This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ruthenians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:"
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. needs copy edit They consider themselves a separate nation and recognized in 22 countries around the globe. by whom? According to the 2001 All-Ukrainian Census in Zakarpattia Oblast live over 10,000 Rusyns. needs copy edit 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. needs copy edit
I urge you to stop inserting the refs like the following, they are done wrong:
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)
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)
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)
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)
::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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WTH is Annales Augustiani? Google shows no information at all. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
"chauvinistic fakes"does not bode well with neutral editors. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:41, 10 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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ruthenians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:"
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. needs copy edit They consider themselves a separate nation and recognized in 22 countries around the globe. by whom? According to the 2001 All-Ukrainian Census in Zakarpattia Oblast live over 10,000 Rusyns. needs copy edit 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. needs copy edit
I urge you to stop inserting the refs like the following, they are done wrong:
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)
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)
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)
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)
::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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WTH is Annales Augustiani? Google shows no information at all. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
"chauvinistic fakes"does not bode well with neutral editors. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:41, 10 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)
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)
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)