Talk:Lviv/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Lviv back to L'viv?

I posted a week back in response to Drbug's June 2004 statement that Lviv is by far more used in English than L'viv, but since no one noticed I'mposting at the top. I would argue that Lviv is used more often then L'viv because people are using an erroneuos name. The name of the city is L'viv, not Lviv, just as St. Petersburg is not Leningrad. Lviv certainly has less of a "right" to be the name of the city then Lvov, Lwow or Lemberg. It's not even Russian, where does Lviv come from??? To back this up I'll cite sources:

  • UNESCO calls it L'viv[1]
  • The American Heritage Dictionary calls it L'viv[2]
  • The official gov't portal of the Ukraine calls it L'viv[3]
  • NY Times, Merriam Webster Atlas call it L'viv [4]
  • Merriam Webster dictionary calls it L'viv[5]
  • MSN Encarta calls it L'viv[6]
  • Britannica is inconsistent, but in other (newer) articles such as this article about Przemysl, it properly calls the city L'viv.[7]

Just to be completely honest I have no idea why Ukrainian place names often have apostrophes, I would just as soon get rid of them, but it's not my call since they do have them. So anyone in support of renaming the article L'viv, or are we stuck with Lviv?--Milicz 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The above conversation is very old—current practice dictates Lviv.
Since then we have changed the de facto policy (as documented at WP:CYR). For article titles and mentions in the text, Ukrainian place names which don't otherwise have a well-established English name (the exceptions include Kiev and the Dnieper river), are romanized using the official simplified National system of transliteration, which is how the Ukrainian government publishes official modern place names. For transliterating Cyrillic in the first line of an article, we use a more detailed system. Details of the transliteration systems are in romanization of Ukrainian.
The apostrophe represents the soft sign ь, which softens the preceding consonant (palatalizes it). It's a type of sound which is rare in English. This type of detailed transliteration is desirable to convey the original spelling and pronunciation of a Slavic word written in the Cyrillic alphabet, but it is not really helpful for the use of proper names in English. —Michael Z. 2006-02-17 22:10 Z
Thank you for the explanation for the apostrophe. I understand current practice states Lviv, but is this not a misnomer? Whare does the usage of Lviv stem from?--Milicz 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussion

this is definitely insufficient information on Lvov. Without some more history, esp. that of the atrocities of my fellow countrymen during the Second World War, it practically comes to nothing and could just as well be erased, I´m sorry. No, I´m not.


To User: 24.105.197.133

I have no reason to introduce any nationalist fuss to this subject. My family derives from the former Red Ruthenia and amongst my ancestrors were Poles and Ukrainians. I consider myself neutral in quarrels about Polish-Ukrainian history. 1. Majority of historians agree that Lviv area was part of the are mentioned by Nestor for 981. 2. Lviv was never conquered by Poland. The rights to this city were inherited by Piast dynasty. The war about Lviv was between Poland and Lithuania - so the term conquest is very inadequate. 3. Lviv was never taken by Chmielnicki. 4. On 3rd of November the Polish population of the city raised against against Western Ukrainian Republic. There were no regular Polish forces at that time. 5. Poles weren't foreigners in Lviv. This city was part of Poland by centuries. In the same way Polish nationalists could say that Germans were foreigers in Wroclaw in 1918. It is ridiculous, is not it? Less natioanlism, more facts, please. User:Yeti

Yeti: I have no reason to introduce any nationalist fuss to this subject.

Yet I say: good, so why does it seem to me that you did introduce the nationalistic perspective?

Yeti: My family derives from the former Red Ruthenia and amongst my ancestrors were Poles and Ukrainians. I consider myself neutral in quarrels about Polish-Ukrainian history.

Yet I say: I don't care where your family comes from; I also don't care where my family comes from. Your consideration of yourself just might be generous.

Yeti: 1. Majority of historians agree that Lviv area was part of the are mentioned by Nestor for 981.

Yet I say: that it seems to me, the spot that would LATER become the city/capital L'viv probably was part of the "Cherven-Red" acquistion by "Rus'" (Ruthenia) in 981. But what does that mean? The campaign included some battles with the nascent Polish state by the nascent Rus' state. When did Poland (the Polanie) get there? Some say 960. Did they rule there as conquerors or settle there? Or find their own people already there? The local people show evidence of the Greek religion from the time of their incorporation in Great Moravia before 960 from what I've been taught. Was Rus' there pre-960? Some believe so.

Yeti: 2. Lviv was never conquered by Poland. The rights to this city were inheirited by Piast dynasty. The war about Lviv was between Poland and Lithuania - so the term conquest is very inadequate.

Yet I say: L'viv was invaded by Poland's armies from 1340-49, leading to continued rule. Poland also invaded the area in 1018-31. Before the invasion of the 1340's L'viv's castle had already been destroyed by Polish invaders at least once. That the Piast dynasty inheirited L'viv, this might be one way of looking at it, but not the only one. How could a mere cousin claim inheritance, especially when his predecessor was not accepted but poisoned? The civil war which resulted seems to suggest that your view was not so unanaimous at the time. I didn't know there was a war "about" L'viv, tell me more!

Yeti: 3. Lviv was never taken by Chmielnicki.

Yet I say: you should tell that to the people who inscribed a memorial to his capture of the local castle with the helpofL'viv's residents in the fall of 1649, a memorial which still stands!

Yeti: 4. On 3rd of November the Polish population of the city raised against against Western Ukrainian Republic. There were no regular Polish forces at that time.

Yet I say: I think they did about then as you say. They were the majority then in the city, so that makes sense. When have I disputed that?

Yeti: 5. Poles weren't foreigners in Lviv. This city was part of Poland by centuries. In the same way Polish nationalists could say that Germans were foreigers in Wroclaw in 1918.

Yet I say: a) Let's look at 'foreigners' objectively. When one invades another country, one is a foreigner, at least until one successfully turns the country or area into one's own (for example through permanent dominance, or majority status)! Thus, Poles were foreigners in L'viv at the time of it's founding. Thus Poles are foreigners in L'viv today, beyond any doubt and for most of the past century. The question is more grey between 1918 and 1939, when the area was "in" Poland, but supposed, by international agreement, to be enjoying autonomy (self-rule) which Poland did not provide. And from 1772 to 1918, what were Poles (or Ukrainians for that matter) under the foreign rule of Austria? And from 1349 to 1772, what were Poles to the area around L'viv but foreign conquerors? settlers? colonists? And when the Poles came to form a majority in the administrative center of L'viv, weren't they foreign to the majority of the surrounding countryside and it's people? Weren't they surrounded by a sea that was foreign to them? The Poles almost succeeded in making the area a stable and irreversible addition to Poland. But they did not succeed in the end.

b) L'viv was part of Poland for centuries, not for most of Lviv's history, though. And the Poles came as foreign invaders, and later as colonists. and they contributed greatly.

c) Sometimes we do what we don't wish to do. You have again introduced your nationalistic perspective (perhaps chauvinism is a better word) to the question by bringing up your favorite topic, Poland, this time on it's Western border. This is not about Poland's agenda. It's about L'viv, which from the beginning was not Polish and is not today. The role that L'viv played in Polish history was important to Poland and needs to be told. For L'viv's history, it's a minority topic, but a substantial one. Let's describe it in true proportionate terms.






LISTEN, MINORITY TOPIC??? LOOK at the list of people who make a history of Lwow. Architects, writers, philosophers, politicians.... etc. - 90% is polish. Lwow is a typical polish style city, (Krakow, Zamosc, Lublin ) and the role of polish people for Lwow are ESSENTIAL. Without Poles Lwow wouldn't be one of the most Facinating cities of Europe. (It's like London without english people) According to your point of view the English are foreigners in London (they overtook it in 6th cenbtrury), Germans in Berlin (12th century) and Americans in Washington. As well as Poles in Warsaw. And also Poles and Ukrainians in Lwow. Always someone other was before. But the city was build by Polish. (Maybe the Ukrainians have choosen the place, but this is the same situation like with London - the people who lived there before English have founed a place end the english built the city.) Almost all of historic buidings was made by polish architects and constructors: Opera, Theatre, most of churches and of course cemeteries: Łyczakow, Orleta Lwowskie. It's polish city inhabitet by Ukrainians. I respect you nation and your rights but not to this City - Semper Fidelis.







User:24.105.197.133

To make the thing funny a few weeks ago I was called to be an Ukrainian nationalist. As both sides call me nationalist it makes me sure that in fact I am neutral.

I belive that Wikipedia should give as strict information as possible, without removing inconvenient facts.

Belive me or not but I did not include Polish nationalist mitology in my entries. If you read Polish nationalist wersion of the history of the city you could be shocked. I would like to to ask you to avoid introducing Ukrainian nationalist myths. It has no point.

2. It is problem of interpreation. i belive that we are able to work out the neutral version.

3. It is what I mean. Chmielnicki took the castle only and withdrew after he received the ransom. Think: The city was inhabited mainly by Poles, Jews and Armenians. It was full of people who escaped from death from Cossack hands (I mean Ruthenian nobles as well). If the city was taken majority of them would be killed (the same way like in the other cities). It is why they decided to pay huge ransom than to let the Cossacks in. Your comment is a typical example of national mithology.

4. According to your point of view the English are foreigners in London (they overtook it in 6th cenbtrury), Germans in Berlin (12th century) and Americans in Washington. As well as Poles in Warsaw. And Ukrainians in Lviv. Always someone other was before.

Lviv area was Ruthenian/Ukrainian: 981- 1018, 1034-1077, 1080-1349, 1945/1991 - 2004. Total: 407/351 years. Polish: about 960-981, 1018-1034, 1077-1080, 1349-1372, 1386-1772, 1918-1939. Total: 468 years.

If we consider the history of the city only (from 1256), the accounts are even more favourable for Poland. I do not intend to suggest that Lviv is Polish, but to make you remember that that heritage of the city is multiethnic. It is beautiful about history of this city. And talking about the Poles as foreigners have nothing to do with history as a science. History is not ideology.


Regards,

User:Yeti

The choice of dates is very interesting. On the one hand it tries to look at the city of L'viv through the narrow lens of a competition between two ethnic groups. History tries to describe L'viv on its own terms: A Ukrainian city in Ukraine founded by Ukrainians (at that time called Ruthenians). Like the rest of Ukraine, living under foreign rule for most of it's history. Multi-ethnic in its middle years and taken over by a neighbor who settled there to build a majority and for whom it served (formerly, that is) as a major city and cultural center.

Setting up L'viv as a competition field for Ukrainians vs. Poles is like comparing apples to potatoes in a contest over which has the best leaves.

You confuse 'nation' meaning people with a 'state', meaning political unit. L'viv was in a Ukrainian state for the years you mention. L'viv was in a Polish political state for the years you mention. That's poitical history.

But L'viv was part of the Ukrainian nation/people since Lviv's founding. This nation/people stretched one hundred kilometers to the west of L'viv past Peremysl' (Przemyshl) to Sianik/Syanok). When the Ukrainian people/nation of the L'viv region changed from the Ukrainian to the Polish state/nation, they came under foreign rule. The foreigness of this rule was perceived by the Polish rulers, who called the area "Ruthenian Voyedvodship." At the risk of stating the obvious, they didn't do this to part of the Polish nation!!! Later, the popular consciousness of the Polish people/nation called the area of L'viv kresy, borderland. This Polish point of view was accurate and an example of accurate historical memory. (That's not what the Ukrainians who lived there for so long called it. For themit was their land, not their 'borderland'!)

Like many rulers of this time, ruling was not enough. The effort was to totally take and change and absorb--to make Galicia proper Polish. And they came so close! They ruled the city, ruled from the city, disfavoured Ukrainian continued residency in the city, achieved a settlement, then a majority and cultural dominance, then a spotty patchwork majority in surrounding areas. Poland was on the verge of overwhelming majority, of changing the area from formerly Ukrainian to presently mixed to soon to be Polish with some rapidly declining and assimilating minorites. But it was not to be, and efforts and massive transformation of a 600 year process suffered an overwhelming reversal.

To describe L'viv as Polish or even as a Polish/Ukrainian competition is to leave history and live in a shattered dream that almost came true.

To describe L'viv as a Ukrainian city is to summarily state a fact, is to state a foundational fact. And this fact in the end endured. . .and endures today.

Foreign perspectives add to this history, but to change this foundational enduring history is to damage history itself, and make history to serve a foreign point of view and take a walk down the path to fiction.

Regards, 204.105.197.133, Feb 22, 2004

Sorry, but your answer is typical national myth. It has nothing to do with facts.

A few days ago I was talking with one Pole, who was born in Lviv. According to his interpretation of the history of the city Ukrainians have no historical rights to the city. According to him many historians and ethnographers call that Ruthenians collonized this area just a century before it was subdued to Poland, when the Mongols attacked Ruthenia. According to this interpretation Lviv never was an Ukrainian city but short period 1240-1340. Utill that time this area was pinhabited mainly by Polish speaking population. All were Polish speakers.

Is this interpretation worse than yours? I do not thing so. Of course it is myth as well. But this is not a place for myths.

Regards, User:Yeti

As to the Polish/Ukrainian city: as usually, both sides are correct and none is correct. From Ukrainian POV the city of L'viv has always been an Ukrainian city since it shared much of the history of the rest of Ukraine and has always been a Ukrainian city regardless of the ethnicity of its' population or the rulers that had sovereignity over it. That's why in Kyiv Book Museum (in Pecherska Lavra) all the books published in L'viv since the middle ages until 1945 are named Ukrainian books published in foreign languages, even if they were Polish translation of the Bible.
On the other hand Polish POV underlines that Lvov has always shared the Polish fate and before it became a multiethnic/Polish city it was but a tiny settlement with a small castle on the hill above it. One can't deny that what the city is now is an effect of hard work of many Poles, and that before WWII the city population was mostly Polish. Of course it was the Ukrainians that started the settlement there, but nobody will say that Berlin is a Polish city just because the Slavs started it.
And finally, the NPOV policy is to mix all of the above and underline all aspects of the city's identity and history. That's why the article doesn't say that it's a Ukrainian or Polish city, but tries to explain its' history. I must say that I'm perfectly satisfied with it, although there is a lot of work still to be done. Halibutt 10:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Post some facts on this-that would be helpful!

please list some historical references of Polish activity in the area pre-1300, for the increase of knowledge on this topic.

Looking forward to it.

204.105.197.133 Feb 23, 2004

I do not do that, because I am not going to play the game who was the frist and to whom the city belongs more. It just stupid. P.S. Some my text missed what changed my intentions. The last sentence is out of context. Sorry User:Yeti

The recent additon, "many Jews were killed," is not very informative. I'm not arguing with the fact (I don't know history that well), but if Jews were killed, than the question is, were the Jews in particular targeted and if so, by whom? Were other civilians (Poles, Ukrainians) killed as well? Who did the killing? What are the sources of this information? You can't just add a sentence lile this without explanation. And, by the way, could you, 213.189.178.202, pick a nickname and log on to the Wikipedia?
Bartosz 00:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In 1784, the first university was opened by Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor. Initially, lectures were held in Latin, German and Polish.

The university wasn't opened in 1784 only reorganized. afaik it was created in 1661 from Jesuit college. Also lectures were only in German before 1870s. Maybe someone knows more detailed facts and could rewrite that section? N.N. 13:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A question arouse during working on the article on semper fidelis, is todays ukrainian Львів once again завжди вірний or should the phrase refer only to historical Leopolis. Please stop by at Talk:Semper fidelis if you can comment. N.N. 13:50, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Famous" L'vivians

If these Leopolitans are so famous, how come I never heard of most of them? Genyo 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Some of them are really famous (even if in some areas of specialisation only). But many of them are not known outside POland. I do not think that at least some of them are necessary. Yeti 22:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

When I compiled the list I focused mostly on the ones that really had some international meaning or at least deserve a wikipedia article. I cut countless sportsmen, pioneers of farmers union movement or any other guys that nobody remembers of. However, if you think that someone unimportant got onto the list - say who. But please note that it's always better to add new names to the list rather than cutting it. Especially the list needs some more Ukrainians (or at least I believe so). Halibutt 00:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Obviously, it is quite hard to assess who is famous enough. Besides, I suppose that it is as difficult to find famous Ukrainians from Lvov before 1945 as famous Poles from Wroclaw.Yeti 12:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Probably, but there must've been some famous people born there after the war. Or were there? Halibutt 13:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that L'viv has (or probably "had" is a better word) some unusual views on being famous. What other city of less than a million has over fifty famous people? Pretty lucky, no? With the vast article treasure trove on Wikipedia, only say 20% of these famous people have articles already. Is L'viv ahead of the curve on famous people? Ok, so some are only known (at some unspecified level) in their fields of study. And, well some are known ONLY in a neighboring country (but they're still being published in the encyclopedia of a language far away?) Come on, let's trim this list to a fitting level for an article on a large regional city. Genyo 12:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC) PS We've already established the standard modern English usage is L'viv--why did someone put in pictures with the outdated name of the city? Would someone please make a correction? Let's have some reasonable teamwork here.

That's because for more than 100 years Lwów and Lemberg were important academic centres of science and culture, one of the most important in Polish history. It was one of the centres that attracted the most liberal and open-minded in 19th century and the importance of Lwów University could be matched only by Jagiellonian University. Would you like to cut the List of famous Oxonians just because Oxford has only 100.000 inhabitants?
If you find this list too long we could move it to a separate location (List of famous Lvovians), but cutting it just because L'viv currently has less than a million seems... strange, to say the least.
Finally, the picture of Lwow University of Technology was taken long before the war. As far as I know there's no L'viv University of Technology (and there never was such a university). There's only L'viv State University, which is not the same thing, is located in a different building and is by no means a descendant of the pre-war Politechnika Lwowska. Do you suggest we renamed all the pictures of A7V to Leopard MBT just because Germans do not use the earlier any more? Halibutt 16:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, Halibutt, we need to distinguish between a certain point being made and arguments. Let's start with the less important one, the arguments. The argument is not that L'viv should have a shorter famous person list, because of it's moderate size--the real argument is does this city really have so many famous people??? And one way of checking is to find another city of this size with such a list. If there aren't, any reasonable observer would ask some questions. First, why such a long list? Was L'viv really such a wealth of talent? Or is there a non-NPOV reason? If the second is true, one might look at the list for clues as to bias. What words, themes recur over and over? And well, one of the first words to come up would be Polish! The list would seem designed to portray L'viv as so Polish! And as for the comparision to the Jagiellonion University, with all due respect for the professors and laborers at the University in L'viv, the comparison to Jagellonian is really disrespectful! I can read about Jagiellonian in an English language history of "universities," but L'viv, no!

Now, let's move on to a point made. At the risk of stating the obvious, in order to be on a list of "famous L'vivians," there are two INDISPENSIBLE CRITERIA:

1) they be BORN (or least spend substantial time RESIDING) in L'viv! 2) they be FAMOUS, which means widely known to readers. At a minimum, they should be recognizable to readers with a bachelors degree in their area, they should have made a contribution of world-wide importance, or be among the top several people in their field.

IF the justification for the list is that they are known in Poland, that is a perfect reason to delete them! Why enslave L'viv to a neighbor, the city has suffered enough already! They must be of sufficient standing world-wide to be included. (For example, someone who was prominent in Polish literature should be included; someone prominent only in Polish chemistry circles, not internationally, absolutely shouldn't).

Please be respectful to L'viv and this article! Genyo 00:53, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Genyo, first of all: calm down. No need to use so many exclamation marks, we're all civilized people.
Then, as to the comparison to the Jagiellonian, what exactly do you mean? With all respect to Jagiellonian University, Lvov University was of the same (if not greater) importance in some aspects. Lvov School of Mathematics (Stanislaw Marcin Ulam), logic and philosophy (Alfred Tarski), engineering (Ignacy Łukasiewicz) - were all on a very high level. No similar schools coulkd be found in Cracow at that time. The city was important to world science, not only to some local minds. But what if it wasn't that important? Would it mean that those people are less famous or important?
Then, do you think that the fact that you can't find any information about the university on the web is an objective, measurable criteria? Even here on this very wikipedia there's plenty of info. Just browse through this list if you don't want to look further.
As to the list of famous Lvovians: I guess you don't speak any slavic language, do you? All Slavic languages are flexible. In Ukrainian the nominative is L'viv, but all other aspects start with Lvo-, just like the nominative is sik (juice), but the plural is soky. (see: Warsaw but Varsovians). The way I put this down is not just another example of my Polish bias or POV or anything. I simply believe that this term is accurate (apparently regardless of the language)
As to the objective criteria - here I agree with you, absolutely. The names should be worth of putting into wikipedia, not just guys who lived and gained some local fame for a week or two. But whom of the people presently on the list does not match the criteria? Try to be more specific and I'm sure we could work something out.
Finally, you are right that someone is obviously trying to underline his (or hers) point by constantly adding that this or that person was a Pole. I erased the nationality in most cases since I believe that they are currently specialists and scientists rather than Poles or Ukrainians or Kwa-Zulu. I left the nations only where it was crucial (the militarymen mostly). Someone (anon, User:Delirium and some other people) reverted my changes and put the nationality even in cases where it is completely irrelevant (like in the case of count Dzieduszycki, who was more of a Austro-Hungarian conservatist guru and international philosopher than a Polish noble. It seems that I'd have to correct this once again. ([8]) Halibutt 02:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

For all those interested: there is a much fuller list of people born in Lwów/Lvov/Lviv/L'viv/Lemberg/Lemberik/Lvuv here. The list has some additions in Polish, but the names remain unchanged.

Also, an interesting sidenote to a discussion I had some time ago with one of German contributors about using Google as a checker whether a person is important or not. Just take a look at Ignacy Mościcki. He definitely deserves a note as the president of Poland (if not for his inventions), yet he gives back only 200 hits in Google. Strange, isn't it. Halibutt 05:47, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

L'viv Opera House

I think the picture labelled as the "L'viv Theatre" is really the L'viv Opera House. Can someome confirm that and make the correction? Genyo 19:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Work in progress

I'm currently preparing a completely new version of this article. I'll post a link to the project as soon as the first version is ready. Halibutt 13:42, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, the new version is partially ready. I used the names of the city as per the Talk:Gdansk agreement (meaning that the official name is used whenever possible. You can check it at User:Halibutt/Lwów. I'll appreciate any help from you on that project. Notes:

  • That version is by no means ready, so fix the mistakes rather than complain about them.
  • The page title is only a working title, I do not propose to change the name of this article.

Halibutt 20:21, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

No comments? No opposition? No remarks? Halibutt 12:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Looks fine, but the name between 1867 and 1918 should be Lwow, because Polish was the official language and Lemberg looks weird.Yeti 20:59, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, AAMoF there were three official languages in "the city" at the time: Latin, Polish and German. Obviously Polish was spoken the most, so I will change that. Any other suggestions? Or perhaps I'll replace the current version with my project and we'll see. Halibutt 22:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/v/i/Talk%7ELviv_Archive_1_d597.html"