Talk:Gdańsk/Naming convention

Since the discussion on the Gdansk/Danzig issue is very long, messy and hard to follow, I decided to prepare a short list of all arguments used and proposals submitted. If I omitted any arguments - please add them, but please be so kind as to respect neutrality. I'm personally involved in the discussion, but I hope this won't be a problem here.

Please feel free to add new arguments to the list, but please be brief, informative and do not repeat the already-existing statements.Halibutt

Naming proposals

My assumptions when preparing this list of thoughts were:

• A naming convention needs to be established
• A naming convention needs to be followed strictly and without exceptions
• There's no way to decide what is the official English name of the city since neither USA nor UK have an official geographical naming commity.
• Both names are in use and equally popular ([1] [2] [3] [4])
• Some encyclopedias use Gdansk for all references (Brittanica and Columbia) while others use both names (MSN Encarta, infoplease.com)
• our main goal is not to make all possible nationalists happy
  • No, it isn't. Our main goal is to write an encyclopedic article which is as informative, accurate and easy to use for all as possible - and don't let us forget about it. Making nationalists happy is at most a secondary goal. --Kpalion 16:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • but pragmatism might be necessary to avoid every new wave of wikipedians to repeat this strife.--Ruhrjung 21:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the city referred to as Danzig (Gdansk) in the 1793-1945 period, Gdansk otherwise

• Voting:
  • 7 - YES
  • 5 - NO
  • 1 - abstention

pros

• quite easy to handle as the timeframe is set so the confusion shouldn't be too big
• john - Undoubtedly many/most inhabitants of the city throughout the ages used German language and German name of the city

cons

• User:Yeti, User:Space Cadet - What about other cities with similar history: Vilnius, L'viv, Wroclaw, Kaliningrad, Bratislava, Krakow, Derry, Lefkosia and many others.
• Mestwin of Gdansk - Polish name used in the Free City in the 1918-1939 period (both Polish and German being the official languages of the state)
• john - No apparent consensus over the web and other encyclopedias on how the city is called now
• Only ONE name should be used to reffer to one object; in this case the English names seems to be Gdansk Mestwin of Gdansk 23:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• If we cannot find a compromise the local/official city names should be used: se also: Beijing Mestwin of Gdansk 23:30, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

remarks

• Szopen - addition of the alternative name in parantheses to avoid confusion.
• 1918-1939 and pre-1793 usage should be discussed
• There is no need to repeat "Gdansk (then Danzig)" alternatively "Danzig (Gdansk)" each time the town is mentioned, but as a rule of thumb I would propose: for each chunk of text under a headline (a "section") (or maybe for each chunk of text between blanklines, a "paragraph"), the first time the city's name is mentioned, if another name is used than the page's title, then that name is to be added in brackets. --Ruhrjung 21:45, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Why don't we simply restore the old English name for the town: Dantzic? This spelling was used for centuries in England and North America before the German (post 1870) and Slavic (post 1945) spellings became fashionable. --Mmartins
  • For example, I notice the 1911 Encyclopaedia article mentions the old English name. --Mmartins
    • Finally, a common sense solution from a well read and educated person. It's so refreshing after those tons of people who don't know what they talk about. I'm sure we can find lots of alternative names that "were used for centuries in England and North America before the German (post 1870) and Slavic (post 1945) spellings became fashionable" for other controversial places like Tokyo, Boston and Stuttgart. Space Cadet 14:09, 2 May 2004 (UTC)~

all cities referred to with their current official names

• Voting:
  • 5 - YES
  • 4 - NO
  • 0 - abstention

pros

• quite simple and avoids confusion
• quite fair only if other names are mentioned in the headline

cons

• what names should be added in the headline? Polish and German for sure, but should latin, kashubian or french be mentioned?
• john - similarily we'd have a Battle of Volgograd instead of Battle of Stalingrad

remarks

• unless there are strong reasons to use a historical name in a certain context, this is my favorite — but when the alternative is as categorically worded as here, then it's hard to support --Ruhrjung 21:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

using German names whenever English names are unavailable

• Voting:
  • 3 - YES
  • 3 - NO
  • 0 - abstention

cons

• unacceptable for most Polish users
• German transcription would have to be used for many languages (i.e. Kirow instead of Kirov) which is different from the English transcription.
• not in accordance with English usage. --Ruhrjung 21:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Two separate articles; one focused on Danzig and the other on Gdansk

pros

• see: User:Halibutt/Gdansk#pros

cons

• see: User:Halibutt/Gdansk#cons
• There is only one city, with one history, one geographical location. The only problem is there is no English name of the city; In multi-ethnic times many names were used; in Prussian/German times only the German name was enforced, but this is no English Mestwin of Gdansk 23:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• it is no solution. There must be an article covering "both" cities anyway, as kind of a portal article or main article, and our problem is the usage in that article. --Ruhrjung 21:51, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• why should the German name be enforced, as the citizens of the city used this name in almost all their, almost exclusively German written, documents en correspondence. They felt themelves only obliged in courtesy to use the Polish name in their correspondence with the formal sovereign, the Polish. It is a national correct reflex to indicate everything German as being enforced. Please ask the historical citizens of the city themselves .......

Ideas omitted by yours truly

The following ideas, statements and proposals were omitted by me. I simply find them too distant from the compromise to be important. However, if you feel that any of those should be explained/enhanced/worked out - just drop me a message.

• "historicity" of both names - for obvious reasons since historicity is a POV term and nothing can be said about it from a NPOV.
• Arthur Schopenhauer birthplace - IMO this could be decided after we reach a consistent naming convention
• the Wikipedia must not and cannot take sides thus no naming compromise should be established - Ed Poor
• Danzig (band) issue and should Danzig redirect to Gdansk or be a separate, disambiguation page - User:David Gerard - IMO it's a minor problem and could be resolved later
• Polish name offensive to Germans and German names offensive to Poles - this will lead us nowhere
• Any reference to post-war peace talks, international conferences, Yalta, Potsdam conference and Polish-German border treaties as non-existent or invalid.
• Ideas that the city was never called Gdansk or that the city was never called Danzig
• Polite and rude names of the city

Isn't it a bit... erm... EVIL... to delete comments/proposals like that? If it were on your User Talk page, that's one thing. But this is Talk:Gdansk, not User_Talk:Halibutt. Node

I did not delete any ideas. I simply created this resume for all wikipedians to enjoy. If you want to check 'all the ideas and concepts - Talk:Gdansk with its' 7 Archives is there. Halibutt

Some more general remarks

• Are we trying to set a naming convention for all historic cities or for Gdańsk only? At first glance it may seem that a general naming convention would be a great thing. But then, every city is a separate case. You can't really compare Gdańsk, Lviv, Istanbul and Mumbai. I suggest that what we agree (or not) here should only apply to Gdańsk.
• This issue could be actually broken into a number of separate conventions:
  • Article title - Gdansk or Danzig? - It seems that right now nobody really questions that the title should be Gdansk.
  • Opening paragraph - see: "Beginning of the article" below.
  • Rest of the article - if most possible names are listed in the opening para, then throughout the remaining paragraphs we can use them interchangeably (depending on period) or stick to only one. This we have to decide.
  • Other articles where the city is mentioned for some reason. Here we've got a plethora of possibilities:
    • Gdańsk everywhere,
    • Danzig everywhere,
    • either Gdańsk or Danzig where appropriate,
    • either Gdańsk (formerly Danzig) or Danzig (now Gdańsk) where appropriate,
    • either Gdańsk (German name Danzig) or Danzig (Polish name Gdańsk) where appropriate,
    • etc.
      - this we have to decide as well. Remember that whatever we decide on, both Gdansk and Danzig will link to Gdansk where the reader will be informed that the city was once known by its German name Danzig.
• One more thing: it is technically possible to use diacritics in Wikipedia. So please do not write Gdansk (apart from the article title where this is impossible). It's always Gdańsk (Gdańsk). And when you link, please write: [[Gdansk|Gdańsk]].
  • Please, don't get hurt, but no - that is not to be expected. Also if the current combatants agree on this, next generations of wikipedians won't understand that. Particularly not English speakers. If you haven't studied the language, it is not likely you'll put the diacritics there. But if the article isn't perpetually reverted, that's no problem, really. When someone knowledgeable have corrected it to Gdańsk, we foreigner have no incitament to change it back again.
    --Ruhrjung 22:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. First of all English name (if that's the English name...) is Gdansk, not Gdańsk. Also, it would cause too much confusion as to how the hell people should read it. Let's stick to Gdansk just as we use digraphs instead of German umlauts.Halibutt 02:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • If there were something like an English name for Gdańsk, then we wouldn't waste our time on this discussion. And if we use Polish names, then we should keep in mind that diacritcs are their integral elements (and unlike in German there is no way to substitute them with digraphs). But I understand Ruhrjung's point that we shouldn't expect non-Polish contributors to use Polish diacritcs. On the other hand, it'd be quite tiresome to scan through all Poland-related articles and correct all the names from "polskawy" to polski. Let's just hope then that someday there will be a way to do it automatically. And until then let at least Polish contributors -- who I hope know their language and whose software allows them to do it easily -- write these names correctly. --Kpalion 06:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • This is actually common in wikipedia. I live in Sweden (and work in Denmark), why I interested follow pages related to these countries; I see that Swedes and Danes every now and then hit "Edit this page" to change "Ronne" to Rønne and "Malmoe" to Malmö. --Ruhrjung 07:06, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Keep in mind the fact that you guys have an 'ń' and an 'ø' on your respective keyboards. English keyboards don't have those; we have to look up (or remember) their unicode values in order to use them. Mkweise 07:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Beginning of the article

Gdańsk, Danzig, Gduńsk, Gedania...? How many different names should be there? IMO there's no need for too much limits here.

• It would, however, be a relatively low price to pay for the "Polish side" to award their "German side" opponents with exclusive mentioning. The long line of examples of every possible and impossible spelling in different dialects is very well aimed at hurting people of German heritage.--Ruhrjung 22:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I would never think of that in this way. Listing different names is aimed at providing information. Kaszubian and Latin names may not be as significant today as German and Polish ones but they still deserve being mentioned. Maybe not necessarily in the opening line but where else then? --Kpalion 23:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps a good solution would be: Gdansk (Polish: Gdańsk, German: Danzig) with the rest of the names (Latin, Kashubian) explained later in the article, in a separate chapter about names, just above the history section. That would be a perfect place for all the details regarding the problems with finding an English name, name evolution in German, ethymology and stuff. How about it?Halibutt 02:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • If we first agreed that the article shouldn't begin with, like, half a dozen alternative names, then there still are a number of options to chose between: --Ruhrjung 06:26, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Gdansk (Polish: Gdańsk, German: Danzig)
        • Gdańsk (German: Danzig, in English also: Gdansk)
        • Gdańsk (in English also known as Danzig and Gdansk)

The page title should be (in English) Gdansk, with no diacritic - during the Solidarity strikes, I never saw a diacritic in an English language newspaper. In English: Lodz not Łódź (or Lodsch). So I would go for the Gdansk (Polish: Gdańsk, German: Danzig) option. And except for the names section or untranslated names of organisations, the article should only use Gdansk or Danzig (or Free City).--Henrygb 00:06, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I moved the proposed version to Talk:Gdańsk/temp. Halibutt 19:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The reason diacritics are not used in English newspapers is simply because English printing houses don't have the necessary fonts; but it doesn't make Gdansk (instead of Gdańsk) a correct form. Imagine, for instance, that the W key in your keyboard were removed or didn't work. Then, probably, you vvould vvrite all vvords with VV instead of W -- but vvould it be correct English? Or, to be more serious, is facade more correct than façade, or is cafe better than café?

The only justification for not using diacritics in non-English words and names may be either ignorance or carelessness. Both of which are unacceptable in an encyclopedia. --Kpalion 22:30, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree! But the page title is not what's important for me. The important thing is the usage in the running text. --Ruhrjung 19:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The 1454-1793 period

Judging by the present discussion on Talk:Gdansk, it seems that there is now more or less a consensus on the following periods:

• before 1308 - Gdańsk
• 1308-1454 - Danzig
• 1793-1945 - Danzig
• after 1945 - Gdańsk

The question is how to call that city between 1454 and 1793 when it was part of the Kingdom of Poland but had a big German (or German-speaking) population. --Kpalion 13:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The 1308-1454 usage is not so obvious, but I think I could back down on this one.Halibutt 10:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I propose a two-legged version of the Names section in the Talk:Gdańsk/temp. It goes like this (my changes in italic):

The city has been known under various names during its' history. In the local Kashubian language it is known as Gduńsk and the Latin name for it is Gedania. However, the German and Polish versions are most common in English usage. The German name, Danzig, is usually used when talking about the period from 1308 until 1945 during which the city was in German hands or had a predominantly German population. However, since the city remained a part of Poland in the 1454-1793 period, Polish name is also being used. Halibutt 19:18, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Poll

Recent discussion, especially John Kenny's detailed report on usage among English-speaking historians, leaves us with two candidates for consensus. These are listed below, awaiting everyone's comment. Please keep your comments brief; summarize arguemnts and use wikilinks to refer to past discussion rather than pasting entire paragraphs here. Mkweise 17:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Option 1:

• before 1308 - Gdańsk
• 1308-1945 - Danzig
• after 1945 - Gdańsk

Support:

1. Simpler, from a practical standpoint, and seems to be the de-facto standard among English-speaking historians. Mkweise

Option 2:

• before 1308 - Gdańsk
• 1308-1454 - Danzig
• 1454-1793 - Gdańsk
• 1793-1945 - Danzig
• after 1945 - Gdańsk

Support:

1. Precisely reflects whether the city was under Polish or German control at any givent time—theoretically the most neutral solution. Mkweise

Support neither option/other comments:

Votes

Option 2

• Halibutt

Other concepts

I am on vacation now. My only access to internet is in my work, and - of course - normal people are NOT going to work when on vacation. My wife made this absolutely clear. In fact, i'm affraid my life would be in danger if she would only knew why i came here :)

Anyway, that means that there would be another week before i could participate in any discussion. But i wanted to made a simple, modest proposition: a lot, and I mean a LOT of articles deals with people born in Danzig/Gdansk etc. And I am affraid that despite of compromise made with a lot of efforts those articles will be subject of endless revert wars every time when some new person will discover wikipedia. They of course would after some time find the compromise, stop behaving the radical way and respect the compromise, but while some may find repeating that process in some weird way amusing, i am not one of that persons. Well, i - as all Poles - i DO like arguing, but i not the that much.

Therefore, what you would thik about creating simple message attached to every article dealing with cities from Royal Prussia, not only Danzig/Gdansk, saying something like that:

The question on using proper names for cities from region of Royal Prussia was object of long debate amongst wikipedians (E.g. whether someone was born in Danzig or in Gdansk). After many endless wars the compromise in form of "..." was made. Before you will start editing the article, please read what's in the _compromise_. You could also be interested in _debate_ about status of Royal Prussia and Danzig/Gdansk. (_links_ are _underlined_)

That way the newcomer will see that THERE IS worked out solution and maybe wills top to start new revert wars. In linked articles they could learn about compromise and arguments of all sides. It ain't pretty, it ain't perfect, but it would work. And in article itself the standard could be: first time in artcile when name appears, most controversial names appear in form Danzig/Gdansk, later the name most used in historical period is used. What do you think? Szopen 10:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good idea! --Ruhrjung 06:46, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

See also:

• Talk:Gdansk
• Talk:Gdańsk/temp
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Placenames in Central-Eastern Europe
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names)
• User:Ed Poor/Mediation
• User:Halibutt/Tabelka

Naming Gdansk

The city is called Gdansk (in English) and that is how it should be referred to regardless of the time period, especially since the page deals mostly with the current city (not its 14th Century Prussian ancestor). There is a seperate page on the History of Gdansk which covers the name changes, as well as the historical basis for them. Those that are interrested in the historical names can read all about them in detail on that page, there is no need to repeat what is already written elsewhere. The fact that Germans want to call it Danzig is also already accounted for with the current "Gdansk (German: Danzig)" clarification, this along with the explanations on the History of Gdansk page should be more than enough. Using the common English name will assure that the casual reader does not get confused with multiple names. If the reader wants more info, he can read the History of Gdansk page and get the whole story behind the various names. If the reader only wants to read about modern day Gdansk, he won't have to go through pages of German other-than-academically motivated {"Danzig" refrences that have nothing to do with todays vibrant city. Katarzyna 02:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Polish nationalistic propaganda again. This user should be banned. Space Cadet 16:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Me? Aren't you the one who posted pro-Nazi remarks all over various pages and was banned? I'm simply trying to resolve an issue (which wasn't even an issue until ppl like you started a revert war). Katarzyna 01:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Czsz! Kosmonauta Pieszy

My view: The city is called Gdansk (in English) and that is how it should be referred to when the page deals the current city, as most of it does. However, many links and visits to the page are about its past (such as the rise of Solidarity when it was called Gdansk in English, and the pre-1945 period when it was usually called Danzig in English). So the first line needs to make clear to casual visitors that Danzig means Gdansk so they know they are in the right place. The history section of the Gdansk page should be a summary of the History of Gdansk page; they should both use suitable historical names as used in English - so Free City of Danzig makes sense in English but Free City of Gdansk is confusing. If people really cannot live with names appearing too frequently then they can write "the city" where possible. I think the French page [5] does roughly what I would look for in the history section, though the rest of that page is a little thin. --Henrygb 18:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Last May, in a discussion of "formerly Danzig," Halibutt User:Halibutt alluded to "fruher" (with an umlaut over the U) as the German version of "formerly." Actually, I believe "früher" is more properly rendered as "earlier" in English. Cf, the German phrase "Morgen früh," meaning early morning or this morning (as opposed to "Morgen," which means tomorrow).

I don't like the current entry's (German name: Danzig), because it implies that the city was known as Danzig only by the Germans, whereas in fact as we have been noting all along it was known to most of the world as Danzig from the 14th century until 1945, and because Danzig was what most of its residents called it during that long period of time.

As an alternative, may I suggest again that "formerly Danzig" would be appropriate as the most truthful English rendering of history. It's also close to what a German would say: "das ehemalige Danzig." The word "ehemalige" (literally, former-time-ly) is used in countless German references to places in the former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse border because it denotes clearly that the place in question was formerly known by the German name but that it is no longer known as such because it is no longer German.

As a footnote, let me reiterate that I think the Germans (and the German media) should no longer call the city in question "Danzig" because that's not its name anymore. For example, it's nonsensical to refer to Lech Walesa as being "from" Danzig (the quote marks are because he actually he was born elsewhere), since when Walesa lived there it was named Gdansk, not Danzig. But it's equally misleading to call it Gdansk when referring to the centuries during which it was inhabited mainly by German-speaking people (Günter Grass, Artur Schopenhauer, etc., etc.) who called it Danzig. Thus I believe Walesa was incorrect in his memoirs when he said that Gdansk was "known to them ( the Germans) as Danzig" before 1945. It was known to most everyone as Danzig.

User:sca 4 Oct 04

Two things:

1. It is not true that the former English name of Gdansk was Danzig. It was the English name in 19 and the first half of 20th. Earlier many names were used, especially Low German Dantzik, not high German Danzig. So, could you explain why should we use 19-century name in such cases?

2. There is NO reason why this convention is to be used to THIS city and other places (and other cities with German past) instead of a general convention. This appears very biased and unacceptable.Yeti 16:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Before the mid-18th century or so, English spelling was not standardized. I agree with Yeti that there should be a general convention. At any rate, the English name in the 19th and 1st half of the twentieth centuries is, in fact, the "former English name", even if there were other former English names. We have intermittently been discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Namesissues - both of you are welcome to contribute. john k 18:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)