorbs. Katarzyna 18:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Danzig had a population of 97,6 % Germans in 1923. And, can you prove that Leipzig or Dresden have ever been referred to as Lipsk or Drezno in English? Burschenschafter

I think you are misunderstanding. Current history books refer to the city as it existed before 1945 as "Danzig". "Gdansk" is, I think, pretty much universally used now to refer to the city since 1945. Nobody is disagreeing that "Gdansk" should be used to refer to the city since 1945, and at the present time. The question is what name to use when referring to the city in earlier periods, in this article and elsewhere. I have said that I think it should be called Danzig in those periods when it is appropriate to do so. Nobody is saying that the city today should be called "Danzig." I hope this clears things up. john k 12:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My main concern is with the implied assumption by some on here that it should be refered to as Danzig in English. I went to the library (here in Chicago) and in the seven world atlases I looked at none of them had Danzig in the index. The Atlas of World History by Oxford had a reference to Danzig, but it said "see Gdansk." So I am simply saying that in English, in all sorts of references, the city is called Gdansk. The current clarification at the begininng of the article : Gdansk (German: Danzig) is sufficient. Katarzyna 18:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But nobody (besides Burschenschafter, maybe), is saying that we should not refer to it as Gdansk. We're saying (what you have already agreed to, I think), that it should be called Danzig when referring to it at earlier time periods. In terms of (German: Danzig), I'd personally prefer (formerly Danzig), but I'm getting to the point of not especially caring. Just as long as we don't have PolishPoliticians's ridiculousness. john k 20:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No worries, I don't go around calling ppl Nazis. :-) Katarzyna 22:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Danzig is not listed because it is the German name, but because it is the former English name, which is used to refer to the city prior to 1946 during a millennium of German history (in fact, Danzig was used until the 70ies or so in English, so it should possibly be used some longer here as well). Burschenschafter
Everyone agrees that the city is Gdansk, so what's the problem? Wouldn't a rose by any other name smell just as sweet? Germans wanna call it stink flower, fine by me. Katarzyna 22:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Everybody (well, almost everybody) agrees that the city is NOW Gdansk, but there are many Polish nationalists who refuse to accept that the city could ever have been called anything but Gdansk, and repeatedly revert any attempt to call it Danzig in historical context. RickK 23:08, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
I am entirelly aware that Danzig used to be the name used by majority of Gdansk's population for centuries. But there was lots of discussions about that and a temporary compromise was worked out. If you want to spoil it, it is fine for me. In efect the PRESENT ENGLISH name will be used throught the all articles. It is funny, that such problems do not exists in articles about former Polish cities which belong to present day Ukraine, Lithuania and Belarus and discourse between Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Belarusian users can be kept is CIVILISED manner. It is interesting that ONLY edit war in in that area was started by German user. Maybe some German users should learn how behave in civilised manner before they will start edit anything.Yeti 23:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Very nicely put Yeti, it seems obvious that it's not the Polish that are the problem here, it's the "german nationalists." Katarzyna 04:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk History Lesson

I'm getting sick of reading all this German nationalist crap on here on how Gdansk is a German city. I don't care what kinda makebelieve world you live in, but your revisionist-history doesn't float with me. You can't just make up facts and hope that nobody sees through your bull. Here are the internationally recognized facts:

1) Origins of Gdansk are uncertain, but it was first mentioned in 997 AD as "Gdansk," capitol of the Slavic Pomorskie Kingdom.
2) Until 1308 (310 years) it was a fief of the Polish Crown as Gdansk.
3) 1308 is was annexed by the Knights of the Teutonic Order (Germans).
4) 1361 (50 years later) its rule was ceded to the Hanseatic League, which vassalized it back to the Polish Kingdom (for protection).
5) 1466 (100 years later) it was annexed by the Polish Crown.
6) 1793 (330 years later) it was annexed by Prussia as a result of the Third Partition of Poland.
7) 1918 (130 years later) it was made a "free city" by the League of Nations mandate as "Danzig free port".
8) 1945 (30 years later) it was made part of Poland again.
9) 2004 (60 years later) its still called Gdansk, both in Poland and around the world.

So there is over 800 years of documented Polish Gdansk, and only 180 years of documented German "Danzig." Therefore Gdansk is the only reasonable name, both current and in historical reference. The only time "Danzig" is appropriate is in the interwar historical "free port" context, but this is not what the Germans are bitching about. I don't care that Germans call it "Danzig" in Germany, just as I don't care what Zimbabweans call it in Zimbabwe. Internationally it's Gdansk, historically its Gdansk, deal with it! The current clarification "Gdansk (German: Danzig)" is sufficient. I thought this issue was already settled??? Katarzyna 04:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also thought this issue was already settled. Looking at this and the article History of Gdansk, the city spent much of the interesting part of its life either as a Hanseatic League port, or either in or next to the Duchy/Kingdom of Prussia. Hanse traders in London almost certainly provided its name to the people they traded with. You haven't shown anything to suggest that historically it's not Danzig in English. --Henrygb 11:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That looks to me like 637 years as "Danzig" (1308-1945)...this is certainly the customary usage in English. john k 12:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why 1466-1792 it should be Danzig? It was part of Polish kingdom then. Szopen 08:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think it has been already explained: Danzig was not used in English for 600 years, but barely for about 150 years. Before end of 18th century name od Gdansk was spelled in many ways, usually in Low German mode: Dantzik.

And I'm getting sick of the Polish-nationalist revisionist history here. Danzig, the city, was founded in 1224 by Germans and it was inhabited predominantly by Germans until the city was occupied by Stalin in 1945. During the parts of its history when it was formally under the Polish(-Lithuanian) protection it was de facto an independent city-state and still known as Danzig (by itself and in the English-speaking world) and inhabited predominantly by Germans. This was long time before there existed a state called "Germany", but the Germans still lived in Eastern Europe as Germans. Polish (or Lithuanian, for that sake) claims to a city where it used to live 2 % Poles is ridiculous. There are a lot more Germans in New York. Burschenschafter

Where do you get the 1224 date? john k

1224 is when already existing Gdansk received German laws (e.g. was relocated). Many Polish cities were relocated, and the date of receiving new sets of privileges (German or Magdeburg law) was widely used by German nationalist historians in XIX history as the date of "founding" the city.
Note it does not mean the city didn't exist before, or even that Germans weren't present there before. It merely a point in history when it, i believe, receieved Magdeburg rights.
Also in history It was not predominantly inhabited by Germans. In early periods the elite was German, but there were exclusively Slavic district. It should be noted also, that in 1308 massacre most of killed civilians were in fact German speakers. And in uprisings against Teutons the insurgents were screaming "Krakow, Krakow!"
About Danzig being independent state: no, it wasn;t. As i wrote before, the leaders of independent state are not arrested and tried because they are refusing to open the gates to foreign commission. The independent state status is not regulated by foreign parliament. Danzig/Gdansk had large authonomy, but it was part of Polish kingdom. Anyway, i've posted the link to my proposed page of explaining Gdansk status on your talk page. You have ignored it, so what is the point to discuss it here, ignoring my arguments, huh? Szopen 08:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The city's early history is very similar to that of Kraków. In the early middle ages the stronghold (Wawel) was founded by the local Slavic tribes, but the city was settled mostly with colonists and tradesmen from Germany. It was a Hanseatic city and populated predominantly with Germans and Czechs (more or less, remember that it's the middle ages we're talking about). And now the funny part for all the German contributors here: the German population has been brutally slaughtered by Poles under Ladislaus the Short. So, should we refer to Kraków as Krakau before 14th century? Halibutt 19:04, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
An amusing thought...however, English usage should predominate...and the city is normally Cracow in English (of which Cracow is a close enough approximation that I don't really care)...

What's so funny about the brutally slaughtered Germans?Rübezahl 19:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

it's vaguely amusing, I think, as much as any medieval massacre can be in the context of disputes over usage of geographical names in encyclopedia articles. john k 23:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What's so funny? The massacre proves the point of Nico: these lands have been populated by Germans since the beginning of history and the Germans were slaughtered by the barbaric Poles. In this very case this is true. All is true, as the poet said. Don't you find it funny? Halibutt 01:09, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Arguing with you ppl is a waste of time, I've said what I have to say and thats that. Gdansk is Gdansk and that's what was agreed it should be called on here. I'm not going to beat a dead hoarse (although I hear you German guys are into that sort of thing). Katarzyna 01:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Let's just adopt a common standard for all town articles for Polish towns that were once part of the Prussian/German occupation:

(Current Polish name) + (former German name GermanName, see also other names) if there is an entry in the Alternate Names article, or (former German name GermanName) if there isn't. Bwood 03:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naming of city in early modern times

I think, given the recent edit wars, we need to return to discussion of what the city should be called during the period from 1454 to 1793 when it was part of the Polish Commonwealth as a largely self-governing city-state inhabited mostly by Germans. This seems to be at the root of most of the controversy here. As I've stated before, I'd prefer that we use Danzig for this period, but this was never agreed upon as a consensus position, and, indeed, various contributors argued strongly against such a policy. Of course, this was all to be discussed in Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention, but that page seems to be dormant. Perhaps we should all resort to there to try to iron something out... john k 19:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

River names

I agree with Halibutt: Halibutt (German names of the rivers belong to those rivers' articles, not here. Otherwise we'd have to give alternative German words for all names in this article.) " Bwood 03:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

German name in bold

John, please justify your position that the German name *has* to be bold. I've been spearheading a drive to make all articles about current Polish communities that were under Prussian/German control use a standard format, that has been agreed to be a majority of Wiki contributors. I would ask for a strong reason to deviate from the standard, otherwise we have eternal edit wars. Bwood 13:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where was the discussion where this was agreed to? At any rate, alternate names that readers would commonly come across are bolded in nearly every other context. Why on earth shouldn't they be bolded in the case of Polish cities? john k 00:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)