Jump to content

Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

POV in "People" Section

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 85.154.245.172 (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 85.154.245.172 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 85.154.245.172 (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)
85.154.245.172, 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 85.154.245.172 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": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians#mediaviewer/File:Austria_hungary_1911.jpg 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. 85.154.245.172 (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:
   http://www.amazon.com/dp/080203781X/ref=rdr_ext_sb_pi_sims_2

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.85.154.245.172 (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?37.200.224.205 (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)."http://belreform.org/eng/katlarchuk_prat_i_pravasl_eng.php 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)." http://viduramziu.istorija.net/etno/index-en.htm 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.85.154.245.172 (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.85.154.245.172 (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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word. "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.85.154.245.172 (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.] 37.200.224.205 (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": http://www.pwin.pl/Organizacja/dokumenty/prezes.html 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_census_of_1921 I have seen no similar reference to Ukrainians in a census of Galicia. Again this map from 1910 refers only Ruthenians, not Ukrainians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians#mediaviewer/File:Austria_hungary_1911.jpg 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.37.200.224.205 (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: http://www.igipz.pan.pl/member.html?show=29 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.37.200.224.205 (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?37.200.224.205 (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: http://statlibr.stat.gov.pl/exlibris/aleph/a18_1/apache_media/VUNVGMLANSCQQFGYHCN3VDLK12A9U5.pdf) I don't see the Gaels called the Irish on their Wiki page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaels 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.37.200.224.205 (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.]85.154.245.172 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC) [Edit to add that OED is wrong according to contemporary publications from the time, e.g. (1907), http://www.amazon.com/Huzulians-Ruthenian-Highlands-Traditional-Clothing/dp/B00GCPVPDS/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1411753211&sr=8-11&keywords=ruthenian 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.]85.154.245.172 (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..."http://www.amazon.com/UKRAINE-Ruthenian-wearing-Bridal-antique/dp/B008CP2MHO/ref=sr_1_34?ie=UTF8&qid=1411756228&sr=8-34&keywords=ruthenian]85.154.245.172 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Edit to add additional contemporary publication, e.g. 1900": "A Ruthenian Church, East Carpathians" http://www.amazon.com/ROMANIA-Ruthenian-Church-Carpathians-Timber/dp/B008CP2NDW/ref=sr_1_49?ie=UTF8&qid=1411757120&sr=8-49&keywords=ruthenian] 85.154.245.172 (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)

Civility/notice

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)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_30#Ruthenians_in_Galicia

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: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13278a.htm 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.37.200.224.205 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposal - tiny name change

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

@Boeing720: This is English Wikipedia, so we use the most common English language name (See WP:COMMONNAME). We do not use the name that is used by most other languages, only English language is relevant. Can you prove that "Galizia" is the most common English language name? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly appreciate this being English Wiki. But we have a problem here, I think. So I turn the question - Does very clear English evidences state both theses different areas must be spelled "Galicia" ? If not , I think we can use the local spelling "Galizia" for this article. I will ask a person who is native in English. (I just assume you're neither native in English, sorry if I'm wrong. Indeed.) Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
'Galizia' does not exist in English, nor in any other language, as far as I know. I have no idea where you are getting 'Galizia' from, nor any idea where you've got the idea that that's the 'local spelling'. There is no 'problem here', regardless, because we use parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
First - I have asked for advice , and the (like you, I presume) native English speaker prefers no changes (this reply was ment to Vanjagenije). That's the main thing. However in Swedish are these two different provinces spelled "Galicien" (the Spanish) and "Galizien" (the Polish-Ukranian), and I guess that's the same in several other languages as well, like German. All well. Boeing720 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
By the way - here is a website which uses "Galizia" for the Spanish province - [4] just since you wrote "no other language" (no big deal) Boeing720 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is not about the Iberian region, if you haven't noticed. RGloucester — ☎ 01:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galicia (Eastern Europe). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Orthodox Christians

Were there no Orthodox (Russian Orthodox, I guess) in Galicia? Were the Armenians Catholic? --134.153.14.13 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Font

Why are so many place names in the "Origins and Variations" section italicised? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

Change

"Formerly called the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, it later became a crown land of the Emire of Austria-Hungary — the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria."

to

"Formerly called the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, it later became a crown land of the Empire of Austria-Hungary — the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria."

Empire is misspelled. LonelyPrawn (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Name Galicia (STOP WRITING NONSENSE)

"The Ukrainian name Halych (Галич) (Halicz in Polish, Галич in Russian, Galic in Latin) comes from the Khwalis[citation needed] or Kaliz[citation needed] who occupied the area from the time of the Magyars." STOP WRITING NONSENSE. It was in ancient times a land of Lithuania and the name Galas or Galine in Lithuanian language means THE END LAND like Finland in Germanic languages. Moreover Lithuania had more lands with a word Galas: SemiGalia (the end land of Samogitia or Lowlands), Galindians (in Lithuanian Galindai, now Poles invaded and genocided Lithuanians there and established Mazuria), Golyads (in Lithuanian Galindai, now Muscovites genocided there Lithuanians and Tula-Mozhaisk-Kaluga-Briansk-Kursk-Viazma are still bearing Lithuanian city names with endings -sk and -a and through Tula flows the river Upa which in Lithuanian language means River). Two rivers Bug in Lithuanian language are Baiga or paBaiga rivers meaning THE END LAND RIVERS (to Finish is Baigti in Lithuanian language and the End is Galas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.38.72.121 (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Galicia in Spain is also Lithuanian Galicia since in ancient times Visigoths (named so because these Gothic or Getic tribes were west of Ukirainian or East Gothic tribes or Ostrogoths) established there their own kingdom in circa 500 AD 86.38.72.121 (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Move proposal

I suggest to move this page to Carpathian Galicia because the name Galicia (Eastern Europe) is ambiguous. There is another Galicia in Eastern Europe: ru:Галицкое княжество, a medieval principality, centered in Galich, Russia (which is East of Moscow, in Volga region).--Reciprocist (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, in Europe the two main associations are the Spanish Galicia and the Eastern European one....btw. "Carpathian Galicia" would be a bit misleading, since it is outside the Carpathians, just a little touching it in an adjacent way.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC))
The Galicia described in this page is located mainly in Central Europe, rather than Eastern Europe.--Reciprocist (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Galicia in Spain is also Lithuanian Galicia since in ancient times Visigoths (named so because these Gothic or Getic tribes were west of Ukirainian or East Gothic tribes or Ostrogoths) established there their own kingdom in circa 500 AD. 86.38.72.121 (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This Russian Galicia is named after Ukrainian Galicia fairly recently. In general whole Russia is full European names since when they settled whole Siberia after 1500 AD they started to give names of occupied territories or territories of Slavonic church (Orthodox). 86.38.72.121 (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2022

Please, change largest city to Kraków. Lviv has 717,486 citizens and size of 148.9 km2[2], while Kraków has 780,796 citizens and size of 326.8 km2[3]. Kavenn (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Ludnosc, Ludnosc wedlug wyznania i plci oraz jezyka ojczystego (table 10, pg. 15)
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lviv
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w
 Not done: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 19:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Largest city

Currently, Lviv (population 717,486) is listed as the largest city in Galicia, even though Kraków (population 782,137) is somewhat larger and also a part of the region. I'm not against Lviv being listed, but I would suggest listing both Lviv and Kraków as they are nearly equal in population and significance. Listing both would also better represent the mixed Ukrainian and Polish heritage of the area. 94.210.184.53 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

Illia-tar (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Do NOT cancel but add to the section *Origin and name variations* After the suggestion:

  • About 1247 Daniel of Galicia founded Lviv (Leopolis), named in honour of his son Leo I, who later moved the capital northwestwards from Halych to Lviv in 1272.
* put the following from me:
        • The name of the region was given by the name of the city of Halych

(the capital of the Principality of Galicia). The coat of arms depicts a jackdaw — a bird of the crow family Jackdaws (lat. Coloeus monedula, syn. Corvus monedula). Jackdaws are two species of birds in the genus Coloeus closely related to, 

but generally smaller than, the crows and ravens (Corvus). Coloeus is sometimes treated as a subgenus of Corvus, including by the IUCN.

The first is written mention of the city appeared 

in the Ipatiiv Chronicle of 1140, in the Lavrentiiv Chronicle of 1144. In the old days, galitsa ("galitsy"*) in the plural is the name of a flock of jackdaws,

and maybe rooks, but these birds are definitely from crows because they distinguished:«Togda po Ruskoj zemli retko rataeve kikahut, no chasto vrani grayahut, trupia sebe delyache, a galici svoyu rech gozoryahut, hotyat poleteti na uedie».("Then, on the Russian land, plowmen rarely echoed each other, but crows often caw, dividing the corpse and the jackdaws in their own way they say, they want to fly to the banquet"). 

 Other references: 1)«Galici
stady bezhat k Donu velikomu»*("Flocks of jackdaws fly to

the great Don"). 2.«Shekot slavij uspe, govor galich ubudisi»* ("The hushed song of nightingales was awakened by the clamor of jackdaws").*

  • These three quotes are from: *Words about Igor's Regiment* 12th century.

The coat of arms of Halychyna and Halych has depicted a jackdaw for many hundreds of years (Halychyna — walking, Halycha — standing).

Therefore, the coat of arms of the city of Halych with a jackdaw gave the name 

to the region.****
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

History of Galicia after 1923

The history section ends with the 1923 recognition of Galicia as part of Poland. Much or all of historic Galicia became part of the USSR after WW2, and is now part of Ukraine. Would someone more knowledgeable please continue its history, which certainly did not end in 1923! Rev.trw379 (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Flag

this flag (red and white) was the flag of the Poles of Galicia, and not the official flag of the crown land. The last official flag of Galicia and Lodomeria is red and blue Łuka Aurora (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Misleading statement on historic language situation

There are some mistakes in the text, which I am not able to correct due to the edit protection. However, a particularly striking one is the claim that "The Polish language was historically predominant throughout Galicia." in the section on People. This is not true and can be easily checked in e.g. the Austro-Hungarian censuses (the results of the 1900 one are in Gemeindelexikon der im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreiche und Länder (Band XII Galizien), K. K. Statistische Zentralkommission, 1907). It is clear that the Ruthenian (Ukrainian) language predominated in East Galicia, i.e. the Polish language was not "predominant throughout Galicia". 130.238.231.42 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galicia_(Eastern_Europe)/Archive_4&oldid=1231277636"