Talk:Donald Tusk/Archive 1

Historian?
Does anyone have any sources to prove that Tusk is a historian, other than his degree? Nicnote say hello!contribs 18:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi think there are not such information on the web yet. Lawtheagoraphobic  (talk)  22:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Special place in Hell for brexiters without a plan
Where in the article should we put this? Reaper7 (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald Tusk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606123852/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=11&dd=24&nav_id=45669 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=11&dd=24&nav_id=45669

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"underwent extensive linguistics classes"
They were probably language classes. --81.152.141.109 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Donald "Brexit will be the end of political civilisation" Tusk
... tweeted last night: "UK-Iceland 1-2". Political illiterate as well as a shrieking bigot, then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.157.185 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Donald Tusk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111002053309/http://www.thenews.pl/national/?id=69544 to http://www.thenews.pl/national/?id=69544
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091030095517/http://wiadomosci.onet.pl:80/2067607,11,tusk_dokona_ostatecznego_ciecia_ws_hazardu_w_polsce,item.html to http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2067607,11,tusk_dokona_ostatecznego_ciecia_ws_hazardu_w_polsce,item.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Domestic policy
I would add,that he supporting legalizations of Same-sex unions http://www.fakt.pl/premier-tusk-chce-zwiazkow-homoseksualnych-w-polsce,artykuly,455193,1.html http://www.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/790507,tusk-o-legalizacji-zwiazkow-homoseksualnych-gdyby-to-zalezalo-ode-mnie-zgodzilbym-sie-na-rejestracje.html In the parlament he wanted to legalization of Same-sex unions  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.175.38.118 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Domestic Policy
As to the pararaph:

Tusk has pursued the continuation of free-market policies, streamlining the bureaucracy, enacting long-term stable governance, cutting taxes to attract greater foreign business ventures, luring foreign-working Poles back to Poland, and privatizing state-owned companies.[11]

The citation is from Time from 2008 and all this is just completely untrue. The bureaucracy has soared, no taxes have been cut, but many have been raised, the numbers of people on emigration has not fallen but increased. All this can be found on Polish wikipedia for example with abundant supporting citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokaitenor (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * People emigrate for many reasons, including homophobia and other cultural phenomena (role of Catholic Church). Tusk actually wanted to introduce civil partnerships, but just over a half opposed. Anyway, regarding reforms, look at this to see the reforms directly:

https://www.premier.gov.pl/en.html and this is only the last 4 years of Tusk+some work of Kopacz. Check before you criticise--86.3.200.81 (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In either case, praise, criticism and anything else needs reliable sources. Neither this talk page, nor the article, are discussion forums. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

B-class review
Quickfailed due to insufficient inline citations. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaelic name
How does a Pole come to get an Irish or Scottish Gaelic name, of all things? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   12:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Well, he's ethnically German, not Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.68.64 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * rather Mazurian than German — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.69.112 (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kashubian not Mazurian, sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.69.112 (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rare accent?
I just now heard Tusk non-dubbed and I noticed that he pronounced the "r" uvular like e.g. in Northern France. Never heard Polish with that sound before, is it a common accent in Gdansk? Tiktak (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's probably because of his grandfather used to be in the Wehrmacht... ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This realization of the /r/-phoneme is indeed considered incorrect in Polish. --Botev (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, Gronkiewicz-Waltz also "suffers" from this speech defect. Must be a PO thing... ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Her (mis)pronunciation of [r] is entirely different and rather, pardon the double-entendre, common. Tusk indeed does speak with a peculiar accent, affecting a few consonants, and eeirly resembling Donald Duck's voice. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He does have noticeable lisp, too, but Donald Duck? Come on. I guess this impression is due to an interference with the name. (It's funny enough, though, to have the Kaczor vs. Donald situation. :) --Thorsten1 (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He has a lisp bus he is Cashubian. Probably hence this is where his accent comes from.--131.251.253.63 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"right wing" better than "liberal"
"liberal" means left wing for Americans and so I suggest the introduction describe Tusk as "right wing" instead. There is no confusion about what that would mean. Any comments?Bdell555 (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Changed. --Barry Kent (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. "Right-wing" is too broad and blurs particularly important Polish distinctions: LPR and PiS are "right-wing", too. Americans need to realize that "liberal" means something completely different in Europe. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that "right-wing" blurs important differences but "liberal" is also not exactly the right word. I associate this term rather with parties promoting personal freedoms like the right for abortion or homosexual marriages. In this sense, SLD is liberal. However, I see we are now linking to right-libertarianism. :) --Botev (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the term right-libertarianism, but from what the article tells me, it's way more radical than Tusk and the PO really are. There's a confusing lot of things we might link to instead - Liberal conservatism or Conservative liberalism. However, the PO is a pretty middle-of-the-road conservative/centrist party much like the German CDU, the Swedish Moderate Party or the French UDF. Apart from rather vaguely defined conservative values, these parties also advocate free-market policies, which is what people in most European countries (where abortion and homosexual marriages are not as hotly disputed as they are in Poland) associate with the word "liberal". Centre-right would be another possible attribute. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think centre-right would be fine. --Botev (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, --Thorsten1 (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of date
Why has noone updated this article properly? Donald Tusk has been the Prime Minister of Poland for almost a year. Is it perhaps that the Kaczists don't want to accept the election result? Colonel Mustard (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Colonel Mustard please leave your personal opinion about Kaczists to yourself. Instead of asking, update it yourself. Tymek (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Grandfather
(IsraelNN.com) Visiting Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he did not know his grandfather was Jewish...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/144687 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzyzowiec (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Is is a mistake - see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/972224.html, see also informations concerning source of this mistake - http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80277,5108128.html   and http://www.dziennik.pl/wydarzenia/article152254/Czy_dziadek_Tuska_byl_Zydem_.html 11.04.08  ahojda

Tusk's grandfather - Józef Tusk was a Polish/Kashubian railway worker in the Free City of Danzig. He was the citizen of the Free City and from Sep 1st, 1939, when the Germans anexed Danzig - he automatically became a German citizen. As a Pole he was arrested and sent to the concentration camp. Being unfit to work, he was released in 1941. In 1944 when the Germans were desperate for conscirpts they started enlisting by force even those German citizens, who were not of German descent. And so, Józef Tusk was forced to Wehrmacht, but after about 3 months he deserted and joined the Allied Forces in the West. --Barry Kent (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Technically, everyone is Jewish, if you are religious, since everyone is a descendant of Adam and Eve, or Noah, so if it is a way to discredit someone (Jews are despised), it has failed.

Tusk is not a Socialist
Who wrote that Donald Tusk is a socialist? He is a leading politician of the Liberals in Poland, the founder of the liberal-conservative party Platforma Obywatelska and former member of liberal youth organisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.247.94 (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Grandfather Józef Tusk war history
Deutsche Dienststelle ( Berlin ) - http://ww6.tvp.pl/include/docs/2005/10/14/Deutsche_Dienststelle.gif has also UK PoW form Number A771664 concerning Josef (his forename in german ) Tusk - http://ww6.tvp.pl/include/docs/2005/10/14/Brytyjskiej_armii.gif - with note "24.11.44 to Polish Forces", but Northolt ( London ) Archives - http://veterans-uk.info/service_records/non_uk.html -  has no record of Józef Tusk serving in POlish Forces under british command - letter to me dated 18.04.2006. His history is still not clear - see - http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja:Józef_Tusk Josef Tusk served in training InfErsBat 328, renamed in September 1944 to combat Reserve-Grenadier-Bataillon 328. This bataillon has fought in Battle of Huertgenwald against US 9 ID - http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18621 and http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18811. He disappeared 12.10.1944 from Wehrmacht records           18.12.2007     ahojda@poczta.onet.pl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.111.218.134 (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some clarification
As much as I respect Mr. Donald Tusk very much this bio goes thru some facts in a very unclear way on his grandfather case. Some proven facts: - Mr. Josef Tusk served in Wehrmaht and during the presidential campaign D. Tusk stated that it was not true which was unfortunately a lie, - Many of former Polish citizens who were forced "into" german citizenship were called to join German forces, many of those rejected to do so and were sent to concentration camp and/or were killed; Josef Tusk joined the force but only after spending some hard time in a camp From the political point of view simple truth - confirmation on that fact by D. Tusk and some explanation that his grandfather did that to save not only himself but also the family would be a great deal for both D. Tusk as a presidential candidate as well as for many Polish citizens who were forced to join Wehrmaht (applies mostly to Silesia and Pomerania). That small lie did a bad job of explaining the complicated history and situation of Polish citizens in occupied Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.143.8 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Günter Grass and Donald Tusk relation
Can anybody can prove this statement (I've cut this because it's not confirmed)?: "Donald Tusk is distantly related to German Nobel Prize-winning author Günter Grass, who made his home city famous through his Danzig trilogy."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald Tusk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120918111001/http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1%2C114873%2C6475126%2CZmarla_matka_premiera_Donalda_Tuska.html to http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114873,6475126,Zmarla_matka_premiera_Donalda_Tuska.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization situation
I'm assuming that if decapitalization is done here? Then it will be done for all the EU presidents intros & other Tusk predecessor office holders intros. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A Polish citizen
He is a Polish citizen Why Wikipedia doesn’t have this page in Polish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.99.124 (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is here: Donald Tusk – Thjarkur (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The controversy listed is written in a misleading way
Tusk's grandfather was not a Nazi collaborator, he was conscripted by the Nazis near the end of the war. Two very different things. 198.91.234.209 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Title capitalization
(As per previous discussions in User talk:FeldmarschallGneisenau and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)

the two allowed standards by MOS are to either put an article and use the word "prime minister" as a generic noun, or use to use the word without an article and capitalize it as a proper noun. Please read MOS:JOB and make the changes accordingly.

If you really want the format to be "the prime minister," then I'm fine with that (better that than unfruitful arguing), but let's be consistent with MOS. We can also bring the former format back (using it as a proper noun in the lede), which would be more consistent with the sentence following it. It's after all the format used for most former Polish prime ministers. Max19582 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, I see that in the Olaf Scholz article he is referred to as the chancellor and that he earlier served as Vice Chancellor. But these are two different positions. In this case it's a repetition of the same title. Does it need capitalization? FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If we want "Prime Minister" to serve as a title, we need to capitalize it. Otherwise, if we want to use it as a generic noun, we write it in lowercase with an article before it.
 * As of now, the first sentence uses it as a generic noun, while the latter uses it as a proper one. Max19582 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. The second time "prime minister" is uttered, it's a redundancy. So I don't think it has to be capitalized since it's already mentioned earlier. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether it's mentioned earlier or not doesn't change its capitalization rules. It's used as a title there so it should be capitalized.
 * If we want to keep capitalization consistent between the two sentences, we can undo the changes from the first sentence (served as the prime minister of Poland since 2023 -> served as Prime Minister of Poland since 2023); that would also be allowed per MOS:JOB. Max19582 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You provided a real good suggestion, although I twisted it a bit. I think the lede looks perfect now, as it should. Formally perfect, most of all FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the English pronunciation of Tusk's surname set in stone? Is there any formalized and only "English pronunciation" of his surname?
As above. I'm pretty sure I've almost only ever heard his surname being pronounced by English users the same way the English word "tusk" is pronounced. Which is a pretty good case against applying the specific point of MoS argued for by user Max. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but that falls under WP:OR. If sources say that the surname is pronounced /tusk/ in English, that's what the article should reflect. If you know sources that say it's pronounced differently, we can also include those.
 * As for pronunciation itself, sources do say that /tusk/ is the set pronunciation. There are several reliable sources that claim such, including BBC or The Times. The article references some of them, if you'd like to check more out, here's some links:
 * I also see you tried to change the formatting; this thing specifically is defined in MOS:PRON: For English pronunciations, broad transcriptions should be used; these are intended to provide a correct interpretation regardless of the reader's accent. The system for doing this is outlined at Help:IPA/English [...] The Wikipedia respelling system, using the template, can be used in addition to the IPA. As all the sources include the phonetic respelling, I see no reason not to include it as well. The IPA, though, must accompany it: For English words, transcriptions based on English spelling ("pronunciation respellings") such as prə-NUN-see-AY-shən (using respell) may be used, but only in addition to the IPA. WordSilent (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, the BBC article is specifically about "the words we mispronounced." Does BBC work like a sort of Council of the English Language in the UK? Because if it isn't, I see no reason to treat it as gospel. See, the article itself is proof that almost no one pronounced Tusk as /tusk/, at least not in 2018. I believe Wikipedia in linguistic matters follows that--what people say or how they say it--than a select few points of reference. Also note that these articles may reflect the way Tusk is pronounced in Tusk's native language only. This is an important point actually, the discussion here is about the English pronunciation and its distinction from Polish, and whether there is any, and whether that warrants highlighting at all. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The BBC article seems to refer to this list by Babbel. That article clearly uses English IPA symbols (look at how they write English instead of Polish ; a similar trend can be seen in their transcription for other names) and refers to English pronunciations of those words overall.
 * If those sources say that the correct pronunciation is (and they do; the BBC one did after all say they mispronounced his name by saying something else than ), then that's what the article should reflect. Personally, I did hear the surname being pronounced both ways, but whether pronouncing it /tʌsk/ can be considered correct or not is another story of linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism. That's, however, not up to us to decide; we should just follow what the sources say.
 * If you can find sources that say the name should be pronounced /tʌsk/ in English, then feel free to provide them. In that case we can include both the pronunciations in the lede. WordSilent (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like you're being a bit too germane about this unimportant issue. I don't mean to be offensive, but I have a feeling that because of you now the article looks bad and undue attention is given to how his surname is pronounced when the SAME EXACT pronunciation is already given in the Polish IPA. It's just a redundancy and the over-abundance of refs next to the redundant respellings just screws up the flow even more. I hope you consider these points and remember my analogy to Olaf Scholz, whether that article is GA or not. Right now the article is simply not what a proper, normal world leader's article should ever look like, in my opinion. Cf. Józef Piłsudski which is FA. There is no respelling PIWSOODSKI or English IPA. Just the Polish IPA. How it should be. I will follow this example.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (Same user as before, happened to change my username)
 * I have a feeling that because of you now the article looks bad and Right now the article is simply not what a proper, normal world leader's article should ever look like, in my opinion. - please read WP:OWN. Just because you don't like some content or formatting yourself, doesn't mean you should dictate its removal when the edit is both justified and sourced.
 * There are sources that say the name is pronounced in English, and this information should be included. Just because the surname is  in Polish, it's not immediately apparent it's  in English - it could, after all, be something like  as well, and the English transcription in the article clarifies that it's not that, per the provided sources.
 * This is stuff to be determined on individual basis for every article: just because one article doesn't have a phonetic transcription doesn't mean a different one shouldn't have one as well. You could, after all, make a counter-argument with the exact same reasoning, by referring to e.g. Andrzej Duda and how the article does have a phonetic transcription. For Tusk, there are reliable sources that say it's and there's no reason not to reflect that. Manual of Style does after all define how to deal with a situation when a surname has a determined English pronunciation (MOS:PRON).
 * It's just a redundancy and the over-abundance of refs next to the redundant respellings just screws up the flow even more. First you argued that the transcription was baseless. Now, when more sources were added to back up the claim, you call them redundant.
 * Also, personally, I wouldn't consider phonetic transcriptions/respellings redundant. I, myself, find them very useful when I encounter them in Wikipedia articles. You shouldn't remove content just because it's not useful to you specifically. WordSilent (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, referring to because of you now the article looks bad and undue attention is given to how his surname is pronounced when the SAME EXACT pronunciation is already given in the Polish IPA. The blaming tone of this sentence aside, I didn't add the phonetic transcription into the article. It was already established and used in the article months prior to your removal, which I only reverted as the transcription's usage had appeared justified. WordSilent (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My response: please refer to my response to Nemov below. Can I ask for a third opinion too? FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Third opinion is an arbitration process that considers both the sides' arguments. It has already been requested yesterday, and third opinion was provided (see below).
 * It's meant to resolve stalemates such as this one. It allows for a new outlook on the situation written by an uninvolved user. WordSilent (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no point to continue this debate anymore, as at this point it has come down to repeating the same arguments over and over. Please drop the WP:STICK. WordSilent (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Volunteer Marek @Piotrus may I most kindly ask for a third opinion on this (mostly aesthetic from my POV) subject. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: The article should reflect with due weight what has been reported by reliable sources. Since this has been mentioned by reliable sources it seems reasonable to include it in the article. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My main contention is, the Polish IPA already presents the exact same pronunciation. I don't think an English IPA is needed at all. I could settle for the English respelling TOOSK next to the Polish IPA. However, that is barely done anywhere in any articles, see the Featured Józef Piłsudski. People pronounce the surname in English in different ways - Pilsoodski, Pilsadski, Piwsoodski, Piwsadski etc. (the Polish pronunciation is Piwsoodski). This is not of any concern to that article and only the Polish IPA is presented. Therefore, a reader knows how the surname is pronounced natively. The English language doesn't have set pronunciations of most foreign surnames. Most of all, **the articles listed themselves don't *set the English pronunciation*, only explain how the surname is pronounced natively as a caveat**. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read my response above: There are sources that say the name is pronounced /tuːsk/ in English, and this information should be included. Just because the surname is /tusk/ in Polish, it's not immediately apparent it's /tuːsk/ in English - it could, after all, be something like /tʊsk/ as well, and the English transcription in the article clarifies that it's not that, per the provided sources.
 * Polish and English are two different languages. Polish transcription does not tell the reader how to pronounce the word in English. WordSilent (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But it's not /tʊsk/. It's /tusk/ in Polish and /tusk/ "in English." As I said above, you are being too germane about potato potato. Such redundancies go against the MoS. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, Polish and English are two different languages. According to MOS:PRON: When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first. There are reliable sources that say that it's so there's no reason not to include it.
 * I don't understand why this discussion is still going on. The WP:30 has already been provided. WordSilent (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * >When
 * Precisely. It makes sense to follow that rule WHEN the pronunciations DIFFER between the English and the native languages. They do not here, however. Excuse me as I follow up with the MoS standard of Wikipedian elegance on here. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A single, different user chipping in doesn't close the discussion. With all due respect to User:Nemov, he's neither an oracle nor did he even state a definitive opinion. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This works both ways. Until there's support for your argument there's really no reason to continue to beat the dead horse. Nemov (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My proposition is reductive, minimal. The onus of argument lies on User:WordSilent, not on me. And so far, not a single cogent argument has been put forth. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * >When. Precisely. It makes sense to follow that rule WHEN the pronunciations DIFFER between the English and the native languages. They do not here, however. Reliable sources mention the English pronunciation of the name to be . Just because a name is pronounced one way in Polish does not mean it's pronounced the same way in English. Those are two different languages, and if there are sources that say a name is pronounced in English, that information should appear in the article.
 * Excuse me as I follow up with the MoS standard of Wikipedian elegance on here. Can you please provide the part of the manual you're referring to? MOS:PRON says to include both of them. WordSilent (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * /tusk/ and /tusk/ is... the same pronunciation. It's really self-evident. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @WordSilent I recommend dropping the stick as well. Satisfying the other editor isn't a requirement to find consensus. Nemov (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And 2-v-1 is hardly a consensus either. Furthermore, the third opinion process doesn't have to be entirely reliable, a man can entice a friend to participate in it to skew the odds in his favor. So to clear any possible accusations, it would be good if you uttered at least a single word of argument in favor of this germane clunkiness, because so far I cannot see it besides "it has references attached to it, so it's gotta stay." With all due respect, I elaborated logically on why this shouldn't be here, with the strongest argument being that this is one and the same pronunciation - /tusk/ and /tusk/ - and therefore it's a redundancy and clutters up the lede needlessly. And I have not seen a rebuttal to this yet. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't say "with all due respect" and make baseless accusations. I would remind you to review WP:ASPERSIONS and to assume good faith or you could wind up at WP:ANI. Nemov (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)