Talk:Gdańsk

Self-contradicting History section

"In Polish documents, the form Gdańsk was always used. The Germanised form Danzig developed later, simplifying the consonant clusters to something easier for German speakers to pronounce."

This beginning for the second paragraph is in direct contradiction to the paragraph leading up to it which lists historical name variations. This contradiction is further emphasized when following the sources provided 19-24 downstream. We are provided a German name variation which is 10 years younger than the Polish name, and while 23 alleges simplification of consonants this is not being substantiated. 2A02:1210:1C27:2900:18CB:3B8F:9B38:8D61 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, pretty much every article about formerly-German cities in what Polish nationalists like to call the "recovered territories" are tainted with revisionism and myth designed to make this lands seem Polish and only Polish throughout time. Never mind that Polish people were a minority, at most, in many of these areas as recently as my mother's youth. Never mind that before slavs even existed, these lands were inhabited by Germanic and Celtic peoples. I get that history is complicated and I certainly don't blame Poland for the ethnic cleansing and communist horrors that were agreed upon upon by Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill - 1946 Poland was smaller than 1938 Poland, after all. I just wish this history could be approached in a more holistic and honest way that isn't about selling Polish people as "indigenous." That kind of blood-and-soil thinking is exactly what caused all kinds of Polish suffering in the last century and is hardly a solution to anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udibi (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gdańsk/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 07:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 08:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I will do this review. This article is very daunting in size, so I ask for patience. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   This article appears to still be undergoing day-to-day reversions amongst two or three editors who disagree about the inclusion of certain images or information.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

User:Luxtaythe2nd: I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this review. I just didn't have the time this evening that I'd hoped to. I did start reading the article this afternoon and it looks good. I also examined the prior GA nominations which were unsuccessful, but I don't want those to prejudice my review in any way. This article does not strike me as having too many images, which was a prior complaint. I hope to return to this again tomorrow. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay! No rush. Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 06:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I dont see how a content dispute is going on. There have only been a couple of reverts so far in August and they've mostly been just adjustments that have been settled as disputes in user or article talk pages. Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 08:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It may not be a big deal, but it is something to keep an eye on while we're doing this, especially if other editors object to any changes we implement. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Infobox (8/26/25)

• The images in the infobox have appropriate licenses and alt-texts.
• I would recommend a better photo of the Neptune's Fountain, Gdańsk in the infobox. The image used in the fountain's article shows Neptune from the front, while the photo in the Gdansk article shows the fountain further away and Neptune to the side.
• The flag and shield need alt-texts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  Added alt texts for the shield and flag, I think that the Neptune's Fountain image does its job well, it's a horizontal image and not a vertical one largely for aesthetic purposes. The fountain is still quite recognizable even when minimized this much Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 18:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments (8/28/25)

• The lead is very good!

History

• Sources need to go after punctuation marks. See what is currently source no. 22.

History 2

• This section is lengthy, but this is a major city, so it would be expected. However, there is also a Wikipedia article called History of Gdansk. All I'm going to suggest is that this section not go into unnecessary detail. Readers who want further details can access the history article.

Prehistory and early history

• "began becoming" should be "became".
• What is a vita? I would wikilink the term if it is available.
• Recommend changing "were soon (in 1238) forced to leave" to "were forced to leave in 1238".

Teutonic Order

• Remove the comma after "population", move the source to after "10,000 people".

Kingdom of Poland

• "King" should only be capitalized when used as a title. Most of these uses should be in the lower-case.
• Is there a wikilink for "Great Privilege"?
• "the Danzig port".

User:Luxtaythe2nd: The article is very well written, as you can see from the small amount of notes I have so far. I will return to this review as soon as I can! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do some of the fixes you'd want. Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 16:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments (8/29/25)

I have a little time before work this morning, so I'll pick up where I left off yesterday.

Prussia and Germany

• No comma after 1793; move citation to end of sentence.
• "population" should be "populations" (since you are referring to two of them)
• Recommend removing the sentence "His house exemplifies..." since it seems off-topic.
• Remove the second wikilink of Napoleonic Wars.
• Change "in May–June 1832" to "from May to June 1832".
• Remove wikilinks for France, United States, and United Kingdom as they are common names.

Free City of Danzig

• Sources need to go after punctuation marks. See what is currently source no. 102 and no. 107.
• Refbombing from sources no. 109–113. Surely you don't need five sources to support one statement.
• You don't need a specific time of day for when a battle began.
• Refbombing from sources no. 115–118.

Post-World War II

• The very first sentence seems arbitrary since there is no context provided.
• In fact, I would remove the entire first paragraph entirely.

Contemporary history

• No concerns!

Climate

• "mean temperatures"

Economy

• No concerns

Main sights

• Nice panoramic view!

Architecture

• No concerns.

Museums

• Perhaps shorten the first two sentences thusly: "The National Museum includes the Department of..." Just go straight to it.
• Same thing for the National Maritime Museum. "The National Maritime Museum is operated out of the Gdansk Crane...", etc.

Transport

• Remove the repeated wikilinks for SKM.

Sport

• No concerns

Districts

• (will come back)

Consulates

• Unless you can wikilink to a consulate, remove the wikilinks for the individual countries.
• What is a partnership versus a sister city?

User:Luxtaythe2nd: Not too many suggestions considering the length! I will come back to this hopefully soon. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, most of this is good. The time 4:45 a.m. is really really important in this context, 1 September 1939 was a very eventful day and in a way it signifies that this was one of the first shots fired that day. I don't get why I would remove the wikilinks for countries, I get they're common but it's worth keeping them. It's not like the average reader would know what the Seychelles even are anyway. And, partnerships are just co-operation with cities that aren't sisters with it. I also don't understand why 115-118 would be refbombing. The references are generally scattered out. Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 11:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:OVERLINK, the names of countries should not be wikilinked. Four sources for one statement is excessive and unnecessary. I would add some sort of explanation as to the difference between partnerships and sister cities as the average reader wouldn't necessarily be familiar with that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You can possibly link to some of those from List of diplomatic missions in Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright. But also... there are no places with four sources in a row in the 115-118 area. The most is [111][113][114] and [123][124]][125]. I believe you might be mistaken in this matter. I redid the partnerships section somewhat, I think this should be sufficient now. Luxtaythe2nd (_{Talk to me...}) 13:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sadly there is too many german nationalsits who try to show Gdańsk as German city. Recovered Territories is fact, due to fact that Prussia, Russia and Austria divided Poland and stole their land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-12209-46 (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Ethnic population shift in Gdańsk

@user:JeanClaudeN1, if you are going to remove the statement which explains the ethnic population shift in Gdańsk which says "The Teutonic knights then proceeded to massacre the 10,000 inhabitants of Gdańsk, mostly Kashubs, and replaced them with ethnic Germans." you need to have something in it's place. I've added "According to historian Stefan Maria Kuczyński, ethnic Germans only achieved a majority in the town after the local Polish population was massacred and the settlement was rebuilt by Teutonic Knights.".

I'll also like to highlight the fact that you removed this statement a couple of days ago "The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers." you are scrubbing the article of any references which say that the local Polish/Kashubian population was massacred and German settlers were brought in. I don't consent to it, either the original sentence gets restored or you keep the sentence I proposed now.

If the article highlights the fact that Germans fled or were expelled from Gdańsk after 1945 and that's why the population shifted, you need to be clear that the Polish/Kaszub population was massacred and that's why after 1308 the population of Gdańsk changed. PJK 1993 (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@PJK 1993: The Polish-language source you cite is from the communist era. Its scholarly relevance to this subject is negligible, given its outdated nature (your reference indicates 1987, although the author appears to have passed away in 1985). In addition, the work does not even primarily deal with the history of Gdańsk. Verification is further complicated by the absence of a direct quotation.

Aside from that, there is no reason to cite completely outdated sources, because there is a substantial body of more recent scholarship by experts on the history of Gdańsk that reflects the current state of research. As one of the authors has noted: "[…] many things have changed meanwhile: not only because of the political transformation in 1989, but also because of permanent progress in historical studies." Current scholarship is quite clear on this matter — the town was already predominantly inhabited by Germans prior to 1308, see for example:

• Śliwiński, Błazej; Możejko, Beata (2020). "Exile and Return?: Gdańsk in the Aftermath of the Teutonic Order's Actions in Pomerelia during the First Half of the Fourteenth Century". East Central Europe. 47 (1): 29–38. Most of the burgher families who lived in Gdańsk came from Westphalia, Lower Saxony, and the Rhineland, though before reaching Gdańsk, the majority of them had settled earlier in Lübeck. […] Only a minority of the burghers came from the local Pomeranian (Slavic) population […]. In 1307 some of Pomerelia's knights, headed by the wealthy Święc family, rebeled against the Polish duke Władysław Łokietek.

• Smoliński, Marek (2021). "The Gdańsk Massacre in the Medieval Historical Narrative". Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae. 2021: 91–128. Thanks to the favour of the Gdańsk townspeople, mostly of German origin, the Ascanians managed to capture the city of Gdańsk during this expedition.

• Loew, Peter Oliver (2024). Gdańsk: Portrait of a City. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 25. ISBN 9780197603864. After all, it was not the Polish citizens who were fighting for their "Polishness," but rather predominantly German townspeople, alongside Brandenburg's troops and Pomerelian knights […].

In other words, the sources do not support your narrative. The fundamental problem with your edits is that they seem to be based on personal opinion rather than verifiable evidence — and your perspective appears to be strongly influenced in a particular direction. My recommendation is that you thoroughly acquaint yourself with the relevant scholarship. For this purpose, it is best to rely on high-quality secondary literature authored by experts, which accurately reflects the present state of research. In the context of the GA review, the quality of the article improved significantly in recent weeks through the work of multiple editors, until you chose to undermine this process. From now on, please refrain from disrupting the constructive improvement of the article, including the removal of reliably sourced content, the addition of false information, and the alteration of cited material in ways that reflect personal interpretation. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You are showing a clear bias in your edits, you're removing details about Polish history of the city and saturating the article with German subject matter, here are examples , . Also, you find every excuse to belittle Polish sources just to make an excuse to remove text related to Polish history. I'm reverting and restoring the text "The knights colonized the area" there is no consensus to remove this longstanding statement. --PJK 1993 (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Fact check: There are many excellent works by Polish authors on the history of the city. The edits I have made in the past rely primarily on the works of Polish scholars from the University of Gdańsk. I even backed up my earlier remark about the problematic use of outdated sources (see above) with a quotation from a (Polish) expert on the city’s history from the University of Gdańsk (since I expected your false accusations beforehand).

I don‘t even think it is necessary to include the ethnicity of the town‘s population before 1308 in the article (it was not addressed in the article before you started your changes). I‘m merely citing these reliable sources here, because you keep adding false narratives to the article („(10.000) Kashubs were killed and replaced by Germans“).

I can see that you are attempting to construct a national conflict here (which strongly reminds me of a certain user from the past), but such a conflict does not exist. The actual line of conflict runs between several reliable scholars (most of them Polish) and your personal (highly biased) opinion — supplemented by a single, completely outdated source.

Once again: you are disregarding multiple recent, reliable secondary sources by experts on the history of Gdańsk, while cherry-picking a single, thoroughly outdated source (which does not even primarily deal with the history of the city) that best fits your narrative.

To return to the actual content: since you appear to have access to the Polish-language source you cite, could you please provide the exact quotation? (per WP:NONENG)

And one more thing: as it is obvious that you are not a new user, could you please also disclose your previous accounts? Thank you. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I also see that you continue to make extensive edits to the article, reflecting the same problematic patterns of behavior mentioned before (in particular, disregard of recent scholarship and alteration of cited material). Could you please refrain from doing so? JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

"The Polish-language source you cite is from the communist era.". That's a crock of unscientific BS. You're not exercising scholarship by blanket dismissing all sources between 1945 and 1990. No source in all of history is automatically excluded based on any "ism". Sources are judged on their scientific merit, not economic or (geo)political favoritism.—Loginnigol 17:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly, but I wasn’t referring to the political or economic system itself — rather to the long period of time and the circumstances that have since changed. I also supported my statements with a quotation from a reliable secondary source. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Green Gate

I added the picture of the Green Gate (due to it's connection to Polish monarchy) because Gdańsk entered its Golden Age after it's return to Poland and receiving the status of a Royal City. This arrangement between the Kind and the city created the circumstances which propelled the city to new heights. While under later Prussian and German rule Gdańsk's prestige and wealth deteriorated, after the Vistula trade was cut off and the city lost its importance. Funny how a city with a predominantly German population was better off in Poland, not to mention that later after being annexed by the German Reich in 1939 it was completely destroyed in a maniacal war, and then carefully rebuilt and restored by Poles. PJK 1993 (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality issues with the article

This article need to be reviewed and revised to ensure neutrality, unfortunately a series of edits in the last month or so, resulted in the removal of details which covered the Polish history of the city all the while more information about the Germany history has been added.

Some really egregious examples include:

1. Change to section title "Early Poland" to "Prehistory and early history"

2. Having references to the Hanseatic League, Prussia and Germany in the introduction paragraph, but no referenes to the Duchy of Poland, the Kindgom of Poland or even the contemporary Polish state.

This is crushing circumstantial evidence that there is a clear bias in the article, and it does not end on just those two examples. PJK 1993 (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Montage

Hi all. Can you please advise if this new montage below is better than the current one in the article? I could not find any good Westerplatte image on Commons that could replace the present one, which is mediocre. Feel free to advise or suggest.

Motława River

Artus Court

Neptune's Fountain

Mannerist Armoury

Long Lane, City Hall

World War II Museum

St. Mary's Church

Radunia Canal

Merangs (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)