Talk:Chersonesus

Name of the article (vote on move in the next chapter)

Some aggressive nationalist has moved Chersonesos to its current Ukrainian (I suppose) spelling, unknown in English: Khersones. Is this an aid to the Wikipedia reader? Truly offensive. --Wetman 23:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Сполучені Штати Америки is the page for United States of America in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. If I went in there and changed it to United States of America, I would be recognized as a vandal— and an aggressive horse's ass. Chersonesos may not be a household word among players of Grand Theft Auto, but it is the name of long standing that identifies these Greco-Scythian archaeological sites, a title recognizable to every educated person. It happens to be Greek. These are the conventions of English. Why do we have to have every toxic little nationalism inflicted on us? --Wetman 23:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I understand, there used to be a page here and a separate page at Chersonesos. Charles Matthews merged the two at this title. platypeanArchcow 01:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As per above discussion I fully agree that the article should exist under the name Chersonesus. Britannica also uses this name. The page cannot be moved because there is a history in both articles. I intend to submit a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves but before I would be interested to hear whether there are possible reasons against the move. Thanks1 -Irpen July 1, 2005 00:07 (UTC)

• The whole article is using the name Chersonesos, the other name appears only in the title. I think a move should be done. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
• I agree completely. The article should be moved to "Chersonesos". --Valentinian 1 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)
• At worst, make a reference on the Khersones page and explain why the actual entry exists under Chersonesos. Although I would more likely search Khersones rather than Chersonesos. -- mno July 6, 2005 22:14 (UTC)

This can be easily handled. Khersones and Hersones would redirect to Chersonesos (to answer your mole likely search consern) and Khersones would be mentioned in the beginning of the Chersonesos articles as an UA/RU name. OK, no one seem to really mind. I will post a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves soon. -Irpen July 6, 2005 22:24 (UTC)

(I'm abashed to read how vituperative I was above: but this is not just one isolated incident, nor just one slightly flawed move. I've seen so much of this manner of cultural bullying that I'm quite cross and raw-spirited on the subject. --Wetman 6 July 2005 22:42 (UTC))

Take it easy :). The vote below will be smooth, I am sure. --Irpen July 7, 2005 00:37 (UTC)

Move/Rename to Chersonesos

It is hereby proposed to move Khersones to Chersonesos to reverse current redirect. Historic name, most frequent ref, the article name in Britannica, more reasons above. The article is already written as if named Chersonesos. Please vote below. -Irpen July 7, 2005 00:37 (UTC)

• Support --Irpen July 7, 2005 00:37 (UTC)
• Support -- mno July 7, 2005 00:45 (UTC)
• Support --Ghirlandajo 7 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• Support —Michael Z. 2005-07-7 21:51 Z

It's done. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Greek for 'Crimea'?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Cherosonesos is applied to the whole of the Crimea Peninsula.

And as I recall, doesn't Euripides' Iphigeneia in Tauris take place here? --FourthAve 08:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This article could be enriched, and further differentiated from that on the Crimea by adding mention of the literary traditions associated with it (as above), and also from Herodotus, who refers to the Kerch Strait as the Cimmerian Bosphorus and the Sea of Azov as Lake Maeetis, fed by the Tanaïs (Don) River. --FourthAve 22:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You're all wrong!!!

Sorry I didn't post this last month, but I had no idea it was going on until now. You're all wrong! The traditional English is Chersonese. Just as Peloponnese doesn't belong at Peloponnesos or Peloponnesus, neither does this article belong at any of the alternative names. I don't know about Google testing, but applying the definitive Byron Test proves it beyond a doubt:

The tyrant of the Khersonesos Chersonesus Hersonesos Chersonese

Was freedom's best and bravest friend

That tyrant was Miltiades!

Oh! that the present hour would lend

Another despot of the kind!

Such chains as his were sure to bind

See? --Jpbrenna 07:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Your right. Make the move.

• If someone is going to move this, do it the right way (by using the Wikipedia "Move" function), not by creating a duplicate article with a different title!! And while you are at it, fix all the different spellings contained in the text of the article, please. --Russ Blau (talk) 15:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused

It is quite difficult understanding if the article's title refers to the city or the region. If it's the region, as I think, the article should be renamed Tauric Chersonese. If instead it means the town, the article should be renamed Cherson. I'm willing to do it, but first I wanted to hear your opinions Aldux 11:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll rename the article Tauric Chersonese in a day or two. Aldux 11:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Needs information about the bell

I came here because I saw the image of the day -- the photo of the bell -- and I was curious about the bell. It seems odd to have nothing in the text of the article that relates to or discusses the picture that's featured most prominently. Can someone add something about it? JamesMLane t c 14:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I have published an article with some photos of mine about the bell a long time ago :) ISasha (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Again on the article title

Once the disambiguating Taurica was added, the Latin Chersonesus seems to make more sense. I looked through the discussions above and did not find strong sentiment on the -os/-us issue, so I was bold and made the move. If this doesn't work for someone, perhaps we should consider the fully English Tauric Chersonese (in fact no objection from here if someone wants to move there).

Google Books

Tauric Chersonese = 6640x (= Taurica, not the subject of this article, according to this article)

Chersonesus Taurica = 3530x (moved to this title)

Tauric Chersonesus = 2540x (= Taurica)

Taurica Chersonesus = 1750x

Chersonesos Taurica = 437x (moved from this title: so you see why a move was necessary)

Tauric Chersonesos = 375x

Chersonesos Taurike = 191x

Chersonesos Taurika = 41x

Chersonesus in Taurica = 11x

(Feel free to add to the list above if this discussion continues.) Wareh (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I was careless in not even noticing that our article states clearly, "It should not be confused with the Tauric Chersonese..." So I retract my statement of no objection to that name. Moreover, I would like to confess to some doubt now. If I had infinite time, I would go and verify whether "Chersonesus Taurica" in English usage refers to the city or to the larger region. If the latter, this article should probably be called Chersonesus with a parenthetical disambiguator. I take some slender & momentary comfort from:

• the fact that B. de Koehne's work published in St. Petersburg with the title Issledovaniya ob istorii i drevnostyakh goroda Khersonesa Tavricheskogo has been Englished as "city of Chersonesus Taurica" in both Minns, Scythians and Greeks (CUP 1913), and in North Pontic archaeology: recent discoveries and studies (2001).
• p. 389 of this book says "the early 4th c. BC, the period when - as most scholars believe - the city ofChersonesus Taurica was established."

All I can say for absolute sure is that the present title, Chersonesus Taurica, was an improvement over the ungainly Greek-Latin hybrid Chersonesos Taurica. If someone were to come along and prove that the present title is infelicitous and not the best English scholarly usage for the city, I wouldn't be surprised. Wareh (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was bold and, noticing clear evidence of "Chersonesus Taurica" in reference to the region, moved to a version of Chersonesus. I'm pretty sure this is the WP:COMMONNAME & that the "Taurica" that someone added at some point in the article history was needlessly confusing. Wareh (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge into this page

Saw someone else had proposed merging Chersonesos Taurica into this page, there's a little bit of thread on another user's talk page User_talk:NTox#Chersonesus_Taurica. I'm holding off doing anything to the other page until seeing the consensus on whether to merge or not. Beth Holmes 1 (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to just make Chersonesos Tuarica into a redirect, but let me explain first in the hope that what to do will appear as straightforward to you as it does to me. The tourist attraction is already a part of this page, which has existed for more than seven years, namely the section Chersonesus_Taurica#Archaeological_site, so there is no need to break off that aspect into a new article. Simply add any important information from the Ukrainian page (which is already listed in the sidebar as the Ukrainian version of this article!) to the appropriate section. Chersonesos Tuarica, as a brand-new article (with a misspelled title) simply shouldn't stick around, but its content certainly can if it adds to what we already have. So, I say "yes" to the merge, as a no-brainer. I'm not sure what NTox's relation to the subject is, but that user may simply not have noted that we already have a unified article on ancient city and modern archeological site? Wareh (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that all makes sense. I've merged them now.Beth Holmes 1 (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the new content you've contributed to this article! Wareh (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move to Chersonesos

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Chersonesus. Number 57 16:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Chersonesus (Crimea) → Chersonesos – Clearly the most notable place of this name. Existing page at Chersonesos should be moved to become a disambiguation page. – Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Kudzu1 (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Object to speedy this should be a regular discussion, its the type of move that WPRM was created for. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – it does not even appear to be the right spelling for the one in Crimea; not to mention recentism; or that "most notable" is not a concept in WP. Leave the disambiguation page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Most notable" isn't a concept? I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies in this case. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd support moving the page to Chersonesus and Chersonesus to Chersonesus (disambiguation). The Crimean site is the most notable by far. Chersonesos (Sicily) is barely remembered, with no pages linking to it, apart from the disambiguation page. The article about the Cretan town is called Hersonissos, the "Chersonesus" form is out of use. Kherson was never known as Chersonesus at all. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I support Ghirla on this one. Kudzu1, can you explain why you would want to use the different Greek transliteration of the name? To continue using the Latin name seems to make more sense: Google Books shows twice the amount of results for "Chersonesus Crimea" over "Chersonesos Crimea". --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with Chersonesus, if that's what the community prefers. I listed Chersonesos in the move request because that's what the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos in Sevastopol calls it -- but if it's outweighed by other English-language sources, it's outweighed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support treating as primary meaning of whatever spelling is adopted, but there could be a legitimate debate about the exact spelling. PatGallacher (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Ghirla's proposal (Chersonesus), but the margins seem closer than you think: the actual number of GBook hits for Chersonesus is 279, while for Chersonesos is 239. Jeez, when I click those links and re-count, it's 353:315. Anyway, the ratio seems to be about 5:4, and the site is primary topic for "Chersones*s". No such user (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chersonesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728220748/http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/180556.html to http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/180556.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120713210533/http://restgeo.com/Item/1259/Sleduet-posetitj-Hersones-Tavr%D1%96jsjkij.aspx?cid=43&lang=eng to http://restgeo.com/Item/1259/Sleduet-posetitj-Hersones-Tavr%D1%96jsjkij.aspx?cid=43&lang=eng
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120820022935/http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what_we_do/sites_on_the_verge/ to http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what_we_do/sites_on_the_verge/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Russia map discussion

A Russia map was added whenever, then removed, then reinstated without discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chersonesus&diff=1093107376&oldid=1093066961). What's the policy on illegaly annexed territories? JidGom (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Alledged destruction by russian authorities

Please note, the theatre that was allegedly built over the archaeological site by Russian authorities, was in fact built on a former military compound south of the archaeological site. Thus, it appears that the claim that the site was erased and built over is incorrect or is greatly exaggerated. --Diamonddavej (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Which is not really surprising when media write about smth sensational they can not factcheck. Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It is true that the main part of Chersonesus is fine, but the protected zone was damaged nevertheless. "An illegal new building in the southern suburbs of antique Chersonese has completely destroyed a cemetery dating back to the Roman Empire" per the Mission of the President. It is located in the buffer zone right on the border with the main site, see the map of the World Heritage Site. So the claim is not entirely false, only exaggerated. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 15:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Today, we got this article, which is clearly a reliable source. It does not confirm the claim of Ukrainian media about the "total destruction" but says indeed that some damage has been made to the site. Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The article confirms the President's Mission's claim as well: "Комплекс возводят в так называемом Южном пригороде заповедника, где находились остатки некрополя с культовыми и мемориальными сооружениями. Эти территории относятся к буферной зоне ЮНЕСКО, где строительство возможно только с разрешения всемирной организации." So it does seem that the media exaggerated the claim despite the government never saying anything about total destruction. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 08:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)