Talk:Ruthenians

Disputed Neutrality

This article is highly confused. If it is about the term Ruthenian, it should solely be about that term, not Rus' or Rusyn or Russian. As such, Ruthenian has been used historically to apply either to Little Russians (Ukranians and those to their west) as opposed to Great Russians, or to those Eastern Slavs subject to the Austro-Hungarian as opposed to the Russian empire, which includes the self-described Rusyns, but excludes eastern Ukranians under the Czar. This distinction has been handled quite well in the exemplary article Ruthenia. This article, however, goes from dealing with the English term Ruthenian to declaring that it properly applies only to residents of the current nation states Belarus and Ukraine and their official languages which are modern constructs which do not reflect historical realities which obtained historically or even during the lives of many still living.

If this article deals only with the term, it should be merged with and pared down to the disambiguation page. If it deals with the historical phenomenon of the western Rus' it should be merged with the article Ruthenia which is much more neutral, comprehensive, and better written. It cannot stand as is, for the most part implying that Ruthenians are either Ukranians or Belarusians. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Rus' area

Is there some specific reason for deleting the explanation that historically the Rus' area has covered parts of what are now modern day Belarus, Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland? μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to restore mention of the modern areas--it is reflected in the maps and sources, and clarifies the subject to readers familiar only with modern geography.μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

Good work on the images. I think we might be less cluttered if a few of the many modern maps are moved to a gallery section.μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent Deletions

Please explain the reason for the recent deletions of referenced material. Looking at it from the outside it seems like pushing a Ukrainian POV. If there is some reason all these various sourced items are problematic, I am sure it can be explained briefly. Otherwise this is comprehensive encyclopedic material. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Be specific, you're reverting a lot of separate edited material. You're reverting "m" to "mil", you're re-inserting wrong population numbers, you're reinserting unnecessary citations per WP:CITEKILL, and other wrong material. Then, in the body, you're reverting fact tags and re-inserting poor engrish. Pick a point here.--Львівське (говорити) 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to compile:1

a)"70,000+ RusynsThere are an estimated 1.2 million people of Rusyn descent, mostly in Ukraine, where the question is highly political Magocsi, Paul Robert (1995). "The Rusyn Question". Political Thought (http://www.litopys.org.ua/rizne/magocie.htm)+2-3 (6): 221–231; The number who self identify as Rusyn in the area include:"

This should be 100k, just add up the numbers, go to the Rusyn page - it's all verifiable. The 1.2m figure is made up or just broad speculation by 'descent', not actual self identification. I like Magocsi, he was a prof of mine, but this number doesn't belong here. PLUS: The ref is a deadlink.

b) I removed the other sources per WP:CITEKILL, all of them are verifiable on the actual Rusyns page, no need to do it by region here. They aren't even formatted correctly. This is just clean up.

c) There aren't 1,720,047 Ruthenians in the USA. This is wrong. I made a mistake I added. Let me revert my own mistake lol

d) Rusyns (Rusnaks, Karpatorussians) are indigenous Slavic population of the Carpathian Region. They consider themselves a separate nation and recognized in 22 countries around the globe. According to the 2001 All-Ukrainian Census in Zakarpattia Oblast live over 10,000 Rusyns. In 1992 and 2002 the regional council of Zakarpattia appealed twice to the members of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada) with a request to recognize Rusyns as a distinct nationality. In August 2006, the UN Committee on liquidation of racial discrimination urged the Government of Ukraine to recognize Rusyns as a national minority. In March 2007 the Zakarpatttia regional council recognized that ethnic group on territory of the region as a nationality.

I'm bolding all the errors here. Also, adding tags.--Львівське (говорити) 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I urge you to stop inserting the refs like the following, they are done wrong:

Serbia 15,626: http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/axd/en/popis.htm

Hungary 10,000: Tom Masters, Eastern Europe, Lonely Planet, 2007 p. 353

Croatia 2,879: Population by nationality, in cities and municipalities, 2001 Census - State Institute for Statistics of the Republic of Croatia.

Czech Republic 1,109: http://www.vlada.cz/cz/pracovni-a-poradni-organy-vlady/rnm/mensiny/rusinska-narodnostni-mensina-16151/

Also, the 1.2m figure doesn't belong here at all, since it's "of descent", and majority of those would overlap with Ukrainians - it's double dipping. Every western Ukrainian is technically of "Rusyn descent", myself included, but I don't count for two people.--Львівське (говорити) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, the 70k figure you keep re-adding is unsourced. The total is 98.9k, if you add the sources up. PLEASE READ THE TALK PAGE, DUDE--Львівське (говорити) 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please, slow down and address one issue at a time, and stop adding uncivil screaming and calling me DUDE or this will just go directly to ANI. The first thing would be the citations you have a problem with. They may not be formatted correctly, but that is not a reason for any deletions--they should just be corrected. Or are you implying that any of the citations are false or misrepresented? If not, we can fix them. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to "slow down", dude. This isn't your rodeo. The citations are done incorrectly, and should be removed since they add to clutter. The Magocsi ref shouldn't be there, the total you inserted is WRONG, and it has deadlinks and is unverifiable. If you want to revert everything and not use the talk page, and resort to threats - go ahead. Do it. (edit: I won't touch the page for the next day or two, just stop reverting bad info back in or else I'm gong to have to tag the hell out of the page, and neither of us will be happy campers)--Львівське (говорити) 21:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As a personal issue, your alternating openness and hostility is offputting. Please note that I don't call you pal or dude and talk in terms of threats. As for the citations, it is not WP policy to delete material because the cites are sloppy. See WP:CITE, "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed." So, I return to the question, besides your complaint that the citations are sloppy, do you have other issues, like their being false? If so, let me know. If not we can simply fix the format on each. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made several points, several times, above. Regarding the citations, I've removed them again after looking at it once more. Per WP:CITE, "provide enough information to identify the source" If you actually look at what's in there, it's an incomprehensible block of text, in multiple languages, with no regard for anything. example; It serves no purpose being there if it's not going to be useful.--Львівське (говорити) 06:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Serbia, Northern province Vojvodina

There are around 20. 000 Ruthenians in Vojvodina, Serbia. In Vojvodina live 26 nations among 2 million citizens. Novi Sad (New garden) is the capital of Vojvodina. One of a few official languages in Novi Sad, the capital of Vojvodina is Rusyn language (others are: Serbian, Croatian, Hungarian, Slovak). The center of the nation in Serbia is place called Ruski Krstur, Rusyns in Pannonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruski_Krstur). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.140.90 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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) 01:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Ukrainian" is not a derogatory term for Rusyns, just because some subset of Rusyns don't like to be called Ukrainians doesn't make the word a derogatory one,like the "N" word.Faustian (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. More WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

IP Disruptions

IP has removed reliably sourced info ". In Galicia, the Polish government actively replaced all references to Ukrainians with the old word "Ruthenians", an action that caused many Ukrainians to view their original self-designation with distaste. source: Paul R. Magocsi. (2010). A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pg. 638. He then added original research based on his Polish nationalist interpretation of history: "After the dissolution of Austria-Hungary in 1918 the term "Ukrainian" was adopted by many speaking a Ruthenian dialect in Galicia, but a minority continued to identify their language as Ruthenian.) From: (Polish) Główny Urząd Statystyczny (corporate author) (1932) "Ludnosc, Ludnosc wedlug wyznania i plci oraz jezyka ojczystego" (table 10, pg. 15). Does the source claim that Ukrainian is a dialect of Ruthenian? Does the source prove that those people themselves identified their speech as a Ruthenian language? Faustian (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, what the IP (or, should I say, the two IPs who are the same person) is engaging in is WP:SYNTH. The publication referred to above, was published in 1938 with French translations. The IP draws on the French translation of 'la Ruthene', rather than the actual Polish 'Ruski' which could just as easily be construed to be 'Rusyns' as in Lemkos... but drawing any conclusions from that source is speculative (i.e., OR). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

::Just removed more WP:POV and WP:OR refactoring of the lead by the same IP. This person has proven themselves to be WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Oops. Self-revert and trout slap. I've got a bad case of the jitters, so no more editing on the fly today! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems to have been a different IP (he/she uses a few IPs on this article so your assumption is completely understandable). I didn't find the edit to be particularly disruptive, unlike the other IP's edits.Faustian (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

An unfortunate consequence of disruptive IPs they make other editors jittery.Faustian (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I ended up focussing on the double-up of 'exonym', and the fact that it took a few edits to end up at the finished product. I should have read the finished product carefully. Jittery isn't an excuse for being careless (which is why I added the WP:OOPS defence to my self revert), but thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV notice

There has been some problem were with Ukrainian nationalist POV being promoted by some editors, which borders on vandalism. The following information was recently added, but may get removed due to contentious editing or vandalism on their part. Please monitor this page!

"The term "appealed to the Orthodox heritage and the tradition of Kievan Rus'-Ruthenia, and negated links with Catholic Poland. Excluding the Poles, this tradition assumed that Orthodox Belarusians (White Ruthenians), Ukrainians (Little Ruthenians), and Russians (Great Ruthenians) formed the three branches of the 'tri-singular' Russian nation." [4] After World War II, communist academics renewed the old tradition of referring to all related people of Kievan Rus as a single category of Ruthenians to question the legitimacy of Second Polish Republic by comparing its demographics of Poles and Ruthenians. [5] ... However, others chose to continue to refer to themselves and their language as Ruthenian rather than Ukrainian. Ruthenian and Ukrainian were listed as separate languages in the Polish census of 1931. [6][7] When commenting on the dissolution of Czechoslavakia in March 1939 U.S. diplomat George Keenan noted, "To those who inquire whether these peasants are Russians or Ukrainians, there is only one answer. They are Neither. They are simply Ruthenians."[8] Dr. Paul R. Magosci emphasizes that modern Ruthenians have "the sense of a nationality distinct from Ukrainians". [9]"85.154.245.171 (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your latest edits seem to be neutral (though I have not reviewed them closely). Congratulations.Faustian (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

SECONDLY, How can anyone justify reporting that, "In Galicia, the Polish government actively replaced all references to Ukrainians with the old word "Ruthenians", an action that caused many Ukrainians to view their original self-designation with distaste", as Faustian persists in posting and reverting when the Poles were actually the first to have recognized a Ukrainian ethnicity in the Polish census of 1931? (citation here:(Polish) Główny Urząd Statystyczny (corporate author) (1932) "Ludnosc, Ludnosc wedlug wyznania i plci oraz jezyka ojczystego" (table 10, pg. 15)) What relevance does this quote have to the fact that another group existed which preferred to identify itself as simply Ruthenians and had not considered themselves Ukrainians? This is more of the Nationalist Ukrainian POV that he and his tag team partner are pushing here.85.154.245.171 (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You are attempting to "debunk" something clearly written in a reliable source with OR. "In Galicia, the Polish government actively replaced all references to Ukrainians with the old word "Ruthenians" is taken from a reliable source, Paul R. Magocsi. (2010). A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pg. 638. Perhaps what Magocsi described was limited to Galicia and didn't apply to federal actions such as the census. Or perhaps, he described something that occurred after 1931, when Poland's government became hypernationalistic like this IP. Whatever the case, it doesn't matter - it comes from a reliable secondary source, the exact type of source that wikipedia articles are supposed to be mostly built on. Your attempts to use primary sources such as the Polish census to prove a point or to support your Polish nationalist POV has no place here. Faustian (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the Polish Census of 1931 recognized an ethnic group known as Ukrainians while also recognizing a separate ethnic group identifying themselves as Ruthenians, Magocsi is clearly unreliable on this point, (if in fact Faustian has provided the passage in it proper context). Who are we going to believe, Faustian or our own lying eyes?83.16.13.64 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

83.16.13.64: Firstly, no personal attacks; secondly, this is an article talk page, not your personal soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor engaged in the Cherry picking (fallacy), pushing a Ukrainian Nationalist POV which ignores the clear wording of the Polish census of 1931, and is clearly erroneous, is germane for discussion. These edits clearly lack NPOV. This is not your personal soapbox either sweetheart. The Polish census of 1931 was published in two languages by the Polish government. It clearly recognized an ethnic group self-identifying as Ukrainians, and smaller group of Ruthenians which did not. Deal with it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.13.64 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Absurd to call Paul Robert Magocsi unreliable, he's a sitting professor widely considered the most authoritative historian on the topic. The issue is that those living in what was the Austria Hungary were referred to as Ruthenians (autonym Rusyn) while those living in Ukraine were subject to a process of Ukrainization under the Soviets. What was Ukraine in 1991 was a land cadged together from territories that were populated by Russians, Standard Ukrainian speakers, and Transcarpatian Rusyns and others. Poland itself is a creation of WWII, with its eastern parts seized by the USSR and its new west created from formerly German territory. It's important to be very careful with time and location (i.e., politics) when making any statement. One thing that should be clear is that the Ruthenian dialects are distinct from (standrad) Polish, Slovak, and Ukranian. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you about Magocsi. He is a giant, but not infallible or without occasional error. However, when considering his work, certain editors here have argued in the Galicia page that he is not RS on Rusysns in Galicia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)) and this looks very much like Cherry picking (fallacy) quotes from a source, perhaps out of context. You are completely correct that in the Hapsburg lands officially there were no Ukrainians. There were only Ruthenians. It is only in the 1931 Census of Poland that Ukrainians first appear as an official ethonym. It happened in Poland, not Galicia. It is possible Magocsi is referring to something that happened either before the [Polish census of 1931]] or after it. However, as written and without a more specific context, the statement was at best lacking NPOV, and clearly contradicts the Polish census of 1931.83.16.13.64 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Magosci was referring to Polish policy in the 1920s. He notes a change in policy in the 1930s. The Polish census of 1931 clearly demonstrates that change in policy. 2601:44:500:3408:4472:5E68:98F9:A8D2 (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Twise used the term "later"

In this phrase: "Most people in the western region of Ukraine later followed suit later in the 19th century.", I believe it's an error that "later" is used twice. Can someone confirm? Thank you! --TiberiuConstantinTurbureanu (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you for noting this error, TiberiuConstantinTurbureanu. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Celts??

The article has text based on the following text from the cited Encyclopedia of Ukraine website: "Originally the Latin name Rut(h)eni was applied to a Celtic tribe (see Celts) of ancient Gaul (their town Segodunum later became known as Rodez)."

Is there an independent confirmation of this statement? It sounds no less fantastic than some Russian nationalists trying to derive the name Rus from the river Ros'. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's really, really bad WP:SYNTH. I just read the EoU article and any association is put down to the reuse of names given to extinct tribes. For the purposes of this article, it's such an OFFTOPIC piece of trivia that I think it should be treated as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (read as deleted as vaguely interesting fluff on theories about theories). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Linguistic confusion

IMO this article is a big mess primarily because it mixes and matches Latin and English (and probably other) translations of slavic terms, translations from other languages into English, and even confused usages of this term by English and other foreigners who didn't really care to distinguish these barbaric slavic tribes. Therefore the best IMO this page must be turned into the disambiguation page according to the usage in English language, based on solid geo and anthropo sources. And each usage must be clearly delineated in its own separate article. Right now the article is peppered with unreferenced statements. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It's primarily a mix of weird WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I'm good with using it as a DAB for separate articles dealing with content, even if it results in stubs. If I were a reader with no idea about the subject, this article would completely confuse me. Worse yet, it would misinform me. What a hodgepodge. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Annales Augustiani

WTH is Annales Augustiani? Google shows no information at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This is Annales Augustani aka Augsburg annales . Encyclopedia of Ukraine is a very weak source, it has too many errors and chauvinistic fakes.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No, your references are without context, and are essentially WP:PRIMARY sources supplying no context other than your own interpretation. I've reverted your latest round of changes where you've eliminated reliably sourced secondary sources on the basis of your not liking it. You are making major changes to the subject content without even attempting to discuss your own assertions. Please follow WP:BRD, and don't disparage respected encyclopaedias on the basis of your personal opinion as to whether they are reliable or not. Also, be aware that calling sources "chauvinistic fakes" does not bode well with neutral editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Iryna Harpy, if this source is a respected encyclopaedia show us the true Annales Augustiani, please. I am ready to discuss an every my revision--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

So, @Iryna Harpy: if I supplement the primary sources with secondary ones, can I return my edits? I do not see other claims.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: it's hard for me to say this, but because of your silence, I will have to return my corrections, which contain objective information, confirmed by links to sources. If you think that I have deleted some reliable information, confirmed by the source, I will be glad if you return it, and we will discuss each case separately. If you think that my sources need additional secondary ones, I ask you to put a template. It will not be difficult for me to bring secondary sources for you.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: How do you intend to 'supplement' primary sources with secondary ones? If you're still intent on 'returning' your positing on primary sources without reliable secondary sources supporting your content, I'm not going to template your changes for better references when there are already reliable secondary sources disagreeing with your content. The fact that you don't like the sources is irrelevant: repeating that WP:IDL is not an argument for overriding what WP:RS say on the matter... therefore, you are not in a position to be 'forced' to return anything unless you table the secondary sources supporting your personal contentions. The WP:BURDEN is on you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: - I'm glad to see you! How are you doing with the searches of true Annales Augustiani from this WP:RS? You have some troubles or it's just your WP:IDL?--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not find these primary sources myself, but according to secondary sources. I can indicate them, if it is useful to you. So you can put the template in the exact place where you feel WP:OR--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely what I'm asking you to do: table the secondary sources. That's how it works. Now, I've read through the sources you've offered, but am not finding the supporting content you claim is there, but find your reading of them to be original research, and your interpretation of "Estat de l'empire de Russie, et grande duché de Moscovie" to be WP:SYNTH. This is not to say that the article wasn't problematic, but long-standing, pre-existing versions of an article become the 'consensus' version by default. You're substituting the 'citation needed' templates with your own interpretation of primary sources. It's not our place to parse the original 'Annales Augustiani', nor have you demonstrated any secondary source interpretation: repeating WP:NOR because it is a policy, not a matter of picking and choosing what you want to regard and disregard. I would also ask that you self-revert as a gesture of good faith, and desist from using inappropriate edit summaries (I am not your 'opponent', as this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND). I have described the problems with your edits, but you're not listening. Rather than edit warring, please engage appropriately. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely what I'm asking you to do: table the secondary sources. That's how it works. - ok, it will be done. But this is a paper book in Russian. your interpretation of "Estat de l'empire de Russie, et grande duché de Moscovie" to be WP:SYNTH. - It's interesting. All "my interpretation" was made from one part of a text, how have I "join A and B together"? This is the usual reading of this text. And, in any case, it is better than the text to be written earlier - Margeret mentioned no "Rusyny", only "Rusaki". But I can add a link to the secondary discussion of this text too. You're substituting the 'citation needed' templates with your own interpretation of primary sources. - there no "my interpretations", sorry, you make unfounded accusations. Better the primary sources than the pure fantasy from unknown authors: Wikipedia:Verifiability. I did not have time to do the cancellation. This is not a battlefield, but you are my opponent. There is no offence in this term - the presence of an opponent is necessary for the discussion to proceed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Which name Drahomanov didn't like?

In the section on History, it says: "A number of Ukrainian members of the intelligentsia, such as Mykhailo Drahomanov and Ivan Franko, perceived the term as narrow-minded, provincial and Habsburg.[citation needed]" But because more than one "term" is mentioned before this sentence, it becomes unclear which "term" it was that Drahomanov and Franko didn't like. (It's probably obvious to anyone who's familiar with the topic, but many people aren't.) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Saxo Grammaticus

on p. 132 Saxo brings up the Ruthenians and goes on to talk about Russians. https://archive.org/details/ninebooksofdanis02saxouoft 100.15.117.34 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)