Wikipedia

Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 3

< Talk:Gdańsk
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

January voting on compromise proposal

Are you in favour of the proposed naming compromise (the city referred to as Danzig in the 1793-1945 period, Gdansk otherwise)?

YES

  • john 09:16, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Nico, although I still think we could discuss the pre-1793 usage a little bit more
  • Szopen Yes, with addition that alternative name should be added in parantheses, to avoid confusion.
  • Guillermo3, no parantheses in paragraphs were Danzig is used.
  • David Gerard 11:50, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC) This is the way it's done in other works and avoids pushing a POV.
  • PMA 19:14, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • +sj+ Agreeing w/ DavidG. Also agreeing with Szopen that confusion is possible in the absence of parentheses. b/c Gdansk was in use before and after, it makes sense to note it parenthetically (I thought for many years that Gdansk and Danzig were different cities).


NO

  • User:Space Cadet
  • User:Yeti - What about other cities with similar history: Vilnius, Lviv, Brezlau, Koenigsberg, Bratislava and many, many others?
  • User:Ruhrjung - I think it would suffice to state once and for all, in neutral language in the introductory paragraph, that Gdansk was formerly known as Danzig, and that this name still may be used in other languages, but that Gdansk is the currently used name in English.
  • Mestwin of Gdansk 22:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)the city name is Gdansk. The above proposal is not a compromise.
  • Halibutt - changed my mind. We'd probably understand the fuzz, but the people who use wiki would not.

abstention

  • Baldhur; an abstention may be useless, but after proposing a vote I wanted to participate

no voting

  • Are we going to change the city name every time there is a majority change???

I do not want to enter into this voting, but I am strongly for calling all cities by their modern/official names, also when refering to historical events.

Additionally this case is clear as the city name of Gdansk was in use for more than 1000 years without anu interruption (997-2004). In years 1793-1945 both names Polish and German were in use as the city and the region were bilingual. Official documents were published in German and Polish. Only after the Kulturkamf (enforced Germanisation) in the 1870s the German name was enforced and Polish name forbidden. The German post-office delivered mail to German and Polish addresses and it started to refuse Polish placenames in the 1910s. Free City of Gdansk/Danzig (1919-1939) had a German majority 90%, but also special ties to Poland (cumstoms union, foreign policy, post office etc.) so both names (Gdansk/Danzig) were in use.

The big problem arised during World War II, when people were murdered or sent to concenteration camps (Stutthof) just because they wanted to call the city with its Polish name. This is why the German names of Polish cities are very insulting to Polish people. I don't know why you call it a compromise.

--- When do we finish the voting?Halibutt

I think this voting was ended reaching no compromise. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Famous people born in Gdansk/Danzig/Gydanytzk/Dantiscum

This is the list deleted by Nico for some reason. I've re-inserted some of the most popular names (Tusk, for instance) and left the artists for further discussion.

I understand that some of the artists may not be as popular in the mass-media as, let's say, Caravaggio or Breughel family, but still they are famous artists. And I don't see a reason for which Nico considers them to be less important than Bernhard von Reesen.

Disclaimer: I moved it here not to provoke anyone to start another edit war.Halibutt 01:37, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I explained why they were deleted. They are posted by caius2ga, obviously only to balance the list because most of the famous persons from Danzig were Germans. I've never heard about any of those people, and made a quick search in google for a couple of them. For instance, this Marek Rogulus Rogulski gave 27 hits [1]. I cannot see why he should be listed with people like Günter Grass etc. Nico 01:59, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But Grass is also at least 25% Pole, though he is German language writer. Cautious 16:10, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So why did you delete all the others? Michalczeski returns with 8140 hits, Donald Tusk with 11.600 hits, Kolberger with 'only' 1320... Just comparing this with this Bernhard von Reesen you left unchanged (124 hits) makes me think that the reasons for your deleting all Polish names are not as clear as you state.Halibutt 03:36, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Just an idea: how many return google hits do you propose as a borderline for famous people? Is 5.000 ok with you?Halibutt
I admit not all of them should be deleted. I didn't check all of them. Sorry. -- Nico 11:12, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As far as the politicians, this should be worked out. Clearly we shouldn't have not famous people, but we shouldn't privilege not very famous Germans over not very famous Germsn. john 09:16, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now I've checked all of them, and the majority gives hits under 100. Here are the complete list, though:

33 [2]
2,110 [3]
5,160 [4]
207 [5]
  • Donald Tusk, b. 1957, politician, jornalist and historian
13,300 [6]
103 [7]
84 [8]
92 [9]
174 [10]
186 [11]
10,900 [12]

I guess at least four of them should be included in the list. -- Nico 11:26, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think our Polish colleagues would be best-positioned to determine if the others are famous or not. A lack of google results is not necessarily dispositive. john 22:50, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What about a new article Famous people from Gdansk listing all with mor then let's say 50 google-hits? 82.83.0.47 00:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My mother gives more than 50 google hits ;-) (although she is not from Danzig) Nico 13:21, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How about answering to my question then?Halibutt
I think this is rather silly. In this instance, I'd say we should defer to the knowledge of Polish editors as to whether or not these people are sufficiently famous. john 19:31, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In defense of my "NO" vote. We shouldnt be sentimental about the encyclopedic articles. I respect and cherich all the German culture in the present Polish lands. During my last trip to Poland I made about 900 pictures of Prussian architecture, Prussian ruins, traces of Prussian influence on these lands. I just freak out about the criterion for this or that name, to be the number of entries in thr Google. In any English Encyclopedia, especially post 2000 the history of Gdansk uses the Polish name. This is a perfect way to avoid confusion, and also to avoid a dangerous precedent leading to using German names for every northern and western Polish city, village, river, lake etc. Plus this precedent would lead to complete chaos in history articles about Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. My family lived for generations in the Polish city of Lwow, but for thr sake of professionalism I'm willing to leave te current name L'viv, even when describing the Polish history of thr city. We should take example for Brittanica and other encyclopedia on this one. A separate paragraph discussing the demographics of Gdansk, it's most popular name in English speaking world is necessary in my opinion. Brackets are not enough. Going further I propose existance of separate articles for Koenigsberg (Krolewiec), Tilsit (Tylza) etc., because the issue here is completely different than Gdansk, Elblag and Torun. Again, the deciding factor should be how other post 2000 encyclopedias deal with the subject, not clicks in Google!
Space Cadet 00:18, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While Britannica calls it Gdansk throughout, the columbia encyclopedia is inconsistent - it calls it sometimes Danzig and sometimes Gdansk in the period in question. However, to be honest, this is a rather thorny issue. While Danzig and Gdansk are clearly the same name, the city alternately known as Bratislava, Pressburg and Pozsony is rather tougher - these names don't seem very similar to each other, and it's unclear whether Bratislava should be considered a new name created in 1919, or an old name returned to. While I would find it just barely acceptable to call the city Gdansk throughout the article, I do very strongly feel that the Free City as a political unit simply has to be called Danzig. It should also be mentioned (as Columbia does) that the city was universally known as Danzig (both to itself, and to English-speakers) throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, and that the name Gdansk only returned in 1945. At any rate, I agree that the whole issue is problematic. I would say, though, that other articles which mention the city should generally call it Danzig when referring to it before 1945. Arthur Schopenhauser was born in Gdansk seems weird. As Szopen suggested, Arthur Schopenhauser was born in Danzig (Gdansk) seems a better way to do it. john 20:55, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Economy

Economy of Gdansk has moved to Economy of Gdansk. Please write a short summary about the economy of Gdansk, five sentences would be great. Even after outsourcing, this article has still more than 34kB which cannot be handled by many browsers.

Then maybe we do not need tons of book references in Polish, if you have problems with the page size? Nico 07:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To John:
Why does " Arthur Schopenhauser was born in Gdansk" seem weird? Mainly because the name is "Schopenhauer", without the "s". Everything else, is the long process of getting used to the new. It took Britannica about 8 years to make sure the consistency of using "Gdansk", in any reference, reached 100%. Columbia still takes it's time.
If we keep our efforts consistent, and make tools for gaining knowledge better and better, in 10 years only an ignorant will think that "Arthur Schopenhauer was born in Gdansk seems weird".
BTW, Szopen is a great guy but sometimes very emotional.
We cannot be. What if we make this exception for "Gdansk"? How are you going to handle "naming throughout history" in for example L'viv, Vilnius, Hrodna etc. What objective criterion are you going to find to determine when should a city be called by which name, when there just is no such criterion at all, that would work in any case (or at least in majority of most dominant cases). That's why it is a good idea to first spend as much time as necessary to explain the evolution of the demograpics in respect to class dependant language persuasion, as a function of popularity of certain name - German or Polish - in the English speaking world. This would quiet down all the cry babies. And then consistently use the agreed English name. Even if that English name was different 10, 20, 150 or 300 years ago.
Why should it seem weird for me to write "My grandmother was born in L'viv, lived in L'viv, was expelled from L'viv, visited L'viv in the 90'ties"? What good would it do to write : "My grandmother was born in Lemberg, lived in Lwów, was expelled from Lvov, visited L'viv in the 90'ties"? In a letter to a friend, perhaps, but not in the encyclopedia. Of course I can only imagine what would happen if I told my mom that "My grandmother was born in Lemberg". But these are emotions that do not belong in the encyclopedia. When I write to my friend of East Prussian descent I use both names (Polish and German) randomly. He seems to observe analogical rules. Again, emotions.
Hope I cleared up my stand on this.
I might not be able to visit WIKI for a while.
Space Cadet 01:14, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it does get tricky. I would suggest that the use of Lemberg for that city before 1918 and the use of Gdansk for that city before 1793 are roughly comparable - both are the name by which the city was known by the country of which it was a part, but were not in particular use by the inhabitants of the city. As such, I think it would be fine to say of a Polish person born in Lemberg that they were born in Lwów (L'viv). More notably, though, one should, in an article about World War I, note that the Russians entered Lemberg (L'viv) in late 1914, since that is what would be used in most history books. The article on Schopenhauer should say he was born in Danzig (Gdansk). The case for Danzig is, I think, made stronger by the fact that Danzig was not only the name of the city, but also the name of a sovereign state. (Ought we to also talk of Germany's annexation of Klaipeda in March of 1939?). I agree that the issue is tricky, especially when talking about cities that changed name several times in the twentieth century. But I think a policy of using the usual English name at the time, and having the current name in parentheses, is a good policy for how to do it in articles that are not specifically about the location. If you wish to insist on uniformity within the article about the location, I am willing to come to some sort of compromise (just so long as we keep it clear, for instance, that in 1919, Gdansk was taken from Germany and made into the Free City of Danzig.) Otherwise we have to refer to the Treaty of Bratislava of 1809, or the Battle of Slavkov u Brna. The Captiulation of Olomouc. The Congress of Ljubljana...you get the idea. john 07:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The current formulation by Wik "(until 1945 known as Danzig)" looks good to me. john 06:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I still feel fairly strongly that we should use historical names in context where appropriate. So, we should say Schopenhauer was born in Danzig, which is what he would've called it. A parenthetical note that this is "present-day Gdansk" is fine as well. And, to take a more clear-cut example, we should say that Byzantine events happened in Constantinople, not in Istanbul. --Delirium 06:39, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

well, the argument is that cities that changed their names are different from cities which translate their names, or where the dominant translation changes, or whatever. john 17:14, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think that is a quasi argument. Nico 17:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think we sometimes forget our responsibility to history when we worry about modern individuals. Whether or not someone's grandmother cares to recognize the name of the city that was in place when she was born there (no offense intended to any user or their family), the fact is that there were thousands and thousands of people who lived and died under that name. Keeping track of a city name that was in use for less than a decade, I can understand setting aside, but when we're talking about centuries, I think in fairness to the long-since dead (who have no one's close allegiance to give them voice here), we need to represent the names historically. I certainly understand the concerns of the Polish editors, but in this instance I think we need to be fair to those who lived in that city long before we and our grandmothers. Jwrosenzweig 17:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jwrosenzweig,

No offense taken. All I was trying to emphasise is the danger of putting emotions into encyclopedia article. I have lots of emotional reasons of calling the city of my ancestors - "Lwów" for 800 years of it's history (not just my grandmother's time, please look it up before making a ridiculous statement), until 1990. I can spend lots of time and space arguing that the Ukrainian name makes no sense, because there was never a country Ukraine, Ukrainian language or nation. For what? "For our responsibility to history"? That's Demagogy (IMO). All it will create is chaos. Listing forever the horrible fates of Poles of Lwów, the brutally destroyed monuments of Polish history, cemetaries changed into wheat fields, all polish inscriptions removed from the buildings, catholic churches changed into barns etc.? Same thing - emotions! The people you call "Polish contributors" don't defend the "polish POV", but common sense, free of sentimentality, nostalgia and bias. BTW, I never declared myself as "a Polish contributor", so if you intentionally included me in that term, please don't do it again.
Out of curiosity, you really didn't know that Lwów became part of Poland, long before any German wandered to Gdańsk, did you?

SC, sorry, I wasn't thinking about Lwow here but Gdansk...I've been following this conversation loosely for months and hadn't realized Lwow was added as a point of discussion rather than simply as a similar example (obviously I skimmed your entry too quickly). Sorry about that. Your comments about Lwow...I don't feel qualified to respond to, as I am less familiar with its history than that of Gdansk. I think trying to settle the very different issues of two very different cities might be unwise on one talk page, but I am certainly not blaming anyone for this, and offer it as a thought. The argument here for a number of months was between Poles (who used their status as Poles to bolster their argument....not wrongly, in my opinion) -- I thought that I had remembered you as one of them, and apologize if I cast any aspersion on you, though it occurs to me that to be mistakenly thought Polish is no insult, but simply an error on my part (and one which I will not commit again). I understand that the history of Lwow is one filled with troubles and emotions that I am by no means even partially aware of, so I won't respond, except to say again that I had thought the discussion here at Talk:Gdansk was focused essentially on the city of Gdansk, and if this fact has changed in recent weeks, I apologize for not having kept better track of it. I hope these are satisfactory responses: I still hold to my original posting re: Gdansk, but will instantly yield the field if Lwow is being discussed. Jwrosenzweig 19:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Dear Delirium,
Why is "Danzig" a historical name and "Gdańsk" isn't? Because you have a strong hunch? Because you count the number of clicks on Google? Do those clicks represent encyclopedic entries?
"Present day Gdańsk" strongly suggests that the name "Gdańsk" never existed or was used before present day. John already explained to you, that this is not the case, therefore your Constantinople example is way off.
And what do You mean: "we should say Schopenhauer was born in Danzig, which is what he would've called it"? How do you know this? Wasn't he born and raised in Poland? Aren't you speculating too far in the past and isn't your speculation slightly biased?
Thank you for your time!
Sicerely,
Space Cadet 15:58, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet, don't want to get into this, but Schopenhauer was a German-speaker, and almost certainly called his home-city Danzig. And, no, he wasn't born and raised in Poland. He was 5 years old when Danzig/Gdansk was annexed by Prussia. (although, I forget, did Danzig remain with Prussia after the Treaty of Tilsit, or was it briefly taken away again?) john 19:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

John, you're absolutely right, it was incorporated in 1893, when little Artie was 5. (Treaty of Tilsit didn't return it to Poland, but made it a Free City). Then I can respond that he was raised by a family residing in Poland for centuries and so on. I was just questioning the entire line of reasoning based on speculation.
James, I'm sorry I brought in Lwów, but I did it solely to illustrate:

  • that I'm not a "polish POV" defender
  • that if we go by emotions, we will open a bag of worms
  • that the system of consistently using one name, might hurt feelings of some, who declare themselves as "Polish contributors", also, if they decide to go with solely their emotions, but is the only system that can solve majority of most popular inconsistencies (Kaliningrad excluded).

Space Cadet 21:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But what is the rule here? What about Bratislava? That's certainly a name change, rather than a translation change, for instance. And so is Lemberg/Lwow. Or Laibach/Ljubljana, I'd say. The distinction is rather artificial, in fact. Is St. Petersburg/Petrograd a name change, or a translation issue? I think we should simply use the name in use for the time in question, so far as that is clear. john 01:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If that's what the majority wants, I'm in. I was just playing Kassandra, trying to see the future and seeing lots of problems there.
Space Cadet 02:32, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No one denies that Danzig and Gdansk have a common origin. But I still think they must be seen as different names, and should be used in historical context. As for the Space Cadet, he should read the statement at the top of the page. -- Nico 03:11, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nico, at this point Space Cadet seems to be willing to compromise. Also, as to quote at the top, what's the source of that? A google search on Steven Anderson doesn't seem to reveal anything obviously interesting, and the only result for "Revenge: The Expulsion of the Germans is this page. john 03:28, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who inserted the quote? Nico 03:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it appears it is not a quote at all, but a comment by Mr. Anderson. It was inserted by user:209.98.197.185 on January 12. john

People.. stop this please... i've just read Cautious edits and then from 66.47 something - it seems that User:H.J. is back.. I think i will leave wikipedia again.. I just don't want to waste my time with ever-lasting revert wars... Szopen

Name of the City

Ok, this page is about a fifth of Recent Changes, for "fixes" to its first sentence, largely due to the name of the city. Does this need to be protected again? Or can we play nicely? Pakaran. 03:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, or why this page has to be "protected". Why can't we just say that certain people call the city Gdansk and certain other people call it Danzig? Why all the reversions?

Is someone trying to get Wikipedia to say that the "real" or "proper" or "current" name of the city is G. or D.? If so, then that person is the problem and should be ignored or, if necessary, asked to leave.

In all cases of controversy, and this is clearly a controversy! -- the Wikipedia must not and cannot take sides. The article cannot endorse any viewpoint, even something as small as what is the name of the city.

You guys really piss me off! I've read the article and the talk pages and page history so many times, but all I can remember is the fussing and fighting, the threats to revert the page or quit the project!!

I know more about which users fought each other than about which historians or ethnic groups or governments gave WHAT NAME to the city in question!!!!

So:

  • I am unprotecting the article.
  • I am putting it on my watchlist.
  • I will find a way to settle the "name controversy" once and for all

Forcefully,
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

This is historically the first time, that I agree with you on all counts, Uncle Ed. Space Cadet 15:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh my, oh my... Let's see what happens...Halibutt

Sigh, Ed, I must say that I do not like your version. In the first place, everyone agrees that the city's current name is "Gdansk". Of course, earlier in its history it was frequently known as "Danzig". The question is the best way to indicate this. I, of course, think that my way, which actually explains the situation (that it was usually called Danzig before 1945) is the best, but I think an article which tries to claim that both names are equally valid today is simply wrong. As to the edit war, that had nothing to do with the disputes going on on the talk page, which I think were basically simmering down. What happened was that a [name for user trying to cause trouble deleted], user:Gdansk, decided to start messing with the article in order to minimize the importance of the name Danzig by flooding the article with other, hardly used, names. I won't edit the introduction just yet, but I think the current version is quite poor. john 18:56, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good for you, John! I don't know a thing about Danzig or Gdansk or whatever it's called, except what I've read right here at Wikipedia. I'm counting on people like you and Wik and Space Cadet and Delirium and everyone else to contribute content. All I do is copy-edits and pray for world peace :-) --Uncle Ed 19:37, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I made some hopefully acceptable edits to Ed's version. My edits were to move slightly in favor of the Polish argument, which hopefully is okay since I've mostly been taking the German side. I clarified that Gdansk is currently the predominantly used name, while Danzig is a previous name, and one that was once the predominant English name. --Delirium 09:41, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to note, in case there's an edit war, that the version which Wik has just reverted to is, I think, substantially correct and should be maintained. john 19:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gdańsk/Archive_3&oldid=933424114"