Jump to content

Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Environmental issues

User:HerkusMonte, in my opinion the environmental issues deserve place in every area. Look Category:Environmental issues by country. This is popular in Wikipedia. Environmental issues in Poland is an open opportunity for everybody. Please start! I recommend to add the point also in this article. [1] Watti Renew (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with addition - it's poorly added (which I admit could be fixed) but more importantly is vague in its definition - where is "near" - and the only supporting ref is in Finnish. Removed again. Please do not edit-war by re-instating until you have a consensus. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
ok, good points. I suggest the following change:

Helsingin Sanomat journalists revealed a leak of the gypsum storage facility near Gdansk. The closed factory of Fosfory plant by Vistula may be leaking estimated 220 tonnes phosphorus (PO4) annually into the Baltic Sea. This would be more than all the Finland’s cities. Phosphorous is a key trigger of eutrophication and blue-green algae in the sea. Environment Minister Ville Niinistö has discussed the issue with his Polish counterpart. In autumn 2011 Finnish Environment Institute researcher Seppo Knuuttila found an even higher phosphorus leak of EuroChem factory in Russia. In Kingisepp leaked phosphorus estimated in the volume of 1,000 tonnes annually in the Luga River. Russian officials arrested environmental expert Seppo Knuuttila, who had been working on behalf of the Finnish Environment Institute and the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission HELCOM. He was interrogated for a total of fourteen hours by the officials, who demanded to have his computer at customs. Knuuttila was examinating Luga river phosphate content, as agreed. Knuuttila expects more polluting fertiliser plants to be discovered around the Baltic.

Refs: Environment Minister to pressure Poland over phosphorous leak yle 19.6.2012HS: Puolan Gdanskissa suuri fosforipäästöjen lähde yle 15.6.2013
Suomalaiset pääsevät mittaamaan EuroChemin fosforipäästöjä yle 13.3.2012 (in Finnish)Venäläisviranomaiset pidättivät Syken tutkijan Pietarissa oppilaistaan yle 13.4.2012 (in Finnish)Suomalaiset pääsevät mittaamaan EuroChemin fosforipäästöjä yle 13.3.2012 (in Finnish)Venäläisviranomaiset pidättivät Syken tutkijan Pietarissa oppilaistaan yle 13.4.2012 (in Finnish)
Watti Renew (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly is "near Gdansk" and how important is this factory for the city? Maybe Baltic Sea is a better place for this kind of info. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Good suggestion. The environmental issues of Baltics may be supplementded with the phosphorus emissions. The specific emissions in Gdansk fit good here, don't you think so? Watti Renew (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tricity vs. aglomeracja gdańska

Aglomeracja has more than 1 million inhabitants.Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gyddanyzc or Gyddanzyc

According to actual quotation the first mentioning of the city was urbs Gyddanzyc, not Gyddanyzc. This can also be found here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_Canaparius

So, Polish nationalists are again tampering in order to establish Gdansk?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.58.220.165 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

alm?

"After a series of Polish-Teutonic Wars, in the Treaty of Kalisz (1343) the Order had to acknowledge that it would hold Pomerelia as an alm from the Polish Crown." Is "alm" really the correct term to be used here? I would see "fief" more fitting in the context ConjurerDragon (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Climate - daily mean temperatures

Something is wrong with Daily mean temperatures - these are too high in december, january and february. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marek c (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek´s Polish Nationalistic Propaganda

It is unbelievable that a Polish Nationalist like Volunteer Marek is allowed to fake history with most extreme Polish Nationalist views. Most of his "references" are unverified Polish citations without any English translation AS REQUIRED by Wikipedia. So, this propaganda outrage has to be stopped and the facts have to replace all these inventions! Discordion (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

changes 22.09

Volunteer Marek, you don't give any reasons for your changes, you remove information, your sources don't support your additions and when challenged on this you simply respond with "not again"?

What exactly are the additions in the "The Teutonic Knights" paragraph supposed to add? They simply repeat what has already been said.

The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers. -- Your source says nothing of local Poles.

and the rights of the Polish crown were limited to the following: The Polish king was allowed to stay in town for three days a year, he was further allowed to choose a permanent envoy from eight councilmen proposed to him by the town, and received an annual payment. -- Why remove this?

Beside the large number of German-speakers -- Again: Why remove information? Why not leave it as: -- Beside the German-speaking majority --67.215.5.130 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

was officially annexed by Nazi Germany

What does it mean? Did Nazi Germany annect unofficially?
Was the annexation legal? Xx234 (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Misquoted The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers.

The quoted text claims that the Knights exterminated Kashubians, not replaced them. Xx234 (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove sources from the article (and other disruptive edits)

Re: [2]. Please don't remove reliable sources from the article. If you need something translated, ask on talk. Additionally, it is simply not true that "polish references ... are not acceptable according to WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES". What guideline? AND if that were the case, shouldn't you be removing all the German references as well? Anyway. The claim is simply nonsense.

Furthermore, the idea that in the 15th-18th century the town was a "independent German republic" is simply not true. I'd ask for sources, but the claim is so ridiculous that it's hardly worth the bother.

I'm also getting the sense that these edits are simply an attempt at provoking a 3RR violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are simply not reliable, because nobody except the Polish can read and UNDERSTAND them. In fact it is a scandal that Wikipedia allows such ridiculous nationalistic influence of the Polish in the English version. OF COURSE YOU DO NOT TRANSLATE A SINGLE CITATION, BECAUSE EVERYBODY COULD SEE THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING YOUR STATEMENTS AND THAT THEY ARE MERE FAKE POLISH HISTORY PROPAGANDA! Otherwise, just translate every single one of your "reliable sources" to English and we will see. Discordion (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not has nothing to do with the language it is written in. See WP:RS. The sources are not "fake Polish history propaganda". Like I said, if you want something translated be specific. In the meantime please stop removing reliable sources and information from this article. It's disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
And you might want to drop the all caps typing. Shouting does not make you more right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is clearly driven by the fact that the city was conquered and annexed by Poland in 1945. No where is mentioned that Gdansk/Danzig had been a predominant (low)german speaking city since at least the 14th century (there was a fluent dialect continuum between todays lower Germany and dutch or flemish regions). Which is obvious beeing a leading part of the Hanseatic league. In the article it is just "large number of German-speakers". What is large? 15, 20, 40%? In the middle of the 17th century, Danzig had the largest german speaking population world wide, before Vienna took the lead.--Ickerbocker (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of history between the 14C and 1945- which bit specifically are you objecting to? And please try to be accurate- it wasn't Poland, it was Hitler's mate Stalin, that conquered the city in 1945.
Gravuritas (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gdańsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Danzig

Shouldn't this name be in the Name section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the lead and the etymology section. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
PaleCloudedWhite, what are the rules for selecting foreign names for the lead in general? Not only for this article. It is obvious that some names remain only in the name section but others are selected for the lead and the name section. Is that selection in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia or is just arbitrary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERNAMES, which uses this article as an example. In this case there is a separate "Names" section because there are more than three names for this city. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Gdańsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gdańsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gdańsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Gdánsk

There are several pages that link to this article via the redirect Gdánsk (i.e. with the accent on the a not the n) and it gets a handful more mentions. Is this a valid alternative or former spelling or is it a misspelling that should be corrected? Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

There isn't an "á" in Polish language. --Jonny84 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll mark it as a {{R from misspelling}} then. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gdańsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Polish Nationalism

Large parts of the history section were filled with Polish Nationalism, in particular the time of the Free Republic. Poland is nowadays trying to rewrite history as to remove all antisemitism that was strong in Poland. Pogroms against Jews were committed over thousand years, but now they try to "abolish" that by new laws, which were heavily critisized by Israel.

I've reverted your edits as they were unsourced, removed sourced claims, and were of poor quality. If you wish to make changes you need to have corroborating sourced and references that back up your claims. If what you way is true you should have no difficulty in finding such references. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead and bold font

Rather minor, but MOS:BOLDSYN and MOS:QUOTENAME strongly suggest that a frequently used variant (as is the case here) be mentioned as such (i.e. "Gdansk, also known as Danzig in German, is [...]") and bolded in the lead - it explicitly gives the example of "Mumbai, also known as Bombay [i.e. the old British variant, even if that variant can, as per what is in the article, 'result in emotional outbursts sometimes of a violently political nature.']".

Also, this seems to be what is done at, surprise, Britannica, where the article begins "Gdańsk, German Danzig [formatting as in source]" and is then referred to as Gdansk throughout (except for a specific example concerning a German writer). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: ping fix 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Note, this is also the practice followed on other wikis. fr:Gdańsk has no less than 5 bold variants: "Gdańsk, Gduńsk en cachoube, Danzig en allemand (d’où Dantzig ou Dantzick en français),"; es:Gdansk has the German and Polish variants in bold, "Gdansk​ (anteriormente Dánzig)", as does the German de:Danzig, which has "Danzig (polnisch Gdańsk [ɡdaɲsk] kaschubisch Gduńsk)". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@LechitaPL: 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "frequently used variant". It was, maybe 30 years ago, but not now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Google reveals 30 million results for Gdansk, 12 mil. for Danzig. Obviously, it is used. Also, its use in historical documentsthroughout history cannot be ignored. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Ummm... Danzig.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
A significant portion of results are still to the city. And what of the "history" part??? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
And a significant portion are in German or Dutch. What "history" part? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
And a significant portion (of mentions to Gdansk) must be in Polish, too. Gdańsk#History, the whole "part of Prussia/Germany/other random German speaking entity"... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
And the claim that "maybe 30 yrs ago, but not now" is dubious. Obviously, there was still enough "dispute" over it to create both an entry worthy of WP:LAME and a vote on the issue just 10 yrs ago (see top of this page...) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
"Google reveals 30 million results for Gdansk, 12 mil. for Danzig" - however, this is not a source of information. LechitaPL (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a commonly used tool. What of Britannica, then, or the other language wikis I gave as example? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Modern English sources which use, or make mention of the use, of "Danzig" (in combination with Gdansk) - thus demonstrating that it is indeed a "frequently used variant":

  • [3] "Gdansk, German: Danzig (the two names are often used interchangeably)"
  • Yad Vashem Clear use of the name in a historical context - which means that the German name is still used for periods where the city was considered German


Thus, the city now being Polish does not whitewash the part of the city's history when it was part of (a predecessor state of modern-day) Germany [and is referred to using the German name in scholarly litterature]. As such, both names deservedly should be in bold. Unlike "Kaliningrad" (which is hardly ever referred to by it's German name, Koenigsberg, and even then maybe only in historical contexts). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense...as in the case of Kaliningrad, the term Konigsberg is historical and in the context of Gdańsk, the name Danzig is historical. Gdańsk for most of the period belonged to Poland and was founded under Polish rule. The present city was rebuilt from ruins, the German population fled or was displaced, the unit "Free City of Gdańsk" collapsed. There have been no Germans in the city since 1945, so there is no autonomy or other status. Underlining completely pointless, probably only to prove Germanophilia. LechitaPL (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Very nice, but that's your personal opinion. Above, I have two three recent WP:RS (Britannica, Yad Vashem, Beit Hatfutsot) which explicitly use the German name, one of them even telling explicitly that "the two names are often used interchangeably". As such, your opinion is nothing more than that, and it can be discarded. Implying I'm a Nazi (which is the only possible meaning of "Germanophilia" in this context) is a clear, unacceptable WP:PA198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
since when does Germanophilia mean the Nazis? LechitaPL (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
When it's used in a negative context (or used in a way that seems to imply some negative opinion about the person being commented upon). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Very nice, but that's your personal opinion. LechitaPL (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You should still abstain from commenting on others. Whether neutral or negative, that part of the comment is rather "completely pointless", as you have so kindly pointed out. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Uh, your first source explicitly says that "Danzig" is the German version of the name. Likewise, the Yad Vashem source uses "Danzig" because it's focused exclusively on the interwar period and WW2 when it was the Free City of Danzig. So, nope. Anyway, you'd need more than two sources. Also, since there's a dedicated section for "Names", the German version shouldn't even appear in the lede.
BTW, have you edited with a different account previously? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
So what? I'm not saying that "Danzig" is the Polish name of the city. I am saying that is is the German name, and that it has been used (is still being used) to various extents by various sources to refer to the city, including most notably in historical contexts. Per the principle of least surprise, then, the reader of the article coming here from the Danzig redirect would expect to see it in bold in the lead, as is done with other historical-name-variants-still-sometimes-used[or-used-really-a-lot-in-historical-documents-and-historical-contexts} cities, like Bombay (i.e. Mumbai), Aix-la-Chapelle (i.e. Aachen), the name he was redirected from, in this case Danzig. The name being historical is of little importance, what is important is its used in English-language reliable sources, which the three sources I provide demonstrate conclusively. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Right. It's the German name. But this isn't German Wikipedia. Also, there's something called the Gdansk vote, which you're probably aware of since you invoked the fact that this dispute has been mentioned over at WP:LAME, which is also what led me to inquire if you've edited from another account previously, which you still haven't answered.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It's the German name which was and is still sometimes used in English-language publications. And, re your question, no. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

An alternative option would be to do as with Kaliningrad and have two separate articles: one for the post-1945 period (under the name (example: Kaliningrad) "Gdansk" [with the diacritic]) and another for the before-1945 period (example: Koenigsberg) (with the name "Danzig"). The variant names could then simply be dealt with with the {{about}} template. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Gdansk until 1793 belonged to Poland. After 1793, the partition of Poland took place, but the Polish population of Gdańsk still existed. Quite a different example than with Kaliningrad. LechitaPL (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Calling "nonsense" for a city with such a complex history doesn't make the cut here. Also, the above referenced Gdansk vote gives preference to the name "Danzig" for the whole 1308-1945 period. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding naming, copied directly from Talk:Gdansk/Vote#An_attempt_at_persuasion_on_1466-1793:

1) English language sources generally use Danzig when referring to the city at this time. General use textbooks like John Elliott's Europe Divided 1559-1598, Geoffrey Parker's Europe in Crisis 1598-1648, William Doyle's The Old European Order 1660-1800, McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815, Jeremy Black's The Rise of the European Powers 1679-1793, and so forth, all refer to the city as "Danzig". A JSTOR search shows a limited number of references to the city as "Gdansk" - only 61 articles total mention "Gdansk", and many of those are references to the city since 1945. There are, on the other hand, 552 articles which mention "Danzig", and many of them are discussing the eighteenth century and earlier. [this is a JSTOR search of articles in the 56 journals that are classified as historical. A few of these articles, but not very many, will be from before 1945] 2) This English usage makes sense. The city was primarily a linguistically German city from the early 14th century on. Since 1945 it has been a linguistically Polish city. It makes sense to make the name switch only in 1945, because this corresponds to a major shift in the city that did not occur in 1454 or 1793.

198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC) And another quote, same place, regarding "official usage":

Another point: For those of you impressed by the fact that Gdansk/Danzig was under Polish sovereignty from 1466-1793, notice that we don't use this as the basis for how we name cities in other early modern contexts. Most of modern day Belgium and Luxembourg were under Spanish control in the 16th and 17th centuries, and then under Austrian control in the 18th century. We don't refer to their cities by Spanish or German names in those periods. Nor do we use Spanish or German names to refer to Italian cities under Spanish or Austrian rule in the same time period.

198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Look, you're not convincing anyone and you're edit warring against several editors. Consensus is against you. Please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
(and one could just as easily quote opposing views from the same discussion, so that doesn't really mean anything).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"Several" - 2 (Polish, but that should be irrelevant, right? It's not like nationalism of any kind existed there anyway, right?). You're WP:STONEWALLING to supposedly consensus (which has never been discussed, from what I see, so we don't know if it's based on policy or not, or really if its consensus or the opinion of a few editors) and refusing to compromise. If you think there's no problem, say so, but don't come up with some bad claim to consensus when there's only 3 of us. So far, none of you two has cited a single WP:RS or a single MOS policy, or really, any kind of policy whatsoever besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("Nonsense. Gdansk until ..." [which is why I answered with the quote from the discussion - if you think the opposing arguments are grounded in policy, then you should thoroughly read Wikipedia:Official names, or really, the whole of WP:TITLE, and the corresponding parts of the MOS, which I have already linked above]). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
IMO, for what it's worth, the other two editors should have presented a real argument instead of just ignoring the OP's. Names are not about which name is widely used "now". "It's old" is not an argument because history matters and encylopedias are not exclusively for people working from "the latest" materials. They are here precisely because people lack information and are searching for it. "It's German" is not an argument because the sources using the word are English sources and this is English Wikipedia. "Two against one" on a page with little traffic is not a genuine consensus: an RfC could have been started. Is this even necessary? Why not just add a sentence stating: "The German name Danzig formerly had a wide currency but is now used only primarily in German-speaking countries." Simple, factual. In fact, I think I will be WP:BOLD and add it myself. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
ZarhanFastfire, whether the name is in bold or not I do not mind, however, this information does not fit in the very first sentence of the article. The first sentence should contain name of city, location, population and area. Oliszydlowski, 18:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Cite a Wikipedia policy stating why it "doesn't fit". Whether you mind is not relevant. Policy and precedent across other Wikipedia articles about cities and countries, persons, organziations, etc. that have had different names all pretty much do this and no-one seems to "mind". No-one who has objected to this absolutely standard Wikipedia procedure has ever actually provided a WP policy to support their personal objection, and personal objections carry no weight. Also, it's not in the first sentence. It's the last sentence in the first paragraph. So there's no problem.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, I do not need to cite policies which are obvious. There is a statement in the manual of style in the link provided that the lead must provide a "neutral point of view". Talking or explaining the name "Danzig" in the very first sentence is not neutral. The lead can contain "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles" in bold but not their explanations. Danzing is not an official name in English nor does any English-speaking country refer to Gdańsk as Danzig. Oliszydlowski, 02:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

When you do not refer to no policy and call it obvious, you run the risk of enganging in original research albeit unwittingly. There is nothing "non-neutral" in simply stating, factually, the historical name of the city found in (historical) English sources. You will have to explain to me what you mean when you say it's "non-neutral", because I have no idea what that can possibly mean in this context. You seem to be implying it's "taking a side". How? What's the issue? Who's arguing it? Or how am I somehow being "non-neutral"? You said earlier that you don't mind if it was in bold, but previous editors on this page objected to using bold for the alternate names already present, but I was suggesting this as a compromise. Based on your stated position and that of the anonymous editor who originally proposed the bold, we should go ahead and bold both the name. As a not-quite aside, your closing sentence is contradicted by this very talk page (scroll up to the beginning of the section). But since you do agree the name should have been put in bold, I'll do that at least. I really do feel there should be a statement about the name being used historically though. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Population"-section

The recent addition [4] of a section on the population should rather stick to the specific situation in Gdansk, currently it's a general overview of the postwar population transfer. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Danzig" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Danzig. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#Danzig until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. buidhe 06:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Help please, anyone here?

Can someone quickly please remind me where the policy/guideline is that says geo article names have to be current not historical? I know it exists but didn't see it standing out at Talk:Braunschweig#Article_name so maybe at Gdansk? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Euphemisms

This is probably a bigger issue when dealing with these atrocities, but the ethnic cleansing and murder of Danzig Germans is referred to as "flight and expulsion" while the ethnic cleansing and murder of Poles is referred to as what they actually were. It's particularly apparent in this article because they are referred to one after the other.Hajers2213 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Bring forth Reliable Sources (not some fringe whacky-doo that got his/her book published by a non-discriminating publisher) that supports your claim.50.111.44.55 (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
This is common to all articles about areas from which German speakers were ethnically cleansed. It's a clear double standard, but apparently the wounds are still too fresh. By all means, bring citations and revise. But expect to be held to an extremely high standard.Udibi (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
This is about calling two near identical situations (total ethnic replacement) separate things in the same article. Clearly there is a bias on display when one group of innocent civilians are made to look like the larger victims. The Impartial Truth (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Gdańsk name's origin

So, after finding some interesting information about the origin of Gdańsk's name, I decided to spend 1 hour editing it in the most proper way I could. 90 minutes later, user Marcelus decided on it's own that it was a fringe theory and deleted it. I don't pretend this information to be the thruth, apparently no one has a verified exact source, just one of the possibility but this one at least as a reference dating 350 years ago and that I added. I'm not sure Marcelus reads old french and that it took the time to check the reference. So could please someone else agree or disagree with it? In my sense it's not a fringe theory, just a theory not better or worst that any other but at least an intersting one and once again that has at least a reference. 84.75.117.147 (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded rude. But on Wikipedia we try to present only theories for which there is a consensus in the scientific literature, ideas that departments significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views are referred to as WP:FRINGE. What's more, on Wikipedia we do not publish the results of our own research (WP:OR), but we rely on reliable sources, secondary sources are preferred (WP:SECONDARY). You quoted a 17th century source whose author proposes his own folk etymology name for Gdańsk (Danzig to be precise). Unfortunately, this edit breaks the rules I mentioned. Marcelus (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes but there is no scientific consensus here. My source is not an "own research", I didn't speculate on the origin, I'm just citing a source that has no reason to be less or more valuable than another one. Worst, if you take this path, please consult the source for "Other scholars from the 19th century claimed that the name originated from the expression ku Dansk, which meant "to/towards Denmark"", it's an article of someone speculating (and it's his right, he's looking for an answer but proves nothing) and it's used as a source that is clearly contained in the category "own research".
The quote from the book is not the author own folk etymology but what we can imagine has been told to him by locals (in this case local nobility).
I don't see the point of erasing any hypothesis that is not just a modern speculation, but if you do, you can erase the chapter "Origin" in its entirety considering no one knows. At least letting some hypothesis that have a historical source may help some people work on researches because it can contain a part of the story.
On a logic point of view, there cannot be a fringe theory if there is not a consensual theory, considering that qualifying a theory of "fringe" depends on it's own consensual theory. 84.75.117.147 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gdańsk/Archive_14&oldid=1261308614"