Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Untitled

No, the real question is what name do english ENCYCLOPAEDIC sources use to describe the city prior to 1945. And the answer is Gdansk!

Space Cadet 01:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, Britannica does. Columbia, as we've noted before, does not. And even Britannica certainly uses "Danzig" to refer to the city before 1945 in other articles. For instance, the article on Günter Grass says he was born in "Danzig (now Gdansk, Pol.)". At any rate, Wikipedia's official naming policy is not "do what other encyclopedias do." It's "use the name most commonly used in English." That's different. Obviously, other encyclopedias provide a model, but we shouldn't slavishly copy them, either. john 01:56, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions

Polite, very polite and rude name of Gdansk

The encyclopedia is designed not only for researchers, but also for tourists. I think it is essential to tell the reader planning to visit the city that it the polite city name is Gdansk, very polite name is Gdańsk (with diacritics over n) and it is extremely rude and barbarian to call it Danzig. Just be warned. Mestwin of Gdansk 20:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's ridiculous! What does politeness have to do with a problem of the city name throughout history? I don't think a tourist will go to Wikipedia and read about Teutonic knights or Royal Prussia, but rather buy a guide. I met some very nice German tourists in Gdansk and I told them: "Herzlich wilkommen in Danzig". I din't feel like a traitor. But I certainly wouldn't greet English tourists like that! Space Cadet 21:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that this is ridiculous. I'm glad we have some common ground. It seems that our dispute, then, revolves around what people in English today call the city now called Gdansk before 1945. I've already shown fairly exhaustively that the English-language historical literature continues to use Danzig when discussing the city prior to 1945. (see the archives) Now the mainstream media has been brought in, so I've taken the liberty of doing a lexis-nexis search for "Danzig". It was a difficult task, to be honest. In particular, there are a fair number of horses with "Danzig" in their name, and that uses up a lot of the material. There's also references to the band Danzig. And there aren't very many lexis-nexis articles

"Danzig, Prussia (now Gdansk, Poland)" is listed as the birthplace of Arthur Schopenhauer in an "anniversaries" article in The Times from this February 21.
A Time magazine article from April 15, 2002, on a war crimes trial, discusses, "the 1945 sinking of the ship Wilhelm Gustloff by a Russian submarine as it steamed from Danzig (present day Gdansk, Poland) back to Germany."
Another Time article, from April 28, 2003, is a review of Günter Grass's novel about the Wilhelm Gustloff, and says, "[Grass's] mother was never able to talk to him about what she experienced when the Russians moved into Danzig." No parentheses at all, here.

Having become frustrated with Lexis-Nexis, I turned to searching through specific publications. The Economist was specifically mentioned by User:Gdansk as a publication which does not use "Danzig". Here are some counterexamples.

February 16, 2002: "Lacking the baroque flourishes of other of Mr Grass's works, the story is neatly told. It helps that Mr Grass has returned to his home turf (he was born 75 years ago in the German-speaking, free city of Danzig, now the Polish Gdansk)."
December 22, 2001: "A fiery German from Danzig, the independent city- state seized by Hitler in 1939 and later given to Poland, runs a soi- disant government in exile in distant Australia."
July 29,2000: "It is said of the Poles that they are among the few people who would send out cavalry to fight tanks but that they are the only people who would expect to win. By their refusal to give way to Hitler over Danzig, they did as much as any nation to start the destruction of German Nazism."
December 31, 1999: "China's rulers could ban some advance, and their ban was obeyed. Europe's regimes might try such things. Some did: Florence issued an edict in 1299 forbidding bankers to use Arabic numerals; in 1397 Cologne ordered its tailors not to use machines; after the invention of the ribbon loom in 1579, the city council of Danzig is said to have ordered the inventor to be drowned."
April 18, 1998: "Six hundred years ago, the Hanseatic League, a confederation of city-states, made the Baltic the most prosperous part of Europe. To travel and trade between Riga, now the Latvian capital, and Danzig, now Gdansk in Poland, was as natural as, these days, the hop from London to Frankfurt. "

From this it would appear that not only does The Economist use "Danzig", it doesn't even feel the need to use "(now Gdansk)" on references to the city. Newsweek was also mentioned. In this case there's not much to go on - a proquest search of the last several years of Newsweek finds only one reference to either Gdansk or Danzig, and it's from 1989, and discusses how the West German government was still calling "Danzig" a German city in tourist publications, and that the Poles had asked them to stop. So it's hard to say what Newsweek does.

Here's the New York Times (and here we discover a Navy Secretary under Clinton named "Danzig"):

An article on Grass's Nobel Prize in 1999 refers to Danzig without qualification.
Another 1999 article discussing Israeli sympathy for Kosovo, talks about an Israeli "native of Danzig, a target of Hitler's aggression that later became Gdansk, Poland."
An article from 1990 about German reunification, discussing Germany's history, talks about how after 1945 "old German cities like Danzig (now Gdansk)" became part of Poland.

At any rate, it seems clear that English-language publications simply do not simply use "Gdansk" when refering to the city before 1945. Sometimes they may (I've generally been searching for "Danzig" rather than "Gdansk," as the latter would presumably contain so many references to current events as to be hard to find any historical references), but "Danzig" also clearly continues to be used. Space Cadet, you continue to assert that this isn't the case, but so far all you really have to back you up is Encyclopedia Britannica. john 22:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think your effort is worth a lot, John, and maybe I am supposed to act according to nationality, but the conclusion I draw is that a link/redirect from Danzig, and a bolded notion of Danzig in the first line of the article, is very much warranted for. However, I think it would be an important principle for wikipedia articles to refer to the subject of an article with the same name through the whole of each article. In other words, and according to my personal judgement, an article on the history of the city for many periods prior to 1945 could maybe better use the name Danzig, but for the main article on Gdansk, I hope we'll end up calling it Gdansk, maybe with stray insertations of "(then known as Danzig)" where appropriate.
--Ruhrjung 22:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As a native Gdanziger I agree with the reasonable proposal of Ruhrjung. I would prefer people to associate myself with Danzig then know nothing about my city. Cautious 23:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Modern city guides refering to historical Gdansk

A famous In Your Pocket Guide, written by an international staff and published by a German company for English speakers uses Gdańsk and never Danzig in all references to the city's history and present day.

http://www.inyourpocket.com/poland/en/category?cid=3132

Bolesław I the Brave is recognised as the first king of Poland in 1025. Merchants from Lubeck arrive in the town of Gdańsk in 1224, bringing with them the Lubeck Law which codifies trade issues. Gdańsk welcomes vessels from England, Sweden and the Walloon Lands, among others, and is noted as a potentially great port.
Austria, Prussia and Russia impose the first partition of Poland in 1772-73. As a result Gdańsk loses its trade routes and falls into decline.
[...]1807-13 by Napoleon. During this time Gdańsk is established as a free city, with French troops stationed there. After Napoleon's defeat and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Poland is partitioned anew: Gdańsk is given back to Prussia
After the defeat of Germany in WWI, the partition of Poland collapses. Gdańsk is caught up in a tug of war between Poland and Germany who turn to the League of Nations for assistance'
In 1939, WWII starts with Nazi Germany's September 1 attack on Poland's military posts at Westerplatte in Gdansk

http://www.sopot.net/history.htm

Later Sopot becomes tourist attraction for its big neighbor Gdansk
On 8 October 1901 Sopot was promoted to town status by Prussian government in Berlin. After the conference at Versailles (1918) Sopot, which many foreign citizens inhabited, went under the jurisdiction of Free Town Gdansk

Mestwin of Gdansk 23:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, I'm not sure that anybody other than User:Gdansk is demanding that we not have a bolded reference. Currently, Danzig is a redirect page, due to the fact that there is a band called Danzig. Wik and I at one point went to great lengths to make sure that all the links to Danzig that were talking about the city were piped to Gdansk, so that there wouldn't be a problem. I'd be happy to change it back, but it would be odd to have a disambiguation notice linking to a band whose name is not the same as that of the article it's disambiguated from, which would be the result of such a move. My feeling with regard to other articles is that, when appropriate, they should say "Danzig (now Gdansk)" or "Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland)" on first reference, and then just "Danzig" thereafter. But only for discussions before 1945. Before 1793, references could be to "Danzig (or Gdansk)" or "Gdansk (or Danzig)" as appropriate.

I'm not sure I can agree that article subjects should be called by one name throughout the article.

It's not in any way particularly important for me, and I have no problem to accept beeing in substantial minority, but I wished (and wish) to state that although I appreciate your arguments, they don't sway me on the principial point, since I am convinced people read www-texts in a less consecutive way than they read printed texts.--Ruhrjung 10:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This isn't usually done for people, for instance. The convention for British peers, for instance, whose names change throughout their lives, is generally to use the name by which they were known at the time. So that Spencer Compton Cavendish, 8th Duke of Devonshire is known as "Lord Hartington" before he succeeds his father as Duke in 1891. In cities this can be even more awkward when the city's actual name has changed, and the new name is completely new. For instance, talking about Kaliningrad before 1945 is just bizarre, and I don't think the article should insist on that. I guess I'm just not sure why an article shouldn't use multiple names throughout, if that is the convention in English. Part of the problem with Gdansk is that the history section is so long, that the name must be referred to repeatedly. Unlike, say, Saint Petersburg, where the history section is short and name references can be elided. At any rate, if we came to a general policy that geographical locations have to be referred to by their current name throughout any article about them, that would be one thing. So far as I am aware, this is not the current policy. In which case I'll continue to advocate for using the different names at different times, in keeping with standard English usage. If such a policy were enacted, I wouldn't particularly agree with it, but of course in that case the city should be referred to as Gdansk throughout (the case for doing that with Gdansk is certainly stronger than the case for doing it for other cities).

A question for Space Cadet: Do you object to using "Danzig" to refer to the city before 1945 only in this article, or do you object in any article? For instance, should an article on the origins of World War II talk about the German demands for Gdansk? Because I can kind of see the case for keeping it consistent within this article (although I'd still argue against it), but I think that absolutely it shouldn't be done in other articles. Would a compromise whereby the city is generally called "Gdansk" in this article, but called "Danzig (now Gdansk)" in other articles referring to the time period when it was called Danzig, be acceptable? Could we have Free City of Danzig rather than Free City of Gdansk? john 23:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to compare cases of Gdansk and Kaliningrad or

St.Petersburg. Kaliningrad is entirely new name given to Koenigsberg after 1945 (the Russian version of Koenigsberg is Kralieviec). The same is about Istanbul and about usage of Leningrad and St.Petersburg. Hovewer, both Danzig and Gdansk are merely German and Polish historical names of the city. It is like usage of Strassburg (German) and Strasbourg (French). Gdansk is at least 250 years older version. Could you explain me what would be "English" name for Gdansk in 1200 AD - the name Danzig did not exist yet. Yeti 00:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First point: Istanbul was a name in local use in Constantinople between 1453 and 1930, but the city was officially "Constantinople" and is still usually called that in English, so that's what we use. Also, "Istanbul" is a Turkish form of "Constantinopolis". Second point: I agree with you that the cases are somewhat different. But the point is that two names are commonly used in English when referring to the city in different periods. When people writing in English refer now to this city in pre-1945 contexts, the standard usage is to call it "Danzig". Since we have to accept that some cities are going to be called by different names, I don't see why we should resist this with respect to Gdansk, which I think I've repeatedly demonstrated is still commonly called "Danzig" in references to it before 1945, and almost exclusively called that for the period 1793-1945. At any rate, I'm going to officially come out that my position is that I will agree to the city being consistently called "Gdansk" in this article so long as a) there is a bolded reference to the name "Danzig" at the top of this article; b) the "Free City of Danzig" is called as such in this article, even if the city (as opposed to the state) is still called "Gdansk"; and c) that other articles referring to Gdansk before 1945 use the name "Danzig" where appropriate. Would this be an acceptable compromise? john 00:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, sorry. Free City of Gdansk and Fahrenheit born in Gdansk. Space Cadet 03:29, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Space Cadet: Free City of Gdansk and Fahrenheit born in Gdansk. Mestwin of Gdansk 03:32, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason why the name of Danzig should be used for this period of 1793-1945. The city and the province was at least bilingual, only after 1900 the German post office started to refuse to deliver to Polish languages addresses. Mestwin of Gdansk 03:42, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Danzig ist deutsch ???

Maybe this is a good new picture for Danzig (now Gdansk) http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/postcard/pc-danz.jpg

Thanks, Mestwin. Nice picture! Where did You get it? From Nico or from John? Cadet

It's a present for Nico. Do you think he will like it?. Mestwin of Gdansk 03:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He would love it, if there was today's date on it.Cadet

Guys, calm down. Nico has no sympathy for Nazis. Not everyone who thinks that Danzig was German had to be Nazi. Szopen

Is there any level that is low enough for you? What do you want to accomplish? I am pissed off by this habit of calling other people Nazis (even John Kenney, who deserves better than that). It is outrageous that some people around here have no problem to side with a user calling other users Nazis and just behaving in a completely destructive manner.

I told you before that I believe that Nico is a real problem user and just has an interest in pushing his POV but not in building an encyclopedia. But on the other hand Caius2ga (or Mestwin or Gdansk or AntiNaziWatch or whatever name he uses) is far worse. Even users which I thought to be good Wikipedians don't have a problem to side with him. For all these reasons I stopped discussing and contributing here, and it was obviously a good decision. Have fun -- Baldhur 12:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well put! Now it's high time for the Poles to shape up and exert peer pressure on the worse among them. --Ruhrjung 13:22, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Calling people Nazis is not a good habit. But I understand S.C. and M. of G. Hypocrisis of Nico and Jihn Kenney is irritating. They enforce particular naming conventions for Polish cities, but there is not a problem for them, that in articles about other areas having similar history, especially in West Europe there is used the same convention, which is defended by Polish users. For example: Strasbourg, Roussillon, Nice, Bautzen, Perpignan and many others. So according to them Wkikipedia should have two kinds of naming conventions: one for East and another one for West of Europe. I can suspect that the reason is a clear nationalism and anti-Polish or anti-Slavic fobia. Yeti 14:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure? How about Munich and Kiel, where caius2ga now has started an edit war in order to include the Polish names in the introduction, despite the fact that these cities never have been known by these names, not in English nor in the local official language? -- Nico 15:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You started it first, so do not blame such chldish quarels on others.Halibutt 16:06, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't like to take Nico in defense, but there is a difference. English being a Germanic language, German science being highly regarded before the World Wars, and the surge of German scientists with Jewish roots flooding Anglo-Saxon universities after the Machtübernahme are all reasons which together with the partitions of Poland make Nico's action in this case somewhat less childish than the User:AntiNaziWatch sockpuppet's.--Ruhrjung 16:15, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I repeat my question: why consequent usage of modern names for Strasbourg, Roussillon or Nice is fine and consequent usage of Polish names (as we proved used also in English) for Polish cities is not. What were English names for Nice or Strasbourg before it's annexation by France (Nice in 19th century)? I did not notice neither Mestwin of Gdansk nor Space Cadet trying to enforce Polish names for former Polish cities in present day Ukraine or Belarus. Who (before 1991) has ever heard Ukrainian name for Lwow? But we are able to accept that former Polish Lwow (yes, it was English name as well) now is Ukrainian L'viv. So who is fanatic here. We are able to accept feelings of our eastern neighbours and the same we want from German (and others as well) users. I am really pissed off with this discussion. Yeti 17:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The difference is that Nice has always been the English name for that city, and is used pretty regularly for that city throughout its history. The same is mostly true for the other cities (although I certainly see Strassburg sometimes when discussing that city before the late 17th century, and wouldn't oppose calling it Strassburg up to the French annexation, and during the German annexation of 1871-1918). This is not true of the now-Polish cities in central Europe, which are still generally known by their German names during their earlier history, for better or worse. I'd add that there's also the rather unfortunate fact that Polish names tend to be difficult for English-speakers to figure out how to pronounce (especially a name like Szczecin...I can't imagine more than a tiny number of English-speakers would have any idea how that is supposed to be pronounced). This almost certainly delays or prevents adoption of use of the Polish names for periods when it is plausible to use the German name. And as I've noted repeatedly, I'd be happy to use Lwow to refer to that city in its earlier history (Lemberg would probably be appropriate, in addition to Lwow, during the Austrian period). Certainly I think Vilnius should be called Vilna (which was its English name), for its earlier history, since that is still common.

Once again, as I've said repeatedly, the question is not what the city was called at the time, or what English-speakers should call it. The question is what English-speakers do call it. In the case of Gdansk/Danzig, I think I've shown fairly convincingly that it is still the standard in English to use "Danzig" for the earlier history of that city. Certainly this is what historical literature does, and much of the mainstream media seems to do so as well. As a counterexample, Space Cadet has provided the example of Encyclopedia Britannica. And that's it. john 22:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I can not agree with you. As it was proven English speakers use also Gdansk for the earlier history of the city (I live permanently in England and have never heard Danzig for Gdansk). So it is a problem of CHOICE. In such circumstancies good habits require use the present day official name, especially in such controversial area.

Gdansk was a part of Poland between 990-1308 (with small periods of independence) and later from 1454/66 till 1793. It is not acceptable to use German name for this period in other articles even if majority of its inhabitans were Germans. Poland was a multiethnic country and in many towns Jews constituted majoirty. It does not mean that those towns sholud be named with Jewish names. It would be quite ridiculous. But conditionally, I could support the proposal of such usage in other articles. So, for example Fahrenheit was born in Gdansk (Danzig), not in Danzig (Gdansk) but for someone born in 1913 could be born in Danzig (Gdansk) or something like that. Yeti 22:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What native speaker should or do call it

Are you serious in your first point? People in England say that World War I started over the issue of Gdansk? I must say I find that difficult to believe. Certainly in the US, "Danzig" is pretty constantly used. As I noted, the Economist, a British magazine, also uses Danzig for the earlier history. Personally, I would be happy to accept "Gdansk" as the principal name before 1308, at least. The 1308-1793 period is more complex. The question is not so much what English-users should call it, as what they do. And, in general, "Danzig" is still used for this period, whatever the logic or lack of logic (or justice) of this. Wikipedia's job is not to change conventions, for good or ill. john 02:01, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You would be right if people were using wikipedia only for reference or checking some basics. However, many people (incl. me) use it for educational purposes as well. Which means that they probably will not check the background elsewhere but will instead learn that the city A is named B. Which is not what you want since this would AAMoF mean that we support one of the versions. Also, the fact that the majority of internet users say I ain't got no problem does not mean that wiki has to reflect it.Halibutt 03:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What exactly are you getting at here? john 04:08, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

~~He's saying that, rather than follow convention, Wikipedia should support his point of view~~ - David Gerard 07:55, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't put words in people's mouths. Halibutt has been one of the most reasonable participants in this debate, and, while I tend to think I probably disagree with what he's saying here, I'm not sure I quite understand what exactly he is saying, thus the request for clarification. john 08:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My apologies. You are quite right - David Gerard 09:40, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for all the fuzz; twas quite late here and apparently my English after dark is not what it used to be. Anyway, what I wanted to say is:

The question is not so much what English-users should call it, as what they do call it. - The fact that native speakers prefer one version over the other does not prove it right or wrong. Native speakers are equally prone to errors and oversimplifications.
- Well, the point is to determine what the English usage is. I'm not sure how language usage can be wrong, exactly, but surely native-speakers have the right to determine what their own usage is. john 19:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Also, there is no agreement between native-speakers as to what version is correct, let alone the ones like me. Therefore the statement about what Brits or Yankees do call it is disputable.
- Yes, to some extent. Which is why I've tried to do some research into this, to determine what the standard usage is. I would add that pretty much every native english-speaker who's weighed in here (with the exception of Wik, who has not specifically discussed this question) has basically said that they think "Danzig" is used when discussing it before 1945. As far as what we should do, I would say that, in other articles, at least, we should use "Gdansk" for before 1308 and since 1945; "Gdansk (Danzig)" or "Danzig (Gdansk)," at preference, for 1308-1793; and "Danzig (now Gdansk)" for 1793-1945. In this article, I think using Gdansk up to 1793 and Danzig 1793-1945 is fine. john 19:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia's job is not to change conventions, for good or ill. - In this particular case not changing the convention AAMoF does not mean "abstaining from decision". Since people learn from wikipedia, it is much more probable that someone will assume that we've used the "right" version rather than "wrong" one. That's why both sides of the story deserve mentioning - which leaves us in the very same spot we've been before the whole Gdansk/Danzig issue started.
- I think there ought to be a section in this article which explains the complexities of the naming issue. However, I'm not sure that there is necessarily a right or wrong version in terms of usage. It is not wrong to say that "World War I started because of the German desire to annex Gdansk," nor is it wrong to say "Danzig is the principal port of Poland." It is just not the standard usage. john 19:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, it's fine with me if we decide to use both names in the Gdansk article. However, the usage of the name in other articles should be discussed more. If wikipedia is to stay consistent (which I believe is one of the main goals of any encyclopaedia), we'd have to transfer L'viv to Lvov (more Britons use it), Kolkata to Calcutta and even Myanmar to Burma. I've never heard of Afrikaner war in UK, so probably we'd have to move Afrikaner to Boer,which is offensve to some. Get the point or should I get some rest before trying to explain anything in a foreign language?Halibutt 11:01, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Personally, I tend to think the articles ought to be at Calcutta and Bombay rather than Kolkata and Mumbai (which many Indians don't even use, in my experience), but I would want to leave that to Indian contributors - especially given that these are more along the lines of name changes than translations, and because India is a sort-of Anglophone country. Myanmar and Burma is a political question - many English-language sources do use Burma, because that is the name used by the democratic opposition. As to the Boer War, the article is already there, as well it should be. Afrikaner is the standard term used to refer to that group today. As to L'viv/Lvov/Lwow/Lemberg, that's a much tougher nut to crack. At any rate, I haven't advocated moving Gdansk to Danzig, just using "Danzig" in articles when the city is better known as that. I would say that this should be done for all articles. We should say that Aung San was the independence leader of Burma, that the British viceroy lived in Calcutta before 1911 (I think), that the British fought the Boers in 1899-1902, that the Poles annexed Eastern Galicia and Lwow after the First World War, and so on. That doesn't endanger having the main articles at Maynmar, Kolkata, Afrikaner, and L'viv. john 19:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - John, I have made a small research amongst my English speaking friends (Australians, Kiwi, and an Englishman). According to them both names seem correct regarding to the period 1454-1793. It was proven by participants of this discussion that Gdansk is ALSO used by English speakers. Danzig is not an absolutly commonly used version, even if it is more frequently used. It is why I insist that it - the particular naming convention - is a problem of CHOICE. And I do not see absolutelly any reason why we should give priority to one of these versions a priori. It is why we should take into consideration other criterias. According to me the most important is that in the period concerned, Gdansk was a part of Poland. Even if German speakers constituted majority of Gdansk population, Polish language (at least from 16th century) was the "official" language of Royal Prussia, more frequently used both by Poles as well as by German speaking population in political and "official" activities in the province (outside the city). The second thing is that the present day official name is Gdansk as well. To summarise: in case of such situation, we should resolve any doubts in the favor of official naming - in that period and the present day.Yeti 22:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Yeti, as you can see above, I agreed that using Gdansk was appropriate for the 1454-1793 period, so long as the name Danzig is also mentioned. I tend to think that use of "Danzig" would also be fine in that period (assuming that Gdansk is also mentioned), but I'm willing to compromise. I'm more concerned that "Danzig" is used for the 1793-1945 period, when that is the name used pretty much exclusively in English. I would be interested, though, to see some sort of research into which name is used more commonly for the earlier period. It appears to me that, until quite recently, Danzig was used pretty exclusively, but that it's becoming more common to use Gdansk instead. In which case, it seems okay to me to use the present-day name. But I think it's demonstrably not the case that "Gdansk" is in any real use for the 19th and early 20th centuries - as I showed before in my JSTOR search, which turned up 0 references to "Gdansk" in that period in the major historical journals. john 22:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
  - Fine. I've got nothing against usage of Danzig in the other articles for the period 1308-1466 and 1793-1945, for example: Danzig (Gdansk). For the period 990-1308 Gdansk, 1466-1793 Gdansk (Danzig), and after 1945 Gdansk only again. What do you think about that? But in the main article naming should be consistent, because of possible edit wars in articles about other cities and to avoid mess. But obviously the German name sholud be very clearly noted in the headlines and (at least) in translations of historical names.Yeti 09:55, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - In speaking about modern Polish city the alternate name could also be mentioned... But i supported something like Yeti suggested a long time ago.Szopen
  - Alright, that sounds acceptable to me, at least with respect to other articles (including Free City of Danzig, I trust?) For this article, I'd still prefer to use Danzig for 1793-1945, but I don't want to be the lone hold-out, so I'd be willing to accept just using Gdansk throughout if that is the consensus. john 16:46, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll go with everybody, but seriously guys, I feel like I'm agreeing to putting " $E=mc^{(}1.5)$ " instead of " $E=mc^{2}$ ", just to make compromise with somebody who's convinced it should be: "E = mc". Space Cadet 17:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to open up a can of worms, but that's nonsense. In the first place, unlike laws of physics, this is a question of judgment and convention, not of fact. In the second place, the compromise agreed to here would be exactly the same standard used in Britannica (which says, for instance, that Günter Grass was born in Danzig), which you have previously cited as an example to be imitated. john 03:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I said "I FEEL LIKE...", not "I THINK THAT...", so don't call my feelings nonsense, because I cannot reason with them. I'm sure you can, with yours.Space Cadet 04:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so you feel it, but don't think it, then? What a silly distinction. Of course feelings are irrational. Which is why we should try to avoid writing articles on subjects about which we feel particularly strongly. I rarely contribute to articles on current US politics, for instance, because I know it would just be irritating to me and others, and largley unproductive. If we can't support our feelings by rational argument, we ought not bring them up in the context of writing an encyclopedia. john 04:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)