Talk:Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)

message: The article claims that Saborids received their liens from HRE. This is absurd, and when the background is ommitted this constitutes a major falsification of history. Samborids were vassals of Poland for quite a long time, and For some time Pomorze was part of Polish senioral part. 
Szopen (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Absurd claims 

message: This is indeed an interesting case; since it it the very takeover of Danzig/Gdańsk that led to the city's Germanization and this event marks the change of Gdansk to Danzig in our wiki nomenclature. Therefore should this article be named 'Teutonic takeover of Danzig' or Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk'? I think that since the city name before the takeover was Gdańsk, it would be logical to use the G version. We may also avoid this trouble by using a neutral name like Polish-Teutonic War (1308–1309).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polish-Teutonic War (1308–1309) is a neutral only in the sense that the Royal Polish forces were not involved at all in the takeover. The Poles did not fight the Order, they were supposed to drive the Brandenburgers away from the town, which was not accomplished. That failure could be covered in Polish-Brandenburgian War (1308) if needed. As for the town naming, the vote, which I had looked up to make sure to pick the consensus name, requires to use "Gdańsk before 1308" and "Danzig between 1308 and 1945". If we ignore the vote in this case in order to determine the name used around 1308, then Historical documents suggest "Danzc (1263), Danczk (1311, 1399, 1410, 1414-1438)". As for "the takeover led to the city's Germanization", well, I started the article to initiate a better coverage of this important event and its time frame than the general article on the city and its history currently can provide. Capital of the Pomeranian Duchy (1138–1294/1308) is a starter, though, maybe parts can be merged in here for a better background. -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this article needs to go through WP:RM.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, the only thing that needs to get fixed is the pre-1308 part of the "vote" above, where Polish POV only prevailed because this early era was not yet covered properly with sources back in 2005. Are there any sources for the claimed use of Polish names at all? I have seen none. How about Dgańska, whatever that is? I've seen Polish sources reporting about existing evidence for German name versions, e.g. "Dantzike" in the pre-1308 era. Besides, your edit  is a really good laugh, as you are calling the GDR edition of a work of this author mentioned here a "German source". Freudian slip maybe, as the person had worked in Krakau, Posen and Thorn? How about this or that: Dansko 1180, Dansk, Gdanensis 1209, Dancek, Gdanensis 1224, Danceke 1263, Dantsik, etc. There was exactly one takeover of the city that led to an "X-ization", and that was in 1945. As in 1308, 1410, 1456, 1918, Poles needed others to do the fighting. And again, Kashubians and Germans were slaughtered, not absent Poles.-- Matthead  DisOuß   14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You guys and making compromises? When and where? Especially Space Cadet is constantly edit warring, even adding Polish names to places in Kaliningrad Oblast, like Tilsit. The vote is clear on that: It's Danzig in 1308. Show me articles on the town that have double naming, then I may consider discussing a name change. And now, move back to original naming.-- Matthead  DisOuß   12:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tylża was a part of the Polish fief Ducal Prussia therefore is sharing a Polish/German history, therefore a Polish name according to the Gdańsk vote. You German ultranationalists only like the Gdańsk vote when it serves your purposes, but you forget that it works both ways. What doyou mean show you an article? Every article that talks about the history of the western and northern Polish territories has double naming. Prussian Confederation, Royal Prussia, Ducal Prussia, Bogusław Radziwiłł e tutti quanti. You're new here or something? Don't play dumb on us (the Wikipedia Community) now! Space Cadet (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Moved back to original and proper name. You may try WP:RM, stop warring here.-- Matthead  Discuß   18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Come on Piotrus, what is pretty unoriginal non-research. You know very well that German name variants are recorded  well before 1308, the Order did not introduce a new name to the town which was inhabited by many German merchants and had received Lübeck rights in the 1220s. The Polish version had gained the upper hand in the vote for the pre-1308 time, even though sources are scarce. The event happened in 1308, the policy is "Danzig between 1308 and 1945", thus "Gdańsk before 1308" does not belong in the article name at all. Once again I ask you to be cooperative and move the article back to its original and proper name Teutonic takeover of Danzig from which it was moved away by Space Cadet three times. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read section on Original Research, the city was not Germanised before 1308, your personal beliefs can't be used as sources. It's absurd to talk about "German merchants"-there was no German identity, no German nation, and no Germany back then. As to city laws that is view that Norman Davies simply points out as ignorant-many cities and towns adopted without any German living within their walls. It was an administrative change unconnected to ethnic situation.--Molobo (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both names are most probably wrong in spelling (whatever "wrong" means, in the middle ages they spelt as they felt). Not that it matters much, but your statement that there was no Germany back then is not correct. Just google for "Regnum Teutonicum" or "East Francia". Polish or German identity kind of existed already. Have fun. Der Eberswalder (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I strongly suggest we follow the spirit of the vote, it is only logical, as I explained above, that the city name would be changed after the takeover, not before. The logic is the same as in, for example, "splitting atom into subparticles": first, you have atom; than, you have suparticles. The Danzig variant is as logical as saying "splitting subparticles into subparticles" :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: To be accurate, the vote summary says "use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945" and "use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945". Olessi (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be even more accurate, this vote - a sad excuse for scholarly expertise - also assumed that "1308: Teutonic Knights", which of course, as this article shows, is not as clear. The TK did not take over Gdansk on the 1st January of the year, and until they did, it was know as Gdansk. It's quite simple - so I strongly suggest we avoid any more wikilawyering w/ regards to this issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, you ignore the vote, you ignore the conveniently placed coin that shows that Danceke was used well before 1308, and yet you claim "it was know as Gdansk", and perform move warring, together with Space Cadet? The article must be moved back to its original name Teutonic takeover of Danzig, which conforms both to the vote and to sources. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But not to common sense, huh? And what sources, do tell? In any case, if you want this article moved so much, try WP:RM.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Sigh. The Knights did not invade, the were called to defend the castle of Danzig, as the King of Poland in far away Cracow could not help. Polish involvement was short-lived and weak compared to that of Pomeranians, Brandenburgers, German/Hanseatic merchants, and Teutonic Knights. To put it short: no Polish business before and after 1308, and no Gdansk either. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Danzig or Gdańsk?

message: Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk) → Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk — As was explained above by me and most recently summed up by Space Cadet, Teutonic Knights took over Gdańsk and this led to the city's name change to Danzig for the next few centuries. They did not take over Danzig, just as Khrushchev did not change the name of Volgograd but of Stalingrad. The (in)famous Gdansk vote is not clear on this, but logic again dictates that the name Danzig should be used for all events after this takeover which was the catalyst for various namechanges (as the names were not changed before the takeover, but afterwards). Finally, double naming is not recommended (and by above logic, IF we wanted double naming, it should be Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk (Danzig)).—Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Nominator support per above rationale. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The siege of the Danzig's castle(!) by Brandenburg was only a part of the events, and the Teutonic Knights were called to defend it, which they successfully did. Only afterwards, they took control of castle and city of Danzig. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all fine, but there is no real way of checking the current title to the literature, so this move debate is not really about this article's title but about how to refer to a certain city. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
Is there a more formal term used in literature for this event? Perhaps "Siege of Danzig (1308)" or something? I don't know how the current title could be tested against the sources accurately. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: A quick notability check strongly suggests that "Teutonic takeover of Danzig" would be the common name for this article. Wilhelm meis (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What check? Please describe the methodology.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you. In future, please provide links to searches, this eliminates the need to ask how did one gather the data. I wonder how many of those results are still wiki mirrors, even with "-wikipedia". Do note than neither search (, ) is found in literature. I would like however to direct your attention to this search: a lot of books by prominent scholars such as Norman Davies use Gdańsk in this context: "the Knights over the seizure of Gdansk in 1308", "The monk- knights also subjugated Pomerania on the lower Vistula, a Christian country, and massacred the people of Gdansk (1308)", "The Teutonic Knights, who captured Gdansk in 1308, destroyed the Slavonic town", "After the Teutonic Knights conquered Gdansk in 1308"... A similar search for Danzig () suggests that the isage of Gdańsk and Danzig is roughly as popular.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  10:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: *The conflict was very much about the town, which the knights razed to the ground... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The walls, not the town.Skäpperöd (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? I quoted above one source about massacre of city's inhabitants, another about the destruction of the town. You can find more info on that, the bottom line is that the Knights sacked/razed/burned the city, killed most if its Slavic inhabitants, and settled their own Germanized settlers on the ruins. Hence Gdańsk became Danzig.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be careful with that massacre legend. Also, that town's name was not Gdansk when the knights moved in.Skäpperöd (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Neither is Danzig a common name. Both names are roughly as popular, and simple logic dictates that for this case, Gdańsk is more correct (the name was changed AFTER the takeover, not before it, and not during it).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And then there are these 13 books (Danzig 1308) vs these 12 books (Gdansk 1308), and these 14 books (Teutonic Danzig) vs these 14 books (Teutonic Gdansk), and then there are these 7 books (Teutonic Danzig) vs these 7 books (Teutonic Gdansk) and these 8 books (Danzig 1308) vs this 1 book (Gdansk 1308). My point here is that Danzig is used a bit more in the literature than Gdansk. Sorry, but I don't see any sound logic for renaming to Gdańsk within the WP naming conventions and guidelines. To the contrary, I see a fairly solid case for renaming to Danzig. Wilhelm meis (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: June 2008 Requested move to Teutonic takeover of Gdansk

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Nominator support per above rationale. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The siege of the Danzig's castle(!) by Brandenburg was only a part of the events, and the Teutonic Knights were called to defend it, which they successfully did. Only afterwards, they took control of castle and city of Danzig. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all fine, but there is no real way of checking the current title to the literature, so this move debate is not really about this article's title but about how to refer to a certain city. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
Is there a more formal term used in literature for this event? Perhaps "Siege of Danzig (1308)" or something? I don't know how the current title could be tested against the sources accurately. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick notability check strongly suggests that "Teutonic takeover of Danzig" would be the common name for this article. Wilhelm meis (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What check? Please describe the methodology.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you. In future, please provide links to searches, this eliminates the need to ask how did one gather the data. I wonder how many of those results are still wiki mirrors, even with "-wikipedia". Do note than neither search (, ) is found in literature. I would like however to direct your attention to this search: a lot of books by prominent scholars such as Norman Davies use Gdańsk in this context: "the Knights over the seizure of Gdansk in 1308", "The monk- knights also subjugated Pomerania on the lower Vistula, a Christian country, and massacred the people of Gdansk (1308)", "The Teutonic Knights, who captured Gdansk in 1308, destroyed the Slavonic town", "After the Teutonic Knights conquered Gdansk in 1308"... A similar search for Danzig () suggests that the isage of Gdańsk and Danzig is roughly as popular.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  10:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: *The conflict was very much about the town, which the knights razed to the ground... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The walls, not the town.Skäpperöd (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? I quoted above one source about massacre of city's inhabitants, another about the destruction of the town. You can find more info on that, the bottom line is that the Knights sacked/razed/burned the city, killed most if its Slavic inhabitants, and settled their own Germanized settlers on the ruins. Hence Gdańsk became Danzig.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be careful with that massacre legend. Also, that town's name was not Gdansk when the knights moved in.Skäpperöd (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Neither is Danzig a common name. Both names are roughly as popular, and simple logic dictates that for this case, Gdańsk is more correct (the name was changed AFTER the takeover, not before it, and not during it).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And then there are these 13 books (Danzig 1308) vs these 12 books (Gdansk 1308), and these 14 books (Teutonic Danzig) vs these 14 books (Teutonic Gdansk), and then there are these 7 books (Teutonic Danzig) vs these 7 books (Teutonic Gdansk) and these 8 books (Danzig 1308) vs this 1 book (Gdansk 1308). My point here is that Danzig is used a bit more in the literature than Gdansk. Sorry, but I don't see any sound logic for renaming to Gdańsk within the WP naming conventions and guidelines. To the contrary, I see a fairly solid case for renaming to Danzig. Wilhelm meis (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Pomerania was a part of the Holy Roman Empire since the 1100s and was granted as lien from the empire directly since 1181. In the 1200s several times the local rulers of the Pomeranian Samboriben received the ducal Herzog titles from the empire, thereby the lien to govern the land, and the Margraves of Brandenburg were overlords over Pomerania and Pomerelia.
In the 1220s the German-Law city named Danceke was founded under the government of a Pomeranian Herzog/duke, a part of the HRE. His seal identifies him as Zwantepolc de Danceke and he ruled from 1220-1266. In 1263 the burghers of Danzig had their status verified by requesting a copy of the Lübeck Law.
It was Dantzig, a German-Law city with German-language burghers, which was in 1308 taken over by the Teutonic Order and Pomerelia became part of Prussia, governed by the T.O. The city of Danzig remained part of Prussia continously until the 20th century. 
Only in 1945 were the inhabitants drastically changed to foreigners.
Wikipedia constantly shows entries such as by Molobo and Piotrus (and by many more people) above.
Wikipedia may indefinately continue pretending, that all what is Poland since 1945, "has always been Poland" (or rather 'if it was conquered by Poland a 1000 - thousand years ago, it should again be conquered by Poland).
But that does not change the facts of history as they really happened. It is only unfortunate, that Wikipedia contains and mirrors so much of this type of lopsidedness. An Observer 07.06. 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.69.190 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danceke - Dantzig - Dantzic - Danzig in Pomerania/Pomerelia/Prussia 

message: *Support as nominating editor, per reasoning stated above. Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Discussion of the proposal to move to Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk is closed. This discussion is about moving to Teutonic takeover of Danzig. As you point out, the result of the vote was to refer to the city as Gdańsk before 1308 and Danzig after 1308, but that leaves this event as something of a gray area. Since the event is more commonly known as the "Teutonic takeover of Danzig" (as previously discussed on this page), the name Danzig should apply beginning with this event. Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with most of this, see below. Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: Note: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable surces removed

message: "Pomeranian rebellion" is a term used by Davies and others for the beginning of the events, with the "Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)" describing the outcome of the historic events, as well as triggering an article naming conflict, which will hardly even be settled as long as the city's names are included. Besides, the whole area of Pomerelia, the eastern extension of Pomerania, was affected. Thus, I suggest a move to "Pomeranian rebellion of 1308" as there were earlier events in Pomerania proper. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then start a move vote. And please mark large rewrites as such.--Molobo (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

text: We may also consider the Polish name, i.e. the "slaughter of Gdańsk". In any case, RM is the correct way to go. A redirect from Pomeranian rebellion of 1308 and a disambig at Pomeranian rebellion should be created now, of course. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  06:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Pomeranian rebellion" 

message: I made a minor update. Restored the elegant info and removed overblown claims of he massacre influence on WW2. Also added some references and info. Removed a copyvio of text inserted hidden in the article for unknown reasons. Still the artiicle is in terrible shape and full of undue and POV sections--Molobo (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I just made an edit to the lead. Please note that I was merely editing to get the lead sentence formally in line with the MOS, removing the tautological re-stating of the decriptive page title, and leaving the content exactly as it was. On looking further into the article, I now notice that the existing wording is probably highly contentious. Please don't take my edit as endorsing the wording and content as it stands and feel free to change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to lead 

message: I am confirming this as B-class for WP:POLAND, but there are some missing refs that will need to be added for a GA class and higher levels. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class for WP:POLAND - passed 

message: I am uncomfortable with the section header, as my name is mentioned in there along with all that Nazi stuff. I propose to reduce this overlong header to "Is Conze a co-author?", since this is the question asked here. The answer is: No, he is not, and that is extremely easy to verify by e.g. looking at the book in question. The overlong section header and all this Nazi stuff about Conze is creating unnecessary drama about a non-issue. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "hilarious" and information that the book is co-authored by a Nazi is extremely important as Nazi based information on Poland is completely unreliable.It's not drama, it is a simpy that Nazis are not reliable as source for Polish history, as has been explained to you several times over the years when you introduced such sources(Nazi census,Baron Galera), and defended them as reliable, the fact that you continue to push forward such sources(connected to Nazis or Ostforschung) seems to indicate a serious lack of understanding of WP:RS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Ok, can somebody clarify for me who is the author of a disputed quote? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no disputed quote. The quote I provided, upon request, is from Boockmann's monograph, as already mentioned above. The author of Boockmann's monograph is Boockmann. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Ok-at the moment it is unknown. What I did find, is that the book goes even farther back in time than 1998-to 1991 which seems to be its earliest edition. We would have to have the full book(which at the moment doesn't seem to be likely) to see who wrote what. If its based on work or inspired by Conze(which would be strange since usually authors who inspired works are given dedications rather than written as co-authors) it would be extremely unreliable, as he worked on "Teutonic-Polish history" as part of Nazi propaganda efforts against Poles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "usually authors who inspired works are given dedications rather than written as co-authors" - Conze is not mentioned as a co-author (or editor) in the book. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Conze is not mentioned as a co-author He is mentioned by Googlebooks. The quote comes from nobody knows where, since full book is not available online. As a controversial source possibly by former Nazi involved with Nazi Propaganda regarding Teutonic-Polish history this needs to be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

text: That may explain why your google.books hit got the authorship wrong, though your translation is not correct (begründet="founded", i.e. initiated; hg. v.=edited by). So your result "Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas, begründet von Werner Conze, hg. v . Hartmut Boockmann," is proving what the non-virtual real book in front of me says and what I said above - Conze is mentioned as the initiator of the series, and otherwise has nothing to do with it. I might add that Boockmann is not the sole editor of the series, just the one who is mentioned first. I am glad that we are finally done here now. Skäpperöd (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So you admit that the former Nazi Conze who wrote racist text, recommended the exclusion of Jews from the legal system, portrayed Poland as backward and in need of German order, and Germans as "cultivators" of "Slavonic East" which he described as "threatening German soil", and who was engaged in Nazi Propaganda about Polish-Teutonic history was a source of inspiration for this book.That alone makes it unreliable. "is proving what the non-virtual real book in front of me says and what I said above - Conze is mentioned as the initiator of the series, and otherwise has nothing to do with it"This is your word, and your word is hardly a reliable source here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at your google.books result you cited. It says "Deutsche Geschichte im Osten Europas," [that is the name of the series] "begründet von Werner Conze," [that is the initiator of the series] "hg. v . Hartmut Boockmann," [that is the first-mentioned editor of the series]. I can verify that the book says the same, except that in the book "hg. v." is spelled out. It's on the last title page immediately before the table of contents, listing the name of the series, followed by above-cited line about Conze, and all editors of the series. Skäpperöd (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The 2002 edition has a note by the publisher saying "Für die Sonderausgabe durchgesehene und auf den neuesten Stand gebrachte Auflage", i.e. reviewed and updated. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: That section header

message: Newest quote entered into the text :"sich in einer nationalistischen polnischen Tradition nicht besonders überzeugend ausnimmt, weil es sich bei jenem Danzig, das der Orden 1308 zerstörte, ja um eine überwiegend von Deutschen bewohnte Stadt gehandelt hat" to claim that the town was primarily German was also found in the 1998 book which googlebooks gives former Nazi Conze as co-author.  Since Conze had primarily worked under the Nazis in propaganda regarding Teutonic-Polish history this doesn't seem reliable.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Conze is not a co-author, see section above or the book itself. Also, the edition used by me is of 2002. Skäpperöd (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conze is not a co-author"-source please. "or the book itself"-googlebook index gives him as co-author.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest quote about "town primarily" German also found in the book from 1998 not 2002 where former Nazi Conze also is given 

message: *Frank Fischer - since this account is so completely different from all the other accounts, can we have the relevant portion quoted here?
*William Urban - what is the page number?
*Ulrich Niess - please provide relevant portion.
*Loew quote - According to Peter Oliver Loew, German historians and many post-World War II Polish scholars agree that "10,000 dead in a town with barely as many inhabitants is just impossible, and that there were 60 to 100 victims at the most,"  - obviously contradicted by other sources.
*According to Hartmut Boockmann, the town was primarily inhabited by Germans - quote please. Is this another excerpt from the book co-authored by Conze?
::The quote begins in a strange place "...sich in einer nationalistischen polnischen Tradition". Can we have what it says before that? That kind of phrasing does not exactly inspire confidence either.
VolunteerMarek 08:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will provide quotations, it will take a while. I have started with Fischer. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now provided the requested quotations. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The respective quote is Loew (2010:36): "Deutsche Historiker hatten lange den Beteuerungen des Ordens größeres Vertrauen geschenkt und argumentiert, 10,000 Tote seien in einer Stadt, die kaum soviele Einwohner besaß, schlicht unmöglich gewesen sein, es könnten allerhöchstens 60 bis hundert gewesen sein. Während ihnen nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg auch viele polnische Historiker Recht gaben [... then follow sentences about Sliwinski]." Note that Loew just gives a short overview about the numbers which have been discussed, and that his own assessment is that because of the problematic sources, there will never be a satisfactory result. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The respective quote is a fragment of abovecited quote: "Während ihnen nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg auch viele polnische Historiker Recht gaben" Skäpperöd (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know that is the quote in German. Where is the "circumstantial evidence"? You also cut it off right at the point where it says that Sliwinski provided lots of evidence that "it was indeed a bloodbath", an assessment with which Loew seems to agree. Like I said, google translate mangles the grammar on this one so it's hard for me to assess whether it really says "after world war II many Polish historians agreed" (with nationalist and Nazi German historiography (!?!?)).VolunteerMarek 17:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Recent edits by Skapperod removed large parts of description that clearly showed that 16 number was only small part of mass murdered citizens
This is extremely disruptive since the source used by Skapperod actually clearly writes about massacre, large numbers of dead and that 16 murdered were only a part of the victims.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The information you added is already in the massacre record section. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a part of Sliwinski's description and putting only the part about "16 bodies" without infomring that Sliwinski also mentions at the same time that they were only a part of victims looks like POV pushing the outdated version byTK's. Btw-please respond to question below.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   Skapperod  selective use of source and removal of information from the source to push unsupported numbers 

message: Based on Polish research up to 1998 Boockmann gives a number close to a hundred dead
There is nothing about Polish research up to 1998 in Boockmann's source as far as I see. This seems especially strange since he died in 1998 and the book used is a reprint from 1992. 
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2002 edition is not just a reprint. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know Boockmann' died in 1998 had he not? Anyway could you post where is the quote about 1998 Polish research?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Boockmann says "newest Polish research," thus the date was a terminus ante quem based on the publishing year, but I have removed the date now. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Boockmann? How can we be sure that is Boockamnn and not something Conze wrote. And you now admit that you entered false information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We can be sure that it is Boockmann because it is a monograph written by Boockmann. Do you still dispute that? Based on what? There is that long long thread above with that long long header you created. Regarding 'entering false information' - if an edition of a book, of which the publisher says it has been reviewed and updated for this edition (cited above) talks about newest research, inserting the publication date as terminus ante quem is a reasonable thing to do, but I won't argue about that here any further as the respective quotes have already been provided above. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know on whom it is based since the book is mentioned as co-authored by notorious Conze who was involved in Nazi propaganda. You admitted to entering false information here Skapperod, and you fully admitted that the book was published first time before 1998.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another problem with source 

message: To keep its B-class status, there are several citation needed tags that need to be addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class 

message: Isn't the Teutonic "capture" or "conquest" of... more appropriate? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who says "takeover" for military capture? 

message: Most sources don't use the title Wikipedia uses, but rather the term Gdansk slaughter or massacre.
I believe this should be changed to reflect scholarly view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most sources don't use the title Wikipedia uses 

message: Currently the text in the article states: "whereupon the population of Gdańsk opened the gates and handed over Bogusza as well as his men and supporters of the Swienca family, who were executed on the Long Market". 
The quote from the source given in support of this is "Die Bürger lenkten ein und ließen die Stadttore öffnen. Bogussa und seine Anhänger wurden an den Orden ausgeliefert und auf Geheiß des Landmeisters auf dem Langen Markt als Verräter hingerichtet, ein ähnliches Los ereilte die Parteigänger der Swenzonen."
However, pretty much every other source I'm aware of, including the testimonies at the knights' trial, state that Bogusza left the town (or was expelled) - he wasn't executed. The massacre itself took place after his departure. In fact this source  even says the Knights gave him a letter to carry to Lokietek.
Who is Frank Fischer? This info seems dubious in light of other sources and casts doubts on the general credibility of the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some German language reviews of Fischer's work . Doesn't sound very good and others have raised red flags too. Removing per WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fischer was criticized by other scholars, that's what we call science. He might have made a mistake, if so, feel free to write about opposing views, but don't remove well-sourced content just because you decided that he's wrong. Wikipedia is not about the WP:TRUTH, it's about reliability. If you think Fischer's book isn't reliable take it to WP:RSN. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know what science is (though usually the process involves criticizing a novel thesis or finding, not criticizing an old mistake). Anyway, we also have WP:EXCEPTIONAL which states "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" and "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people.". Both of these criteria obviously apply here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Werner Conze died in 1986, the book was published in 1992. Hartmut Boockmann (born 1934) is the only author. Conze was the publisher of a series of books and is just mentioned as such. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Books can be published after death of authors. You don't dispute that Conze was a Nazi nor that the book is based on Nazi publications, so please don't restore it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Conze wasn't the author and it's not based on "Nazi publication". If you think Boockmann's book isn't reliable take it to WP:RSN.HerkusMonte (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Conze wasn't the author, Conze is clearly named as co-author, and the book is full of sources published by other Nazis like Schieder or Rode in Nazi Germany.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

text: It's not only Conze, the book is based on Nazi publications by known Nazis like Schieder or Rode printed by Nazi Germany in 1941 or 1944.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogusza's fate 

message: As probably apparent from the discussion above large portions of reliably sourced content were removed by user:Volunteer Marek and user:MyMoloboaccount . The current version ignores important modern scholarly views of the topic and pushes an uncritical outdated view, certainly not WP:NPOV. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing 

message: As above. The problems mentioned in 2012 and 2014 here on this talk page have not been thus far resolved. Should be moved. LordParsifal (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name does not appear elsewhere but on Wikipedia. Should be moved 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Polish-Teutonic War (1308-1309),. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 14#Polish-Teutonic War (1308-1309), until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Polish-Teutonic War (1308-1309)," listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Polish-Teutonic War (1308-1309),. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 5#Polish-Teutonic War (1308-1309), until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 20:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Polish-Teutonic War (1308-1309)," listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]