Talk:Lviv

Template:WP1.0

Львов

Along with the complex history of the city, I'd like to refer to post-WWII state. It was a Soviet city, and official language of the Union of Socialist Soviet Rebpublics was Russian language. Ukrainian was just a second official state language in terrirory of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. As a consequence, in most documents Russian spelling is used.

This all means that Russian spelling is not any more meaningless that Polish and German spellings. Any exclusion of Russian spelling with German and Polish preserved are non-NPOV. Therefore, we should either remove them all, or keep them all, including Russian one. Through Wikipedia practices, the latter is preferable. Therefore, I restore it.

Drbug 16:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's wrong! Ukraine was part of Soviet Union and official language of Ukrain was Ukraiunian! Today L'viv is ukrainian sity, so you should respect it. (I know that for some russians it's too difficult) Gutsul 7 Oct 2005

Makes sense! Space Cadet 00:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Lvov was part of the Ukrainian SSR that formed the USSR. The USSR was a federation of the 15 Soviet Republics that had their own languages as well as the Russian which was recognized as the interrepublican. Of course, the Ukrainian language like all the other were consider as part of the anti-Soviet nationalistic movement, unofficially. As result only one(!) University in Ukraine had lectures in native language. It was the Lvov State University. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Lwów was part of former Soviet Union and Vermont State was part of Iroquois territoty and every village town or city should have Iroquois name. (joke ;)) My opinion: a city in Ucraine has Ucrainian name. Львів -> L'viv. Polak ze Śląska--84.10.185.230 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Hi all

I have taken a couple of hours to go through the page and sort out the grammar and broken links

Any problems please contact me to let me know where I went wrong !!

Hope we can get this page to a higher level now !!

thanksChaosdruid (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

opening sentence

"Historically, it was one of the main cultural and scientific centers of Poland and Europe. It is regarded as one of the main cultural centres of Ukraine and historically also for Ukraine’s neighbour Poland."

This is horrible writing. Obviously the first sentence does not belong. Please stop adding it. Thanks, Ostap 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is regarded as one of the main cultural centres of Ukraine and historically also for Ukraine’s neighbour Poland.

The second paragraph states: It is regarded as one of the main cultural centres of Ukraine and historically also for Ukraine’s neighbour Poland.

I placed a {{fact}} tag after Ukraine in that sentence. User:Ostap_R has reverted this twice today saying (obvious) and (That is like asking for a citation that the sky is blue).

Statements like it is regarded are weasel words. The Wikipedia policy is to avoid weasel words: "Weasel words are words or statements that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. They give the force of authority to a phrase or a sentence without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."

There is clear evidence in the article that Lvov was a centre of Polish culture until the Soviets ethnically cleansed it in 1944-46. Is there any evidence of any Ukrainian culture? If there is, there must be some citations for this. If it really is a centre of Ukrainian cuture, it ought to be easy to fnd a lot of citations for this.

If no citations can be provided for the claim that it is regarded as a centre of Ukrainianian culture, then I propose to delete it by 26 August.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you write "Lvov"? Please speak English, it will help make your agenda less evident. "Is there any evidence of any Ukrainian culture?". That may be the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Ostap 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Toddy1, the city with it's buildings, theaters, museums etc. is a cultural centre of today's Ukraine. There is no question about it and it is very obvious. If you think otherwise then please source it that it is not.--Jacurek (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a citation for the statement. Readers can look at the citation and make their own mind up about whose culture Lvov is a centre of.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What ??? The city is Ukrainian. It was founded by Ukrainians (Ruthenians). It is in Ukraine. It is not a centre of Polish culture but of Ukrainian. Stop giving fuel to those Polish people who want to steal half of Ukraine again "because we invaded it once a long time ago" - thx Also I am going to edit this page again as it seems some peacocking has occured as well as misleading statements "recovered to Poland" implies that it was originally Polish which it was not...Chaosdruid (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Lwów is in Ukraine only becouse Western_betrayal. Now it is centre of Ukrainian culture, but for ages was Polish centre with 70% Polish community. Nobody wants to change borders but the truth must be written. --Paweł5586 (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Pavlusha, you got to take it easy, man. Lwów is in Ukraine, because Poland has allowed it to happen. Stop blaming others. It is first of all. Second of all look at the Polish census of 1931. What do you see? Most of population surrounding Lviv consists of non-Polish residents. How could that be in 1931 if the area was always Polish as you claim it? I think you used word ages or something... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, population in the region east of the river San was mixed. There were parts were Ukrainians were absolutely dominating - i.e. most of the Carpathian districts of Stanisławów Voivodeship. There were parts where Poles constituted a relative majority (49%) - Tarnopol region, which is, as you know, to the east of Lwów/Lviv (sic!). According do the census of 1931, which results are debatable, as Szturm de Sztrem admitted after the war that were "slightly rearranged" to show Polish dominance in the Kresy region (and it was later proofed that the results were "enhanced" by 2 to 3 % in advance for Poles - see research done by Paul Dziemiela), in Lwów Voivodeship there were 57,7% Poles, 34,1% Ukrainians & Ruthenians, in Tarnopol Voivoedship 49,3% Poles, 45,5% Ukrainians & Ruthenians, in Stanisławów region 22,4% Poles and 68,9% Ukrainians & Ruthenians. Even overestimating the falsifications made during the 1931 census, it's obvious that Poles constituted well over 1/3 of the population of the discussed region of Eastern Galicia, and it's incomparable to the situation in Volhynia, were Poles were really a minority (16,6%), and resided mostly in cities and towns. This description - Polish-Jewish towns, Ukrainian countryside - suits well for the situation in Volhynia, but is greatly questionable when applied to Eastern Galicia (which was in reality ethnically mixed), but what You, our Ukrainian friends, do notoriously.

Eastern Galicia, which belonged to the Polish Crown since 1349, was a region where since the fourteenth century Poles and Ruthenians/Ukrainians cohabited. It was a common home for both nations (and also Jews, of course), for almost seven centuries.

I do agree that the prewar Polish governmental policy towards the Ukrainian minority was harsh and erroneous. Polish government didn't fulfill its obligations - e.g. the pledged autonomy for Eastern Galicia and Ukrainian University in Lwów. Instead Ukrainians were treated as second class citizens. Yes, it's a shame, and nothing to be proud of, as it only antagonized mutual relations, already bad after the Polish-Ukrainian war of 1918/19, and deepened the conflict (in the hindsight, one have to remember that the only one real alternative for Ukrainians in that time was Soviet Ukraine and Holodomor).

Second thing. Poland or Poles couldn't "allow to happen", what happened in the end of the WWII, as our national interests were discarded by our "allies" at the Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences, and Poland's fate, including its borders and the following population transfers, were to be managed by the Kremlin. Lwów is now Lviv only because Stalin and Khrushchev wanted this city to be attached to the Ukrainian SSR, and the opposition by Churchill and Roosevelt was marginal.

Nontheless, it's now almost a completely Ukrainian city, in the same way as Breslau became Wrocław (or, one may dare to say Lwów, as huge part of the Polish settlers in Breslau were expatriates from Lwów and there can be traced some kind of connection and continuation between prewar Lwów and postwar Wrocław). What is important - nowadays Lviv, because of its former significance for Poles (as it was generally perceived as Poland's "second city", before 1939), is still a prominent part of Polish national consciousness. So it's still Polish to some point (even though most of Polish lwowians had left the city), making it our common, Polish-Ukrainian heritage. Same way as Breslau/Wrocław is the city which links Polish and German history and tradition. PawkaLukasz (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet I do not deny the fact that Lviv is the center to the Polish Culture as well as Jewish. I do not think it is worth to divide the city on nationalities as there are enough space for everyone:) Simply visit the city, you will not regret. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We can agree over this terms, cheers.PawkaLukasz (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahahahahahaha .... Forgive me, but I can not stop ... In talking about these very interesting things that I laugh and I can not stop ... You would have written that Krakow and Lublin is the historic centers of Ukraine ... So that Lviv was once under the Poles it is, that no man is denied, but that he became a cultural center of Poland, well it's funny ... Lions set up a King Leo D. Rus ... That is a Ukrainian city ... Although I do not mind so sometimes there were more than the Poles than Ukrainian, but the city was always Ukrainian cultural center ... Italiano italiano (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lwów history 10-14th centuries

• First mention about Cherven towns in Annual Novel:

W leto 6489 ide Wołodimer' k Liachom' i zaja grady ich: Peremyszl', Czerwien', i iny grady jeże sut' do sego dnie pod' Rusiu.

Roku 6489 [981]. Poszedł Włodzimierz ku Lachom i zajął grody ich: Przemyśl, Czerwień i inne grody, które do dziś dnia są pod Rusią.

In year 981 Włodzimierz went to Lendians (Polish tribe) and took his cities: Przemyśl, Czerwień and other cities, since then they are under Russia control.

• Lwów was founded by King Daniil Halytskiy at territoriy of Cherven towns later known as Red Ruthenia where Lendians still lived.

• Casimir III of Poland inherited Red Ruthenia from Boleslaw-Yuri II of Galicia who was killed by orthodox boyars.

So we can say Cherven Twons, Red Ruthenia came back to Poland, with Lwów/ Lviv which belonged to territory Cherven Towns.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In your edit of 08:26, 15 August you changed the following paragraph to read as follows:

Lviv was founded at the territory Red Ruthenia by King Daniil Halytskiy of the Ruthenian principality of Halych-Volhynia, and named in honour of his son, Lev. With the Red Ruthenia Lviv was recovered to Crown of the Polish Kingdom in 1340 thanks to Casimir III of Poland. Later belonged to Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Austro-Hungary, Western Ukrainian Republic, Second Polish Republic, and Ukrainian SSR The city was occupied by the Nazis from June 1941 to July 1944 when it was recaptured by the Soviet Red Army and returned to the Ukrainian SSR.

I am afraid that this does not make much sense to most people.

• Most people do not know whether the Lechitic inhabitants of Red Ruthenia in 1000 were Polish or Ukrainian or something else. You need a citation for this.
• The paragraph should have a citation for its founding.
• Whilst it is true that in the 1931 Polish Government Census the majority of Lvov's inhabitants were Poles, was this true up until 1340? If yes, please we have a citation. If it is not true, then the claim that Lvov's medieval buildings are part of Ukrainian culture would have some justification.
• It would be useful to have some dates for the various ownerships of Lvov. And these need citations too.

Oh and I am not a big fan of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, so I prefer to use the normal English spelling of the city used before they redrew the map of Eastern Europe.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Lviv or Lvov

Lol and so we must start with getting this right.

You call it Lvov and I have been calling it Lviv

Which is right, as the Ukrainian maps I have access to put it as Lviv?

My father called it "Lvieuw" (pronunciation)

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of spellings of the name in English; this is true both historically and now. Which spelling you use is a matter of personal preference.

A Google search on 15 August 2009 (with cookies blocked to prevent bias based on previous searches) for pages from the UK gives the following:

Spelling	UK only		Global		Book search, in English
	on own	with either Galicia, Poland, or Ukraine	on own	with either Galicia, Poland, or Ukraine	with either Galicia, Poland, or Ukraine
Lviv	90,800	48,600	4,640,000	2,710,000	3,040
Lvov	25,200	11,000	1,550,000	778,000	2,360
Lwow	10,300	4,430	10,300	139,000	2,840
Lwiw	497	273	36,500	23,200	584
Lemberg	18,800	3,800	1,740,000	200,000	2,190

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That is some fine research ! (I have PM'd you toddy)

Maybe we should put them in order of "most used" ?

At the moment the order is Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, German, Latin & Others

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You forgot Leopolis. Bandurist (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DUDE, STOP WITH GOOGLE SEARCH! It is not the way to do it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Lvieuw" (pronunciation) is of Polish Lwow. That is the way Polish pronounce their 'o'. The same way is Krakow, also Kra-kieuw. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the standard polish pronunciation of kraków is like 'kra-kuf', not 'kra-kieuw'. the v to w phenomenon is not really a polish thing, so I don't think that 'lvieuw' is the pronunciation of the polish name for the city... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lviv and only Lviv! Polsih calles city Lwow, Russian Lvov and Ukrainian Lviv. By the way, Lviv is Ukrainian city, not Polish or Russian. How about this, lets call Moscow Moskva in English? :) --68.36.49.223 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Russian language banned?

I'm reading in a journal that says public airing of russian language radio is banned. How widespread is this? Just radio?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.171.64 (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is probably a speculation. There is no authority to do so if it is a private radio. It could be widely discouraged, though. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Those which was not banned ... Anyone who says this is even or was not in Lyuvovi or he do not have what ... In Lviv speak Ukrainian language, but it does not give them any facts that is prohibited in Lviv Russian ... So, what you suggest at least watch and listen to various radio ... Italiano italiano (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Major controversial changes

There are many very major & controversial changes made by user B. to the article such as[[1]]. I placed a tag waiting for further comments.--Jacurek (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No further discussion removing tag Bobanni (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

City hospital, formerly Jewish hospital

A Web search reveals various mentions and photos (e.g. first four on that linked site) of a "Jakow Rapoport's Beth Hoolim (Hebrew: hospital)" on a street in Lviv named for said J. Rapoport. It had apparently been a Jewish hospital, later the city hospital. Having seen a recent (2006) photograph, I'm seeking information the year of the building's construction and the history of its various uses. The striking architecture, along with its utility as a health care facility, would attest to its notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The former Jewish Jacob Rappaport Hospital (Pol. prewar name - Szpital Izraelicki im. Jakuba Rappaporta) on a former Jacob Rappaport street (ulica Jakuba Rappaporta, prewar street patron was kept after 1945 and now its вулиця Раппапорта in Ukrainian), was build between 1898-1901, by Jan Lewiński's architectural studio, and the design was drawn directly by Kazimierz Mokłowski, who was a renown architect and architectural theoretician in Lwów at the turn of the XX century. The building (100 hospital beds) was erected thanks to the funds given by Maurycy Lazarus, thus it was sometimes referred as Szpital Fundacji Lazarusa (Lazarus Foundation Hospital). Interesting detail is that the architect was a Gentile, which is a rare case, as generally the buildings built for the Jewish Community of Lwów were designed by Jewish architects. It served as the main Jewish hospital in Lwów till WWII and the Holocaust. Its very original forms are an Art Nouveau reception of the so-called Mauritanian Style, and were intended to remind the architecture of Palestine (as it was perceived at that time). - PawkaLukasz (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[w] versus [u] as off-glides

Page 42-43 of the IPA Handbook clearly shows [w] and [j] as off-glides. There is no phonetic distinction between using [w] or the non-syllabic mark under a [u]. The non-syllabic mark is for use under a vowel symbol when there is no IPA symbol for the non-syllabic form, thus a non-syllabic mark is appropriate under an [e] because there is no IPA symbol for the non-syllabic version. With [u] and [i], however, there is [w] and [j], so the non-syllabic marking is not necessary. If you have an actual reference that says they are different, then please bring it forward. Otherwise, stop the edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Review

• Specific evidence for using [w] as the IPA symbol for the syllable-final off-glide allophone of /v/ in Ukrainian by Ukrainian linguists:

• Stefan M. Pugh & Ian Press, Ukrainian: A Comprehensive Grammar (Routledge, 1999). "At the beginning of a word before a consonant, in the middle of a word after a vowel before a consonant, and at the end of a word after a vowel the consonant [β/v] is pronounced as a sound intermediate between [v] and [u]...At the end of a word we should not have [f] for this sound, though one cannot but admit that it is heard. In other words, [w] is prescribed" (pg. 27)
• George Y. Shevelov, "Ukrainian," The Slavonic Languages (Routledge, 1993), pp. 947-998. "The consonant presented in table 17.2 as v/w is realized in syllable-final position as [w]" (pg. 951)
• Olena Bekh & James Dingley, Teach Yourself Ukrainian (Teach Yourself, 2003)
• Ilko V. Korunets', Contrastive Typology of the English and Ukrainian Languages (Nova Knyha Publishers, 2004)

• Evidence for using [u] with a non-syllabic diacritic as the IPA symbol for the syllable-final off-glide allophone of /v/ in Ukrainian by Ukrainian linguists:

• George Y. Shevelov, An Outline of Modern Literary Ukrainian (Munich, 1951)

There's no real issue here. The contemporary Ukrainian evidence is conclusive. --Taivo (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruthenians as a category in the 1931 Polish census

In the census, Ukrainian ethnic groups where categorized as Ukrainians (those who claimed themselves as such) or were described with a historical term Ruthenians (Polish Rusini, Ukrainian Русини) and mainly were those people who did not embraced Ukrainian national rebirth in Galicia of the late 19th century. Especially those groups were (rather uneducated or even just illiterate) mountain dwellers of the Carpathians, of mixed Vlach-Ruthenian origin, living close to respective other neighboring ethnicities (Poles, Slovaks, Romanians). From the left those groups were Lemkos, Boykos and Hutsuls, while Rusyns were living in the southern part of the mountains.

Additionally there were some Ukrainian speaking people living in the lowland part of Eastern Galicia, who also did not adopt modern Ukrainian national identity, and in that time still considered themselves as Ruthenians. Separation of this groups in the census was an attempt of Polish Government to diminish the numerical predominance of Ukrainian ethnics in the Eastern Galicia.

In some way it was reflected in Polesia and Black Ruthenia regions (todays Western Belarus), were some already considered themselves as Belarusians but most of people described themselves as tutejsi (literally of this place in Polish).

In Lwów/Lviv, the 1931 census term Rusini was applied to those social groups which I've just described in the first two paragraphs.--PawkaLukasz (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

King Cross Leopolis?

Really? A tourist attraction? A shopping mall is a tourist attraction? Perhaps it's the biggest one in Western Ukraine, but it doesn't compare to those of Kyiv, or other large cities, for instance the Dreamtown Shopping Centre in Obolon'. Would tourist really go there? To shop? I'm having a hard time understanding the logic behind this, tourists (let's exclude Ukrainian ones from neighbouring cities where say Zara isn't present) would go shopping because they can't do that in they're own home cities? I mean, yes I did go to Dreamtown in Kyiv, but only because it is Ukraine's biggest mall. Anyhow I'm removing King Cross from the tourist destination list. I will however add the Svobody Prospekt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.18.197 (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• True... --Duvnuj (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Not a reliable source for this article: prof. Jan Buraczyński, Roztocze – dzieje osadnictwa, Lublin 2008, s. 73. Jan Buraczynski is a geologist, not a historian: [2], [3]. The book cited seems to be a geology book about mites (stalagmites, etc.), not a history book. I'm removing his opinions on historical events. Hopefully some one can find historians that have a similar opinion.Faustian (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Jan Buraczyński was professor Archaeology and Geology at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University. Reliable source and we got more - Walczy based on Ukrainian works.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How is an archeologist/geologist a reliable historical source?--Львівське (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not? This is similar science tree--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

'"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"' you're calling well known history "legend", that's a mighty claim for one. The stuff you're inserting revises Lviv history substantially, do you have other sources to back this up?--Львівське (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont see anything extraordinary in my edit. Look up to pre history section, there you can find more sources, (also Ukrainian) about Lendian settlement. In this place existed Lendian village, and Daniel rebuilt this place, making city named Lvov. --Paweł5586 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't make the story a legend, does it?--Kotniski (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Archeology and geology is not the same "tree". While an archeologist knows something about geology the revers is not necessarily true. A book written by a geologist about stalagmites and such, that just happens to mention history, is not a reliable source for history. I did not remove the information you added because I disagreed with it, I removed it because it's based on a clearly unreliable source for this article. As you yourself noted, I did not remove other statements with other sources.Faustian (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And one more, first try to talk at discusion page. You are trying to start edit war.--Paweł5586 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed a clearly unreliable source. If you want to waste peoples' times, I can take to to the unreliable sources noticeboard.Faustian (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Legend?

Orest Subtelny's Ukraine: A History does not describe the fact that Lviv was founded by Daniel and named after his son a "legend." Whoever is putting that in, is clearly misrepreenting what the source says, probably to push a POV.Faustian (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to history

Hi - @Kaiser_von_Europa

Can you provide a link for the ref - Universal-Lexikon der Gegenwart und Vergangenheit (edited by H. A. Pierer). 2nd edition, vol. 17, Altenburg 1843, pp. 343-344. - Also there is no date on the information and so it could do with having that sourced.

The other problem is that there are refs which state that only the castles and/or watchtowers & fortifications were razed [4] [5]

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Chaosdruid. This is a volume of a fairly big encyclopedia which is available to me in the rare books division of a public library. To my knowledge, it is not yet available in digitized form. In that book I found no more information than I inserted in the article (and which a friendly contemporary has eliminated again without explaining, why). I found now some more detailed information in another encyclopedia, but nothing is said there that soleley the fortification buildings had been destroyed. I shall try again. Perhaps you add later on the information which you have digged out. Regards, - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that you have reinserted the information without finishing the discussion here. One source, the one you have used, claims total destruction, the other two claim only fortifications or the castle. Your edits are premature and go against the sources - 2 say not the whole town 1 says the whole town.

More importantly I had hidden the part with a message stating "waiting for sources discussion" which you have completely ignored.

Also you have stated "some sources" which is against MoS, and in fact is only one source.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I added word for word of what I found in the sources, and I leave it up to you to fit in the information you found in such a manner that no misundertandings can occur. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you are a new(ish) editor so please be aware that your actions, although in good faith, are not normally acceptable. Wikipedia is a collaboration and as such deleting hidden messages requiring discussion, avoiding those discussions and reverting to previous text are not really acceptable.

It is clear that you do not want to gain consensus but it is important that you understand how it works - please try and find time to read up on it Wikipedia:Consensus.

I apologized for this instantly on my talk page. I first simply had not seen that my edit was still hidden on the edit page, but had thought that it had been removed entirely. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As for this matter - I am happy to go ahead and edit away to rectify the paragraphs although, to avoid edit warring, discussion would have been preferred rather than "I have done it so you go and fix it".

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This again is a misunderstanding. It had by no means been my intention to hamper you in editing. I found the infos digged out by you quite interesting, but I do not have these sources here so that I can say almost nothing about them. I simply added some reliable information I found in a German encyclopedia and thought that all would be happy with it. Some obviously are, as the highly professional edits introduced after me reveal. Congratulation, this was excellent team work! - and more I did not want. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made the additions, tell me what you think. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks quite well. I am just in a hurry and shall come back tomorrow. -- Kaiser von Europa (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning with "In 1261 the town was invaded ... " should perhaps be squeezed slightly by shifting all information on the sources themselves to the reference list (to where it belongs anyway). If the information concerned is already contained in the reference list, then there is no need at all to repeat it once more in the text. This is particularly true for the German source which is a big old encyclopedia where historical facts are presented in very condensed form. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some fine work from you as well lol - I have corrected some of it as the grammar needed a bit of work (order of words etc). Do not be put off, you keep adding it and I'll keep copy-editing it :¬)

The paragraph starting "In 1261..." is pretty condensed as it is. It is interesting for the reader to see what the differences are - if they do not go and check the references they will not see it otherwise. I could have included them as quotes but as I say, I think the reader will be more interested than just reading A said it was this, B said it was that , and C said it was the other. The most important point for me was that the sentence discusses the differences and so should really state them. The other matter is that the sections are linked to a "main" article, History of Lviv and that this article should have a summary of that one, as per MoS. The History of Lviv is now getting to the stage where it has less info in some sections than the Lviv article. It may be wise to look at them and start copying stuff over there, then decide what to lose from this one. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have copied the material over from "Early History" to "Habsburg Empire" and incorporated into the History of Lviv article. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In this special case. mentioning the references explicitely in the text too might be justified, although in general an interested reader can be expected to have a look also at the list of references. Since the German reference is a general encyclopedia, not a book dealing solely with history, I have removed its title from the text. I agree that corresponding sections in the article History of Lviv should now be adapted correspondingly. Users who would like to do this and who are capable to read German texts may find quite a lot of useful historical information on Lviv (German Lemberg) in Section III, pp. 37-50, of Heidemarie Petersen's book of 2003, which is based on scientific research and is well sourced. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

When we talk of "someone said something" then we have to say who said it. Calling it "an old german encyclopedia" is the same as saying "a bloke in the pub said" and is not very professional sounding is it ?

Also I have already mentioned tha the history section is getting too big ad yet you are adding to it, which is perhaps my fault for saying "keep adding and I'll keep editing it" :¬)

Please add any more detail to the History of Lviv article and summarise here. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Who said it" can easily be found out by inspecting the list of references. This is what the reference list is there for. Repeating all the reference titles in the article's text would blow up the size of any encyclopia to about twice its normal volume and is completely unnecessary. I would have no objections against transferring all the historical stuff to the article History of Lviv, and to write a shorter section on history for this article. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to contribute any further either to this artice or to History of Lviv. If I can be of any further help, especially as German sources are concerned, then please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. - - Kaiser von Europa (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You first changed my edit naming the encyclopaedia to a vague "an old German encyclopaedia". I pointed out that this was too vague and restored the name. You have restored your edits again, changing it to "an encyclopaedia of 1843". There is nothing wrong with having the reference as well which states the name, it is there to verify that the text is factually accurate.

Do not revert it again - you have already shown that you are not willing to discuss matters before reverting edits, even when a hidden message specifically asks you to discuss first.

You said "I added word for word of what I found in the sources," and as such the source needs to be credited, in the same way as we say "Mr Fred Bloggs said" we say "The Name of the book said".

I would also point out that you said "I leave it up to you to fit in the information you found in such a manner that no misundertandings can occur." which I have done.

You need to accept that other editors have valid reasons for making additions/changes and that, once reverted, finding consensus is the way forwards. I made the edits and added the two other sources and quotes, as you said I could, after which you changed them. It is up to the editor making the changes to prove they were correct or to gain consensus. You have not yet shown me a good enough reason to not include the name of the encyclopaedia and so consensus is not reached on your removal. That is why I have restored it.

Your answer earlier was "I did not see the hidden message" - well when you enter edit mode look for <!-- Something like this--> as the message is between the <! and >.

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I promise that I never again shall alter or remove one of your edtits. Best wishes -- Kaiser von Europa (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not about "my edit v. your edit" - it is simply about what is correct and what is not. I find it a little off that you resort to your claim of page ownership by me, and a little insulting as you were the one who clearly ignored consensus and reverted to your edits on other matters first.

It is not constructive for you to resort to accusing me when in fact I simply want the text to be accurate, correctly cited, free from COPYVIO (which means source must be quoted when paraphrasing or directly copying), within MoS and in a good state of prose and grammar.

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Germans"

Lviv was a part of Austria, so the Germans were generally Austrian.Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Polish Cultural Center

Lviv was an important Polish cultural center. It was virtually nothing during the Soviet Union and was not a major Jewish center (as was Krakow). Removing the Polish importance is absolutely wrong here and is simply a reflection of an anti-Polish bias, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. When I visited one of the Masonic lodges in Lviv a couple years ago, they gave me a gift book with photos of the historic architecture of Lviv. The book is trilingual--English, Ukrainian, and Polish. That is a clear reflection of the importance of the Polish period and influence in Lviv's history. This should not be ignored simply because of an anti-Polish bias on the part of editors. --Taivo (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's further evidence of the special relationship between Polish culture and Lviv: Linda Hodges & George Chumak, Language and Travel Guide to Ukraine, 4th edition (2004, Hippocrene), page 60: "In 1772 the First Partition of Poland brought eastern Poland and western Ukraine...under the jurisdiction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Lviv became the administrative center of a newly created province dominated by Poles." You just can't whitewash Lviv's cultural history to eliminate that Polish influence and importance. --Taivo (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got just two relevant books in my library, but when both of them mention the special relationship between Lviv and Poland, the evidence is crystal clear that removing that relationship from the lead of this article is the wrong thing to do. --Taivo (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering half the population of the city was Jewish during the 'Polish cultural period', why not make that argument? Architecturally the city is a cultural stew of Austrian, Polish, and Rusyn. I dunno, while the Polish statement is true, does it belong smack dab in the lede? Obviously it should be covered in the article, but IMO, if you go the route of tacking that on, why not tack on other historical cultural facts of the city? (ex. I have a book on the city titled "Lviv, Lwow, Lvov") Just seems to open a can that doesn't need to be, for a succinct and un-weighted lede.--Львівське (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The context of this issue is that Poles have historically tried to overemphaisze the city's Polishness and tamp down its Jewish and Ukrainian elements (see the last paragraph here). Why don't we include just a brief expression about its role in Jewish and Polish cultures?Faustian (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any intention of overemphasizing the Polish role, but I don't want it underemphasized either. The fact is that Lviv was a Polish city for most of its history after the collapse of the Kievan Rus. To ignore that fact and leave it without mention in the lead seems to be a major case of ignoring the 700-pound gorilla in the room. Of course there was Jewish influence during the middle ages and Austro-Hungarian influence in the 19th century, but the majority of non-Ukrainian influence during Lviv's long history was Polish. One sentence in the lead to recognize the fact that Lviv was Polish for many more centuries than it's been Ukrainian or anything else is not excessive and it is not "tacking on". (The photo book I mentioned above is called Львів L'viv Lwów.) --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I just read Faustian's addition to the lead and it seems fine. --Taivo (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully things stay stable. About "being Polish for most of its history." - let's not overemphasize it. This is true politically, although don't forget that it belonged to Galicia for about 100 years (until 1349) after Kieven Rus collapsed so it didn't go straight to Poland from Rus. The Hungarians ruled it for a decade or two also. The city was Galician for 100 years, Hungarian for 40, Polish for ~380 years, Austrian for ~130, Polish again for 20, Soviet for 50, and now Ukrainian for 20. It wasn't Polish for many more centuries than everybody else's. Moreover, before emphasizing the 380 years of Polish rule before the Austrian takeover, the city really grew into the city we think of under Austria. When the Austrians took over it had only about 20,000 people, and had 10 times that many when Austria-Hungary collapsed.

Ethnically speaking - while Poles were a plurality they were not a majority of the city's population until the 1920's, and that situation only lasted about 20 years. In the 1910 census Roman Catholics accounted for only 52% of the city's population (removing the small percentage of Austrians, Czechs etc. this makes it likely that Poles were in the upper 40s). In the 20's the Poles tried to wipe as many traces of the non-Polish aspects of the city during the interwar period as they could. The post-World War II attempts to "forget" the Polish aspect of the city's heritage is largely a backlash or a reaction to what the Polish authorities had been doing earlier.Faustian (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

not to mention, the Soviet period would eliminate the Polish presence strictly on the Stalinist historical view that adheres to pan-Slavism among Rus' peoples and its censorship of the gap from Rus'ian Galicia-Volhynia and its "return" to the greater Russian society. Not to mention, communist Poland tried to forget its entire bourgeois history as well.--Львівське (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re. added line. As it's rather obvious why the city is considered a Ukrainian cultural center - the city is now within independent Ukraine's borders - it should be explicated why it was also considered a main Jewish and Polish ones. The phenomenon of Lviv is that the city's population prior to 1945 was mainly Polish and Jewish (and its worth noticing that the Jews tended to voluntary germanise or polonise) with significant Ruthenian/Ukrainian minority, and reflects the history of Gdansk or Wroclaw which were prior to WWII genuine German cities with noticeable but small Polish minorities. The current ethnic compositions of the cities of western Poland, same way as of Lviv, Vilnius, etc. are the results of WWII and artificial creation of Stalin and his henchmen, who redrew the political and ethnic map of central Europe. I think it's important to clarify that.PawkaLukasz (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Muni Chain.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Muni Chain.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:SacherMasochStatueInLvov.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SacherMasochStatueInLvov.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 27 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)