Jump to content

Talk:Przemyśl

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

one

[edit]

maybe move Przemysl,_Poland to Przemysl Fqsik 19:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nyah, the disambig should be there I think. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:24, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

The quip about the town’s web site is hardly NPOV, making a highly inflammatory deduction from rather innocuous language. It should be removed. 212.17.66.70 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Half the links here seem to be advertising restaurants and catering in Przemyśl. I think they should be removed. This sort of thing really belongs on wikitravel imho. --Filipek (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It became part of the Polish kingdom in the second half of the 13th century." - Is this an attempt to add one more century of Polish rule to the history of the city? This sentence should read "14th century". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.12.8.34 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2006?

[edit]

I find this text in the article: "In 2006, it became part of the Subcarpathian Voivodeship; it was previously the capital of Przemyśl Voivodeship." Voivodeships were changed in 1999. Is there something unique here that happened in 2006?  Randall Bart   Talk  01:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this as well. It was written in this edit from 2 November 2008 and there seems no reason why this was any different to the rest of Poland. Przemyśl Voivodeship ceased to exist in 1999. SeveroTC 06:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q re Zbig

[edit]

Z. Brzezinksi was born in Warsaw according to his page, why is he a notable person here I wonder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpdeever (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Inflammatory anti-Russian/Russophobe text. history rewriting

[edit]

"After the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the border between the two invaders ran through the middle of the city". Obviously no one claimed that Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union if that were the case Britain would have declared war on the USSR, but it declared war only on Germany. Soviet forces entered territories of the Russian Empire after the state of Poland ceased to exist and there was no Polish government in Warsaw. This was internationally acknowledged at the time and no major (or as far as I know minor) state lodged any protest. While I understand that the Wikipedia is an ideological project run by CIA and different ethnic / national interest groups, this example of history re-writing and re-labeling goes too far.

Second comment pertains to the stubborn insistence to call Ruthenian inhabitants Ukrainians, there is no document in Austria or later in Austria-Hungary, not a strip of paper that would call those people Ukrainian. This is an attempt to attach a newfangled artificial identity onto people in the past, probably more bizarre than referring to the Celtic inhabitants of Gaul as the "French". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.81.181 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thus spake the Russian nationalist anon.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with the first Anon. Faustian has a history of anachronistically referring to Ruthenians as Ukrainians. Unlike other Ruthenians who were forced into the the Ukrainian endonym, the Lemkos in this region did not suffer that fate. They have remained Carpo-Rusyn Ruthenians, not Ukrainians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.150.66 (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Przemyśl. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Przemyśl. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Croats

[edit]

@E-960: are you aware of NPOV? We have countless reliable sources by historians, archaeologists and others who relate Przemyśl land with White Croats. There exist an on-going scholarship dispute about it. Mentioning only Lendians we're inserting a POV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski, the current longstanding statement had a reference source attached to it, so it's POV-ish to remove it, replace it with much different statement, and say that this new statement is neutral, especially that it's not in English and clearly presents a partisan view of Ukrainian/Russian scholars, which is not shared universally. Also, in recent month several discussions on topics related to Poland yielded a conclusion that sources used on English Wikipedia should be in English in order to avoid these kind of situations. --E-960 (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Ukrainian sources go against contemporary historical statements like those of Nestor the Chronicler, who said that in 981 the gród was taken from the Lyakhs. If not for that statement we would not even know that Przemyśl was even taken by Vladimir, because archeology would not yield the name of the settlement and the exact year it was attacked. So, Ukrainian/Russia historians use the chronicle to argue that Przemyśl became part of Rus, however when it comes to the statement who it was taken from they argue against the chronicle. Very selective I would say, and this inconsistency was also raised by Polish historians. --E-960 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to be WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:OWN pushing of nationalistic dichtonomies which don't have anything to do with editing policies. You're evaluing reliability and neutrality of a source and author by nationality and language, with a twist that Polish view isn't partisan although the article is part of both Polish and Ukrainian projects. I am not intersted in your WP:OR on the topic or Ukrainian/Russian viewpoint. Please link to these discussions to see whether their conclusion was approved to completely overweight WP:NOENG. If do, doesn't matter as we have reliable sources in English. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. It is problematic when you replace a longstanding statement back-up by a reference source, and this new statement say "belonging to the White Croats or less likely Lendians". The original statement backed up by a reference source said it just belonged to the Lendians. So, that's clearly a POV push. Also, based on historical statements (primary sources) and other historians (secondary sources) it's probably the other way around if anything. --E-960 (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an experienced editor am friendly advising you because it's not possible to have a constructive discussion and neutral editing, without WP:POINT, with such approach. A "longstanding statement" in this case is WP:SILENCE, there was no POV push and again your personal viewpoint is OR nobody cares about. According to NPOV, the median solution is "belonging to the Lendians or White Croats". Do you have any valid objection to be reinstated?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I need to review the sources you cited and throw them in Google Translate to see what they actually say. Also, I would prefer we use English language sources. Also, I need to look myself for other references. --E-960 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have 24h for review.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you have 24h to figure out what WP:SYNTHESIS is. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." --E-960 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How it was a synthesis? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First off, stop rushing people and perhaps provide a source in the English language. In the non-English source, I see the reference that the Croats were mentioned three times in Nestor's Prime Chronicle without giving a location. Also, I'm quite aware of the fact that Ukrainian nationalists (for the record, not accusing anyone here of being one) are using this claim that White Croats lived in Przemyśl (contrary to written historical accounts) in order to make territorial claims in Poland. So, I note with additional level of scrutiny the effort to include this claim here, and the lack of English language sources. So, it will take more than 24 hours to review. At the moment, I hold that this should not be included, as it is a fringe view, especially that it is supposedly based on archeology. Btw, on a side-note, an obvious point to any western academic, that studying archeological cultures will not yield ethnicity, when not connected to a written source, and here the written account is being challenged/disputed, and this is not the article to address controversies. --E-960 (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you WP:OWN the article. It's not based, only, on archaeology. Your personal amateur opinion and WP:OR have no weight. Stop naming scientists as nationalists, and take a little concern that Polish "nationalists" are using the same primary source in order to make territorial claims in Ukraine. Can you please explain how it was a synthesis? Seeing how you're constantly active and much time waste on commenting, you have less than 24 hours for reading and revert to the intermediate solution. Paul R. Magocsi, Galicia: A Historical Survey and Bibliographic Guide; A History of Ukraine ; With Their Backs to the Mountains: A History of Carpathian Rus' and Carpatho-Rusyns; Stephen Rapawy, The Culmination of Conflict: The Ukrainian-Polish Civil War and the Expulsion of Ukrainians After the Second World War; The Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine "Peremyshl" etc. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First off, what's with you setting 24 timelines? That's not how Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works, boss. So, stop with the obnoxious behavior. Second, your claim about "science", the problem is that some (not all) Ukrainian academics are trying to determine thorough archeology alone ethnicity, which is by definition impossible. The argument is so un-scientific, because it's like saying that Spain was inhabited by Germans because we found buried BMWs and VWs in Spain, and the the written documents saying that Spaniards lived there are wrong. That's pretty much is the Ukrainian POV with Cherven Cities (and only Ukrainian academics think its legitimate no one else), and in the past, as with Soviets and now some Ukrainian right-wingers its an excuse to justify border changes. Using that same stupid logic, you could discredit the existence of Alexander the Great, Confucius and many other historical claims. That's why its not a universally accepted view, and this is not the article to discuss controversies at length. --E-960 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Filigranski, you are misrepresenting sources, as none of them say outright that White Croats inhabited Przemyśl. In fact, one source seems to back up my earlier statement about using archeology alone: "A problem that links archeological "prehistory" with the historical era of Galician development is that of the Croats or White Croats, who are know to have inhabited the upper Dniester and Buh region sometime between the fifth and tenth centuries AD. Insufficient written documentary evidence and differing view regarding the available archeological and linguistic data have produced and extensive though controversial literature about White Croats and Galicia." So, the source does not say White Croats lived in Przemysl, in effect the source is saying the claims are rather weak and the evidence insufficient, to make a positive statement.--E-960 (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of the book sources you cited say outright that White Croats inhabited Przemyśl, and the encyclopediaofukraine.com can be considered a bias source, as it makes the claim, which other academic sources say is problematic as it carries insufficient evidence. This article is not a place to discuss controversies just basic general facts. --E-960 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misrepresenting anything, you're lying that none of them outright say White Croats inhabited Przemyśl, other academic sources say both Lendians and White Croats location is problematic as doesn't carry sufficient evidence, as for bias in sources, seems you never read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and WP:BIASED. Hence your argument is invalid and you're disruptively WP:BADFAITHNEG. We are not discussing controversies in the artcle, but stating general facts - that the place was inhabited by Lendians or White Croats. That's what literature says, like it or not.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you see, saying White Croats lived in Przemyśl is different (and not the same) as what one of the sources says for example: The controversy centers on several problems: (1) the origins of the group... (2) the territorial extent of their rule... (3) the migration southward... (4) their relationship to Moravia, wheather or not they were annexed in the 9th century by the Gerter Moravian state, which then established centers like Przemyśl. The source acknowledges the controversy, however it does not endorse and does not repeat the view that White Croats lived in Przemyśl. So, again what you are doing is WP:SYNTHESIS, please understand the difference. --E-960 (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally missing the meaning, context and what's said in other sources of the same historian. You are throwing around SYNTH claim without understanding what you're reviewing and synthesis mean. You need to understand that you don't understand anything, are disrupting editing and discussion with nonsense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls take note, quote: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Also, the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine can be considered as bias and holding a disputed, controversial view (acknowledged and addressed as such, by other sources), so this general article is not the place for highly controversial view, which other sources deem as such (and they themselves do not make the claim), just some basic universal facts, that can be discussed in detail on the White Croats article. --E-960 (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you are trying to add is disputed claim, not a fact (that's the difference). --E-960 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You dare to say "none of them says outright that White Croats inhabited Przemyśl"? The first source you cited directly implies it was inhabited by the White Croats, which context went all over your head. Am citing others as well as evidence:
By the ninth century, there were estimated 400 horody ... Among the more important... Przemyśl, for the White Croats
In the northeast, the Greater Moravian sphere reached as far as Cracow and near Przemyśl along the San River; that is, lands inhabited by remnants of the White Croats on the northern slopes of the Carpathians ... The Rus' principality of Galicia north of the Carpathians included the old White Croat settlement of Przemyśl on the San River...
He attacked his brother-in-law's dominion and seized Silesia, Cracow, and White Croat territory on the Bug (Buh) and San (Sian) rivers, territories that included the Cherven cities and Przemyśl.
Excavations conducted in 1958–60 on Zamkova Hill support the hypothesis that as early as the 9th century Peremyshl was a capital of White Croatians and Slavonic-rite bishops (see Peremyshl eparchy): the uncovered foundations of a round chapel and a palace were built of cut stone according to the Galician-Volhynian practice, not of brick (according to the Cracow practice)
Everyone can remove the mention of Lendians because that's a disputed and controversial claim as well as not a fact. Doesn't seem both of us have the same understanding of what's a historical fact. Sorry, but we must follow WP:NPOV and sub-sections dealing with viewpoints. This is a significant viewpoint which can be found even in English language works published by top Universities including Harvard. Trying to find anything possible to discredit reliable sources and remove their viewpoint simply because they aren't according to you pro-Polish is unconstructive and disruptive. This amount of original research and personal points of view, anti-Ukrainian sentiment seeing and referring to Ukrainian scientists and academics as mere unscientific nationalists, with right-wingers association fallacy is frightening and unbearable to read and participate in the discussion, especially considering the atrocities and same Russian propaganda the Ukrainian people are facing at the moment. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for your BRD call, what you're doing is exactly WP:BRD-NOT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Miki Filigranski, these appear to be statements from translated Ukrainian sources, which as I noted before are biased and the claims put forth disputed. That's why the English language sources you cited earlier acknowledged the controversy, but did not support and did not repeat those claims. Even now, one of the statements says hypothesis. Hypothesis is not the same as a fact and this is not an article to discuss theories, you can do that on the White Croats article. --E-960 (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on a side-note, I can't help but notice how disputed in academia some of the statements you just listed are "excavations conducted in 1958–60 on Zamkova Hill support the hypothesis that as early as the 9th century Peremyshl was a capital of White Croatians". Those excavations were done by a Polish team (in 1958–60), who did not say those were White Croat structures (because no written text was found to support that claim), and the round chapel and palace, were built probably in the 11th century (in the feudal period, which followed the tribal era) in the same style as other palatial complexes found across Poland during the Piast dynasty, in places such as Kraków, Legnica, Gniezno and which are based on the German palatium complex design (no such structure are found further east then Przemyśl, or on Rus' lands. Thus, Polish scholars attributed the structure to Bolesław I the Brave, [1] and this was based on evidence form other parts of Poland, where such structures appear, and when they started to appear. Yet, the Ukrainian claim disregards these FACTS and says that this must have been a tribal capital of White Croats, even though Nestor the Chronicler in his Prime Chronicle confirm that Lendians/Lyakhs (Polish tribe) lived in Przemyśl. That's the difference between fact and hypothesis, you are trying to add disputed theories to this article, and this is not the place for it, you can do that at length on the Whit Croats article and discuss the controversy there. The only facts are that Nestor the Chronicler said Przemyśl was inhabited by Lyakhs (not White Croats) and the archeological structures of similar kind are found in other parts of Piast Poland, not Kievien Rus'. --E-960 (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can also, find a lot of sources in Polish (but I stick to English language publications first), which are highly critical of the methods used by Ukrainian academics and basically level charges against them form inventing various claims and disregarding written historical accounts, which don't fit their narrative, and yes, this in order to bolster Ukrainian claims to Polish land. So, I find you statement: "considering the atrocities and same Russian propaganda the Ukrainian people are facing at the moment" distasteful given that Ukrainian right-wing nationalists make similar propaganda claims against Poland and Polish territories (as Russia does against Ukraine) and whitewash the atrocities of Volynia Massacres against Poles done by UPA." I say this because this is a legitimate issue in Poland, which is discussed in public and academia, and I've read articles which cited Polish academics raise concern that Ukrainian claims are not based on facts, but highly speculative opinions, which in turn are based on questionable interpretations of archeological findings alone, while disregarding written historical accounts. --E-960 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In short, this general high level summary city article and it is not the place to discuss highly speculative and disputed academic hypothesis, the White Croats article is the place for that (noticed you are not doing that there). --E-960 (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Przemysław Wiszewski. Domus Bolezlai: Values and Social Identity in Dynastic Traditions of Medieval Poland (c. 966–1138). BRILL. 2010. p. 445.

Etymology

[edit]

I'm assuming a link between Přemyslid dynasty and this city, but unclear which way round. Looking at cs:Přemysl Oráč and wikt:mysl there's probably some link with the mind. Could do with someone with deeper knowledge on the subject to clarify this. Skuld (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Przemyśl&oldid=1212192570"