Talk:Lviv/Archive 2

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)

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)

Major controversial changes
There are many very major & controversial changes made by user B. to the article such as[]. 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)

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)

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

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 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 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)

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)


 * The ownership of the city presented before is inaccurate. It's not an overestimation that it was Polish for most of it's history. It was established and remained in the "Kingdom of Rus" for 93 years, no remains of the city from this period left, then was ruled by Lithuanian/Hungary for 34 years and became Polish. Was Polish for 406 years and eventually taken over by Austrian. It's worth mentioning that during Austrian rule (146 years) it was given Galicia autonomy as a result of Austrian-Polish treaty and was de facto ruled by Polish authorities with Polish as the official language (51 years). To sum up, we have 457 years of Polish history, 95 Austrian, 93 Rus, 47 USSR, 34 Lithuanian/Hungarian and 22 in independent Ukraine + 6 years of WWII (based on dates from the official city's website). You can't say that the city as we know it was shaped by Austrians during these 95 years, even during the Austrian rule it was inhabited mostly by Poles.

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)

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:

--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)
 * This is English language Wikipedia. English is a language in its own right.  It is not a transliterated variant of Galician.  Lvov is a normal English spelling of the name of the city.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

&#1051;&#1100;&#1074;&#1086;&#1074;
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)

Keep in mind that Russian was never declared the official language of the USSR, and still is not the official langiuage of Russia. They never declared this because they had no reason to do this. Ukrainian actually was declared the official languae of the Ukrainian SSR, probably because it needed such protection. The Ukrainian SSR also existed before the formation of the USSR, not for long, but it did exist as a seperate entity. The USSR was considered a federation something like the European Union today, and as a result Ukrainian and Belorus were seperate entities in the United nations.Bandurist (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

BS detected
"Poles and Jews comprising a demographic majority of the city proper leading up to the outbreak of World War II, the Holocaust, and the population transfers of Poles that followed."

Do I read this correct: the WWII etc. began because of Jews ans Poles being majority in the humble Lviv? Please reword immediately whoever done this mess.93.72.233.80 (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The colours used on the weather box
Over the past two months, two editors have been changing the colours on the weather boxes for Ukrainian cities.
 * Ssbbplayer (talk) (contributions) says that "standard temperature colour is better for the colder temperatures than pastel." He/she also seems to prefer the precipitation line to be green.
 * Subtropical-man (talk) (contributions) says "erase additional and not standard range of colors". He/she has been removing pastel temperature colours and changing the precipitation colour from green to standard.

I think there should be a discussion. Below, are what the four choice look like.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Pastel temperature colours, green precipitation
User Ssbbplayer mass introduces an additional option of "|precipitation colour= green". This is only additional parameter, not compatible with the standard on Wikipedia (as standard, weatherbox shows rain as a blue). Pastels colours is totally unacceptable, weatherbox looks like a colorful Christmas tree or colorful puzzle or coloring book. These colors are good for reflective vests, not for encyclopedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The last two options with the pastel colours should not be used as the colours are everywhere, making it confusing to read (first it is purple, then gray, then orange, then red). Pastel colours are better for warmer places or high altitute areas, not for continental climates, where temperature changes are not that dramatic and the colours would indicate that it is warm (for lowland areas) or cool and moist (for highland areas). In addition, pastel colours can only go down to -30 C and below that, they all look the same. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Green is used to prevent blending of the blue colours found for record lows, humidity, # of precipitation, and rainy days see example 1 using standard colouring. Blue colouring can give a false impression of a place that is wet and cold, even though it might not be, especially for non-arid places example 2 Blue colouring is better for places that are cold such as Iqaluit, Ushuaia, and Yellowknife (as green makes them look like their climate is dry) or places that are very dry like Lima. The only time it looks like a Christmas tree is if I use pastel on a city with a continental climate like this one. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When the standard colours are used for both temperature and precipitation, they look much the same. I can see the merit in either using pastels for temperature and standard blue for precipitation, or using standard colours for temperature and green for precipitation.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundant details in the article
This is one sad example:

"Lviv used to have a "rail bus". This was a motor-rail car that ran from the largest district of Lviv to one of the largest industrial zones going through the central railway station. It made 7 trips a day and was meant to provide a faster and more comfortable connection between the remote urban districts. The price (as of February 2010) of a one-way single ride in the rail bus was 1.50 UAH. On 15 June 2010 the route was cancelled as unprofitable."

I'm sure that Lviv had A LOT of interesting stories and experiences throughout its long history. But 99% of those stories don't belong to the MAIN city page. By the way, some Transportation in Lviv article is long due to appear;). Shanuymosia, Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a bit puzzled why you think this redundant information on an article on Lvov.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Too bad). Ukrained2012 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2013 (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 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)


 * @Italiano Italiano - you're being ridiculous and ignorant. Krakow and Lublin were never a part of Ukraine and there were no Ukrainian influence in these cities. Yes, of course Lwow was established by King Leo but it was Ruthenian for about 100 years, then it was under Poles for few centuries, which means it was build up by Poles. For example Lviv Theatre of Opera and Ballet was designed by Polish architect Zygmunt Gorgolewski, not to mention many other monuments and churches. Lwow University was established by Polish king John II Casimir and was a Polish university for centuries with famous scholars, researches and writers. It was a home to Lwów School of Mathematics, one of the most important Polish library - Ossolineum, and writers like Zbigniew Herbert, Leopold Staff, Stanislaw Lem, Maria Konopnicka, Gabriela Zapolska etc whose reading is compulsory at Polish schools. Many of them are buried in Lwow, many of cultural heritage was left (including majority of Ossolineum collection and other pieces of art by Malczewski etc.). It was not only a Polish cultural center but a major Polish cultural center. It's all gone now but don't deny the truth. Tell me now what's the Ukrainian component in Krakow Mr. Ignorant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.78 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The name of this article is LVIV. That is the name to be preserved throughout
This is a Ukrainian city and its Ukrainian name is the title of the article. Its Ukrainian name should be preserved throughout the article. --Taivo (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * i agree, [edit] just saw the history, that's just blatant disruptive editing / polish POV pushing--Львівське (говорити) 02:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that this was English-language Wikipedia, and that the article should use the English-language name for the city. In cases where the city name has changed substantially, it makes sense to use contemporary names in historical sections (for example: Alexandrovsk is now called Zaporozhye).  However Lvov has not substantially changed its name.  So it is unhelpful to use different spellings in different parts of the article.  If someone wants to make the case that the English-language spelling is not the one currently preferred by Wikipedia, they should propose a change on the talk page. I would support them if they proposed "Lvov" but not "Lwow". The Polish-language spelling is unhelpful to the majority of English-speakers because they mispronounce it, not realising that the "W"s are pronounced "V".--Toddy1 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the best solution to this problem would be dividing the article in accord with the having possessed countries (e.g. when it was Austrian then Lemberg) - compare Danzig. I agree with Toddy to some extent - naming the article "Lvov" would be a compromise solution and probably the best since everthing is better then a weird name which appeared approx. 20 years ago. Maybe the voting in this case is necessary. 85.202.44.245 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing names in the middle of the article, especially in this case where the name would change three or four times, is simply too confusing for readers. We have to look at this article from the perspective of our readers and not our sometimes narrow editorial focus based on some sort of mythical precision.  Our readers see "Lviv" at the top and expect to see "Lviv" in the fifth paragraph as well.  --Taivo (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Renaming the article 'Lvov' when it is not common use at all would be perceived as a Russification/POV push at worst. I understand using Lwow for something like Lwow Voivodship, but it should be lviv elsewhere. The assertion that "lviv is a weird name which appeared approx 20 years ago" is absurd, as even a simple google books search for books from the 20th century will yield tons of results for 'Lviv'--Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Search on Google scholar, English language only.
 * Lwow 8,670 results
 * Lviv 36,300 results
 * Lvov 38,000 results
 * Clearly Lvov and Lviv are both in common use in the English language.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also account that Lvov is a surname, and also at least one important historical figure (Georgy Lvov). If you do just a basic google search, it's 6 million (lvov) vs. 12 million (lviv). A wide discrepancy. --Львівське (говорити) 19:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to propose a formal renaming, that's fine with me. I'll participate.  But my main point here is that whatever name the article has at the top, that should be the name consistently used throughout in order to prevent confusion on the part of our readers.  --Taivo (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should not be renamed. The city's current name is Lviv and that is the title supported by Wikipedia naming conventions. AND modern English language sources. The argument "This is the English Wikipedia!" is one of the most abused in these kinds of talk page discussions, and it's really just an iteration on "anyone who disagrees with me is a vandal". It's spurious and it roughly translates into "the title should be what *I* think is "English"" (rather than what actual sources use). So leave that be.
 * As to the idea that a single naming convention should be used throughout the entire article, I'm sympathetic to it in the abstract. But that's not what the consensus on Wikipedia with regard to naming conventions says, for better or worse. Because there's so many competing "national" interests on these kinds of articles, the consensus has been to try and accommodate as many as possible by using the "historical" name in a particular historical contexts (roughly some mixture of what state the place belonged to and what language the people living there predominantly spoke). So you get tons of articles where the name of the place changes as you read it from top to bottom, some times even without an explanation. Yes, it is annoying, especially from the reader's point of view. But that's the Wikipedia consensus. So if you want to insist on using a single (current) name throughout this article then this is a change you need to propose at WP:NAME and get consensus for it. I will support you in that, as long it applies to all places names, but I can't support changing it on this article alone while the rest of the articles on Wikipedia do it differently. Volunteer Marek 21:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Volunteer Marek, WP:NAME has nothing to do with use of names within the article, but only article titles (unless there is some specific sentence buried within the text that I missed). So your argument about usage within the text is moot.  It's all based on WP:CONSENSUS for each article, always remembering WP:OTHERSTUFF's dictates that just because article X does Y doesn't mean that article Z must as well.  It's all based on consensus at individual articles.  In this article, all references should be "Lviv", IMHO.  --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And folks, let's please not mix discussions in one subheading. If you want to talk about renaming the article, then please start a new section and leave this one to clarify usage of the article's title throughout all paragraphs of the article.  Thank you.  --Taivo (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys, pleas read WP:MODERNPLACENAME and referenced from there Talk:Gdansk/Vote (also known as Danzig consensuns). '' It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different languages to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig (the detailed decisions at Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute; they are older than this page).''. Lviv/Lvov/Lwow/Lemberg does not have its own Common English name (like Moscow (nor Moskva), Prague (not Praha), etc.). There is no doubt that currently the city is politically and culturally dominated by Ukraine/Ukrainian culture. Thus, the name of the article should be Lviv, the name should be used everywhere except the history part. The names in the historical part should follow Gdansk/Dantsig example: for the Austrian part of the history it is Lemberg, for the Polish part of the history it is Lwow for the Soviet part it is either Lviv or Lvov (I vote Lviv for the simplicity) and for the modern history within independent Ukraine it is certainly Lviv. Guys, Dantsig consensus was used for hundreds European articles. There is no reason to make special rules for Lviv. Else please read Talk:Gdansk/Vote: ''Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.'' Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correct link, Alex Bakharev, however, there are two points to make about your long comment: 1) WP:MODERNPLACENAME is a guideline, not a policy, therefore it is overruled by any application of WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy.  (Indeed, even some policies can be overruled by a local consensus.)  2) The ruling at Gdansk is only relevant to Gdansk and is not a Wikipedia-wide policy, WP:OTHERSTUFF therefore applies.  It is entirely within our purview, here at Lviv, to come to our own consensus about the issue.  --Taivo (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The current discussion is the result of a Polish nationalist pushing a Polish POV to use Lwów in the section concerning the history of Lviv under the Polish flag. It was not a general effort to use Lvov when Russia or the Soviet Union was in control or Lemberg when the Austro-Hungarians were in control.  So any discussion of this issue must go well beyond whether or not to use Lwów to make the Poles happy, but using all of these variants.  I can foresee stiff opposition from Ukrainian nationalists to changing the current usage of Lviv throughout.  So, in the end, there will be two very vocal nationalist camps:  1) the Poles who want to change the status quo and 2) the Ukrainians who don't.  (In my experience, the Russians and Austro/Germans really don't get their nationalist hackles up on Ukrainian issues.)  The rest of us non-nationalists will be arrayed, possibly in equal numbers, between these two camps.  The status quo (using Lviv throughout) has been stable for a very long time and there are times when the status quo may not precisely reflect usage on other pages, but it doesn't matter.  Stability is, itself, a virtue when it doesn't impede reader comprehension and, instead, enhances it.  --Taivo (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So, what's the decision Taivo? Please do not be stubborn and listen to what others (like Alex Bakharev) think about it. 85.202.44.245 (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now, there is no consensus to use different names in different paragraphs of this article. So without a new consensus, the status quo remains--Lviv throughout.  If the discussion continues and a new consensus emerges, then the article will reflect Lviv everywhere except in the history section, Lemberg when Lviv was under Austrian control, Lwów when Lviv was under Polish control, and Lvov when Lviv was under Russian or Soviet control.  But the status quo stands for now without a new consensus:  Lviv everywhere.  --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion: Lviv throughout. In addition to the issue of consensus and ease for readers unfamiliar with the city, the following facts: Ukrainian was both the official language of the Ukrainian SSR and was also the majority language of the people living in the city during Soviet times (so, Lviv for the Soviet period seems appropriate). I'm more sympathetic to the idea of using Lwow pre-1939.  However, a comparison to Danzig/Gdansk isn't completely appropriate.  Unlike in the case of Gdansk/Danzig, which was 95% German and a little over 3% Polish, pre-Soviet Lviv did have a substantial Ukrainian population of around 18% and was a major Ukrainian cultural center. It was not a nearly totally Polish city, in the sense that Danzig was a nearly totally German one.  Moroever, given that Lviv was founded by an East Slavic king, named after his son, and served as the capital of an East Slavic principality, the 18% minority could be considered the city's old indigenous population.  Thus, referring to the city in the 1920's as "Lviv" is not as unrealistic as referring to 1930s Danzig as Gdansk.Faustian (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well, I don't have a strong opinion on the issue at hand but I do understand where that IP is coming from. S/he is just following the long standing convention that has been established on places that share a Polish and German history. This convention makes sense in some ways, it doesn't make sense in others (as I said, my own personal preference that for 90% of these disputes the current name should be used throughout, but that's not reflective of general consensus).
 * But the situation with Lwow/Lviv and Gdansk/Danzig is actually more similar. I got to quibble with the above statement just for sake of accuracy. So first, just like Lviv being founded by an East Slavic king, Gdansk was founded by a Polish Duke. The 95% German and 3% Polish Danzig applies only to the situation right on the eve of World War II in the Free City of Danzig (even that is based on some sketchy counting - still the broad picture of a very German city is correct). But that's more or less a single point in time. Before the Teutonic takeover of Gdansk in 1308 it was a predominantly Slavic city (one can argue about whether these are properly "Kashubians" or "Poles" or both, but honestly, it doesn't matter). First German merchant community, like, a couple guys, appears at the beginning of 13th century but they then get kicked out by the local prince for supporting Hansa. German merchants come back later in the 13th century, but we're still talking, like, a couple guys. The Germanization process starts in 1308 with the Teutonic takeover but even then it takes quite awhile for it to amount to anything. Part of the reason for this was actually that the Knights saw Gdansk as a competitor to the town of Elblag/Elbling (whose trade they tightly controlled and, unlike with their Danzig, benefited from) so they actually initially tried to reduce Gdansk/Danzig's importance. It probably wasn't until late 15th, early 16th century that one can speculate that more than 50% of the city's inhabitants spoke German. Poland got the city back in 1466, but since neither the king nor the nobility gave a fig about what language someone spoke Germanization probably continued or at least didn't diminish. Of course there's no censuses for this period - the first national census in Poland occured in 1789, after Danzig/Gdansk was already taken by Prussia. But some numbers I've seen give the Polish speaking population of former Royal Prussia at about 2/3 right on the eve of partitions. I think a 1830 century Prussian census put Poles at about 1/3, though that again depends on how you count folks (bilinguals, Kashubians vs Poles etc).
 * The thing is that just like with Lwow/Lviv you had the phenomenon where the rural population spoke one language while the city folk another. So even if overall in former Royal Prussia you had 2/3 Polish speakers, it was undoubtedly much less within Gdansk itself (just like pre 20th century, the countryside around Lviv spoke Ukrainian while most Lvowians spoke Polish). Still the % of Polish speakers wasn't 3% but much closer to the 18% for Lviv.
 * Here is what I think would be a constrained optimal outcome with regard to this place: observe the double naming convention in spirit, but minimize it in practice. What I mean, is use "Lwów" in the part of the history section that deals with Poland, BUT use the name sparingly, just a couple of times. Basically use "Lwów" once at the beginning of the section - perhaps indicating that this was the Polish name of the period - once more towards the end or in the middle, and replace all the other instances of the name with descriptive words like "town", "city" or "place". That way there is an indication of what the name was at the time in the article, while at the same time any kind of propensity for "territory marking" is checked. Volunteer Marek 21:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, WP:OTHERSTUFF is pretty clear--Gdansk/Danzig doesn't matter here. The only thing that matters here is the consensus that we, as editors here at Lviv, come to.  That's all that matters.  While reducing the occurrence of "Lviv" in the Polish and Russian/Soviet sections is fine, when the city is named, it should still be Lviv rather than switching to Lemberg, Lwów, and Lvov.  (I do notice that you have ignored two of the other official names the city has had over time).  If we're going to use Lwów, then we have to use Lemberg and Lvov as well.  --Taivo (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Taivo, you were just arguing above that WP:MODERNPLACENAME doesn't apply here because "it's just a guideline not policy". Well, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not even a guideline, it's just an essay. So one ... "instruction" doesn't apply because "it's just a guideline not policy" and you don't like it, while another "instruction" applies, even though it's not even a guideline, but you like it. You seem to be switching your arguments haphazardly, as fits your purposes. Look, I can play the "throw Wikipedia acronyms at each other all day" game as well as the next guy. But what matters is: are you interested in coming up with a sensible common sense solution or just winning an argument on the internet? Volunteer Marek 15:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Danzig" is or was a fairly well known as an English-language word for describing the place. If you were writing an article in English about the German-Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, it would be natural English to use "Danzig".  The same applies to writing about the so-called Crimean War; it is much clearer to use the well-known 19th Century English-language words for places in Finland, than to use the names that appear on websites selling air tickets and hotel rooms.


 * With respect of Lvov, I am not sure that the name for the city has changed in English at all in the past hundred years. Consensus about how to spell it when writing in English it has changed though.  But whether you spell "Lvov" with two "w"s (like English-speaking people in the 1930s) or with an "i" (like 2010s travel websites), it is still the same name.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you were writing an article in English about the German-Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, it would be natural English to use "Danzig". Yes, I've addressed the interwar period above already. But if you were writing an article in English about 17th century European grain trade, it's quite likely you'd use "Gdansk" (in fact, in my very next tab I happen to have just such an article open, which I was reading for unrelated reasons. For what it's worth the article also uses "Lwow" (without the diacritics) for 1500-1800 as well).
 * With respect of Lvov, I am not sure that the name for the city has changed in English at all in the past hundred years - it has changed. From "Lwow" to "Lviv", with a short period of "Lvov" in between. Funnily enough I was just hanging out with a Russian friend and the city came up, also for unrelated reasons. I said something like "so-and-so was from Lvov". He quickly corrected me "Lvov? Ah. You mean Lviv". Of course it's changed even more for native English speakers. Volunteer Marek 15:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is there so that these discussions don't get into a "At Gdansk they do X", "But at Rivne they do Y" impasse. I have two main points which are just being glossed over without serious consideration (with facts, for example):
 * What about our readers? How do me make this maximally comprehensible to readers that all these different names refer to the same city?  As a midway solution, at Dnipropetrovsk the historical names are italicized when used in the history text and there are frequent reminders that "this is what Dnipropetrovsk used to be called".
 * You can't just focus on Lwów. You've got to include Lemberg and Lvov in the solution as well.  As you can see here, Lemberg is still a living German name for this town so it can't be ignored in the historical section.  --Taivo (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry - Lvov is not comparable to Lemberg or Lwow (or Lviv). Lvov only existed concurrently with "Lviv" (that is, at the time when it was called Lvov it was also named Lviv because Ukrainian was an official language of the Ukrainian SSR).  Furthermore, at the time that Lvov was used, the majority of the city's own inhabitants, being Ukrainian-speakers, used that other official word, "Lviv." In contrast, during the Lwow times most of the inhabitants actually referred to the city as Lwow.  In summary, Lwow was once the only official term for the city, and how the majority of the city's people referred to it; Lvov, in contrast, was simply one of two official names for the city and was never the way the majority of it's inhabitants referred to it.  Therefore, Lwow simply does not equal Lvov.


 * However I will reiterate my belief that it is much less messy, and easier for readers, to simply stick to Lviv throughout. A single sentence at the beginning of each section stating that during X times the city was called "Lemberg" and during "Y" times it was referred to as "Lwow" is appropriate, but switching names will simply lead to unnecessary confusion by readers not very familiar with this topic.Faustian (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree that Lviv should be used throughout, that is my preference. But if a consensus is built the other way, then Lvov must be included because Wikipedia usage isn't based on "official" usage, but on actual usage in English, and Lvov, before Ukrainian independence, was far more common than Lviv and English readers are quite likely to encounter it as Lvov, as, for example, at the Holocaust Museum in Washington.  --Taivo (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Taivo's link for Lemberg is a link to a German-language page. The question is what was the city called in the English-language at different times.


 * Marek - I can see that you have a good point. Please can you form a proposition for a change, saying in which sections you propose which names, and how this would be explained to the casual reader.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: Lemberg. One of the key sources we have for English usage at any given period is what was a given city called on English maps.
 * Lemberg: 1911, 1911, London Geographical Institute, modern, pre-1920, pre-1920, 1932, modern, modern, 1882, 1895
 * This should be sufficient to demonstrate that the use of Lemberg in English was not only common, but standard for Lviv before 1920, as well as for modern maps of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If we decide to implement a Lviv-Lvov-Lwów-Lemberg policy, then Lemberg must be included.  --Taivo (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lemberg" was only used in English for a pretty brief period between 1910 and 1920, which is what your results show. So in that sense "before 1920" is technically correct, but also misleading. It's actually "after 1909 (you can quibble on the exact date) and before 1920". Obviously the use of "Lemberg" mostly had to do with WWI not any general trend or long run level in actual English language publications.
 * I thought my proposal was pretty clear - yes, use the name particular to a specific historical period, but do so sparingly and minimize just the occurrence of the name, any name, (which is what serves as the POV, naming-edit-war magnet) in the relevant portion. This isn't that far off from Faustian's proposal, with the main difference being that if we use the city name in the same section again, do we switch it back or stick with "Lviv". Volunteer Marek 21:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, no, you misread the results. Two of the maps I linked to are from the 1880s and 1890s.  "Lemberg" was used throughout the period of Austro-Hungarian control.  The key is still what was the named used in English and official usage in Lviv or Vienna or Warsaw or Moscow or Kiev doesn't matter at all.  What was the name being found in English sources.  I've shown maps that demonstrate its usage in English from the 19th century, the 20th century, and the 21st century all using "Lemberg" for the city during Austro-Hungarian times (which lasted from the late 18th century until 1920).
 * Faustian's proposal was that the section for the Polish period (before late 18th century and 1920-1939) (for example) starts "Lviv (called Lwów during the Polish period)...." and then uses Lviv in any other reference. --Taivo (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And to show that your comment "'Lemberg' was only used in English for a pretty brief period between 1910 and 1920" is utterly false, here is a map from 1799 that labels Lviv "Leopol or Lemberg", and here is a 1901 map that uses "Lemberg". Both maps are from English publishers and are in English.  --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Was there a period of time (before the Austrian period, during the first Polish period) when in English Lviv was called by the Latin name Leopolis - rather than Lwow - on very old English maps? It seems like it: . Taivo was correct in describing my proposal - although to reiterate again, I prefer how it is now. Different names during different historical periods is needlessly confusing; a brief mention of what the city was called is sufficient.Faustian (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently, it was called Leopol(is) at least as late as the 18th century. The map you have (which doesn't have a date that I could see) says "Lemberg or Leopolis" and the 1799 map I linked to says "Leopol or Lemberg".  I suspect, however, that Leopolis was the Latin name of the town, used primarily in church and political documents in Latin (e.g., here, here) and that the Latin usage carried over into the English maps.  There is also this modern poster which includes Lviv, Lwów, Lemberg, and Leopolis (and notably excludes Lvov).  --Taivo (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So to be truly consistent with respect to English-language usage across the centuries, we've got to refer to it as Leopolis up to 1795, then Lemberg, then Lwow, then Lviv or Lvov, and then Lviv in the historical section. This is really needlessly confusing.  Best to just stick to Lviv, with at most a sentence in the beginning of each section stating how it was called at that time, in my opinion.Faustian (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

<-- Taivo, thanks for the maps, I was not aware of them. Still, I think the broader point stands - the usage of "Lemberg" increased during World War I, and probably during the Austrian control. I was not being precise - when I said "only used" I of course meant "only used extensively".

Regardless, this actually doesn't matter. The naming convention is not "for XYZ century we use the name that English speakers in the XYZ century used" (that would result in some quite outdated names) but rather "for XYZ century we use the name that CURRENT English speakers use when writing about the XYZ century".

Still, as I've indicated above I generally agree with Faustian. Switching names mid article is really annoying to readers and I really wish Wikipedia would just use current name throughout. So I'm not gonna insist on "Lwow" (or anything else here), as long as in the relevant section there is SOME indication of what the historical name was. At the same time, I might as well note that I've just moved the article "Lemberg Land" back to Lwów Land, as that deals with a Polish-specific period. Volunteer Marek 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I will repeat the suggestion to simply minimize the number of times that the explicit name of the city is used in the history sections - to the extent that is possible without making it seem awkward - simply to avoid future conflicts. It's the name which is the edit-war magnet, so if you replace the name by "it", "town", "city", "place", etc as appropriate, you minimize the potential for future conflicts. That's just thinking ahead, but based on past experience. Volunteer Marek 15:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So it sounds like we're in agreement then (at least among the primary participants in this discussion).
 * Reduce the number of times the city is named in the history section
 * Use Lviv throughout when the city must be named
 * In the first sentence, whenever the name changes due to a change in ownership, the form of the name in the ruling power's language (Lviv > Lwów > Lemberg [1795] > Lwów [1919] > Lvov [1939] > Lviv [1991]) is noted in a parenthetical note after "Lviv"
 * Sounds like a consensus to me. Should we also add "Leopolis" (Latin) to the alternate names in the first sentence of the article since we've seen that on a couple of English language maps from the 18th century?  --Taivo (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good.Faustian (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, though I would skip "Leopolis" and when the "ruling power's language name" is mentioned I'd indicate the relevant language. Volunteer Marek 22:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Independent Lviv
Should a section be added about Lviv's declaration of independence on February 19, 2014?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-facing-civil-war-lviv-declares-independence-yanukovich-rule-1437092 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.194.231 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * lets wait for the dust to settle, it's just de fact at the moment and things can change quickly. --Львівське (говорити) 18:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Double standards
Ukrainans believe that in 1939 Stalin "liberated" them (using almost the same rationale - 'if someone asked for it, I can provide and compare to the recent statement of RF concerning intervention in Ukraine'). On behalf of that, they changed the name of this city. When they are "liberating" the Russians in Crimea, there is a ludicrous uproar. 85.202.39.81 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You said in one of your edit summaries that the was to "improved diction (article written by inexperienced non-native speakers)". "Diction" is the choice and use of words and phrases in speech or writing. --Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Lwów ghetto" in place of "Lwów Ghetto". It is what in English is called a "proper noun" - so it should be capitalised.
 * You wrote "bureacrats" in place of "bureaucrats". The correct spelling in the English language is "bureaucrats".  Maybe in Polish it is spelled differently; but this is English Wikipedia.
 * You wrote "The first record belongs to the chronicles mentioning Lwów in 1256". This is awkwardly constructed English. It is much more natural English to write: "The first record of ... in chronicles dates from 1256."

Lvov
huh? what? no, pass. This is a Russian POV push if there ever was one. --Львівське (говорити) 23:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is not the best option. However, it is better than the current name, and I believe that it can end these endless edit wars pushing Polish, Russian and Ukrainian POV. Please assume good faith while discussing this matter. 85.202.46.96 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move - 12 April 2014 - Lvov
Lviv → Lvov – It is becoming more clear that Ukrainian names of cities were maintained only for a particular time. In the recent circumstances, there is no need for the article to have such a temporary name either. 85.202.46.96 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * No - the city's name is Lviv, it's known as Lviv in English and has WP:COMMON use, and its called Lviv in the native language. This seems to be a Russian language POV push because nobody calls it 'Lvov', the use of which is an archaism from Soviet times --Львівське (говорити) 23:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Stating that "it's called Lviv in the native language" is a clear violation of NPOV. If we talked about the 1800s, 1930s, 1950s, what would you call a native language?85.202.46.96 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What year is it today? The native population has always been Ukrainian and Ukrainian speaking, and the city was founded by Ukrainians. What the dominant language of the occupying regime in the 1930s or whatever was is neither here nor there.--Львівське (говорити) 00:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No in the present-day English language, there are five common spellings of the city's name. Lemberg/Lemburg are pronounced the same in English.  Lvov/Lwow are pronounced the same in English.  The contention that the Lviv spelling is/was temporary and is no longer needed is contradicted by the evidence.  It is clearly helpful to Wikipedia readers that the common English language spellings should all be given prominence.  It is also clear from the vast predominance of the Lviv spelling on ordinary web-pages that the most helpful name for the article should be Lviv.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * no we follow the common English spelling which hasnt changed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
 * no and next editor please speedy close per WP:SNOW, not to mention modern English sources, and time wasting, WP:SPA. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Ordinary Google search - English language only:
 * Lemberg - 2,300,000
 * Lwow - 441,000
 * Lvov - 5,340,000
 * Lviv - 16,000,000
 * Lemburg - 141,000

Google books search - books only, written in the English language: Superficially, the most common name in the English language appears to be Lemberg. There appear to be a lot of false positives for Lemberg. There are recently published books calling it Lemberg, but they seem to be talking about Lvov before the First World War, and how the community that lived there was destroyed during the Second World War.
 * Lemberg - 1,120,000 (at least some of these are people's family names - Raymond Lemberg, Paul Lemberg, etc.)
 * Lwow - 701,000
 * Lvov - 381,000
 * Lviv - 154,000
 * Lemburg - 11,200

Google books search - magazines only, written in the English language: Again, some of the Lembergs and Lemburgs are people's family names. --Toddy1 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lemberg - 142
 * Lwow - 101
 * Lvov - 177
 * Lviv - 63
 * Lemburg - 20
 * Don't forget the false positive of each and every book that talks about the Russian Revolution will mention Georgy Lvov.--Львівське (говорити) 00:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you are right - I mentioned the Lemberg/Lemburg family names, because they were prominent on the first pages of the searches.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead
The lead is too long, compare New York.Xx236 (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Universities and academia and Mathematics
Both subsections are mostly about history.Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture
The section has to be rewritten, the main part being a list of festivals, unsourced.Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Soviets also started repressions against local Poles and Ukrainians
Partial true - refugees from Western and Central Poland were also deported, including Jews.Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Waves of deportations started with the Poles followed by the Jews who had refused Soviet passports and then the Ukrainian nationalists." has been removed, maybe unprecise and unsourced but better than the current version.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

" The remaining population, mostly Ukrainian, was subjected to forced Sovietisation..." has been removed
Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC) The removed phrase ''The remaining population, mostly Ukrainian, was subjected to forced Sovietisation. In 1948 the persecution of Ukrainian writers and publications began in a campaign to stamp out western influences. Many local intellectuals and activists were deported to Siberia or killed''. It seems resonable to me, any sources?Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mykhailo HorynXx236 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Lviv City Council (For Future Reference)
Nothing about the Lviv City Council in the article as of when I wrote this.... But "as early as next convocation of Lviv City Council will have 60 members instead of 90". —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  16:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Interbellum period is POV
The Interbellum period section is biased, it ignores any positive information about the city. Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC) It doesn't also describe Ukrainian nationalitic activities, eg. Dmytro Dontsov's.Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a large Ukrainian Nationalist POV here and there is a stubborn resistance to acknowledging the Polish culture of the city, crimes against humanity during and after the war, etc. One contributor here refers to this part of interbellum Poland as "occupied Western Ukraine" in other pages, defends the Bandarists for their Nazi collaboration, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.54.47 (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Gdansk vote
If Gdansk vote applies to Wrocław it should also apply here.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to repeat the Gdansk rule from Wiki NAME:

"Treatment of alternative names There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historical contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Treatment_of_alternative_names

The Polish name for the city is Lwów. (For those ignorant of the Polish language it is pronounced Lvuv when transliterated into English and not Lvov as in Russian.)  During Nazi occupation the name of the city was Lemburg.
 * German name was not 'Lemburg' but 'Lemberg'. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is referred to as "Lemberg" in the main text, so not a problem.17:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)76.116.54.47 (talk)

It appears that we have a Ukrainian Nationalist POV being forced here to avoid recognition of the cities Polish culture, history, and Hapsburg name. The Gdansk policy is objective, but they want to force their subjective POV on everyone. The Gdansk policy is required to avoid the Ukrainian Nationalist POV and maintain objectivity, and give credit to the actual builders of Lwów.

The issue here per Wiki:NAME is whether Lwów and Lemberg are "more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article" in the context of periods of Polish sovereignty, the Hapsburg and Nazi occupation. It has not been disputed that other names are more appropriate. We simply have contempt for Wiki rules here by some little Napoleons attempting to conceal the Polish character of the city. 76.116.54.47 (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, there's no such thing as the Gdansk rule. The solution adopted there does not have to be used here if a reasonable alternative is agreed to on this talk page. As a matter of fact, such an agreement exists as I'm sure you all know. By the way, I'm not Polish, Ukrainian, Russian or German and it's probably worth pointing this out since you appear to view everything through a nationalistic lense. Pichpich (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is a Gdansk rule. The only solution to which is referred, pertains to the main name of the page, not the appropriacy of using the proper name of the city during times of different sovereigns. Regardless of the main name on the page, the Gdansk rule is that we use the name which is most appropriate for different time periods. Let's try to follow the rules here.

Edit to note that entire city is a monument to massive crimes against humanity directed at the prior majority Polish and Polish Jewish populations by Nazis, their Ukrainian nationalist allies, and Soviets. Refusing to use the name appropriate to the period that these groups were the majority of city is offensive to their memory. The Gdansk rule exists for a reason.

76.116.54.47 (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what the paragraph from WP:NAME means. It's definitely not a rule.  It's an option.  As with all other options in Wikipedia, it is subject to a WP:CONSENSUS developed on the article's Talk Page.  In some articles, a consensus may be built to switch names through the article to reflect different names for the city through time.  By WP:NAME, that is not prohibited.  But that does not mean that it is required in all articles.  In this article, no consensus has ever been built to switch names for Lviv through time.  There is no such thing as the "Gdansk rule".  There is a "Gdansk option".  --Taivo (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Will now invoke other Wiki dispute options to address the application of the Gdansk rule and precedent and the refusal of other editors to comply with it when addressing the history of a city that from 1340 to 1944-45 had a majority population of Polish speakers comprised of a plurality of ethnic Poles combined with large numbers of Polish Jews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Lviv

The Ukrainian nationalist POV of the entire page also needs to be addressed, along with the recent deletion of any attempt to address the crimes against humanity during Soviet occupation and annexation, the refusal of the Polish Home Army to recognize the communist government, etc.76.116.54.47 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2014 (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)

It is true that Ukrainians were categorized as Ruthenians in the 1931 Polish census. However, they comprised a subset of that group along with Belarusians, Rusyns, and presumably, Russians. This page interprets that all Ruthenians from the Lwow in 1931 were Ukrainians, but no factual basis exists for that interpretation. It is just how they choose to translate the word from Polish to English, and it is an inaccurate translation. Several scholars have addressed this topic, and they all don't agree on the actual numbers of "Ukrainians" in Lwow and the area in general during the time. Stalin and Soviet propaganda claimed that all Rusyns were Ukrainains, and the languages are the same. Modern Ukrainian nationalists have embraced that concept, and after 75 years many Rusyns lost their cultural identity, but what existed 75 years ago was different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.54.47 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Little remains of Polish culture in Lviv
False - there is a collection of Polish newspapers (former Ossolineum), partially financed by Poland. There is also a collection of Polish art. Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The architecture of the city is Polish, not Ukrainian. They could remove most of the Poles from the city after 600 years, but the architecture remains Polish culture, and Polish heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.54.47 (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It also should be noted that the art and history museums were simply seized from the Second Polish Republic, or contain art taken from private individuals and churches by the communists. Thus, they are repositories of Polish culture evidencing the forced border change. The winged hussars were not "Ukrainian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.54.47 (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I know that Xx236 wrote this some time ago, but if he happens to read this: "Please tell me what you mean with your remark." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.217.36.109 (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature: "Historical affiliations" box
Does anyone else have problems with the nomenclature "Historical affiliations" for the box directly under the "History" subheader? We have a user who wants to introduce a version to the Ternopil article as well, and I've been trying to discuss it on the Ternopil talk page, however it doesn't seem that any editors are active on that article's talk page.

As I've already noted on the Ternopil talk page, "affiliation" implies a positive and voluntary association. Definition: 1. To adopt or accept as a member, subordinate associate, or branch. 2. To associate (oneself) as a subordinate, subsidiary, employee, or member. 3. To assign the origin of. Personally, I find "affiliation" as a descriptor for Lviv's 'relationship' with Nazi Germany misleading (as well as stomach-turning) just for starters. If the box is deemed useful and necessary, I think the nomenclature issue needs to be addressed. The user who wants to introduce it to the Ternopil article argues that it is used for other articles, therefore it's okay.

I'd also be grateful if any interested editors commented on the Ternopil talk page (link to relevant section above) in order that some form of parity consensus be formed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Lviv. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090506162225/http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/media_cm.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005171&MediaId=1581 to http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/media_cm.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005171&MediaId=1581
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120308035832/http://www.holocaust.kiev.ua:80/eng/seminarse/lviv.htm to http://www.holocaust.kiev.ua/eng/seminarse/lviv.htm#vip2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Confirmed as correct. Thanks, . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)