Jump to content

Talk:Rusyns/Archive 1

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

Importance Rating

By the project scale, I would rate importance as "high", as Rusyns would qualfy as an "ethnic group"Pustelnik 20:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt the article I now post eliminate a need for this page? Who is wikipedia to debate the ethnicity of the Rusyns when Ukraine now recognizes them as an ethnic minority? [2]

OK with me. I have inserted ratings. I'm keeping this section open in case something thinks they deserve a higher or lower rating. Why is Ukraine's recognition of the Rusyns as an ethnic group relevant or important? Pustelnik 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Podkarpatska Rus

I would be very interested in an article about any transient independent state. I have likened this to Carpathian Ruthenia, which implies a legally autonomous area in the post World War I era, with little detail. Can someone clarify or expand this?Pustelnik 13:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the article about Ukraine or Kyivan Rus. It was one of several Ukrainian states. Rusyns as Hutsuls are the same Ukrainians. There were simply isolated from Kyiv for too long and forgot their true roots.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean that they were isolated so long that they consider themselves something other than Kievan Rus? If so, then they are a separate ethnic group by definition. Genetically, neither Rusyns nor Hutsula are similar to Ukrainians.Pustelnik (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Genetically? Are you for real? How can you be from western Ukraine and not be genetically related to western ukrainians? In my family tree alone I have so-called 'Rusyn' names as well as Boyko, explain to me how I'm not genetically Ukrainian? --Львівське (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. They're closer related to cucumbers.--Bandurist (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

From the linguistic POV, Rusyns are distinct from Ukrainians. (Taivo (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

creating ethnicities?

Are we witnessing ethnicities being created here? I think we are but I'm not sure where... My ancestors referred to themselves as Rusyn (or Ruthenian, same thing, germanic version). They were not separate from the people that call themselves Ukrainians today. I think this splitting of words is completely based on politics. I think the Ukrainians realize that they share a history with the russians but are recoiling from the communist russia of the previous century. I think maybe those who refer to themselves as 'rusyn' or 'ruthenian' these days are recoiling from the nationalistic attitudes of Ukraine. Maybe the ruthenians are filled with a sense of pan-slavism. They should be careful of that. They should remember that this pan-slavism idea was :exploited by the Russians to give a purpose to invading the nations that surround them. They should also remember that they (the rusyns) :and the Ukrainians share the name Rusyn historically, while the Russians were Muscovites. To me Rusyn, Ruthenian and Ukrainian are all part of the same body. I'm guessing that this wikipedia article was written by Magcosi. I've read that he has written many books on the subject. In fact, I'm under the impression that he invented to idea of Rusyn's being a separate people. -Joe Yakimicki

Thank you. There seems to be an ongoing trend of creating new ethnicities on wikipedia. It's getting ridiculous and all for politial correctness. 72.144.68.226 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Joe, the issue isn't new and far from obvious. If you know Ukrainian, I suggest you go read some Rusyn web-sites. It is hard to call the language used there "Ukrainian". I naver have any difficulty to read in the Ukrainian variants from any part of Ukraine as well as diaspora publications. I can attest that what's at Rusyn sites is way different from what I see elsewhere. There are still not strictly defined answers to what makes a difference between a dialect and a separate language (mutual intellegibility is often cited but even that is not a universal answer).
I don't think Magocsi writes for Wikipedia and I would be delighted if people of his level woould but if the articles are based on his works, this is as solid a ref as any other. He is an established scholar. Please consider registering. --Irpen 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The truth is Rusyns are Ukrainians, and Ukrainians are Rusyns, "russians" are muscovians (moskali), the only reason Ukrainians call themselves Ukrainians is because muscovians stole the 'Rus' name because of how famous Kyivan Rus was at the time, muscovians wanted to become more famous. Ukrainians wanted to show they are not muscovians, people who call themselves Rusyns probably didn't know of muscovians stealing the name, thus they didn't see a reason to change their name to Ukrainians. So if we wanted to be really correct we would call Ukrainians/Rusyns Russians or Rusyns, and 'russians' muscovians!Nroscha 17:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As a side commnent, when speaking of the people in Transcarpathia in his book on Ukrainian history Magosci consistantly refers to its people as "Rusyns/Ukrainians."Faustian 14:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

looking back on my comments and others, I think that I'm missing the point. I'm aiming too far in to history here. Even if these different cultures are relatively new (i.e., not 1000 years), it does not mean that it is not a distinct culture. Believe me, I am no expert here, just a bystander with a bit of interest in the area and it's people/history. (Joe Yakimicki, sept. 2007)

Checking in nearly 10 years after my previous comment-- I just wanted to update this to say that 10 more years of interest and research have really only led me to this: Perhaps some geographic and temporal locations had a stronger sense of demarcation between Rusyn, Ruthenian, Ukrainian, etc. I think the lines of demarcation are very fuzzy in many locations and periods of time. Times of conflict often seem to lead to seeing black and white in a place where that is very gray. (Joe Yakimicki, April 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyakimic (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nroscha. Rusyns are people of the Rus or Ruthenia (Latinized version), but such an entity fell into oblivion since the XIII century. The primary decedant of that state is Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My Grandparents

When my Grandmother came to the US in the early 1900's she refered to herself as a Ruthenian. When I found her entry in a ships log through Ellis Island she is listed as Ruthenian and the term Russian was crossed out. Just my two cents. ---Steve

I'm an American, but I had Rusyn ancestors. Some were imprisoned at Talerhof, some formed the Lemko-Rusyn Republic, and others were deported in the Vistula operation. One even wrote a Rusyn Primer and reader in the 1930's, which was later suppressed by the Polish government. For the most part, they did not consider themselves to be Ukrainians, but Lemkos. My grandmother's sister immigrated to Canada, and did consider herself to be Ukrainian. Of course, the Canadian government considered her ethnic group to be "Austrians", and interned them in WW I. I would consider ethnicity to be self-defined. I resent someone insisting that my ancestors were Ukrainians, as they showed by their actions that they did not consider themslves to be Ukrainians.Pustelnik 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I was born in the US. My grandmother (Anna Hunchar Potocnak) always referred to herself as Ruthenian (Rusyn) Ukrainian, and Orthodox Catholic. She was quite adamant on her self-identification, and even stated she spoke both Ukrainian and Ruthenian (along with a few other languages). I do not think Rusyns are a subgroup that does not deserve an entry - quite the opposite. If she felt that adamant about her identification, obviously it meant quite a lot to those who fled the area to the US "diaspora".Winterlongone 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New Edit

This article seemed to have been cut and pasted and re-editted to the extent that it did not make sense as a whole. I added a slew of links to connect it with other articles as well as enforced the term "Rusyns" throughout the article in order to not confuse the reader. I also added a section for references, should anyone have the time to peruse the major writings and expand this article. As for bias, I attempted to be neutral and hope that I presented as many viewpoints as possible.--tufkaa 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC) p.s.:Someone please correct my horrible translation of the Polish-language reference.--tufkaa 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I must say that the "overwhelming majority" of recent edits tend to focus too much on Ukraine, and the "overwhelming majority" who identify themselves as Ukrainian. I think that statements such as the height of political "Ruthenianism" in the mid-nineties cross the line with regards to NPOV. I'm not going to delete edits as yet, but would like the editors of this article to remember that it is about Rusyns and their history.--tufkaa 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering what you find objectionable about the above phrase. Also, given that most of historical Ruthenians/Rusyns (in Galicia, including the vast majority of Zakarpatia) consider themselves Ukrainian today, the Ukrainian focus seems appropriate. On a personal note, a know many recent immigrants from Zakarpatia (Prykarpatia) in the USA, none of whom considers themsevles Rusyn despite the different dialect (an example that sticks in my mind is the word for socks - "shtrympfy" - rather than "skarpetky". Faustian 22:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


I've said it before and I'll say it again: skarpetky is not a Ukrainian word.
Besides that minor point, my concern is the potential marginalization of Rusyns in their namesake WP article. Many Rusyns, Rusnaks, Lemkos, Hutsuls, etc., do not consider themselves anything but Rusyns, Rusnaks, Lemkos, or Hutsuls, etc. Precisely how many is debatable, but fortunately for Rusyns, there are now scholarly publications available on their history, language, etc. Look, I'm not a Rusyn nationalist; I'm just an editor who thinks that WP editors should give out at least an equal amount of respect towards marginalized cultures as those cultures which we hold near and dear to our heart. A phrase such as the height of political "Ruthenianism" in the mid-nineties makes it sound like this whole ethnicity was a big fad.--tufkaa 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see how the quotes around Ruthenianism look bad and am removing them. Otherwise the article seems fine, given that most western Ukrainians considered themselves Rusyns (any articel on Rusyns should not ignore this - someone looking for historical info on Rusyns with reference to Galicia get an article about more than just Yugoslav, American, etc., Rusyns). Cultural identity is an interesting thing and we will see with history if Rusyns turn out to be, like ethnic German Austrians with respect to Germany, ethnic Ukrainians with a different national orientations or a kind of "fad". respectfully, Faustian 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it sad and fascinating at the same time that some in Ukraine (neither Faustian nor Tufkaa are among them but I don't want to call names of some editors) like to talk about bads of the SU in relationtion with an effective denial of Ukrainian identity (or keeping it exclusively to folklore stuff) but as the same time, following the Ukrainian attainment of independence, do the same to Rusyns, calling them "Ukrainians". Remember the "Romanians who forgot their native language" thingy? I remember very well like some of our Verkhovna Rada deputies (I think it was the Plushch' time) screamed inside the parliament about the dangers of "Political Ruthenianism" (Політичний русинізм) in the '90s. A similar interview of Mykhailo Tyvodar I linked to the article a while ago to provide the diversity of opinions also speaks along those lines. To those who think that Rusyns are just Ukrainians, I suggest to go to any Rusyn web-sites and, don't read the Propaganda, but just look at the articles. This one for instance? Is this Ukrainian language? I remember a long discussion with User:PANONIAN and others where we tried to figure what "Перед кунківском церквю капітан ПВ одберат мельдунок" is supposed to mean.

So, let's separate two issues. Actually three issues. The first one is that in the Austrian Empire what we now call "Ukrainians" were all called "Ruthenians" (Russinen?) and given some reasonable freedom compared to their Ukrainian brethren of, say, Volhynia, of the RU empire, in order to prevent any splitting of the people's loyalty towards the more Russia-leaning parts of Ukraine as well as to Ukraine itself. Some of those people were, perhaps, simply Ukrainians in modern sense. Some where Rusyn. That's the first point. The second point is that the issue exists along with people. Due to its unfortunate politization, statistical data has to be treated with care but there is a significant amount of research (including but not limited to Magocsi) on the subject. And the third connected issue is that this politicization is harmful and editors should not scrutinize others exclusively to try to deduce some hidden political agenda.

Fazil Iskander wrote in his book that "Our science is so politicized that people somehow forget that the truth is interesting in its own right". (У нас наука настолько политизирована, что люди как-то забывают, что истина и сама по себе интересна) in connection with a dispute about the authorship of the "Great Abkhazian Wall". A useful reread for some (not the editors above) who are perpetually seeking a hidden agenda in every statement anyone makes at Wikipedia. --Irpen 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With fascination I read the discussion at uk:Обговорення:Русин were our old friend illustrates what I was just talking about. I invite our tri-lingual Wikipedians to take a look as well at the discussions at other language wikipedia talk pages that discuss their respective articles. I especially like the introduction and comparison with the Russian/Moskal (Muscovite) "analogy". Whatever languages you can read, take a look, try to understand what to avoid and please come back. --Irpen 15:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting commentary. The linked article [[3] was a fascinating read. Irpen, have you ever heard a "pure" Galician dialect? (nowadays it is more common among grandparents in the diaspora than in Ukraine, at least according to my visits there) I am no professional linguist, but to me the Lemko passage seems to be a combination of Galician and Russian. Perhaps that reflects a similarity with Belorusyn of which I am unfamiliar, or even an insertion of Russian words by the Russophile coders of the Rusyn language, comparable to the Church Slavonic insertions into the literary Russian language when it was first codified. The use of the passive tense (?) ся or ce comparable to Spanish se is typical of Galicia as well. I found lists of some Galician words (which didn't include the Galician spatzeruvaty for huliaty or the Austrian-derived greeting servus): [4] [5]. But unfortunately I haven't been able to get an entire passage, as a comparison to the Lemko passage would have been interesting. Perhaps they would be equally far apart from literary Ukrainian language based on the Poltava (central/eastern Ukraine) dialect. All of which point to the numerous potential possibilities inherent in national identitification and language. It is a fascinating subject, and perhaps if I have time I will try to devote an article to it - it would take a couple of hours, though, so who knows when that will happen.

As for Ukrainian sensitivity to the Rusyn issue, I think it stems from several sources. Firstly, the issues and conflict are quite familar in the nationalistic West. There, where the local dialect is similar to Rusyn, the same conflict between Ukrainophiles and Rusynophiles and Russophiles also played out, in the 19th century. The victor in Galicia is quite clear. To a Galician, a Rusynophile from America or across the Slovak border may seem like an unpleasant throwback to an earlier heretofore resolved conflict.

Secondly, the Rusynophile orientation was explicitly utilised by Hungarian and Polish authorites in their respective lands to try to seperate their subject peoples' from the greater Ukrainian nation. In the case of the Poles, Austrian neutrality prevented the Poles from fully using their resources and the Russinophile orientation withered in Galicia, although the Poles tried to revive it after 1920 by forcing Galician Ukrainians to refer to themselves as Rusyns in official documents. By then it was too late, the Ukrainian identity had been set, and the result was only resentment for "Rusynism." In the lands under Hungary (Zakarpatia), in contrast, before 1914 Rusynism received the explicit support of the state and therefore survived, albeit even with the state support it was no more than equal to the Ukrainophile orientation there (according to Magosci's book on Ukrainian history). All of these events have led many Ukrainians to view Rusynism as a sort of foreign (Polish, Hungarian, or Russian)intrigue and its proponents as some sort of collaborators. The irony here is obvious, as the same accusations have been levelled against Ukrainanism itself by some Russians.

Thirdly, the similarities between Rusyn and other western Ukrainian cultures and language are so great that it is frankly difficult for (particularly Western) Ukrainians to view Rusyns as a different people. It would be analogous, perhaps, to a situation in which some Alabamans insisted that Alabama was a seperate nation with its own language, codified the language of Faulkner (which, obviously, is quite different from standard English), while Mississipians remained "patriotic Americans" and merged their speech with that of standard American English.

My own personal opinion is that national identity depends on the people's self-identification. If most Rusyns come to feel themselves as a separate nation, than for whatever reason they arrive at this conclusuion it is their right to do so. But this issue should be independent from one of ethnicity or linguistic categorization. And it is still far from settled. As I mentioned earlier, Rusyns may become like Austrians in relation to Germans, a seperate nation. Or their national orientation may turn out to have been a fashion, like the supposed unique ethnicity of Polish nobles (Sarmatism) or the Bavarian indepenence movement [6].Faustian 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And a Lviv dictionary: [7]. Faustian 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

More ethnicities

Now "Pannonian Rusyns" are a different ethnicity than "Rusyns" because they live in a different location and speak a different language. Well then I guess "German Americans" are a separate ethnicity from "Germans". See Pannonian Rusyn. 72.144.68.226 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

'even more new ethnicities' was a bad title Idiszero 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous Rusyns

I wonder why the "Famous Rusyns" section was removed? --ISasha 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a shame, considering the notable personalities that are identified with the Rusyn heritage: Andy Warhol, Peter Wilhousky, Tom Ridge, Michael Strank et al. (192.77.143.154 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)) ~~

Biassed opinions!

Please be aware that this page contains some very biassed opinions by the members of Ukrainian community. Ukrainian nationalists are very well known for denying Rusyns being a separate ethnicity. In the history of this page you can see a number of edits which were clearly caused by one's personal subjective views. One good example would be a number of Rusyns population these days. 54000 is a ridiculous number which does not represent the reality in any way.

Sorry, but we go by scientific data such as recognized surveys, census, etc. If your claims differ wildly from these, than it seems that you are the one using biased opinions. Faustian 12:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, it's a right of every individual to be able to say what they want but I would take it with a grain of salt when Chinese nationalists talk about Tibetans or when Russian nationalists talk about Ukrainians. Or when Ukrainian nationalists talk about Rusyns. 

 Nationalism is a European concept superimposed on us.  We hate it.  We are composed of over 400 cultural-lingual groups in which Tibetian is a term used by British to create a lie
 that there was a Tibetian Kingdom.  There are over 200 Living Buddhas in Four separate sects who are independent, of whom Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama are the leaders of the Yellow 
 Sect, and there are Red Sect, Black Sect and Flower Sect.  Keep your ignorance to your own, so not use us to againt the Han brothers.

(Fixing the formatting as the old one is nigh impossible to read)

Panchelan

The figure of 54,000 or so is from official census data. Sorry, but only about 10,000 people in Ukraine actually identified themselves as Rusyns on the last Ukrainian census. In modern Ukraine most Rusyns consider themselves of Ukrainian nationality. Faustian 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rusyn self-identification

Some Rusyns don't even subscribe to the idea of a separate Rusyn nation, and would bristle at the idea of being called Ukrainian. I come from a Rusyn family that identifies heavily with being Russian, although their language and culture is decidedly more Ukrainian than Russian. I believe the term for people like me is "Russophile" and I know of many Rusyns who are similarly aligned.

to add

Ruthenians and Rusyns are name for nowadays Ukrainians. All my father’s family are Lemko Rusyns. Still they are Ukrainians. My mother's family from Bucovyna are Rusyns is well, and they are Ukrainians. Will give you an example of Ruthenians from Bukovyna. I want to show that Ruthenian or Rusyns is the name for Ukrainians on the example of postcards from time of Austro-Hungarian Empire from Bucovyna:

http://www.ljplus.ru/img3/a/r/aritmija/image032.jpg

http://pics.livejournal.com/igorsova/pic/00001696

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3605/ukrainiansis2.jpg

And here some fragments from a book "Русини а Москалі", written by Bucovinian Rusyns (Ukrainians) in Rutheian language (Ukrainian), dated 1911, from Chernivtsi where strongly emphasised that Rusyns are not Moscovites (Russians):

http://choana.livejournal.com/114557.html#cutid1


My Greatgrandparents were Rusyn immigrants from WESTERN SLOVAKIA (NOT UKRAINE). I consider myself of Rusyn decent, not Slovakian and certainly not Ukrainian. My Greatgrandmother would proudly proclaim she was Rusyn, not Russian. I find it very disappointing to:

1.) Find a Wikipedia Article that is under a series on Ukraine instead of on its' own proud Rusyn heritage.

2.) That this is obviously a site where Ukrainians are claiming that anyone who identifies themselves as Rusyn is actually a misguided Ukrainian. That is very insulting- it is like telling Ukrainians they are misguided Russians.

All this Ukrainian-identity should be kept to a brief statement and allow Rusyns to explain themselves. If you want to say you are Ukrainian and not Rusyn, then you should go to a "proud-to-be-Ukrainian site" instead. KURTAK 16 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.248.223 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity for yourself, but for a fringe group of people who fled their homeland, what kind of parade do you expect?Rusyns are a Ukrainian-based ethnic group, live with it.--Львівське (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not take sides and reports what happens. The facts are that the overwhelming majority of Rusyns in the homeland identify themselves as part of the Ukrainian nation and that scholars have mixed views about whether ornot Rusyn is a seperate language or if it is a dialect of Ukrainian. Wikipedia simply ought to report these referenced facts.Faustian (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn’t this be at Rusyn people? —Wiki Wikardo 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

possibly (late response). I think there should be a disambiguation page to make clear the matter between historical Rusyns and the contemporary form.--Lvivske (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

anthem

Podkarpatskije Rusiny is considered the Rusyn "national anthem", Ja Rusyn byl jesm' i budu - should it have a comma: Ja Rusyn byl, jesm' i budu? (meaning would be I was Rusyn, [I] am and will be)--Constanz - Talk 12:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

Adding up numbers by yourself is original research, especially when you do it from multiple sources. Conqueror100, please review these policies before reverting again. Khoikhoi 07:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should avoid giving any sort of precise numbers here. Estimates and ranges should do as the issue is affected by politics a lot. Census numbers indicate not the actual population but the number obtained by census takers. Even if census was taken in the best way, still the precision of each census number is different and if you add numbers for a small fringe group obtained in 5 different country censuses, you can't claim the precision better than 10%. Of course the census numbers should be given but the total number is best to reference to some source that estimates the world number. If we can't find such number and all we do is add the census numbers, we should give an ~5k range, IMO. --Irpen 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

about US census here are some numbers: http://www.everyculture com/North-America/European-Americans-Bibliography.html In 1980 about 600,000 Americans were of Carpatho-Rusyn ancestry, although only 8,485 claimed such ancestry in the 1980 census. This is in part because many identify themselves as Ukrainians or Russians and because the U.S. census no longer considers the Carpatho-Rusyns as a distinct group. Magocsi, Paul R. (1984). Our People: Carpatho-Rusyns and Their Descendants in North America. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario.

Carpatho Rusyn 3,997 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-mt_name=ACS_2002_EST_G2000_PCT026


100% Rusyn

I am 100% Rusyn. My grandparents were from Galicia (now in Poland), Northeast Slovakia and Ukraine (all in the Carpathian mountains). They identified themselves as Ruthenians when they came to the U.S. They spoke the Rusyn language (different but similar dialects), went to Greek Catholic and Orthodox churches (Byzantine), depending on what region they were from, followed Rusyn customs, etc. I love our old customs. When I went to Europe, I found that in each area they had their own Rusyn schools, beautiful wooden churches - everything was distinctly Rusyn. I have read that Ukraine is now recognizing the Rusyns as a separate and distinct people. Now maybe the Rusyns there will not be afraid to identify themselves as Rusyns and you will see the numbers go up. When I visited my family there, they were afraid to say they were Rusyn and were so happy that I was an American and proud to be a Rusyn. We had an interesting discussion about this issue. Creating ethnicities? I don't think so. I am a Rusyn, my parents were Rusyn, my grandparents were Rusyn, etc. (RusynA 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Well, all great-great grandparents of Galicians were Rusyns. Galician Rusyns turned into Ukrainians by 1920; for varioous historical reasons on the other side of the Carpathians this process was not as complete. Ethnicities are created all over the place, there is nothing wrong with that. In the case of Rusyns, like Moldovans with respect to Romanians, the story is not yet over...Faustian 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate is purely semantical. There is no certain way to tell the dialect from the language as well as to tell a national subgroup from a separate nation. And, yes, these issues are affected by politics as well. We should just describe the situation without attaching any labels ourselves. --Irpen 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable conclusion, as usual. Faustian 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because certain countries want to try and snuff out ethnic minorities doesn't mean the people themselves don't identify as a separate culture. language content has been discussed, but really, just the number of websites and ORGANIZED SOCIETIES pertaining to the Rusyn people indicates that a significant amount of Rusyns identify themselves as Rusyn, NOT Ukranian, Slovak, Polish, Serbian, etc. Observe these links. [8] [9] [10] [11] lists other scholarly organizations identifying with the Rusyn people. [12] [13] I challenge any Ukranian to see if this language is their own.

I am not a linguist. To my unprofessional ear, the language seems like the Galician dialect mixed with a little Russian and perhaps Church Slavonic. It is more easily understandable for a Ukrainian than, say, the Bavarian dialect is for a northern German. Which does not mean a seperate Rusyn nation couldn't exist.
With all due respect, number of web sites doesn't mean much. Otherwise, given over one million websites on alien abduction [14] one would assume that this is a widespread problem. Seriously, as the actual Ukrainian census shows, only over 10,000 people out of a population of over 1 million in Ukrainian Zakarpatia actually identified themselves as Rusyns.
Think about this question of identity in relation to our own country's history. When various Eastern European immigrants came to the U.S., they were determined to be considered 'American' because of the prejudice and disrespect that came with the status of 'immigrant.' I'm sure something similar was at least at one time taking place in The Ukraine. As has been said below, if the Ukrainian government would acknowledge Rusyns as a seperate ethnic group the numbers would go up. (24.229.60.165 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Interesting

A good balanced article on the topic, provided by Irpen:


-Faustian 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Ruthenians and Rusyns are name for nowadays Ukrainians. All my father’s family are Lemko Rusyns. Still they are Ukrainians. My mother's family from Bucovyna are Rusyns is well, and they are Ukrainians. Will give you an example of Ruthenians from Bukovyna. I want to show that Ruthenian or Rusyns is the name for Ukrainians on the example of postcards from time of Austro-Hungarian Empire from Bucovyna:

http://www.ljplus.ru/img3/a/r/aritmija/image032.jpg

http://pics.livejournal.com/igorsova/pic/00001696

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3605/ukrainiansis2.jpg

And here some fragments from a book "Русини а Москалі", written by Bucovinian Rusyns (Ukrainians) in Rutheian language (Ukrainian), dated 1911, from Chernivtsi where strongly emphasised that Rusyns are not Moscovites (Russians):

http://choana.livejournal.com/114557.html#cutid1

The problem is very simple - Rusyns are not Ukrainians but Ukrainians are Rusyns. "Ukrainian" is just a weird name designed for them that's why Slovak Rusyns can't adopt it... 91.127.47.237 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Ukrainians and Rusyns are the same nation. Just like Greeks and Ellinicos, Georgians and Sakartvelo, Armenians and Hayer. seven


Ladies and Gentelmen! I would like to remind you, that the mission of Wikipedia is descriptive rather than prescriptive. This means that we are here not to decide whether Rusyns are a separate ethnos or a subethnos of Ukrainians. We have just to describe facts: some number of people in Slovac Republic, Poland and Ukraine identify themselves as Rusyn and do not consider themselves Ukrainian. This is just a plain fact.

On the other hand there is no facts supporting the claim that nearly the whole population of Transkarpattia Oblast are Rusyns. As well as there is no fact indicating that any significant number of Hutsuls and Boikos identify themselves as Rusyns. Concerning Lemkos, the situation is different. A significant part of them claim distinct from Ukrainian (Rusyn or a separate Lemko) ethnicity. But we should not forget the fact that a significant number of Lemkos do identify themselves as Ukrainians.

Let us just describe these facts in Wikipedia. Our own views on the subject can be discussed at internet forums rather than at Wikipedia. Regards, --AndriyK 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

60,000

It exists 60,000 people, who claim that they are Rusyns. These are numbers from national official bureaus for statistics:

Slovakia - 24,201
( http://www.statistics.sk/webdata/english/census2001/tab/tab3a.htm )
Serbia - 15,626
( http://www.statserb.sr.gov.yu/zip/esn31.pdf )
Ukraine - 10,100
( http://ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/nationality/zakarpatia/ )
Croatia - 2,337
( http://www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm )
Poland - 5,800
( http://www.stat.gov.pl/english/ )
Hungary - 1,098
( http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_28.html )
Czech Republic - 1,106
( http://www.czso.cz/csu/2005edicniplan.nsf/t/D6002FD8F5/$File/kap_I_05.pdf ).

So I came to the conclusion that 24,201+15,626+10,100+2,337+5,800+1,098+1,106=60,268. It is standard counting of numbers and it does not violate WP:SYN. Conqueror100 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Faustian 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYN. Khoikhoi 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no data concerning Ukraine. No Rusyns are mentioned here (http://ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/nationality/zakarpatia/.) Your calculations are wrong--133.41.84.172 10:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But Ukrainian government does not recognize Rusyns as a separate East Slavic nation ( or ethnic group ). Cca 10,100 people declared their nationality as Rusyn, but Ukrainian bureau for statistics counted this number to number of Ukrainians. Conqueror100 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
May be these 10 000 had realy decleared themselves as separate ethnic group, however this number is not included in the source you:ve presented concerning Ukraine (http://ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/nationality/zakarpatia/.). So no wonder, that your calculations are wrong. The number of 10000 men looks seems to be your personal fantasy...--133.41.84.206 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Rusyns are presented under section: The number of persons of distinct etnographical groups and their mother tongue. The link is only for website. The number of Rusyns ( 10,100 ) in Ukraine is generally recognised (see other sources, please
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/09/cc55d9c7-9e80-4d29-bb1f-2e34a99ef888.html
http://www.unpo.org/article.php?id=5500
http://www.templetonthorp.com/en/news1354). Conqueror100 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

When you guys are done with revert warring and have the article unprotected, please add this ref to an article. In the meanwhile, please read it.

It is easy to google the credentials of this respected scholar. BTW, he is the author of the current Britannica's article on Ukraine. Happy edits. --Irpen 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What a great article. Thanks, Faustian 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article, but it ignores the western parts of Galicia, that became part of Poland after WW I. Reading this article, you would assume that all of Galicia became part of Ukraine, which is not the case. The western parts that became part of Poland had a much more Rusyn orientation, certainly after 1880. See articles on Talerhof and the Lemko-Rusyn Republic.Pustelnik 12:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Created image for the article

I chose the images of the four most recognisable Rusyns (and who have free images, so the image wont be removed due to license problems) and compiled an image for the article. I think it came out pretty good so... enjoy :-) (it's about time the article has it's image). M.V.E.i. 22:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lemko (Rusyns); Hutsuls, Boikos (Ukrainians)

The almost part of Lemkos call themself Rusyns, but almost Hutsuls and Boikos call themself Ukrainians. First Ukrainians immigrants came to Argentina in 1897. They were from southwestern Ukraine (Boikivhchyna, Trancarpathia, Hutsulshchyna, Bukovyna, Podillia and Besarabia). The immigrants from Boikivschyna, Transcarpathia and Hutsulshchyna called themself Ukrainians. My grandparents were Boikos´and Hutsuls´sons and they called themself Ukrainians. These immigrants were proud be Ukrainians. I´m proud too be descendent of Ukrainian Hutsuls and Boikos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.77.228 (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's unfair for Rusyns to stake claim in all of the sub-groups that comprise western Ukraine. My parents names are allegedly boyko sounding, that doesn't mean I identify as a Rusyn. Heck, my great grandmother had a very Ruthenian name, but I don't identify as Rusyn. This article should focus on those who choose to self-identify as Rusyn over Ukrainian, or those who emigrated from Ukraine to the west prior to Ukrainian self-awareness, and should make no assumptions or claims to other sub-ethnic groups.--Lvivske (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

Does anyone have a map or can make a map of the location in Europe where most Rusyns live?--BoguslavM 23:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not live, but lived in 1920. [15] [16] Currently most of them have modern Ukrainian identity, same as former Rusyns, who became Ukrainians, in all regions of Ukraine some years earlier. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help with Rusyn cuisine

Can someone knowledgeable about Rusyn cuisine help with a question? Is there a dish called levish or leviš (which is dumplings and cheese), possibly traditional around the area of Strážske? If you have information about it, can you please post at Talk:Slovak cuisine? Thank you in advance for your help. Badagnani (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Population

Hi, people who added "1,710,000" figure as population in Ukraine - please explain where it is from. --windyhead (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Joensuu 77 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Please, read the article you comment properly through from the beginning to the end. I speak about ancestral Rusyns, and represent both the sources and calculation procedure I have used. In the same way, the size of ethnic minorities sometimes has to be estimated e.g. in France, where all the ethnic groups are legally unrecognized by the state. The Romance minorities of France are an analogy with the status of Slavonic Rusyns in Ukraine. Actually, the way of estimation I have used is relatively moderate, because the Rusyns probably living in Ukraine, outside their rodina, are not included. This kind of people surely exist. "joensuu_77"

“Rusyn identity” as a tool of Russian bullying in Ukraine

As far as we know, the immense majority of the population of Zakarpattia oblast (close to one million) in Ukraine defines themselves as Ukrainians, not Rusyns.

In many old Kingdom of Hungary ethnographic maps, Rusyns/Ruthenians and Ukrainians are in fact counted as one ethnic group.

So... what’s behind the current supposed “surge” in Rusyn nationalism in Ukraine? Well, the Russian state-controlled Russia Today can give you some clues. More details, in this article from The Jamestown Foundation.

I read that Father Sidor has been offering Russian passports to the Rusyns. ҃҃ ҃҃҃҃

There's more Hugarians in Zakarpattia than Rusyns. It's just an extremist (Sidor) handing out passports, trying to stir up trouble--Lvivske (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is always the same. Defining oneself as a Rusyn is still considered a shame both in Slovakia (but less) and in Ukraine. Until WWII nobody would think Rusyns and Ukrainians could be the same people. After that linguistic assimilation and ethnic discrimination have played a big role. The main element of unity is the Ruthenian Greek-Catholic Church (although many Rusyns converted to Orthodox Church due to czars' persecutions in the XIX century) and the Slovak Greek-Catholic Church which was a part of the Ruthenian one. In Slovakia is common knowledge that faithful of the Slovak church are all Rusyns, yet very few people dare to define themselves as Rusyns. Ukraine claims Rusyns to be Ukrainians pursuing a policy of ethnic assimilation. Consider ethnic differences among Slavic people are small compared to other nationalities and languages are mutually comprehensible. Ethnic boundaries are not well defined. Anyway there is a Rusyn identity. Avemundi (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
" Until WWII nobody would think Rusyns and Ukrainians could be the same people" Nobody? How so? "Ukrainians" were Rusyns not too long before that; the Ukrainian self awareness and etymology were still relatively new at that point --Lvivske (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, czars never ruled over Zakarpatiia.Faustian (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You might want to look at this map. Consider where is Russia (=Ruthenia/Galicia) and where is Ukraine. You might want to read Galicia. You might want to consider a rough figure contained in Prešov: Greek Catholics number 8.9% of the present population, being all Rusyns or Ukrainians (="Ukrainized"). Yet Rusyns and Ukrainians together sum up to 2.3%. Add that Orthodox in Slovakia mostly come from the Greek Catholic Church "abolition" (by law) under the socialistic regime. Many Rusyns reject their ethnic identity on the wave of slovakization, while they keep their stronger religious identity. Asking about Rusyn ancestors of a "Slovak" from this region is still regarded as something "unpolite". About czars' persecutions Faustian is right, they happened in Ukraine. In Ruthenia they occurred only in the Soviet era, when Greek Catholicism was considered an element of disunity. --Avemundi (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Podkarpatské Rusi, former Hungarian North-Eastern Hungary

Yes, we do witness here in English Wikipedia the creation of Rusys which are generally known as Ruthenians elsewhere in Europe. This area was ruled by the Hungarian Kings since Arpad and later since 1867 by Hapsburg Monarchs to 1918. Not any connection to Imperial Russia at all. Inside Dual Monarchy this part belonged to Hungary, not Austrian adminstration, as Austrian (Polish) Galicia and Lodomeria. After The Peace Treaty of Trianon on June 4, 1920 to 1939 Ruthenia belonged to Republic of Czechoslovakia and Hungarians occupied this former Czechoslovakian Province in two parts, the southern part including Munkacs and Ungvar in November 1938 and the northern and the most eastern part on March 15, 1939. In October 1944 the Hungarian army retreated, by orders given by Hungarian Regent Miklos von Horthy, from Karpathians without any fight and the Red Army and the Soviets marched in Karpathian Ruthenia on October 15,1944. According to the Czechoslovakian offical statistic of 1931 the area of Podkarpatské Rusi was 12.617 km2. Total population was 725.000 inhabitants of which 62 % were Ukraineans (449.500), 15 % Hungarians (108.750) and 4.5 % (32.625) were Chechs and Slovaks. The rest of the population (134.125) were classified as others of their origin including Poles, Germans, Russians, and Roumanians in addition to Jews and Gipsy (Roma) people. All offical names were written at first in Latin letters, then followed in Kyrillic letters. Former Ungarian small town Körösmezö become Jasina and Kiraly-Haza become Korolevo. Raho become Rachov e.t.c. On May 8, 1944 the Exile Czechoslovakian Government in London had nominated Dr. Fr. Nemec to its legal representantive in Province of Podkarpatské Rusi but the Soviet authorities prevented his delegation of working in Town Hust (Hungarian Huzst). The Soviets collected some left wing activists or symphatiers from local population but some Ruthenian refugees where collected from all over Soviet Union, even from GULAG prison camps to Munkacévo (Munkacs) to form a "National Assembly" with 603 representantives. It was this "National Assembly" which voted to "Incorporate the Podkarpatské Rusi territory into Soviet Union" on November 25 / 26, 1944. The Czechoslovakian Government accepted this in meeting on June 29, 1945, just before the Postdam Conference to gain Stalin´s support against the Polish demands over Cesky Tesin (Teschen). But the old Provincial frontier was not enough for the Soviets. They wanted all railway line from Cop (Csap) through Uzhorod (Ungvar) to Polish border on Ung Pass, to be included into ceded area and the Czechoslovakian Government had to accept this demand. Thus, the border was changed to more western direction. This is the real history how the Zakarpitskaja Oblast inside Ukraijna SSR was created and Ruthenians turned to be Rusys, as it happened in 1945. The Austrian Bukowina with its capital Czernowitz did not belong to Upper Hungary, but direct to Austria. Czernowitz was offically renamed to Roumanian Cernauti. If someone shows an Ukraineans living in Bukowina as living in Podkarpatské Rusi, then it is time to study more of European history. If someone was living at Stanislau (Stanislawow), Kolomea (Kolomyja) or Delatyn, he / she was living in Austrian Galicia, not Podkarpatské Rusi. The border between Galicia and Bukowina run at Nepolokoutz. Luzan was in Northern Bukowina. Between Podkarpatské Rusi and Galicia the admistrative border between Austria and Hungary were at Woronienka at Jablonka Pass, and at Beskid Pass north of Munkacs. Ung Pass was adminstrationally in Slovakia then indide Ung Province in Kingdom of Hungary, later inside Slovakia in Czechoslovakia. Bukowina meant Land of Beechs. Before Austrians it was ruled by Ottoman Sultans from Constantinople. But from Kijev, never in known history before 1940. But it did not prevent the part of people to be Malo Russians e.g. Ukraineans. (Border landerers). As were the part of "Lembergerers" inside borders of Austria in Danube Dual Monarchy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.122.217 (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Holy See

I have: Most Rusyns are Byzantine rite Catholics, who since the Union of Brest in 1596 and the Union of Uzhhorod in 1646 have been in communion with the Holy See. However, they have their own particular Church, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, and retain the Byzantine Rite liturgy in Old Slavonic and most of the outward forms of Byzantine or Eastern Christianity. You have: in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catholic church means Universl church. It consists of a number of different rites.Each rite has a number of differnt churches. Currently there are 7 rites. previously there were 14. The largest being the Roman or Latin rite.

The second largest is the Byzantine (or Greek, or Constatinian rite) which is the second largest in number of adherents and includes the Albenese church, Belarusian church, Bulgarian church, Greek church, Hungarian church,Mcedonian, Romanian, Russian, Rutenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian churches

The Alexandrian rite includes the Coptic and Ethiopic churches. The Armenian rite has the Armenian church. The Antiochean rite which includes the Maronite and Syrian churches.

The Chaldean rite and eastern rite churches also exist.

These churches are either in communion with Rome or part of the Catholic church, but are not in communion with the Roman Catholci church (which is a seperate rite.

Its a very minor difference and something many lay people often mistake, but it is a mistake none the less.

Many people automatically say Roman when talking about the Catholic church because it is the largest rite and because the seat of the Holy See is in Rome. The correction was made not because it sounds in a particular way but because it was technically wrong.҃҃҃҃ Bandurist (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to say Eastern rite Catholics are in full communion with Roman rite Catholics. Officially Roman Catholic is always wrong. --Avemundi (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

As we know the populations of the Slavic world in particular in Eastern Slavic world is dropping considerably. Ukraine has one of the largest population drops (28%) by 2050 falling to 33.1 million from the current 46 million. The Bulgarian statistics are even more shocking falling at the rate of 38%.

Unfortunately Rusyn is not one of the groups that was not listed but could probably have a similar population drop between Polish and Ukrainisn in the high 20's to 30's.

With many Rusyns living outside of the ancestoral home the rate may be higher, however if Rusyns continue to be strictly pious they may not control their birth rate and the numbers may be lower. In any case we can expect about half the population of Rusyns by 2050, and almost total decimation by 2080 (0nly a guestimate). What are people's thoughts regard to the raqpid change in Rusyn demographics. Bandurist (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuetrality Tag

The article seems to cover all the relvent point of view, and all facts are referenced to appropriate sources. I am removing the nuetrality tag; if there's a problem we should discuss it here.Faustian (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

recent edit wars

Now, quite frankly, I don't understand the need for any users out there to be reverting or deleting every single edit on this page, many of which were constructive and just basic cleaning up of the article. Any users who took issue with edits, post it up so we can talk about this and hammer this out.--Львівське (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Warhol

Andy Warhol was a US citizen, born in Pittsburgh. His parents were of Rusyn ethnicity but I believe they were from Austria-Hungary. He might be considered a Rusyn American if a reliable source can be provided that he self-identified as such, but he's clearly not Rusyn. I removed him from the montage and my edit was reverted, thus I bring up the issue here. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to distinguish between citizenship and ethnicity. Rusyns are an ethnic group we can not talk about citizenship and they never had independent state. Andy belonged to the Rusyns. We should use the form 'Rusyn-American' if we can talk about Italian-Americans for instance. He had Rusyn ethnicity and American citizenship and his father and mother came from Austria-Hungary(Upper Hungary). Fakirbakir (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
According to the sources Andy Warhol was a Carpatho-Rusyn-American.12Fakirbakir (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine, we can talk about ethnicity. He's two generations away or more from Rusyn ancestry, and the first source you cite clearly shows that he did not self-identify as Rusyn. Why should he be in the montage here? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Two generations away or more? *facepalm* He's a second generation immigrant. Also, it's not a stretch to conclude that he did self identify as a Rusyn, as he was a member of the Rusyn community, and Rusyn Church. His ethnicity was clearly a major part of his upbringing and later life, as he moved to the Ukrainian part of NY later on.--Львівське (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy's biographies emphasize his ethnic background we must not deny his descent. 1[17]Fakirbakir (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have not answered my question. And again, one of the sources you cite holds that he did not self-identify as a Rusyn. From the sources you cite, he was only half Rusyn in descent, his parents were from Austro-hungary, so what sources can you point to that show that he is a Rusyn, and thus appropriate for the montage in this article? We are not talking about denying his descent, but rather what his actual chosen view of himself was. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are you saying he's half Rusyn? What the heck? Also, Fakirbakir is right, all bios on him ephasize his ethnicity, this is clearly a sticking point to him.--Львівське (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm saying he is from Pittsburgh, his parents were from Austro-Hungary, and I am noting that he himself did not identify as Rusyn. Please note that one of the sources presented says 'Warhol never played any role in Rusyn-American community life, and he said, "I never like to give my background and, anyway, I make it all up different every time I'm asked." Since his death, however, Warhol's fame has been used by Rusyn activistss in the United States and Europe to help raise awareness about Carpatho-Rusyns as a disntct people.' This source also says that he never acknowledged his ancestry. Search for "Andy Warhol" in google books, I get 165,000 hits. Search for "Andy Warhol rusyn", I get 428, and the vast majority of the latter are not about Warhol, but rather about Rusyns in general which mention him in a paragraph and claim him, so clearly it is not anywhere close to the truth to say that "all bios on him emphasis his ethnicity". So why appropriate him for this article? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
He could speak Rusyn, that's got to count for something. Also, regarding self identification, Andy didn't really self-identify with anything, he was an enigma and wanted to be seen in that way. Because he was secretive shouldn't obscure the fact that he was Rusyn.--Львівське (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
You should check the "Ruthenian" word as well. I do not understand your statement, why we should not negotiate his ancestry in this article. It is a fact. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Less than 400 hits for Andy Warhol and Ruthenian. I do not deny his ancestry, but the article is about Rusyns, not people of Rusyn descent or US American Rusyns. He's from Pittsburgh. And I would suggest that it is precisely because he sought to be an enigma, and because he did not participate in the Rusyn community according to sources, that I do not believe he should be characterized as a Rusyn here. I speak German, French and some Spanish, and have German, French and Scot ancestry, but I am not a Scot, nor a German, nor French. I am particularly troubled since I have looked into the matter, since it appears that claiming Warhol as a Rusyn is an act of appropriation that began after his death, again, according to sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest this article be changed to Carpatho-Rusyn, since that's what it primarily is about. The Pannonian-Rusyn article is separate, and I think the Ruthenian article should act as an index for all things Rusyn/Ruthenian to both avoid confusion and clarify the distinction between modern Rusyns and the use of 'Rusyn' before it split into Ukrainian/White Rusyn--Львівське (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. It only makes sense. Keep in mind also that many of their organisations self identify themselves in English as Carpatho-Rusyn. Bandurist (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Should 'Rusyns' redirect to 'Ruthenians' in this case, or go to a (I forget the correct term) fork in the road page, "Rusyn may refer to: Ruthenians, Carpatho-Rusyns, etc"--Львівське (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lemkos would disagree. Many Lemkos consider themslves to be Rusyn, but the Lemko Republic was not allowed to join Carpathian Ruthenia.Pustelnik (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes a difference.--Львівське (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move but creating a narrower topic at Carpatho-Rusyns is permissable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


Rusyns → Carpatho-Rusyns — Move the article to more accurately reflect the subject matter. Current article is ambiguous and covers Ruthenes, Pannonian Rusyns, American diaspora....its just too indirect. Catch-all material should be covered in the Ruthenians article, "Rusyns" should be a disambig page.--Львівське (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose You aren't making one suggestion, you are making two. You are suggesting (1) that the article be moved to Carpatho-Rusyn becasue that is what it should be about and (2) that it is currently too broad because it not only covers Carpatho-Rusyns but also covers Pannonian Rusyns and the American diaspora. You cannot argue that this article should not exist because another article with another name and on a differently focused topic should exist. Rather, maintain Ruthenians as the very broad article that it is, maintain this as an article dealing with Rusyns proper, and, if the material warrants it, then split out from this one a separate article for only Carpatho Rusyns. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Combining Polish Lemkos as Rusyns

Current dispute as to whether to include Lemkos in Poland as part of the general population of Carpatho-Rusyns here. The Polish census lists Rusyns and Lemkos as separate ethnic groups, to which I contest, that to combine them into a single entity constitutes original research. According to Magocsi, Rusyns in Subcarpathia self-identify as Ukrainians today (as with the rest of Ruthenians who now identify as Ukrainian) but in Poland, Rusyns changed their identity to Lemkos.

by the twentieth century, in particular its second half, the historic names Rusyn/Rusniak were replaced by others, such as Ukrainian in Soviet Transcarpathia and the Presov Region of Slovakia, or Lemko in Poland.


As such, if one were to "undo" this change in identity to make Lemkos constitute Rusyns, you would also have to do the same for all Rusyns who now consider themselves Ukrainian. Which is original research as far as Wiki is concerned, as he also says:

some people will say that Rusyn is simply the older historic name for Ukrainian, and that Lemko is a regional name of Ukrainian, while others are convinced that the names Lemko or Rusniak are regional forms for Rusyn which, in turn, designates a people that is distinct from the Ukrainian and every other surrounding nationality.


Based solely on statistics in a census, how are we in a position to decide whether Rusyns should be lumped in with Ukrainians, or Lemkos with Ukrainians; or if Lemkos should be lumped in with Rusyn based on the premise of "some people say it"--Львівське (говорити) 04:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Rusyn's "changed" their ethnicity? You yourself are admitting they are Rusyns who have adopted the Polish thnonym for themselves. Unless you want to contest the numbers, the objection is absurd. Feel free to add an explanatory footnote if you like, or contest the source. But otherwise you might as well be saying Englishmen are British, because that's what's on their passport. μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Re-read the sources above, as Rusyns changed their identity to Lemko (while others have assimilated to Polish, but they obviously identify as Polish on the census). As it stands, the "Lemkos are really Rusyn" argument is entirely original research in premise and fudging the numbers to work a POV in practice. --Львівське (говорити) 04:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


Another source,--Львівське (говорити) 04:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

By the early twentieth century the Rusyns living on the northern slopes of the Carpathians had given up their traditional ethnonym, Rusnak, for the name Lemko. As the Rusnaks north of the mountains adopted the new name Lemko, they also evolved from an ethnographic to an ethnonational group.

  • Lemkos have sources focused exclusively to them, such as this book by Columbia University Press: [18]. There are Lemko websites etc.: [19]. From this we find: [20] "Constant threats, limited by-laws of USKT, and luck of fulfillment of even minutest legal demands, eventually steered some Lemkos away from USKT and Ukrainian problems. In order to exacerbate this process in Poland, the name of Lemko "carpatho-ruthenians" was popularized, with proposals to accept it as a national-ethnographic name. Other Polish journalists attempted to convince Lemkos: "You are not Ukrainians, not Ruthenians, you are - Lemkos". To no ones surprise, this false idea has found fertile soil. In 1989, in Legnitsa, Society of Lemkos was created. Its leaders recognize the name "Lemko" only. Union of the Lemkos of Poland, created in 1990, allows Lemkos to call themselves as they themselves wish, but recommends to reach unity and to jointly pursue new developments of regional culture." Setting aside the POV, it seems some Lemkos identify themselves as such and not as Rusyns. It seems these people may, or may not, be a type of Rusyn just as Rusyns may or may not be a type of Ukrainian. Why not keep separate articles, mentioning this may/may status not in the lede, with a see also link to the Rusyns article?Faustian (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Reading your souce from Lemko.org, I found this: it seems in Ukriane Lemkos identify as Ukrainians, while some in the Carpathians consider themselves Carpatho-Rusyns; in Slovakia, the majority of Lemkos call themselves Ruthenians, but as a subgroup of Ukrainians; a minority considers Rusyns to be separate.--Львівське (говорити) 18:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


Whatever they call themselves, they speak the Rusyn language and are part of the Rusyn people. This not the Carpathian Ruthenia article it's the wider Rusyn article. Magocsi says 2/3 of Rusyns are of Lemko origin. http://books.google.com/books?id=dbUuX0mnvQMC&pg=PA341&dq=magocsi+encyclopedia+lemko&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-J79UrHcMueusATbk4CICQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=magocsi%20encyclopedia%20lemko&f=false

The simple answer hear is to give the Polish census numbers for both groups per WP:ATTRIBUTE. According to the Lemko article, there are 6,000 full-blooded Lemkos, and 4,000 half blooded Polish, and 1,000 none-Polish Lemkos. I don't know if that should be counted as 6,000 Lemkos, the 11,000 total, or 6,000 + 5,000/2 = 8,500 Lemkos. For now I'll say 6,000. [1] μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Disregarding what a people self identify as is the definition of original research...The language they speak is inconsequential, as if they spoke Polish that wouldn't preclude them from being Lemko.--Львівське (говорити) 05:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
According to census, 90% of the world's "Rusyns" self-identify as Ukrainians. Yet Rusyns have their own article. Nothing wrong with having an article about the minority who self-identify differently. However the overlap seems to be significant and therefore probably belongs in the Lemko article lede. BTW a "Lemko language" is mentioend here: [21].Faustian (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, simple solutions are always the best. Obviously, conflating this article in order to create one neat category with a corresponding single article (what synth is not) must be the logical solution (!?) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Lemkos, while they identify primarily as Lemkos, also generally consider themselves to be a subgroup of Rusyns. See for example here: [22] [23] or here [24] Ausir (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Przynależność narodowo-etniczna ludności – wyniki spisu ludności i mieszkań 2011. GUS. Materiał na konferencję prasową w dniu 29. 01. 2013. p. 3. Retrieved 2013-03-06.

WARNING regarding Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups and self-identification

WARNING regarding Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups and self-identification Just a reminder of Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups: http://wiki.riteme.site/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) 02:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Rusyns do not speak standard Ukranian or even a dialect of it, nor historically have they ever been part of a Ukranian state except under soviet rule. The IP editor User:37.200.224.205 is advised to register an account and watch this page. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Some have forum shopped at the Galicia page to advocate a nationalist POV, and there is a related discussion on the OR notice board ignoring Magosci.37.200.224.205 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rusyns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked All archived captures are 404s, and no indication as to what the title was to find a replacement. Added 'cbignore' to ref. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rusyns. 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) 06:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the problem?

@Geohem: The paragraph, that starts from the sentence "Until the middle of the 19th century, ethnic Ukrainians referred to themselves as Ruthenians ("Rusyns" in Ukrainian, "Rutén" in Hungary)" need for a more general overview of how the term "Rusyn" from a common East-Slavic endoethnonym became the ethnonym of the small ethnic group. In my correction, sources were cited.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  • First of all, you insert information into the paragraph "Location", this is not about term anyway. The second, you reference is considered to the problem in the terminology in the Russian language, not about how this term was applied on the definite ethnic group in the another languages. --Geohem (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)÷
  • Well, what about paragraph "Until the middle of the 19th century, ethnic Ukrainians referred to themselves as Ruthenians ("Rusyns" in Ukrainian" -? The term is the same for all old east-slavic community, not only Ukranians and was applied for velicoross and beloruss too. This must be explained, that's all.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have explained to you (pls see my post as of 15:02, 3 April 2018) why your edit is not relevant to this article (it is not about Location and it is yours OR based on terms problem in Russian language). If you have no argue against it, please stop return this changes. In another case I'll ask administrators to prevent such behavior. Geohem (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You didn't explain nothing, see my post of 16:29, 3 April 2018 and later: "Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior that is characterized by the use of tactics which obstruct, delay, prolong, or distract discussion from reaching consensus, usually when those opposing a proposal have few if any substantive arguments with which to support their position"--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I repeat it to you again: The term is the same for all old east-slavic community, not only Ukranians and was applied for velicoross and beloruss too. This must be explained, that's all. Now you make new claim, that the localization of the ethnonym "Rusyns" is not the subject of article Rusyns nor the subject of the "location" section. May be, may be. But I don't see any affords from your side to delete mentions about "Ukrainians referred to themselves as Ruthenians" - so that allows to draw a conclusion - a question is in something else. My edits need to be made to match WP:WEIGHT. If you think that the issue with the WP:WEIGHT can be solved in a different way, but do not know how yet - I recommend that you stop deleting my text and think about your version of the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Your edit is wrong because the article is not about the usage similar term for Russians or Belarusian. And it is not a good decision to spoil the article, if you see some incorrect definition in current version. For Ukrainians it is different, because Rusyns are also recognized as the ethnic subgroup of the Ukrainian people. And as I understand, the current version try to reflect the next sence: "The Rusyns descend from Ruthenian peoples who did not adopt the use of the ethnonym "Ukrainian" in the early 20th century". If you can propose the better wording for it, you can do it.Geohem (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well-well, we have now found the real reason for the disagreements. I deeply respect your Point of View that only Ukrainians are Rusyns, and that Rusyns are just Ukrainians. And the fact that all the Eastern Slavs up to the Baltic Sea not so long ago used "Rusyn" as endoethnonym - it's just a purely coincidence, "similar terms." But no matter how great your confidence in the verity of your POV is, it doesn't give you any rights to Push it through the edit warring. I did not understand very well what you said about "spoil the article", "try to reflect" and "better wording", but it does not bother me much. I just try to fix this little problem with WP:WEIGHT. --Nicoljaus (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    all the Eastern Slavs up to the Baltic Sea not so long ago used "Rusyn" as endoethnonym -- this statement is false. 17th centrury is pretty long time ago. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment This article is about modern ethnic group or Rusyns. How East Slavs were self-laming in the past belongs to article Ruthenians. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This argument may be valuable, but i see in the article Until the middle of the 19th century, ethnic Ukrainians referred to themselves.... So, the question how East Slavs were self-naming in the past belongs to this article. By the way, this statement is not confirmed by any sources, but I do not see any attempts to remove it. This is very similar to POV-pushing.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
i see in the article -- feel free to delete it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE: "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." It is better to supplement than delete.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"In wikipedia" does mean "in exactly this article". I already told you where your text belongs. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
We are speaking not about my text. I fixed the problem by adding information, supported with wp: RS. You state, that the problem can be fixed by deleting earlier text, but you do nothing. The transfer to the "other place" of my text does not solve the problem.-- Nicoljaus (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
So, the question how East Slavs were self-naming in the past belongs to this article Very weak argument in wikipedia. At the very top of the article there is the disambiguation note about other uses of the term Staszek Lem (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: Why do not you use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but only edit warring and threatens to block? I would have done it myself, but I don't have any experience with it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Because you are edit warring. Read the manual you cite, as well as WP:BRD. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
And so you think that you can just revert and nothing more? In edit warring there are always two sides--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you read WP:BRD? Please notice that I just warned you, without reporting to admins, which I could. Therefore drop your belligerent attitude and discuss article content. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
We have discussed and revealed differences. The reverts are made to enforce POV that "Rusyns are only subgroup of the Ukrainian people" and that everyone else just used a "similar term". Now what about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoljaus (talk • contribs) 09:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes we discussed, but the discussion is not finished. Yes, today Rusyns are subgroup of Ukrainianss, in majority view. How the term 'Rusyns' was used in the past is covered in the different article I mentioned and wihich ma be found by following the link "For other uses, see Rusyn (disambiguation)" at the very top of the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, today Rusyns are subgroup of Ukrainianss, in majority view. - Perhaps, but this is not the only point of view. Now the article contains Lie by omission. Ukrainians called themselves Ruthenians? Oh sure, but not only they. As to a "majority view": "Rusyn <...> - any of several East Slavic peoples (modern-day Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Carpatho-Rusyns) [26].--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Nicoljaus, you were told that article is not about historical term usage, it is about modern ethnic group. So, I suppose it necessary to stop this useless discussion, till you will provide any new argue/proposition.Geohem (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You see Carpatho-Rusyns in this sentence? The author of "Britannica" for some reason does not consider it sufficient to indicate only "Ukrainians". The dispute is not about the historical term, we have already discussed this.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok. So, the current topic is closed. And you want to discuss the new one: is the Rusyns the part of Ukrainians or not?--Geohem (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
No, this is what you want: "Starting a new diverting discussion when existing discussion is favoring change". If the current topic is closed and we have seen that your POV is not the only one - please, return my revisions. Edit warring in support of your POV is not the best way to behave.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems that your major objection is that Ukrainians are singled out of other folk who used to call themselves Rusyns in the past. I have already told you that this statement may be deleted as irrelevant here. So now I reviewed this piece and removed it, since it is not only misplaced, but unreferenced as well. Case closed. Nail in the coffin. If you have other issues, please a new talk thread. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"Ruthenians" - historical term - needs to be qualified

There is WP:SYNTH happening on the the Ruthenians article. Would other editors knowledgeable in this area please take a look assist in clearing up the dispute on the article's talk page? Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There have been multiple reverts with the return of deliberate errors. I'm still waiting for true Annales Augustiani. What the WP:SYNTH consisted of, the opponent could not say.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Nicoljaus, Why did you remove the information that Velychko considered Rusyns as a part Little Russians (modern Ukrainian nation)? Geohem (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Geohem:I did this in order to avoide edit warring. Velychko did not writes anything about "Ukrainians", but notes a strong linguistic difference of local "rusyns" and generally considers them as "Russians". This must be noted. In addition, I am not sure that this opinion is necessary in the Lead.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Nicoljaus: He wrote that Rusyns belong to "little russian" in modern term "Ukrainian". I agree, that it is not necessary to preamble, but I insert into History paragraph. Geohem (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Compare with the article Rusyny from the same Encyclopedia:

Русины, Рутены (нем. Russinen, Ruthenen) — употребляемое преимущественно поляками и немцами название русского населения австро-венгерских земель, в отличие от русских (русских подданных), причем название рутены — средневековое латинское название вообще русских, а Р. — неправильное образование множественного числа от единственного числа русин. Сами Р. зовут себя в единственном числе русин, во множественном числе — русскими, веру свою — русской, свой народ и язык — русскими. Р. живут по обоим склонам Карпат, в Галиции, Буковине и Венгрии, и принадлежат к южнорусской части русского племени, отличаясь от малорусов (украинцев) как особенностями языка, так и физическим складом и этнографическими признаками

Eng (my translation):

Rusyns, Ruthenians (German Russinen, Ruthenen) - used primarily by the Poles and Germans, the name of the Russian population of the Austro-Hungarian lands, in contrast to the Russian (Russian subjects), and besides the name Ruthenians - the medieval Latin name of all Russians, and R. - incorrect plural formation from an singular rusyn. R. call themselves in the singular rusyn, in plural - Russian, their faith - Russian, their people and language - Russian. R. live on both slopes of the Carpathians, in Galicia, Bukovina and Hungary, and belong to the South Russian part of the Russian tribe, differing from the Little Russians (Ukrainians) in their language, physical characteristics and ethnographic features

The question of the use of "Ruthenians" in the historical context is extremely clear if you read authorities on the subject (Subtelny and Malgosci... both of whom are Western scholars who write in English). You are, yet again, conflating a bit of information with the entirety. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Do not mix the warm with the soft. Here is the conversation about Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, if you have not noticed..--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Name.

When is this name first attested in relation to them? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't actually encountered any research attesting to the first usage. That's certainly an interesting question. The lede is contradictory, simultaneously suggesting that it was in the early 20th century, while also stating that it was earlier (i.e., pre-1875 if you read the Malgosci article)... but without any reliable sources other than a very specific opinion piece written by Malgosci. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

Miki Filigranski,

a solution has to be found - I have no problem with majority of your improvements - but identifying Rusyns of Transcarpathia as "Ukrainians" is heavily misleading (shall it be by good faith, or by negligence, or ny a non-precise source) earlier the 1930s' Ukrainist movement - that affected and was adopted only by the part of the population -. In Hungary (inluding Transcarpathia with or within) only the second half of the 20th century Ukrainians settled, until it was populated solely by Rusyns. The Ruthenians as an old term were not just used for Ukrainians and Belorussians, but Rusyns as well and even for Russians or all of he ancestors of these.

1. So it has to be also identified, the term Ruthenian were used for Rusyns as well (not just in the Austrian Empire, but officially in the Kingdom of Hungary)

2. Is not enough that "came to be associated primarily with those Ukrainians who lived under ... Trancarpathia", because mainly in was associated with the Rusyn population of Transcarpathia, the selective timeline the Ukrainian populations was missing (18th cent-1945), or being marginal (between 1930-1945 followers of the Ukrainist movement).

Please have in mind we should be totally neutral and not take sides or support even by mistake or negligence that Ukrainist idea that tries to deny the existence of the historical Rusyn people who never called them Ukrainians before, and not even today all of the accepted or adopted thhis ethnonym, this separate view (Rusyn vs. Ukrainian) identity and classification is identifed and mentioned without taking sides in all related articles.

Thus a proper copy-edit, rephrasing or supplement in the section and in the sentence is needed, otherwise there is no consesus for this addition justlike this. Thanky You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC))

Our personal opinion does not matter and neither are we supporting any particular side, we as editors only cite what's said in RS and according to them the Rusyns are usually considered as a sub-group of Ukrainians and the majority of Rusyns self-identify as Ukrainians, although their case is more complex than that as managed in some countries to be recognized as a separate ethnic group. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
we as editors only cite what's said in RS -- Britannica is a fairly reliable source for you? "Rusyn <...> - any of several East Slavic peoples (modern-day Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Carpatho-Rusyns) [27]. And this has already been discussed earlier.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Not only for me, but it is also generally reliable source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The fact is that this has been discussed over and over with RS not agreeing with you, KIENGIR. I think that all of us (those who work on these articles) recognise that the term "Rusyn" in Eastern Slavic languages has a complex historical and contemporary political background, but this is not so in the English language: and this is English language Wikipedia where we follow reliable sources and WP:NOR. Please be careful not to conflate your own understanding of terminology with the WP:COMMONNAME application of terminology. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Miki Filigranski, nominally we agree, but we have to carefully choose that RS because not necessarily all the of them are properly accurate and if you have noticed, I did not debate the current situation, but we cannot ignore or alter what was BEFORE the situation, this was only my concern (between 18th century until the end of WWII until not any quality RS may ignore or alter the existence and identification of the Rusyns ).
Iryna Harpy, there also RS agreeing with me (not even one), but here only one newly added RS's content was cited, that was not properly accurate (and there is also English source complying with the former stated). I can assure you I will always struggle to comply all WP rules, OR is not the case here, all related articles, regarding the historical situation as well the subjects are listed. Maybe we misunderstood each other somehow? Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC))
No, I'm confident there has been no misunderstanding as to your position, KIENGIR. If you have RS backing up your assertions regarding your having multiple sources supporting your definition, please table these RS here. Note that I would ask that these are RS outside of the overused Magocsi. Despite his being a reputable scholar, basing an article around works written by him early in his scholastic career is WP:COATRACK. An encyclopaedic article is not a duplication of the opinion of one scholar, it is the NPOV representation of mainstream thought on the subject. It's a mistake to base (to cut to the chase, I mean WP:POVPUSH) the contemporary usage of the term "Rusyn", essentially now bandied around as a separatist state political foil) as if it were NPOV and NOR. I realise that you have enough editing experience to be aware of fundamental policy and guidelines however, just as a reminder to yourself and other contributors visiting this page and, more importantly, editing the article, I would urge you to acquaint/reacquaint yourself with WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTFORUM, and simply what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. This talk page has already been used to discuss the issue. Unless you actually have something new to add to the talk page discussion, this is engagement in disruptive use of the talk page. I will assume good faith on your behalf, and fully expect to find a list of genuine RS to discuss. Should you have none, I would expect that you will not pursue the matter further. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Iryna, I already added other source earlier (here is another one though[1]), and I have emphasize again, I did not do anything with "recentism", but just and only historical issues (= what I consider a misunderstanding still - as initially with Miki Filigranski also - that I had no involvement any current political issues or evaluation or anything, but the pure historical backgrund (I had earlier issues that the word "contemporary" has been mistaken, whether it is used as an adjective or not, I use it all the time as referring to historical context). You can be also sure I now those policies you refer and my aim next to NPOV is maximum accuracy, as always. I don't know which early discussion you refer, thus I cannot judge if it was an identical or similar issue, however I consider a bit harsh to claim possible "disrupitivity" regarding two answers of a recently started discussion. Yes we agree on WP:AGF and WP:AAGF, I fully respect you and your opinon as well, and there is no "pursue", just answered anyone who answered to me. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: My apologies for being so abrupt with you, but you do have experience as an editor and, judging by your editing record, you should be familiar with core policies and guidelines. Under these circumstances, allow me to qualify the concept of a reliable source as I understand it (or, rather, it it easier to focus on what is not an RS): in this case your offering is not a work by an internationally recognised and academically qualified writer in S. Benedek András, and is, furthermore, published by a partisan self-interest group (being the Ruthenian Minority Self-Government). If you believe this to be a reliable source, please take your argument to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and explain where you wish to use the reference, and the context to other editors. I would appreciate it if you were to ping me from the noticeboard if you do wish to pursue the line of enquiry. As it stands, by no means can it be understood to be a reliable source. I fully respect your right to take this to the RSN and, perhaps, it will assist the article to draw on the experience of uninvolved parties. Personally, I can only understand this source to be an WP:UNDUE, WP:BIASED source. Yes, biased sources are not automatically excluded, but this source is such an obscure opinion piece, as well as being highly, politicised that it should not be used IMHO. Respectfully Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Iryna, I see your concern. However, mek.oszk.hu is publishing quality sources, but I think for the case that i.e. historically Rusyns were referred as well Ruthenians (this was the issue, it is not a big deal, that's why I feel totally this case became very exaggerated) we don't even need it, and this fact is not really debated by the vast majority of sources, shall it be anywhere from. Btw, believe me, before adding anything generally, I read, check the source and it's content and I avoid by any means anything that would not be neutral or accurate. With much respect,(KIENGIR (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC))
Thank you, KIENGIR. As I say, you're welcome to take the source to the RSN if you believe it has a place, I just don't think it has according to Wikipedia's requirements. That's not to say that the publication isn't interesting, only that it is not appropriate in context. Cheers! Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH development of article

Please note that I've reverted the article to an older, consensus variant prior the strange development of an anthropology section, as well as a DNA section.

Articles on far larger ethnic groups don't have 'anthropology' sections, and DNA/Genetics sections are approached with extreme caution. Wikipedia most certainly doesn't base a genetics section on a single research paper for various reasons, not the least of which is WP:COPYVIO.

While I can appreciate the desire to improve the article, improvements must be made following WP:CAREFUL: that is, BOLD is great, but caution is essential.

Before further development, could contributors please bring their thoughts and sources to the talk page and consult with other editors as to additions and changes to content. No editors WP:OWN any given article (and I'm directing ownership issues at myself here), but policy and guidelines exist for a reason. It's tempting develop an article giving it the gravitas one thinks is owed to the subject, but not at the price of overwriting it depending on SYNTH, not adhering to WEIGHT, and using the findings of a single report to create a contentious section. Ethnicity is a complex issue. Trying to simplify it by treating it as if there were easy markers by which an ethnic group could be identified is antithetical to Wikipedia's core policies.

I do think some valid improvements were made to the article, but I'd like to see the genetics section removed altogether for the time being (invoking COPYVIO and WP:CHERRY here). General removals and additions need to be discussed, as does the structure of the article. Thank you for discussing before editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: sorry, but I am not going to follow BRD in this case. The presented argumentation for the revert of everything (!) which was sourced by countless RS, not only "Origins" section which also had "Anthropology" and "Population genetics" section, is simply wrong. The argument about lack of such sections and article is not valid, they exist and are becoming more common, or on the other hand, are just an example of lack of editing of such content because of lack of editors interest. Your substantiation in the edit summary that the "Anthropology" and "Population genetics" was "poorly presented & backed" is also not valid, it was backed by several RS and reputable scientists, particularly in "Anthropology" section, two of them were a synthesis of numerous studies in the last 150 years. If you are not familiar with anthropology and population genetics then don't make a conclusion before becoming more familiar about it. There's no need to cite each of these studies when there's a single and contemporary RS which is also giving an evaluation of all the results up to that point. Most of what you argue, including so-called "antithetical", is your personal opinion contradicting RS and science. Practically speaking, the revert and call for this discussion were made in the name of BRD, violating WP:BRD-NOT, as BRD is "not a justification for imposing one's own view", "not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes", "never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense" (and it is not), because of which I am making a revert. I do support the discussion, but it needs to be more specific about the content, and not some personal liking. However, I do note that the preference is to deal first with any copyright violations. If you found any please make a paraphrase before removal or inform me. I am also going to re-check the RS as well. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
That's fine with me, Miki Filigranski. I've looked over it again, and I don't believe that the current rendition (i.e., the version you've reverted back to) oversteps any copyright issues. I am, however, concerned with the structure of the article and - aside from wanting to see some more RS for the genetics section - find sporting an 'anthropology' section to be a little disquietening. Admittedly, that's possibly because most ethnic group articles deal with far larger groups who have regularly interacted with other ethnicities en masse over the centuries. I, for example, find the use of 'typical' images and descriptions to be antiquated and 'bloggish'. That does not make my opinion correct. We're both WP:HERE to improve Wikipedia articles, so I think civil discussion is the best way to move forward.
To be upfront about it, I'm an advocate for consistency in the presentation of like articles across the board, so would you object to my pinging a few other editors who are broadly experienced in working on ethnic group articles for their input? It would be interesting, if not invaluable, to see what they have to say on the matter of the article's structure. I'd like to qualify this query by telling you that I honestly don't actually know what their opinions/responses will be, so I'm more than happy to move forward under advisement whether I agree with it or not. Consensus beats my personal opinion hands down! Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Why would I object? On the contrary. I partly agree with the argument on the "consistency in the presentation", but also I don't find it as a convincing argument because style is constantly changing. The ethnic group articles now often have "population genetics" section, also leading to the main article on the topic. As you said, this ethnic group is not very large, its identity is a bit controversial, and the number of studies is not very numerous hence I do not think there is a need for a separate article titled "Genetic studies on Rusyns". As for the "anthropology" section, it can be found for an example at Montenegrins or Origin hypotheses of the Croats, as well as the Ukrainian Wikipedia which has an article "uk:Антропологічний склад українців". If your "disquiet" is because of the older anthropological simplified and racial-ethnic viewpoint from the 19th and early 20th cenuty, well, Sergei Petrovich Segeda in the cited RS (1999) particularly noted that the modern anthropology debunked and parted ways from it, specifically in the methodology and calculation of specific racial type in a region or population, especially the claimed direct relationship of ethnic groups to different schemes of racial types, and is no longer used racial terminology. Populations have too many transitional zones, more or less morphological variants and hence can be only argued association to a broader group of populations which do have some generalized morphological characteristics and localization, more specifically, a regional population comparison. It is the same with modern population genetics (see for e.g. Human genetic variation#Categorization of the world population, Race (human categorization)#Anthropology and David Reich's presentation from minute 32:27 to at least 50:25). If you find it appropriate, it can be cited in the section that older ideas like for e.g. cited Dinaric race & type and methodologies became outdated. Considering the existence of the perception of regional and ethnic distinctiveness of the Rusyn population from other Ukrainians it is informative to have anthropological and population genetics information & conclusion because it gives an answer to their historical and regional ancestry - there exist some regionalism in the Carpathian population, but it is rather low as they clearly make continuity within the East Slavic i.e. Ukrainian population. I do not have a particular personal opinion on the matter and wouldn't dare to question much contemporary science. If you find the text too detailed it can be shortened. Regarding the image, I wondered if was appropriate to use an available image from Wikimedia in the section (I think a visual representation would be helpful in understanding the text), but since that would be OR on my editorial part, concluded it would be better to have a generalized image from the RS because it is probably closest to the scientifical and reliable & verifiable viewpoint. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the elaboration on the whys and wherefores. I'm involved in the development of articles dealing with the broader concept of ethnicity, ethnic groups in a diasporic context, and the human species identifying as 'races'. There are quite a few of who cover this broader scope of human self-identification. There have been a lot of disputes regarding the introduction of DNA based material into what is predominantly an emotive concept encompassing large nation-state populations. Just as with medical and other scientific articles in Wikipedia, there is (or should be) expert scrutiny of the material, and it's the primary reason why genetic information is kept away from the main space article on 'ethnicities' in the humanities sense. I won't bore you with rehashes of the arguments, but I agree that a small ethnic group like the Rusyns described in this article really don't need a separate genetics article. To my mind, like other highly localised small groups around the world, the lack of cross-pollination makes them the exceptions to the rule as there's little room for original research (which the other articles you've mentioned are rolling in, along with Genetic studies on Bulgarians and a lot of hidden, unevaluated articles which editors end up stumbling across). So long as the section doesn't dominate or detract from the conceptual information, I'm probably easily won over in favour of inclusion as DUE.
@Cordless Larry, Wario-Man, LouisAragon, and TaivoLinguist: Just pinging a few editors I trust in for being logical and NPOV in order to open up the discourse on 'Anthropology' and 'Genetics' sections as being appropriate for this article. I was initially against this for the same reason as I am against the inclusion of scientific information unqualified editors shouldn't dabble in being applied to any ethnicity article. I'm now on the fence given that Rusyns constitute a small and - until recently - relatively unexposed population. Any thoughts on the issue? Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Alright, and anyway, I am going to make it more concise and encyclopedic. Done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I have scientific and methodological concerns over both the Anthropology and Genetics sections of articles about small ethnic groups in general. Such micro-concerns for small groups sound like racial profiling to me more often than not. --Taivo (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@TaivoLinguist: can you explain your concern a bit to understand your viewpoint? I do understand the concern over the anthropology due to its history, but I do not for genetics. What is racist about these genetic studies? It is not a light statement to call the whole scientific field as "racial profiling". The argument for a small ethnic group is not entirely understandable either. Are you saying that small ethnic groups or specific regional populations should not be scientifically researched?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The history of physical anthropological and genetic studies is littered with the detritus of racial profiling and misuse. The entire field of genetic profiles of small populations is also not well-researched or delineated. The field is too new to be 100% reliable or rigorously scientific in its interpretation of the data. --Taivo (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but that was history, and we are not dealing with history neither these recent studies can be perceived in such a way, that's a strawman argument. The field is arguably new but not so "new" to question its reliability and else. We are dealing with serious science. That argument is almost like calling out for the censorship of the entire scientific field - and that needs a community consensus. According to what RS are you basing the statement that the "entire field of genetic profiles of small populations is also not well-researched or delineated"? What is the limit when something becomes "well-researched and delineated"? Anyway, it is not moral to consider that scientific or any kind of RS can be used for some ethnic or any kind of groups or populations, while not for the others, discriminating the groups by the size. It is all or none.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I am emphasizing, the scope of both sub.sections of the "Origins" section is providing scientific information on the ancestry and relations of the Rusyn ethnic group and/or regional population. I don't see an issue in that regard with the "Population genetics" sub-section, however, as already said, I see an issue with "Anthropology" sub-section. That sub-section provides visual information which can be perceived as disputable and even controversial, but its inclusion is not essential because the most important part is the scientific consideration on ancestry. Would this version be more acceptable: "According to anthropological studies, the Eastern Carpathian population makes one of the sub-regional clines of the Ukrainian population, which can be regionally divided into Eastern and Western Carpathian variants. In the study by M. S. Velikanova (1975) the skulls from a medieval necropolis near village Vasyliv in Zastavna Raion were very similar to contemporary Carpathian population, and according to Segeda, Dyachenko and T. I. Alekseyea this anthropological complex developed in the Middle Ages or earlier, as descendants of the medieval Slavs of Galicia and carriers of Chernyakhov culture along Prut-Dniester rivers, possibly with some Thracian component". In the end may or may not be added that "The contemporary population has the lowest admixture of Turkic speaking populations, like Volga Tatars and Bashkirs, compared to Central and Southern Ukraine, while in comparison to other populations they have similarities with neighbouring Eastern Slovaks, Gorals of Poland, Romanians, some groups of Czechs and Hungarians, Northwestern Bulgarians, Central and Northern Serbians, and most of Croatians"?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

White Croats

As far as I know, there is n no certainty where exactly the White Croats lived. I began to check the sources. The book of Sedov[2] says (mostly google-translate):

"In the historical literature there are many hypotheses and speculations regarding the localization of the place of residence of the “White Croats” from which the Dalmatian Croats came. Most researchers place these lands in the Czech Republic, since Konstantin Bagryanonny reports that they live "beyond Bagivaria" (Bavaria?), "On the other side of Turkia (Hungary), near Frangia (Franconia), and border on the Slavs - unbaptized Serbs." But this is the home of Czech Croats, who were well known both in Byzantium and in the Frankish kingdom in the 10th century. These Croatian lands, much more likely, were mistaken by the Byzantines for the ancient home of ​​the Croatian tribe. Already V. Yagich argued that the Croats could not come to Dalmatia from the basin of Laba, they moved from more eastern regions, from the Vistula River and the Dniester. The researcher resolutely rejected the existence of Great Croatia in the north, considering it to be the fantasy of Constantin Porphyrogenitus [19].

At the same time, the message about White (or Great) Croatia as the ancient homeland of the Croats by other researchers was recognized as a reality. In particular, L. Niderle believed that Great Croatia was in the Carpathian region. The Arab authors of the 9th-10th centuries allegedly testify to its existence. (Slavic region Chordab, Chravat, Chrvat) [20]. In the scientific literature, attempts have been made to specify information about Greater Croatia. Thus, the Polish researcher E. Gaczynski believed that this Croatian community dates back to the 5th-8th centuries and occupied the space north of Carpathian Mountains, from the headwaters of the Oder in the west to Goryn in the east. He admitted that Horvath, the leader of the Alani detachment, ruled these lands as the governor of the Huns and after his death the term "Croats" formed from this anthroponym came into use among the local Slavs, becoming their ethnonym [21]. Other historians also placed White or Great Croatia there. F. Dvornik extended its territory to the upper Elbe in the west and to the Western Bug in the east."

Sedov himself concludes: "These hypothetical constructions are now of purely historiographic interest, since they do not find any confirmation in archaeological materials. On the basis of the latter, it is possible to assert with all certainty that the Croats began their history in the Ants environment, moved to the west from there, and divided into several groups, settled in various regions of the early medieval Slavic territory."

I think we can not refer to this book in support of this sentence: "The region of Ukrainian Carpathians (including Zakarpattia and Prykarpattia) since the Early Middle Age was inhabited by the tribes of White Croats."— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Nicoljaus (talk • contribs) 07:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The pg. 444* etc. is not translated, actually, this is generally not the best translation and highlighted text is a bit cherry-picked to make it seem unsupported. A. V. Majorov (2012) cites Sedov's earlier opinion who concluded to be in this region so it can be changed with other RS. However, you misunderstood what the text is about. It is a reference to localization of White Croatia#Dispute in De Administrando Imperio from where the Croats migrated to the territory of today's Croatia, not the White Croats from Eastern Carpathians per se who are mentioned in historical sources. The issue in historiography is because there are mentioned several groups of (White) Croats in different regions in the same time period.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, what is on the page 451? Google books give the total number of pages 415. Sedov places some Croats in the vicinity of the Carpathians (Fig. 110) but does not call them "White".--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Mayorov cites precisely this very opinion of Sedov (p. 13 in the Russian edition of 2006), although he considers it too categorical and one-sided.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The lack of term "White" does not matter as the White Croats mean all those who did not live in the South. I meant pg. 444*, minor mistake, where is stated that several groups of Croats settled in different territories, including the Eastern Czech Republic, on river Zala and part of Vistula, in Dalmatia and Eastern Prykarpattia. We read different editions of Majorov's book, but on pg. 13 i.e. 21 is exactly the issue of White Croatia, not the Croats. I referred to pg. 54 (for you earlier) where is cited Sedov that "Slavic tribe of Croats, who was Southwest of neighbor Dulebes, occupied Northern and Southern parts of Eastern Prykarpattia, which are today parts of Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary". What is the actual issue here, that Sedov's book on these pages does not jointly mention Zakarpattia and Prykarpattia? The book generally does not use the term Zakarpattia, and numerous Rusyns live in uk:Прикарпаття anyway.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that Sedov considers the inhabitants of the Carpathian region not to be “white Croats”, but simply one of the branches of the Early Middle Ages Croats. The lack of term "White" does not matter as the White Croats mean all those who did not live in the South. The question of who the White Croats are is too complicated. In the book of Mayorov there is an example, when White Croatia is located in the South, in Dalmatia: "Croatia Alba, que et inferior Dalmatia dicitur". May be it will be better to replace "tribes of White Croats" (no one knows who they were and where they lived) by "tribes of ancient Croats" (there is no discrepancy in the sources)--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
No, Sedov does not have such consideration neither White Croatia in Dalmatia has anything to do with this. All these groups in the historiography are mutually and most known as "White Croats". If we have a wikilink to White Croats, but call them simply as Croats or ancient Croats people would be confused and on the first reading think that we are referring to the Croats in the Balkans. See other cited RS in the section, including Ukrainian and Russian encyclopedias, almost all of them referred to White Croats. This discussion is becoming less and less related to the content of this article and more with the content of the scholarly debate on White Croatia and Croats. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM to express own views.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, Sedov writes "Most researchers place these lands <of "White Croats"> in the Czech Republic", not in the Carpathian area. Wikipedia is not a good place for stating one opinion as an indisputable fact. We can give a link to the article Croats--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Listen, this discussion is becoming a bit annoying. I advise you to stop overreading the sources and bringing your own personal opinion. Sedov in the next sentence rejects that opinion you push forward, mentions the issue on the existence of White Croatia and that it more probably existed in the East, near rivers Vistula and Dniester as well the Carpathians. Anyway, it does not matter, there existed (White) Croatian tribes in the Eastern Carpathians. You are refuting that making a strawman out of the scholarly debate on White Croatia and else. Why should we give a wikilink to a section of an article which is not about the White Croats? I don't understand what you exactly want: Removing page 451 from the reference of Sedov? Alright. Completely removing reference of Sedov? Well, it is not a big deal as it can be easily replaced. Removing wikilink to White Croats? Well, that does not make any sense. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Sedov in the next sentence rejects that opinion you push forward, mentions the issue on the existence of White Croatia and that it more probably existed in the East, near rivers Vistula and Dniester as well the Carpathians. You are mistaken. Sedov doesn't mentioned Carpathians at this "next sentence" and this is not his own opinion. His opinion is: "These hypothetical constructions are now of purely historiographic interest, since they do not find any confirmation in archaeological materials. On the basis of the latter, it is possible to assert with all certainty that the Croats began their history in the Ants environment, moved to the west from there, and divided into several groups, settled in various regions of the early medieval Slavic territory." Did you hear that the Antes lived in the Carpathians? Me not.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Why you decided to make such an edit? It is against RS and this discussion. You obviously do not have basic knowledge and understanding of the topic, neither you are listening to what fellow editor is saying. I won't continue this pointless discussion. I will remove Sedov as an intermediate solution. If you insist on anything else what was said, then you have other ways (e.g. dispute resolution).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I decided to make such an edit in order to correctly convey what is written in the source. And I do not see any objection on your part except personal attacks about my basic knowledge.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I clearly objected before you made the edit. Sorry, but you obviously don't have basic knowledge on the topic when made such an edit and did not see any problem with it. You now made a second edit. I am warning you that you are consciously starting an edit war. I made an intermediate solution per your introduction of the discussion, you did not like it - take it to the dispute resolution, don't edit war. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've found quite a good article by FRANCESCO BORRI who makes a conclusion: "The only thing we can say with some degree of certainty is that, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, White Croatia was: ‘somewhere in Central Europe near Bavaria, beyond Hungary and next to the Frankish empire’"[3] Why he did not mention "Ukrainian Carpathians (including Zakarpattia and Prykarpattia)", I am surprised.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I submitted a request here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rusyns#White_Croats--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am repeating myself, what Borri's and other said is the dispute about the location of White Croatia and Croats mentioned in DAI, not all other historical sources, and especially not the general use of the name of White Croats in the scholarship meaning all Northern medieval Croats. Thank you for submitting dispute resolution, let's move the discussion there.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Show this "scholarships" meaning "all Northern medieval Croats" as White Croats, please. Borri discussed this "all other historical sources": The existence of a land with this name, however, presents many difficulties; the main one is that it does not appear in any source other than Constantine Porphyrogenitus, while White Croats are mentioned only much later, in the twelfth-century Russian Primary Chronicle. Mayorov mentioned another source of the twelfth-century, but it located White Croatia in Dalmatia, as I've said earlier.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You have them cited in the article, you have them everywhere, take for example Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine's article White Croatians (bili khorvaty), also Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History ХОРВАТИ which explains the issue with the naming convention. Are you even aware that the article on White Croats is not based solely on historical sources in which are mentioned "White Croats"? How many times do I need to tell you that it does not matter what is the "real name" yet what matters is "predominant usage" in RS? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep calm, please. We look at the sources:
  • Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine, contrary to your statement, does not claim that "all the northern Croats are White Croats." Yes, there is a point of view that White Croatia was located in the Carpathian region (one of many viewpoints) and it is not surprising that the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (a partisan source) advocates this point of view. To what extent this point of view is marginal among scientists, we can see in the book of Sedov or in the article of Borri.
  • The situation with Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History is even more intersting. It says: They <Croats> are often unreasonably also called "White Croats". This is due to the fact that Eastern Europe Croats is mistakenly identified with "Croats White" <...> in fact, both cases <(Porphyrogenitus and Russian Primary Chronicle)> refer to the Slav tribes in the Balkans - the ancestors of the modern Croatian population. (Їх часто необґрунтовано називають також "білими хорватами". Це пов’язано з тим, що східноєвроп. Х. помилково ототожнюють з "хорватами білими" (згадуються в недатованій частині "Повісті временних літ" в одному ряду із сербами й хорутанами) та "білохорватами" (фігурують у трактаті візант. імп. Константина VII Багрянородного "Про управління імперією"); насправді в обох випадках ідеться про слов’ян. племена на Балканах — предків населення сучасної Хорватії.)
  • What about your basic knowledge how to read sources? Did you read them at all before giving a link?--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you intentionally fooling around with common sense while WP:NOTLISTENING? Do you even understand what Wikipedia is WP:NOT? This is not a forum or a blog to discuss your personal opinion on a topic which is out of scope for this article. You have countless other cited sources in the article which you ignore. You obviously do not understand what you read neither what you highlight (you intentionally did not highlight "often") neither have basic knowledge and understanding on the topic, neither what is the point you refuse to understand. You don't carefully read and listen to what another editor has to say, and why cited these sources. You are literally provoking another editor. Stop doing that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The only one who expresses his personal opinion is you. And you could not support your personal opinion that "all Northern medieval Croats are White Croats", that's all. And no need for so many hot words.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
False. I am asking you one more time - do you understand how are Wikipedian articles titled and linked?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


@TaivoLinguist: Hello. Could you expand your idea from the description of this edit in more detail? I agree with the message, but you removed references to recent works (books of 1995 and 2011, written by recognized experts, as well as the modern encyclopedia of 2013). I would prefer to remove redundant references to the Great Russian Encyclopedia, which is known for copy-paste from Wikipedia, as well as link to the article of Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine, which was written in 1985 and contains obvious errors (which are discussed in sources you deleted).--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus:, as the expert, it's your responsibility to cull out the duplicate and out-dated references in this section. All I did was point out what you need to do--pick out the best source (or two) for each comment. I don't really care what I deleted, but I care that you take the time to pick the right ones. My comment is still valid--Wikipedia's footnotes are not scholarly in the sense that they must include EVERYTHING. Our readers want encyclopedic content and referencing, not comprehensive. --Taivo (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
One other thing. The amount of space that too many references take up makes it impossible for other editors to easily edit the actual text of your paragraph. It makes it MORE likely that other editors will simply delete your references in order to correct a noun phrase or preposition in the actual visible text of the article. --Taivo (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)--Taivo (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Taivo, сould you look at edit? I will be glad to hear your comments.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


@Nicoljaus: the edit ignores the previous discussion and most of the cited reliable sources. It is out of scope to include a dispute about the location of White Croatia & White Croats mentioned in the De Administrando Imperio. The article, White Croats, is not only dealing with the dispute and the historical source DAI. That's the general article on all the Croatian tribes who lived in the North. The article is named according to the most common name to differentiate all these tribes from the Croats (nation) in the Balkans. Do you understand that? Do you understand how are articles titled? Also, there's no out-dated reference as Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine is updated and revised in the last ten years, and claiming that a historiographical source from the mid-1980s is outdated is simply false. Also, is there any evidence for a claim that reputable and reliable source such as the Great Russian Encyclopedia is copying from Wikipedia? This is an exceptional and controversial claim which needs exceptional evidence. That encyclopedia's articles: go through a lengthy and multi-level editorial process, involving top specialists in each field, and that's why casual comparisons with the online, crowd-sourced Wikipedia – whose Russian edition is very popular – do not stand scrutiny. "One could prepare for university exams in almost any area using our encyclopedia. It's that reliable and comprehensive," he says. "Of course we're not as fast as Wikipedia, but a lot of people come to us from Wikipedia in order to check the facts. We're a different thing, and we'll never be competitors with Wikipedia.". I highly doubt you are capable to differentiate reliable from unreliable source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Miki Filigranski: First of all, you've ignored the discussion on the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rusyns#White_Croats. Obviously, you have nothing to confirm your personal opinion that "White Croats" is the most common name to differentiate all these tribes from the Croats (nation) in the Balkans. The repetition of the same talking points, not supporting them with anything, is a form of a disruptive behavior.
  • Secondly Do you have evidence that, for example, the article White Croatians (bili khorvaty) in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine was updated and revised in the last ten years? I do not see any differences.
  • Thirdly, do not confuse self-advertisement with the actual state of affairs in Great Russian Encyclopedia. You can read this topic (in Russian): БРЭ и CC-SA
  • And finally, look here. With your statements like I highly doubt you are capable to differentiate reliable from unreliable source. you are constantly at the bottom of the pyramid. If you really see the problem in my edits - open the topic in the appropriate noticeboards. Let's see whose behavior will be considered destructive in fact.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Why are you lying? I did not ignore it, I was not active enough to continue it, it's summer. Do you know what people with family do in real life besides working? People do not have daily time to spent on a futile discussion with an editor who doesn't understand anything about the topic. You read a few pages and thinks that's everything about it. Your claims that I have "nothing to confirm" and that it's "my personal opinion" is simply a lie. I already supported the point - the evidence is there, you don't want to see and accept it. Why are most of the reliable sources, including those you removed, titled and mentioning them as White Croats or White Croatians? Why are titled in such a way all the articles in Wikipedias of a different language? Why is titled and has the information on all these tribes the article Bijeli Hrvati of Croatian Encyclopedia? Because that's the general scholarship name for them to not mistake them with the Croats in the Balkans.
Sorry, but you are clearly just fooling around with me. In the article is stated, "This article was updated in 2005". Not only you don't know anything about the topic, you obviously don't know anything about the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine and intentionally removed all the reliable sources from the article which don't support your personal misunderstanding of the topic. Also, how did you even choose which references to keep or remove? If there are too many RS then we use WP:CITEBUNDLE.
Which did not prove anything to discredit its general reliability.
You simply don't get the point. In my free time, I spent years reading about the history and else of the Early Slavs, I read a bunch of literature and know what I'm talking about. In comparison to you - I am the expert who you are WP:NOTLISTENING. You are irritating the editor with your claims that all this is "my personal opinion", that I did not "prove it", lying that I "ignored a discussion" etc. If I am constructively warning you that you don't have clue about the topic and should reconsider your edits before making them, start a discussion at noticeboard (start it again) - then listen.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Because that's the general scholarship name for them to not mistake them with the Croats in the Balkans. Well, I will ask only one last time - to provide a reliable source that describes the situation in this way. What I have seen so far suggests otherwise: for example, "it is mistake to call the Carpathian Croats “white”" or "“White Croats” are localized in Serbia" etc. If you ignore this request again and continue the blanc reverting without any search for consensus, I will go to ANI.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I already provided the answer. Why are you intentionally WP:NOTLISTENING? What you do not understand in the Russian encyclopedia reference which is saying that the tribes of Croats "are often unreasonably also called White Croats"? Changing the title of the article White Croats to Croatian tribes is not going to fix anything. The scholarship dispute whether is that the most correct name is not part of the WP:SCOPE for this article. Neither the Wikipedian articles are titled according to the correctness, but most common usage, and this is the most commonly used name. Using that name does not only refer to a specific group of tribes or historical sources. Do you understand that? You are challenging the status hence the burden is on you to obtain consensus, not me.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://mek.niif.hu/03200/03292/html/index.htm
  2. ^ Sedov, Valentin Vasilyevich (2013) [1995]. Славяне в раннем Средневековье [Sloveni u ranom srednjem veku (Slavs in Early Middle Ages)]. Novi Sad: Akademska knjiga. pp. 444, 451. ISBN 978-86-6263-026-1.
  3. ^ [1]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rusyns/Archive_1&oldid=1064772809"