Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)

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

POV in "People" Section[edit]

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)

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)
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 (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC) (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
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), 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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: [1], 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)
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)
So then, you are supporting Original Research because RS show that the correct term for the period is "Ruthenian": 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)
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)
@Faustian: The version you implemented looks very good. Thank you for it. RGloucester 13:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
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)

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: [2] "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." [3] "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)

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)
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)
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. (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
“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:

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. (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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)
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? (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
  • In English, anyway, we traditionally call "Belarusians" as "White Ruthenians". They are never called "just-plain Ruthenian". RGloucester 17:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • 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)." 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)." 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. (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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. (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
Please note, that 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: "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. (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.] (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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": 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. I have seen no similar reference to Ukrainians in a census of Galicia. Again this map from 1910 refers only Ruthenians, not Ukrainians: 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. (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC) [Edit to add that the source given, Piotr Eberhardt, does not have a degree in history (Ph.D. in geography), and was educated during the communist era: He appears to be promoting a communist era POV. Therefore, I have removed the cite to his work. It would be interesting to see if Dr. Snyder relied upon his interpretation for the demographics. If so, Snyder's conclusion is equally dubious. (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
[Edit to add that the author, Piotr Eberhardt, presented as a RS on ethnicity, specifically declaimed to have been an authority on such issues in the preface to the book, “The focus of this book is on the geographic and demographic questions rather than on ethnology or ethnography. The book therefore contains broad statistical documentation of ethnic structure and ethnic change within the various pertinent national boundaries and administrative subdivisions.” supra at Pg. 3. Also let me add that the "non-sense definition" of Ruthenian which you may not have heard during this time, was in fact used to question the legitimacy of the Second Polish Republic Eastern boundary by lumping all of the "Ruthenian" peoples together to show that the combined totals of Belarussians, Russians, Ukrainians, Rusyns, etc. demonstrated that the Poles were a small minority compared to the combined Ruthenians: (Polish) Henryk Zieliński (1983). Historia Polski 1914-1939. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Lumping Ukrainians and Ruthenians together as one category, when they had not considered themselves one nationality, is simply a continuation of that tradition. Perhaps you were unaware of this? (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: I don't see the Gaels called the Irish on their Wiki page: 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. (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.] (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC) [Edit to add that OED is wrong according to contemporary publications from the time, e.g. (1907), 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.] (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..."] (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Edit to add additional contemporary publication, e.g. 1900": "A Ruthenian Church, East Carpathians"] (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Your attempt to use primary sources to prove something about Magocsi's book is the definition of original research; the fruits of your research are irrelevant here. Publish your findings about Magocsi and then we incorporate those findings into our editing. Good luck! Consensus has already been established that we do not use contemporary terms but modern ones, just as most other modern sources do, when referring to past times. This is what Timothy Snyder does, what Magocsi does, what Britannica does, etc. when writing about these people in the 19th century. Himka was an exception, but he used Ruthenians in his book primarily (see pg. 8 of his introduction) because the central narrative of his book involves an ideological struggle between Russophiles (people who believed that Western Ukrainians are Russians) and Ukrainophiles (those who believed that they are Ukrainians). Ruthenians was thus a convenient, neutral term to describe these people and Himka believed it would be less confusing to use this word than using either Russians or Ukrainians. It was thus used for a narrow purpose. Moreover, his work was a detailed academic work geared towards experts in the field who would already know that Ruthenians = Ukrainians. It was not a general work such as wikipedia or the numerous cited reliable sources who refer to these people in the 19th century as Ukrainians. .Faustian (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

OR complaint and lack of NPOV, etc.[edit]

After fair warning, a compliant has been made here for OR, lack of NPOV and other issues regarding the disruption of this page here:

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:

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)" 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". (It should be noted that "Ruthenian" and not "Ukrainian" was the proper contemporary term for the time period, as I have cited: Since there was no source given for the edit, I reverted "noting Faustian replaced sourced material with unsourced without explanation or discussion" 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, :

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: [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?", 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:

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. (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)
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. (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


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)
    • ^ a b Ludnosc, Ludnosc wedlug wyznania i plci oraz jezyka ojczystego (table 10, pg. 15)