Jump to content

Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.154.245.172 (talk) at 18:53, 26 September 2014 (→‎POV in "People" Section: add additional contemporary cite). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Central-Eastern Europe

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.--83.12.91.242 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.--83.12.91.242 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

POV

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Okay, here are my changes: [2].Faustian (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Renaming this article

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Cold War is long gone...--Martina Moreau (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
User:Kpalion: that's a good solution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
According to this, the UN Statistical unit doe s NOT consider its classification as relevant worldwide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eastern_Europe#Response_from_the_UN_about_the_geoscheme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martina Moreau (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File: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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

No Galicia in Slovakia?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2013

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Survey

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.
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Right. Sorry, I meant "Soviet". There's an article along those lines here at Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  20:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well I disagree, it clearly geographically and culturally is a part of Central Europe. Gryffindor (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Aren't both Galicias historical regions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

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 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)--105.158.46.10 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lodomeria?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Update. I just revised the Lodomeria article with new source. Please read it again. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 13:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
  1. ^ "The Balkans; Definitions".
  2. ^ "Jewish Post-war Problems: How the Jewish communities prepared for peace during the first world war". 1943.
  3. ^ "The Russian plot to seize Galicia (Austrian Ruthenia)". 1915.
  4. ^ "National Minorities in central Europe". 1937.
  5. ^ "Why Europe Leaves Home: A True Account of the Reasons which Cause Central Europeans to Overrun America". 1922.
I realize this is a large block of text (not to mention a reference list...to 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

How About "Slavic Region"

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)[reply]

Maybe just "region" could be enough. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Northwestern Spain is also a region, so (region) by itself wouldn't help a thing. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

New naming options

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Article title - Request for Comments

There doesn't appear to be any real consensus over whether eastern, central or central-eastern\eastern-central is an appropriate descriptor for this article title. Perhaps a formal RM on one of the options may help crystallise the positions of editors, but may I be impertinent to suggest something that doesn't seem to have been thought of here - namely that a disambiguator not based on its precise location in Europe may be the best way forward (perhaps "historic region"). An addition comment is that the page should really not have been moved during this discussion (especially given the long-running debate over the name), and that the editor that did so needs a good trouting. Number 57 15:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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)[reply]

Survey

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Threaded comments

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@DDima: The talk page didn't move back, for some reason. RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/east) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Resolution

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV in "People" Section

Removed unsourced material about the certainty of ethnic divisions based upon religion. It is also contrary to two authors in Galicia: A Multicultured Land (Christopher Hann and Paul Robert Magocsi (Editors) (2005) (Stepien, pp. 54-55; Hann, p. 220).

Furthermore, we appear to have a Ukrainian POV using the East/West split in population data without giving the totals for the whole. The source for the population data should be checked as it appears to be based upon a similar reinterpretation of census data based upon religion. It could not be considered a reliable source since it would only someone's opinion based upon reinterpreting data a century later, which other respected scholars have impeached. I suspect the source cited relies on more of the same argumentative nationalist Ukrainian POV.2601:B:8F00:7B3:A124:148D:19AD:B1 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am getting a cite check for the pages you have referenced. Reverting until this can be confirmed one way or the other. Your your arguments for deleting and removing all references to religion other than Jewish left the section as nonsensical. What does Jewish as the third largest religious group mean when there are no references to other religious groups? At worst, a request for a reference could have been inserted. The rest of your logic translates as WP:OR resulting in WP:POV blanking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you replaced sourced material with unsourced material and make uncivil accusations of sock puppetry. People in the region intermarried for centuries. This blurred the religious distinctions that some wish to claim. The M.O. relied upon is to cite some unknown data on religious affiliation and assign them to respective ethnic groups. At best this is the OPINION of some, but it is not a FACT. To avoid the argumentative conclusions which you are pushing as "fact", I suggest that perhaps a separate section on Religion be made. Jews are both an ethnicity and a religion. Also, please stop pushing the Ukrainian POV that all Ruthenians, i.e., Rusyns, Belarussians, or Russians. in the province were ethnic Ukrainians. These are different languages. Please try to be civil to those who challenge your perception of history, and engage in polite discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.245.172 (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
During the 1930s the anti-Ukrainian, Polish nationalist government attempted to erase the word "Ukrainians" by forcing Ukrainians to use the word Ruthenian instead. It also promoted the idea that Old Ruthenians (Galicians who considered themselves to be Ruthenians) and Russophiles were somehow a different nation from Ukrainians. (see Magocsi, pg. 638). Interesting that this IP uses the same approach as the anti-Ukrainian interwar Polish nationalist government. There were no Ukrainians in Galicia - only Ruthenians. It is absurd for a wikipedia article to follow the rules of the 1930s nationalistic Polish government. When objective scholars such as Timothy Snyder describe census results that label Ukrainians as Ruthenians they use the word Ukrainians. As should wikipedia. (and, as a furtrher note, the number of Russians or Belarussians or Zakarpattyan Rusyns in Galicia, the subject of this article, was negligible). Faustian (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After the war, Stalin annexed Carpathia based upon the incorrect argument that all Rusysns were Ukrainians, that the Rusyn language was the same as Ukrainin language. (even after they rejected the Ukrainian language in their schools by referendum.) During the war the Ukrainian nationalists murdered Rusyns who asserted their ethnic identity, those of mixed ethnicity, or those they considered too Polish, even if they were otherwise Ukrainian. So you want Wikipedia to follow the example of Stalin, and the Nazi allied Ukrainian nationalists and paint with a broad brush while relabeling and reinterpreting Polish census data collected years after the end of Galicia to describe ethnicity on this page. The result of Stalin and the Ukrainian nationalists ethnic policies (and crimes against humanity) gave rise to modern Ukraine, (and some scholars may use "Ukrainian" as a short hand label to avoid needing to address the more complex demographics and history to aid the reader,) but this is not to say that all Ruthenians had considered themselves "Ukrainians" during the Hapsburg period, (which is the subject of this page,) later, or even now. Respected scholars consider the Ukrainian identity to have started during Hapsburg Galicia, but that identity was still evolving up to WWII. It is absurd for you to apply the label of post-Stalin usage of "Ukrainian" with a period in which that identity had first started or was evolving. Your usage of the term is anachronistic and not historically accurate, and not NPOV. Historically the Ruthenian category contained Ukrainians, but not all Ruthenians were Ukrainians. Wikipedia should report the facts of the relevant census data without changing the labels of the time. If relevant, scholarly OPINIONS might be noted, while making clear that they are based upon relabeling or reinterpreting census data,and also balance that with contrary opinions for NPOV. Its your opinion that the number non-Ukrainian Ruthenians were negligible, but no original research: WP:OR Your comments about the Polish census are completely irrelevant to Hapsburg Galicia. (And the 1931 Polish census never even questioned people about ethnicity.) The only nationalism on this page is anachronistic Ukrainian nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.245.172 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 85.154.245.172 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is about Galicia comments about Transcarpathia are irrelevant. It is not stalinism to state the obvious: that Ruthenian in Galicia was the old word for UKrainians. You claim that in the context of Galicia "not all Ruthenians were Ukrainians." Do you have any evidence of significant numbers of ethnic Russians in Galicia?Faustian (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
85.154.245.172, this is a talk page, not a soapbox for your personal opinion. Please do not leave walls of text advocating your biases. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I don't appreciate the way he's going about it, he is somewhat correct in stating that "Ukrainian" would be something of an anachronism in an English language context at that point in time. RGloucester — ☎ 02:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it confuses the reader unfamiliar with this region's history. Who were these Ruthenians? Where did they disappear? Where were the Ukrainians? While it served the interests of Polish nationalists to obscure the Ukrainians' existence (in order to justify their claim on the place) it doesn't serve the purposes of an Encyclopedia to do so.Faustian (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really about "obscuring" anything, so much as that Ruthenian was the accepted term in English for what we now call "Ukrainians" until the word Ukrainian started to come to light after the end of the First World War. Even then, like the IP said, "Ukrainian" identity was still developing, and English documents of the time do perceive a difference between those in the Ukrainian SSR and those in Polish Galicia, Transcarpathian Ruthenia, &c. This was especially true in diaspora communities at the time, which usually stuck with "Ruthenian". I don't think it is a problem of Polish nationalism. It is merely an acknowledgement of the contemporaneous usage in English. In the same way, we used to call "Moldovans" as "Moldavians", "Czechs" as "Bohemians", &c. It was not that "Ruthenians" disappeared, so much as that nationalism and border-changes in the aftermath of the First World War led to a crisis of labelling and identity across Central and Eastern Europe. RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the term "Ukrainians" as an ethnonym dates back much further in Polish ethnography (i.e., Treaty of Pereyaslav). What would be your solution, RGloucester? A convoluted and WP:UNDUE piece of synth illustrating the use of the Little Russian identity, Ruthenian, Ukrainian, etc.? As an identity, it is no less a misnomer to use Polish or Russian as if they mean the same thing as the current nation-states, yet that is how they are used for the sake of comprehensibility and coherency for the readers (let alone Lithuanian and other ethnicities). I'll stress, yet again, that the IP is pushing a staunch, irredentist POV line for the purposes of obfuscation. Judging by the narrative style here on the talk page and in the article, I'd say that IP 2601:B:8F00:7B3:A124:148D:19AD:B1 and IP 85.154.245.172 are one and the same. If not, they smack of being WP:DUCK. We're not simply talking about Ruthenian and Ukrainian: the first edit made blanked information regarding religious affiliations, leaving a nonsensical. I find it difficult to believe that removing

It is, however, possible to make a clear distinction in religious denominations: Poles were Roman Catholic, the Ruthenians belonged to the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church (now split into several sui juris Catholic churches, the largest of which is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church).

was a constructive edit and could be justified as anything short of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the IP's rants, it can be safely assumed that he is operating with a Polish nationalist POV. You are correct about the labels but is the purpose of the demographic section of the article to describe the proportions of peoples in East Galicia for readers to know them, or to describe the census? Of course it is the former. The article on Czech demographics doesn't list "Bohemians" but Czechs: [6], for example, and the article about the history of Prague describes "Czechs" going back to early middle ages, rather than "Bohemians" for understandable reasons - readers ought to know what Czechs were doing and not get confused by the term "Bohemian", implyng that these were different people and Czechs weren't around.Faustian (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, and I was not supporting the IPs insertion of "Ruthenian" all over the place. Merely saying that, in English, the term still had quite a bit of currency at the time. I'd say that whilst using "Ukrainian" should be predominant, one mention should be made of the use of "Ruthenian" at the time. This is similar of the usage of the WP:Danzig principle, with regard to city names. By the way, Iryna, I'm aware that "Ukrainian" has a longer history in the Ukrainian language and in other Central European languages, but it did not gain status in English until later, which is what I was referring to. RGloucester — ☎ 12:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So then, you are supporting Original Research because RS show that the correct term for the period is "Ruthenian": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians#mediaviewer/File:Austria_hungary_1911.jpg This will be addressed as appropriate along with unsupported "facts", the lack of NPOV and incivility by editors on this page85.154.245.171 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear here. When a source described a number as "two squared" and the wikipedia article reads "four", it is not original research by the editor who wrote "four" rather than "two squared" when posting the info from the source on the wikipedia article. It is making the article clearer for readers. There are plenty of reliable sources demonstrating that Ruthenians was simply the old word for Ukrainians in Galicia, this is a well-known fact (just as it is undeniable that two squared is indeed four).Faustian (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Faustian: The version you implemented looks very good. Thank you for it. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks, also, Faustian. You've done a good job of retaining 'Ruthenian' in keeping with the era, but qualifying it in order that it makes sense to a contemporary reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just throw in some more precedents of sources using "Ukrainian" for this time period. Quote form Magocsi, Paul R. Magocsi.(2002). The Roots of Ukrainian Nationalism: Galicia as Ukraine's Piedmontpg. 57. : The Hapsburg clearly distinguished Galicia's Ukrainians, whom they called Ruthenians (Ruthenen), from Russians." "Ukrainians" is how the Eastern Slavic people of 19th century Galicia are described in books including Magocsi's general history book about Ukraine and Yale historian Timothy Snyder's books. It's how Britannica refers to them: [7] "From the Austrian period, however, the Galician Ukrainians brought a long history of self-organization and political participation and inherited a broad network of cultural and civic associations, educational establishments, and publishing enterprises." [8] "Although, on balance, Habsburg policies favoured the Poles, Ukrainians (Ruthenians in the contemporary terminology) in Austria enjoyed far greater opportunities for their national development and made far greater progress than did Ukrainians in tsarist Russia." "The revolution of 1848 that swept the Austrian Empire politicized the Ukrainians of Galicia (see Revolutions of 1848). The Supreme Ruthenian Council, established to articulate Ukrainian concerns, proclaimed the identity of Austria’s Ruthenians with the Ukrainians under Russian rule; demanded the division of Galicia into separate Polish and Ukrainian provinces, the latter to include Bukovina and Transcarpathia; organized a national guard and other small military units; and published the first Ukrainian-language newspaper." Magocsi, History of Ukraine, pg. 418. , about Galicia: "the eastern, or Ukrainian, half" Pg. 419. "In Galicia East of the San River the Ukrainians comprised a 71 percent majority of the population." Etc. etc. etc. It's a lot easier to prove that black is black, as I am doing, than to prove that black is white, as the IP is trying desperately to do.Faustian (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt about this, Faustian. You're wasting your time arguing with the IP. As the Britannica quote says, "Ruthenian" was at one point the word in English for what we now call "Ukrainians". RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming increasingly clear (and has been clear, for awhile). He clearly doesn't have consensus here, and his attempts to forum shop have ended in failure. Best to just ignore, I suppose, and change disruptive edits if necessary.Faustian (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And in Polish and German Ukrainian and Ruthenian have different meanings. For this to be correct then Belarus was populated with Ukrainians because this is how they were categorized in the census of the Second Polish Republic. It isn't possible that Britannica got it wrong? Maybe there is a British POV that attempts to hide how badly it sold out its ally, those FEW who disproportionally came from Poland and Czechoslavakia, and won the day in the skies in the Battle of Britain but couldn't return home? Please explain why Britannica is a RS on this point. 85.154.245.172 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Particularly problematic were the terms Ruthenian and Ukrainian, which some authors may consider synonyms and others view as distinct concepts. In general, Ruthenian refers to the East Slavic population of Galicia and neighboring lands at a time when that population had not yet adopted a consciousness associated with a particular nationality. Ukrainian implies that the given East Slavic population (or portion thereof) had adopted a clear Ukrainian national identity. This process was a gradual one that occurred during the late nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth century. Therefore, in general, Ruthenian is used here to describe the East Slavs of Galicia until the end of the “historic” nineteenth century (1914), and Ukrainian thereafter.” Christopher Hann and Paul Robert Magocsi (Editors ) Galicia: A Multicultured Land (2005) at pg. ix. This introduction is available online here:
   http://www.amazon.com/dp/080203781X/ref=rdr_ext_sb_pi_sims_2

By the above definition subsequently, from the same author that Faust cites here but denies is a credible source on the topic of "Rusyns" below, it was not appropriate to refer to a population as Ukrainians until 1914. Therefore Faustian's edit of the 1900 census of Galicia reads as Ukrainian nationalistic POV. Faustian's edit is also clearly not NPOV. Citing the author as RS on points that he presumes support his nationalist POV, but then disowns the same source as RS when he is hostile to his nationalist POV, is also clearly not good faith editing. Using the term "Ukrainian" before the population could be considered to have assumed that nationality is anachronistic. Insisting on referring to other ethnic groups which had not identified themselves as such "Ukrainian" is chauvinistic.85.154.245.172 (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magocsi's book published by University of Toronto Press is peer-reviewed. His interview in a Carpatho-Rusyn activist journal is not. Do you feel the difference? The above is simply a failed attempt at OR by the IP. Magocsi is quite clear here: Magocsi, History of Ukraine, University of Toronto Press, pg. 418. , about Austrian-era Galicia: "the eastern, or Ukrainian, half" Pg. 419. "In Galicia East of the San River the Ukrainians comprised a 71 percent majority of the population." Will you accuse Magocsi of a "Ukrainian nationalist POV"? Indeed he refers to these people as Ukrainians throughout he Austrian period. I see from your previous comment that you now complain about a British POV. So we see in this talk page that you are engaged in a brave and lonely struggle against Stalinist, Ukrainian nationalist, and now British POV.Faustian (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the author, not where it is published. (And in this case it was also published on the internet for all peers to comment upon.) "Taking care" with sources is not the same as reactively rejecting a RS who is extensively published on the subject matter at hand. You are simply being contentious. Again, according to you, Belarus was populated with Ukrainians because that is how the Germans and Poles had labeled them before WWII. Where did all of those Ukrainians go?37.200.224.205 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review the policies on reliable sources. Also, to remind you, this article is about eastern Galicia, not Belarus. Your claims about something "according to me" are bizarre and incoherent -best stick to the subject of this article.Faustian (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In English, anyway, we traditionally call "Belarusians" as "White Ruthenians". They are never called "just-plain Ruthenian". RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not true. See here, "The political nation consisted mostly of three ethnic groups of nobility: Ruthenians (nowadays known as Belarusians), Lithuanians and Samogitians (nowadays known as Lithuanians)."http://belreform.org/eng/katlarchuk_prat_i_pravasl_eng.php And see here, " The Lithuania Proper (Lithuania Propria) was always distinguished from the Ruthenian lands, which belonged to Lithuania. The Lithuanians differed from the Ruthenians in their language and faith (Paganism in the beginning and Catholicism since 1387)." http://viduramziu.istorija.net/etno/index-en.htm Modern Belarus today contains both White Ruthenia and Black Ruthenia (See Muir's Historical Atlas, Ancient, Medieval and Modern. George Philip and Son. 1974. pp. 50–51.) This discussion should be on the Ruthenian page and not here. You are not educating readers. You are only confusing people with a chauvinistic nationalist Ukrainian ethnocentric POV.85.154.245.172 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see that I say "in English"? Your foreign-language sources know nothing of English usage. We called "Belarusians" as "White Ruthenians", which is a direct translation of "Belarusian". RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have not provided a source for your OR that all Ruthenians in modern Belarus were in fact Belarusians. You see that I have provided examples written in English, and a source on Black Ruthenia having been in modern Belarus. Of course the the source we are discussing here was a census when Polish was the official language of Galicia, which was ruled by a German speaking king, and which has been translated into English as well. They were all simply referred to as Ruthenians, not Black Ruthenians, Red Ruthenians, White Ruthenians, Rusyns, and Russians. All Ruthenians were not Ukrainians, not even in Galicia, and certainly not in 1900. This discussion belongs on the Ruthenians page.85.154.245.172 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
やれやれ。Look, it is fairly simple. The definition of "Ruthenian", or the more common "Ruthene", according to the OED, is "of or relating to Ukraine or Ukrainian, inhabiting or native to Ukraine". As you can see, "Ruthene" or "Ruthenian" referred to the modern Ukrainians. It says that "Ruthene/Ruthenian" was formerly used to refer to "A native or inhabitant of the East Slavonic-speaking region", but that this usage had died out by the 18th century. I don't think I ver said anything about "all Ruthenians in modern Belarus". All I said is that, in English, at the time about which we are writing, "Ruthenian" meant "Ukrainian, and "White Ruthenian" meant "Belarusian". RGloucester — ☎ 03:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. The purpose is not to copy British reference material here to promote a British version of history. Further note the wiki policy on weasel words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word. "Related to modern Ukraine" is weaselly because Ruthenia is the latinized form of Rus, which had its capital in Kiev and at its zenith included parts of modern Ukraine and Russia, and all of modern Belarus. Ruthenian is the proper adjective pertaining to the people and languages related to Kievan Rus. In this sense the Russian and Belarusian people and languages are "related to" modern Ukraine. In a broader sense the Rusyns are as well, although they were traditionally found outside of the historical lands of Kievan Rus (i.e., all of the Carpathian mountains) and are related in that they are all Slavs and some Rusyns are now found in the Soviet created modern Ukrainian state. Of course, you are welcome to take your British definitions to the Ruthenians page and present your sources there, which is where it belongs.85.154.245.172 (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double やれやれ. What an incredibly overt WP:OR attempt in the name of being plainly and unabashedly WP:POINTy. You're pointing to an article examining the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in order to create some form of convoluted (and desperate) attempt to demonstrate that the use of Ruthenian in censuses for Galicia dating from the late 19th and early 20th century meant Belarusian? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the proper interpretation of the Austrian's usage of the German term "Ruthenen" and the Polish usage of the Polish word "Rusini". [Edit to note that we are still waiting for the source of the census data itself, as it has not been established here that a population was counted by ethnicity or language in this time since the census only counted people by religion, e.g., which rite of the Catholic Church they celebrated.] 37.200.224.205 (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a lot of stuff about Galicia in the late Austrian period. You are right that the Austrian census counted people only by religion and declared language, but this has been extrapolated by many authors. As an example, take a look at this book (by a Pole, no less). The parts that deal with Galicia in detail are not available online, but there is a chart that shows the data, as extrapolated from the data based on religion and declared language. The last time I heard anyone try to use "Ruthenian" to refer to all the stuff pertaining to the Rus' was during a discussion of the so-called "Great Russian chauvinism" (everyone is a Russian (i.e. Ruthenian), merely some are white, some little, and some great). That's a nonsense definition which simply wasn't used in practice during the time period we are talking about. RGloucester — ☎ 12:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link and an attempt at a rational discussion of the issue. I do appreciate your effort. I should add that contemporary works handled the issue differently. (See W. Lutoslawski, et. al., (1919) The Ruthenian Question In Galicia, pg. 7, who noted an intermarriage rate of aproximately 30%, and no one would have gotten excommunicated from the church for worshiping in the other Rite.) From the exemplar of the 1900 census which I found online, it only surveyed the population on religion, not language. The book to which you refer was written in Polish and then translated into English. I have seen variants of original Polish works translated incorrectly. Stanisław Stępień lists the title of the work in Galicia: A Multicultured Land as "Borderland City: Przemyśl and the Ruthenian National Awakening in Galicia" NOT "Borderland City: Przemysl and the Ukrainian National Awakening in Galicia": http://www.pwin.pl/Organizacja/dokumenty/prezes.html as I have seen elsewhere. It may be that Dr. Magosci has reopened a can of worms about the inconvenient truth of linguistics as the justification for Soviet expansionism by rediscovering the Rusyns in the Carpathians. From the explanation of usage of the term Ruthenian he co-Authored with Prof. Hann, and his essays on Rusyns, he appears to use Ruthenian for the remainder of Ruthenians who had not adopted the Ukrainian nationality in Galicia. Thus according to Magosci, most Galician Rusyns remained Ruthenians, not Ukrainians until annexed by the Soviets, which may have been different on the Hungarian side of the border. Contrary to Faustian's comments about the Poles attempting to erase the word Ukrainian in the Second Polish Republic, the 1931 census counted both Ukrainians and Ruthenians [1] and the summary on wiki of the 1921 census indicates the same was true then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_census_of_1921 I have seen no similar reference to Ukrainians in a census of Galicia. Again this map from 1910 refers only Ruthenians, not Ukrainians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians#mediaviewer/File:Austria_hungary_1911.jpg Magosci can't be a RS when some want him to be for anti-polinist comments, but not an RS when his comments support the Polish approach to the Ruthenian question pre-war. Also note that the Soviets seized documents from this period in Lwow, refused to return them and later destroyed them. Norman Davies, God's Playground, a History of Poland, Columbia University Press, 1982, ISBN 0231053525, p.558 Thank you again for an attempt at a reasoned discussion and for providing sources to discus.37.200.224.205 (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just highlight the absurdity of this statement: "Thus according to Magosci, most Galician Rusyns remained Ruthenians, not Ukrainians until annexed by the Soviets, " This kind of tells us all we need to know about this IP's POV and approach to sources. In the chapter called "Ukrainian Lands in Interwar Poland" MAgocsi notes (pg. 593) "The Russophiles, at least in eastern Galicia, remained a political force during the interwar years, although on the national-cultural front they were completely outdistanced by the Ukrainians." Pg. 595: "The Polish government never referred to the Ukrainians and their language by the modern name Ukrainian;instead, it used the historical name Rusyn (Polish: Rusin), thereby inadvertently contributing to a disliking on the part of many Ukrainians, especially Galician Ukrainians, for their original national designation." Also, here we see the IP's strategic approach on wikipedia: "The Polish government adopted a policy of tribalization, which gave support to the idea of various ethnographic groups (Lemkos, Boikos, Hutsuls) as wel as Old Ruthenians and Russophiles were somehow distinct from the Ukrainian nationality as a whole." BTW Magocsi on page 423 lists the Austrian census for language in Galicia. He does not mention Ruthenians but Ukrainians. The primary source (the Austrian census) uses the old term "Ruthenians." But the secondary source - Magocsi's book A History of Ukraine - uses "Ukrainians." Note that per wikipedia policy secondary sources are ideal: [WP:SECONDARY]. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So the secondary source, Magocsi, interpreted the primary source (Austrian census listing Ruthenian) and described Ukrainians. The IP, seeks to use the primary source to push the Polish nationalist POV that there were only Ruthenians in Galicia or to follow the interwar Polish nationalist strategy of erasing the name Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even what's at issue here. The fundamental point is that "Ruthenian" is equated with what we now call "Ukrainian" by reliable secondary sources, and by the OED. Regardless of who identified as what, or what "Ukrainian" meant at the time, the modern terminology for what we used to call "Ruthenian" is "Ukrainian". There is no doubt at all about this in the reliable sources presented, and there should not be any doubt here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you please explain why Magosci is considered RS on this point when he was clearly mistaken when he wrote, "The Polish government never referred to the Ukrainians and their language by the modern name Ukrainian;instead, it used the historical name Rusyn (Polish: Rusin), thereby inadvertently contributing to a disliking on the part of many Ukrainians, especially Galician Ukrainians, for their original national designation." (Pg. 595 supra). The 1931 census clearly demonstrates that he was unreliable on this point. (Probably because he relied upon second hand sources from the communist era) The Reported Population-Ukrainian: 3,221,975 (10.10%) vs. Ruthenian: 1,219,647 (3.82%). So 27.5% of the combined Ukrainian+Ruthenian population still considered themselves Ruthenian and not Ukrainian over 30 years later. [1] (It's on page 30 of the PDF available here, and was published in French and Polish: http://statlibr.stat.gov.pl/exlibris/aleph/a18_1/apache_media/VUNVGMLANSCQQFGYHCN3VDLK12A9U5.pdf) I don't see the Gaels called the Irish on their Wiki page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels Why are we doing this here? By using the anachronistic term before the population itself was collectively conscious of a nationality, the page paints a false picture of what the facts on the ground were. It would be better to explain simply that a transformation was occurring in how the Ruthenian peasants considered the issue of nationality, leave the link to the Ruthenian page, and move the discussion there. Ukrainian is not the accepted term until 1914 per Magosci and Hann, the RS here.37.200.224.205 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[Edit to add that the communist history, and the former Soviet Block historians that emerged from communist era (including Poles) should be judged with a large dose of skepticism over the rationale for all of the forced "population transfers", which we now call a crime against humanity.]85.154.245.172 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC) [Edit to add that OED is wrong according to contemporary publications from the time, e.g. (1907), http://www.amazon.com/Huzulians-Ruthenian-Highlands-Traditional-Clothing/dp/B00GCPVPDS/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1411753211&sr=8-11&keywords=ruthenian Nor is it the appropriate word according to contemporary historians. See J.P. Himka, Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine: The Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia, 1867-1900. Here we see a reference to the modern nation for geographic location, but correct contemporary usage of the people.]85.154.245.172 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[Edit to add additional contemporary publication, e.g. 1900": 'A Ruthenian bride wearing the Bridal wreath - Amongst the Ruthenians..."http://www.amazon.com/UKRAINE-Ruthenian-wearing-Bridal-antique/dp/B008CP2MHO/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&qid=1411756228&sr=8-34&keywords=ruthenian]85.154.245.172 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Edit to add additional contemporary publication, e.g. 1900": "A Ruthenian Church, East Carpathians" http://www.amazon.com/ROMANIA-Ruthenian-Church-Carpathians-Timber/dp/B008CP2NDW/ref=sr_1_49?ie=UTF8&qid=1411757120&sr=8-49&keywords=ruthenian] 85.154.245.172 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OR complaint and lack of NPOV, etc.

After fair warning, a compliant has been made here for OR, lack of NPOV and other issues regarding the disruption of this page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Ruthenians_in_Galicia

Relevant exerepts are below regarding the lack of RS for the page, and the OR from certain editors which conflicts with known RS:


We are having several problems with tag team OR on the Galicia page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)

The first OR pertains to conflating ethnicity and religion in Galicia: People

"It is, however, possible to make a clear distinction in religious denominations: Poles were Roman Catholic, the Ruthenians belonged to the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church (now split into several sui juris Catholic churches, the largest of which is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church)."

No RS has been given for this assertion. The burden is on the person or persons posting this to have provided RS. I have cited two RS in the talk section who have noted that religion did not predict ethnicity between Poles and Ukrainians. (Galicia: A Multicultured Land (Christopher Hann and Paul Robert Magocsi (Editors) (2005) (Stepien, pp. 54-55; Hann, p. 220)) The response from was to assume bad faith, and revert without providing RS for the asserted "fact": "Am getting a cite check for the pages you have referenced. Reverting until this can be confirmed one way or the other. Your your arguments for deleting and removing all references to religion other than Jewish left the section as nonsensical. What does Jewish as the third largest religious group mean when there are no references to other religious groups? At worst, a request for a reference could have been inserted. The rest of your logic translates as WP:OR resulting in WP:POV blanking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_%28Eastern_Europe%29&diff=625040224&oldid=624886751 Without a RS this comment is nothing but OR based upon this editor's "logic". Rather than support the assertion, OR accusations are made against me, despite the fact that I have provided RS and others have not, along with other uncivil comments. This appears to be contentious editing as well, but without RS, it is nothing more than OR. After I reverted to remove the OR, Faustian enters the page and reverts back to the OR with the edit summary of "rv POV edits seeking to erase word "Ukrainians". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_%28Eastern_Europe%29&diff=625941453&oldid=625935356 (It should be noted that "Ruthenian" and not "Ukrainian" was the proper contemporary term for the time period, as I have cited:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians#mediaviewer/File:Austria_hungary_1911.jpg) Since there was no source given for the edit, I reverted "noting Faustian replaced sourced material with unsourced without explanation or discussion" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_%28Eastern_Europe%29&diff=626028273&oldid=625941453 Faustian refused to give a source, reliable or not, for the assertion, and again reverted with the comment, "restore version prior to Polish nationalist POV". Apparently, his opinion that something he just doesn't like is a Polish nationalist POV entitles him to engage in his own OR and not provide any sources for discussion.

We also see OR with the frequent removal by these editors of the contemporary word "Ruthenian" and replacing it with "Ukrainian", as if they are historically interchangeable. (Irish are Gaels, but is it therefore accurate to refer to all Gaels as Irish?) No source has been given for the assertion "Ruthenians (most of whom would today be regarded as Ukrainians)". This is nothing more that the opinion of these editors. (Nor is there any RS that most of these Ruthenians had actually considered themselves to have been "Ukrainians" during this time period.) There is no source cited on this point to discuss. Therefore, this statement and the substitution of "Ruthenian" and replacing it with "Ukrainian" is OR.

The Modus operendi of these editors is to make claims without RS, then demand proof what they believe is false. This reverses the burden of persuasion. However, there is a RS to the contrary. Respected historian Paul Robert Magsosci, Professor, Chair of Ukrainian Studies, University of Toronto, Ph.D. in History has written extensively on the "East Slavic people called Carpatho-Rusyns, or simply Rusyns (sometimes in English: Ruthenians)." He is quite emphatic that they are not "Ukrainians", and nor is their language: "Ukraine must, in turn, guarantee the individual and corporate rights of Rusyns — or those citizens of Ukraine who wish to call themselves Rusyns... Ukrainian authorities must accept the fact that within its boundaries, primarily in its Transcarpathian oblast, there are people who define themselves as Rusyns in the sense of a nationality distinct from Ukrainians. Such people should have the right to declare themselves in their passports and internal documents as Rusyns, and the state census bureau should publish data on the number of persons who identify as Rusyns and not simply classify them, as has been done until now, as Ukrainians." (Magosci, "The Rusyn Question" Political Thought 1995, №2-3 (6) P.221-231, :http://www.litopys.org.ua/rizne/magocie.htm

Thus even if these editors might claim to find a RS for their POV, it would not be a NPOV. The forced submersion of ethnic Rusyns into the Ukrainian identity is the result of the communist takeover of the region: "As we know, the Communist era with its anti-democratic approach to the nationality question was to last until the revolutions of 1989 and 1991. The only exception was the case of the small group of Rusyns in the Vojvodina region of Yugoslavia. Although a Communist regime was installed in their land as well, the Yugoslav government allowed the Vojvodina Rusyns to decide their own national orientation. This was not to be the case for the Rusyns living in the Carpathian homeland. In short, the Soviet regime declared that further debate was unnecessary because the nationality question was supposedly solved long ago. Based on a decision made in 1924, all Rusyns, regardless what they may have called themselves, were declared to be Ukrainians. All those who opposed the Ukrainian viewpoint were accused of having "anti-historical" and, therefore, "anti-Soviet" opinions: they often were removed from their jobs or were arrested as "counterrevolutionaries." Closely connected with these developments was the liquidation first in Soviet Transcarpathia (1949) and then in Czechoslovakia (1950) of the Greek Catholic Church, which by the mid-twentieth century had become the center of the Rusyn orientation." (Magosci, supra) And also the ethnic cleansing of Nazi allied Ukrainian nationalists during the war. (The Rusyns who refused to identify themselves as Ukrainians committed an act which was punishable by the death penalty. Henryk Komański and Szczepan Siekierka, Ludobójstwo dokonane przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach w województwie tarnopolskim w latach 1939-1946 (2006) 2 volumes, 1182 pages, at pg. 203.) What has resulted from these authors is a chauvinistic Ukrainian POV regarding the Ruthenian question.

There was a link provided to the Wiki Ruthenian page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians [Ruthenians] Presumably, that should be enough for any reader who might be motivated to explore the topic further. However, these editors have decided that Ruthenians in Galica are somehow severable from the other Ruthenians in the region and are all simply Ukrainians. Again no RS have been provided for this opinion, and again RS are to the contrary: "As problematic is the nomenclature and identity problem among those Americans whose ancestors came from Galicia, where the term Rusyn as a self-identifier was also widespread until as late as the third decade of the twentieth century. In the United States, these Galician-Rusyn immigrants and their descendants, often from the same village or even same family, have identified themselves either as Carpatho-Russians, Russians, or Ukrainians. These varied identities are also found among Galicians and their descendants from villages in the Lemko Region, who have interacted particularly closely in America with Rusyns from south of the Carpathians. Therefore, one can encounter in the immigration Rusyn Lemkos, Russian Lemkos, Ukrainian Lemkos, or those who simply identify as Lemkos." (Magosci, "What's in a Name?" http://carpatho-rusyn.org/what.htm, Adapted from: "Our People - Carpatho-Rusyns and Their Descendants In North America" (1995).) Furthermore, by refusing to move this discussion to the Ruthenians page [Ruthenians], these authors appear to be attempting to carve out their own little empire on the Galicia page to engage in their own version of history. I thought that the Wiki idea was that more editors would enable a better result, rather than promoting a narrow, parochial view of history. After the repeated refusal of these authors to provide RS for their OR, I can only conclude that a Ukrainian nationalist POV is being put forward and being supported by OR. The battleground is that they wish to employ the Stalinist definition of "Ukrainian" to include all Ruthenians and ignore ethnic cleansing from Nazi allied Ukrainian nationalists and Stalin’s deportations to retrospectively assert that Eastern Galicia was in fact "occupied Western Ukraine" as Faustian has referred to the region in previously on the Bandera page:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&diff=prev&oldid=557869288

This is clearly also Revanchism. Thus, we see in People not a total of all ethnic groups in the kingdom as a whole, but instead only two separate percentages for the Eastern and Western halves. We also see the need to replace the broader contemporary category of "Ruthenians" with the chauvinistic communist/Ukrainian nationalist invention of all as "Ukrainian" (regardless of whether these people had identified themselves that way, or even may have objected to the term) in the respective East/West ethnic percentages. We also see the need to claim that most of these Ruthenians would presently be regarded as Ukrainians, without discussion of why that confusion might remain in the post-communist world, or how we might travel back in time to know this.85.154.245.171 (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added some reliably sourced info - Yale historian Timothy Snyder's work published by Yale University Press - that explicitly uses what this IP calls the "chauvinistic communist/Ukrainian nationalist invention" word Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be reasonable to collapse this section as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Aside from the WP:TLDR and WP:ADVOCACY aspects, it's merely a cut-and-paste of the identical tirade this IP has posted elsewhere. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this issue here to have a different Ukrainian Nationalist POV on this page than on the Ruthenians page is WP:FORUMSHOPPING You add nothing to the discussion and only make accusations.85.154.245.172 (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING regarding Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups and self-identification

Just a reminder of Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes) "Self-identification-How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." As noted by Paul Robert Magosci, there is an ethnic group known in English as Ruthenians, but which self identifies as Carpatho-Rusyns, or simply Rusyns. They do not self-identify as Ukrainians. In fact, they find the Ukrainian label offensive. You are hereby warned that continuing to refer to Carpatho-Rusyns as Ukrainians may result in complaints being lodged against you in appropriate Wiki forums.85.154.245.171 (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New strategy for future forum-shopping by the anon IP after his failure here: [9]? This article is about Galicia, not the region of Carpatho-Rusyns so it is completely irrelevant here.Faustian (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh oh. It looks like a lot of self-identified Ukrainians viewed the term "Ruthenians" to be offensive: Paul R. Magocsi. (2010). A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pg. 638. By the IP's silly logic this term can'tbe used either. Perhaps we should refer to these people as Martians?Faustian (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rusyns who didn't identify as Ukrainians because they had their own separate ethnic identity have never had a problem being called Ruthenians. They just don't like being called Ukrainians, because they weren't. This is a communist invention which some here want to continue. (See Magosci) However, there is no RS that ethnic Ukrainians objected to the broader classification of Ruthenians during Hapsburg Galicia, which is the title of this page, and much authority that many Ruthenians knew themselves only as peasants and had not identified themselves as Ukrainians. But this does expose the nationalist POV being promoted by such comments.37.200.224.205 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good that you mentioned Galicia. So you'll stop irrelevant comments about Carpatho-Rusyns? As for "Soviet invention" - Carpatho-Ukraine preceded Soviet rule.Faustian (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have a problem admitting to understanding sets and subsets. "Carpatho" is short for Carpathian, meaning all of the Carpathian Mountains, not just the part in modern Ukraine. Rusyn is the name given to the ethnic group which lived along the entire mountain range, thus Carpatho-Rusyns, or Rusyns for short. The fact that part of the Carpathians had part called Carpatho-Ukraine for a time after the end of Galicia, does not change the fact that there were Rusyns both in Austrian Galicia and across the rest of the Carpathians as well. See Magosci THE LEMKO RUSYNS: THEIR PAST AND PRESENT: http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/lemkos/lemkos.htm The two are not mutually exclusive as you are insisting without RS, and RS is to the contrary, AGAIN Your claim is OR and will be addressed, and also not NPOV85.154.245.172 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Carpathian Ruthenia was always a different region than Galicia.Faustian (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which does not change the FACT that there were Rusyns in Austrian Galicia. See Magosci THE LEMKO RUSYNS: THEIR PAST AND PRESENT: http://www.carpatho-rusyn.org/lemkos/lemkos.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.200.224.205 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 85.154.245.172 (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link isn't to a reliable source, sorry. (Carpatho-Rusyn American). See WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view.". So, try to find a reliable source for your claims next time. BTW the article you cited states that a lot of them considered themselves to be Russians. Does that make them Russians? Interestingly it notes that the nationalistic Polish government (which in the 1930s' was nationalistic and anti-Ukrainian) pushed the idea of Lemkos as a separate nation. So we see the pattern of your pushing 1930's style nationalistic Polish ideas onto wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cited him as a RS, and now he isn't reliable anymore? Are you schizophrenic or did someone hack your account? Maybe this needs to be reported? Just a reminder the source is: Paul Robert Magocsi (born January 26, 1945, Englewood, New Jersey, USA) is an American professor of history, political science, and Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto. He has been with the university since 1980, and became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 1996. He currently acts as Honorary Chairman of the World Congress of Rusyns, and has authored many books on Rusyn history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robert_Magocsi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.245.172 (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review wikipedia polices on reliable sources more carefully. Hint: a peer-reviewed work is reliable, a journal for activists is not and is only good for reporting what the activists believe. So Magocsi's work form university-published books is acceptable, his interview in a Rusyn political journal is not. Hopefully you have understood this? So, do you have one or will you continue providing irrelevant biographical details? Faustian (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Ludnosc, Ludnosc wedlug wyznania i plci oraz jezyka ojczystego (table 10, pg. 15)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)&oldid=627190908"