Talk:Halych

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transliteration of "Halych"[edit]

Which transliteration system are you referring to, SteveGOLD? I'm not familiar with that one, but if it's suitable I'd like to add it to the reference. By convention, we've been using the Ukrainian National system on Wikipedia (although the scholarly system is seen on linguistics-related articles, too). See Romanization of Ukrainian for details. —Michael Z. 15:48, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Refs.[edit]

I hope you manage to read Ukrainian. About first written mention: National reresve "Ancient Halych". BTW, here the first mention is dated by 290 AD with a reference to well-known “Getica” Source. (The Gepidae hastened to take arms and Ostrogotha likewise moved his forces against them, lest he should seem a coward. They met at the town of Galtis, near which the river Auha flows, and there both sides fought with great valor;) But I do not consider it serious as it is interpreted as city in Transylvania here. You are right about Hungarian chronicles, but do not forget that chronicles almost always write about past history as well. The Gesta Hungarorum from Béla III of Hungary according to court were fritten in 1131 if I'm correct - just before he died by anonimous writer. He started from history of Hungary and mentioned 896 stay at Halych. At least this date is concidered "official". In 1998 there was a huge offical (with Kuchma coming to Halych, lot's of foreighn guests and International conference) celebration of 1100 birthday of Halych. It was planned for 1996, but was delayed due to unfinished excavations, renovations, etc.--Bryndza 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this is a typical nationalist pushing for antiquity, which reminds me of those medieval kings who forged genealogies "proving" their descent from Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Every serious reference I've been able to consult dates the first mention of the town to 1138. Unfortunately, it becomes increasingly common nowadays to see "a new foreign chronicle" (while in truth there are no authentic early sources for the history of Hungary) surfacing just in time to be propagated by official sources and the anniversary celebrations being conveniently moved to a new date to please a whim of a local governor or a president. This reminds me of President Shaimiev, who asked his historians to proclaim that Kazan was founded in 1005 rather than in the late 13th century, in order to celebrate the city's millenium during his own term in office. I also recall recent revert warring about the foundation date of Vladimir: a local mayor and governor "reinterpreted" chronicles, discarded all the established historians as fools and declared their town older by several centuries than it actually is. This behaviour may seem immature and naive to an outsider, but it brings more tourists to attend the town and anniversary celebrations and they bring more cash to the coffers of the local museum and administration. Wikipedia is definitely not a place to spread fringe theories and questionable claims. --Ghirla | talk 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, I hope you are not accusing me personally in those things that you mentioned. If my POV matters, yes indeed, I lean toward your point and interpretation. And my opinion is based on personal discussions with respectable archeaologists who work in Halych for more than one decade. BUT. Do you agree that this 896 date is "officially accepted"? And all those celebrations, official city portals etc. count from this point? If it is so, even if it is fradulent, I think it should be mentioned here (with appropriate remarks). I would even risk to include 290 claims as a curious and rather funny. Agree or not?--Bryndza 17:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't accuse you of anything, I just deplore the Eastern European pattern of distorting history in order to suit a political aim. Let's say that "recently the officially recognized foundation date was moved back by 150 years, although the majority of mainstream historians remain unconvinced by the evidence presented", or something along these lines. Just don't take the new "foundation" date as an ultimate truth. --Ghirla | talk 09:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size[edit]

The size of cathedral is 37,5 х 32,4 m. See here for plan and reconstruction. BTW, built of limestone and alebaster if you think it matters for size. After being destoroyed the stones were used to build Church 25 m away and 15 other churches whose remains are found in Krylos also used stones from Cathedral for thier construction.--Bryndza 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A link you provided was very helpful indeed. The six-pillared cathedral was of noble proportions, although I have no idea whether its measurements include galleries and annexes or not. If we talk about a central block, then it was larger than Kievan Sophia by 400 sq. metres, a discrepancy which needs to be addressed. The Assumption Cathedral in Halych was almost as big as the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, which measures 38 by 31 metres. --Ghirla | talk 15:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the dimentions include galleries. I had an honour to participate in on-field verification of original dimentions reported by Ya. Pasternak and drawing of new plan of Cathedral when it was fully reopened in 1998. So it was not bigger than Sophia.

Now, if you like, add "in Kievan Rus" to the sentence about size so it does not claim supremacy over some churches (Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir) in other historical formations. After this I will have reasons to call you a megaloman :) Joke. --Bryndza 17:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Kievan Rus" is an arbitrary conceipt. Some think that Kievan Rus was over in 1137 and so every later church doesn't belong here. It's hard to see why a church in Halych is "Kievan Rusian", while a contemporary church in Vladimir is not. Let's say that the Halych cathedral was "the largest mediaeval church on the territory of present-day Ukraine". --Ghirla | talk 09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological data from earliest history[edit]

I do not understand your opposition here. Look at the Histroy of Vladimir for example. Here we have 25 000 years ago. If you find my version has too big wording (wich is explained by my general fascination by these periods) - then let's shorten it to one sentence as the data prove practically virtual perpetuality of settlements starting from 5500 BC. But in my opinion, it will loose as there might be people interested in seing data that demontrates what kind of cultures inhabited named area.--Bryndza 18:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know little on the subject but it seems to me that most areas in Europe were inhabited for thousands of years. There is nothing particularly ancient or notable in the settlement of Halych area. If you think otherwise, please readd the data in a shortened form, with all necessary wikilinks provided. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 09:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fair enough on all points. I will edit artcile accordingly one of these coming days.--Bryndza 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pantelei.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Pantelei.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 21 September 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) 00:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halych. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Halych. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Halych/Galicia[edit]

I wondered if there was a connection between the name Galicia in Spain and Galicia in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There is a connection, and it is not a coincidence. It comes down to salt mining and the Celts. See https://books.google.com/books?id=xNEaD1g7XScC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kurlansky,+Mark+ salt+googlebooks&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAGoVChMI09WRivSayQIVSB0-Ch1QjwzY#v=onepage&q=Galicia&f=false

Even Halle, Germany, has a connection to salt!

Take a look at the first of the four pages.

I urge that there be some discussion of how Halych/Galicia as a name came to be, other than what is already on the page since this explanation is very different.

Mr. Posen (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of article on etymology is misleading[edit]

The part regarding the etymology of the town’s name is not only misleading, but also poorly written; it says that before “slavic christianization [Slavic christening],” the Kievan Rus was Lithuanian speaking land. This is largely inaccurate, as this conveys the majority of the Rus territory was Baltic speaking and not East-Slavic speaking. This definitely needs to be edited 2600:8803:B125:A700:48EC:BBB7:4527:4547 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halych&oldid=1202557581"