Talk:Gdansk/archive4
|
|
Actually:
Danzig google search = 520.000
Gdansk " " = 513.000
Hamburg is Germany's second largest city and its principal port; Gdansk is the 6th biggest city in Poland and its principal seaport
- That is as may be, but your deletion was not appropriate, as it deleted the importance of German history to the city and its German name, which has been argued about for months now. I reverted it. I will add the extra information you included, which is useful. RickK 23:24, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Slightly reorganised the intro - 1st para is what the city is, 2nd is more of what it is, 3rd is the Polish/German name issue (cognisant of all that has passed on this talk page) which segues into the 4th para discussing history with even more names for the place. I hope that's workable for all - David Gerard 23:38, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
I return to this page very reluctantly to make the following proposition for the first paragraphs:
| |
| Gdańsk (formerly Danzig) is a famous Baltic Sea city with a long and colorful history. Gdansk is the 6th biggest city in Poland, its principal seaport, and the capital of the Pomeranian Voivodship. |
|
| The city lies on the southern coast of the Gdansk Bay (of the Baltic Sea), and is with a population of 460,000 (2002) the biggest city in the historical province of Eastern Pomerania. |
|
|
The name of the city was Danzig during the long period of German rule, but is now Gdańsk, the Polish equivalent. However, the old German name is still often used colloquially in German, English and Scandinavian languages. In Kashubian it is known as Gduńsk. |
The usage of the old name occur maybe rather in some (Germanic) languages than in some countries. There is no reason to believe that inhabitants of Germany should be more prone to use the old name than Austrians or the Swiss. I added the Scandinavian languages, since I know that it's valid for at least Danish and Swedish - and hence probably for Norwegian too. |
--Ruhrjung 00:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Band name thing: remember that Danzig redirects here. Perhaps that entry should be made a disambiguation page.
- Old name: read the edit history and this talk page ...
- I don't feel very strongly about it, but the intro as was did not make very readable prose in English. (This is often the case after a protracted edit war.) - David Gerard 00:40, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
A disambiguation page at Danzig, what an improvement! Typical that no-one had thought of that before! Good, very good! What about "a famous Baltic Sea city" - does that make idiomatic English prose?--Ruhrjung 00:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As it's sensitive whether the German phase of Gansk's history was long or short, why not word it:
- The name of the city was Danzig from Hanseatic times to 1945, but is now Gdańsk, the Polish equivalent.
--Ruhrjung 01:11, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Polish/Pomeranian city name of Gdansk was in use for more than 1000 years without any interruption (997-2004). As Gdansk was an international trade centre it had also other names, but Gdansk was in use all the time.
- What about the wording "known to the world as Danzig from Hanseatic times to 1945"?--212.181.86.12 01:38, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There were times that Poles and Germans managed to live together peacefully for the common prosperity. But this changed drastically during World War II, when the Nazis murdered 20% of Polish population just because they refused to became Germans/to use German language (e.g. Stutthof, Piasnica). Since that time the German names of Polish cities are very insulting to Polish people, and they should not be used in English Wikipedia.
German names of Polish cities
- In the first place, the idea that using the names by which these cities were known for hundreds of years is offensive to Polish people is just about the most POV statement that I can possibly imagine. Obviously, the article should refer to cities by their present names, primarily, but when discussing them historically there is absolutely no reason not to refer to them by the names by which they were known at the time. In the second place, I will once again express my feeling that Danzig ought to be a redirect, and not a disambiguation page. Almost all links to Danzig are indicating the city, and probably almost none (or maybe even none) refer to the obscure band. john 01:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No matter what ill-will may exist between Poles and Germans, it is absolutely accurate to refer to Gdansk as "Danzig" when speaking of a time prior to 1945. -- Emsworth 03:24, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with that, and doing otherwise seems awkward and disinguous at times. For example, the article currently reads one of Gdańsk's most famous products, a liqueur named Danziger Goldwasser ("Gdańsk gold water"). Translating "Danziger Goldwasser" as "Gdansk gold water" seems bordering on the silly. --Delirium 12:03, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
In Germany we use the name Gdansk. When talking about the historic city, we are using the name Danzig, i.e. when we are talking about the city in which Günter Grass was born. Of course, this text should be Gdansk, not Danzig, because the city is Polish today. In the German Wikipedia there is a naming convention, which uses always the names in the language of the country in which the city is situated today. There are only a few exceptions: Rom instead of Roma, Warschau instead of Warszawa, etc. for very important cities which are often in the news (there is a web page of the University of Leipzig which counts the importance of a city's name in newspapers and we have a fixed threshold). Danzig is such an exception, because in this catalogue it is important enough. Why don't you use such a method in the English Wikipedia, to avoid struggles, too? Of course, there are several, non-German nationalists editing here, which missed the last 50 years in Germany and want Gdansk to be a German city. In Germany the people would laugh about such backwardness. We are living in a united Europe, war is over! Stern 12:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Newspapers and travel agencies in Germany still use the name Danzig - without any nationalistic background. Only communist newspapers like Junge Welt and Neues Deutschland use the Polish name Gdansk for anti-nationalistic reasons whereas big newspapers like Bild, Spiegel and Süddeutsche Zeitung still use the name Danzig. The term we seems to refer to a small group who has captured the German Wikipedia and tries to discourage contributors with alternative opinions.
- The arbitrary threshold which was introduced by two users within two hours and opposed by three users within three weeks. It is ridiculous to call a minority of two people we in Germany since there are 98 million German-speaking people. Unfortunately many of these 98 million don't have enough time to waste for edit wars in Ridipedia (or Rumopedia).
- According to the Goethe-Institut, there are over 120 million people who have German as their native language. Besides, it's the most popular foreign language after English in Europe, and I guess most people who speak it as a foreign or second language use Danzig as well. Nico 14:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)---
This is not a European Encyclopedia. (Besides, in Europe it's still Russian and French before German). In the world, as a second language, German is way after Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, French and Russian. [[User:Space Cadet|Cadet}
- In the first place, I'm not talking to you, but to the user above. In the second place, you are wrong according to the German language. You shouldn't make such statements without knowing anything about the case Nico 17:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- You are wrong. I use Danzig when I speak German. And the German wiki use Danzig as well. By the way, Danzig is also the primary name in many other languages, most notably the scandinavian ones. Nico 17:03, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I agree we should use Gdansk in most cases, but not in historical context where it would be anachronistic. We can't really talk about Arthur Schopenhauer or Günter Grass being born in Gdansk without seeming silly. Similarly, we wouldn't want to talk about the Byzantine Empire having its capital in Istanbul, when it was clearly in Constantinople. Similarly with Königsberg, which is now Kaliningrad, but shouldn't be called such in historical context. --Delirium 12:12, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
- That's what I think, too. Stern 12:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The problem here is not that Germans or Poles are generally nationalist or insensitive or whatever, but that sensitive people get tired - if they don't shun these kind of potential conflicts already to start with. Left are the worst extremists, who unfortunately have the most energy to waste. :-(
- --Ruhrjung 12:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The analogy does not match. Constantinopol was the only (if we don't count Bisantion) name of the present day Istanbul untill 1453. The Istanbul is entirely new name. The same is about Koenigsberg. The case of Gdansk is different. Gdansk is the first known name of the city used solely till German settlement started in the second half of the 13th century (of course there was also Latin wersion). From that time it was used by local population around the city and by Polish suveren of the city. I would like notice that I don't intend to quarell about the name. According to me the English name should be used consecquently. Native English speakers should decide what is English name of Gdansk-Danzig. User:Yeti
- There is no one English name. The English name was "Danzig" from the time when an English name can be said to have developed until 1945, and "Gdansk" thereafter. For the period before 1945, I'd say that "Danzig" remains much more the English name than "Gdansk" (especially for the modern period), but it's more ambiguous. There's no clear cut answers on this. As to otherwise, is it correct to speak of the Battle of Tsaritsyn as the turning point of the Second World War? Or of the 900 Day Siege of St. Petersburg? In 1915-24, should we speak of St. Petersburg or Petrograd? I'd also note that from 1453-1924, Constantinople remained the official name of that city, although "Istanbul" was already a local Turkish name for it. That is to say, there is no easy answer as to what the name of a foreign city is in English. But, it seems to me that it makes sense to use a 1945 cut-off. Before that time, going back into the high middle ages, the inhabitants of the city themselves largely called it Danzig. Thereafter, the inhabitants have called it Gdansk. English-users have generally made the same division. This seems like the obvious way to go about it, despite the fact that there were a few hundred years after foundation when the city was probably called something closer to "Gdansk" than to "Danzig".
john
- In such circumstancies I do not see any reason why we should use the German name for the historically and present time Polish city. It makes dangerous precedence. It is interesting that there are no edit wars about the names of former Polish cities in present day Ukraine or Lithuania. Former Lwow is conswquently called Lviv in English Wikipedia - by Polish editors as well. The same about Vilnius (former Wilno) and Hrodna (Grodno). It should be noted that untill 1945 Polish speling was standard in English. The naming conventions HAVE TO be used consequently. If we start using German names to describe history of Gdansk, Torun or Wroclaw, the same should be about Lviv, Vilnius, Hrodna etc. And this will cause not necessary edit wars. I have noticed that for many contributors from Germany the World War II still is on. But it is over, I hope. User:Yeti.
- Please give me a list of those "many contributors from Germany for which the World War II is still on" - I am interested in seeing it. -- Baldhur 11:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Check history under articles about cities and territories of present day northern and western Poland as well as persons born there. There are permanent edit wars. What is s reason of that. Why what is acceptable for Polish contributors who can appreciate Ukrainians, Belarusians or Lithuanians - even it does not agree with Polish national myths - is unacceptable for so many German and German origins contributors? Yeti 12:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I don't want to enter this discussion but I would like to quote Space Cadet (and I hope he doesn't mind): I would like to emphasize that the nature of the past problems was never "the conflict between German and Polish ways of looking at the history of borders and place names". Let's not simplify complex things and let's avoid labeling. No contributors are required to state their nationality, and even if they declare it, it should not be a factor of their reliability.
- I have seen irrational and revanchist viewpoints from both sides, and I don't want to see a battlefield opened here about the question, if German or Polish contributors are more guilty. That is not helpful and will only worsen this sad situation. -- Baldhur 12:48, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that the people who consistently tend to change names of Polish cities are even German. The declared German contributors seem to avoid those controversial issues. But Yeti makes an excellent point about consistency. Use the same method for current polish western lands as for former eastern. Instead of counting clicks on the Google we should use only encyclopedic references.Space Cadet 19:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the same method should be used. I think all cities should be referred to by the name by which they are commonly referred to in English for the time under discussion. That is, if English language historians use "Lwow" to refer to that city before 1772 and between 1918 and 1945, as "Lemberg" from 1772 to 1918, as "Lvov" from 1945 to 1991, and as "Lviv" since 1991, the article should do the same. If, on the other hand, historians simply call it "Lviv", we should do that. In the case of those cities, I'm not sure the answer is all that clear-cut. In the case of Gdansk, it is very clear that historians continue to refer to it almost exclusive as Danzig when discussing its history before 1945. Given that, the question of what to do here does not seem to be all that difficult. Once we've worked that out, I'd be happy to go and work out what is to be done with other cities in Central Europe like Lviv or Vilnius, or whatever (I'd say "Vilna" should be used before 1945, or whatever, since that's what it's generally called in English). At any rate, the point is not to take a Polish or German perspective, or whatever, but simply that we should use the most commonly used name. (And Space Cadet, many encyclopedias do still refer to "Danzig" before 1945. Columbia, for instance, does so intermittently) john 20:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- But what to do with Cracow? For historical reasons call it Kraków prior to 1861, Krakau or Cracovia prior to 1918, then again Kraków, and Krakau again (1939-1945)? This does not make too much sense to me...Halibutt
- Obviously, yes. The chaos would be incredible. Yeti 10:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I saw that the city's Latin name is referred to (looking inconsistant to me) in two ways: "urbs Gyddanyzc" and "urbs Gyddanzyc", the latter sounding more reasonable (to me). Since I'm not a historian, I didn't edit the page in either way, though I think it may be simply a typo. Could somebody (more knowledgeable) have a look...? --Palapala 10:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
new section
Space Cadet, it is very upsetting that you would try to change this article in a way that the discussion on this page shows is strongly opposed without any further attempt at discussion. john 15:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Space Cadet: How about if I the next time changed all occurences of Gdańsk to its Germanic name - Danzig - in order to make the article consistent? This is a Germanic encyclopedia, after all. Nico 16:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I propose we simply make two articles out of this, one article dealing with the old German city of Danzig (until 1945, although the city de jure was German until 1990), one article dealing with the current Polish city located where Danzig previously was found. A such solution could end this argument. Nico 16:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To John:
Wasn't my intention to upset anybody. Some how I don't see the "strong opposition". The aggreement was only temporary and, quite frankly very badly defined and flaky. Also none of the other analogical issues (former eastern Poland) have been addressed, which was a condition of my aggreement. I acknowledged your message about Columbia. It only shows that the British act quicker, more thoroughly and more consistently. 20 years ago Britannica was using Danzig consistently. Times changed, which I and many others (not necessarily using acceptable measures) were trying to explain. Insert as many paragraphs as you want describing when, who and why (but please avoid your annoying speculations: "it is ridiculous to me...", "Schopenhauer thought...", "Fahrenheit felt...", "city inhabitants surely considered themselves..." etc) called the city Danzig. But then run the article smoothly with one name only.
BTW: I haven't been to library for a while, but this "American Heritage Dictionary" from 1992 fell into my hands with an entry "Free City of Gdansk".
Interesting.
What are you saying Nico? Change Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast! Or better start your own "Germanic" encyclopedia. English language name for the city is Gdansk (sometimes with ogonek, sometimes without), and that pertains to historic times, too.
Nonsense. The English name of the city was Danzig, and I guess most (all?) English-speaking people didn't even know the name Gdańsk. Why do you want to change the usage during centuries of English-speaking people who lived and called the city by one name, to a new name they never knew? I have also noticed that you insist that the Oder river should be called Odra, although the English name is Oder and nothing else.
You are not very cooperative now, and you know I tend to be uncooperative as well if other people are. Nico 16:48, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Odra" wasn't me! It's "ODER", period!
I deeply respect the heritage of centuries of good English language people using the name "Danzig" in sickness and in health. Why don't you write an article about them? Let us get to know them, as well as you do.
Even, if the English name changed yesterday, I don't care. The name is Gdansk now even in reference to WW II names, and please, acknowledge it. How come I don't see You changing to German all cities occupied by Nazis during WW II in other coutries than Poland? Why do You single Poland out? Biased? Then it's not a good place for you!
And please, don't threaten me, even if you want to make me laugh.
Where is user 66.47.... ? I need her input on this.
Cadet
I do not acknowledge something which is wrong. But you should acknowledge that city was never called Gdansk, not officially nor in English, before 1945 (in English eventually later, and the city was officially considered German by Germany as well as their allies until 1990). Noone is threaten you, and don't be so bloody ridiculous. Nico 17:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maybe, dear Cadet, we can agree that Poland (like also Bohemia/Moravia) seem to be a more sensitive spot then many other - at the time being, at least.
Polish sensitivness has to be handled pragmatically, as we all know that there are reasons for this sensitivity; and we do not wish to see these prolonged conflicts. The quality of the articles suffer (see John's revertion as an example of that) aswell as the wikipedia community as a whole.
But even beside this need for pragmatism, I would like to remind you all, that you shouldn't get fooled by some users stating their opinion again and again. They don't grow in number for each time they repeat themselves.
Maybe it's time for a poll?
(A new poll, that is. I.e. on a new compromise, which could break the stallmate.)
What's required, then, is to work out a new compromise proposal, isn't it?
(And me? ...I support consistent usage within each wikipedia article.)
--Ruhrjung 17:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
TO NICO:
Maybe the English language people were generally ignorant about Eastern Europe in the past. Maybe when visiting, judging by the language, they thought they were in Germany (kind of like when visiting East LA, one might think he's in Mexico - no racial comment intended).
"De iure" is a dangerous way of reasoning. The 1308 Teutonic invasion was illegal. All the German settlement following the invasion was the result of this illegal act. Therefore "de iure" Gdansk was never German to begin with.
But seriously: The English name to be used in reference to any period is Gdansk. This is the fact of the case and it is undisputed.
When you resort to calling me names, are you compensating for lack of knowledge, lack of common sense or for anti-polish bias?
TO RUHRJUNG:
Maybe, dear Ruhrjung, we can agree that Poland (like also Bohemia/Moravia) does not seem to be a more sensitive spot then many other - at the time being, at least, but is just less known and therefore more subject of misconceptions, stereotypes from XIX century and other non-scientific inconsistencies.
Cadet
You can hardly argue that Gdansk/Danzig should be a lesser known topic! :-)
Compare, for instance, with Vyborg, which in many ways shared a reflecting fate (of Gdansk's) during the same centuries.
--Ruhrjung 18:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
But you do agree that if I ask a thousand randomly picked, humanistically educated, English language people about Royal Prussia, none of them will associate the name witth a polish province that it was.
I don't know much about Vyborg, that's why I don't write about it, to avoid possibility that I'm following some false (although popular!)stereotype.
Cadet
Cadet, you have no right to decide that an issue is "undisputed". John has even proved that Danzig is called Danzig in most historical sources when referring to the pre 1945 period.
Anyway, when you are talking about "Polish province" etc., you must know that these kings of Poland, at least in the past, usually were Germans, that they often were German souvereigns as well and that they spoke German, not Polish. Nico 20:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I never heard that any Polish kings (before 1699) were Germans. I know that king John Casimir, before his election was known to consider himself 100% Austrian, when by origin he was Swedish. But maybe you're referring to the fact that three Jagiellon kings were born from a Habsburg princess? That doesn't make them German. Royal families intermarry constantly for centuries. Now, I am aware of a couple of kings (way before Teutonic knights), who were nominally subjected to the Holy Roman Emperor. But as far as the rest, they were all independent rulers of Poland (and sometimes Lithuania), even the Saxon Wettins were rather (unofficially) dependent on the Russian rulers than German.
Once again I hope I cleared things out for you.
Space Cadet 21:43, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Space Cadet says:
- But seriously: The English name to be used in reference to any period is Gdansk. This is the fact of the case and it is undisputed.
I don't want to get into the whole argument again, but this is absolutely and completely untrue. Look at the archives. I did a JSTOR search through the major English language historical journals from 1990-1999 (the time when "Gdansk" is most likely to be used) and was able to find absolutely no articles which referred to the city as "Gdansk" during the 19th century, or the 20th century up to 1945. There were some references to it as Gdansk in the 18th century and earlier, but not very many. Most references to Gdansk referred to the post-1945 period. I'd add that almost every historical work, whether a monograph or a textbook, that I have ever read, refers to the place as "Danzig" before 1945. I will admit that Britannica, and perhaps other encyclopedias, does refer to the place as "Gdansk" throughout its history, but I'm not sure why we should avoid what is both the popular and the scholarly usage of the name "Danzig" to refer to the city before 1945. At any rate, Space Cadet, seeing as I pointed this out months ago, I can only feel you are being willfully dishonest to suggest that "Gdansk" is the only proper way to refer to the city in English at any time period.
Further, to the question of how other cities which have had name changes like this should be referred to, unless you want to start a meta page to discuss a general policy on such pages, we're going to have to start somewhere. I'd be happy to try to work out some general policy on how to deal with such things, but I don't see why such a project not occurring means you have the right to make massive changes that a pretty clear majority is at least very skeptical of. While there is, perhaps, an argument to be made for uniformity, that argument isn't strengthened by making dishonest claims about standard English usage, certainly.
I'd also like to apologize if my edit warring this morning caused damage to the article. At any rate, the whole discussion here has not been at a very high level. Why don't we try to rationally discuss the pros and cons of the different ways of doing this? I begin below. john 05:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)