Talk:Gdańsk/Vote

message: City document seal of 1224 states: Sigillum Burgensium Dantzike
Before 1308: A city in Pomerania, part of Poland. The name used to refer to the city before 1308 should be:
: This is incorrect. Since at least 1181 Pomerania was directly under the German emperor, who passed on liens, ref. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12225a.htm (unsigned comment by 24.7.152.227)
:: West Pomerania was, indeed, a fief of Roman Emperor between 1181 and 1185, but Gdańsk is a city in East Pomerania. -- Naive cynic 10:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tend towards "Danzig" myself, but the ZGV is a lousy source.--Stephan Schulz 21:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE: Period before 1308 

message: # Smerdis of Tlön 04:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danzig 

message: # --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdansk 

message: 1308: Teutonic Knights: The name used to refer to the city between 1308 and 1454 should be:
=== Danzig ===
# Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Carrp | Talk 00:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE: Period from 1308 to 1454 

message: # Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Carrp | Talk 00:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danzig 

message: # someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
# Rübezahl 02:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdansk 

message: 1454: Prussian Confederation: The name used to refer to the city between 1454 to 1466 should be:
=== Danzig ===
# Chris 73 Talk 00:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE: Period from 1454 to 1466 

message: # Chris 73 Talk 00:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danzig 

message: # Szopen 08:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdansk 

message: Danzig info also on Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion
1466: Second Treaty of Thorn returns the city and Royal Prussia to Polish suzerainty/overlordship. It is de facto a self-governed city republic, mainly with German inhabitants, using the German name Danzig or something similar: The name used to refer to the city between 1466 to 1793 should be:
=== Danzig ===
# OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Chris 73 Talk 01:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) Most english language textbooks use Danzig when they refer to the then German speaking city. See discussion below
# john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793 

message: # OwenBlacker 01:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Chris 73 Talk 01:36, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) Most english language textbooks use Danzig when they refer to the then German speaking city. See discussion below
# john k 01:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danzig 

message: # --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdansk 

message: 1793: Second Partition of Poland.  Becomes a part of the Kingdom of Prussia, and again from 1813/1815 to 1920.  Free City of Danzig from 1807-1813/1815 and again 1920-1939. From 1939 it is reannexed by Germany. The name used to refer to the city between 1794 to 1945 should be:
=== Danzig ===
# Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Curps 00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTE: Period from 1793 to 1945

message: # Chris 73 Talk 00:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Curps 00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danzig 

message: #Scott Gall 07:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdansk 

message: 1945: Seized by the Soviet Army, given to Poland: The name used to refer to the city after 1945 should be:
=== Danzig ===
# Smerdis of Tlön 04:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE: Period after 1945 

message: # Smerdis of Tlön 04:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danzig 

message: # Curps 00:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdansk 

message: In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.
=== Agree ===
# Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Carrp | Talk 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE: Biographies 

message: # Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Carrp | Talk 00:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: #RickK 06:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) Use the name as it is approved in the vote above.  Don't double name it.
#Scott Gall 07:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig)
=== Agree ===
# Qualified: After 1945, references should be to Gdansk alone. -- Curps 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE: Cross-Naming Gdansk/Danzig 

message: # Qualified: After 1945, references should be to Gdansk alone. -- Curps 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: # Stephan Schulz 21:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstain 

message: # If pre-1945 English language sources consistently used a name, that name should be retained without regard to historical borders or claims.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
=== Agree ===
# Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC), including after 1945
# Qualified: After 1945, references should be to Szczecin alone. -- Curps 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE: Cross-Naming General 

message: # Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC), including after 1945
# Qualified: After 1945, references should be to Szczecin alone. -- Curps 00:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: # Disagree, just link to the article in question.--Roo72 00:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted as simple vandalism. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted as simple vandalism according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes are not considered simple vandalism. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. 
:Note: The wording has been modified slightly to reflect the numerous voters opposing the label vandalism. Please see #Results on VOTE: Enforcement below. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
=== Agree ===
# Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Carrp | Talk 00:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTE: Enforcement

message: # Chris 73 Talk 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
# Carrp | Talk 00:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: #Geni 00:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: Dear Wikipedians!
Every article mentioning Danzig must refer to Gdansk for is equally difficult to find Nieuw Amsterdam on popular maps. Mentioning Danzig in post-45 articles is surly as awkward and certainly more irritating for it’s inhabitants than the eventual “New Orleans (Nouvelle-Orléans)” tag in the US city list. IYKWIM!
And let me warn you: omnipresent cross-naming of all secondary towns, then villages, rivers, mountains, caps, islands and lakes according to all the historically and linguistically tenable variations to make justice to all tribes, nations and groups that have once inhabited those places may lead  to confusion, insomnia and nervous disorders! -- Mr. Wszedroik Feb 19, 2005
:In English the name was New Amsterdam and was and is New Orleans without the diacritic.  --Henrygb 11:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Important notes on Cross-Naming 

message: Some inline discussion moved here, from #VOTE:_Cross-Naming_Gdansk.2FDanzig. -- Curps 12:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But we're not discussing anyone's ethnicity here, are we? The main problem is with the periods long before the very idea of national identity was established... Halibutt 07:51, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I would say it was a period somewhat to considerably before the modern idea of nationalism was established.  But there were certainly ideas of national identity about.  The Polish nobility certainly saw itself as Polish in a sense not too far off from modern senses of national identity.  Now, the question of what the national identity of the inhabitants of the city under discussion was is interesting, but not really relevant, because the idea of linguistic nationality had not yet been developed.  That is, the German-speaking inhabitants of Danzig might very well have considered themselves Polish in some sense, but that doesn't mean that they thought their city ought to be called Gdansk - in the 18th century and earlier, language and ideas of the nation are not yet interrelated in the way they become in the 19th century.  So you can perfectly well have quasi-nationalistic Hungarian nobility who can't speak Magyar, and so forth.  Of course, ideas of national identity themselves are less established, too, but that's a secondary point, since the basic point is that the national identity question simply isn't important in a discussion of what language the name should be discussed in.  If that makes sense. john k 18:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline discussion

message: As there seems to be some agreement to my opinion that one name should be used throughout, I figured I'd might as well try to expand on it.  First of all, I was only drawn to this page by the notice on Goings On, so although I haven't witnessed any of the original edit wars nor been through any of the discussion they prompted, I do have the advantage of seeing this issue from the point of view of an outsider.  To me, it seems that the discussion of when the city was Gdansk and when it was Danzig is a very interesting one, full of valid arguments from both sides, but should not have any impact on how Wikipedia refers to the city.  The English Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, and as such should always use the current, English, names to refer to foreign places.  Any discussion of other names and when they were used should be reserved exclusively for the main body of that place's article.
If this seems incorrect, consider inproper nouns:  if were talking about apples from France, does it make sense to refer to them as "pommes" instead?  Or maybe "apples (pommes)" or "pommes (apples)"?  I don't think so, and I don't think there's a difference between that and the case in question.  --Jwanders 14:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First place - my argument is based on the fact that the current, English name used to refer to the city of Gdansk before 1945 is "Danzig".  In the same way that the current, English name used to refer to St. Petersburg between 1914 and 1924 is "Petrograd" and the current, English name used to refer to it between 1924 and 1991 is "Leningrad".  Look at any recent history book that mentions the place - I suspect you will not be able to find any that refer to it as "Gdansk" during the period when it was part of Prussia or a free city, and I would think it would be rather difficult to find any that refer to it as "Gdansk" before that.  Yes, Gdansk is the current, English name for the present day city.  But that doesn't mean it is the current English name for the pre-1945 city.  Your argument about improper nouns is neither here nor there - it seems to imply that we shouldn't even mention the native names of cities, when clearly we should.  Cologne should mention "Köln" as the German name, and Warsaw should mention "Warszawa" as the Polish name.  Point is - my level of caring at what the city was "actually" named at a given time is relatively low.  What I am concerned about is the fact that in English, we refer to it by a particular name when talking about it at a particular time.  Obviously, though, there are situations where to follow standard usage would become too confusing, because there's no logical way to explain why you've chosen a particular point for the name change, and most of the argument has been around this point, I think.  Finally, to attempt to convince you again, I'd push you up to my original argument for using Danzig between 1466 and 1793 - the main point was a list of books in English that do the same, not an argument about city seals or official languages.  For the 1793-1945 period, there aren't any books in English that will call it Gdansk. john k 15:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not writing a book, but an encyclopedia, and English language encyclopedias refer to the city as Gdansk even for the period 1793 - 1945. And your Leningrad example, is about a city that has been renamed! Gdansk was always called Gdansk since its foundation in 980. Space Cadet 16:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: When a city is inhabited by people who call it Danzig, and they are all kicked out and replaced by people who call it Gdansk, that is equivalent to a name change.  At any rate, Jwanders didn't make any distinction - he said we should always use the "current English name" for any city.  That would include St. Petersburg, as far as I can tell (and Petrograd is a translation of the original name in much the same way that Gdansk and Danzig are two versions of the same name).  As to English language encyclopedias, we've been over this before, but only Britannica is consistent in using Gdansk, and it only uses it as the primary name in the Gdansk article itself.  (That is, Günter Grass is listed as being born in Danzig, not Gdansk).  The others (Columbia, Encarta) are highly inconsistent about which name they use.  At any rate, the rule is "use the most common name in English," not "use the most common name in English encyclopedias."  I will agree that the example of Britannica is the strongest argument for using Gdansk consistently in this article, but I still think to follow this precedent would be a violation of common name policy. English common usage, I will admit, is inherently unfair - French names for French cities is de rigueur, and we've started to use German names even for German cities that we used to know by their French names (c.f. Aix-la-Chapelle, Mayence, Treves, Ratisbon).  But, as a rule, we use the Polish (and other Slavic) names as little as we can manage, because, to put it frankly, Polish names look weird to English-speakers.  We don't know how to pronounce them.  There are strange diacriticals over consonants.  So, when there's a city that used to be in Germany, and used to be inhabited by Germans, English-speakers tend to use the German name for that period of time (and, until relatively recently, overall).  This does seem to be changing - historians who actually speak Polish certainly are much more likely to use "Gdansk."  For instance, I just discovered a book on the First Partition from 1966 that uses "Gdansk" throughout.  (Does Davies, as well?) But this is still the exception rather than the rule for this period.  And, aside from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Gdansk, I don't think you've pointed to a single source that consistently uses "Gdansk" for the 1793-1945 period. john k 19:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, if Josef left his hometown of Danzig in 1943, the fact that by 1968 it was Gdansk would have become terribly important and significant - all of his friends and family would have ceased to live there, and been replaced by Poles. Most likely, Josef is living in West Germany and is a supporter of the expellee party, and wouldn't either want or be able to return to Gdansk.  That is to say - the name change in 1945 is shorthand for a very significant change in the city.  As such, in any case where you are referring to the city both before and after 1945, the name change is significant, and deserves to be discussed. BTW, are you arguing that we should refer to every city by a single name?  Do you think we should discuss the siege of St. Petersburg in 1941-1944?  Because that seems to be the import of your argument.  On the other hand, I think your point is right on target for the 1793 issue.  It doesn't make sense to say someone left Gdansk in 1790, and then returned to Danzig in 1795.  john k 20:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Let me be a bit clearer - in your example of Joe leaving in 1943 and coming back in 1968, "explaining the history of Gdansk in the middle of an article about Joe" is absolutely necessary, at least to the extent of a very brief explanation of "he returned home to what was now the Polish city of Gdansk", or some such.  An example of someone leaving in 1790 and coming back in 1795 I think does pose problems, because there's much less need to explain the history of the city (see, for instance Arthur Schopenhauer, for problems of that sort. john k 20:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistent Naming