Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 11

message: Gdańsk was once an important centre of culture. In the 16th century it hosted Shakespearean theatre on foreign tours…
I find this difficult to believe. Shakespeare’s earliest plays are thought to have been produced in the 1590s in England. He died in 1616. Would his plays have been produced in Poland, or anywhere else in Europe in his lifetime, the 16th and early 17th century? Shakespeare was big in Europe in the 18th century, true. Bog 00:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: The Amerian Government and the European Union in the main use Gdansk. Google:
* about 32 English pages for -Gdansk Gdańsk site:gov
* about 13,900 English pages for Gdansk -Gdańsk site:gov
* about 122 English pages from eu.int for -Gdansk Gdańsk
* about 539 English pages from eu.int for Gdansk -Gdańsk
--Philip Baird Shearer 1 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
The English alphabet does not have an accented 'ń', therefore, should the title not be "Gdansk"? The article for Munich is not München! Antman 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdansk or Gdańsk 

message: Pronunciation is provided for Gdańsk (thanks!) but not for Gduńsk, Danzig, or Gedania.  If somebody knows how to pronounce these, it would be nice to have a key.  — The Storm Surfer 19:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: done-tseeg in German -Iopq 08:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: most likely, gay-DAWN-yah in classical Latin, although it would be tempting to pronounce the "e" as a schwa.--66.231.41.57 02:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh? In a lot of dialects ich is palatal. You can't be saying it's pronounced danzich. Even counting the final devoicing it should be dan-tsik. Dawn to me sounds different from German a probably because of a different English dialect. -Iopq 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kashubian Gduńsk should be pronunciated how it looks, that is very similar to Polish Gdańsk except of vowel u, which is pronunciated like in English room.
--Marqoz 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Pronunciation of German version depends on the dialect:
* I was told the most proper i.e. in Standardsprache it is close to DAAN-tseesh' , where AA sound like 'a' in 'father', and sh' is more palatalised version of 'sh'.
* There was however another way to render it, where final 'g' was like Scottish 'ch' in 'Loch Ness'.
* And of course there was version with final graphem sounding like strong 'k', what was even expressed through more adequate spelling i.e. 'Dantzigk'.
NB: the dialect of German inhabitants of Gdansk was firstly 'Low Saxon' or 'Plattdeutsch' the same as for mother city of the Hansa i.e. 'Lubeck'. Starting from the middle of XV century it was quickly pushed aside by 'High German' or 'Hochdeutsch' version from Meissen Chancellory, supported by newly translated protestant Holy Bible by Martin Luther.
--Marqoz 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There were two Latin versions of the city name: 'Gedania' based on Polish/Pomeranian name, and another: 'Dantiscum' based on the later German name.
--Marqoz 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Wikipedia's editors need to get to grips with the garbage on this and some other sites. It is akin to reading Polish propaganda sheets. Fortunately for us here in Britain we still have history books going back to the Dark Ages and we have histories of Europe based upon fact rather than gossip and hysterical nationalism. Someone calling himself 'Space Cadet' is clearly a lead player in wiping out the comments of others and keeping this Polish propaganda in place, which, frankly, is insulting to any educated individual. You need to act.
Christchurch
- I second this. Antman 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site for Polish propaganda and demented versions of historical fact 

message: Please see the vote to delete Category:Natives of Danzig and the vote to rename Category:Natives of Gdańsk. -- Reinyday, 02:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  related category votes 

message: The tourism section seems quite small compared to the history.  It would be good if people with relevant knowledge could please expand the tourism section.  I understand that Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, but still a number of visitors to the site would be interested in this aspect.  It appears to me that the history section has received a lot of attention (partly no doubt because of all the controversy that this page has received).  That is not a bad thing in itself, but it does rather dominate the article.  Thanks. TerraGreen 11:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism 

message: I formally accuse the User Molobo of the attempt to falsify history. The User Molobo tries to play down the expulsion of the Germans from Gdanks/Danzig while in contrast exaggerates the ethnic Polish nature of the city throughout history. As the basis of my allegation I use his last edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gda%C5%84sk&diff=26972049&oldid=26944005) with short explanations and examples for it.
1. Molobo deletes the words "formerly English "Danzig"" that an uneducated person may think that the city has always been known by its Polish name Gdansk in the English speaking world. Wrong!
         - Is it really? Personnaly, I know a lot of "educated" english speaking people who do know Danzig to be a german word (name) - which makes it only applicable in german.
2. He goes on with deleting "a predominantly German-speaking" [seaport] and adding "an important Polish" [seaport]. False! In reality, Danzig/Gdansk was predominantly German speaking before WW2 (up to 95%).
         - Before WW2, huh? And when exactly did this "before WW2" begin?
3. Furthermore, he deletes the German name of the river "Mottlau" in order to minimize the German "wording" of a "Polish" area.
         - The german wording has no relevance in an article about a polish city.
4. He goes on with the deletion of "After its German majority population was expulsed in 1945, it became part of Communist Poland". This shows that Molobo wants to sanitize the expulsion from the history of the city. Bad faith!
         - This article goes to hysterical extents trying to expose the "rape", "murder", etc. of german citizens at the end of the second world war. However, no objective references are provided that would allow a reader to assess the veracity of these statements. In fact, the way these paragraphs are written make them look like a lame attempt to blame "someone" for "something" - you can almost hear the screaming in the head of the person who wrote them. Not very professional.
5. At the end he reverts Sca contribution by writing [the city was] "liberated from Nazi occupation" by Polish [...] forces. He did this although he did not and could not challenge Sca's reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gda%C5%84sk#Sanitizing_history) for his version: [the city was] "occupied" by Polish [..] forces. He changed the content without challening Sca's arguments. Bad habit!
If you look at Molobo's contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Molobo) you may see that this edit was not a "mistake". He routinely edits pages in favour of Polish history by often changing some few words in order to give the page a "pro-Polish" sometimes "anti-German" face. After the given examples it is fair to say that Molobo is a Polish nationalist who wants to rewrite history in favour of Poland. Therefore, I ask the community and all the other people who are having problems with Molobo's edits: What are the next steps to avoid such bad faith edits in the future? Quak 14:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Molobo 

message: Maybe this picture  would be of use, feel free to use it.
Yellowmellow45 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Postcard of Danzig

message: See my comment at Template talk:Gdańsk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Please, Molobo, could you explain why you insist on making this revert even though other editors are telling you it's POV. "Forced" is POV, esp. when you only apply it to German control in the area, rather than all takeovers. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And current Polish control was also the result of forceful takeover, if only indirectly through the forces of the Soviet Union; but encyclopedia articles aren't the places to moralize about it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a totally POV assertion. The people of Danzig did not want to leave Germany in 1945, but were, in your terms, forced to. It hardly matters that the Kingdom of Poland had held overlordship of the city in the early modern era. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Check the list of Polish kings. I won't say anything about what the people of Danzig wanted, but article Free City of Danzig says that the Nazi Party received 57% of the city's electoral vote in 1933, and later the government voted to join Germany.90% of the city was in ruins when the Russians took it, so that kinda suggests the native Germans of the city weren't too keen on changing the status quo. Are you suggesting the people of Danzig in 1945 wanted to join Poland? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, so were they or weren't they forced? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah Molobo, you see the problem with your edits now? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No. You're talking about the use of the word "forced", which you insist on using for the incorporation of the German-speaking city Danzig into German-speaking state of Prussia, but somehow object to when applied to the Soviet (gift to Poland) conquest of the city in 1945. Do you understand yet? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You may wait a long time my friend, as I never made that claim ... must have confused my edits with something else. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I have to go to bed now. So this will be the end of it for the night. I wish you the loveliest of nights. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molobo's Explanation 

message: 1. Line 46: Also common was the german name Freie Hansestadt Danzig (Free hanseatic city of Danzig)
Gdansk was never named Freie Hansestadt Danzig. It's already mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gda%C5%84sk
2. Line 61:  	
Zuraw was build 1442-1444, when Gdansk was a Polish city by that time. Krantor is just crane in english. You don't need to translate every word to German, it's English wiki.
3. You removed: and the free access to all Polish markets and changed "ethnic groups (Germans, Poles, Jews, and Dutch being the largest)" to "predomiantly Germans but also minorities of Poles, Jews, and Dutch)"
Why? Any sources for that?
5. "But this subject is disputed by historians, it maily contains the view of polnish historians during the communsit time"
No, it isn't.
6. You removed " After the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, Gdańsk was returned to Poland after 152 years of rule by Prussia and Germany that was the result of forcefull Second Partition of Poland in 1793."
This is vandalism. Don't try to change the history. 
This is German propaganda (you used polnish instead of polish, so I'm sure you're from Germany).
85.219.173.251 21:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will post some scans of historical documents from the Middle Ages from my Catholic University Library, if some want this. Danzig (rather then: Dantzige or Denzike) was ethnic German from at latest 1200 AD. It was never an ethnic Polish city before, not counting the numerous germanized Kashubian minority as a Polish majority then. This article used to be full of Pan-Slavic Polish nationalism. It's preposterous. On those grounds, we could also call Berlin a "Polish" city, because it happened to be in the hands of Slavic tribes for some years. Or we could say Lwow was German(ic), because ca. 300 AD Goths lived there! Smith2006 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Polish cities had German majorities in the middle ages, including Cracow, then the capital city (its town council debated in German). Does it make Cracow a German city? At the time German settlers, who were welcomed by Polish kings and dukes comprised up to 20% of population of the lands who were later indisputably ethnically Polish (and much more in the cities), possibly even more in lands which soon afterwards became germanized such as Lower Silesia. The linguistic influence of the middle age German on Polish language is still discernable (large linguistic borrowings, even some grammatical and phonetical influence - why do you think Polish language sounds so Germanic to English speakers, unlike other "softer pronounced" Slavic languages?). So what? Does it make Poland a German land? Gdańsk was no less a Polish city until 1308 than Cracow. And remember its inhabitants (including the German speaking ones) chose Poland in 1466 by asking the Polish king to take over the city. It the meaning of the word as it was understood then, this choice made them Poles. The language defined national states are an invention of 19th, not 15th century. Even some Polish kings (including such great ones as the Lithuanian Jagiełło or Transylvanian Batory) spoke no Polish language. No one would not call them Poles then. Similarly the language majority of a city wasn't so important before even the national languages were codified from many local dialects! So please do not use nationalistic criteria of 19th or 20th century to the medieval times. ProudPomeranian 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by 131.173.252.9