Talk:Galicia-Volhynia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Belarus To-do:
Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Russia Portal
Galicia-Volhynia is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments

Contents

[edit] Article's name

It is not clear from the article whether it is an article about the territory, or about principality (the latter suggested by the lead). In the latter case it is unclear why it also goes into the post-principality time. If it is supposed to be the article about the region, the lead is misleading since it says the H-V was a state, etc.

We have two options, I think. We can make the article about the territory, and the time of the Principality would just be a chapter. But this solution to have it about the territory is a less favorable one, I think, because there are already articles about territoties and the articles are called Volhynia and Galicia. So, it is better for the article name to clearly say that this is the article about the state (principality).

And while we are at it, let's discuss renaming the article into Galician-Volhynian principality. This is a more common name in the literature and also used by Britannica. Thanks! --Irpen 23:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The article is mostly about the state (principality) but because this state had a territory, it seems good to write what happened with that territory after the state ceased to exist.
Now, as to "Galicia-Volhynia", the naming issue is quite interesting, because Galicia means very different things to different people. The Spanish region aside, Galicia is still an ambiguous name even if we know we're talking about central Europe:
  1. Galicia (let's call it Galicia-1) may refer to the region around the city of Halych (Halicz, Galich, Galic), the territory of the Mediaeval Halych Principality. In Ukrainian it is called Halychyna, in Polish it is Ziemia Halicka (literally: Halicz Land). Some English-speaking Ukrainians might call it "Galicia" when talking in English The Poles, however, will never call it this way; they might call it Ziemia Halicka, Ruś Czerwona (Red Ruthenia) or Eastern Galicia, but not Galicia.
  2. Galicia (let's call it Galicia-2) may also refer to the Austrian province which existed from 1772 until 1918. This is what the Poles mean when they talk about Galicja. The Ukrainians call this entity Halychyna as well, but I guess it's not the first thing that comes to their minds when they hear this word.
Galicia-2 covered a different, larger area than Galicia-1. Actually, Galicia-2 included most of Galicia-1 but extended much farther to the west and included a large portion of Lesser Poland as well.
So to sum up, Galicia-1 and Galicia-2 were to different political entities, which covered different territories in different historical periods. Which means we need some nice disambiguation. I would suggest putting Galicia-2 at Galicia (Central Europe) and Galicia-1 at Halychyna (which now redirects to Galicia (Central Europe)) or to Red Ruthenia. But I guess this proposal just reflects my Polish POV so I'm open to other suggestions. – Kpalion (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It may save confusion to keep both political entities in the same article, since they didn't overlap in time, and very clearly differentiate them in the introduction. I realize it's still not 100% clear, because both geographic ranges are still referred to as Galicia/Halychyna today. I'm just concerned that if they're at separate articles, readers will assume that the difference between the names "Galicia" and "Halychyna" is more clear than it is. —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 15:04 Z

I support Michael's suggestion. The current article for Galicia-1 and Galicia-2 is already Galicia (Central Europe). It's lead should be modified to say that it's not only "the largest and northernmost province of Austria from 1772 until 1918" but a historic territory that changed hands in history as that article says further down anyway. But that's a separate issue. As for this article, if it gets the new name that includes the word "...principality", there won't be any confusion about territory/allocation. Two historic territories the state incorporated would not interfere with anything written here. If we agree on this, we only have to agree on Galician/Halych + Vohlynia/Volyn etc. choise of terms. I think that the state is most commonly called Galician-Volhynian principality in English and so should be the article with the alterantive names, given early on and redirects from them created. Moving from current Halych-Volhynia to Galician-Volhynian principality does not require an admin action, but we should give everyone who cares some time to object here first. Regards, --Irpen 21:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I don't object moving this article to Galician-Volhynian Principality if this is really what it's called in English. I only think that "Principality" should be capitalized since it's part of the name. BTW, I'm copying parts of this discussion to Talk:Galicia (Central Europe). – Kpalion (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging/connecting with article 'Galicia'

As a lay reader on this subject, I feel I must describe my experience, which may be typical for other users too: I read the article Galicia a few times, without even noticing that the article Halych-Volhynia existed. I discovered Halych-Volhynia through a link in the article History of Russia. Therefore, I suggest that both articles be merged, or at the least be strongly connected, with links to the other article prominently placed in each. I believe that the eastern part of the Austrian province of Galicia could be characterised culturally as a successor to the Principality of Halych-Volhynia (after all, the majority of the population was Ruthenian-Ukrainian) and that therefore the article Galicia should be the master article, incorporating a chapter on Halych-Volhynia and linking to the article Halych-Volhynia for further information. RCSB 01:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly against merging. I do intend to work on expanding Galicia when only I have more time than I have now (i.e. hopefully soon). Thanks for expressing your view on this. – Kpalion (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of Halych

Shouldn't this redirect to Halych#Old_Halych? Btw, there is a list of rulers of this principality (I think...) at pl:Księstwo Halickie. There is also Halychyna. I am currently translating Piotr Włostowic and the pl article makes references to prince Wołodar of Halych-Przemyśl (Ruś Halicko-Przemyska), and there is prince Wołodar listed as ruler of Duchy of Halych (księtwo halickie) around (1092-1124) at the pl article above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on current merging

Please see Talk:Kingdom of Halicz-Wołyń for info re: merging, etc.--Riurik (discuss) 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed. --Riurik (discuss) 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I think that images of COA in the template contributes the article. There is no need to delete them. The golden lion on the blue field is a well-known COA of Halych-Volhynia in 13-14 centuries. Irpen, what the problem? --133.41.84.206 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, what is "known" about its color scheme? Second, please point a reliable source of the image. --Irpen 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here you are. Short information about Halych-Volhynia lions (2 pict) ([1]) based on Hrushevskyi work and description of collors of the Leopolis banner in the Battle of Tannenberg by Dlugosh. All links are in russian. There also numeros data in polish COA dictionaries of Bonecki and Niesicki([2] ) were you can find information about the history of HV coat of arms.

The image of lion is based on the lion charges of 13 th-14 th medieval rolls taken from Heraldik --133.41.84.206 03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets continue. What OR-ish elements do you find in the image of Kievan Rus? I agree, its not a COA, but a personal emblem of Volodymer. So what of it? It is made on the basis of this coin (You may see here http://www.gerb.bel.ru/pages/strani/ukraine2.htm) and can be used insted of empty COA as "Emblem of Volodymer", for exmpl. I see it is a common practice in Wikipedia. Look at Byzantine Empire article, and you will find self-made "Paleologs emblem" insted COA in the template. Nobody gets into a panic of it. Why should we avoid KR image?

The Palaiologoi family eagle should be removed. At least it does not flaunt the national colors of modern Greece or Turkey, like your picture does. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you dislike yellow and blue, claiming them to be "national colours", and rejecting usefulness of templates :-). I think we shouldnt remove eagle (that actualy is not a COA but so-called shield-bearer) or Volodymer emblem (I can make it just gold if you like) because of such "arguments". Its better to standardize all article in the same style with the aid of the template. If you hate self-made images, please, be thoroughgoing and start the removing of self-made maps in Rus-related articles, (Rus Khanate or Sviatoslav) before critisizing my images. Those maps also using "natioanal" colours of Russia.--133.41.84.206 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian name

The template renders the "native name" of the polity as "Галицко-Волинскоє Королѣвство". Please refer me to the chronicle or other medieval source that operates this term. If there are no contemporary sources using the modern Ukrainian name, it should be removed from the template. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This principality is normally called Galicia-Volhynia in English ... not the exotic Halych-Volhynia ... I can say that from experience, though doubtlessly google tests will show the Ukrainianized name has been boosted in English by loads of Ukrainian websites ... 336 hits on google books compared with 5 for Halych-Volhynia tells the real story though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Galicia-Volhynia is transliterated from RUSSIAN. Halych-Volhynia is transliterated from UKRAINIAN. There were periods of time when the UKRAINIAN language was suppressed. People were sent to jail just for publishing in UKRAINIAN hence RUSSIAN transliterations became common in the "ENGLISH" world. Because of this suppression many Ukrainians now are offended by Russian transliteration of Ukrainian place names. Bobanni (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Galicia-Volhynia isn't Russian, it's English. Galicia comes from Eastern Slavic via Latin not Russian ... the fact that Ukrainians have decided to represent Г in English as "H" rather than "G" is neither here nor there. While how some names come into English may be unfortunate (I don't think this is an issue here though), that's the way it is and there's no part of WP:UE that states wikipedia should seek "de-russification" at the expense of usage. If you wish it to do that, go there first, not here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results from google book search

Per WP:NAME and WP:UE this page must be moved to "Galicia-Volhynia", the clear predominant way to refer to this kingdom in the language of this encyclopedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)