Talk:Gdańsk/Archive 13

POV template
Any objections to removing the POV check Template currently at the top of the article? There does not seem to be a current discussion regarding POV issues for this article. Olessi 16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As there has been no discussion here I am removing the template. Olessi 16:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

On the text below te remark this again. Good historical information (french, dutch, english, skandinavian, jewish,.. ones) scetch also the period before 9th centuru untill even year of Christ. Since (t)here the region already mixed be it keltic.. and gothic, traders from german and polish regions (nations as now did not exist, so more as 1 region each) danemark (wo gave name Dans(k)ri(c)k (rik=empire, also oldenglish Rick)) and perhaps dutch.. In the Freestate PeriodeS (before 1900 and after 1914 Versaille-1940) the english form Dantzig was used by most, dispit personal use of own forms with FreeState or (=)F.S. before. 'Danskrig' is the oldest form for the harbourvillage and farm-partregion, but a collection of old-polish 'Gan-dansik'(later G-dansk; Dansk =danishform of 'danish') and oldgerman Gaun-Dan[t*]zig (comp. germ.Zaun and jidish-jewic Gan for Garden; *=oldergerman+english, only-Z is used by natzi's); these regions incl. jewic stettle's aswell gothic pauverlands of Goth(M)aran [Pommeran/-sk(pl/pol.)/-ien(dt/germ.) later derived], G'dynialand was the abriviation for the area.. Like a Luxemburg, allthough many bilingual some german and polish regim periods forced their language while once in periods danish was the tradelanguage before 999 and in the Hansa periode, especial after Lùbeckrule; know Luebeck=L"ubeck is a danish area those days.

Goths came and were a swedish people with 3 main tribes splitted more than once, one called them Pruszic (old-scandin-avian). Dantzig was a collection of towns and (church-farm sites) of a group fisher, traders or farmers, some times of one of its backgrounds homogen (so alone german, polish or (keltic&Northgerm.)scandinavian) most were mixed (see polish-german combination names like Gustav Polanski(..)) but first to itself and later to tempor. Sweden (dif.ocasions) and later while harbour grown to add itself to HANSA (Handels Sammtwerka Associat.) (a dannishname!: translated, Trade Togetherwork Association; also dutch and english and perhaps some N.E. polish towns while below "Eastprussia" or "Kaliningrad" (then Teuto' Union unto Kurland, West Estia) was a thin coast part of polish tribes) it binded to L"ubeck(Luebeck) thEn still a Danishtown and congress"capital" of the semi-autonom hansacities.

That there were wars, that underline different people's there and theirs background spoiled by leaders (all sides possible) while once united in harmony (our Creators Purpose (Dieu prote'gera!)). Perhaps it is not in 1 line but merely in 1 dashed line part of 'Hansa', some like Dantzig used 'Hansa' as their nation having, like an orphan, none (nation as father), due supra-diversity. Danes formed a large group, not for nothhing most spoke german, the 'english' in those centuries (even polish elite spoke latin and german too), dannish (also by poles, esp. the elites, also farmers) was spoken too as imp. trade languages, ..'above english' even. Pommera' is an abbreviated polish word for Coastland, also some groups living there was given that name by nobles (poles, kels, goths,germans, danes together 'renamed') of course even before 10th century, the german variant was 'pommern', possibly this originally was no polish but gothic word, borrowed into polish and german languages. Pommar - GothaMar is a re-writing too as derriviation; Gothic G and P oftener became confused as analfabetism and making/"develloping(negativ)" worser handwriting growed. A mainly german speaking group exist not out of nowhere to majority, but it says not that the roots are german, these most danes & others (farmland SE polishmajority, SW more germanmixture during centu-ries, city huge complex mix (even english.. here?)) transformed to 'Dantziger' as own people.

As enlightning example: Also in Holland we are honest to see that it exists of more than 1 people, Lowersaxons in E&NE, Frisian in North&NNW, Chamavian (a East swiss tribe in Center, no mixed in largetownareas), Westfrisian(w. Amsterdam), Romanlegions partly remained and mixed with Lower-Franco-nian in 'B.R.A.bant'(Batavia-Romanum-Associatia Union=Bant (comp. word english-'band'), Chattons(Gelderland=Chatl're(yck; comp. 'rick'/empire)) in East, Limburg in SE and CentralRivers-landLowerfranconians else-where, Israel and States also have mixed and 'latino' or 'beduin', 'druz', arab and pal.area, Germ. has slavonicregions in East but mixed(!), Polska=Poland has mixed and discernable peoples area's in West, South, East and Former East. A name often grows per language to an own word, I needed before mend sum-ups for this lexographicview: Cologn or Lviv or Litzenstetl (jiddish/jew.large colonny!) are made of older historic words not of their language (non polish and non german). Dutch nationalist, alike American in Los Angeles and jews in Asdod like to let make speak the other-original natives their words (can it be more ego.. or retro-(as visa versa instead of old; orig.mean.) or "racistic"[dared]) so to the Frysians(own-people), Spaninish-mostly origin of West States, the Filistin=Palestine (Genesis10; Cham tribes in South Syria=motherland)) were here mixed with Cananites (son of Mitzraim = Egypt (oldhebr.+oldarab) and K/C-ittim(Cypriot-greek tribe)(Gen.10/Bible's PeoplesList)..

There is a simple (human)right that people may/'must' utter them in their -goodmend- habbits and tongues -socially-, in Israel and West US-States doublelanguage problemless is used like in Qu'ebec-Canada. To 'kill' one's culture and tongue is not different from rascism, in Bibletime it was done alone to wash away the ultimsins of a region offring alife humans to humiliate 'God', and only on His divine callculated-out all gracepossibilities' Will.

Reading Jewish History I read firstly on Pogroms they made on by God cursed Area's -however I dislike it, the other outcome was these fascistic anti'God' and severeantiIsrael folk were as dragons or false lions to a Sheep-Protector; no mercy can be hold there. With-it some progroms or deads by/of Israel were punished; because without consent or base: only Me belongs Right on Revenge 'God' ordered (also to other believers, in fact; After Christ Harmony and Nomore Hate is Motto).

Secondly Jews became victim to Pogroms by nearly every nation in Europe as partly expelled from Israel (by several Peoples like Ottomans) between 20 centuries, also Poland (as victim AND violator in 'jewish' perspectiv) slaughtered by thousands before German's came in 17th-18th and 19th and 20th Century by intervals, also before the attack of independent Dantzig (was not Poland & not Germany too!)in 1939 on a polish postoffice first where unbeneath where heavyweapons stored secretly. As often many proves are washed away by winning parties; natzi's and red's.. And 'one' is not asking its prosecuter 'please give me a receipt of what you is doing Sir/Madam!, I need it for the Bookings to account my history..' Since 'Thi-efs' and 'who-res' and none of real-angels still exists in Poland or Germany and else.. 'We are not that holy..'.

In orrigin (biblical-jewrab sources:) Slaves + Alt-Germans and Kelts are one; (not popular due past.. but..fact!) Gomer got as son of Jafeth(Pale('nicewhite' then as hebr.word expl.)-one)(a son of Noah) 3 sons, one as Father of West-Europe and inherit Gomer's name (comp.Gomez), by Syrian derriving-renamed G/Kimmeriyar(more forms) and by Romans to Germannic, so not alone the Germany peoples but West-Euro-pe, so historians fix 'Alt' or 'Grand' to it to sepparate/discern it from 'Germany', he was Asknaz ([A-]Scan[az]-Dina-Via reffers), his name means about 'menhood quick to firemight', his brother To(r)garmah makes more peoples the westturkic(other than altai- and central ottomanturks!=Meshech; Gen.10/Noach-Jafethline)[Torc=To[r]g], Slavonic, Amenic-Georgian(formermixed armenian&turks&slaves), and grand-Dagestan..,

The 3rd son Riphat became keltic and gipsy and paphlagonic lines, Zaraphat(oldarab-hebr. for France) points on the keltoi-Gallia who came via Greece who gave 'keltoi' ('people'(=hebr.goi-yim)) to them as name, Galtoi to Gallo to Gallia at Roman tongue those days, dispite the Alt-Germanic 'overrule' of majority of Upperfranconians and a large minority of Romans mixed in N.&S. and Goths(!) in South (Aquitaine=Ac-gothania; langue d'oc/acgothanie)..

Things Change, fuse and mixe, but let's not confuse and combine other search pillars even to test out own sources. By the Way, many poles in Silesia came deported from Eastpoland, the older generation partly feld E.Poland now Whiterussia and Ukraine and more,.. Also poles slaughtered germans or jews (polish and jew. sources!), also jewish milicias and nutral danzigmilicia's(..), were not fitting in western aswell eastern block historic books due coldwar (in fact started halfway in 1945. Even unto 1947 jews, dantziger, others and poles and germans were pogromed or persecuted in 'secret' with spurs washed away.. Few thiefs who write spures on floor, alike 'I, ..., was here'.. Films and Photo's (then still a proove and only hard to false) were made, also by independent...journalists from Abroad, the West.  Also the Redcross give shocking figures on both sides.

In fact around 2.8 million jews were counted near precise, due exhumanition of dead-rotting 'deseasemaking' bodies, a mathomatic precise counting technik was tested criticallyright and approved succesful, by boddyheaps moyenne -with correction % factors from tests!-and more, the quickmade heaps, fotographed, were counted to neartruth statisticnumbers, recalculated to missing unto that time and later again unto 19fifties; 6 million was a prudent presentation scoretotal, possibly is 7 million more approaching truth/veritas; redcross-stillmis-sings callculated in, makes it more appreciatable. Lviv(jiddish Liembirk/dt.Lemberg) and (jewized, gan=garden/-court)'Gan-Danskzig' ("Danzig-Gdansk") had jewish majority respective great jew.minority. Streetfights were also in Danzig before Hitler invade, tensions between slavic and german in the 'over-walk' mixed/twilight area of both longtime have been since 9th century with longer silent periods and shorter ones.

Between 1892 unto 1937 tensions rose in the twilight-curtain between different populations of jews, gipsies, slaves, slovaks, czech, poles, etnic and new germans, etnic and newpoles (the 'new' often nationalists, the 'old' most peacefull at both sides)..

That France PM, Stalin, Churchill and Hitler had own unclean Agenda's has proven on high historical levels: all saw problems in commi's, jews, gipsies, economicweakness influence of other 'eagles'.. and wanted mosthard solutions for also veryselfish bennefit, like wildlife.. That a brownskirt who better should remained painter in Austria or see the beauty of palestine both ways, ..made such bloodymess is No justification to use similar tools -you reject too- to others to do; like in thora and in 'je-sus do christo' words(NT): if you not want that happens you desire it not another! (let G'd, deal with it in finalcourt, noone escape if not goodterms with Its messiah, in spiritual dimension, be evolutionless.) .. Respect is 2-3way(you-other-G'd) traffic not 1way, always! Also to armies in Mathew this 'je-sus' said: Don't plunder anymore - be content with your soldey(oldengl. salary)'!'

Friendships and Partnerships exchanged through each other. Nameing is part of the play which with out devine order in fact is culture murder and sinful, whatever price in exchange; sin can never be payed by sin, even in thora only the guilty had to pay price. Only the devine could render a whole people to curse, or bless. British research (redcross and armysecurity, special subunit, fenced) in Poland showed that most east of odraneisze were anti-natzi [a painful fact], most befriended with poles/czech [my personal polish friends agreed me] in harmony, also in Danzig-Gdansk as in Silesia or Sudetia and westmoldauland(oldBohemia), by fraud and cifferplay (internatl.redcross proofs).. In the Jerusalem Post, then Palestinian Post with british-jew-arabpalestine editorat / press-redaction, it mentioned these things (i have copies from Jerusalem dated back, reprinted 100%truely, from years 1932-2009, jubilea edition-book!, also streetfights and wrongs in Dantzig farbefore 1939.. proof). I have like many there aswell polish as german, as anglo and arab-jewish roots in my family, a polish grandma, an jew.english-germansilesian grandad, and could see a lot of nuance. Sometimes truth is remade to fake and visa versa. Good time-persons, proven nutral, are gold for an editor. The Jerusalem Post had those days pleasantgood ties with arab, polish, german and english sensor's.. Unhapilly the greates shouter oft choosing a misformed view of own-folk(-first, selflove,.. egoism); a better view on yourself is by other 'correct one's' done. Difficult at nations where none is very 'correct', selfcritism is hardly found and when it is often attacked and nutralism is often confused with 'own-view=truth' rethorik, making fable's or myths to truth for wishing or goodself-believe. An open press should research, like at any crime or question, daring unpleasant to accept if good points. Dutch, Poles, Germans, Slovaks, Czech.. They used oppression and own-people flood-in's and by languagelaws and sanctions to conformate other groups to the one in favour of the class. Polanes submitted also several polish tribes sometimes brutalny. Sometime a people get a chance to break out for its own freedom. Discussed and above name Curtainarea need such chance, from Latin America to Indonesia. Betweenforms of indepen-dence; as examples are NewBrunswick(Canada), Luxemburg and Switzerland, perhaps a german or pole can laugh, but in stability, economic, historic, social(no languagebattle), these laughing cannot met their countries, in fact brothers of past: Ashknaz and Togarma. A creator will laugh and love with better reason if consensus has been found in acceptance of diffrences (also of views, history and living),.

Calling an American-RedIndian as 'stinkyred' and visa versa the white 'white-ashes' in an interview, will in most deturn a goodtalk on arguments and behaved uttered emotions into 'totalcarbage' of both, minimizing value of a human, as any is in equal innerly the same by same creator.

Fora like this forum must not smite with mud, but in venerance accept that there are things unseen, unprooven, byond your dad or mom's view, learning to build independent one of your own; like our globe the opinion is on a move, escape from 1914-1961 cliche's and stereotypes. In Germany and Poland a great group is family of each other, Jews and Aranbs (also brothers; J'Ishmael and J'Is(h)rael-Jitzchaq[Isaac]). An english or old 'jiddish-keltic' or combi-name is possible, or Swiss-way of naming both apart next eachother or alone as 'free'. Or a mix of all!

'Prisoned in a War-Cramp' on oft propagandicloaden views? Also alied used propaganda of which part went in as truth in historian books, forget the minuses and try to find or remake plusses; minus factor minus is plus?! Yes, even je-sus and jewrab-farao joseph made of old enemies friends. Herein I tried to give answer to only selfjustifying (is poor) answers, without mentioning references or proofs(not always in history in direct but indirect manner, see text above) that be not okay.

In an old French Atlas I found between 1 st and 9th century enormous gabs between Poland and Germany and Czechs, often carto-made like that whereas these regions were whether un(/-der)populated or mixed; truth here is a mixed, saying too, that neighb. Poles and Germans or Czech had no authority there and area's in fact were free and mixed partly ruled and partly unruled.. This complexer variousness also gives history more beauty. Rulers often place history to their taste and hand, is that pure or truth? A pole, jew, german, anglo or dutch is a true person..? Can i generalise since still there are wrongfolk also, in plenitude, amoung all of these? (In fact all parties lost at a time and won only by 'grace' and (devine)help..) Wanted: A respect to find a new mid with sincere testamonies with an harmonyseeking attitude; history here is not black-white!

In the Land of Blinds One Eye is King (a dutch saying), but.. is he leading pure, fine and good? What be good for ALL?..

This Wer' from Holland impartialview was a reaction on next 3 lettersin this block —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.30.39 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh what exactly is your point? Dr. Loosmark  12:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The never-ending brouhaha
Still going on, I see. I thought we settled all this a year or so back. I'll just offer once again my poetic comment:


 * The city of Danzig once lay
 * In the north, near the Vistula Bay
 * But there was a war
 * That the Germans verlor,
 * And the city's called Gdańsk today.

Sca 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite nice, were it not, that Polish chauvinism and outright nationalism spoil most historical pieces on the history of cities in historical eastern Germany. It's logical, that Germans react. I myself am Dutch, not "Deutsch", but it is annoying nevertheless. I can't stand people calling German-founded medieval settlements like Elbing, "Elblag" frenetically, even though that name did not even exist back then. Compared to the Russians, the Polish are still far from accepting them. Of course, that might seem necessary, considering that nearly one third of modern Poland is annexed former German territory and given the fact, that the eastern Poland the Soviets annexed in 1945, was largely non-Polish Belarussian or Ukrainian already. It's only historical uncertainty which cannot tolerate the plain facts. It is a fact, that from 1225 to 1945 Danzig was "Deutsch", and it is a fact too, that Gdansk has been Polish since 1945. Giving some space to German historical names however is not wrong. The polonizing of the name Krahntor in this article is already reminiscent of Polish nationalism. That medieval crane was never called that way by neither Kashubian Danzigers nor by the German Danzigers. I ain't calling Lodz "Litzmannstadt" and "Litzmannmonument" either in its articles. It's pathetic. But anyhow.Smith2006 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

oh, dear, that was a very angry post, please dont make a fool of Yourself, West Slavs territory was far more west than it is now- for example Berlin was founded by West Slavs and has a slavic name and so many of the towns/villages had polish name. As for Russians accepting their past I dont really see a point even if that was true(and it is not-actually far from that). As for Eaastern pre war Poland, hmm nation such as belarusias didnt exist, they didnt have any claims for independence, when asked where are they from in 1945 they would say:from here. They have been rusified. As for now Ukraine where did You get Your claims from?it depends what part of today's Ukraine we are talking about, in the cities -majority was polish more west more Poles in the villages. Also if You claim that since 1225 Gdańsk was a German city, going with Your logic most of todays Poland was either jewish,german, ukrainian, lithuanian,russian even swedish etc. But the fact is the nationality as we understand it now- back then didnt exist, all these people were invited by polish kings to settle, were given privileges by polish kings, were paying "taxes"to polish kings and were protected by polish army. This is how it worked back then, and I dont think that this makes these cities german or jewish or either. And for the next time think what is chauvinsm because You just showed a great example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.243.130.43 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lodz/Litzmannstadt is hardly the same thing. Gdansk was founded by the Poles. In the 9th century, the eastern boundary of Germany was about where it is now. The territories that Germany possessed prior to 1945 were Germanized between 800 and 1800, but many of the cities there were originally Slavic (heck, so are some of the cities west of the modern border, like Leipzig), and always had some Slavic population in them. One of those cities is Gdansk. Łódź, on the other hand, was always a Polish city, except when it was conquered by the Nazis, the population expelled, and the city was given a name with no historical background (Karl Litzmann was a German WW1 general who won a battle there.). No one except a neo-Nazi would call the city Litzmannstadt today. The German Wikipedia uses German names with legitimate historical context, like Danzig, but calls Łódź by its Polish name. Jsc1973 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [redacted by Skäpperöd (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)] Blonde Knight of Teuton 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to archeologists, the Gdańsk stronghold was built in the 980s by Mieszko I of Poland, after a series of local wars. In 1997, the year 997 was celebrated by Poland as the date of the foundation of the city, this being the year when Saint Adalbert of Prague (sent by the Polish king Boleslaus the Brave) baptized the inhabitants of Gdańsk (urbs Gyddanyzc).


 * In the following years Gdańsk was the main centre of a Polish splinter duchy ruled by the Dukes of Pomerania. The most famous of them, Świętopełk II of Pomerania, granted a local autonomy charter in ca. 1235 to the city, which at the time had about 2,000 inhabitants. But at this time, the town had already obtained the city charter under Lübeck law (Lübisches Stadtrecht) in 1224 and the official spoken language was German.


 * By 1308 Gdańsk had became a flourishing trading city with some 10,000 inhabitants, but in the Gdańsk Massacre of November 13, 1308, it was occupied and demolished by the Teutonic Knights. This led to a series of wars between the Knights and Poland, ending with the Peace of Kalisz in 1343 when the Knights acknowledged that they would hold Pomerania as "an alm" from the Polish king. Although it left the legal basis of their possession of the province in some doubt, the agreement permitted the foundation of the municipality in 1343 and the development of increased export of grain from Poland via the Vistula river trading routes.


 * I do not feel that there is a need for me to point out, line for line, how much of a distortion of reality this is. There is so much that is inherently wrong in this treatment that I do not even know where to begin. If you find yourself scratching your head over this one and you find this perfectly acceptable for an online encyclopedia that is trying to prove its merits, I'm afraid this just isn't your subject... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Removed paragraph
''From the early 13th century until 1945 the vast majority of Danzig's population had been of German ethnicity and German had been the language officially spoken since its city charter was granted in 1224 under Lübeck Law. For example, in the course of a poll executed in 1923, 96% of the citizens of Danzig stated German to be their mother tongue whereas 3% stated Polish to be so. Danzig enjoyed far reaching privileges concerning its self-autonomy (e.g. laid down in the Second Peace of Toruń) while it was under protection of the Polish Crown between 1466 - 1793. Due to its mainly German population the city resisted the Counter-Reformation and stayed predominantly Protestant until 1945. In 1945, the surviving German population was expelled to the western parts of Germany and the city was eventually re-populated by Poles, many which had been expelled from territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union.''

How can a poll from 1923 be an "example" of what was the ethnic make-up of the city in "early 13th century? There was no actual "self-autonomy" only lower taxes for enterpreneurs. How is German ethnicity related to "resisting the Counter-Reformation"? And what about Bavaria and Austria (not to mention Switzerland)? How come German ethnicity didn't help them in "staying predominantly Protestant"? Finally, why then East Prussian Mazurs remained "predominantly Protestant" despite lack of German ethnicity? Space Cadet 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Also, since when "Gdańsk" is not a historical name? Well, if it is, then why only "Danzig" needs to be emphasized as "historical"? See where I'm going with this? Space Cadet 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this and many other discussions about German/Polish historical topics. It's a real shame that there is so much nastiness and vindictiveness it them. I am a Silesian by birth, of a German (Ostpommern) father and Polish (Cracow) mother. My education has primarily been in Australia from an independent perspective, so I see myself as an objective viewer.

Discussing pre-19th century political history is very fraught since the notions of nationality didn't emerge until then - in medieval Hanseatic Cracow (eg) the majority of people may have been German ethnically and linguistically, but most likely saw themselves as Cracovites (i hope that's correct) first, and under the subjectship of whoever was the King of Poland at the time - even though the king was sometimes not Polish: Henry Valois = French/Swiss; Stefan Batory = Hungarian; the Vasas = Swedish etc. The same applied more or less everywhere. The Plantagenets were French, Tudors Welsh, Stuarts Scottish... Even to this day the British royals are actually ethnically a German family.

The point I'm making is that prior to the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, ethnic nationality didn't count for much. Calling a city whose national provenance is controversial (like Gdansk/Danzig) Polish as opposed to German in a particular historical period primarily refers to royal belonging, not ethnicity or language. That's because the people at the time would overwhelmingly identify with that belonging rather than ethnicity. This is contrary to present day when such identification is primarily ethnic. That's why critique of pre 19C history aling nationalistic lines doesn't make sense.

There are really 4 dimensions to calling a place German, Polish or anything else. Ethnicity, language, geography and political belonging. You can call (eg) Prague a German city in some of these dimensions, and Czech/Bohemian in others.

There is too much nationalistic fervour in these articles and discussions. It is true that Polish authors may be unsympathetic to the cleansing of Germans postwar - that isn't necessarily their fault since such historical facts were largely glossed over in the Communist teaching of history. Likewise German authors understanably resent the postwar border moving to the Oder-Neisse. Neither is automatically being deliberately biased.

The point of WP is to state those views in an objective way. There is nothing wrong with an article including a section on differing historical views of a city.

I for one hope that the continuing integration of European countries in the EU will slowly assign to the past these nationalistically-motivated views of OUR JOINT history.

-- Gabe76 - 21 Feb 2007


 * I am likewise of one German and one Polish parent ethnicity. I appreciate your comments, especially on JOINT history.  JJ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.108.49.206 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

English call the city Danzig

Hi Just like to point out that in England and the English speaking world our name for the city is Danzig, we don't call it Gdansk, that looks like a spelling mistake or typo. By and large the rule in English for cities in Eastern Europe that have multiple names, we use the German name, obviously as we have closer cultural ties and more importantly are languages are the same. English people often cant pronounce or say Slavic names for cities, we use the German name.
 * I'm from England and I've always known it as Gdansk. Similarly, I say Poznan rather than Posen, Szczecin rather than Stettin and Wroclaw rather than Breslau. Indeed, the only people I've heard use Danzig are German speakers. 82.132.136.198 (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm from the U.S. and have also always known it as Gdansk. I'd be curious to know where exactly "in the English speaking world our name for the city is Danzig." I've only ever heard it called that in historical context, and had no idea there were people who still called it that until I saw this article.  Shouldn't it be referred to by its CURRENT name, like every other city, rather than one of its historical names? 152.228.182.150 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC).


 * Darn that pesky Churchill, "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

I don't see why English wiki should be forced to used diacritics. They have no place here. 70.77.38.177 (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig
There's a small edit war going over the inclusion of Danzig in the first line of the article. If you reference Talk:Gdansk/Vote, it was agreed that a reference to the name Danzig be made, but Gdansk take naming precedence since it has been the preferred name since the end of WWII. I'm making an edit to reflect the wishes of that vote and I think it is a decent compromise between the two disparate edits currently being made. Please talk here if you have an opinion.

avs5221 (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh hai!
Actually that was was just me being a silly bastard. I also editted two other articles under that IP. I was having a discussion with a silly Polish fellow and he bought it hook line and sinker! =D And yeah I'll screw around with wiki if I please, since you'll revert it anyway. :3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.121.85 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

GDAŃSK FORMERLY AS DANZIG?
Former is a very closed word. Dont you think? You`ve need to be more precise at this point. Former Danzig means that word Danzig connects it strongly to his past which was only "Danzigs past". Am I correct ? It`s an error. It`s like the way that Danzig was for example 1 thousand years german and was founded by Germans and his former name is Danzig but now it is Gdansk.. but in past times it was all Danzig...

A word former means that the beggining is - "also former". So looking in that way, there is very much probability that somebody could understand that in that way so there is an error at the start.

Sorry for my english :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stronghold2033 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Monetary Unit and Language
Hi there, I've been looking all over for it, but I can't seem to find the name of the monetary unitl nor the name of the official language of Gdansk during 1466, Royal Prussia.

Does someone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhcej (talk • contribs) 00:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

About coinage: After connection of coinage system with polish one in 1454 to 1492 in Gdansk only coin created locally was szeląg (idk how to translate this - you have it there: http://www.emonety.pl/page/historia-gdanskiej-mennicy-cz-1-p626.html). One szeląg was worth nominally 1/3 polish royal grosz (one with king's stamp). On awers there is a shield with polish eagle, on reverse is Gdansk's coat of arms (with exception of time of Polish-Gdansk war - in that time Gdansk created "siege coins" - http://www.trojmiasto.pl/wiadomosci/Monety-obleznicze-Najpierw-biliscie-teraz-kupujcie-n32499.html with different signs). Besides local coin in usage were officially coins of polish coinage system: półgrosz ("half a grosz"), grosz, półtorak ("one and half" of grosz), dwojak ("two" of grosz), trojak ("three" of grosz), czworak ("four" of grosz), szóstak ("six" of grosz), ort (worth 18 groszys), złoty polski ("polish golden one" worth 30 groszys), złoty czerwony ("red golden" alias "dukat" worth 4-6 "polish goldens") and other coins from nations trading with that trader' city.

About language: looking on papers from that time: German, Polish, Latin - practically on equal rights - depending on place where it was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.87.75 (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

SIMPLIFIED HISTORY OF GDAŃSK AS A MAJOR POLISH CITY
Simplified History of Gdańsk:

VII c. - ab. 970 -﻿ stateless SLAVIC Pomeranian

997 - baptism of Gdańsk

ab. 970 - 1271 - POLAND / SLAVIC Pomerania

1271-1272 - Brandenburg (German)

1272-1308 - POLAND

1308-1454 - Teutonic Order (German)

1410-1411 - POLISH city, Teutonic Orders castle

1454-1793 - POLAND

1793-1807 - Prussia (German)

1807-1815 - Free City

1814-1918 - Prussia / Germany

1919/20-1939 - Free City

1939-1945 - Germany

since 1945 and POLAND

Look up. You see that Gdansk was in the past polish city. It was like 750﻿ years - POLAND, so why you still keep talking about FORMER German city? Change this word "FORMER GERMAN CITY" at the beggining of the article or be more precise at this point.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.87.129.100 (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated
With some history regarding multicultural character of the city, and resistance against Prussia. But of course the history section would need expansion further.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC) I removed debates and arguments about Anglo-Polish alliance being reason for hostitlies and Hitler's supposed peace attempts. They go beyond the scope of thie article and seemed to OR'is and argumentive as well as based on dubious sourcing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So MyMolobo, adding historical information about the history of the city at one of the most crucial moments in it's history and possibly the world's in the 20th century is now going to be removed by you at will? You're saying that the removed information goes beyond the scope of the article in its history section? Does it seem argumentative and "ORish", or is this another example of removing information based on not liking it? I would think that by now you know that it would be better to discuss it here first and get some other viewpoints and if the consensus is to remove it, then do so. Not the other way around. Which is why it should be restored. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Hitler & comp provided a lot of material on their unbelievable "peace" making efforts but their record speak from themselves. Dr. Loosmark  17:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in his famous speech on 22 August 1939: "The enemy did not expect my great determination. Our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich. [...] Now Poland is in the position I wanted. [...] I am only afraid that some bastard will present me with a mediation plan at the last moment.". Dr. Loosmark 17:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The encyclopedia is supposed to reflect a neutral and unbiased article. The reader is surely capable of determining what the facts are, but only if different points of view are allowed to be examined. Was the source unreliable? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Different points of view? As in what, that Hitler was a peace maker? Dr. Loosmark  18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Different points of view, as in presenting them whether or not we like them. Incidentally Hitler never used bastard, he used "Schweinehund" (pig dog) in the remarks made at his home at the Obersalzerg, 22.08.1939 (from your above quote, the one with all of the spaces and ellipses). You probably haven't read the "speech" in it's entirety, whereas I have and this part is interesting..."Meine bisherige polnische Politik stand im Gegensatz zu der Auffassung des Volkes. Meine Vorschläge an Polen (Danzig und Korridor) wurden durch Eingreifen Englands gestört"... I think he believed that. Anyway my point is not to claim that Hitler was a peace-maker, but to have the different viewpoints presented when appropriate. Sometimes one likes what they read and sometimes they do not. This encyclopedia is relatively uncensored and that makes it good. You bring up this Hitler speech with a wlink to the Munich Agreement. There seems to be a lot of weaseling at that article concerning Polish military aggression against Czechoslovakia following that "conference". Believe it or not there are different interpretations about that event other than the current Polish explanation and justification. This is how Winston Churchill interpreted it,  "In 1938, over a question as minor as Teschen, they (Poland) sundered themselves from friends in France and Britain and the United States...we see them hurrying, while the might of Germany glowered up against them, to grasp their share of the pillage and ruin of Czechoslovakia." If you wish we can discuss that at those other article talk pages because it's all getting a little OT. So the real question remaining is whether or not the referenced information that MyMolobo removed from this article was appropriate or not. And whether or not it should be reinstated. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Anyway my point is not to claim that Hitler was a peace-maker, but to have the different viewpoints presented when appropriate."


 * Again what "different viewpoints" are you talking about? The only viewpoint which presented was that Hitler was a peace maker. So yes Molobo did very well to remove that nonsense and I would have do so myself. Dr. Loosmark  19:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you took the time to read the deleted and referenced edit maybe you'd understand what I'm talking about. The edit did not call Hitler a "peacemaker", and for some reason that's unfortunately fixated in your mind. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That edit is very confused, Hitler was not hoping to make a peace he was hoping that England and France would not go to war, if anything. Anyway there is the additional problem that the source for Hitler's plan to make peace is Goebbels who is the epitome of an unreliable source. Furthermore what for should the article about a city, Gdańsk, have a detailed analysis of what was going on in the mind of Adolf Hitler? That belongs to another article. Here all that we need is to describe the Hitlerite attack on Poland. Dr. Loosmark  19:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Loosmark, I'm glad you're coming around a little and losing some of your intransigency. I'm sorry you're confused with the edit, perhaps it's a language issue. It's really not all that confusing, but even if it were, it would be better to make it less confusing (if its a punctuation or grammatical issue), than to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". The source is not Goebbels (he is brought in as a third party confirming the party of the first part (Hitler) by the party of the second part (Documents Relating to the Eve of the Second World War Volume II: 1938-1939 (New York: International Publishers), 1948). Read it. As for Dr. Goebbels (like yourself a "Dr.", except that he really did have a doctorate) they probably need to come up with a law similar to Godwin's Law concerning the man (although G's L works here anyway). Reliable sources have long used his diaries in many histories, monographs, etc. as a reference (probably in the the thousands by now). Even in Communist Poland. The problem with all of that is that when Goebbels writes something that seems to fit a particular POV it's fine, when he doesn't, all hell breaks loose and it shouldn't be used. As for this article's history section discussing the city's relation to the start of WWII, these few sentences have pertinency. The way all of this was handled by MyMolobo is the problem. Your input wasn't particularly helpful either. Maybe you should hold off in the future and let the person to whom the question was addressed respond first. Please note I have not reverted the edit up to now. This was as a courtesy to MyMolobo and give him time to respond. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest moving your discussion to article about Causes of Second World War, this is clearly beyond the scope of this article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's an language issue but I am only afraid it is not. The removed edit, which you seem to defend so vigorously, stated the following, quote: As Nazi demands increased German-Polish relations deteriorated rapidly afterwards. Eventually German Nazi Government,invaded Poland on September 1 after having secured Soviet approval in late August, hoping to negotiate a peace solution with Britain and France after the end of hostilities. Now it is a well known fact that Britain and France declared war on 3rd of September. Hitler could have not possibly hoped to "negotiate a peace solution" before Britain and France even declared war, in fact it is commonly accepted that he wanted to do another Czechoslovakia. As for Goebbels, your claim that "he is brought it as a third party confirming the party of the first part (Hitler) by the party of the second part" leaves me a bit confused. What exactly do you mean, is he or is he not a source for Hitler's alleged change of mind? Anyway, sources like Goebbels have to be used with utmost care, and it is not unlikely that they tried to make themselves good in their diaries. And what were the Nazi leadership thinking and discussing among themselves on late August in early September falls outside the scope of this article. Btw if you want to communicate exclusively with Molobo please use his talk page, after all talk pages were invented for that. If you post on an article talk page chances are others will reply as well, no? And finally I'd politely ask to withdraw the severe personal attack. Frankly I am very disappointed, that is not the kind of behavior I would expect from a colleague like yourself. Dr. Loosmark  21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, "Maybe it's an (sic) language issue but am only afraid it is not", is a language issue (the sentence makes little sense in proper English and is ungrammatical). But don't be afraid because English is not your native language, and people who edit English Wikipedia are given a wide berth when it comes to things like that. As for my "severe personal attack" against you, what was it? Like you said, we've been colleagues for some time now, which is why I understand when something offensive is believed to have been rendered, it should be clarified and explained. Since your earlier remark made today concerning another matter elsewhere has nothing to do with this city, please explain it somewhere else. It surprised me that you signed your name to it. It too, was most disappointing. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you have not addressed the issue of Hitler wanting to make peace but instead focused on trivialities like typos, making evaluation of my grammar (you are wrong btw, the sentence does make sense in English and I am sure you were able to grasp its meaning), comments from another talk page plus pretending you don't know you made a personal attack. Dr. Loosmark  22:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I reread all of the above and I have discussed the original edit and addressed the matter of Hitler wishing to secure a peace with the Western Powers after he defeated Poland. Which is all the original edit was about. Perhaps Hitler himself did not think it would take so little to crush Poland in so short of a time space. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to provoke other editors with incendiary statements as that is a violation of WP:CIVIL. How about taking that sentence out, since it appears it's goal is only to foster battleground on Wikipedia, something you've been warned about before? That'd be a show of good faith on your part.radek (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Considering your past behavior and record recently, I don't think you should be making such baseless and accusatory claims. My remarks are neither uncivil nor incendiary, and are related to the removed sourced information and historical facts. Although there is scholarly evidence that Hitler was surprised as to the ease of defeating Poland, if it makes you feel better, I retract the part "Perhaps Hitler himself did not think it would take so little...", because that is an opinion about what Hitler might have been thinking. Not something that can be claimed with certainty. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you do know what I'm talking about since you managed to figure out which part I was asking you to retract. So retract it - as in take it out - rather than just saying you retract it. Put your edit where your mouth is. And yes, your remarks are incendiary. Just like any remarks about how Hitler was surprised how easy it was to find Lithuanian collaborators would be on some Lithuania article not specifically devoted to the topic. Also, please don't make threats.radek (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Radeksz, when you make a remark like "Also, please don't make threats", I see it's better to end this and any further discussions with you. Enough is enough. Try someone else on. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

History section
There's a main article History of Gdansk. I think parts of the current history section are too detailed and should be moved to the main article instead of an expansion here. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that the only section removed was about Poles in the city, while leaving the rest untouched as it is?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I think the printing of a newspaper is obviously a minor detail. I created a subsection "Polish minority" at the History of Gdansk article, which might be expanded. For the rest I didn't want to anticipate the current discussion. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose this move, the article should mention that despite Germanisation Poles remained in the city.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * However, since Germans formed a majority in the city, with Poles being a minority...
 * It is mentioned. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's in regards to XX century not before, and far too little.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-War Jewish Community
All online sources dealing with the fate of the Jewish Community of Danzig (please check the ref section there) provide totally different numbers than this (offline) Polish book: Żydzi na terenie Wolnego Miasta Gdańska w latach 1920-1945:działalność kulturalna, polityczna i socjalnaGrzegorz Berendt Gdańskie Tow. Nauk., Wydz. I Nauk Społecznych i Humanistycznych, 1997 page 245 Has anybody any idea why? And how to present both contradicting views? HerkusMonte (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why but it is easy to present both views, "according to source 1 number 1, according to source 2 number 2". Dr. Loosmark  17:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage for Gdansk/Vote?
The famous Gdańsk/Danzig vote is now located at Talk:Gdansk/Vote. However there is no talk page. I would like to discuss interpretations of the vote. This is not the place for the discussion, or to put it an other way, I am not even going to read this article.

I will give a hypothetical example of the kind of discussion that may follow. I have placed the Gdańsk vote tag on Talk:Vyborg as I feel the same rules also apply to that article. No one has protested. In the Finnish language Wikipedia I have written an article on the German community of Wiborg during its Finnish and Swedish rule. (See fi:Viipurin saksankielinen porvaristo) I might translate the article into English. I may want to call this new article German community of Viipuri, by the Finnish name of the city Viipuri, as every last Finnish resident left when the city was handed over to the Soviet Union after the Moscow armistice. Someone may however argue that article should be called German community of Vyborg – by the Russian name, as some Germans now live in Vyborg, and they should not artificially be excluded from article...

I am sure you do not want to hear any more of the argumentation, not here at least -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I now see that there is a talk page at Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. I don't know if this is really any better, but I but let's try. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Similar but unrelated naming dispute at Prince-Bishop
We're having a minor revert war over the name used for the prince-bishop of the place now known as Olomouc, which was known as Olmütz in German. This prince-bishopric was a vassal of the Bohemian Crown within the Holy Roman Empire.

If anyone has strong feelings on the matter, they may wish to contribute to the conversation at Talk:Prince-Bishop, where I am trying to seek consensus. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

English Article, English Name?
Hi just wondered whether or not we should be naming cities with their English name on the English Speaking Wikipedia. First of all i'm going to keep this to Europe to avoid any more problems. Shouldn't there be some sort of convention or rule.


 * Milan is not Milano
 * Turin is not Torino
 * Nuremburg is not Nurnberg
 * Munich is not Munchen
 * Cardiff is not Caerdydd
 * etc

following on from these, shouldn't Gdansk be Danzig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.241.73.130 (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, following your logic it should be called Gdansk. I can't speak for the rest of the English-speaking world, but in the U.S. it has been called Gdansk since WW2 and most certainly at least since the Solidarity movement started in the shipyards there in the 80's.  I was born in the early 70s in the U.S. and grew up hearing and reading about Gdansk.  I have never heard it called Danzig except in historical context.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.182.150 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This points out the reason Wik doesn't like to use personal experience. I, too, am an American, and I never heard it called Gdansk until the Solidarity movement.  It was always Danzig in school and in history books and in the rare other occasions when the name came up.  (By the way, this comment is not an attempt to argue one way or the other on the Wik entry's name.)Kdammers (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a general phenomenon, in other languages as well as in English, that the old names for foreign place names are gradually being replaced by their modern local names. Only a few names that are used a lot can resist this change in the long term. The usual regularisation forces of language used to work towards making foreign names more similar to the 'host' language. But this doesn't scale to the huge number of foreign place names that we are now exposed to all the time. Due to globalisation we have a lot of contact with foreign place names for which no versions in other languages exist yet. The most regular way of treating all place names would therefore be to just use the original names. We seem to be headed that way. Hans Adler 11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

population is about 457.000 ,not 435.000
Population

Hey there i found a litle mistake about population in this city ( where i come from :D ), and at Polish Wikipedia the population is about 457.000 people in June 2010. I know what i say because there is many traffics in the city, high schools in Gdansk are full of students ,so i think you could edit the population.

Thanks

Adrian Witkowski, Gdansk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.77.220 (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC) http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gda%C5%84sk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.122.95 (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminder
Quoted content or titles are not subject to Gdańsk vote-only content entered by Wikipedians. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source that Isaak van dem Blocke used the term "Gdańsk" for his painting. That modern Polish sources use this name isn't surprising but irrelevant for the Gdańsk vote. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What matters is that this appears to be the title used in English. A google search for "Allegory of Danzig trade" brings up 1 hit, this Wikipedia page . A search for "Allegory of Gdansk trade" brings up numerous hits, including sales of reproductions, galleries, etc. For example, , , and so on (270+ hits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That modern sources might use the modern name of the place is irrelevant for the usage of Danzig/Gdansk here. Did van dem Blocke name his painting "Gdansk"? That would be a quote/title, unless a reliable source makes such a claim we should follow the established wikipolicy. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we use the title that modern sources use. It's a TITLE of a painting. You can't change what the title is no more than I could change the title of a book named something like "History of Danzig" just because it covers the pre 1308/post 1945 period if it was somehow mentioned somewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a description, not a title. However, as the image is obviously used to circumvent wording and spirit of the Gdansk vote, I replaced it with a neutral city view. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the sources given above it is indeed the title. Just not one you like. But that's OR and neither here nor there. The fact that you want to remove the word "Gdansk" from the article is not a good enough reason to remove a very nice image from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the The Grove encyclopedia of northern Renaissance art, from Oxford University Press, 2009, which gives the title of the painting as Apotheosis of Gdańsk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a travel guide, written NOT by Poles, published by Penguin, which also gives the same title . I'd be ok with titling the work Apotheosis of Gdańsk, though most sources also refer to the fact that it depicts the city's trade.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another .Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Gdansk really Polish?
To my knowledge, there is no particular explanation for the word Gdansk. Gdansk is Kashubian and that would imply it is not a Polish foundation. Similar to Gdansk is Gdynia or Gdingen, the two locations are close to each other and obviously the beginning with Gd has a significance. It is said that Gd refers to "Goth" or "gothic", which would indicate that originally there was a Gothic settlement. The ending ansk in Gdansk doesn't sound Polish either. Thereby, Gdansk was taken over as a Kashubian word into the related west slavic language of Polish for a urban location during the tribal era. Basically Danzig and Gdansk are etymologically the same for something that predates the arrival of slavic tribes.141.0.8.157 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And the source(s) for this? HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

B-class review: failed
For WP:POLAND. Reasons: insufficient references (at least one section unreferenced and tagged). In fact, considering a number of such section I am going to replace this template with a generic, article wide, refimprove needed one. insufficient coverage (at least one section - famous people - is just a see also section with no prose). Education and science is a list, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

History
The article jumps from the baptism of the city's inhabitants to the 12th century. Shouldn't there be an inclusion of the Pomeranian revolt against Sieciech?

''in 1308, the town was besieged by Brandenburg and the Teutonic Knights were hired by the Polish king Władysław I the Elbow-high to restore order. Subsequently, they took over control of the town and killed many of its inhabitants.[14] Primary sources record a massacre of 10,000 people, but the exact number killed is subject of dispute in modern literature:[15] Some authors accept the number given in the original sources,[16] while others consider 10,000 to have been a medieval exaggeration.[15] The massacre was used as evidence by the Polish crown in a subsequent papal lawsuit.[15][17]''


 * The town was not "besieged" by Brandenburg, it had rebelled against the Polish Crown while the nobles were fighting amongst themselves over control of the crown.


 * "they took over the control" - who is they?


 * at the time, Władysław was not a king. He was only the Prince of Krakow.


 * this article does not mention that the Knights took over the town and held it as compensation because the Polish nobles would not pay them for their work.


 * this article does not mention that the 10,000 figure was Władysław's claim, and it comes from his petition to the Pope to take action against the Order after the Order had paid Brandenburg for the land and Poland got nothing.


 * "used as evidence" is complete POV. And anyway, used as evidence of what?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.99.85 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Danzig
The heading should be Danzig, as it is the most common term used in the English language → please see: WP:COMMONNAME --IIIraute (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC) I agree, the heading should be Gdansk.--IIIraute (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Accorrding to your sources the usage of "Danzig" is declining since the end of the Cold War. What about the infamous Vote? Do you want another one? Skoranka (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the same source "Gdansk" is even more in decline - and "Gdańsk" is basically not used at all! Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this one → see above.--IIIraute (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Just no. Volunteer Marek 16:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not asking for your POV here. There are clear WP policies, such as WP:COMMONNAME - why would you not want to use the most common term used in the English language? --IIIraute (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a dozen reasons for sticking with the current names, and anyone even vaguely familiar with the underlying history of the naming discussion should be aware of them. There is the Gdansk/Danzig vote. It's just not true that "Danzig" is the most common term used in English. There are very very very obvious reasons why your ngrams search is flawed. Another reason is the link at the top of this very talk page which says "This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote.".


 * If you're not already familiar with the Wikipedia-history here, then you should go back and read up on it.
 * You will note that the only close decision in that vote was concerning what name to use for the period 1466 to 1793. So I guess we *could* revisit the discussion of whether to continue use "Danzig" for that period of the cities history, but that's about it. Volunteer Marek 16:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This was 7 years ago - research tools have improved - also, the vote was not close at all:


 * Results on VOTE: Period from 1308 to 1454 = 54 vs 7, in favour of Danzig
 * Results on VOTE: Period from 1454 to 1466 = 44 vs 7, in favour of Danzig
 * Results on VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793 = 46 vs 36, in favour of Danzig
 * Results on VOTE: Period from 1793 to 1945 = 56 vs 8, in favour of Danzig

Could you please also provide some evidence on why the ngram result is "flawed" and maybe some evidence that Danzig is not the most common term used in the English language for the last 200 years. I hope the results of the vote in favour of Danzig between 1308 and 1945 are properly applied in all of the articles. --IIIraute (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The 1466 to 1793, 46 vs. 36 vote was "close" and it was obtained only after selective discarding of votes. And the part that you omitted:
 * Results on VOTE: Period after 1945 = 67 vs 3, in favor of Gdansk.
 * Basically, this has been policy for the past seven years, it's worked well for the past seven years and you are not offering a single compelling, original, or even adequate reason to re-visit this question - just kicking up trouble for the sake of it.
 * As to the ngrams I don't see why I have to spell it out for you; first, it mixes historical vs current usage of the term. Second it doesn't actually screen out non-English sources (despite the fact that it pretends to), third it includes Wikipedia reprints (so any article with the word "Danzig" in it shows up), fourth it includes re-publishings (books originally printed in 19th century, but reprinted in, say, 1995), fifth it yields hits to "Danzig" that has nothing to do with the present city, like Mr. Glenn Danzig and other people named Danzig. Etc. There's a few more, but this discussion is honestly a waste of time. Volunteer Marek 17:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't you write just a bit earlier, and please let me quote you on this: "You will note that the only close decision in that vote was concerning what name to use for the period 1466 to 1793." Well, that wasn't really true, was it? ...as there was a very clear vote in favour of Danzig for the 1308 to 1945 period. Also, please note that books printed earlier than yesterday are still in circulation - also, what is wrong with historical events or reprints? - obviously proof that the name "Danzig" is in common use.--IIIraute (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Polish cities' English names used on maps and atlases since the end of the Cold War are: Warsaw, Cracow and Gdańsk. Check it out and stop starting pointless disputes. Skoranka (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please help to ensure the proper use of the "WP-Gdansk vote" in favour of the term "Danzig" on the period of 1308 to 1945. Thank you.--IIIraute (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comply with the Gdansk-vote: "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). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above." and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, 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)." --IIIraute (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems a little absurd that "Danzig" is barely mentioned in the article at all. I'm fine with the article being under Gdańsk but the first line ought to be something like "Gdańsk, also known by its German name Danzig...."LRT24 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually "Danzig" is all over this article. Volunteer Marek 23:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As the European Football Championship is underway in Poland, almost every English news source seems to be using Gdansk. eg. BBC, Reuters, etc. It looks like the usage of Danzig in English may be more or less gone. 121.45.101.156 (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that post above proves that page should be named Gdansk not Danzig. I'd like to acknowledge that I have nothing to do with Wikipedia edition&creation whatsoever and i truly do not now the rules. I felt however I should add something to that discussion. While it may be true that to year 45' Danzig was the more common name for Gdansk - it is not anymore. The proper name for the city is Gdansk and while I do know that this article concerns history of the city it also is about the ACTUAL city and if someone wanted to visit Gdansk he/she should know that current name is Gdańsk.

Also, while i know that Wikipedia strives to be completly nonpolitical you should acknowledge that being one of the most (if not just the most)important sources of knowledge in WWW it simply is not as it creates beliefs. Being Wikipedia's often user I realize that if I read something here, and it's outside of my area of expertiese, I tend to take it as true.

By Naming the article Danzig, editors create a belief, if not concious then sub-councious, that Danzig is the proper-er name for this city. Given Poland's and even more Gdansk's complicated history Wikipedia should not create any addiotional fuss about the current geopolitical localization of the city. It simply is not German, or even for that matter free, city. It's Polish.

Also, even though I don't quite understand method of your searches I conducted my own pretty simple research: "Danzig" googled with english-only filter came up with 9 970 000 records "Gdansk" googled with english-only filter came up with 29 300 000 records I believe that numbers speak for themselves.

Peter.

founding date
Re this:

This contradicts other modern sources, for example this (which actually gives 970's rather than 980's). Also, the page from the source being cited is not available online. Please provide the actual text from the source which supports the claim. It's possible that this is referring to a different aspect of the town.  Volunteer Marek  05:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nm, just noticed that this is the same banned anonymous user as always.  Volunteer Marek  05:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Town Hall spire
"The Town Hall spire, with a gilded statue of King Sigismund II Augustus of Poland on its pinnacle (installed in 1561), dominates Long Market skyline."

Can anyone explain what appears on Google Street View? The image date is August 2011, and the Town Hall, as seen from the Long Market, seems to be missing the top of its spire. Did it suffer some kind of calamity, or was it removed to be maintained/renovated/repaired? Is it back up there now? Kelisi (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Marek's edits
It does say at the top of the page that non-sourced material may be challenged and removed, but you have not challenged the sourced material, you have simply removed it. And done so, after hollering about "POV" because I've put a few tags out there and removed a few vague/misleading sentences, i.e. that Meswin II had only one brother, that the forces under the descendant of Meswin II's father, who tried to take the city in 1301, could somehow be referred to as "the Danes".

In conclusion, please find a source for your claim that the Kingdom of Poland held Gdansk until 1308. Is it just that it doesn't fit with your easy interpretation? Every time Prussia had a name change, we broke it into a separate heading. And the Order State era of control is not lumped together under the era of "Kingdom of Prussia" control, either, even though it is technically, at first, headed by at least some of the same authorities.--92.228.247.104 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)--92.228.247.104 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You put tags into middle of sentences which already had citations at the end. For the rest, you're pushing the typical POV that somehow Royal Prussia wasn't part of Poland and splitting hairs over Kingdom of Poland vs. fragmented duchies of Poland. Also, you're adding unsourced claims about Brandenburgian claims to the city (how many brothers Mestwin had is irrelevant).


 * You've also blind-reverted some copy editing and general clean up.  Volunteer Marek   18:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * you put tags into middle of sentences which already had citations at the end


 * that's because blanket assumptions like "primary sources state x" are lumped together with other claims in the sentence, and the other claims are what is being cited, not the blanket assumption that "primary sources state x". "Primary sources"...is not NPOV because it is weasel wording in vagueness to make it sound like all sources from that period support this view. It is perfectly natural to put citations in the middle of the sentence for controversial claims, by the way.


 * I've reverted your "copy editing" because it is unfair for you to throw away all my changes and force me to reintegrate them into what you chose to do to the article, i.e. "copy edit" the facts you wanted removed, some of which are sourced.


 * I'm sorry if you don't like my "typical" point of view, which is skeptical of faulty claims that are based on what appears to be little more than a romantic fantasy. In what way shape or form did the Kingdom of Poland exist throughout the period you claim and, in what way, shape or form is a duchy that obtains its independence from a kingdom that, for quite some time, disappears, not to be considered a separate entity?


 * you're adding unsourced claims about Brandenburgian claims


 * where did I do that?--92.228.247.104 (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is Primary sources[citation needed] record a massacre[14] of 10,000 people. Now, I could be wrong but the I'm assuming the "[14]" isn't just referencing the word "massacre" but also the primary sources. Do you have access to the source? Have you verified what exactly is the case? Or are you just assuming and tagging? This game of "I'm gonna slap tags into every other word of text I don't like" IS disruptive (and I believe you tried playing the same game over at Konigsberg).  Volunteer Marek  18:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Brandenburgian claims - you added "Mestwin II, pledged an oath of fealty to the margrave of Brandenburg" - he did make a feudal oath, but for Świecie and Białogard, not Gdansk.  Volunteer Marek  18:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The other tagging: 997–1308:  Kingdom of Poland] - yes, during this period Poland wasn't always a kingdom, sometimes it was a duchy and in the 13th century it fragmented into semi-autonomous duchies. These were still nominally under the rule of the Grand Duke, several of whom held Pomerania as part of their direct realm. The thing is that sources often just describe the state in entire period here as "Kingdom" just for ease of exposition (while not technically accurate). I'd be fine to changing "Kingdom of Poland" to Kingdom or Duchy of Poland or something. [[User:Volunteer Marek|  Volunteer Marek   18:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Example:  Volunteer Marek  19:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I never even looked at the Koenigsberg article. But thanks for the accusation. You don't even want to know what it suggests to me when you keep tabs on articles like that.


 * If the part with Brandenburg bothers you, then propose something. The point is, it isn't the topic of the article, we are trying to be concise, yet neutral. And that is hard to do. Brandenburg got the site as a lien; Mestwin's own people turned against him, he needed allies and support, he got that and needed Brandenburg to hold the fort. I don't see what you are challenging here.


 * That's a nice map, but you are missing the point. This is not about what Poland looked like in the year 1190; it is about Poland from 900 to 1300. If Poland did not control the settlement from 900 to 1300, then it didn't control the settlement from 900 to 1300. And if a Kingdom of Poland did not exist from 900 to 1300, then that's false too. What is so hard to understand? A map of Russia in the 1800s is no indication as to who controls what 200 years later anymore than your map of poland in 1190 shows what the area looked like administratively in 1000 or 1300. Poland didn't have a stable long-term dynasty at the Vistula site until the mid 1100s. Then you have a civil war, brandenburg is there, then a pomeranian-gdansk duke, then the king of poland (murdered), then a polish duke (future king), then a descendant of swietopelk from ruegen, then brandenburg, then the order. At what point in time does "The Kingdom of Poland", have control of the site from 1296 on? If you state that this is all inconsequential and rebellions should not be noted, then what is so special about napoleon's free city that this period gets noted?--92.229.38.216 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I never even looked at the Koenigsberg article. - I'll take your word for it, but there was another IP which geolocates to the same place as you on that article recently, doing essentially the same thing.
 * As for the rest of your comment. I have proposed something - to remove the incorrect comment about Brandeburg. Your claims need a source or they're original research.
 * In terms of the "Kingdom" the point is obviously that while Poland was not a kingdom for every single year between 900 to 1300, the Polish state during the period in question is often described by the term "Kingdom of Poland" in sources. Like I said, we can change it to "Kingdom or Duchy" if you want. But the Polish state did control the city during this time, although during a (fairly short) portion of the time, the control was only nominal, due to Feudal fragmentation of Poland. I don't know about Napoleon's free city - I guess it's listed separately because it was an international agreement. Regardless, that has no bearing on the early history.  Volunteer Marek   20:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I just checked my ip page, I see only this article. Or are you referring to the fact that it geolocates to "the same place" - i.e. an internet provider for probably 30+ million people. Meh, whatever.


 * I hardly consider it disruptive to ask for missing information on an article. And I am curious, because "primary sources state..." is quite a claim. One of the few resources to even mention this incident which can be considered "primary", aside from the petition to the pope, are the works of jan dlugosz. And that's a century later. I'll try to track down the resource cited for the "primary resources" and give it a look. But the whole things is pretty suspicious, to be honest. I mean, a local judge called upon the Knights to come to the area...why would they slaughter 10,000 in a city of 2,000 and, on top of that, target "Polish women and children" as jan dlogosz claimed? And why are they polish? Is it because of they were subjects of a new, suddenly emerging polish king who they did not accept? I mean, the people in the city let the Brandenburg army in, one way or another. But who knows. I just find something wrong when Wikipedia becomes the mouthpiece for romantic nationalist fantasies like those of jedrzej giertych. It's tiring, especially when the facts don't add up.


 * I have proposed something - to remove the incorrect comment about Brandeburg Well, ok. But I don't understand what you claim to be incorrect about this sentence: "Amidst the conflict, the older son, Mestwin II, pledged an oath of fealty to the margrave of Brandenburg, and Brandenburg got Danzig as a lien."


 * I mean, those are facts. Mestwin turned to Brandenburg, pledged an oath. And yes, Brandenburg got Danzig as a lien. Nothing says in this sentence that Danzig became a fief, as I think you are implying it implies. The facts are all valid. Or is the issue that this city is referred to as Danzig? Well, that can be fixed easily..


 * Under what condition do we consider the site to be "under x's control" for the guidelines? We would have to do very thorough research to find each and every point in time when the Kingdom existed and didn't exist and during which extended periods the site was not under the control of dukes from poland or the polish crown early on. If you do, however, come across a source which declares that the kingdom of poland stood and controlled gdansk from 997 to 1308, then please, all we need is a footnote, but from a neutral and thoroughly knowledgeable source about the era (i.e. not some side comment by a historian in a book about a different subject).--92.229.38.216 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

<<- It geolocates to the same city and your edit are very similar, but like you say, whatever. Adding in tags to every other word of a sentence IS disruptive. And seriously, the petition to the pope IS a primary source. We are also not arguing here about the extent of the massacre, whether it was 2000 or 10000, but what the primary sources claim. And the claim, correct or incorrect - and there is a qualification in the very next sentence - is that it was 10000. Don't bring Giertych into this, who cares about him? Is James Minahan also a "romantic nationalist fantasist"? Is Raphael Lemkin? Edward Thomas Appleton? Anyway, if you have an actual source for the claim that the city's population was 2000 please present it. I'd be quite happy to see an estimate of Gdansk's population going that far back because I've looked high and low and could not find anything close to that level of precision. Otherwise you're just making stuff up.

The incorrect part about Brandenburg IS that it implies that Mestwin held it as a fief of Brandenburg, which is incorrect. You haven't even sourced the lien part. Just claimed it. Unsourced information (and here we're not talking about a portion of a sentence but a whole thing) can and should be removed.

Finally, as to the kingdom topic, as you are yourself admitting we have a source there. And you can't just dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your pre-set view of the situation. Like I said we can change it to "Kingdom or Duchy" if that will make you happy.  Volunteer Marek  21:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you are exaggerating to make a point because you don't have a point. I added two tags to two controversial points, that is not after every sentence as you claim. If you have to exaggerate to make a point, then maybe you shouldn't be making it in the first place. And what are those two controversial points for which I would like to see sources?


 * That "primary sources" - that's a plural - say that 10,000 were massacred. It is POV to write "primary sources say..." unless you are quoting an actual historian who says this. Firstly, because the only primary source we can find to support your claim was no third party source or witness, it was the self-proclaimed king of Poland himself, who didn't have control over the site, couldn't win control over the site and wasn't even called upon to win control of the site - yet wanted the site. So in review: non-neutral, one source; to put it in perspective, we don't write an article about Gulags, quote the author of Gulag Archipelago and, instead of writing "he says it was like x" write "primary sources say x". As for your sources, these are not primary sources, nor do they quote primary sources except the case made by Wladislaw to the Pope, which was, by the way, eventually dismissed. The all-so-knowledgeable sources you cite apparently didn't feel inclined to mention this, and I wonder why. We can figure that out by looking at at least one of your sources, though. Written in 1944 and not about Danzig, but written to implicate the Germans as imperialists from the east. I rest my case.


 * Second, I want a source for the claim that the Kingdom of Poland existed from 997 to 1308 and controlled the city along the Vistula River Delta. Your source above, James Minahan, even says that the Kashubs had their independence in 1227 and the area "was retaken by the Poles" in 1295. We broke up the time that the region was engulfed in the Thirteen Years War, we broke up the unofficial time that it belonged to the Weimar Republic, we broke up the time Napoleon chilled out there...so why are we referring to a time that Poland had no control over the region and did not exist as much more than a region as a time that Poland existed and had control over the region?


 * Finally, as to the kingdom topic, as you are yourself admitting we
 * No, I am not admitting we have a source there because we don't. Don't assume that.


 * The incorrect part about Brandenburg IS that it implies that Mestwin...
 * No, it doesn't imply that at all. These are two ideas, the oath pledging and lien idea, linked together with an "AND" statement. You should stop assuming things. I apologize that I'm not sitting atop a library right now and can give you a source, but I will find one. Are you actually claiming that Brandenburg did not get the city as a lien?--92.229.38.216 (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't imply that at all.' - implies or not, get a source.
 * Lots of that stuff about Brandenburg is WP:UNDUE anyway. Likewise there are several sentences off topic in the names section. Also I don't see a point in labeling Lech Walesa a "political activist" since he really wasn't yet at the time.
 * The primary source thing is obvious and has a citation. Until you look at it there's no point in discussing this further. Nobody doubts that primary sources - which were Polish - claimed a massacre of 10000 people. I guess we could go with modern day reliable secondary sources which repeat that claim at face value and depreciate the existing dispute about the actual number. The current text is:
 * In 1308, the town was taken by Brandenburg and the Teutonic Knights were hired by the Polish prince (later king) Władysław I the Elbow-high to restore order. Subsequently, the Knights took over control of the town. Primary sources record a massacre[13] of 10,000 people, but the exact number killed is subject of dispute in modern scholarship:[14] Some authors accept the number given in the original sources,[15] while others consider 10,000 to have been a medieval exaggeration.[14] The events were used by the Polish crown to condemn in a subsequent papal lawsuit.
 * and I think that succinctly summarizes what happened and also alerts the readers that there is some question as to the numbers. Keep in mind that this is an article about the whole city, not exclusively about its history, and not about this one particular incident. So too much detail is undue. I think what we have in there so far gets the gist of it accurately.

 Volunteer Marek  20:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll track down a source for the Brandenburg information. I'm on it.


 * Ok, but Kingdom of Poland, Pomeranian/Polish Duchy are not all the same thing. By making 997 to 1308 one period of "that", all linking to the Poland page, you are denying that these people ever achieved independence or were independent. And "they" - i mean the Pomeranians and, later, the immigrants, did achieve this. The 13th century, for example, was a spell in which the ruling dynasty there was also independent. Like I said, the one source you gave lists 1295 as the year it was back in the Kingdom of Poland's hands. I'll see what else I can find and propose it here. But I'd be careful about a source trying to race-bait or justify state presence there by white washing, a trend that the rather neutral Peter Loew notes - i.e. the great effort to try to "prove" a strong state-to-gdansk connection. And you have to be careful about historians who just parrot whatever they came across in their research, particularly if it fits their thesis.


 * That brings me to the 10,000 figure. I'm still looking for the claim that "primary sources" claim x. Because we have only one primary source, and this is dishonest POV. The bull is not a primary source, it is merely a reiteration of what that one source has said. Why don't we just find the claims made by Wladislaw and attribute them to him? They've got to be out there somewhere, right?--92.224.196.144 (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The bull is a primary source. It's just that primary sources are not always accurate or unbiased (this is part of the reason why we avoid primary sources on Wikipedia). I'd be fine with writing that this was a claim made by Wladislaw to the Pope.
 * The thing about Pomeranian "independence" - if you were talking western Pomerania (Szczecin etc.) then that'd be right. But this - Gdansk Pomerania - was basically in the same situation as other parts of Poland during the 13th century. Wielkopolska, Malopolska, Silesia, Sandomierz all achieved a degree of "independence" during this time - although technically they were all subject to the High Duke of Poland (and the rulers of one of them might have been that High Duke). Still the area covered by these is generally referred to as "Poland" during this time.  Volunteer Marek   16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now just wait a second here, your behavior is completely out of line.


 * 1) you reverted the entire section, thus reinserting false information as stated above (ie clearing out the "danes", wladislaw calling on the knights, etc.). According to you, you did it "as per discussion"...which is a lie, because there never was any discussion to do a full revert like that. By the way, in the midst of your revert, your so-called revert to a "copy-edit", you have removed a quoted source that states the ethnic makeup of the city. This removal is something we never discussed "as per discussion". In fact, we never discussed it at all. Here is what you removed: Since the 16th century, the majority of the city's inhabitants were German-speakers Here is the diff: . Please explain yourself: removing sourced information, reinserting mistakes into the text carelessly.


 * 2) And yes, I'm looking for a source that uses the word lien, but that is such a petty quibble compared to your inappropriate behavior. I see you've just pulled that whole section out anyway, so I guess I won't even bother.


 * 3) You know "according to primary sources" is weasel wording, so stop using it. You are referring to the Bull, so you should write: according to the bull. Not all primary sources have stated what you claim they state. For example, this source Paul W. Knoll, “Regnum Poloniae” Medievalia et humanistica Issue 17. (Boulder, Colorado: Johnson Publishing Company 1966), 60. says that one witness claimed around 16 Polish knights were killed. Peter Oliver Loew also cites this example. So stop manipulating facts.


 * 4) That said, it is not accurate to say Poland controlled the site when it did not. You know this. My suggestion:


 * 990 - 1090              kingdom of poland
 * 1090 - 1116?             local rule [Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 117-118.] Mapa_podziału_Księstwa_Polskiego_w_1102.jpg


 * ??? - 1227              kingdom of poland [Państwowe Przedsiębiorstwo Wydawnictw Kartograficznych, p. 7]
 * circ. 1227? - 1266:      duchy.. [Państwowe Przedsiębiorstwo Wydawnictw Kartograficznych, p. 7]
 * 1266 - 129?:             civil war
 * 1295 - 1308:             duchy of poland/kingdom of poland


 * In 1116 Pomerelia was captured by Poland. So for how long before that was it not under Polish control? Is it noteworthy enough to include this blip during the time that the site was controlled by Poland?


 * From 1138 onward, the Samborides gradually evolved into independent dukes, who ruled the duchy until 1294. But c'mon, during that period, at least since the death of Mestwin's father, this area was involved in the civil war. These events should all be noted if you care about the truth at all.

1. I have no idea what you are talking about. 2. Find the source that talks about a lien. 3. I already said I'm fine with referring to the papal bull rather than "primary said". 4. In the 13th century the idea of "Poland" is a bit fluid because of the feudal fragmentation of the state. Still for the most part it was part of fragmented Poland. I believe I changed the wording there too (though it was a week or two ago so i don't remember exactly.

 Volunteer Marek  18:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)