Jump to content

Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


== City State == church records- Kirchenbuch (centuries of legal records of citizens born in Danzig): http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=topicdetails&subject=352724&subject_disp=Germany%2C+Preu%C3%9Fen%2C+Westpreu%C3%9Fen%2C+Danzig+%2D+Church+records&columns=*,0,0


was founded as a city in 1224 and the official seal of the city from 1224 states: SIGILUM BURGENSIUM DANTZIKE . There were earlier settlements in the area.

You are wrong. Gdansk was founded as a city in 10th century (first menstion 997).


Polish names of Polish cities debate

Except just a few of Polish cities that have a commonly accepted English name like Warsaw, Cracow/Krakow and Poznan) all other cities should be named after their native or official Polish name. Usage of German names of Polish cities in English vikipedia is unaaceptable. CC, 21:07, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words Use English words Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

Vandalism is vandalizing the article, removing the formatting of Danzig and changing Danzig to Gdansk when the city was known as Danzig. He is also trying to change the interwiki links to Gdansk, although the actual versions (eg. the sv: and no:) uses Danzig as the first form. has also been on the scandinavian wikis, trying to rename the article into Gdansk, and he has been reverted on them. I ask someone to protect this page. Nico 16:23, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico is a well known and annoying silling (to avoid the word vandal) introducing German names to all Polish cities and provinces occupied by Germany in the past - CC 22:00, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico is vandalizing this and many other articles

Well, You are vandalizing this and many other articles, by changing Polish names to German, whether the cities were known under German names or not. (Kind of like what you used to do with "Warshau"). Stop calling everybody, who doesn't share your pathologically "germanophilic" tendencies (actually most German contributors don't) a vandal.
BTW, a revisionist, as the name suggests, means someone who wants to revise, modify. For example: German revisionists (and you're not one of them, clearly, judging by your lack of knowledge of the basics, more of a "wannabe", or pretend-to-be) want to revise the Oder Neisse border with Poland. Now, none of the contributors, who revert your edits express any desire to change, modify or revise the current status quo, so calling them Polish revisionists is as nonsensical, as most of your "contributions". "Polish preservists", would be more truthful, but I don't really think you want to be truthful, as long as you can jump to call people some negative sounding names. I will probably soon see my name next to some juicy epithet like "a known vandal", "germanophobic fanatic", "Polish chauvinist" or such.
Looking forward to one of your usual creatively, accusingly insulting responses!
Space Cadet 15:13, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected this page as an edit war of the naming of inter-wiki links is farcical. What do you really want to achieve by this? Secretlondon 16:27, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

I've just checked: Nico's version points to interlanguage links via redirects, which is fine - none of them are broken links. Martin 21:15, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The links should point to the actual articles. --Wik 21:27, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC) is trying to change interwiki links to Gdansk, although the actual articles, eg. sv: and no:, uses Danzig as the first form. He has also removed the bold formatting of Danzig in the introduction. Probably he is the same as Kommiec, who have tried that before. Nico 21:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
We have lots of links on Wikipedia that go via redirects. Many redirects were expressly created for the purposes of making linking easy. It is hardly ridiculous to use them to make linking easy. Martin 21:36, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That hardly applies to this case, or to interwiki links in general. --Wik 21:44, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

Nico is a well known and annoying silling (to avoid the word vandal) introducing German names to all Polish cities and provinces occupied by Germany in the past - CC, 22:00, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Can a sysop add an interwiki link [[fr:Gdansk]] ? Thanks. --Youssef 11:57, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done. --Delirium 12:01, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. --Youssef 12:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Prehistory of Gdansk

I just read that archeologist found the remains from the cities, located on area of Gdansk. Gdansk was the place of many settlements, placed on dry "islands" between swampy areas.

One of those, located on area of todays Rathaus, was dated on between 915-930, but later discontinued. Another one (area of todays Restaurant Kubicki), dated on 1052-1054, burned down around 1100, was the place of future Teutonic Order castle. Could you please add those dates to the article?


The current protected form of this article is unacceptable. The city should be referred to as Danzig before 1945, since that was the name in use both by its citizens and by English-speakers (and which is still used by English-speakers to refer to the city at that time.) Danzig should also be bolded in the first paragraph. john 04:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The current version is by IP . See Daniel Quinlan's complaint against this person at the problem users page. Nico 05:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, it should be referred to as Gdansk, even before 1945.

  • The city belonged to Poland for the most part of it's history from the foundation in 990'ties to present day.
  • 990 - 1308: Poland
  • 1466 - 1793: Poland
  • 1945 - present: Poland
  • It belonged to Germany only twice: 1871 - 1918, and 1939 - 1945.
  • the country of Cote d'Ivoire is no longer referred to officially as "Ivory Coast", even when dealing with it's history when the official name was "Ivory Coast". This also shows how stupid is the point that "Danzig sounds more English". It doesn't matter, because "Ivory Coast" sounds way more English, than "Cote d'Ivoire".
  • The XIXth century, falsified, anti-Polish version of history, which was official and politically correct during the Cold War, is not official now!

Space Cadet 14:46, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry but in English it was called Danzig. I don't believe the English language to be institutionally anti-Polish, although I admit to finding the desire to turn bits of English into Polish somewhat annoying. Secretlondon 14:53, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

No it was called Gydanczyk. Gdansk is Gdansk through out its history it was Polish for 85% of it. And if you look at the Royal Society in London and look under Gabriel Fahrenheit you would see he wrote down Gydanczyk and Polonus as his birth Place and Nationality. I hope this germanization of Poland will stop one day or I will start renaming Berlin and the other citys to their slavic names and put it in bold and see how everybody likes it. 14:58, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sigh. Firstly, the dishonesty of some of this is quite irritating. Yeah, it was only part of "Germany" from 1871 to 1920, and again from 1939 to 1945. But it was part of the German state of Prussia from 1793 to 1871 (possibly with a break between 1807 and 1813 - I can't recall), and was a largely German-speaking free city between 1920 and 1939. Further, it was ruled by the German-speaking Teutonic Knights in the 14th and 15th centuries, and was at least partly Germanized for centuries thereafter. And for all that time, the standard name in English was, and has been, "Danzig" (or, at least, it has been since standardized spelling developed in the late 17th/early 18th centuries). Neither "Gydanczyk" nor "Dantsk" brings up any Google hits, by the way. The Ivory Coast/Cote d'Ivoire comparison doesn't work. Among other things, during the 19th and 20th centuries, not only did English-speakers call the city Danzig, but that is what it called itself. Cote d'Ivoire has always called itself Cote d'Ivoire. At any rate, for the period before 1793, I can live with calling the city Gdansk (although. But for the 1793 to 1945 it should absolutely be called Danzig. The "Free City of Gdansk" is just obscene (especially since as the article is currently phrased, it sounds as though the inhabitants wanted to call it "Danzig" but were not allowed to by the League, when in fact the issue is that they wanted to include "Hanseatic" in the name.) I further wonder how it is that Poles feel they have the ability to dictate English language usage to everybody else. john 16:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sigh, now I'm "dishonest", "irritating" and "arrogant", for trying to calmly reach some mutual understanding, here. Where I'm from, resorting to name calling is considered a sign of immaturity and insecurity, but I don't want to "dictate" anything to the english speaking world.

The "Cote d'Ivoire" does work, because not too long ago, all english-language atlases were refering to it as "Ivory Coast". (I have a RAND McNALLY "New Century World Atlas", published in 1986, in front of me right now).

After the end of the Cold War, the use of German names in English to describe Polish geography became "politically incorrect". The process has been slow, but it's almost complete. If you were not aware of it, I will not call you an ignorant, I will just be happy to share this information with you. You had no way of knowing it, because you haven't religiously reviewed every newly published English atlas, twice a month, for the past 13 years, and I have.

I don't know why you call Prussia before 1871 a "German State". Is it because some parts of the Kingdom of Prussia lied within the so called "Germany proper"? Well, others didn't, and Prussia was a fully independent state.

As far as the Monastic State of the Crossback Knights, they were not conquering any lands for Germany but for themselves. (And if you're picking for details, they were invited to Poland to conquer lands for the Polish Duchy of Masovia).

"Free City of Gdansk" is not obscene, but it is an official english name in 2004. What's going to be the official english name in 2054, I don't know or care. When writing or editing an encyclopedia one has to put emotions and personal bias aside, and, more importantly believe that other contributors are doing their best to do the same.

I wrote a little bit on the "use of german names in enlish to describe Poland" in the "Oder: Talk" page.

Space Cadet 18:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I apologize for any name-calling, first of all. But I continue to be absolutely confused by most of your points. What on earth does "the official english name in 2004" of a state that existed between 1920 and 1939 mean? At the time it was called the "Free City of Danzig". Its citizens called it Danzig, as well. Today, every English-language historian I've ever seen calls it Danzig. Feel free to find examples to the contrary, but I think you'll have a great deal of difficulty. A JSTOR (electronic archive of scholarly journal archives) search on "Danzig" in historical journals brings up more than 200 results. Many of these are quite recent, from the 1990s, and refer to periods long before 1793 (reviews of a book on the Hanse in the 15th and 16th centuries, for instance). There are 87 results for "Gdansk", of which most seem to deal with the period after 1945 (although some deal with the 16th century, seemingly). Ths historian A.J. Prazmowska, whose name sounds to be Polish, refers to Danzig, rather than Gdansk, in his article "Poland's Foreign Policy: September 1938 - September 1939", from 1986. Moving from scholarly to popular sources, "Free City of Gdansk" has 120 results. Some of these are from Wikipedia, and most of the others seem to be sites of Polish origin. "Free City of Danzig" has 2,250 hits. I am not disputing, in any event, that the city is now called "Gdansk". I'm disputing that it's now referred to as "Gdansk" for the period before 1945. This is simply not the case in English. Whether it should be referred to as Gdansk is immaterial. As far as Prussia being a German state before 1871, to try to deny that is where I tend to sense disingenuousness. The King of Prussia was an elector in the holy Roman Empire before its fall, and was the second prince of the Germanic Confederation after 1866. German was the language of the vast majority of his subjects (including, for the most part, the citizens of Danzig). Any number of references at the time would note that Prussia (along with Austria) is referred to as a "German Power". Even many of the parts which were not in the Germanic Confederation were largely German-speaking, like East Prussia or Lower Silesia. Look, I'm not a German nationalist, and I have no problem with the fact that Gdansk is now a Polish city, or that it was originally a Polish city, or whatever. but this seems to be a war against common English usage, and it seems to be based largely on political

A rule to call the city Gdansk for any event before 1793, to call it Danzig between 1793 and 1945 and to call it Gdansk after 1945, such a rule would be extremely confusing. I do not see anything wrong in calling the city Gdansk whenever it is mentioned, independent from context. The name "Danzig" should be mentioned in parentheses once in an article, in order to help readers not knowing the other variant. Completely erasing German names from articles can't be in the interest of our readers. -- Baldhur 19:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I sign with both hands under Baldhur's comment!
Space Cadet 19:47, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Free City of Gdansk is nonsense, and there's absolutely no reason to use that when Danzig is universally used in English. john 20:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Universally"! John, do you personally screen every english publication on the use of Danzig before 1945? I screen every geographical, historical and political publication that shows up in my neighborhood book store. And I can honestly say that you are wrong. It used to be true before 1990, but it isn't today. Remember: politics is not based on logic or common sense. It's "nonsensical" in many ways and I'm glad you noticed it.

Space Cadet 20:37, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Alright, almost universally? "Danzig" is far more common than "Gdansk" when referring to the city before 1945. Wikipedia policy is to use the term more commonly used in English. I have provided several sets of actual examples to back up my argument. You have presented an anecdote about books showing up at your neighborhood bookstore. If we're talking about since 1990, let's try JSTOR again...of articles since 1990, there are 84 articles or reviews mentioning Danzig since 1990. There are only 21 articles referencing "Gdansk", most of them either a) talking about the city after 1945; b) using Gdansk in parentheses, while referring to the city primarily as Danzig; or c) referring to professors who work at the University of Gdansk. I think this shows fairly well that the city continues to largely be referred to as Danzig for the pre-1945 period, certainly in academic discourse. john 21:20, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I wish that the "book store" story was just an anecdote. Unfortunately I was dead serious. And I've been doing the screening for 13 years. That's how paranoid I am. At 1990 the process just barely started, been going slowly, and now in 2003 it is close to completion, so let's resort to 2003 publications. I also would like to apologise for sarcasm, bitter irony and (unintentional) rudeness.
Space Cadet 22:12, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This was just a personal obsession, or was there some point beyond determining how English language publications did it? What I meant by anecdote was that you hadn't actually provided any examples, just an assertion. In any event, could you point to some historical works that use "Gdansk" to refer to the city before 1945? The 21 JSTOR references to Gdansk since 1990 (which only go up to about 1999, since more recent journals are ) are as follows, in order of recentness:

  • Renaissance Quarterly, Autumn, 1999, review of Peter T. Bietenholz's Daniel Zwicker, 1612-1678: Peace, Tolerance and God the One and Only by James M. Stayer: Refers to the city as Gdansk in the 17th century.
  • American Historical Review, Apr. 1999, "The Gender of Resistance in Communist Poland." by Padraic Kenney. Obviously referring to the city since 1945.
  • Journal of Contemporary History, Apr. 1998, "The Soviet Union and the 1956 Crises in Hungary and Poland: Reassessments and New Findings." by Mark Kramer. Obviously referring to the city since 1945
  • History and Theory, Dec. 1997, How Real is the Reality in Documentary Film? by Jill Godmilow and Ann-Louise Shapiro. Referring to the city since 1945
  • Sixteenth Century Journal, Autumn 1997, Review of M. van Tielhof's De Hollandse Graanhandel, 1471-1570, by James D. Tracy. Refers to the city (in the 16th century) as Gdansk (Danzig).
  • The Economic History Review, Aug. 1997, "Early Beginnings of the Quantity Theory of Money and Their Context in Polish and Prussian Monetary Policies, c.1520-1550." by Oliver Volckart. Refers to the city as Danzig (Gdansk).
  • American Historical Review, Apr. 1996, Review of Marek Andrzejewski's Opposition und Widerstand in Danzig: 1933 bis 1939. by Lawrence D. Stokes. Refers to the city as Danzig (today Gdansk).
  • Sixteenth Century Journal, Spring 1996, review of John Kmetz's Music in the German Renaissance: Sources, Styles, and Contexts. by William E. Hettrick. Refers to the city as Danzig, although mentioning that a library from Danzig is still intact in present-day Gdansk.
  • American Historical Review, Feb. 1996, review of F.W. Carter's Trade and Urban Development in Poland: An Economic Geography of Cracow, from Its Origins to 1795, by Gershon David Hundert. Refers to the city as Gdansk in the 18th century.
  • Journal of Modern History, Jun. 1995, review of G.D. Hundert, Sander Gilman, and Steven T. Katz's The Jews in a Polish Private Town: The Case of Opatow in the Eighteenth Century and Artur Eisenbach, Antony Polonsky, Janina Dorosz, and David Sorkin's The Emancipation of the Jews in Poland, 1780-1870, by Michael Stanislawski. Quotes from the first book referring to the city in the 18th century as Gdansk
  • Sixteenth Century Journal, Autumn 1994. Review of Lech Mokrzecki's Zeszyty Naukowe. Pedagogika Historia Wychowania, 22 by D. Darek Jarmola. Refers to the city as "Gdansk" in the 17th century (also mentions a professor at the University of Gdansk).
  • The Historical Journal, Sep. 1994. "No Longer All at Sea? English Baltic Studies." (a review essay) by S.C. Rowell. Refers to a book being printed in Gdansk in 1650.
  • Russian Review, Jul. 1994. "Bukkers, Plows and Lobogreikas: Peasant Acquisition of Agricultural Implements in Russia before 1900." by Leonard G. Friesen. Refers to "Danzig (present day Gdansk).
  • Journal of Military History, Apr. 1993. Review of John Hiden and Thomas Lane's The Baltic and the Outbreak of the Second World War by Anna M. Cienciala. Refers to a professor at the University of Gdansk. The city is specifically referred to as Danzig in the article.
  • Renaissance Quarterly. Spring 1993. "The Diffusion of the Writings of Petrus Ramus in Central Europe, c.1570-c.1630 by Joseph S. Freedman. Notes refer to a book published in Gdansk in 1646.
  • American Historical Review, Dec. 1992. "Collected Essays" (a bibliography).. Quoting a reference to Gdansk in Polish, or some such (not sure due to my inability to read Polish.)
  • Russian Review, Jul. 1992. Review of Irina Reyfman's Vasilii Trediakovsky, the Fool of the "New" Russian Literature. by Margareta O. Thompson. Refers to the 18th century poet Trediakovsky's poem "Ode on the Surrender of the City of Gdansk."
  • Journal of the History of Ideas, Jul-Sep 1991, "A Tale of Two Fishes: Magical Objects in Natural History from Antiquity Through the Scientific Revolution." by Brian P. Copenhaver. Refers to the city as Gdansk in 1609.
  • Modern China, Oct. 1990. "The Chinese Anarchist Critique of Marxism-Leninism" by Paul G. Pickowicz (Review Article). Referring to the city since 1945
  • Sixteenth Century Journal. Summer, 1990. Review of David A. Frick's Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551-1632). by Janusz Pelc. Refers to the city as Gdansk in the sixteenth century.
  • Journal of American History, Jun. 1990. "Culture" by Akira Iriye. Talking about period since 1990.

So, of these 21 references, 6 refer to Gdansk since 1945. 3 more refer to it primarily as Danzig, and only mention that it is now Gdansk. Which means there are only 12 references to the city primarily as Gdansk before 1945. All of these are referring to the period before 1793. There is not a single citation in JSTOR since 1990 which refers to the city as Gdansk for the period between 1793 and 1945. This is compared to 87 articles referring to "Danzig". I'm not going to check through, but I imagine some of these (probably more than 12?) refer to the city before 1793 as Danzig, but I'm not going to fight that battle. I will concede that the city should be referred to as "Gdansk" both before 1793 and after 1945. But in the period in between it should clearly be called Danzig. I don't see why this is so confusing. We have no trouble calling a city St. Petersburg for before 1915 and after 1991, Petrograd between 1915 and 1924, and Leningrad between 1924 and 1991. john 22:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am convinced, with addition that the second name should be mentioned too every time (e.g. Gdansk (known also as Danzig) and Danzig (known also as Gdansk) szopen
And that is the most important thing: Regardless which name you decide to mention, state the other name as well. The real problem is, that some editors want to accept only their preferred variant and want to erase the other variant. If we always mention both names, I consider it less important, which of the names is stated first. -- Baldhur 08:15, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, although that would be rather silly to do in this article, which was my main concern. Basically, for this article I suggest that the city largely be referred to, of course, as Gdansk. That Danzig ought to be bolded at the beginning of the article. And that the city be referred to primarily as Danzig during the parts about 19th and early 20th century history. In particular, we should refer to the Free City of Danzig, not Gdansk. For other articles, I'd say that both names should be mentioned in most articles, and that context should determine which comes first. For instance, Arthur Schopenhauer was born there in 1788. Since he was German, saying he was born in Danzig (Gdansk) makes more sense than the other way around, even though he was born before Gdansk actually became part of Prussia. Does this seem sensible? john 16:25, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Statistics: Danzig in common use in English

  • Searched the web for Danzig: Results: 336,000 (English pages only: 239,000) [1]
  • Searched the web for Gdansk: Results: 399,000 (English pages only: 299,000) [2]

Both names are in common use in English, and Danzig is almost as popular as Gdansk.

When searching for Gyddanyzc, I get 93 results. My conclusion is that Gyddanyzc, Kdansk, Gdanzc, Dantzk, Dantzig, Dantzigk, Dantiscum, Gedanum and Gyddanyzc are NOT in common use in English, while Danzig surely is. When dealing with the pre-1945 period, the pre-1945 English name should be used. Nico 19:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Btw, all this has been discussed before, e.g. here: User talk:InanimateCarbonRod

Please add to the chapter:


Number of universities: 10 (2001) Number of students: 60,436 (2001) Number of graduates: 10,439 (2001)

Since Space Cadet has suggested unprotecting, I thought I'd repeat my suggestions from a month ago: 1) the city be primarily referred to as Gdansk; 2) the name Danzig be bolded in the first paragraph, and perhaps mentioned somewhat earlier than it currently is; and 3) that the city be referred to as Danzig for the period 1793-1945, but otherwise as Gdansk. As I noted earlier, there are no references in JSTOR, which has indexes of most major English-language historical journals up to 1997 or so, to the city being called "Gdansk" during the period highlighted. Whether it should be called Danzig or Gdansk for the period before 1793 is, I think, still an open question, but I'm willing to concede Gdansk for that, since at least some historians seem to do this. What do people think? john 22:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anyone out there? john 05:55, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've unprotected, as this article has been protected for over a month with relatively minor talk page activity in that time (and we shouldn't just keep it protected indefinitely). I'd request that those who make changes try to avoid making huge sweeping changes though, especially on contentious issues.

FWIW, I agree with john's three points above, with an additional caveat that as much effort as possible to explain these issues should be made. Phrases like "Danzig, as it was primarily known in that period, was a center of commerce" are better than "Danzig was a center of commerce", since it explains to the reader why we're using which term when. --Delirium 09:39, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have changed references to "Gdansk" during the period between the late 18th century and 1945 to "Danzig". I've tried to have some transitionary phrases to indicate why I've changed what I'm referring to the city as, but if these are clumsy and offensive to Polish sensitivities, feel free to change them. I do feel very strongly that the city should be called Danzig in this period, and I think this is well supported by arguments I laid out in the discussion above. john 06:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am still following the discussions, but I don't have a strong opinion about this naming issue. The naming is the only contentious point in this article, isn't it? So far I agree with John's changes. -- Baldhur 11:44, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've never suggested that we unprotect the page, or make any major changes to it. Quite the opposite; I suggested that we go through an analogical process here, as in the Silesia article, with discussion, voting, consensus etc. Using the German name, instead of the official English name for the period of time when Poland was not an independent country is absolutely ridiculous. That would mean that every Polish geographical feature woud have a foreign name used for it, when dealing with its history between 1795 - 1919. I'm not making any changes to the article now, without consensus, but I want some kind of the problem analysis on the talk page, first. Remember, we agreed to call Odra by it's German name even for the pre-german period, now let's be consistent.
Changing the subject drastically: Is it me or is User:H.J. back? Let's get her/his input on this one.
Space Cadet 14:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Oder" is, and always has been, the English name for the river. Similarly Danzig is the English name of the city in this period. I've shown (above) that the city is always called Danzig for the 1793-1945 period in English-language historical literature, at least as expressed through JSTOR - all references to Gdansk are either a) in reference to the period since 1945; b) in reference to the fact that the city which is primarily being called Danzig is now called Gdansk; or (more rarely) c) in reference to the 18th century or earlier. I noted this a month ago. You never made any comment in response to these findings. I'd also note that before the page was unprotected, I proposed (again) what I think should be done with the page. You never responded. So, once again, Danzig is the English name for the city before 1945 (although this is, to some extent, changing for the period before the Prussian takeover, which I respected by not changing the city name for the seections discussing its history before that). In particular, to call it "Gdansk" for the 1919-1945 period, when it was a Free City which both called itself Danzig and was universally called Danzig by English-speakers, and which is still universally called Danzig by English-speakers, is absolutely ridiculous. john 14:55, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And you haven't responded to my proposition of coming into consensus through debate and discussion of all interested. You also haven't responded to the question whether we should change every Polish name, for the period dealing with Poland's history between 1795 - 1919. Your "universality" is a sad heritage of fifty years of "Cold War", which is over now, and the official English name for the city in any period of history is now "Gdansk". See the History of Bratislava article for COL, and stop lecturing. This is a an encyclopedia not a venting space for aspiring hobbyists, with their own theories on what's right, what's wrong. "Official English names", even when applied to the past, change for various resons: be it scientific development, political circumstances or so called "political correctness". I would like protection, discussion and uncle ED.
Space Cadet 15:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is fine. We had a debate months ago, and you never responded. I posted a proposal several days ago, and you did not object. the page was unprotected, and I made the changes. At any rate, you still have not shown any evidence that Danzig is not the universally used english name for this period. I did an exhaustive search of JSTOR references to the city since 1990, and there was not one example of the city being called Gdansk for the period under discussion. Whether or not the english language will eventually start calling the city "Gdansk" for this time period, the basic fact is that it does not at the moment. Of course we can have a discussion of this, and try to come to a consensus, although I'm not sure what new there is to say beyond what's already been said. Also, I'm not sure how the use of the name "Danzig" for the period before 1945 can be seen as a legacy of the Cold war. Among other things, the city is universally called "Gdansk" for the period of the Cold War, and for another, the city was universally called Danzig for years before that. Despite the fact that the city is now St. Petersburg, we still call it Leningrad for the 1924-1991 period (and Petrograd from the 1915-1924 period). The city's current name is completely irrelevant to what we should call it for a different period of time. The English convention remains to call it Danzig, and you have cited no evidence that this is not the case. john 15:59, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have you perhaps checked the History of Bratislava article?
Space Cadet 16:05, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, it can hardly be considered an article - it's a timeline, and requires a great deal of work. but I think that it should refer to Pressburg or Pozsony for the period before 1919, which is what most English language historical works do. Especially since, unlike Gdansk, I'm not particularly aware of "Bratislava" ever having been a common name for the city before 1919, when the name was officially changed to Bratislava. Getting back to JSTOR, pretty much all the articles which reference Bratislava refer to the post 1919 period. My position on this is fairly simple - cities should be called by what they're generally called in English for the time period under discussion. So we should use Constantinople for Istanbul before 1922, and so forth. john 16:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Istanbul, Kaliningrad, Leningrad etc are all changed names, names that never existed before. So the analogy is weak, if not non-existent. Since medieval times the city had a german name - Danzig and polish name - Gdansk. English name for the city is now also Gdansk. Calling Koenigsberg Kaliningrad prior to 1945 is an anchronism. Using name Free City Gdansk is not.
Space Cadet 17:12, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bratislava was also a changed name (basically - I guess it was based on vaguely remembered early medieval names, from what the article says), which is why that article is simply a poor article, and not a very good support for your case. As to Gdansk, again, the standard usage in English is to call the Free City "Danzig". It also called itself Danzig, and was called Danzig in English (and most other European languages) at the time. There is not a single historical article in JSTOR which refers to the city as "Danzig" before 1945, as I discussed above, nor have I ever seen a historical work that does so (Taylor might, in Struggle for Mastery, if he discusses Danzig in that book, but he was being purposefully idiosyncratic and thumbing his nose at German people, as he basically admits). john 18:08, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet, you are certainly wrong. The name Gdansk did not exist in English before 1945, so the analogy with St. Petersburg, Istanbul or Königsberg is fine. This is not about Polish language. This is an English encyclopedia, and what Hungarians, Indonesians or Poles called cities in the past does not matter. What does matter, is what their names was in English. Why do you want to erase all German names? -- Nico 23:34, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if it has become common in the English language now to call the city Gdansk throughout its history, this would be a valid argument. For instance, nobody ever wrote Beijing as Beijing in English until relatively recently. But historians generally use it now, rather than Peking, even for periods when this was unknown in English. But this is not the case with Gdansk/Danzig, which historians continue to refer to as "Danzig" before 1945 (and exclusively as Danzig for the 19th and early 20th centuries, so far as I am aware). john 00:36, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Peking and Beijing are just two different transcriptions of the same Chinese name, while Danzig and Gdansk are not transcriptions, but must be seen as different names, although they have a common origin. -- Nico 01:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I suppose. But what about Ratisbon and Regensburg? It used to be conventional to call the city Ratisbon in English. But now we call it Regensburg, including retrospectively. There are certainly other examples of this (Mayence and Mainz, Treves and Trier, for instance). Point is, the appropriate question to ask is what English language historians call the city now for the period under discussion. I would be highly surprised to find any English language histories which refer to the Free City of Gdansk. john 01:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody know why the English name was changed from Danzig to Gdansk and when exactly it happened? Same question with the Danzig Bay. Rübezahl 13:51, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Certainly by Solidarity time in 1980 it was "Gdansk". I'd say the change basically happened in 1945, due to all the Germans being kicked out and replaced by Poles... john 20:13, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not entirely true. Newspaper articles were certainly using "Gdansk", but all encyclopedias and atlases - still "Danzig". And I've never seen the term "Gdansk Bay" before 2001. Rübezahl 14:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

After the sentence "at this time the city became known under its German name of Danzig", it is ridiculous to refer to the city as Gdansk. I propose we use Gdansk before that sentence, and Danzig after it and until (at least) 1945. -- Nico 14:43, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It didn't stop being known as Gdansk, so I don't see how it's ridiculous to call the Polish city by the Polish name. Space Cadet 14:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The inhabitants of the city referred to it as Danzig, and it's too simple to say it was a "Polish city". Furthermore, as long as a standard English name has been in existence, it has been Danzig.

But changing the subject: I also propose we remove Gyddanyzc, Gyddanyzc, Kdansk, Gdanzc, Dantzk, Dantzig, Dantzigk, Dantiscum and Gedanum from the introduction. Those name are not in common use in English, opposite Danzig and Gdansk. Nico 15:56, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now user:Wik is removing the name Danzig totally from the introduction [3]. I would consider that vandalism. -- Nico 16:06, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC). Seems like he's changed his way now. Nico 16:09, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of English. I love German music and Polish math/logic. I think I am entirely neutral (but not precisely "disinterested") in this issue.

I have heard and read both Danzig and Gdansk as the name of this city. I'm fairly sure that both have "currency", i.e., that they are both currently in use.

I don't think there's any point in trying to use the Wikipedia to educate people about the "correct" or "proper" name of the city. There's also no point in changing the page title back and forth. Really, people, no one out there on the web is going to draw any conclusions from the URL or 'title' of the article.

It says right up from that the name is Gdansk (or Danzig), and the first heading is about the origins of the city's name.

If people outside of the Wikipedia community are actively disputing the city's name, then our task is simply to report on that dispute, in the article. Say that Group A prefers (or insists on) this name, while Group B wants that name.

Don't expect Wikipedia to settle this or any other controversy. Live and let live. --Unsolved Equation 16:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) (formerly known as Uncle Ed)

Just as a data point, the English-language postage stamp catalogs all say "Danzig" for the free city, adding "(Gdansk)" in parentheses and smaller print. One of the linked websites here uses the term "Free City of Gdansk", but I haven't seen that used by any philatelic writer in print media. Stan 17:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To Nico:
"Polish city" meaning "within the borders of Poland" - I thought it to be, not just simple, but obvious and self explanatory. What's "too simple", perhaps, is the conviction of how the inhabitants of the city referred to it. None of them are here now to tell the story, but they left a lot of documents, most of them in German amd most of them using the name Danzig. Unfortunately there is a lot of analogical documents in German, with German names for a plethora of cities in former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And not just in Estonia, Latvia and both Prussias, but also in todays Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Romania, most of these cities never having any "German inhabitants". In many historical periods German language was the "lingua franca" in the various regions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and it shouldn't be surprising to anybody.
To the user formerly known as "Uncle Ed":
Space Cadet 18:01, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet, this is all true. But Danzig was a city largely inhabited by Germans before 1945, by all accounts. And they, obviously, called it Danzig. more importantly, English-speakers also called it Danzig, and continue to call it Danzig for that period of time. john 19:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A further point: who calls or has called the city "Gdansk" for the period between its annexation by Prussia and its reversion to Poland in 1945? Obviously the Poles do and did. But beyond this? The Prussian government certainly called it "Danzig". So did its inhabitants, who by all accounts were mostly Germans. Certainly the municipal administration called it Danzig. Moreover, all English language sources at that time would have called it Danzig. I'm not sure we should privilege the name given to it by a non-English language which neither ruled it nor (for the most part) inhabited it. The only post-1945 opinions that matter are those of historians writing about the city before 1945. I think I've shown pretty exhaustively that none of these ever call the city anything but "Danzig" for the time under discussion. So the basis for calling it "Gdansk" for this period rests entirely on the fact that it is part of Poland today and Poles have always called it "Gdansk". This does not seem adequate to me. john 20:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You know, it sounds like a lot of us really care about what various people called this city. Maybe the article should provide more details about which people or groups of people called it Danzig (and when); same for Gdansk. I honestly have trouble remembering the linguistic source of either name. (I guess one is German, the other is Polish?)
Maybe the article could explain why it's so important to those people who have used one term or the other. --Uncle Ed 20:49, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)~ (I solved my equation, so I'm changing my handle back -- hmm, are there implications here? ;-)

To: Nico and Wik Danzig is not an English name. The English names in Central Europe are usually derived from Latin, for example: English: Warmia (German: Ermland), English: Pomerania (German: Pommern). In case of Gdansk there is no such name, so it is used a local name. The first name is obviously Gdansk (it is the first Slavic name recorded already in 997 AD. Before 1945 English speakers usually used the German name: Danzig, because the name of Gdansk was German. At present they usually use the Polish one: Gdansk. However Danzig is not a former name. It is commonly used around the world. But Danzig is not a fromer name. It is still commonly used.

Stop this stupid war.It is so childish. -- Yeti

to Ed: Actually I do not understand myself why this question is so extremely important. We all agree that both names should be stated at least once in an article, and now the only remaining question is, in which order they should appear or if one of the names should be called either a "former" or an "alternative" name.
to Nico and Rübezahl: I do not think that there is something like an "official english name". There is (to the best of my knowledge) no committee deciding what a city has to be called. It is just a question of habit.
to everyone: If I understand this correctly, Gdansk was the original name of the city (or a similar name), and it is the present name. Now we know that there are a lot of people outside that never heard of the name Gdansk bot only of Danzig. You may call them ignorant, but for them we state once in the introduction, that Gdansk and Danzig may be used synonymously, and it should be written in bold, so that everybody knows this before reading on. Afterwards it should be sufficient to mention the name "Gdansk" only.
This is different from Saint Petersburg or Chemnitz because these cities actually changed their names at a fixed point of time. Gdansk did not; the Polish name had been in use by at least some people throughout the time when other people used to call the city Danzig.
I still think that it is somewhat confusing to begin calling the city Gdansk in this article, then suddenly Danzig (from 17th to 20th century), and then Danzig again. It would be less confusing to use one name throughout the article. (Of course it is okay to have a sentence like "At this time the city became also known under its German name Danzig".)
Please regard this as a statement by someone who does not have a very strong opinion about this issue. I really would not mind if we would decide to do everything the other way round (but that would of course be strongly opposed). What I do mind is permanent edit wars making the edit history unreadable. Of course there is no reasonable chance to convince Wik of the uselessness of edit wars.
In the Silesia conflict it was possible to write a neutral article because there was a middle course between two extremes. Here we only have one alternative or the other. That makes this issue so difficult. What can we do? Should we appoint a neutral arbitrator who decides how the city shall be called at which point of time? Should we vote? Or how do we proceed? -- Baldhur 09:25, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gdańsk is not the "original" name more than Danzig. Both Gdańsk and Danzig are variants of the same name, that means, variants of the original name. It is also irrelevant that some Polish people used Gdańsk when the English name of the city was Danzig. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Polish. It would be correct to use the Polish name even when the official one was Danzig at the Polish Wikipedia, and only list the German once, but not here. Danzig has certainly been the standard English name until 1945 - actually also commonly used at least until the fall of the communist dictatorship, and still used by many people. It is not less English because it is not "translated". Silesia is a Latin name, but it's still (also) an English name.

It is - and will remain - completely unacceptable to call the city Gdańsk when it was Danzig in English. -- Nico 14:03, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for teaching me about the nature of this Wikipedia, Nico. I will try to remember that this is the English Wikipedia and not the Polish one.
After you had the opportunity to repeat your same arguments for the thousandth time, would you please tell me, why it is completely unacceptable? Do you feel personally offended by the usage of that name? What is the true reason for this unaccomodating insistence on an outdated name? -- Baldhur 14:30, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please calm down. When we are dealing with the Danzig period, the name is not outdated, not more than Königsberg is for the Königsberg period. The fact that it is still used in English, even almost as popular as the Polish name (see above) showes that it isn't outdated in English even now. And, yes, I feel it very offending that people, even here at the English Wikipedia, try to erase all German names and is continuing the Polish war on German names and culture, which began in 1945 by erasing German names and heritage sites in Danzig as well as other parts of the occupied eastern Germany.

Referring to the city as Danzig 1793-1945 and Gdańsk before and after that seems like a fair and even generous compromise in my opinion. Nico 20:50, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: " the Polish name had been in use by at least some people throughout the time when other people used to call the city Danzig."

Baldhur, feel free to visit the Bund der Deutschen Minderheit in Danzig: http://www.dfk-danzig.com/ -- Nico 21:16, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Polish war on German culture?? Okay, now I see your point of view. You and the likes of you try to tell us a history beginning in 1945. You are constantly ignoring that there was a history before 1945. You should be ashamed of your words, and I am ashamed of taking your sides in previous disputes. -- Baldhur 22:20, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Why should I be ashamed? I haven't done anything wrong, not before 1945 nor after it. Danzig has been a German city (meaning inhabited by Germans) for hundreds of years. In any event, I cannot remember you ever took my side in a previous conflict. Your comments on my last changes on Silesia were quite unfriendly. -- Nico 00:14, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, Nico clearly has an agenda here, and it is, at least, a divisive one. But that doesn't mean that he's wrong about this particular issue. The basic fact remains that the city is generally called "Danzig" in English when discussing it before 1945, and is exclusively called "Danzig" for the period between 1793 and 1945. In partiuclar, calling a country which called itself and is always called in English the "Free City of Danzig" the "Free City of Gdansk" simply because the people who inhabit that city today call the city Gdansk is utterly ridiculous. At any rate, as far as calling it one thing, then another, then back to the first, I agree this is less than ideal. I'd say it would make more sense just to call it Danzig, or, at least, to call it Danzig for the time between when the Teutonic Knights massacred the original inhabitants and replaced them with Germans until 1945, which would perhaps provide clearer markers, and correspond more closely to the general English usage, but I proposed 1793 as the cut-off because I think it's undeniable that the city is absolutely never called Gdansk between 1793 and 1945 (in English). john 00:32, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Displaced Persons, BdV, Geneva Convention and polish claims to Danzig

His opinion about the naming is legitimate, but I was quite upset about phrases like "Polish war on German culture" or "occupied eastern Germany". These phrases show a backward way of thinking that would be very dangerous if it would be shared by a larger set of people. But that is nothing to do with this discussion. By the way, I would suggest moving the vote down, so that more visitors could find it. -- Baldhur 19:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Now, wasn't eastern Germany occupied after the war? Then what happened to the areas? Did they disappear? And do you deny that German names and heritage sites was systematically erased in Danzig (and other places)? Caius2ga even said it: "it is a matter of honour to erase any German name". Shouldn't we be upset about that? And btw, I'm a conservative monarchist and a loyal Prussian, there is nothing wrong or "dangerous" with that. -- Nico 00:13, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, what happened to the areas: They became Polish, and they are part of Poland due to international treaties that are accepted and signed by Germany. They are not "occupied eastern Germany", just as the Greek mainland is not "occupied western Turkey". Secondly, I did not meet a "Prussian monarchist" yet, and I did not know that someone calling himself so exists in the 21st century; but the fact that Caius2ga was obnoxious does not necessarily mean that I have to love the opposite extreme. -- Baldhur 09:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think you should be ashamed of your words. Your comparison with Greek mainland is ridiculous, and you show little respect for people who were the victims of ethnic cleansing, expulsion from their homeland and war crimes. According to international law, eastern Germany must be considered rightfully German. The Geneva protocols states: It is illegal to permanently keep land militarily taken over [...] and to expel and to replace the inhabitants. The areas were occupied, and (the Bundesrepublik) Germany officially considered the areas "occupied" for many years. Furthermore, many Germans, for instance BdV, does not recognize Polish claims on German territories. Many MPs voted against Oder-Neisse, and is still against it. It is of course my hope that those territories will be, at least partly, returned to whom they belong once in the future. The inclusion of Poland this year in the German-dominated European Union gives many possibilities. You wouldn't believe it would be possible to liberate the territory of central Germany (DDR) some years ago, would you? -- Nico 14:23, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Now I understand everything. I won't discuss the revision of the borders since apparently there's no sense in it. If you fail to get the point that it's not Poland who started the war - it's your problem. If you do not accept the treaties of December 1970 (ratified 1972) and 1990 - it's your problem. Contact your nearest MP and tell him that you don't accept the will of your government. If you do not accept the outcome of the WWII - it's your problem as well. But please try to think of the reasons, not about the outcome. And when you quote Geneva convention... just think about how many times Germany broke it. And about how many of the 'DPs' were displaced from the houses of people sent to death camps. I'm glad you agreed to the compromise, but I'm highly dissapointed with your arguments. If you support the BdV - it's your right to do so. But remember that even Erika Steinbach was born in Rumia, a city that belonged to Poland prior to WWII as a daughter of an occupation force soldier. And she is also considered a 'displaced'. Poor old she, someone deprived her of the stolen house of some Pole...Halibutt
Rumia was a village in times of WW2. Nico constantly tries to revert the simple fact. 17:21, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And what were rights of Prussia to Rahmel in 1772? Polish rights to Rumia are derived from the peace of Torun in 1466. 17:21, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You know perfectly well that Rahmel had belonged to Prussia since 1770. Why shouldn't Germany liberate it? Poland illegally attacked Iraq, for oil (officially, according to Cimoszewicz!) even last year and together with the USA killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. And btw, the government of Germany is not "my" government. I even do not live in that country. I certainly have the right to have my own opinion. -- Nico 16:00, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is enough, Nico!! Noone wants to be liberated, and your presumptuous statements show that you do not have the slightest idea about people's desires and political views in 21st century Europe. You are the last person that should blame others for having no respect for victims of war crimes. -- Baldhur 16:22, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Really? You should speak for yourself and let others speak for themselves. The fact that BdV is an enormous organization proves you are wrong. At www.freie-stadt-danzig.de you'll even find someone calling themselves the Danziger Exilorgane. I'm pretty sure they wants their city liberated. -- Nico 17:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would like to say that there are other (Polish) users with a lot stronger agendas here than me. My consern is that the German name of this city also should be mentioned and that we should show some respect for it's German history too. Calling it Gdansk during the 19th century is ridiculous and an unnecessary provocation which would certainly lead to new edit wars. Let me also say that I have nothing against Polish language. I have Polish ancestors myself. But I cannot accept dedicated campaigns to "erase all German names", as caius2ga said. As many of my ancestors were from East Prussia, Silesia and West Prussia, this hurt me. -- Nico 00:53, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

However I do not agree with Nico in most cases and I strongly oppose his ways of wiki fight and retaliatory/provocative actions, I must say that the idea of 1793-1945 compromise seems reasonable to me. It's quite simple, easily explainable and quite fair. How about a quick (let's say 1 week for now) voting with only yes/no/votum separatum votes? This would help us end the issue once and for all.Halibutt
Pardon? More personal attacks on me? You should consider buying a dictionary and look up "retaliatory". Nico 01:54, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nico, don't get offended when there's no reason to. Edit war is based on retaliatory actions, no matter who started it and why. However, I did not post my comments to start nitpicking campaign. It simply makes no sense. Let's vote for the compromise or against it, fix the problem and forget the whole matter. What do you say?Halibutt

Ummm.. When i was elaving, there seemed to be compromise on using Gdansk (Danzig) or Danzig (Gdansk) depending on the period... What happened to it?! Szopen

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

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

History vs. Nationalism: One must conclude that those who assert that the city was known by its Polish name through most of its history are motivated not by a desire to present a historic story, but rather are ethnic nationalists, zealots or idealogues who cannot bear to entertain the thought that this city was predominantly German for many centuries, and at the height of its pre-World War II development was 96 percent German. Even these zealots must know that the city's records, and during the interwar period its currency and stamps, were written or inscribed in German. They must know that all of the discussions about the city at Versailles and in the League of Nations -- and indeed at Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam -- referred to the city by its German name. The must further be aware that Nobel laureate Günter Grass's novels are referred to as "The Danzig Triology," not the Gdansk triology. There is no arguing about the fact that today the city is called Gdansk and is inhabited by Poles. There should be no arguing either about the fact that, before March 31, 1945, it was called Danzig and was inhabited by Germans. The story of how the ethnically German city of Danzig was transformed into the Polish city of Gdansk is a fascinating and in many way disturbing one that contains lessons for all of humanity. I suggest that those who cannot bear to examine this story in its entirety -- and indeed the story of all the annexations and expulsions after WWII -- are in no better positiion intellectually or morally than those who brought about the German aggression against Poland in 1939. -- Steven Anderson, author of "Revenge: The Expulsion of the Germans," Jan. 19, 2004.