Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please see my contemporaneous remark on the OR noticeboard to the effect that there is room in this article for the view that (1) Ukrainian as a term is generally conflated with the older term Ruthenian but also that (2) there are some Ruthenian populations which do not identify as Ukrainian. This does not have to require a tag on mainspace the two views can be accomodated with encyclopedic rigor. WP:CIVIL trumps WP:PC.Wikidgood (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Blowing whistle. Hey we can do without all the polarization. Both sides of this dispute are impressive with their great knowledge of an obscure topic. There is merit on both sides. Part of the problem is that WP is somewhat limited in that it is charged to reflect WP:RS and that often leads to craven capitulation to mainstream usages which do violence to truth. I am not sure the best way to fix that but my preference is for people who have important minoritarian views to write in OTHER VENUES and create new secondaries. As far as I know, they could even cite their own articles if they were consistent with WP:COI though I have not researched that point. In this instance though it is clear that the mainspace article shoukld reflect the views of "the IP" regarding Ruthenians who did not and do not identify as Ukrainians. That is a valid area of research and he or she has provided some legit RS. So what is the beef here? Why not insert some lines in the relevant article indicating that not all historic Ruthenians identify as Ukrainians but that most usage including most but not all academia conflate the two? It is not OR this view has been adequatelydeveloped by secondaries. To some extent ALL wikipedia articles involve some degree of OR and SYN that is below the threshold of prohibited OR and SYN. The main thing is to respect the value of the other side's expertise and respect WP:CIVIL Wikidgood (talk)"

Cross posting the above from the OR notice board here, since that has now been archived. I cannot agree that "most but not all academia conflate" the terms Ukrainian and Ruthenian. Faustian has not accurately and fairly reported what these sources actually wrote about the usage of the terms. I do not have the book handy but I have read Dr. Snyder's The Reconstruction of Nations. He specifically noted that during the time period of his book, Ukraine went from being a borderland geographic area to becoming a people. The work cited by Faustian from Dr. Magosci also specifically noted that his usage of the term Ukrainian was done at the risk of being anachronistic. This page completely ignores the context in which these authors have used the word in furtherence of a nationalist Ukrainian POV which invites the reader to look at modern Ukraine and assume that it was a homogenuos nation, with a homogenuos language, occupied and ruled by foreigners without popular legitimacy during this time. That simply is not the case.

(I must also note that Dr. Magosci, in the work cited by Faustian, also specifiaclly noted that due to multilingualness and intermarraige some caution on interpretations of ethnicity was in order. These editors are clearly cherry picking this source, and their edit to the contrary is clearly OR.)

The point is that this page should be attempting to accurately describe who these Ruthenians were in Galicia, not what they became after WWII. Contemporary sources give a much different picture than what these editors paint. Contrary to what RGloucester wants to believe, the term 'Little Ruthenians' was used as late as 1912 in English: That contemporary source gives a far different account of the realities, and complexities of what the Habsburgs had meant when using the term Ruthenian then what is presented here:

"However, the milder and more equitable rule of Austria-Hungary has prevented direct political agitation, although there is occasional trouble. The resultant of such forces among the Ruthenians of Galicia and Hungary has been the formation of political parties, which they have brought to America with them. These may be divided into three large groups: the Ukraintzi, those who believe in and foster the development of the Ruthenians along their own lines, quite independent of Russia, the Poles or the Germans, and who actually look forward to the independence of Little Russia, almost analogous to the Home Rulers of Ireland; the Moscophiles, those who look to present Russia as the norm of the Russo-Slavic race and who are partisans of Panslavism; these may be likened to the Unionists of Ireland, in order to round out the comparison; the Ugro-Russki, Hungarian Ruthenians, who while objecting to Hungary, and particular phases of Hungarian rule, have no idea of losing their own peculiar nationality by taking present Russia as their standard; they hold themselves aloof from both the other parties, the ideas of the Ukraintzi being particularly distasteful to them."

Magosci also mentioned that some Ruthenians were Polonophiles. Our purpose here is to educate the reader about Galicia, not Soviet or post-Soviet Ukraine. (Although there are other historians, not cited on this page who concur with Vladimir Putin's theory of Ukraine as an accidental nation, which is not to condone Putin's present policies) The present anachronistic usage of the term Ukrainian fails to inform the reader about what the term had meant during the time period of Galicia when the Ukrainian identity was still forming. (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Arguing the same thing over and over again isn't going to change consensus, which has been established. Your arguments have been heard by the community and have been rejected.Faustian (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
And Britons were once Welsh and Scottish and English all together as one people, then the Romans invaded, then we separated, then Scotland got invaded again and then England too, then everywhere and then again by the Normans.
We are still called Britain, we still comprise England, Scotland and Wales and, although there are hundreds of dialects and three official (and a couple of unofficial) languages, English is our countries (UK) official language.
The information was inserted with force into the Ruthenian/Rus related articles a couple of years ago. It seems to me that this is where the debate was, where it was discussed and insertions made.
Weight is important. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal - tiny name change[edit]

in order to differ this Galicia from the Spanish province, do I suggest we use the name which is used by most other languages (which uses Latin letters) - Galizia. (And this historical province is today largely divided between Ukraine and Poland. Between the World Wars, was it all Polish. Lviv was Polish Lwow and between 1796 (perhaps) and 1914 was it Austrian/Austo-Hungarian Lemberg, but Polish before that, I think.) Boeing720 (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: This is English Wikipedia, so we use the most common English language name (See WP:COMMONNAME). We do not use the name that is used by most other languages, only English language is relevant. Can you prove that "Galizia" is the most common English language name? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly appreciate this being English Wiki. But we have a problem here, I think. So I turn the question - Does very clear English evidences state both theses different areas must be spelled "Galicia" ? If not , I think we can use the local spelling "Galizia" for this article. I will ask a person who is native in English. (I just assume you're neither native in English, sorry if I'm wrong. Indeed.) Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
'Galizia' does not exist in English, nor in any other language, as far as I know. I have no idea where you are getting 'Galizia' from, nor any idea where you've got the idea that that's the 'local spelling'. There is no 'problem here', regardless, because we use parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester 19:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
First - I have asked for advice , and the (like you, I presume) native English speaker prefers no changes (this reply was ment to Vanjagenije). That's the main thing. However in Swedish are these two different provinces spelled "Galicien" (the Spanish) and "Galizien" (the Polish-Ukranian), and I guess that's the same in several other languages as well, like German. All well. Boeing720 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
By the way - here is a website which uses "Galizia" for the Spanish province - [1] just since you wrote "no other language" (no big deal) Boeing720 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is not about the Iberian region, if you haven't noticed. RGloucester 01:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...[edit]

I hope you ladies and gents don't mind if I change the subject. (I think it wouldn't hurt if everyone took a step back and a deep breath!)

I followed a link here from Leopold Trepper, where it says in the first subsection that he "became a Bolshrvik and worked in the Galician mines..." where he got into trouble by organizing a labor strike. As the man was a Polish jew, and the link led here, I must assume that this is the correct Galicia, and yet this article mentions under economy only oil and trade (and poverty). You all seem very knowlegable of the region. Are there indeed mines, do they still produce (he worked them shortly after the Russian revolution), and if so what do they, or did they, produce? rags (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ragityman: I really don't know. Article on the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria mentions "Wieliczka Salt Mines". That's all I can find. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)