Jump to content

Talk:Rusyns

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jyakimic (talk | contribs) at 19:37, 20 April 2017 (→‎creating ethnicities?: an update to my comments and understanding of this subject (after 10 years)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Importance Rating

By the project scale, I would rate importance as "high", as Rusyns would qualfy as an "ethnic group"Pustelnik 20:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt the article I now post eliminate a need for this page? Who is wikipedia to debate the ethnicity of the Rusyns when Ukraine now recognizes them as an ethnic minority? [1]

OK with me. I have inserted ratings. I'm keeping this section open in case something thinks they deserve a higher or lower rating. Why is Ukraine's recognition of the Rusyns as an ethnic group relevant or important? Pustelnik 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podkarpatska Rus

I would be very interested in an article about any transient independent state. I have likened this to Carpathian Ruthenia, which implies a legally autonomous area in the post World War I era, with little detail. Can someone clarify or expand this?Pustelnik 13:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article about Ukraine or Kyivan Rus. It was one of several Ukrainian states. Rusyns as Hutsuls are the same Ukrainians. There were simply isolated from Kyiv for too long and forgot their true roots.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that they were isolated so long that they consider themselves something other than Kievan Rus? If so, then they are a separate ethnic group by definition. Genetically, neither Rusyns nor Hutsula are similar to Ukrainians.Pustelnik (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Genetically? Are you for real? How can you be from western Ukraine and not be genetically related to western ukrainians? In my family tree alone I have so-called 'Rusyn' names as well as Boyko, explain to me how I'm not genetically Ukrainian? --Львівське (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They're closer related to cucumbers.--Bandurist (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the linguistic POV, Rusyns are distinct from Ukrainians. (Taivo (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

creating ethnicities?

Are we witnessing ethnicities being created here? I think we are but I'm not sure where... My ancestors referred to themselves as Rusyn (or Ruthenian, same thing, germanic version). They were not separate from the people that call themselves Ukrainians today. I think this splitting of words is completely based on politics. I think the Ukrainians realize that they share a history with the russians but are recoiling from the communist russia of the previous century. I think maybe those who refer to themselves as 'rusyn' or 'ruthenian' these days are recoiling from the nationalistic attitudes of Ukraine. Maybe the ruthenians are filled with a sense of pan-slavism. They should be careful of that. They should remember that this pan-slavism idea was :exploited by the Russians to give a purpose to invading the nations that surround them. They should also remember that they (the rusyns) :and the Ukrainians share the name Rusyn historically, while the Russians were Muscovites. To me Rusyn, Ruthenian and Ukrainian are all part of the same body. I'm guessing that this wikipedia article was written by Magcosi. I've read that he has written many books on the subject. In fact, I'm under the impression that he invented to idea of Rusyn's being a separate people. -Joe Yakimicki

Thank you. There seems to be an ongoing trend of creating new ethnicities on wikipedia. It's getting ridiculous and all for politial correctness. 72.144.68.226 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, the issue isn't new and far from obvious. If you know Ukrainian, I suggest you go read some Rusyn web-sites. It is hard to call the language used there "Ukrainian". I naver have any difficulty to read in the Ukrainian variants from any part of Ukraine as well as diaspora publications. I can attest that what's at Rusyn sites is way different from what I see elsewhere. There are still not strictly defined answers to what makes a difference between a dialect and a separate language (mutual intellegibility is often cited but even that is not a universal answer).
I don't think Magocsi writes for Wikipedia and I would be delighted if people of his level woould but if the articles are based on his works, this is as solid a ref as any other. He is an established scholar. Please consider registering. --Irpen 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is Rusyns are Ukrainians, and Ukrainians are Rusyns, "russians" are muscovians (moskali), the only reason Ukrainians call themselves Ukrainians is because muscovians stole the 'Rus' name because of how famous Kyivan Rus was at the time, muscovians wanted to become more famous. Ukrainians wanted to show they are not muscovians, people who call themselves Rusyns probably didn't know of muscovians stealing the name, thus they didn't see a reason to change their name to Ukrainians. So if we wanted to be really correct we would call Ukrainians/Rusyns Russians or Rusyns, and 'russians' muscovians!Nroscha 17:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side commnent, when speaking of the people in Transcarpathia in his book on Ukrainian history Magosci consistantly refers to its people as "Rusyns/Ukrainians."Faustian 14:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looking back on my comments and others, I think that I'm missing the point. I'm aiming too far in to history here. Even if these different cultures are relatively new (i.e., not 1000 years), it does not mean that it is not a distinct culture. Believe me, I am no expert here, just a bystander with a bit of interest in the area and it's people/history. (Joe Yakimicki, sept. 2007)

Checking in nearly 10 years after my previous comment-- I just wanted to update this to say that 10 more years of interest and research have really only led me to this: Perhaps some geographic and temporal locations had a stronger sense of demarcation between Rusyn, Ruthenian, Ukrainian, etc. I think the lines of demarcation are very fuzzy in many locations and periods of time. Times of conflict often seem to lead to seeing black and white in a place where that is very gray. (Joe Yakimicki, April 2017)

I agree with Nroscha. Rusyns are people of the Rus or Ruthenia (Latinized version), but such an entity fell into oblivion since the XIII century. The primary decedant of that state is Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Grandparents

When my Grandmother came to the US in the early 1900's she refered to herself as a Ruthenian. When I found her entry in a ships log through Ellis Island she is listed as Ruthenian and the term Russian was crossed out. Just my two cents. ---Steve

I'm an American, but I had Rusyn ancestors. Some were imprisoned at Talerhof, some formed the Lemko-Rusyn Republic, and others were deported in the Vistula operation. One even wrote a Rusyn Primer and reader in the 1930's, which was later suppressed by the Polish government. For the most part, they did not consider themselves to be Ukrainians, but Lemkos. My grandmother's sister immigrated to Canada, and did consider herself to be Ukrainian. Of course, the Canadian government considered her ethnic group to be "Austrians", and interned them in WW I. I would consider ethnicity to be self-defined. I resent someone insisting that my ancestors were Ukrainians, as they showed by their actions that they did not consider themslves to be Ukrainians.Pustelnik 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in the US. My grandmother (Anna Hunchar Potocnak) always referred to herself as Ruthenian (Rusyn) Ukrainian, and Orthodox Catholic. She was quite adamant on her self-identification, and even stated she spoke both Ukrainian and Ruthenian (along with a few other languages). I do not think Rusyns are a subgroup that does not deserve an entry - quite the opposite. If she felt that adamant about her identification, obviously it meant quite a lot to those who fled the area to the US "diaspora".Winterlongone 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Edit

This article seemed to have been cut and pasted and re-editted to the extent that it did not make sense as a whole. I added a slew of links to connect it with other articles as well as enforced the term "Rusyns" throughout the article in order to not confuse the reader. I also added a section for references, should anyone have the time to peruse the major writings and expand this article. As for bias, I attempted to be neutral and hope that I presented as many viewpoints as possible.--tufkaa 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC) p.s.:Someone please correct my horrible translation of the Polish-language reference.--tufkaa 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that the "overwhelming majority" of recent edits tend to focus too much on Ukraine, and the "overwhelming majority" who identify themselves as Ukrainian. I think that statements such as the height of political "Ruthenianism" in the mid-nineties cross the line with regards to NPOV. I'm not going to delete edits as yet, but would like the editors of this article to remember that it is about Rusyns and their history.--tufkaa 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what you find objectionable about the above phrase. Also, given that most of historical Ruthenians/Rusyns (in Galicia, including the vast majority of Zakarpatia) consider themselves Ukrainian today, the Ukrainian focus seems appropriate. On a personal note, a know many recent immigrants from Zakarpatia (Prykarpatia) in the USA, none of whom considers themsevles Rusyn despite the different dialect (an example that sticks in my mind is the word for socks - "shtrympfy" - rather than "skarpetky". Faustian 22:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've said it before and I'll say it again: skarpetky is not a Ukrainian word.
Besides that minor point, my concern is the potential marginalization of Rusyns in their namesake WP article. Many Rusyns, Rusnaks, Lemkos, Hutsuls, etc., do not consider themselves anything but Rusyns, Rusnaks, Lemkos, or Hutsuls, etc. Precisely how many is debatable, but fortunately for Rusyns, there are now scholarly publications available on their history, language, etc. Look, I'm not a Rusyn nationalist; I'm just an editor who thinks that WP editors should give out at least an equal amount of respect towards marginalized cultures as those cultures which we hold near and dear to our heart. A phrase such as the height of political "Ruthenianism" in the mid-nineties makes it sound like this whole ethnicity was a big fad.--tufkaa 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how the quotes around Ruthenianism look bad and am removing them. Otherwise the article seems fine, given that most western Ukrainians considered themselves Rusyns (any articel on Rusyns should not ignore this - someone looking for historical info on Rusyns with reference to Galicia get an article about more than just Yugoslav, American, etc., Rusyns). Cultural identity is an interesting thing and we will see with history if Rusyns turn out to be, like ethnic German Austrians with respect to Germany, ethnic Ukrainians with a different national orientations or a kind of "fad". respectfully, Faustian 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it sad and fascinating at the same time that some in Ukraine (neither Faustian nor Tufkaa are among them but I don't want to call names of some editors) like to talk about bads of the SU in relationtion with an effective denial of Ukrainian identity (or keeping it exclusively to folklore stuff) but as the same time, following the Ukrainian attainment of independence, do the same to Rusyns, calling them "Ukrainians". Remember the "Romanians who forgot their native language" thingy? I remember very well like some of our Verkhovna Rada deputies (I think it was the Plushch' time) screamed inside the parliament about the dangers of "Political Ruthenianism" (Політичний русинізм) in the '90s. A similar interview of Mykhailo Tyvodar I linked to the article a while ago to provide the diversity of opinions also speaks along those lines. To those who think that Rusyns are just Ukrainians, I suggest to go to any Rusyn web-sites and, don't read the Propaganda, but just look at the articles. This one for instance? Is this Ukrainian language? I remember a long discussion with User:PANONIAN and others where we tried to figure what "Перед кунківском церквю капітан ПВ одберат мельдунок" is supposed to mean.

So, let's separate two issues. Actually three issues. The first one is that in the Austrian Empire what we now call "Ukrainians" were all called "Ruthenians" (Russinen?) and given some reasonable freedom compared to their Ukrainian brethren of, say, Volhynia, of the RU empire, in order to prevent any splitting of the people's loyalty towards the more Russia-leaning parts of Ukraine as well as to Ukraine itself. Some of those people were, perhaps, simply Ukrainians in modern sense. Some where Rusyn. That's the first point. The second point is that the issue exists along with people. Due to its unfortunate politization, statistical data has to be treated with care but there is a significant amount of research (including but not limited to Magocsi) on the subject. And the third connected issue is that this politicization is harmful and editors should not scrutinize others exclusively to try to deduce some hidden political agenda.

Fazil Iskander wrote in his book that "Our science is so politicized that people somehow forget that the truth is interesting in its own right". (У нас наука настолько политизирована, что люди как-то забывают, что истина и сама по себе интересна) in connection with a dispute about the authorship of the "Great Abkhazian Wall". A useful reread for some (not the editors above) who are perpetually seeking a hidden agenda in every statement anyone makes at Wikipedia. --Irpen 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With fascination I read the discussion at uk:Обговорення:Русин were our old friend illustrates what I was just talking about. I invite our tri-lingual Wikipedians to take a look as well at the discussions at other language wikipedia talk pages that discuss their respective articles. I especially like the introduction and comparison with the Russian/Moskal (Muscovite) "analogy". Whatever languages you can read, take a look, try to understand what to avoid and please come back. --Irpen 15:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interesting commentary. The linked article [[2] was a fascinating read. Irpen, have you ever heard a "pure" Galician dialect? (nowadays it is more common among grandparents in the diaspora than in Ukraine, at least according to my visits there) I am no professional linguist, but to me the Lemko passage seems to be a combination of Galician and Russian. Perhaps that reflects a similarity with Belorusyn of which I am unfamiliar, or even an insertion of Russian words by the Russophile coders of the Rusyn language, comparable to the Church Slavonic insertions into the literary Russian language when it was first codified. The use of the passive tense (?) ся or ce comparable to Spanish se is typical of Galicia as well. I found lists of some Galician words (which didn't include the Galician spatzeruvaty for huliaty or the Austrian-derived greeting servus): [3] [4]. But unfortunately I haven't been able to get an entire passage, as a comparison to the Lemko passage would have been interesting. Perhaps they would be equally far apart from literary Ukrainian language based on the Poltava (central/eastern Ukraine) dialect. All of which point to the numerous potential possibilities inherent in national identitification and language. It is a fascinating subject, and perhaps if I have time I will try to devote an article to it - it would take a couple of hours, though, so who knows when that will happen.

As for Ukrainian sensitivity to the Rusyn issue, I think it stems from several sources. Firstly, the issues and conflict are quite familar in the nationalistic West. There, where the local dialect is similar to Rusyn, the same conflict between Ukrainophiles and Rusynophiles and Russophiles also played out, in the 19th century. The victor in Galicia is quite clear. To a Galician, a Rusynophile from America or across the Slovak border may seem like an unpleasant throwback to an earlier heretofore resolved conflict.

Secondly, the Rusynophile orientation was explicitly utilised by Hungarian and Polish authorites in their respective lands to try to seperate their subject peoples' from the greater Ukrainian nation. In the case of the Poles, Austrian neutrality prevented the Poles from fully using their resources and the Russinophile orientation withered in Galicia, although the Poles tried to revive it after 1920 by forcing Galician Ukrainians to refer to themselves as Rusyns in official documents. By then it was too late, the Ukrainian identity had been set, and the result was only resentment for "Rusynism." In the lands under Hungary (Zakarpatia), in contrast, before 1914 Rusynism received the explicit support of the state and therefore survived, albeit even with the state support it was no more than equal to the Ukrainophile orientation there (according to Magosci's book on Ukrainian history). All of these events have led many Ukrainians to view Rusynism as a sort of foreign (Polish, Hungarian, or Russian)intrigue and its proponents as some sort of collaborators. The irony here is obvious, as the same accusations have been levelled against Ukrainanism itself by some Russians.

Thirdly, the similarities between Rusyn and other western Ukrainian cultures and language are so great that it is frankly difficult for (particularly Western) Ukrainians to view Rusyns as a different people. It would be analogous, perhaps, to a situation in which some Alabamans insisted that Alabama was a seperate nation with its own language, codified the language of Faulkner (which, obviously, is quite different from standard English), while Mississipians remained "patriotic Americans" and merged their speech with that of standard American English.

My own personal opinion is that national identity depends on the people's self-identification. If most Rusyns come to feel themselves as a separate nation, than for whatever reason they arrive at this conclusuion it is their right to do so. But this issue should be independent from one of ethnicity or linguistic categorization. And it is still far from settled. As I mentioned earlier, Rusyns may become like Austrians in relation to Germans, a seperate nation. Or their national orientation may turn out to have been a fashion, like the supposed unique ethnicity of Polish nobles (Sarmatism) or the Bavarian indepenence movement [5].Faustian 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a Lviv dictionary: [6]. Faustian 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More ethnicities

Now "Pannonian Rusyns" are a different ethnicity than "Rusyns" because they live in a different location and speak a different language. Well then I guess "German Americans" are a separate ethnicity from "Germans". See Pannonian Rusyn. 72.144.68.226 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'even more new ethnicities' was a bad title Idiszero 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Rusyns

I wonder why the "Famous Rusyns" section was removed? --ISasha 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame, considering the notable personalities that are identified with the Rusyn heritage: Andy Warhol, Peter Wilhousky, Tom Ridge, Michael Strank et al. (192.77.143.154 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)) ~~[reply]

Biassed opinions!

Please be aware that this page contains some very biassed opinions by the members of Ukrainian community. Ukrainian nationalists are very well known for denying Rusyns being a separate ethnicity. In the history of this page you can see a number of edits which were clearly caused by one's personal subjective views. One good example would be a number of Rusyns population these days. 54000 is a ridiculous number which does not represent the reality in any way.

Sorry, but we go by scientific data such as recognized surveys, census, etc. If your claims differ wildly from these, than it seems that you are the one using biased opinions. Faustian 12:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, it's a right of every individual to be able to say what they want but I would take it with a grain of salt when Chinese nationalists talk about Tibetans or when Russian nationalists talk about Ukrainians. Or when Ukrainian nationalists talk about Rusyns. 

 Nationalism is a European concept superimposed on us.  We hate it.  We are composed of over 400 cultural-lingual groups in which Tibetian is a term used by British to create a lie
 that there was a Tibetian Kingdom.  There are over 200 Living Buddhas in Four separate sects who are independent, of whom Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama are the leaders of the Yellow 
 Sect, and there are Red Sect, Black Sect and Flower Sect.  Keep your ignorance to your own, so not use us to againt the Han brothers.

(Fixing the formatting as the old one is nigh impossible to read)

Panchelan

The figure of 54,000 or so is from official census data. Sorry, but only about 10,000 people in Ukraine actually identified themselves as Rusyns on the last Ukrainian census. In modern Ukraine most Rusyns consider themselves of Ukrainian nationality. Faustian 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rusyn self-identification

Some Rusyns don't even subscribe to the idea of a separate Rusyn nation, and would bristle at the idea of being called Ukrainian. I come from a Rusyn family that identifies heavily with being Russian, although their language and culture is decidedly more Ukrainian than Russian. I believe the term for people like me is "Russophile" and I know of many Rusyns who are similarly aligned.

to add

Ruthenians and Rusyns are name for nowadays Ukrainians. All my father’s family are Lemko Rusyns. Still they are Ukrainians. My mother's family from Bucovyna are Rusyns is well, and they are Ukrainians. Will give you an example of Ruthenians from Bukovyna. I want to show that Ruthenian or Rusyns is the name for Ukrainians on the example of postcards from time of Austro-Hungarian Empire from Bucovyna:

http://www.ljplus.ru/img3/a/r/aritmija/image032.jpg

http://pics.livejournal.com/igorsova/pic/00001696

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3605/ukrainiansis2.jpg

And here some fragments from a book "Русини а Москалі", written by Bucovinian Rusyns (Ukrainians) in Rutheian language (Ukrainian), dated 1911, from Chernivtsi where strongly emphasised that Rusyns are not Moscovites (Russians):

http://choana.livejournal.com/114557.html#cutid1


My Greatgrandparents were Rusyn immigrants from WESTERN SLOVAKIA (NOT UKRAINE). I consider myself of Rusyn decent, not Slovakian and certainly not Ukrainian. My Greatgrandmother would proudly proclaim she was Rusyn, not Russian. I find it very disappointing to:

1.) Find a Wikipedia Article that is under a series on Ukraine instead of on its' own proud Rusyn heritage.

2.) That this is obviously a site where Ukrainians are claiming that anyone who identifies themselves as Rusyn is actually a misguided Ukrainian. That is very insulting- it is like telling Ukrainians they are misguided Russians.

All this Ukrainian-identity should be kept to a brief statement and allow Rusyns to explain themselves. If you want to say you are Ukrainian and not Rusyn, then you should go to a "proud-to-be-Ukrainian site" instead. KURTAK 16 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.248.223 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity for yourself, but for a fringe group of people who fled their homeland, what kind of parade do you expect?Rusyns are a Ukrainian-based ethnic group, live with it.--Львівське (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not take sides and reports what happens. The facts are that the overwhelming majority of Rusyns in the homeland identify themselves as part of the Ukrainian nation and that scholars have mixed views about whether ornot Rusyn is a seperate language or if it is a dialect of Ukrainian. Wikipedia simply ought to report these referenced facts.Faustian (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Shouldn’t this be at Rusyn people? —Wiki Wikardo 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

possibly (late response). I think there should be a disambiguation page to make clear the matter between historical Rusyns and the contemporary form.--Lvivske (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anthem

Podkarpatskije Rusiny is considered the Rusyn "national anthem", Ja Rusyn byl jesm' i budu - should it have a comma: Ja Rusyn byl, jesm' i budu? (meaning would be I was Rusyn, [I] am and will be)--Constanz - Talk 12:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

Adding up numbers by yourself is original research, especially when you do it from multiple sources. Conqueror100, please review these policies before reverting again. Khoikhoi 07:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should avoid giving any sort of precise numbers here. Estimates and ranges should do as the issue is affected by politics a lot. Census numbers indicate not the actual population but the number obtained by census takers. Even if census was taken in the best way, still the precision of each census number is different and if you add numbers for a small fringe group obtained in 5 different country censuses, you can't claim the precision better than 10%. Of course the census numbers should be given but the total number is best to reference to some source that estimates the world number. If we can't find such number and all we do is add the census numbers, we should give an ~5k range, IMO. --Irpen 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about US census here are some numbers: http://www.everyculture.com/North-America/European-Americans-Bibliography.html In 1980 about 600,000 Americans were of Carpatho-Rusyn ancestry, although only 8,485 claimed such ancestry in the 1980 census. This is in part because many identify themselves as Ukrainians or Russians and because the U.S. census no longer considers the Carpatho-Rusyns as a distinct group. Magocsi, Paul R. (1984). Our People: Carpatho-Rusyns and Their Descendants in North America. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario.

Carpatho Rusyn 3,997 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-mt_name=ACS_2002_EST_G2000_PCT026


100% Rusyn

I am 100% Rusyn. My grandparents were from Galicia (now in Poland), Northeast Slovakia and Ukraine (all in the Carpathian mountains). They identified themselves as Ruthenians when they came to the U.S. They spoke the Rusyn language (different but similar dialects), went to Greek Catholic and Orthodox churches (Byzantine), depending on what region they were from, followed Rusyn customs, etc. I love our old customs. When I went to Europe, I found that in each area they had their own Rusyn schools, beautiful wooden churches - everything was distinctly Rusyn. I have read that Ukraine is now recognizing the Rusyns as a separate and distinct people. Now maybe the Rusyns there will not be afraid to identify themselves as Rusyns and you will see the numbers go up. When I visited my family there, they were afraid to say they were Rusyn and were so happy that I was an American and proud to be a Rusyn. We had an interesting discussion about this issue. Creating ethnicities? I don't think so. I am a Rusyn, my parents were Rusyn, my grandparents were Rusyn, etc. (RusynA 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, all great-great grandparents of Galicians were Rusyns. Galician Rusyns turned into Ukrainians by 1920; for varioous historical reasons on the other side of the Carpathians this process was not as complete. Ethnicities are created all over the place, there is nothing wrong with that. In the case of Rusyns, like Moldovans with respect to Romanians, the story is not yet over...Faustian 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is purely semantical. There is no certain way to tell the dialect from the language as well as to tell a national subgroup from a separate nation. And, yes, these issues are affected by politics as well. We should just describe the situation without attaching any labels ourselves. --Irpen 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable conclusion, as usual. Faustian 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because certain countries want to try and snuff out ethnic minorities doesn't mean the people themselves don't identify as a separate culture. language content has been discussed, but really, just the number of websites and ORGANIZED SOCIETIES pertaining to the Rusyn people indicates that a significant amount of Rusyns identify themselves as Rusyn, NOT Ukranian, Slovak, Polish, Serbian, etc. Observe these links. [7] [8] [9] [10] lists other scholarly organizations identifying with the Rusyn people. [11] [12] I challenge any Ukranian to see if this language is their own.

I am not a linguist. To my unprofessional ear, the language seems like the Galician dialect mixed with a little Russian and perhaps Church Slavonic. It is more easily understandable for a Ukrainian than, say, the Bavarian dialect is for a northern German. Which does not mean a seperate Rusyn nation couldn't exist.
With all due respect, number of web sites doesn't mean much. Otherwise, given over one million websites on alien abduction [13] one would assume that this is a widespread problem. Seriously, as the actual Ukrainian census shows, only over 10,000 people out of a population of over 1 million in Ukrainian Zakarpatia actually identified themselves as Rusyns.
Think about this question of identity in relation to our own country's history. When various Eastern European immigrants came to the U.S., they were determined to be considered 'American' because of the prejudice and disrespect that came with the status of 'immigrant.' I'm sure something similar was at least at one time taking place in The Ukraine. As has been said below, if the Ukrainian government would acknowledge Rusyns as a seperate ethnic group the numbers would go up. (24.229.60.165 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting

A good balanced article on the topic, provided by Irpen:


-Faustian 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ruthenians and Rusyns are name for nowadays Ukrainians. All my father’s family are Lemko Rusyns. Still they are Ukrainians. My mother's family from Bucovyna are Rusyns is well, and they are Ukrainians. Will give you an example of Ruthenians from Bukovyna. I want to show that Ruthenian or Rusyns is the name for Ukrainians on the example of postcards from time of Austro-Hungarian Empire from Bucovyna:

http://www.ljplus.ru/img3/a/r/aritmija/image032.jpg

http://pics.livejournal.com/igorsova/pic/00001696

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3605/ukrainiansis2.jpg

And here some fragments from a book "Русини а Москалі", written by Bucovinian Rusyns (Ukrainians) in Rutheian language (Ukrainian), dated 1911, from Chernivtsi where strongly emphasised that Rusyns are not Moscovites (Russians):

http://choana.livejournal.com/114557.html#cutid1

The problem is very simple - Rusyns are not Ukrainians but Ukrainians are Rusyns. "Ukrainian" is just a weird name designed for them that's why Slovak Rusyns can't adopt it... 91.127.47.237 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ukrainians and Rusyns are the same nation. Just like Greeks and Ellinicos, Georgians and Sakartvelo, Armenians and Hayer. seven


Ladies and Gentelmen! I would like to remind you, that the mission of Wikipedia is descriptive rather than prescriptive. This means that we are here not to decide whether Rusyns are a separate ethnos or a subethnos of Ukrainians. We have just to describe facts: some number of people in Slovac Republic, Poland and Ukraine identify themselves as Rusyn and do not consider themselves Ukrainian. This is just a plain fact.

On the other hand there is no facts supporting the claim that nearly the whole population of Transkarpattia Oblast are Rusyns. As well as there is no fact indicating that any significant number of Hutsuls and Boikos identify themselves as Rusyns. Concerning Lemkos, the situation is different. A significant part of them claim distinct from Ukrainian (Rusyn or a separate Lemko) ethnicity. But we should not forget the fact that a significant number of Lemkos do identify themselves as Ukrainians.

Let us just describe these facts in Wikipedia. Our own views on the subject can be discussed at internet forums rather than at Wikipedia. Regards, --AndriyK 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

60,000

It exists 60,000 people, who claim that they are Rusyns. These are numbers from national official bureaus for statistics:

Slovakia - 24,201
( http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/english/census2001/tab/tab3a.htm )
Serbia - 15,626
( http://www.statserb.sr.gov.yu/zip/esn31.pdf )
Ukraine - 10,100
( http://ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/nationality/zakarpatia/ )
Croatia - 2,337
( http://www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm )
Poland - 5,800
( http://www.stat.gov.pl/english/ )
Hungary - 1,098
( http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_28.html )
Czech Republic - 1,106
( http://www.czso.cz/csu/2005edicniplan.nsf/t/D6002FD8F5/$File/kap_I_05.pdf ).

So I came to the conclusion that 24,201+15,626+10,100+2,337+5,800+1,098+1,106=60,268. It is standard counting of numbers and it does not violate WP:SYN. Conqueror100 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Faustian 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SYN. Khoikhoi 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no data concerning Ukraine. No Rusyns are mentioned here (http://ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/nationality/zakarpatia/.) Your calculations are wrong--133.41.84.172 10:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. But Ukrainian government does not recognize Rusyns as a separate East Slavic nation ( or ethnic group ). Cca 10,100 people declared their nationality as Rusyn, but Ukrainian bureau for statistics counted this number to number of Ukrainians. Conqueror100 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May be these 10 000 had realy decleared themselves as separate ethnic group, however this number is not included in the source you:ve presented concerning Ukraine (http://ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/nationality/zakarpatia/.). So no wonder, that your calculations are wrong. The number of 10000 men looks seems to be your personal fantasy...--133.41.84.206 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rusyns are presented under section: The number of persons of distinct etnographical groups and their mother tongue. The link is only for website. The number of Rusyns ( 10,100 ) in Ukraine is generally recognised (see other sources, please
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/09/cc55d9c7-9e80-4d29-bb1f-2e34a99ef888.html
http://www.unpo.org/article.php?id=5500
http://www.templetonthorp.com/en/news1354). Conqueror100 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you guys are done with revert warring and have the article unprotected, please add this ref to an article. In the meanwhile, please read it.

It is easy to google the credentials of this respected scholar. BTW, he is the author of the current Britannica's article on Ukraine. Happy edits. --Irpen 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a great article. Thanks, Faustian 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article, but it ignores the western parts of Galicia, that became part of Poland after WW I. Reading this article, you would assume that all of Galicia became part of Ukraine, which is not the case. The western parts that became part of Poland had a much more Rusyn orientation, certainly after 1880. See articles on Talerhof and the Lemko-Rusyn Republic.Pustelnik 12:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created image for the article

I chose the images of the four most recognisable Rusyns (and who have free images, so the image wont be removed due to license problems) and compiled an image for the article. I think it came out pretty good so... enjoy :-) (it's about time the article has it's image). M.V.E.i. 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemko (Rusyns); Hutsuls, Boikos (Ukrainians)

The almost part of Lemkos call themself Rusyns, but almost Hutsuls and Boikos call themself Ukrainians. First Ukrainians immigrants came to Argentina in 1897. They were from southwestern Ukraine (Boikivhchyna, Trancarpathia, Hutsulshchyna, Bukovyna, Podillia and Besarabia). The immigrants from Boikivschyna, Transcarpathia and Hutsulshchyna called themself Ukrainians. My grandparents were Boikos´and Hutsuls´sons and they called themself Ukrainians. These immigrants were proud be Ukrainians. I´m proud too be descendent of Ukrainian Hutsuls and Boikos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.77.228 (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think it's unfair for Rusyns to stake claim in all of the sub-groups that comprise western Ukraine. My parents names are allegedly boyko sounding, that doesn't mean I identify as a Rusyn. Heck, my great grandmother had a very Ruthenian name, but I don't identify as Rusyn. This article should focus on those who choose to self-identify as Rusyn over Ukrainian, or those who emigrated from Ukraine to the west prior to Ukrainian self-awareness, and should make no assumptions or claims to other sub-ethnic groups.--Lvivske (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Does anyone have a map or can make a map of the location in Europe where most Rusyns live?--BoguslavM 23:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not live, but lived in 1920. [14] [15] Currently most of them have modern Ukrainian identity, same as former Rusyns, who became Ukrainians, in all regions of Ukraine some years earlier. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with Rusyn cuisine

Can someone knowledgeable about Rusyn cuisine help with a question? Is there a dish called levish or leviš (which is dumplings and cheese), possibly traditional around the area of Strážske? If you have information about it, can you please post at Talk:Slovak cuisine? Thank you in advance for your help. Badagnani (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population

Hi, people who added "1,710,000" figure as population in Ukraine - please explain where it is from. --windyhead (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joensuu 77 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Please, read the article you comment properly through from the beginning to the end. I speak about ancestral Rusyns, and represent both the sources and calculation procedure I have used. In the same way, the size of ethnic minorities sometimes has to be estimated e.g. in France, where all the ethnic groups are legally unrecognized by the state. The Romance minorities of France are an analogy with the status of Slavonic Rusyns in Ukraine. Actually, the way of estimation I have used is relatively moderate, because the Rusyns probably living in Ukraine, outside their rodina, are not included. This kind of people surely exist. "joensuu_77"

“Rusyn identity” as a tool of Russian bullying in Ukraine

As far as we know, the immense majority of the population of Zakarpattia oblast (close to one million) in Ukraine defines themselves as Ukrainians, not Rusyns.

In many old Kingdom of Hungary ethnographic maps, Rusyns/Ruthenians and Ukrainians are in fact counted as one ethnic group.

So... what’s behind the current supposed “surge” in Rusyn nationalism in Ukraine? Well, the Russian state-controlled Russia Today can give you some clues. More details, in this article from The Jamestown Foundation.

I read that Father Sidor has been offering Russian passports to the Rusyns. ҃҃ ҃҃҃҃

There's more Hugarians in Zakarpattia than Rusyns. It's just an extremist (Sidor) handing out passports, trying to stir up trouble--Lvivske (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is always the same. Defining oneself as a Rusyn is still considered a shame both in Slovakia (but less) and in Ukraine. Until WWII nobody would think Rusyns and Ukrainians could be the same people. After that linguistic assimilation and ethnic discrimination have played a big role. The main element of unity is the Ruthenian Greek-Catholic Church (although many Rusyns converted to Orthodox Church due to czars' persecutions in the XIX century) and the Slovak Greek-Catholic Church which was a part of the Ruthenian one. In Slovakia is common knowledge that faithful of the Slovak church are all Rusyns, yet very few people dare to define themselves as Rusyns. Ukraine claims Rusyns to be Ukrainians pursuing a policy of ethnic assimilation. Consider ethnic differences among Slavic people are small compared to other nationalities and languages are mutually comprehensible. Ethnic boundaries are not well defined. Anyway there is a Rusyn identity. Avemundi (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" Until WWII nobody would think Rusyns and Ukrainians could be the same people" Nobody? How so? "Ukrainians" were Rusyns not too long before that; the Ukrainian self awareness and etymology were still relatively new at that point --Lvivske (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, czars never ruled over Zakarpatiia.Faustian (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at this map. Consider where is Russia (=Ruthenia/Galicia) and where is Ukraine. You might want to read Galicia. You might want to consider a rough figure contained in Prešov: Greek Catholics number 8.9% of the present population, being all Rusyns or Ukrainians (="Ukrainized"). Yet Rusyns and Ukrainians together sum up to 2.3%. Add that Orthodox in Slovakia mostly come from the Greek Catholic Church "abolition" (by law) under the socialistic regime. Many Rusyns reject their ethnic identity on the wave of slovakization, while they keep their stronger religious identity. Asking about Rusyn ancestors of a "Slovak" from this region is still regarded as something "unpolite". About czars' persecutions Faustian is right, they happened in Ukraine. In Ruthenia they occurred only in the Soviet era, when Greek Catholicism was considered an element of disunity. --Avemundi (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Podkarpatské Rusi, former Hungarian North-Eastern Hungary

Yes, we do witness here in English Wikipedia the creation of Rusys which are generally known as Ruthenians elsewhere in Europe. This area was ruled by the Hungarian Kings since Arpad and later since 1867 by Hapsburg Monarchs to 1918. Not any connection to Imperial Russia at all. Inside Dual Monarchy this part belonged to Hungary, not Austrian adminstration, as Austrian (Polish) Galicia and Lodomeria. After The Peace Treaty of Trianon on June 4, 1920 to 1939 Ruthenia belonged to Republic of Czechoslovakia and Hungarians occupied this former Czechoslovakian Province in two parts, the southern part including Munkacs and Ungvar in November 1938 and the northern and the most eastern part on March 15, 1939. In October 1944 the Hungarian army retreated, by orders given by Hungarian Regent Miklos von Horthy, from Karpathians without any fight and the Red Army and the Soviets marched in Karpathian Ruthenia on October 15,1944. According to the Czechoslovakian offical statistic of 1931 the area of Podkarpatské Rusi was 12.617 km2. Total population was 725.000 inhabitants of which 62 % were Ukraineans (449.500), 15 % Hungarians (108.750) and 4.5 % (32.625) were Chechs and Slovaks. The rest of the population (134.125) were classified as others of their origin including Poles, Germans, Russians, and Roumanians in addition to Jews and Gipsy (Roma) people. All offical names were written at first in Latin letters, then followed in Kyrillic letters. Former Ungarian small town Körösmezö become Jasina and Kiraly-Haza become Korolevo. Raho become Rachov e.t.c. On May 8, 1944 the Exile Czechoslovakian Government in London had nominated Dr. Fr. Nemec to its legal representantive in Province of Podkarpatské Rusi but the Soviet authorities prevented his delegation of working in Town Hust (Hungarian Huzst). The Soviets collected some left wing activists or symphatiers from local population but some Ruthenian refugees where collected from all over Soviet Union, even from GULAG prison camps to Munkacévo (Munkacs) to form a "National Assembly" with 603 representantives. It was this "National Assembly" which voted to "Incorporate the Podkarpatské Rusi territory into Soviet Union" on November 25 / 26, 1944. The Czechoslovakian Government accepted this in meeting on June 29, 1945, just before the Postdam Conference to gain Stalin´s support against the Polish demands over Cesky Tesin (Teschen). But the old Provincial frontier was not enough for the Soviets. They wanted all railway line from Cop (Csap) through Uzhorod (Ungvar) to Polish border on Ung Pass, to be included into ceded area and the Czechoslovakian Government had to accept this demand. Thus, the border was changed to more western direction. This is the real history how the Zakarpitskaja Oblast inside Ukraijna SSR was created and Ruthenians turned to be Rusys, as it happened in 1945. The Austrian Bukowina with its capital Czernowitz did not belong to Upper Hungary, but direct to Austria. Czernowitz was offically renamed to Roumanian Cernauti. If someone shows an Ukraineans living in Bukowina as living in Podkarpatské Rusi, then it is time to study more of European history. If someone was living at Stanislau (Stanislawow), Kolomea (Kolomyja) or Delatyn, he / she was living in Austrian Galicia, not Podkarpatské Rusi. The border between Galicia and Bukowina run at Nepolokoutz. Luzan was in Northern Bukowina. Between Podkarpatské Rusi and Galicia the admistrative border between Austria and Hungary were at Woronienka at Jablonka Pass, and at Beskid Pass north of Munkacs. Ung Pass was adminstrationally in Slovakia then indide Ung Province in Kingdom of Hungary, later inside Slovakia in Czechoslovakia. Bukowina meant Land of Beechs. Before Austrians it was ruled by Ottoman Sultans from Constantinople. But from Kijev, never in known history before 1940. But it did not prevent the part of people to be Malo Russians e.g. Ukraineans. (Border landerers). As were the part of "Lembergerers" inside borders of Austria in Danube Dual Monarchy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.122.217 (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Holy See

I have: Most Rusyns are Byzantine rite Catholics, who since the Union of Brest in 1596 and the Union of Uzhhorod in 1646 have been in communion with the Holy See. However, they have their own particular Church, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, and retain the Byzantine Rite liturgy in Old Slavonic and most of the outward forms of Byzantine or Eastern Christianity. You have: in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catholic church means Universl church. It consists of a number of different rites.Each rite has a number of differnt churches. Currently there are 7 rites. previously there were 14. The largest being the Roman or Latin rite.

The second largest is the Byzantine (or Greek, or Constatinian rite) which is the second largest in number of adherents and includes the Albenese church, Belarusian church, Bulgarian church, Greek church, Hungarian church,Mcedonian, Romanian, Russian, Rutenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian churches

The Alexandrian rite includes the Coptic and Ethiopic churches. The Armenian rite has the Armenian church. The Antiochean rite which includes the Maronite and Syrian churches.

The Chaldean rite and eastern rite churches also exist.

These churches are either in communion with Rome or part of the Catholic church, but are not in communion with the Roman Catholci church (which is a seperate rite.

Its a very minor difference and something many lay people often mistake, but it is a mistake none the less.

Many people automatically say Roman when talking about the Catholic church because it is the largest rite and because the seat of the Holy See is in Rome. The correction was made not because it sounds in a particular way but because it was technically wrong.҃҃҃҃ Bandurist (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say Eastern rite Catholics are in full communion with Roman rite Catholics. Officially Roman Catholic is always wrong. --Avemundi (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

As we know the populations of the Slavic world in particular in Eastern Slavic world is dropping considerably. Ukraine has one of the largest population drops (28%) by 2050 falling to 33.1 million from the current 46 million. The Bulgarian statistics are even more shocking falling at the rate of 38%.

Unfortunately Rusyn is not one of the groups that was not listed but could probably have a similar population drop between Polish and Ukrainisn in the high 20's to 30's.

With many Rusyns living outside of the ancestoral home the rate may be higher, however if Rusyns continue to be strictly pious they may not control their birth rate and the numbers may be lower. In any case we can expect about half the population of Rusyns by 2050, and almost total decimation by 2080 (0nly a guestimate). What are people's thoughts regard to the raqpid change in Rusyn demographics. Bandurist (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetrality Tag

The article seems to cover all the relvent point of view, and all facts are referenced to appropriate sources. I am removing the nuetrality tag; if there's a problem we should discuss it here.Faustian (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent edit wars

Now, quite frankly, I don't understand the need for any users out there to be reverting or deleting every single edit on this page, many of which were constructive and just basic cleaning up of the article. Any users who took issue with edits, post it up so we can talk about this and hammer this out.--Львівське (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warhol

Andy Warhol was a US citizen, born in Pittsburgh. His parents were of Rusyn ethnicity but I believe they were from Austria-Hungary. He might be considered a Rusyn American if a reliable source can be provided that he self-identified as such, but he's clearly not Rusyn. I removed him from the montage and my edit was reverted, thus I bring up the issue here. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to distinguish between citizenship and ethnicity. Rusyns are an ethnic group we can not talk about citizenship and they never had independent state. Andy belonged to the Rusyns. We should use the form 'Rusyn-American' if we can talk about Italian-Americans for instance. He had Rusyn ethnicity and American citizenship and his father and mother came from Austria-Hungary(Upper Hungary). Fakirbakir (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the sources Andy Warhol was a Carpatho-Rusyn-American.12Fakirbakir (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we can talk about ethnicity. He's two generations away or more from Rusyn ancestry, and the first source you cite clearly shows that he did not self-identify as Rusyn. Why should he be in the montage here? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two generations away or more? *facepalm* He's a second generation immigrant. Also, it's not a stretch to conclude that he did self identify as a Rusyn, as he was a member of the Rusyn community, and Rusyn Church. His ethnicity was clearly a major part of his upbringing and later life, as he moved to the Ukrainian part of NY later on.--Львівське (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's biographies emphasize his ethnic background we must not deny his descent. 1[16]Fakirbakir (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you have not answered my question. And again, one of the sources you cite holds that he did not self-identify as a Rusyn. From the sources you cite, he was only half Rusyn in descent, his parents were from Austro-hungary, so what sources can you point to that show that he is a Rusyn, and thus appropriate for the montage in this article? We are not talking about denying his descent, but rather what his actual chosen view of himself was. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you saying he's half Rusyn? What the heck? Also, Fakirbakir is right, all bios on him ephasize his ethnicity, this is clearly a sticking point to him.--Львівське (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying he is from Pittsburgh, his parents were from Austro-Hungary, and I am noting that he himself did not identify as Rusyn. Please note that one of the sources presented says 'Warhol never played any role in Rusyn-American community life, and he said, "I never like to give my background and, anyway, I make it all up different every time I'm asked." Since his death, however, Warhol's fame has been used by Rusyn activistss in the United States and Europe to help raise awareness about Carpatho-Rusyns as a disntct people.' This source also says that he never acknowledged his ancestry. Search for "Andy Warhol" in google books, I get 165,000 hits. Search for "Andy Warhol rusyn", I get 428, and the vast majority of the latter are not about Warhol, but rather about Rusyns in general which mention him in a paragraph and claim him, so clearly it is not anywhere close to the truth to say that "all bios on him emphasis his ethnicity". So why appropriate him for this article? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He could speak Rusyn, that's got to count for something. Also, regarding self identification, Andy didn't really self-identify with anything, he was an enigma and wanted to be seen in that way. Because he was secretive shouldn't obscure the fact that he was Rusyn.--Львівське (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should check the "Ruthenian" word as well. I do not understand your statement, why we should not negotiate his ancestry in this article. It is a fact. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 400 hits for Andy Warhol and Ruthenian. I do not deny his ancestry, but the article is about Rusyns, not people of Rusyn descent or US American Rusyns. He's from Pittsburgh. And I would suggest that it is precisely because he sought to be an enigma, and because he did not participate in the Rusyn community according to sources, that I do not believe he should be characterized as a Rusyn here. I speak German, French and some Spanish, and have German, French and Scot ancestry, but I am not a Scot, nor a German, nor French. I am particularly troubled since I have looked into the matter, since it appears that claiming Warhol as a Rusyn is an act of appropriation that began after his death, again, according to sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I suggest this article be changed to Carpatho-Rusyn, since that's what it primarily is about. The Pannonian-Rusyn article is separate, and I think the Ruthenian article should act as an index for all things Rusyn/Ruthenian to both avoid confusion and clarify the distinction between modern Rusyns and the use of 'Rusyn' before it split into Ukrainian/White Rusyn--Львівське (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support your suggestion. It only makes sense. Keep in mind also that many of their organisations self identify themselves in English as Carpatho-Rusyn. Bandurist (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should 'Rusyns' redirect to 'Ruthenians' in this case, or go to a (I forget the correct term) fork in the road page, "Rusyn may refer to: Ruthenians, Carpatho-Rusyns, etc"--Львівське (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lemkos would disagree. Many Lemkos consider themslves to be Rusyn, but the Lemko Republic was not allowed to join Carpathian Ruthenia.Pustelnik (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that makes a difference.--Львівське (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move but creating a narrower topic at Carpatho-Rusyns is permissable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Rusyns → Carpatho-Rusyns — Move the article to more accurately reflect the subject matter. Current article is ambiguous and covers Ruthenes, Pannonian Rusyns, American diaspora....its just too indirect. Catch-all material should be covered in the Ruthenians article, "Rusyns" should be a disambig page.--Львівське (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You aren't making one suggestion, you are making two. You are suggesting (1) that the article be moved to Carpatho-Rusyn becasue that is what it should be about and (2) that it is currently too broad because it not only covers Carpatho-Rusyns but also covers Pannonian Rusyns and the American diaspora. You cannot argue that this article should not exist because another article with another name and on a differently focused topic should exist. Rather, maintain Ruthenians as the very broad article that it is, maintain this as an article dealing with Rusyns proper, and, if the material warrants it, then split out from this one a separate article for only Carpatho Rusyns. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Combining Polish Lemkos as Rusyns

Current dispute as to whether to include Lemkos in Poland as part of the general population of Carpatho-Rusyns here. The Polish census lists Rusyns and Lemkos as separate ethnic groups, to which I contest, that to combine them into a single entity constitutes original research. According to Magocsi, Rusyns in Subcarpathia self-identify as Ukrainians today (as with the rest of Ruthenians who now identify as Ukrainian) but in Poland, Rusyns changed their identity to Lemkos.

by the twentieth century, in particular its second half, the historic names Rusyn/Rusniak were replaced by others, such as Ukrainian in Soviet Transcarpathia and the Presov Region of Slovakia, or Lemko in Poland.


As such, if one were to "undo" this change in identity to make Lemkos constitute Rusyns, you would also have to do the same for all Rusyns who now consider themselves Ukrainian. Which is original research as far as Wiki is concerned, as he also says:

some people will say that Rusyn is simply the older historic name for Ukrainian, and that Lemko is a regional name of Ukrainian, while others are convinced that the names Lemko or Rusniak are regional forms for Rusyn which, in turn, designates a people that is distinct from the Ukrainian and every other surrounding nationality.


Based solely on statistics in a census, how are we in a position to decide whether Rusyns should be lumped in with Ukrainians, or Lemkos with Ukrainians; or if Lemkos should be lumped in with Rusyn based on the premise of "some people say it"--Львівське (говорити) 04:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rusyn's "changed" their ethnicity? You yourself are admitting they are Rusyns who have adopted the Polish thnonym for themselves. Unless you want to contest the numbers, the objection is absurd. Feel free to add an explanatory footnote if you like, or contest the source. But otherwise you might as well be saying Englishmen are British, because that's what's on their passport. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Re-read the sources above, as Rusyns changed their identity to Lemko (while others have assimilated to Polish, but they obviously identify as Polish on the census). As it stands, the "Lemkos are really Rusyn" argument is entirely original research in premise and fudging the numbers to work a POV in practice. --Львівське (говорити) 04:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Another source,--Львівське (говорити) 04:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the early twentieth century the Rusyns living on the northern slopes of the Carpathians had given up their traditional ethnonym, Rusnak, for the name Lemko. As the Rusnaks north of the mountains adopted the new name Lemko, they also evolved from an ethnographic to an ethnonational group.

  • Lemkos have sources focused exclusively to them, such as this book by Columbia University Press: [17]. There are Lemko websites etc.: [18]. From this we find: [19] "Constant threats, limited by-laws of USKT, and luck of fulfillment of even minutest legal demands, eventually steered some Lemkos away from USKT and Ukrainian problems. In order to exacerbate this process in Poland, the name of Lemko "carpatho-ruthenians" was popularized, with proposals to accept it as a national-ethnographic name. Other Polish journalists attempted to convince Lemkos: "You are not Ukrainians, not Ruthenians, you are - Lemkos". To no ones surprise, this false idea has found fertile soil. In 1989, in Legnitsa, Society of Lemkos was created. Its leaders recognize the name "Lemko" only. Union of the Lemkos of Poland, created in 1990, allows Lemkos to call themselves as they themselves wish, but recommends to reach unity and to jointly pursue new developments of regional culture." Setting aside the POV, it seems some Lemkos identify themselves as such and not as Rusyns. It seems these people may, or may not, be a type of Rusyn just as Rusyns may or may not be a type of Ukrainian. Why not keep separate articles, mentioning this may/may status not in the lede, with a see also link to the Rusyns article?Faustian (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your souce from Lemko.org, I found this: it seems in Ukriane Lemkos identify as Ukrainians, while some in the Carpathians consider themselves Carpatho-Rusyns; in Slovakia, the majority of Lemkos call themselves Ruthenians, but as a subgroup of Ukrainians; a minority considers Rusyns to be separate.--Львівське (говорити) 18:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Whatever they call themselves, they speak the Rusyn language and are part of the Rusyn people. This not the Carpathian Ruthenia article it's the wider Rusyn article. Magocsi says 2/3 of Rusyns are of Lemko origin. http://books.google.com/books?id=dbUuX0mnvQMC&pg=PA341&dq=magocsi+encyclopedia+lemko&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-J79UrHcMueusATbk4CICQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=magocsi%20encyclopedia%20lemko&f=false

The simple answer hear is to give the Polish census numbers for both groups per WP:ATTRIBUTE. According to the Lemko article, there are 6,000 full-blooded Lemkos, and 4,000 half blooded Polish, and 1,000 none-Polish Lemkos. I don't know if that should be counted as 6,000 Lemkos, the 11,000 total, or 6,000 + 5,000/2 = 8,500 Lemkos. For now I'll say 6,000. [1] μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding what a people self identify as is the definition of original research...The language they speak is inconsequential, as if they spoke Polish that wouldn't preclude them from being Lemko.--Львівське (говорити) 05:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to census, 90% of the world's "Rusyns" self-identify as Ukrainians. Yet Rusyns have their own article. Nothing wrong with having an article about the minority who self-identify differently. However the overlap seems to be significant and therefore probably belongs in the Lemko article lede. BTW a "Lemko language" is mentioend here: [20].Faustian (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, simple solutions are always the best. Obviously, conflating this article in order to create one neat category with a corresponding single article (what synth is not) must be the logical solution (!?) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Anyone refering to Carpatho-Rusyns as Ukrainians may result in complaints being lodged in the appropriate Wiki forums.37.200.224.205 (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Rusyns do not speak standard Ukranian or even a dialect of it, nor historically have they ever been part of a Ukranian state except under soviet rule. The IP editor User:37.200.224.205 is advised to register an account and watch this page. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some have forum shopped at the Galicia page to advocate a nationalist POV, and there is a related discussion on the OR notice board ignoring Magosci.37.200.224.205 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rusyns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked All archived captures are 404s, and no indication as to what the title was to find a replacement. Added 'cbignore' to ref. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Przynależność narodowo-etniczna ludności – wyniki spisu ludności i mieszkań 2011. GUS. Materiał na konferencję prasową w dniu 29. 01. 2013. p. 3. Retrieved 2013-03-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rusyns&oldid=776400572"