Talk:Cherven Cities

Voitovych - Polish historians
"According to Voitovych, Polish historians will point to the fact that the region changed hand in 1018, 1031, 1069 and 1085. So Voitovych's view is only his OPINION not fact", on what page Voitovych says that about Polish historians?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't verify it, proof.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Tags
Nestor reports in his chronicle that: "Volodymyr marched upon the Lyakhs (Poles[original research?]) and took their cities: Peremyshl (Przemyśl), Cherven (Czermno), and other towns".[9][10][failed verification]

[9] The later Halych-Volhynian Chronicle, when describing King Danylo's expedition to Kalisz in 1227, remarks that "no other prince had entered so far into Poland, apart from Volodymyr the Great, who had christened that land".

[10] Pucek, Zdzisław (1992-10-03). "Book review. K. Kowalski, B. Rzebik-Kowalska, 1991: Mammals of Algeria. Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków, Ossolineum-Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich - Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. 370 pp". Acta Theriologica. 37: 140. doi:10.4098/at.arch.92-14. ISSN 0001-7051.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

However, the region would change hands several more time in 1018, 1031, 1069 and 1085, with Poland and Rus' remaining in a locked struggle over it.[improper synthesis?][citation needed] - is referring & contradicting previous sentence with Voitovych's opinion and as such needs a source to connect them otherwise it is synthesis.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

''The gord of Sutiejsk was most likely founded in 1034 - 1039 by Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise, who built the fortified settlement to guard the border with Poland.[citation needed] Around the year 1069, the region again returned to Poland, after Bolesław II the Generous retook the area and the gord of Przemyśl making it his temporary residence. Then in 1085, the region became a principality under the lordship of Rus'.''[citation needed]--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Miki Filigranski, historically (except in contemporary Ukraine) Lyakhs, is generally understood as a reference to Poles. Note: Several European nations source their ethnonym for Poles, and hence Poland, from the name of Lendians: Lithuanians (lenkai, Lenkija) and Hungarians (Lengyelország) . And on a side note my opinion, I think that's why there is an argument contracy to Nestor's account to say that Cherven cities were White Croats. --E-960 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't, this is a separate tribal designation and Poles stemmed from a different tribe (Polans (western)). Lyakhs only later became a reference to medieval and modern Poles. That's not only why there's such an argument.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, the Nestor's account in the Chroncile states: "Vladimir marched up the Lyachs and took their cities: Peremyshl, Cherven and other towns, all of which are subject to Rus even to this day. --E-960 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok... and? You didn't fix a single tag.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of Polish-Ukrainian dispute
why did you remove references and information of the Polish-Ukrainian dispute? You are again removing reliably sourced information. Please stop making disruptive edits. There's nothing valid in your substantiation ("nice neutral lead paragraph, that does not reference controversies at the very start)". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to start the article with a caveat that there is a dispute. I changed the first paragraph to a neutral statement which everyone can agree on factually, and which is backed by a reliable reference source, which simply says when the Cherven Cites were first mentioned and that they are an important part of the history of the Polish-Ruthenian borderlands. Short to the point, and does not start the article with a negative controversy statement. --E-960 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so, instead of starting now there's no mention of it at all in the whole article? Any thought of changing the order of sentences, moving the statement to other part of the article, having a note section (WP:HANDLE)? Great logic. It was on the article for almost 2 years. It is a very well known scholarship dispute in scientific literature which would go well with the first sentence of the first paragraph. There's no "negative controversy", it is short to the point of removing any mention of the White Croats and pushing only Polish POV. Very credible and in good faith.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Miki Filigranski, I'm not sure you are reading the sources, one of them Galicia: A Historical Survey and Bibliographic Guide states that in 981 "Volodymyr went to the Liakhs and took Przemyśl, Cherven, and other cites." The same source also mentions separately that in 993 "Volodymyr attacked the Croats who allegedly inhabited Galicia at the time (so the source talks about 2 separate expeditions of Volodymyr). So, here the English language source does not say anything a about a dispute (unless I missed something) and clearly mentions Liakhs and Croats in two separate instances. --E-960 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Uhm, I'm looking at the other two sources and they don't say anything about a Polish-Ukrainian academic dispute (again unless I missed something), it actually says that there was a dispute with the "Soviet Specialist V. Koroliuk". So, this 2 year old statement has no basis in the sources cited. --E-960 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't...--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)