Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Eastern Europe (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Austria (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Poland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Russia / History / Human geography (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.
WikiProject Celts (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Galicia (Eastern Europe) is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central-Eastern Europe[edit]

This is the only proper way the article should be named. The division between Central, or rather Western and Eastern Europe was tradicionally and historically based on the Latin (Roman Catholic Church, baptized by Vatican) vs Greek (East Orthodox Church, baptized by Byznatium) speheres of influence. Likewise, this obviously implicates the differences in culture, language spoken during religious rituals (latin/greek). Finally, the distinction can be made also upon the terms of West Slavic (tradicionally roman-catholic) and East Slavic (east-orthodox) nations, where West Slavs inhabited Galicia and East Slavs inhabitet East Galicia. That's why Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia are always considered as being part of the so called West (not maybe strictly geopgraphically, but culturally) and Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia of the European East.-- (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The only remaining solution is to divide the article into two separate articles: Galicia and East Galicia. Those terms are COMMONLY used among e.g. Polish scholars, to distinguish the differences mentioned above. This seems like a reasonable choice.-- (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Languages on Wikipedia that add geographical region to that term, us it in Central or middle Europe context. --Rejedef (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


I think I got to to object to inclusion of this text [1], at least as it is being presented. The source is pretty clear that this is the point of view of German (in the wide sense)-nationalists at best, and propaganda at worst. It does not portray this information as factual but rather as a reflection of how Austrians justified their administration of conquered territory.

More generally, come on, it's usually the case that a power that conquers another land will justify its occupation by describing the natives as "barbarians" who need to be "civilized". It's how the British justified their empire, how the Americans justified their treatment of Native Americans, how Southern whites justified slavery, and hell, it's probably even how Poles justified their treatment of Ukrainians.

So the passage needs to be rewritten or removed.VolunteerMarek 20:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I used the words claimed and alleged. It's notable that this is how the new Austrian rulers saw things, and understandable given the total power over the peasants that the Polish nobles had - a contrast to the norms in Austria at that time. The Austrians probably weren't totally making things up IMO - noble behavior towards peasants probably was rather brutal and extreme at times - this may explain the desperate savagery of the Galician slaughter. I can fix the wording a little but it doesn't seem to be extremely off-base.Faustian (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, here are my changes: [2].Faustian (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed move[edit]

Without endorsing new or old name, this article was improperly moved. It should be moved back to Galicia (Eastern Europe), and a proper WP:RM should be started for one or more of the new proposed names (presumably, Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe) and Galicia (Central Europe)). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here, I have spent over three hours reverting changes done by this particular Editor and a) I'm not the only Editor working on this and b) I'm not done yet. I believe it was all done in good faith but it created a heck of a lot of work for everyone else to clean up and impacted probably over a hundred articles and categories. Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
As per both Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Liz, my concern is with following Wikipedia protocols (WP:NOR, WP:WIAN, WP:COMMONNAME, etc.). I spent 4 hours undoing this editor's 'contributions' yesterday. If there is a case to be made for other categories, they must go through the correct channels and not be executive decisions on behalf of a single user. This user has also recategorized Jewish historical articles and current Polish and Ukrainian regions according to a unilateral interpretation. I'm extremely irate at having had to dedicate so much of my Wikipedia time to cleaning up and, like Liz, I've not finished following the breadcrumbs either. Whatever our personal positions may be on any given subject, policies and guidelines exist for good reason. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The irony, Iryna Harpy, is that there might be a good argument for making this change (I see that Galacia is listed under Central Europe in the WMF Commons). But individual Editors can not rewrite geographical boundaries that impact this many articles without gaining a consensus to make this change.
When I think of the hours both Iryna and I have spent on this (I'd guess it's at least 8 or 9 at this point), it shows how a well-intentioned but misguided Editor who knows how to edit Wikipedia can inflict a lot more turmoil than a vandal who doesn't know what they are doing.
I'm going a similar debate elsewhere where a single Editor decided that being "Jewish" meant that one was "of Asian descent", no matter what country they came from and lived. Hence, we come up with categories like "Icelandic Jews with Asian descent" (when the individuals are are clearly European) and this situation apparently has existed since the summer. It makes me even more watchful towards categories. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Per the complaint at WP:AN today that this page was moved without discussion, I moved it back and put on two months of move protection. This is without prejudice to any Requested move that might be opened. I also notified two editors of the WP:ARBEE sanctions since (whether intended in a nationalistic spirit or not) such undiscussed moves might be viewed as nationalist warring. Is it more prestigious to be located in central Europe rather than eastern Europe? One of the parties I notified had moved more than a dozen pages on 16 November to refer to central rather than eastern Europe. That person I think doesn't grasp WP:CONSENSUS since their talk page proclaims how technical this should be; she sees herself as just fixing things to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There are quite a few slippery customers lurking around, including the other party you warned, EdJohnston. I left an additional note for the party currently in question as the purported naivety issue can easily be dismissed simply by taking a look at a Teahouse question submitted in January of this year and editor responses: which were polite but clear on the issue of policy, guidelines, consensus and consultation with other editors. Personally, Liz, I could argue myself into a stroke over the terminology. I suspect that, possibly despite myself, I'd have to argue for retaining the current conventions as secondary sources wouldn't be able to establish any conventional use of 'central European' for the areas under dispute. The term Central European is used in Linguistics, but it evolved simply as an academic device to distinguish between non-Romance and non-Germanic languages using Latin rather than Cyrillic scripts. I've seldom encountered the use of 'central European' and certainly no 'central Europe'. We don't use the terms 'South Europe', 'East Europe' (et al) but 'Western' and 'Northern' without an absolute centre having been defined. The policies of no original research and NPOV may be awfully frustrating but they serve a vital function: saving ourselves from ourselves. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. But this was waaaay more than a dozen pages affected. It took two people much of the past 24 hours to undo, revert and fix the hundreds of articles, lists and categories that were affected (and I'm sure there were some we missed). Just look at the 300+ contributions of Martina from November 16 and almost every single one of them had to be addressed. If this hadn't concerned an obscure regional area of the Ukraine, it might have been caught sooner. As it was, I think Iryna just luckily stumbled on to one of the involved pages yesterday (and me, today) and got started repairing the damage. I didn't know this error had made it's way to AN/I but I'm glad it was addressed. However well-intentioned, it was a gigantic mess! Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I thought that Galicia was an isolated incident until I got to one of my low priority watchlist pages which I've been cleaning up and finding correct nomenclature and links for yesterday. As soon as I saw the user's name I checked her special contributions carefully and discovered just how 'special' they were! It wasn't even a job for HotCat (which Liz couldn't deploy until every page had been checked for changes manually). I think that between us we've probably sorted out most of the mess, but I still have to go through every page and any other related pages thoroughly a little later in the day. That's my Wikipedia day gone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

More power to you, Iryna Harpy! I admire your thoroughness. I have had my fill. I wish to no longer see the name, Galacia! Well, at least until tomorrow. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
My anal nature is more a curse than a blessing, Liz. Thanks for all of your hard work! If you ever need a hand with anything, feel free to drop me a line. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Renaming this article[edit]

As it has became clear, we should hold a new discussion (new, because the topic has been subject to several prior discussions - see archive of this talk page) on what should be the name of this article. We have three reasonable choices:

This topic is of course a larger part of the discussion about the bounders of Central Europe, Eastern Europe. Note we also have the articles on Central and Eastern Europe and East-Central Europe. This seems to be the usual variation of people disliking "Eastern Europe" (backwards, primitive, negatively connotated) and preferring the term "Central Europe" (modern, positively connotated). Please note that the current article defines Galicia (in an unreferenced way) as "a historical region in Eastern Europe that currently straddles the border between Poland and Ukraine". Ukraine is defined as a country in Eastern Europe (tough luck redefining that...) and Poland seems secured in Central Europe. (Thus my own personal preference is to rename this article to "Galicia (Central and Eastern_Europe)"). Unless there are any other proposed names, I'd like to start a RM to determine the consensus for which of those names is the best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe) as there is enough evidence of the use of variants on central European in Linguistics, political and other spheres for Poland being referred to as being a Central European country. The category must be proscribed, however, as Galicia per se is defunct, although it remains as a vernacular political ideology. Current Ukrainian regions cannot be incorporated on the basis of a mindset, however real it is. If the situation changes for Ukraine, of course it would need to be reviewed at that future point in time. As creating the category would also impact on articles on Jewish history, I would suggest that editors working on/involved with those areas should be consulted as to how it could be incorporated into their categories. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a move to Galicia (Central Europe), because I think the crucial factor is that eastern Galicia partly lies in Western Ukraine, a culturally distinct region that could more easily be described as Central European than perhaps Central, Southern and Eastern Ukraine. I also think there is another plausible name in Galicia (Carpathia) or a variant thereof, which avoids the whole Eastern/Central argument but then again not all of Galicia lies in the Carpathian Mountains. Whatever the outcome I think serious consideration should be given to recreating Category:Galicia (Central Europe) and whichever becomes the main category, the other should be kept as a category redirect. Green Giant (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll just chime in here and suggest that this should be approached with caution, Green Giant. Despite various classifications of Poland as being an Eastern European country, there is also enough evidence of its being classified as a Central European country to be able to retain such a classification in Wikipedia. While Poland is currently categorized as being Central European, the ramifications of declaring Galicia as the same may attract attention which may blow up into an undesirable ideological backlash. Bear in mind that articles such as Ugartsthal, carry the Galicia category for historical purposes and, consequently, so does the Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast (as do other former Galician territories). Ukraine is unequivocally categorized as being Eastern Europe and being defined as both Central Europe and Eastern Europe for the same article may raise challenges which can only be responded to with emotive arguments: all English secondary sources regard Ukraine as Eastern Europe. Factoring in a potentially conservative decision on the matter, raising a question mark over whether the category for Poland should be tweaked to reflect both Eastern and Central European classifications is not a direction I'd like to hazard. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "central Europe" disappeared during the Cold War, when Galicia was certainly in the east. There is a POV issue as to where the east in a tripartite division, east, central, and west should be. I would suggest that the eastern boundary of USSR would be a good one to identify to split east and central, with France at the beginning of the west. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Cold War is long gone...--Martina Moreau (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The Cold War may be "long gone" (sic) but, considering that the CIS was quickly established after the fall of the Soviet Union, there is merit in Peterkingiron's observation. Dependent on the multitude of sources at our disposal, there appears to be a consistency in having transposed the post-WWII boundaries of the USSR as being the template (bar East Germany and Poland) for current interpretation of east and west in English-language sources. Like it or not, English-language sources are considered the first point of reference as secondary sources for English Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I support that (very specific and to the point, and equivalent of Galicia, Spain), or "central Europe". Others have too little merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martina Moreau (talkcontribs) 00:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Way to go for thinking outside the box, Kpalion! It would certainly circumvent geopolitical disputes while simultaneously carrying cultural continuity as being read. I like to analyse it a little further as there may be some less obvious pitfalls... but it's definitely an option worthy of consideration. Addendum: I've already identified a potential problem in that it may be construed to imply the entirety of two modern, sovereign nation-states as somehow being a single entity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Identifying possible pitfalls for any idea is certainly a good thing, but I believe most Wikipedia readers are aware that Poland and Ukraine are two separate countries today. The existence of historical regions straddling modern national borders shouldn't be particulary surprising either. — Kpalion(talk) 08:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, certainly an interesting idea, through to keep parallel with Galicia, Spain we probably should consider Galicia, Poland and Ukraine? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Piotrus, Galicia, Poland and Ukraine reads too much like a series of three entities. For the sake of consistency, it might be better to move Galicia, Spain to Galicia (Spain). — Kpalion(talk) 13:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Kpalion: that's a good solution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
As you've astutely observed below, Prokonsul Piotrus, if we are to be precise about the straddling of borders, it would have to be defined as Galicia: Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine (or some variant on the structure). BUT ...
I SEE AN INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM WITH THIS OPTION- I knew there was a stirring in my cynical bones regarding the use of current nation-states as qualifiers. If we were a body like the Library of Congress, we could proscribe the use of such a convention. As an entity working within the structure of Wikipedia, we can't proscribe its use and need to recognise that we could be setting a highly undesirable precedent open to interpretation in any area of Wikipedia. For example, there would be no reason to disallow the use of Russian Empire: Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Poland, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan.... (obviously, for the sake of sanity, I'm omitting the vast number of etceteras and specific historical sub-regions which could be popped into a category). Multiply this by various interest groups and geopolitically sensitive areas (oh, let's say the Middle East). Are you getting a sense of the ramifications of the transposition of historical regions onto modern nation-states/modern nation-states being transposed over historical regions? Even if looked at as case by case application for changing or adding new categories, even if they're not snuck in, there is going to be an avalanche of submissions to an infrastructure that is already overburdened. The time and energy required is not justifiable. I've fallen behind with projects in serious need of attention just over this one matter over the last few days. Wikipedia's health must be my foremost concern.
CONCLUSION - Workable: yes. Ethically appropriate for 'project Wikipedia': a 'categorical' no! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Striking comment. Off on a tangent heading in a completely different direction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Iryna, I don't think I really understand your point. Russian Empire and Middle East don't need disambiguating, so why bring them up here? There is little doubt as to where Poland and Ukraine are located today, as opposed to Central Europe and Eastern Europe, of which nobody knows for sure where they are. I still think that Galicia (Poland and Ukraine) is the most neutral and workable option. Galicia (not the one in Spain) or Galicia (Central Europe or Eastern Europe, depending on whom you ask) may be neutral too, but not as workable. — Kpalion(talk) 13:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Gawd, I'm as thick as two planks. My apologies. I'd forgotten that this would be used explicitly as a disambiguation, hence automatically proscribing its use. I'm striking the previous comment. Any thoughts on the Slovakia and other peripheral regions issue (although I can see that keeping it simple - largest areas - is probably justifiable)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I tend to use the UN guidelines on geography and (continental) regions and the UN does not identify "Central Europe", keeping the divisions of Europe to North, South, East and West. I'm sorry that some people perceive a stigma to any geographic location identifier but I think it's important to have a NPOV and not let any nationalistic feelings define regional names, especially those that are based on compass directions, not place names.
So, while I accept that some people might use a "Central Europe" identifier, I don't use it myself. But I understand that I might not represent the majority opinion on Wikipedia or accepted practice (which I follow). The only matter I feel strongly about is that one country should be located in one region with not one part of the Ukraine in Central Europe while another part is considered Eastern European. When this is done, one is making geographic decisions based on similarities of culture, not on accepted boundaries. If this means that there are dissimilar cultures and demographic ethnicities within the borders of one country, well, welcome to modernity. Liz Read! Talk! 16:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Liz, I respect your opinion, but I'd just like to say that I completely disagree with you. It's quite normal to me that countries straddle regions and vice versa. There's an infinite number of ways in which you can divide the world into regions and any of these ways may be useful for a particular purpose. The UN scheme may be useful for the purpose of running the United Nations Organization – or at least it was when that organization was founded at the dawn of the Cold War. Depending on what criteria you accept, Poland may be a Central European country, an Eastern European country, or a Northern European country. It may be all of these at once; they are not mutually exclusive. And historical regions, such as Galicia, are notoriously volatile and fuzzy, and they tend to overlap a lot. — Kpalion(talk) 19:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I realize it is a contentious issue, Kpalion, and well-intentioned people will disagree. From my point of view, people can consider any place any way they want! I'm a native Northern Californian and, growing up there, there was a widespread view that Southern California should be split off from the North because it was like a separate state. And now I live in the woods of New Jersey and I'm aware that NJ, to a lot of people and in popular culture, is a toxic sinkhole. But my small town is beautiful. I understand, in a small way, the desire to separate one's location from ones neighbors and also how the name of a place can have negative connotations. So, if people in Poland or Galacia believe they live in "Central Europe", far be it from me to correct them.
But what we are concerned about here is not an individual's (or even a group's) point of view or even what was believed to be true in the past. This isn't 1713 or 1983, it's 2013 and while it should be noted how our understanding of geography has changed over time, Wikipedia needs to rely on recent reliable sources, not you or me or even an esteemed political historian. On WP, it comes down to a presentation of reliable sources and editors' powers of persuasion to arrive at consensus.
Much of geopolitics is volatile and fuzzy, I agree, because it involves a sense of personal and national identity. But, for better or worse, on WP, decisions have to be made one way or another or there has to be a consensus to decide an issue on a case-by-case basis. Either way, I can guarantee you that not everyone will be pleased with the outcome. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
According to this, the UN Statistical unit doe s NOT consider its classification as relevant worldwide: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martina Moreau (talkcontribs) 14:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Map Galicia central Europe.png[edit]

Map Galicia central Europe.png

I think that this new map could use improved coloring (the light yellow, IMHO, is almost invisible). If you agree, please leave a comment with the author here. PS. Ping User:Gryffindor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Piotr, have you looked at other maps of Galicia recently. I did. In fact, I overlayed the map on the right with three other maps a day-before-yesterday hoping to fix the coloring for you. I gave up, why? Because this is a complete fabrication, unless there's a source not available to me at this time. Krakow is not on this map, but a whole region to the north has been added out of thin air. The uploader of this map provided no source for it. I assumed good faith and concluded, that there's nothing I can do, since the shape of Galicia on all other maps on the web was way too different from this one. Sorry, Poeticbent talk 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Poeticbent. I've searched around and haven't been able to establish any sources, nor does it state which period in the long history of Galicia it purportedly represents. It doesn't seem to correlate with any sourced maps. I'd suggest that it would be better to ditch it as there are maps related to corresponding eras available which can be understood to be documented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The map gives a good idea of where the place lies. Unless there is a better one, keep it. Gryffindor (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The only problem I find with this one is that the previous version/s named the countries (and surrounding countries). For the average English language reader, it probably doesn't provide enough information to identify it in geographical context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
What's worse is that the new map was pulled out of a hat, just like the previous one. Neither of them is acceptable due to serious referencing issues. Read the writing on the wall please. Poeticbent talk 00:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
There have already been quite a few maps deleted from WikiCommons precisely due to lack of sourcing only in the last month. It's a must do. Serious issues aside, wishing you both a Happy Christmas! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No Galicia in Slovakia?[edit]

Looking at the map (above) and remembering my recent (summer 2012) trip to Galicia, in which we also crossed the Slovakian border, I find it really surprising that both the article, and the map, defines Galicia as only in Poland and Ukraine. Why isn't the borderland of Slovakia also seen as Galicia? If there are certain geographical features (Carpathians? Dukla Pass?) that draw a clear border between those regions, it would be great if we could describe it (and reference it). PS. Incidentally, pl wiki has some related artcles, neither of which does discuss this particular topic, but they are worth knowing about as a red links for the future, in particular the Polish-Slovakian border (pl:Granica polsko-słowacka) is to be noted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Piotrus, could you be a but more specific, please? Which parts of Galicia do you think might belong to Slovakia (I can't think of any)? And do you have any sources? — Kpalion(talk) 12:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
@User:Kpalion: No sources, I just find it a bit dubious that based on the cited map the border between Poland and Slovakia seems to flow exactly mirroring the borders of Galicia. It may be correct - but it would be nice to have an explanation why. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
An explanation why it hasn't changed? Why should it have? It's a natural border after all. — Kpalion(talk) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I've searched for possible mentions of Galicia (Halič) as a part of Slovakia (in Slovak sources) but I can't find anything. Halič is described only as a part of Poland and Ukraine. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I think what Piotrus is referring to is "Lemkivshchyna", an area that borders Galicia, was part of Austrian Galicia from 1772 and was split mainly between Poland and Slovakia, after a short lived republic. Perhaps the Wikipedia definition of Galicia needs to be looked at again? I too am curious about whether parts of Galicia might lie in Slovakia. I am also intrigued about the "natural border" that Kpalion refers to above. Green Giant (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Green Giant, I meant the Carpathian Mountains. Our article about the Lemko Republic says it's all Polish territory now. — Kpalion(talk) 20:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I see what you mean by natural border. I agree the republic article says they became part of Poland but the Lemkivshchyna article suggests that it was part of Austrian Galicia for about 144 years (?1772 to 1918). To me that suggests that a small part of Galicia might lie in Slovakia? Green Giant (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Green Giant, Lemkivshchyna is an ethnographic region straddling the Polish, Slovak and Ukrainian borders, but the Lemko Republic, the short-lived state, only covered the territory of today's Poland. — Kpalion(talk) 20:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Piotrus, would this make more sense the other way around: that Galicia was, by definition, no part of the lands of the Bohemian Crown, it was all awarded to Poland in 1919? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I see some people are getting confused with the region's convoluted history, so let me try to clear this up: Galicia always lay on the northern side of the Carpathians. Its territory once belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, with the First Partition of Poland it went to the Habsburg Empire and belonged to its Austrian part (Cisleithania) after the Ausgleich, during the interbellum it was again in Polish hands, and after WW2 it was split between Soviet Ukraine and Poland. The territory on the southern side of the Carpathians was long known as Upper Hungary, part of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen (i.e. Kingdom of Hungary, or Transleithania after the Ausgleich), became part of Czechoslovakia after WW1 and today forms the Slovak Republic. Because the border between Galicia and Slovakia runs along a mountain range, it has changed very little over centuries, save perhaps some really minor border adjustments. — Kpalion(talk) 20:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that we could get bogged down in details until the cows come home, and that it seems unlikely that there are going to be any serious challenges to Galicia (Poland and Ukraine) as the two cover the majority of the region, perhaps we could just move ahead with this proposal. Even if someone does challenge any minor shifts in borders over the centuries, it's not difficult to change the category to Galicia (Poland, Ukraine, Country-X). The mainstay of the history is contained within the body of the article, hence minor discrepancies can be addressed within the body. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to clarify that. I'd love to see some reliable refs on the definition and boundaries of the region added to the article... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2013[edit]

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: consensus not to move to Galicia (Poland and Ukraine), and no consensus for the alternative dabs of (Central Europe), (Central and Eastern Europe), (eastern central Europe) or (historical region) in place of the current dab of (Eastern Europe). I strongly suggest that as no clear alternative has emerged that the article remain at its current title for at least six months. PBS (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Galicia (Eastern Europe)Galicia (Poland and Ukraine) – I think now is a good time to open a formal move request. The reason, as already discussed above, is that macroregions like Eastern Europe or Central Europe are not useful for the purpose of disambiguation because there is constant debate as to their exact borders. Using modern-day countries to describe location should be less contentious and more accurate. The other Galicia is also disambiguated by country name. "Galicia (Poland and Ukraine)" is used as a subject heading by the Library of Congress, so if it's good for them, it might be also good for Wikipedia. Before someone asks why not "Ukraine and Poland", let's just say that P comes before U in the alphabet. — Kpalion(talk) 23:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', 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.
  • Support as nominator. — Kpalion(talk) 23:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support My rationale is already documented extensively in the discussion sections. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Galicia is not exclusive to Poland and Ukraine, being historically part of countries such as Austria, Lithuania, the Russian empire, and so on. The increase in precision is purely contemporary, and furthermore rather marginal, as Poland and Ukraine together are a substantial part of Eastern Europe, so it hardly makes the precise location more apparent to the user. This is not worth the loss of historical precision, as Galicia plays an important part in the history of many other places other than Poland and Ukraine. walk victor falk talk 05:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    I disagree that the increase in precision would be only marginal. Anyone can look at a map and see where Poland and Ukraine are located today. On the other hand, Eastern Europe is, according to Wikipedia, a term which "has widely disparate and varying geopolitical, geographical, cultural, and socioeconomic readings, which makes it highly context-dependent and even volatile; there are 'almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region'." How's that for precision? Please remember we're only trying to disambiguate this Galicia from the Spanish one. There's no point trying to squeeze the region's entire history into the title. — Kpalion(talk) 08:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    "Please remember we're only trying to disambiguate this Galicia from the Spanish one." Yes and "Eastern Europe" is enough to do that (and is more concise than the proposed title). If, however, I am reading a source that mentions the "Russian region of Galicia" and I look it up here based on that, Galicia (Eastern Europe) does it better job directing me than the proposed title.  AjaxSmack  09:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    AjaxSmack, have you ever actually read a source that mentioned a "Russian region of Galicia"? It gets no Google hits at all, which is not surprising, as Galicia was never part of Russia. Compare with 5,550 ghits for "Ukrainian region of Galicia", 20,300 ghits for "Polish region of Galicia" and 135 for "Austrian region of Galicia". Would you expect to find an Austrian region in Eastern Europe? — Kpalion(talk) 11:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    Right. Sorry, I meant "Soviet". There's an article along those lines here at Wikipedia.  AjaxSmack  20:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    See, Galicia may be descirbed as an East European region because part of it used to belong to the Soviet Union. It may be also described as Central European because it used to belong to Austria. And today it's split between Poland and Ukraine, so why not leave it there, pure and simple? — Kpalion(talk) 22:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support changed to Oppose. Please rename as Galicia (Central Europe). This is a geographic entity first and foremost. The fact, that historically, it was part of various empires (including Soviet) makes for a good read, but does not change anything. Poeticbent talk 05:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Addendum. Judging by how this discussion is progressing I think this article can only be named Galicia (Central Europe) because this is the one acceptable generic name with actual future potential; all other alternatives are hopelessly flawed, as shown by other participants. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 01:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've just looked at the interwiki links from this article. All the other Wikipedias that disambiguate Galicia (in some languages they have slightly different names, so they don't need disambiguating), use "Central Europe" as the disambiguator. — Kpalion(talk) 22:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support because "Eastern Europe" is not exactly precise. I wish we could do something like Galicia (not Spain) but that's probably not going to happen. Red Slash 06:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
By wp:dab, it does not have to be "exactly precise", just "precise enough" to not be confused with the one in Spain. walk victor falk talk 22:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that precise enough is good enough for disambiguation, but, as discussed below, the real issure here is not precision or factual accuracy, but neutrality. And "Eastern Europe" just isn't neutral enough (nor is "Central Europe"). — Kpalion(talk) 22:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack. --BDD (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack and Victor falk above. The disambiguator is not meant to convey a precise description of what the thing is, just to identify it immediately to a reader. The present title IMHO does that very well, and better than the proposed "Poland and Ukraiane" which is simultaneously more unwieldy and also potentially less accurate.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: rename to "Galicia (Central Europe)" instead. Gryffindor (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Problem is the region is only contained within the broadest span of Central Europe as we define it (Ukraine is usually excluded). So (Central Europe) would be a less recognizable title. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Ukraine is considered Eastern Europe. However Galicia spans also into Poland, and the region being part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire back then can therefore safely be considered Central Europe. Gryffindor (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It's been ruled out already (as per the discussion below). All alternative proposals to 'Eastern Europe' have been exhausted for the moment. I guess it'll have to wait until another day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I disagree, it clearly geographically and culturally is a part of Central Europe. Gryffindor (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • Comment This proposal fails WP:CRITERIA on numerous points: - Consistency: As far I know, very few articles or no articles are disambiguated by referring to two countries. - Recognizability & Naturalness: "Central/Eastern Europe" is widely used in the literature to refer to Galicia; not so for "Poland and Ukraine." -Conciseness: Galicia (X) is more concise than Galicia (Y and Z); the latter is also inherently more prone to induce confusion. walk victor falk talk 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    victor falk, here's my view:
    1. Consistency: I've been trying to come up with a good analogy for the sake of this discussion, and I couldn't think of any other region that would need disambiguation and straddle a national border at the same time. This seems to be a unique situation, so we may need a unique solution.
    2. Recognizability & Naturalness: sources please. What has been demonstrated so far is that Britannica uses "Galicia (Eastern Europe)", while the Library of Congress uses "Galicia (Poland and Ukraine)". That's 1:1.
    3. Conciseness: "Eastern Europe" is 14 characters long (including space); "Poland and Ukraine" is 18 characters long. It's not a tremendous difference, is it?
    And then you've got the issue of NPOV. Using modern nation states is much more neutral than ill-defined macroregions, especially if the latter are not merely geographic descriptors, but carry sensitive historical connotations. To many people who live in this part of the world "Eastern Europe" brings to mind Soviet domination, underdevelopment, poverty and corruption, while "Central Europe" is now often used to refer to those countries that over the last quarter of a century have made the great progress towards market economy, democracy and rule of law that allowed them join NATO and EU (please see Wikiquote:East/Central Europe for a choice of citations). Many Poles find the East European label, when applied to themselves, inaccurate to the point of being offensive. And as I'm typing this, Ukrainians, especially those from Galicia and other parts of western Ukraine, are fighting a bloody battle to be in Central, not Eastern Europe. — Kpalion(talk) 08:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You hit the head on the nail about NPOV; it is the fundamental issue here. walk victor falk talk 09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would also prefer that the discussion be continued.
In all honesty, I'm not trying to be difficult, smug or supercilious on this point, victor falk, but could I ask that you take a look at the Western Europe article? Having read it carefully, and having been brought up in what is described as a Western (or 'developed') country (being Australia), if I were to be asked where Western Europe is, I would have to reply with the same answer I would have given prior reading it, "According to whose POV?" Western Europe is composed of countries also considered to be Northern Europe, Southern Europe and Central Europe (dependent on whether Central Europe can be deemed to exist). To add to this, so far, judging by completely disparate opinions by those from the Anglophile world commenting on the matter on other pages, would suggest that there is no NPOV consensus on European compass point qualifiers. If Galicia remains relegated to Eastern Europe, wouldn't that demand that the question of POV regarding other compass descriptors for Europe be put up for an RfC in order that consistency of use throughout Wikipedia be maintained (and neutral). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing your question is rhetorical.
  • I am now thinking that this wp:requested move was premature. The unilateral move from Galicia (Central Europe) was (rightly) reverted, but there should be a formal move request Galicia (Eastern Europe) -> Galicia (Central Europe) (including an RfC peerhaps), before we start suggesting compromises. If there is a consensus for one or the other, then problem solved. If not, we will have a better basis for alternative names, with sources showing preferences for one or the other, etc. walk victor falk talk 23:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This wasn't the first unilateral move of this article. In fact, it has travelled all over the place since 2009. The original title was Galicia (Central Europe), and then it was moved around as follows:
I really believe that my attempt at finding a neutral disambiguation is long overdue, let alone premature! — Kpalion(talk) 00:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Could we compromise on re-emptive rather than rhetorical (as has been well illustrated by Kpalion), victor falk. I don't think "Galicia (Poland and Ukraine)" qualifies as WP:OR, and it seems a clean and relatively simple solution for an issue that will keep rearing its head until it is addressed via one method or another. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
We should not punish wikipedia's readers by giving them bad compromise article titles, because of the bad behaviour of wikieditors engaging in wp:lame unilateral moves and editwars. walk victor falk talk 04:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. That would then take us back to the proposal for "Central and Eastern Europe"... which is obviously a problematic one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree in general about not punishing readers with bad compromises, but I still can't see why this particular compromise would be bad. — Kpalion(talk) 08:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Not so much bad, than either "Galicia (Central Europe)" or "Galicia (Eastern Europe)" would be better. walk victor falk talk 09:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Now you've completely lost me. According to what criterion/criteria is it located in one or the other when it overlaps both (according to historic sources and contemporary sources)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, central and eastern Europe are overlapping regions; there is no precise border (and that's the reason of this polemic, isn't it?). Other regions that can be described as either in central or eastern Europe are for instance Bukovina, Mazovia, Ruthenia, Volhynia or Lesser Poland. walk victor falk talk 09:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
But the imprecise borders make both Central and Eastern Europe more ambiguous, not less. Does it make them more useful for disambiguation. — Kpalion(talk) 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • They only have to be precise enough, but no more than that to disambiguate from the Galicia in Spain. Per wp:precise: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" walk victor falk talk 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Ergo, the conclusion reached via this Kafkaesque discussion is that the status quo remains as Galicia (Eastern Europe) and that there is not point in pursuing it further. Central Europe is not acceptable. Central and Eastern is unnecessarily lengthy and precise. Poland and Ukraine is too... something or another... er, punitive for readers and somehow outside of the scope of the article. So be it. I prepared to concede that, according to Wikipedia protocols, it remains as is. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. First, technicality - words should begin with a capital letter. Second - what is Eastern Central Europe? OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's still the issue of arguments that it unnecessarily long for a disambiguation to contend with. (Wesołych Świąt, Piotr!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Nor to me. I'm merely reiterating arguments against which were expressed in the previous RM. Eastern Europe is an overtly simplistic qualifier. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It won't work as it will be deemed too vague. There are several entries for historical regions with similar spellings, but all entries are qualified enough to make it reasonably clear as to where they were, or the epoch, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Aren't both Galicias historical regions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Precisely my point. There's only one that isn't an historical region. Using historical region to disambiguate is vague to the point of confusing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2013 (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.

Eastern Europe[edit]

Eastern Europe is not synonymous with Central Europe. Other than English, all languages accurately define Galicia as being geographically in Central Europe. It is sufficient to look at a map of the continent to note that it is geographically in the center. A further study of Galicia's cultural heritage will reveal that its traditions and history are different from Eastern Europe. The title of the article in English is therefore incorrect and should be adjusted for the sake of factual accuracy, unless we are dealing here with a political intention that defines lands east of Germany, specifically those formerly under the Iron Curtain, as eastern. — Preceding unsigned comment added byEximun (talkcontribs) 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Even the beginning of the article mentions... Central Europe so what this huffing and puffing is all about. Please rename the article accordingly to Galicia (Central Europe)-- (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I also agree that it should be Galicia (Central Europe) - English language does not dictate where people perceive things to be, it is their nation and how they refer to it in their media (I do not just mean newspapers and TV, I also mean books) which usually determines it.

The centre of Europe is in Ukraine, 1/3 to 1/2 of Galicia is to the west of the centre of Europe, and 1/2 to 2/3 is to the east of the centre of Europe.

"Eastern Europe" is an older generation's view, and a particularly US view, of where this is; as they do not perhaps realise it only is the tips of the west of Ukraine and the east of Poland, nor do the probably realise where the centre of Europe is.

My Google results:

Standard: eastern europe = 243,000 central europe = 10,500,000

Scholar: I did consult, but it was difficult to compare. Many variations of search were used, but most retained 60-40 splits both ways. It was made difficult as many searches also returned a higher than expected number of books on "Something of Eastern Europe" during searches for "Eastern Europe", and "History of Jewish Something" in searches for "Central Europe"

I feel that we have some reasonable evidence here to change it. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

From the previous discussions last & previous to that: Galicia (Poland and Ukraine) = 2 Galicia (Central Europe) = 3 Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe) = 1 Galicia (Eastern Europe) = 2

  • N.B. I have only counted those that voted, latest vote only. If they voted in both, the later one takes precedence.

I think we should be defining this by location, not perceived demographic name-tags given out during the cold war and before. The centre of Europe is in Ukraine, indeed most of Galicia is to the west of that point. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


The useful map is titled a "Map of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria". Those of us who'd like to know whether Galicia corresponds to a particular and defined area (yes, I know, I've read the article and the talk) might be helped if the area that was Lodomeria was somehow defined. The article on Lodomeria is particularly unhelpful, and is illustrated by the same map of "Galicia and Lodomeria". Can anyone offer a guide to which part of the map was Lodomeria - even if it is only by reference to a vague "east" or "west"?Thomas Peardew (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A tough nut to crack. Galicia (i.e. an apple) came from the city of Halicz (Galica, Galic in Latin), while Lodomeria (Wladimeria, i.e. an orange) came from the name of a ruler, Wladimir the Great who conquered it in 938. The name Galicia and Lodomeria (both, apples and oranges in one basket) was a land-grab legacy of Austria-Hungary. Poeticbent talk 11:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Update. I just revised the Lodomeria article with new source. Please read it again. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 13:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Article lead[edit]

Grossgliederung Europas-en.svg

This is the first sentence of this article: Galicia is a historical and geographic region in Central Europe once a small kingdom that currently straddles the border between Poland and Ukraine.

Why does the article lead off with saying it's a geographic region in Central Europe, but the article is titled Galicia (Eastern Europe). If Galicia is a geographic region in Central Europe, as the article has stated for 10 years (upon reviewing the article's history), then why is the article titled Galicia (Eastern Europe), instead of Galicia (Central Europe)?

--hmich176 11:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted a good faith edit which changed the sentence above from "Central Europe" to "Eastern Europe." I did this because the user left the references for "Central Europe" in place with the "Eastern Europe" change; the region shouldn't be changed unless references can be provided.

My question still remains: Why is the article title "Eastern Europe" and not "Central Europe" given this sentence in the lead? --hmich176 09:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

hmich, have you read the conversations on this talk page (above)? It's a contentious issue. I changed the reference to Central Europe in the lead but you reverted it. Opinion is divided and what to title this article has been the subject of fierce debate. I'm not sure if editors are ready to launch into another discussion when a case (leading to AN/I) just occurred two months ago. Liz Read! Talk! 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I only reverted that edit because the references were not changed. Changing it to Eastern Europe left it as Eastern Europe with references that Galicia is in Central Europe, making it appear as an erroneous statement. Proper citations need to be placed with "Eastern Europe" when the change is made, in my belief.
Yes, I recognize that the article title is a particularly contentious issue. I have a pretty good understanding of what it's like going through those. However, I posed this question given the curious nature of the discussion.
I say this because of four reasons: 1) Initially, this article has said Galicia is in Central Europe for ten years. Not that consensus can't change (because it can), but this indicates to me that something is missing in this discussion. From that I mean - 2) a number of references in the article refer to Galicia as being in Central Europe. 3) Galicia has been listed on Historical regions of Central Europe since that article was written in 2004. Galicia should be excised from that list if we determine that Galicia is not part of Central Europe. 4) I posted images of two maps to the right shades or outlines the area considered Central Europe (top picture comes from the Central Europe article, bottom picture comes from Mitteleuropa). Both images demonstrate that parts of countries which previously were within the borders of the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Baltic governances of the Russian Empire, have both historical and cultural connections to Central Europe. As seen on these maps, all of the territory which was part of Galicia is considered part of Central Europe.
I believe there is a general consensus that Galicia is part of Central Europe, and I believe that is why the first sentence of the lede is accurate: "Galicia is a historical and geographic region in Central Europe once a small kingdom that currently straddles the border between Poland and Ukraine."
--hmich176 10:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmich, you seem to assume the macroregions like Central Europe and Eastern Europe have clear-cut borders and are mutually exclusive, so if we say that Galicia is, for example, part of Central Europe, then it cannot be part of Eastern Europe. However, this is not the case. These regions have fuzzy and overlapping borders. Take almost any book about the history of either region and most likely it will begin with a long introduction explaining how the concept of Central or Eastern Europe means very different things to different people and in different contexts, and how difficult it is to agree on the scope of these terms. So it very well may be that the statements "Galicia is a region in Central Europe" and "Galicia is a region in Eastern Europe" are both true. I think the biggest problem here (which I've already raised before) is that we're using a fuzzy, ambiguous concept for the purpose of disambiguation! There is currently no consensus to change it, though. — Kpalion(talk) 18:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not assuming this. Consider this quote, and note this comes from the same reference as you mentioned from the Eastern Europe article: "Central Europe: Scholars agree that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are Central European states, since they are located next to each other and share Habsburg heritage and, going back further in time, a legacy of an enormous amount of contact, both positive and negative, with the German-speaking world."[1] Furthermore, Section 2 of the book "Jewish Post-war Problems: How the Jewish communities prepared for peace during the first world war" is titled "In Central Europe" and says "About 2,500,000 Jews resided in what was then Austria-Hungary. The Galician and Carpatho-Ukranian Jews in that land, about 1,000,000 in number..."[2] Another reference, here. The book is titled "The Russian plot to seize Galicia (Austrian Ruthenia)." In it, is written, "Regarded as one, the Balkans and Russia face Central Europe by the Carpathian bulwark." The Carpathian bulwark? "...the annexing of Galicia and Bukovina to the Russian possessions..."[3] Another book, titled "National minorities in central Europe" makes several references to Ukrainians being in eastern Galicia.[4] Here's another quote: "This is the old Austrian crownland of Galicia, and it is now the southern end of Poland, just as it has been, off and on, ever since the eleventh century. One of the most annoying features about Central Europe is the way in which everything changed hands every little while in the old days, so that at the present time everybody claims everything in sight, whether it belongs to him or not. Galicia, however, is now a part of Poland; and a large percentage of emigrants from Poland to America are Jews from Galicia."[5] The author of this book makes a valid point in what I quoted, although central Europeans were hardly overrunning America.
I realize this is a large block of text (not to mention a reference which, if I used the incorrect cite template, I apologize) which doesn't make for the easiest reading. However, when you examine available source material, there is more than enough material which firmly supports the concept that Galicia was in Central Europe. --hmich176 15:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the article‘s title (for which as many redirects can be made as may be deemed fit), the text should follow the sources, and the lead should summarize the text. We can respect the above closer’s recommendation, and leave the move discussions be for a while, without trying to make the article fit some sort of Procrustean bed created by the contentious title.—Odysseus1479 06:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: I respect the above closer's recommendation. I just don't see how the article can stand as it is with a paradox between the name of the article and the first sentence of the article. --hmich176 07:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How About "Slavic Region"[edit]

The basic goal is to make sure it's not confused with the Spanish Galicia province. To avoid geo-political issues, one can use ethnic and linguistic properties to avoid confusion. So "Slavic Region" could do the job. Codwiki (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just "region" could be enough. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Northwestern Spain is also a region, so (region) by itself wouldn't help a thing. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It is a region too but it's more known as an autonomous community. The latter would presumably been what we would have used to disambiguate it with. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

New naming options[edit]

I hereby offer five new options: Galicia (Carpathia), Galicia (Halych), Galicia (cross-border region), Galician Plain, Galicia (East European Plain).--Pharos (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I'm leaning toward Galicia (East European Plain) as the most viable option now. What do others think?--Pharos (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you read through all of the previous proposals (including the archives)? I don't think any of these proposals are going to be supported. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I have, which is why I've tried to come up with some options that haven't been discussed before.--Pharos (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "cross-border" is a good disambiguator, it presupposes too much familiar knowledge in the reader, ie that Spanish Galicia is *on* but not *across* the border of Portugal, or that Galicia-not-in-western-europe stretches across several countries; in the same way neither is "plain", you have to know that Galicia in Spain is more mountaineous, and is it really? Galicia is quite mountaineous in Carpathia. Which brings us to the next problem, "Carpathia" is very ambiguous? Is Galicia a part of Carpathia (the answer is "no".)? Is it an alternative name (no again.)? "Halych" is an alternative name, but it's a bit like using the Principality of Koknese to disambiguate Livonia (if now that province was named after Kokenhausen). Personally I think a possible solution could include both "central" and "eastern", as it would serve to emphasis the transitional nature of the region; it has been moved before to/from Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe) (twice), Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe), Galicia (East-Central Europe), others that have been proposed are Galicia (Eastern Central Europe) (by Piotrus ) and Galicia (eastern central Europe) (by y.t.) walk victor falk talk 21:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the reference is specifically to the East European Plain, a well-defined European landform of which Galicia is undoubtedly a part. The name is not meant to prejudice whether Galicia belongs to the vernacular regions of "Central Europe" or "Eastern Europe", and indeed I would agree it is more the former than the latter--Pharos (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I find it unintuitive for the purposes of disambiguation. How meaningful would Galicia (East European Plain) be to most English speaking readers? It strikes me as two 'weird' quantities stuck together. I'm not aware of this combination even resembling any form of common usage. Commendations for trying to think outside of the box but, per victor falk's observations, all I'm seeing are very strained suggestions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it makes more sense to avoid the whole messy East/Central thing in the title. "Galician Plain" is in fact a pretty common and unambiguous historical usage in English, and it does still get at the actual geographical aspect. Compare Galician Massif.--Pharos (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Article title - Request for Comments[edit]

Should the title of this article remain Galicia (Eastern Europe)? hmich176 00:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I recognize the contentious nature of the discussion. I believe a request for comments is an appropriate step to take in resolving this discussion, as it's been in dispute since December 2013 (according to the the notification on the article page) and that the last discussion was closed in November 2013. The article remains in conflict, with the article title incorporating (Eastern Europe) and the article lead stating Galicia is in Central Europe. --hmich176 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Oppose. I oppose maintaining this title and it should be changed to something more specific to disambiguate the article. --hmich176 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If I take the position of Devil's Advocate here, your argument falls down purely on the basis of the fact that "Galicia (Eastern Europe)" is amply specific to disambiguate it from "Galicia (Spain)". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Eastern Europe" is succinct and clear. Although its boundaries are not universally agreed, by any authoritative definition of Eastern Europe, this Galicia falls within it. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support title with both "central" and "eastern" in it. This would reflect that sources are just as prone to use one than the other. This would also underline the transitional nature of the area. walk victor falk talk 19:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per prior discussion, I prefer my proposal of Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The bot sent me. I looked over the article/sources, etc. If it's in Central Europe, then keeping a title w/Eastern Europe is misleading. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - stumbled upon this from a bot message on someone else's talk page. I probably didn't do as much research as most of y'all, and as an American I'm not too keen on European regional divisions, but if the respective Wikipedia articles are to be believed, this region is always mostly or fully included in Central Europe but not always fully or partially in Eastern Europe. "Central and Eastern Europe" is a bit long, but it seems like the most accurate; the current "East Central Europe" is decent as well. Ansh666 04:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I did a quick survey of google books, which shows that Eastern Europe, Central Europe, and East Central Europe are all used for this region. Though calling it Eastern Europe is undoubtedly an artifact of the cold war, it is nevertheless a completely current usage. I was interested to see that many books with "Eastern Europe" in their title then used "Central and Eastern Europe" or "East Central Europe" in text. The point of the parenthetical is to disambiguate from the region in spain, which Eastern Europe does admirably. "East Central Europe" strikes me as another good option, but I don't really think it matters, hence no reason for change. Federalist51 (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded comments[edit]

To put in my two cents' worth. I'm not an Eastern Europe or Central Europe expert as some of those in the discussion are; my own field happens to be Western Europe, specifically France. However. The object of the geographic reference is to distinguish it from the Galicia in Spain, and in my view any reference that does so is satisfactory. The question of where Central or Eastern Europe begin and end can be dealt with in articles on those subjects. It seems to me that any reference that makes it clear we're not talking about Spain is acceptable. The one currently in use does so, and I don't think it needs changing. Incidentally, "Galicia (Spain)" is subject to some of the same objections as "Galicia (Central Europe)." It's in Spain now and has been for several hundred years, but once it was in Leon, and later in Leon and Castile. Admittedly there's no such argument about Spain being in Western Europe as there is about where [Poland-Ukraine] are, but it can also be said to be in Southern Europe, and right now the Netherlands and Germany seem to object to being in Western Europe along with such places as Spain and Italy. Also it's not impossible the Galicians might want their independence someday; the Catalans seem to. Wallace McDonald (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It is against Wikipedia policy/guidelines to have the large heading say one thing and the opening line something different, with the article title incorporating Eastern Europe and the article lead stating Galicia is in Central Europe. Before we all agree on anything, policy needs to be followed. The linguist Harry B. Partridge in his essay on the power of namesakes identifies Galicia (Spain) and Galicia (East Central Europe) [5] as one of several examples of places known by the same name but differently situated. It is a reasonable starting point in search of alternatives. Poeticbent talk 12:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Poeticbent: - The article move was premature, given my question for this RfC - should the article use (Eastern Europe) in the title or not.
Regarding this statement: "Before we all agree on anything, policy needs to be followed." This is simply incorrect. As stated on WP:PG, Wikipedia does not employ hard and fast rules. Consensus-driven decision making is largely paramount. No policy directly needs to be followed; they should be followed, and there are exceptions to the rules. Ignore All Rules is policy for that very purpose. --hmich176 10:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The policy/guideline which needs to be followed – even if only temporary – is one of the building blocks of naming conventions (quote): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. (end of quote) The debate has been going on for years with no consensus in sight, however, the article is being read by countless numbers of unsuspecting readers, who are the most important (also by policy). Poeticbent talk 16:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I am well aware of this. That the debate has been going on for an extended period of time is precisely why I opened this request for comments. Secondly, I understand what you mean about keeping in line with policy. Under other circumstances, I would agree with your position. However, given the nature of this discussion, that the question specifically asked whether the title should remain as it was - the title you changed the article from - it was a move you should not have made until this discussion was completed and a consensus (if possible) was rendered. Moving the page circumvents this RfC. --hmich176 06:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Your RfC is valid and useful. Hopefully it will lead to a permanent solution. Nothing has changed except the two-word configuration proposed only for the time-being. I insist the move was temporary but I fear you haven't been following this closely enough before your RfC to justify some real optimism. Poeticbent talk 07:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:MOVE, if a move can be considered controversial, it should be requested at WP:Request move. I believe it is controversial to move a page when an RfC has not been closed. --hmich176 15:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
My input is part of this RfC debate in case you haven't noticed. A higher power will soon descend upon us with a word of truth because of your own request. Poeticbent talk 17:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Re:Wallace McDonald — the premise that "any reference that makes it clear we're not talking about Spain is acceptable" is obviously false. Galicia (Australia), for example, would make it clear that it's not in Spain, but nobody would agree to use this title anyway. We need to find a disambiguator that not only differentiates the subject from the one in Spain, but is also factually correct and neutral in itself. This is where trouble begins. — Kpalion(talk) 12:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I overspoke myself. I should have said, "any reference that is accurate and makes it clear we're not talking about Spain." I still don't think it's that important to distinguish between Eastern and Central Europe when either could be considered to apply. But as a new contributor to Wikipedia, I probably should have kept out of the discussion.Wallace McDonald (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wallace McDonald: By no means should you keep out of the discussion. You'll have to excuse the tense atmosphere on this talk page, as it's been a protracted effort to find a disambiguator that does justice to the location of the region. The broader Wikipedian community have been satisfied with Eastern Europe, whereas many of us are of the opinion that it isn't an accurate portrayal. In a nutshell, patience and tempers are frayed. I would, however, suggest that you read the discussions on article talk pages (including archived discussions) in order to familiarise yourself as to the history of content input on any given article you are interested in. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You may not believe it, but I did read the entire discussion before I said anything.Wallace McDonald (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Judging by your initial comment, you've drawn an ethnic parallel between the two regions which doesn't apply to the region of Galicia in central and eastern Europe. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • East Central Red Slash 20:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "East Central" does not exist. I've reverted the unilateral page move. There is no proper name that refers to a region called "East Central Europe". This does not follow any English language grammatical convention. There is no "east Europe", nor is there "east Central Europe". There could be "eastern Central Europe", but that is up for debate. The "eastern" in this case would be a geographical direction, not part of a proper name, and hence would not be capitalised. It either needs to be "Eastern and Central", or "eastern Central". "Eastern and Central" makes the most sense, and so I've put it there on a temporary basis. RGloucester 17:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of note, I realise that there was no consensus above for the move to "East Central" or "Eastern and Central". I would've reverted to "Eastern Europe", but this was impossible due to modification of the redirect. Therefore, I moved it to this title that makes more sense grammatically, if only to fix that error. I believe that the page should ultimately move back to "Eastern Europe" until a consensus develops otherwise. RGloucester 18:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Please note, the East Central Europe was supported by an essay on the power of namesakes by linguist Harry B. Partridge. Your own unilateral page move, on the other hand User:RGloucester, was supported by nothing but your own WP:POV and the greatly limited options still remaining for any pushing and shoving. Poeticbent talk 19:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
One "essay" cannot create a supposed geographic area known as "East Central Europe". There are many different definitions of the supposed "East Central Europe", which exists only for theoretical academic purposes, and not on any practical level or in common use. On the other hand, Central and Eastern Europe has a concrete definition. The only "point of view" that I have is that we can't use titles that don't make any sense. Read the above discussion. There was no clear consensus in favour of the title you moved it to. Like I said, I believe this should be moved back to "Eastern Europe" until a new requested move can be had on the subject. In fact, I'll ping some sysops now, to see if they can put it back there (@Anthony Appleyard:, @Ymblanter:, @DDima:). RGloucester 19:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted it back to its original name, Galicia (Eastern Europe). If it is decided that we should rename it again, it should be moved through a RM process. § DDima 20:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@DDima: The talk page didn't move back, for some reason. RGloucester 20:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree that page should not have been unilaterally moved, and, per RFC comment above, I'm not opposed to "Eastern Europe." That said, the assertion that East Central Europe "does not exist" is patently false. Brief survey of current literature suggests that East Central Europe is a common (and perhaps the most common) name currently used for this region by historians and political scientists. (See, for example Columbia University's on East Central Europe) User:RGloucester is also incorrect in assertion that "East" cannot gramatically modify "Central." The online oxford dictionary ( includes the following definition of East: "Of or denoting the eastern part of a specified region, town, or country." Among the examples it provides are "East Fife" and "East African." Federalist51 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Federalist51 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me clarify. "East" in "East Fife" is part of a proper noun, usually referring to the football club. That is the only exception as to when the nounal forms of directions, such as "east", can be used in this manner. An example of this is South-East England. In contexts where one is not forming a proper noun, "eastern", "western", &c. should be used, sans capitalisation. In otherwords, is one going to the eastern part of Central Europe, "eastern Central Europe", or is one going to some area that is called "East Central Europe"? "East Central Europe" implies that "East Central Europe" is a proper noun. This can be called into question, as we use capitalisation sparingly on Wikipedia. Like I've said, "East Central Europe" may exist in academic and technical contexts, as you've also said, but it does not exist in common usage among Joe Bloggs. It does not exist on any practical level, either. Therefore, it is highly inappropriate in this context. RGloucester 00:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
"East Central Europe", as commonly used (when it is used), is clearly a proper noun (as is "Eastern Europe"), so the appropriate usage of "east" and "eastern" in other contexts isn't terribly relevant. As to the most appropriate name of this region, I disagree with your proposed methodology (what I'll call the "Joe Bloggers" test) and am not at all sure about your conclusion that this is not an appropriate name for this region, but will leave that discussion for another day, if ever.--Federalist51 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to take some refresher courses in English grammar, Federalist51. "East Central Europe" is not a proper noun, any more that "West Central Europe", "South Central Europe", or any other convolution thereof. The only acceptable form for such a unique presentation of compass points would be "East-Central Europe", but that would be rejected per WP:SNOW. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: The only unilateral, POV move in question here is your own. Given the number of past RM rejections of moves after the fact (resulting in blocks and sanctions in the past which you are fully aware of), your move didn't even qualify as WP:BRD, much less as being consensus based. Regardless of the number of RS presented, including your latest addition of Harry B. Partridge, in terms of usage in the English speaking world, the naming convention is not defined by linguistic conventions alone. I have previously noted that Polish, Czech (and Slovak), Hungarian and other languages are defined as being Central European based on their being written in the Latin script. In and of itself, linguistic lexicology is not the equivalent of the definition of a territory, but that of a language. Political and other factors have to be taken into consideration. Most particularly, Galicia is an historical territory which was most commonly referred to as being Eastern Europe in English language sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • User:Iryna Harpy, you're way off base here and somebody's finally got to mention it to you. I'm sorry that you can't see the forest for the trees but believe me, the East Central Europe is really the best solution here. By the same token... "South Central Europe" (minus) -Wikipedia produces about 2,980,000 results in Google search. They cannot be all wrong contrary to what you want us believe. Poeticbent talk 01:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Poeticbent: What that search yields is a number of journals and academic studies centres as proper nouns, not a region in Europe. Take a closer look: you'll find that, where such a convention is used, it is as "East-Central Europe". Outside of that, having thought on it for a long, long, long time, I'm of the conviction that the only workable form is "Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe)" per Piotrus. I'm also of the conviction that this whole renaming thing has become desperately WP:LAME. It may be of great personal importance to some, but it simply isn't worth the grief it's caused. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Now that article has been placed back to the original title, I do believe that it is time to parse it out. To start with, it is true that the present title is unambiguous and natural. It instantly disambiguates between this Galicia and the Iberian Galicia. However, if it absolutely must be moved, the only two options that I can see are Galicia (eastern Central Europe) or Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe). I'm not opposed to either, but I shall say that I'm not at all invested in this discussion, and came across it by chance. I see nothing so grievous about the status quo as to make it necessary to change the title. If others still think it is necessary, then I think the two options above are suitable. However, I do think that a requested move discussion is necessary for any change, given the contentious nature of this debate. RGloucester 22:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica uses "Galicia (historical region, Eastern Europe)", and does not mention "Central Europe" at all. A book called The Jews of Eastern Europe has a large section on Galicia. As far as I can tell this whole debate is more of a political than geographic issue. "Central Europe" seems to have more pleasant connotations than "Eastern Europe", which is associated with the old "Eastern Bloc". I have no particular opinion on the matter. There are other sources that do say "Central Europe" and various other constructions, but I think that the Britannica's is a good example to follow. Essentially, their use of it means that there is no grave problem with the present title. It might be worthwhile to have a section in the article that deals with the "situation" of Galicia within Europe, explaining competing definitions. I also think that WP:TITLECHANGES applies here. Overall, I'm not convinced that a move is worthwhile or advantageous. RGloucester 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)