Talk:Gdańsk

Former good article nomineeGdańsk was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
March 24, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Polish City?

What does that mean? "Gdańsk is a city in Poland" would sound much less nationalistic and reflect the fact that Gdańsk/Danzig has a much more diverse history than just being a Polish city (today).

The whole article seems to be infested with polish nationalism, especially the history section. Too bad.217.22.143.23 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk IS a Polish city built on the ruins of Danzig. If all the buildings in a city are destroyed, culture scrubbed and people ethnically cleansed, then new cheap buildings built on top and new people from somewhere else with a different culture (far east Poland) are shipped in is it still the same city? The Impartial Truth (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the communists copied the old buildings architecture and rebuilt it, not like the USSR was interested in building newly designed gothic architecture Crainsaw (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remember years ago there were multiple news stories about intentional editorialization of Wiki articles by a coordinated group of nationalists. It could be that many articles were never reviewed in this manner, or that reviews were struck down for some reason including possibly lingering elements of (Polish) nationalists preventing their edits from being reversed. 2A02:1210:1CA7:D700:3DDB:CA7D:A7C3:337C (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was German only for a while, and Polish most of the time. It could have been german had they not been stupid and started ww2 along with a massive genocide. Quit being salty and get over it. Awhileo (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Confusion about Gdansk/Danzig

Hi, I am confused about the Gdansk/Danzig different names and I think it might be useful to clarify this in the article. Specifically, is Danzig a translation of Gdansk or a wholly different name? Was the city officially renamed or do we just use a more accurate translation now?

It also might be useful to add a sentence in Names saying the name Danzig was used a lot by english speakers in WW2 and sources about that if anyone (like me) clicks over from ww2 articles. Safes007 (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk is the original Polish name of the city, Danzig was derived from it, I will try to write something about it in the article Marcelus (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gdańsk/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Johannes Canaparius (Jan Kanapariusz) Gyddanyzc Gdańsk Danzig.jpg says it's CC 3.0 but I don't see any evidence on the source website that the library states that those are the licensing terms. However, as an image of a two-dimensional work that is out of copyright in itself, it's public domain, so no change is needed.
  • File:Mapa miasta Danzig - lata 20. XX w.png says it's PD in Poland because the author has been dead for 70 years. The author is given as Edward Carstenn; if that's accurate we would need some evidence that he died before 1953. I don't think this is the correct licence.
  • File:Arrested defendants of the Polish Post Office in Gdansk.jpg is used under a claim of fair use. I can see that it's an important photograph, and a claim of fair use seems reasonable somewhere, but I don't think it's necessary to understand an article about Gdańsk. It would be better in an article about the history of the Polish Post Office, or about Gdańsk in World War II, or about the Nazi occupation of Poland, or probably in several others, but I don't think it can be justified here.

I'll look at the sources next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking at the sourcing, and I've decided to fail the article on sourcing and, to a lesser extent, on being too long and too detailed. I see the previous review also failed the article for lack of sourcing, and that reviewer added some "citation needed" tags, but judging from how you've sourced this article I don't think the message about what sourcing is needed came across. The way to think about it is that everything in the article needs to have a source. For example, if you look at the "Economy" section, you have a source for the first sentence, and for half-a-dozen of the companies listed, but you don't have a source for the second or third sentence, or for the great majority of the companies. Everything needs a source. This is far too much work to be done during a GA review.

However, the article is also too long. Some examples of excessive detail, and places where more sources would be needed if you keep some of that detail:

  • We don't need a list of 60 companies in the city.
  • Details of earlier composition of the city council -- even in a "history of Gdańsk" article this would be too much detail; it belongs in an article about the history of the Gdańsk city council.
  • We don't need to list every school in the city, and some are unsourced anyway.
  • Similarly are all four scientific and regional organizations worth including? And again some are unsourced.
  • Much of the "Sports" section is unsourced.
  • There are too many images -- if you cut other material you'll have to cut some images anyway, but the point of images is not simply to introduce as many as possible, it's to inform the reader.
  • Much of the transport section is unsourced.
  • The history section could probably also be cut quite a bit. Have a look at WP:SUMMARY, which explains "summary style". Sub-articles can be used to hold material that is too detailed for a parent article. Here you have a good deal of information that would be good in "History of Gdańsk" but is excessive here.

I won't go through every section in this way, but the same problems are apparent throughout the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has the vote not become outdated?

Talk:Gdańsk/Vote

First of all, the decision was based on a simple counting of votes. I do not know what it was like in 2005, but we certainly do not make decisions in this way now. Moreover, the differences are negligible (e.g. for the period 1466 to 1793, it is 10 votes), which clearly indicates that there is no prevailing opinion.

What's more, the usus in relation to other cities with a similar history is quite different. Making Danzig and other Polish cities (Szczecin, Wrocław etc.) with a partly German history into special cases. Without any logically identifiable justification. For example, why is Prague not referred to as "Prag" in topics concerning the period when it was inhabited mostly by German-speaking people and was part of the German states? What about Maribor/Marburg? Why do we not use the name "Kijów" for Kyiv when it was part of Poland, or even when it was mostly Polish-speaking (mid-18th century)? What about Lviv? There are many other examples.

For me, as someone who started editing English Wikipedia long after 2005, this balance is incomprehensible. Above all in relation to cities like Gdańsk, Toruń, Elbląg, which from 1454 almost until the end of the 18th century were part of the Polish state. On what basis do we use the German names to them for this period?

It seems to me that this topic has taken on a new significance with regard to decisions made in the last few years on Ukrainian place names (most notably WP:KYIV), which clearly indicate that the preferred place name also in a historical context is the modern Ukrainian version "Kyiv". Only "unambiguously historical topics" allow for the Kiev version. Why not apply an analogous rule to Gdańsk and other Polish cities with a similar history? ( Incidentally, I should note that WP:KYIV does not provide for names containing the form "Kijów" even for the period when the city was part of Poland, e.g. Kiev Voivodeship. This is a separate topic, but shows the imbalance I am talking about).

I hope that my proposal will be met with an open-minded approach and a willingness to have an informative discussion. Marcelus (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gdańsk&oldid=1216831708"