Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Kijevian Ruthenia

when ruler of Kijevian Ruthenia took over Red Cities... Is the Kievan Rus' being referred to here? I hesitate to correct it. "Red Cities" is a phrase that could be lightly explained to an English-speaking readership. Perhaps with some reference to history... Wetman 19:34, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The designation "Galicia"

(Material collected from elsewhere on this page, without editing)

Question to contributors: I was wondering, is it still very popular in SW Ukraine and SE Poland to refer to the area as "Halychyna/Galicia". Should this article be separated into one for the original Eastern section, and one for the Austrian broader area?

Well, both in Poland and in the Ukraine the term "Galicia" is still alive and kicking. Moreover, I've never heard of it in some narrow sense, it is used mostly to denote the "Austrian Galicia" lands. Many of the inhabitants of Southern Poland are proud to be Galicians (as opposed to "those barbaric Congressmen"). The term is also used to underline the common Polish-Ukrainian heritage on the both sides of present borderline (read some Yuri Andruhovych, for instance).Halibutt

Continuing the dialogue with Halibutt (Hail, Halibutt!)

Well, My perception too, was that Galicia was still in the area's consciousness. My point in bringing up the 'narrow' sense (my own label, but accurate, I think) is just to point out that a smart burgher in Tarnow in say, 1750 would have known he was not Galician, and that to meet one, he'd have to hail a west-bound wagon or take a long walk toward the sunrise. (and, au-contraire for a town burgher in say, Sambir/Sambor). But in 1820, his son would be living in Galicia!!!

From my point of view the matter is much more simple: both shopkeepers from Sambor, Lwow or Cracow wouldn't have any idea as to where this Galicia is in 1750. On the contrary, their children (or grand-children when it comes to Cracow) would be living in it. It was not that Galicia moved eastwards or westwards, it simply re-appeared. Cause is quite simple: the Austrians dug up this term from a very distant past (for quite obvious political reasons). Although there used to be both Galician Ruthenia and Lodomeria (or rather Ruthenian Voivodship), those terms were long-dead when Austria took over those lands. It was a situation similar to salic law being brought up by the followers of Charles during the Carlist Wars.Halibutt

The authentic history of the term "Galicia" and the resistance to it, would be so much more interesting to the average reader than the following kind of denial: Some historians hold that the name, "Galicia" recalls its former inhabitants, the eastern Gauls, who also may have left their names imprinted on the landscape in Anatolian Galatia and in the Romanian county Galati. Another hypothesis is that the name refers to the local crows, or rooks, seen in the area around the capital city. There is already some material in this discussion. Anyone interested? --Wetman 08:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well then, I've made the following attempt: The ancient but long-disused name "Galicia" was revived by the Austro-Hungarian monarchy to recall its former inhabitants, the eastern Gauls, who also have left their names imprinted on the landscape in Anatolian Galatia and in the Romanian county Galati. Resentment of Habsburg hegemony has died slowly in the area, and modern Slavic national historians assert that the name refers to the local crows, or rooks, seen in the area around the capital city. Does that not accurately follow suggestions in the above Discussion topic? --Wetman 06:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is what the main Polish online encyclopedia, presumably written by "modern Slavic national historians" says (loose translation from article in Polish follows:

Galicia, common name of the territories of the former Commonwealth held by Austria, after the Partitions, during the years 1772-1918; formed from the official name Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria assigned by Austria, with the purpose to justify the supposed Habsburg rights to the Halicz and Wlodzimierz principalities (it was a reference to the territorial claims of Hungarian kings, who since the 13th century included among their titles rex Galiciae et Lodomeriae — king of Halicz and Wlodzimierz, in english Halych-Volynia) Balcer 08:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Settlement by Poles

Also, when did the historical settlement by the Poles into the Eastern portions start? Any particular landmarks to be offered here? Any traces pre-"Ruthenian Voievodship?" Let me know; I'm open to learning.Halibutt

Nobody knows when did actual influence from both sides start, probably as early as 11th century, although I bet there are lots of Ukrainian nationalists out there who would swear that the Poles came there as late as 1860's. Anyway, it was never a settlement as one can think of it, it was rather a fate of all the borderline territories in the world - it attracted immigrants from all parts of the world. Especially in the later period of PLC Lwów became a typically multi-cultural (and multi-ethnical) city. Apart from Poles and Jews there were Ruthenians, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Italians, Germans, Moldavians, Vallachians, Armenians, Georgians... The same, although to a lesser degree, goes for other Gallician cities and towns (Cracow included).Halibutt

Oh, and what was the border area from 1240 to 1349?

I was wondering, how to incorporate the important role this region played in the development of the Polish nation from 1400 on, esp 1400-1772?

I think that these question lie at the root of an effort to arrive at a NPOV article between the two sides of the issue, Polish vs. Ukrainian.

Sincerely, 24.105.197.133

---

I can't say NOBODY knows when influence on both sides start. Facts are plentiful, for example about Ukrainian/Ruthenian, control in 981, and the founding of places like Halych about then, and Lviv in the 1200s, but Polish historical monuments in the area from say, Sianok to the region of Kamianets-Podilsky seem to be pretty much absent. Or, maybe just unknown to me.

Of course, control over those lands can be traced back to Kievan Rus times with quite high accuracy. However, I was thinking more of the history of cultural influences rather than political.

If you really want to focus on "pre-history" of Galicia, then there is a huge problem. Between 10th and 15th centuries there is a gap. There are only a few cultural islands in the terra incognita - Cracow, slightly later Lwow and... not much else. And I think both of us agree that in terms of cultural identity Galicians (whatever their nationality be) are a product of 19th century. I'd stick to last two centuries then.Halibutt

As for 1860, many Poles were already there, especially in the big cities and larger towns. But they kept coming after 1860 too, markedly changing the settlement patterns over the next 80 years.

I'm not sure what better word than settlement would fit here. The Poles arrived founding many castles, some major cities, even. They didn't slowly extend their nation farm by farm from Sandomierz and Lublin, they travelled past miles of Ukrainians and set up outposts! They eventually created heavily Polish islands in a Ukrainian sea. And they made a peninsula from Peremsyl'/Przemyshl to L'viv/Lwow!

And, yes, some cities became very multi-ethnic later! One reason among many: The Polish authorities recruited Jews from around the more anti-Semitic areas of Europe to take up tax-farming in Ukraine.

Indeed, in 19th century is the only century where migration waves can be traced. However, both after the November Uprising and after January Uprising the immigration was relatively small (even in 19th century terms). Perhaps some 200.000 people from the Congress Kingdom alltogether. And the only real full-scale settlement campaign took place much later, after the Polish-Bolshevik War (still not more than 50.000 people settled along all of newly-established Polish border, from Latvia to Slovakia). Most of the changes in populations and demographical pattern were gradual.

And the Jewish migration was indeed mostly due to economical reasons, but I've never heard of any recruitment plan. Galicia-to-be was simply one of the very few rich areas with no pogroms in Europe; no wonder it attracted all the "pagans", from Jews to Czechs to Armenians...Halibutt 05:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So, Halibutt, keep up the flow of information, but nothing too fishy please! 204.105.197.133 - Feb 22 2004

From RC Patrol

• Galicia (Central Europe), [1]. Optim 19:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • OK. Mikkalai 17:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the picture? Halibutt 11:02, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

H or G

I wonder, why is the Cyrillic letter Г being transliterated as H, and not G? At least in Serbian Cyrillic it's that way, and it makes more sense with reference to the Polish and the English spellings... do the Ukrainians really pronounce it as [x]? (I believe that might be the right phonetic spelling, correct me if I'm wrong...) --Shallot 21:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Check ukrainian language for reference. Halibutt 22:04, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any treatment of this issue (called "Transliteration" by linguists) on our Ukrainian language article site. Shallot, I'll take your word on the Serbian language, and yes, you are correct that using "G" is more consistent with Polish language patterns. In Ukrainian, however, there is almost no use of the "G" sound. The letter you asked about is essentially the "H" sound. In the 1920s and 30s, during the renaissance of the Ukrainian language, Orthographic Congresses in Soviet-ruled Ukraine resurrected a letter from some three centuries prior for the very rare times a "G" sound occured. The letter was essentially the same as the one you inquire about, except for a small upward hook at the right end. The Soviet authorities banned this letter, arguing that this further distinguished Ukrainian from Russian. The letter was accepted in the emigration, however, and has gradually been re-introduced since independence. Since Russian has essentially no "H" sound (except for the southern dialect, influenced by Ukrainian, it is only speakers whose primary language is Russian that pronounce the "H" as an "X." Genyo 20:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You don't see it? Look again :) It says: Ukrainian "Г" is the sounded match for Cyrillic "Х" (and therefore it is transliterated as Latin "H". Halibutt 00:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, there Halibutt, I see your point--but I don't know what "Cyrillic X" means, and I don't think most readers do either, although the issue can be looked up on the "Cyrillic" site. Genyo 01:08, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

For a Pole a cyrillic Х is equal to "ch" while Ukrainian Х is the hard version of "h". For English speakers the earlier is non-silent "h" (like in hood or horse) while the latter doesn't have any counterpart (I have no idea how to approximate the sound other than the phonemic script). Halibutt 02:57, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt's quote was somehow corrupted to mention letter Х twice rather than Г, the article's sentence is consistent. Although, I'm still not sure that it implies that they also say the word "Galicia" with the G sounding like a H... it would be good if a native speaker could confirm it. --Shallot 12:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I am writing as a native speaker of Ukrainian and one familiar with linguistics in general as well as other Slavic languages. First off, let's recall that there is no a single Cyrillic alphabet, as many western sources imply, typically while quoting the modern Russian alphabet, but several variants, since each language saw fit to modify and improvise. Regarding Cyrillic "Х", to me this velar fricative is indistinguishable from the sound spelled "ch" in Polish and German (and I know each language to some degree). One may argue about whether it is pronounced more (IPA [χ]) or less [ç] harshly, but all Ukrainian speakers will recognize this sound as being written as "Х".

Second, the letter "Г"/"г" is pronounced [h] in Ukrainian. (Again, arguments about the degree of voicing may be had, but these are really regionalisms and not significant to cause any confusion.) The letter for the [g] sound is "Ґ"/"ґ". (I hope your browser is displaying these correctly; my Firefox is not.) As mentioned elsewhere, "Г"/"г" did double-duty under the Soviets since "Ґ"/"ґ", a letter not present in Russian, was declared to be bourgeois-nationalist.

Where is the source of confusion? It is several-fold.

1. Most foreign borrowings have [g] converted to [h] in Ukrainian. Thus, "geography" (from the Greek, of course, not the English) is "heohrafiya" in Ukrainian.
2. The suppression of "Ґ"/"ґ" and continuing indecision of where it should or should not be used.
3. Most recent Ukrainian emigres have "learned" (or been taught) to spell words through Russian rather than directly into the receiving language. Since Russian has no [h] sound, a less than optimal transliteration results.
4. Similarly, most recent Ukrainian emigres have "learned" that the way to pronounce English "h" is [x]. Again, for Russians, this is the closest available known sound. Not so for Ukrainians, but since the language of instruction for so long was Russian, that's the way they learned it.
5. Ukrainians from western Ukraine (especially up to WW II) tended to overuse the [g] sound, most likely under Polish influence, where cognates tend to use "g" where Ukrainian has [h].

This is probably more than anyone really wants to know on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejmark (talk • contribs)

Image Trouble

The map (Galicia.jpg) seems to show up fine only when previewing changes to the article, but in the article itself it shows up as a missing image. Help anyone? Livajo

Never mind, I fixed it. -- Livajo

Galicia and Lodomeria

English: Galicia and Lodomeria
Latin: Galicia et Lodomeria
German: Galizien und Lodomerien
Polish: Galicja i Lodomeria (also Golicja i Głodomeria, or "naked and starving")
Ukrainian: Halychyna i Volodymyria (Галичина і Володимирія)
Hungarian: Gácsország és Lodoméria

The city of Halych

Ukrainian: Halych (Галич)
Russian: Galich (Галич)
Polish: Halicz
Latin: Galic
German: Halitsch / Galitsch

The city of Volodymyr-Volyns'kyi

Ukrainian: Volodymyr Volyns'kyi (Володимир Волинський)
Russian: Vladimir Volynskii (Владимир Волынский)
Polish: Włodzimierz Wołyński
– Kpalion (talk) 11:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

H or G

Shallot, listen. Like in the Russian empire, Ukrainians were also discriminated in the Polish empire. Therefore a lot of ukrainian words are twisted around. In English, the word you're asking about is pronounced as "Huh-lich" by Ukrainians. Russians pronounce it as Galich because of plain translation of the word jackdaw, which is the symbol of the city. I'm suspecting the same goes for Poles as I have quite limited knowledge of their languege. And the rest of the world just go with the flow.

Now, Halibutt. Ukrainian X IS the cyrillic X, because that is the alphabet that Ukrainians write with and they both are pronounced in Polish as "ch". But Ukrainian G is pronounced more like the english H. The link that you provided was written by the confused "russofil". Now Genyo perfectly explains what this author failed to do about the reason why the Ukrainian G differs from the Russian one. There was no Old East Slavic language. There was an Old Slavic language that contained the cyrillic alphabet and was incorporated into Kievan Rus. And there also was Peter the Great, whom the author don't recall. Please also note that the Rus and Russia two diffrent concepts, yet Kiev ramains as a capital to its loyal people.

Not really. In the Middle Ages the city the region was supposedly named for was called Halicz in Polish (read Huh-leech) and the whole area was Ziemia halicka (lit. Land of Halicz). It was not until the Partitions of Poland, when the term was coined by the Austrians and then translated to Polish from the German name Galizien. So, the Polish name Galicja has nothing to do with the specifications of the Polish phonetic system (which, by the way, includes the hard h, quite similar to that used by the Ukrainians and Czechs in their languages. If the term was translated from Ruthenian or Ukrainian languagesdirectly to Polish, it would be most probably rendered Halicja, since the town of Halicz is called that way even now. Halibutt 09:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I was born in the city of Brody. Today it's a small town of the Lvivian region (just over 20K). Later I resided in Ivano-Frankivsk, which is around an hour away from Halich.
The first recallection of that city you can find no later than in 898. At the beginning it was a capital of a big principality of Halich, which at one point of time has reached the Black sea coast. There one of the graet Dukes of this pricipality has found the city of Maliy Halich (small Halich), which today is the city of Galati on Dunube in Romanian Dobrudja. You can find this fact in the book "History of Ukraine-Rus" by the Ukrainian historian, folklorist, ethnograph, and politician Mikhaylo Hrushevskiy.
At that time the Halich pricipality became part of the huge state of Kievan Rus. After internal conflicts of the Graeter(Kievan) Rus and the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars in the 13 century, Halich together with Volyn existed as a separate state for a short period of time before becoming part of the Polish throne. The Polish empire at that time was so strong that it even conquered Moscow and tried to annex the Moscovites to the Rzeczpospolita.
Anyway since than and up until the first partition of Poland(18th century), Halich was part of the great Polish empire that streched from the Baltic sea to the "shining" Black sea (wid morze do morze, pardon my Polish). But even than Polish culture was very popular in the area.
We can argue about the same thing for ages, but the important thing that the city's name is Ukrainian (even though some call it Ruthenian, which is simply Latinized version of Rusian - series of lands that were a part of the Kievan Rus) and is called Галич and the area - Галичина[2](Halichina). And as I said before the name comes from the city's symbol. Now I'm not sure how you translate and pronounce jackdaw in Polish, so I'm sorry if I was mistaken. I thought it's galka as in Russian.
Interesting fact was shown in the recent movie about king Arthur "King Arthur" where he was Sarmatian, from the Ukrainian steppes. Maybe this is why today's France was called Gaul as a lot of Sarmatians were defending the borders of the Roman empire, maybe that was the reason why the Gaul's army was the strongest in the empire.

I know all of the above, my reflection on the history of the term Galicja was purely linguistical and refers specifically to the Polish language. I was not suggesting that the city of Halich was Polish at its beginning, or anything similar :) As to jackdaw - it's kawka in Polish. Probably a mixture of Germanic and Slavic roots (i.e. kauw in Flemmish, chavka in Bulgarian). However, it's nowhere near the eastern Slavic names, nor the Polish name of the city of Halich resembles it. Halibutt 00:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you seemed to imply, though. Anyway, kawka is similiar to galka considering that Polish people often swallow L as in biala (biawa). Movimo sie po Polsku, ale bardzo zle (I'm sure about the last word, though:). I'm a little bit angry with some Polish people that as Russians hate to recognize the Ukrainian culture.

P.S. Previously I said "...The Polish empire at that time was so strong that it even conquered Moscow and tried to annex the Moscovites to the Rzeczpospolita...". I was wrong, the initiative was exclusively from the Lithuanian side, which was a part of Rzeczpospolita at this time.

--Grigoryev 05:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, not really kawka is invariably read either as ['kavka] or as ['kafka], while the Russian name is read as ['galka], so all the consonants are totally different. And I must I never heard of Poles "swallowing" the l sound. Perhaps you mean the "ł" ([w] in IPA), which is sometimes sofetend in Eastern Poland and former Polish areas in the east (so-called Polish "kresy" dialect). But still, the two words are m,ost probably separate and not even false cognates.

As to to the whole Muscovy affair (the Dymitriads) - it was neither Polish nor Lithuanian initiative. It was started by the magnates, not by the king or the parliament. But all of this is obviously OT here. Halibutt 14:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the name

From the article "...Others claim that the name is of Slavic origin – either from halytsa / galitsa meaning "a naked (forestless) hill",... " - I truely doubt that, but if it would mean "a naked (forestless) hill", it is more like holytsa / golitsa at least in the eastern Slavic languages. I'm very curious about what lead the author to this meaning.
From the article "...The jackdaw was used as a charge in the city's coat-of-arms and later also in the coat-of-arms of Galicia. The name, however, predates the coat-of-arms which may represent folk etymology..." - This part seams to be more logical, however the city's symbol also could predate the coat-of-arms, and which probably did. The name also could draw its roots based on the old Slavic religion.

Galicia meaning salt

In Salt: A World History (p. 54), Mark Kurlansky writes about the Celts:

... The Romans [...] called them Galli or Gauls, also coming from a Greek word [...] hal, meaning "salt." They were the salt people. The name of the town that sits on an East German salt bed, Halle, like the Austrian towns of Hallein, Swäbisch Hall, and Hallstatt, has the same root as do both Galicia in northern Spain and Galicia in southern Poland, where the town of Halych is found. All these places were named for Celtic saltworks.

He refers to salt mines at Wieliczka and Bochnia (is that in Galicia?).

This neatly connects the names of Gauls and Galicia, although note that the name isn't Celtic, but Greco-Roman in origin. It's conceivable that the jackdaw was chosen as a symbol because its local name resembled an original place name with a different etymology.

Anyone know if there's any other support for Kurlansky's version? —Michael Z. 2005-05-27 19:16 Z

Indeed, both Wieliczka and Bochnia were part of Galicia, but not in the Middle Ages. They are located near Krakow, which was hardly a part of Halich Volhynia.. On the other hand I've heard of a theory that the Galindians, a Baltic tribe, were in fact of Celtic origin and that their name suggests that (and it apparently contains the *gal- prefix). Whether it's supported or not - I can't say. Halibutt 20:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

The reference to salt was recently quietly removed from the article without comment. I haven't looked through carefully to see who removed it when, but they did not mention it in the edit summary. "…either from a Slavic word for "salt" in which Galicia abounded, or from halytsa/galitsa…" was modified to just "…from halytsa/galitsa…" -- Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Should this article be split?

Galicia means very different things to different people. The Spanish region aside, Galicia is still an ambiguous name even if we know we're talking about central Europe:

I just come back from a holiday there "Krakow" and I could have gone to the salt mine which was near by, but didnt have time, but I did walk up to Krakow mound which reminded me of a Celtic fort, the likes I have seen in England and Wales, also there is a Krakow Dragon myth just like the Celtic mytology of Britain, ie the welsh Dragon. oh also I read just recently they discoverd a Celtic village just 4 km from krakow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.20 (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Galicia (let's call it Galicia-1) may refer to the region around the city of Halych (Halicz, Galich, Galic), the territory of the Mediaeval Halych Principality. In Ukrainian it is called Halychyna, in Polish it is Ziemia Halicka (literally: Halicz Land). Some English-speaking Ukrainians might call it "Galicia" when talking in English. The Poles, however, will never call it this way; they might call it Ziemia Halicka, Ruś Czerwona (Red Ruthenia) or Eastern Galicia, but not Galicia.
2. Galicia (let's call it Galicia-2) may also refer to the Austrian province which existed from 1772 until 1918. This is what the Poles mean when they talk about Galicja. The Ukrainians call this entity Halychyna as well, but I guess it's not the first thing that comes to their minds when they hear this word.

Galicia-2 covered a different, larger area than Galicia-1. Actually, Galicia-2 included most of Galicia-1 but extended much farther to the west and included a large portion of Lesser Poland as well.

So to sum up, Galicia-1 and Galicia-2 were two different political entities, which covered different territories in different historical periods. Which means we need some nice disambiguation. I would suggest putting Galicia-2 at Galicia (Central Europe) and Galicia-1 at Halychyna (which now redirects to Galicia (Central Europe)) or to Red Ruthenia. But I guess this proposal just reflects my Polish POV so I'm open to other suggestions. – Kpalion (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It may save confusion to keep both political entities in the same article, since they didn't overlap in time, and very clearly differentiate them in the introduction. I realize it's still not 100% clear, because both geographic ranges are still referred to as Galicia/Halychyna today. I'm just concerned that if they're at separate articles, readers will assume that the difference between the names "Galicia" and "Halychyna" is more clear than it is. —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 15:04 Z

I support Michael's suggestion. The current article for Galicia-1 and Galicia-2 is already Galicia (Central Europe). It's lead should be modified to say that it's not only "the largest and northernmost province of Austria from 1772 until 1918" but a historic territory that changed hands in history as that article says further down anyway. --Irpen 21:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I still think that the article should be split. Galicias 1 and 2 differ more than they have in common. Mzajac may be right that splitting it into "Galicia" and "Halychyna" mught be confusing, so how about Galicia (Western Ukraine) for Galicia-1, and Galicia (Austrian Empire) (or maybe Galicia and Lodomeria) for Galicia-2? – Kpalion (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with splitting this article but I agree with expanding of other existing articles or even creating the new ones as per below. Let's be consistent first of all. Galicia is a historical territory whose borders were moving but it is still more or less defined. This article is supposed to be about the territory. For Galicia-1 above in the narrow sense, one could expand the "Województwo Ruskie" or other voivodships articles. I won't object even to acreation of a new article about the history of the territory under the PLC period if it cannot be logically described in voivodship articles. For Galicia-2, an article called Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria would be in order. But the "Galicia" article could just follow briefly on the history of the region and refer on the way to the Galician-Volhynian Principality (a proposed namechange for current Halych-Vohlynia), the voivodship(s) and the kingdom articles as {{main}} for appropriate period.

Of course much should be done, but a quick and immediate accomodation to address my suggestion would simply be a rewrite of the lead to state clearly, that G. is a historic territory rather than this or that administrative unit of this or that state. AND we will theh have separate article for the statehood units. How does this sound? --Irpen 00:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I believe there's no need to split the articles, as long as we have articles on both Galicia and Red Ruthenia. Perhaps, if you fear that the name is ambigous and the current article doesn't give enough explanation, we could create a page on Galicia (Central Europe; disambiguation) to place both names there and repeat the explanation, but I don't think it's unclear to the readers of this article. Halibutt 06:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Ukranian/Ruthenian"

I should probably be wary about wading into Eastern European ethnic complexities, but is there any reason that the awkward slash contstruction "Ukranian/Ruthenian" is used so much in this article? Can't we just use one term throughout, with a note on the first use that "the language/ethnicity that we would today call 'Ukranian' was through the 17 and 1800s generally referred to as 'Ruthenian'?" --Jfruh 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jfruh:

Your suggestion has some merit, and, indeed, some historians writing in Ukrainian do use the term "Ukrainian" throughout with such an initial explanation. After all, the vast majority of Galician Ruthenians who were Greek Catholics did turn into nationally conscious Ukrainians by 1914, certainly by the establishment of the Second Polish Republic in the early 20s. The problem arises, however, that some of the Muscophiles actually came to consider themselves to be Russians and rejected a modern Ukrainian national identity. By 1914, they were a very small minority but they did, in fact, exist. I think that it would be awkward to refer to them as Muscophile 'Ukrainians', since they so abhorred this name. A similar problem in nomenclature exists among Transcarpathian Ruthenians who emigrated in large numbers to the Unites States during the Great Economic Emigration. Their descendants, or, at least some of them, to this day reject the Ukrainian name and form a community separate from the Ukrainian Americans. So the problem is a complex one with no easy way out. I remain open with regard to resolving it. Regards, Author

Well, why not just use the word "Ruthenian" throughout? It's the slashed construction ("Ruthenian/Ukranian") that just looks ugly and ahistorical to me. Since Ruthenian would be the word used by most contemporaries, its the one to use. Obviously as Ukranian national consciousness gets more developed, that name should be used in the article to describe the people who used it to describe themselves. But as it is, it looks like we're retroactively applying it to people who wouldn't use it. --Jfruh 03:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Would there be merit to using Rusin (Rusyn?) instead of the Latinized "Ruthenian"? logologist 04:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In English, Rusyn usually refers to the modern Rusyns, while Ruthenian is almost always used in the historical context.

Speaking of Ukrainians, Moscophiles and Rusyns, does anyone know if the modern Rusyn nationality is directly descended from the nineteenth-century "Old Ruthenians" of Galicia? —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 05:43 Z

Dear Jfruh: I have ammended the article along the lines which you suggested. You might also be interested in knowing that a similar situation existed among the Polish peasantry which lacked a national consciousness at this time as well. The Polish aristocracy and gentry generally called themselves "Poles" while the peasantry were often referred to as "Mazurs", and, we know that in 1846 they turned sharply against their masters and rejected the Polish patriotism of the insurgents. But they too with the advent of democratic and egalitarian ideas were eventually integrated into the Polish political nation, just as the Ruthenian peasantry became integrated into the Ukrainian political nation. I am given to understand that even in today's Poland there are some "Goraly" or mountainfolk who reject the Polish name just as certain modern Ruthenians, if I may be permitted to use the term (see Rusyns), do the same for the Ukrainian name and identity.

By the way, I deleted the title by A.J.P.Taylor from the bibliography and replaced it with more pertinent titles because it does not deal specifically with Galicia, and, moreover, is filled with glib and misleading generalizations. Taylor certainly did not know much about Galicia and had little respect for its inhabitants. Regards, Author.

To whoever keeps inserting the term "Russophiles" into the final paragraph of the Galician Autonomy section: My original wording of "other Ruthenian groups" as contenders for political power with the Poles is, in my opinion, at present the only fair wording here, as the Russophiles were never a real contender for power in Galicia and remained a very small group right until the beginning of the Russian occupation in 1914. At that time, with the support of the Russian occupation authorities they for the first time, I believe, became important. The phrase "Other Ruthenian groups" is , I know, more vague, but I think, more accurate. One problem here is that a definitive general political history of these events still remains to be written, even in Ukrainian, so we have to tread very cautiously here. I suggest that you put your ideas about Russophiles down here on the 'Talk' page for now so that we can work something reasonable out. Regards, Author

Russophiles

Why is there a revert war over "Russophiles"/"other Ukrainian groups"? Anonymous, are you implying that other groups are included, or do you have a problem with the label Russophiles? Русофіли is an accepted name in general histories of the period. Please explain a change before reverting more than once, or you just waste all of our time. — Michael Z. 2006-01-3 17:32 Z

Dear Michael Z:

To which "general histories" do you refer? I am unaware of any general history of Galicia which analyzes this problem. The only general history of which I am aware, in Polish by Z. Fras, does not treat it at all. There are some specialist studies in Ukrainian - by Andrusiak, Stakhiv, etc., on what they call "Muscophilism" which I will eventually consider, but of these, Andrusiak, I am given to understand, clearly distinguishes between old style Ruthenians who eventually actually came to be called "Old Ruthenians" (Starorusyny) and Russophiles who overtly supported the idea that the Galician Ruthenians were actually Russians. Paul Magocsi, writing in English in his various works, follows Andrusiak and makes the same distinction, perhaps even strengthening it. Now, I am not yet sure how far these distinctions go or exactly for what periods, but certainly by 1914 there was a group in Galicia which had a representative in the Austrian Central Parliament (Reichsrat) which took an overtly Russophile as opposed to an Old Ruthenian position. The later, also sometimes called by some historians like Ihor Chornovol "the Galician Ruthenian Tertium" saw the Ruthenians as distinct from both Ukrainians in Dnieper Ukraine and Russians. I prefer to call its supporters "Ruthenian particularists". At any rate, whatever you call them, it is clear that more than one alternative to the Ukrainian position existed, hence, "other Ruthenian groups". And, moreover, the Russophiles were the weakest of them until the Russian occupation during WWI. Best wishes...Author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.42.187 (talk • contribs) .

I was thinking of Subtelny and Magocsi's big history books. They refer to the Old Ruthenians, Russophiles and Ukrainophiles in Galicia. Because there was no discussion here, I couldn't tell whether you objected to the term or the content in the change. Regards. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 03:12 Z

Merge with Galicia and Ludomaria

Here's what I removed from Galicia and Ludomaria, which I made into a redirect.

Capital: Lemberg, Lwów, (Lvov).

Population: 8,00,000 (1910 est.)

chronology:

• 501 : Part of Poland.
• c.998 - 1084 : Galicia-Volynya
• 1084 : Part of Przemysl.
• 1188 - 1189 : Hungarian rule.
• 1189 : Principality of Galicia
• 1210 - 1211 : Hungarian rule.
• 1216 - 1221 : Hungarian rule.
• c.1253 : Kingdom of Galicia
• 1349 : Part of Poland.
• 1379 - 1387 : Hungarian rule.
• 1387-1772 : Part of Poland.
• 5 August 1772 :Parts of Little Poland (Malopolska) and Red Rutheni(Rus Czerwona) annexed by Austria.
• Sep 1772 : Austria creates the kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (in German: Königreich Galizien und Lodomerien, in Polish: Galicja i Lodomeria).
• 26 April 1795 : Little Poland (Malopolska) annexed to Austria as Western Galicia (from 1 November 1803, part of Galicia and Lodomeria).
• Apr 1809 : Western Galicia ceded to Duchy of Warsaw (from 1815, part of Russian Poland), but previous annexations remain part of Austria.
• 21 December 1867 : Autonomy granted as part of "Austrian half" of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (i.e. of the "Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Diet").
• 3 September 1914 - 26 July 1917 :Russian occupation of most of Galicia (in Lemberg [Lvov] 3 September 1914 - 22 June 1915, Przemysl 22 March 1915 - 3 July 1915).
• 1 November 1918 : Incorporated into Poland.
• 6 July 1920 - 21 September 1920 : Galitzian Socialist Soviet Republic at Ternopol (see under Ukraine).
• 1918-17 September 1939 - Part of Poland.

It does not seem very useful. I don't see how it agrees with what is written it this article. Piet 10:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

odd link

"[[Frank E. Sysy]]n": is something going on here with a declined form of a name in some language I'm unfamiliar with? Or is this a badly formed link? (and is this person worth a link at all?) - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Split between

The expression "historical region currently split between Poland and Ukraine." is highly confusing, as the Austrian Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria included a large portion of Lesser Poland, that never formed a part of the duchy of Galicia and Lodomeria. The sentence should be altered to become more correct. Corelli

"Split between" is poor English as well (It's was split like an axe in wood? No it [the land] still exists. It lies "between" PL and UA? No, it's part of both!) It should be "divided amongst", "occupied by", "forming parts of". Kevlar67 19:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

At least in American English, "split between" is prefectly clear here, as in "they split the pie between them." But if it is unclear in other English, then of what you suggest "divided amongst" is certainly the best choice. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead

[3]? Perhaps I'm not following the terminology correctly, but this seems like it adds a redundancy and/or jumps around in chronological order. Before this edit, we already had "[Galicia] was created from the territories taken from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the partitions of Poland and lasted until the dissolution of Austria-Hungary at the end of World War I." Lysy added (somewhat before that) "For several centuries the territory belonged to the Crown of the Polish Kingdom." Is there a relevant distinction between the Crown of the Polish Kingdom and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? And, if so, is there a reason not to put the two statements adjacent to one another? - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but this looks like one of those cases when the urge to make a certain point is strong but time to work it into the article is missing. So the editor just pastes a disconnected phrase to the most visible place, The Lead. Besides, there is no secret that before being a part of the Polish kingdom, the territory was a part of Rus and following the demise of the latter it remained a local center of the continued Rus polity as the principality of Halych later merged to the Principality of Halych-Volhynia. Lead pointedly ommitted that, while Polish Crown is of course important. Anyway, I rewrote it. Can be further improved of course. --Irpen 07:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Problematic recent paragraphs

Normally, when I come through these articles, I see a few small problems like this and I can get enough from context to clean them up. But, in this case, the problems with these two new paragraphs are so large that I don't trust my guesses, because with so many problems I could be misunderstanding entirely; in the case of the first sentence of the first paragraph here, I don't even have a guess.

First problematic paragraph:

The fall of Poland and its eventual dissolution were not only a consequence of the internal disorder; it offered also a welcome way for the rising European great powers Prussia, Austria and Russia. With support of Prussia and Russia Stanislaus Poniatowski was selected to the king in 1764, with whom these countries wanted to secure themselves influence on Poland.

I can't even parse most of this. Depending how I try to read the first sentence:

• It seems to say that the fall of Poland and its eventual dissolution were a consequence not only of internal disorder but of something else; however, no other cause is suggested later in the sentence.
• Grammatically, part of the construction of the sentence comes down to "The fall of Poland and its eventual dissolution … offered … a welcome way for the rising European great powers Prussia, Austria and Russia." A welome way (manner) for them to do what? Or is this "way" in the slightly archaic sense of "road" (in which case the construction of the sentence is still a mess).

If no one can paraphrase this coherently, we should simply delete this sentence.

As for the second sentence, the only way I can make sense of it is to assume that "whom" refers back to Stanislaus Poniatowski, but the grammar of the sentence pretty much rules out that possibility. If I have understood this sentence correctly, one correct way to say this would be:

With support of Prussia and Russia, Stanislaus Poniatowski was selected king in 1764; through him, these countries wanted to secure influence on Poland for themselves.

Second problematic paragraph:

From June 1782 by January 1786 so 14,735 colonists came into the country. They either settled in either existing villages or founded their own. In East Galicia, where under the still more backward agriculture of the Ruthenians an improvement appeared still more desirable by the settlement of immigrants from the German countries, no national country was available. The Austrian administration therefore successfully tried to energize the Polish large land owners to settle also on its goods German colonists under similar conditions (Private colonisation so mentioned).

• "From June 1782 by January 1786 so 14,735 colonists came…" makes no sense to me. Prehaps "From June 1782 to January 1786 14,735 colonists came…"? Normally, I'd guess "so" followed by a number to be a typo for "some", but 14,735 is much to precise for that to make sense.
• What does "no national country was available" mean here?
• "to energize the Polish large land owners to settle also on its goods German colonists under similar conditions"??? Perhaps "to encourage the large Polish land owners also to settle on German colonists on their lands under similar conditions"? But I'm having to make so many guesses that I hesitate to assume that is what is intended.
• "(Private colonisation so mentioned)". Mentioned where? Perhaps this means to say "(so-called private colonisation)"?

- Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}. The information merged into the article was from a history article fork (which for the most part already existed here). The information that currently resides here is a better version of what existed beforehand (if that can be believed). You caught me before I could go back and fix the text (which probably only got thrown into a translator from whatever language it was originally in to begin with) to actually make sense. Radagast83 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I could help out to figure out what can be salvaged or tossed if you'd like. Radagast83 00:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, "the problems with these two new paragraphs are so large that I don't trust my guesses, because with so many problems I could be misunderstanding entirely." I came here because I was hoping to point up the problems so that someone more knowledgable on the topic might be able to sort this out. How is the {{sofixit}} you addressed to me supposed to help? I have just done what I could to help. If you like, I will simply delete the paragraphs: that is the only way I can "fix" this. I was trying to be more cooperative than that: why does that earn me a rebuke? - Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No answer. OK, I will just do a combination of deletions and guesses as best I can, but it's a heck of a way to build an encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Second World War and Distrikt Galizien is also really ugly, but I'm not qualified to prettify it as I know nothing about the history...Gilded Lily 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

Roman Shukhevych, leader of UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army), was removed without comment from the list of names. I have no idea what this is about. Perhaps someone else does. - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Remark cut from article

I cut the following from the section Galicia and Lodomeria in different languages:

Please note that both hallstadt and la tene celtic cultures were prevelent in this region before roman or later tribes hence the celtic/GALLIC name simple really!

It's almost incoherent, it was obviously at best misplaced. If there is something meaningful (and citable) here, please feel free to restore more appropriately. - Jmabel | Talk 08:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

personalities

I see no reason to divide the personalities into national sections. This is problematic at least for some personalities of both Polish and Jewish afiliation and, for example, Polish minister appears under Jewish heading. There are some other cases too. I think that usually in list of this type (personalities from a multinational city or region) we give names and professions, sometimes nationalities too (see e.g. Wroclaw, Strassburg..), all in one section ordered alphabetically. So I rework it here as well. --Beaumont (@) 17:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

...done. By the way, I expanded the list and it seems that it is still incomplete. When it grows it could be convenient to move it to a separate article, just as it was done for Strassburg, for exapmle. --Beaumont (@) 23:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, why wait to move it. The article is already very long, and the list of personalities is long enough to stand on its own.--Redaktor 21:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the list to a separate article, hope nobody minds. Quantpole 10:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jotel 10:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lodomeria coa.jpg

Image:Lodomeria coa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Great Economic Emigration

Is there a special name for this process in Polish and Ukrainian historiography?
Are there any special reasons for this migration?
Similar one happened in Croatia, at that time, particularly in Dalmatia, because of peronospora and Wine Charter later, two things that destroyed local prosperous export good, wine. Kubura (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious Problems

This article is filled with factual mistakes and clearly exhibits the Nazi nostalgia that still plagues this part of the world. 92.16.226.13 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I removed this info on the events of 1846 from the page since it is somewhat of a tangent: Interesting things is, that there was a plan, made by Hotel Lambert agents, that also considered the possible uprising in Slovakia and Croatia. Conspiracy was discovered thanks to treachery of agent Antoni Rieth, the very author of the plan of the uprising. Austrian authorities have finally discovered whole net of these agents acting on Balkans. Important role had the Croatian journal Branislav, finally banned in 1845. Mike Stoyik (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

West Galicia in 18th century ?

I'm puzzled with this map, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galiz18.gif , presented in the article. Do we have any evidence that "West Galicia" existed back in 18th century ? I thought it was a more recent invention. --Lysy^talk 16:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing. Let's have a look at those two maps:

• 
• 

On the first map, the light-yellow area is the territory taken by Austria in the First Partition of Poland (1772) and named "Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria". The dark-yellow area is the territory taken by Austria in the Third Partition of Poland (1795) and named "New Galicia" or "West Galicia". West Galicia was merged into Galicia in 1803. In 1809, the territory of former West Galicia, as well as the Zamość region, was ceded to the Duchy of Warsaw and, in 1815, it became part of the Congress Kingdom (except Kraków, which became a free city). In other words, West Galicia only existed from 1795 to 1803 as a separate administrative region of the Habsburg Empire and it never belong to Austria after 1809.

On the second map, Western Galicia and Eastern Galicia are informal regions of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. The dividing line ran roughly along the ethnic divide between mostly Polish and mostly Ukrainian territories. The map above is not very accurate. The line between Western and Eastern Galicia was not identical to the modern Polish-Ukrainian border, although it was close.

See also: Template:Galicia and Lodomeria timeline. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I wonder if this/such explanation could make it somehow to the article ? --Lysy^talk 20:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How Many Galicia are there in Europe?

I must confess that I have learnt about the Galicia from this article. Being a student of history, I got interested in it. I read bit of it and simultaneously checked it on Google Earth. Simple query 'Galicia' on the Google Map Search, took me to a place in Spain. After that I tried to locate it in Poland and Ukraine. However, I am still struggling with the exact geographical region to which the area belongs.

My humble submission is that those who have direct knowledge and it is discernible from the contents of the Discussion on this page, that there are people who have direct knowledge of the place, must bring out a better map of the area. Mere a suggestion!!!--Sumir 12:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)

There are at least 3 different Galicias: Spain (as you mentioned), another in Central Europe (this article), and the third I believe is in Turkey (Asia Minor). The reason is that the Celts migrated all over the place since the Dawn of Time. Placenames usually stick while the people who named the places are forced to move elsewhere. But you make a good point here, that there should be some explanation of that fact. There are maps on the page explaining where Galicia is/was. Also, don't take Google Earth as the authority on this subject, since they're just going by current geographical/political information, and not historical. It would be interesting for someone to put together an overlay on Google Earth for shift territories and names and such, though. Hires an editor (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a "Galatia" in Anatolia, but I've never heard of a "Galicia." john k (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's just spelling difference, and that's where the "Galicians" (aka "Galations") are originally from anyway. Hires an editor (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Celts/Gauls were not originally from Anatolia - they went to Anatolia in the 3rd century BC, and had not previously resided there. And, sure, the names mean the same thing. But they are still different names, and the Anatolian province is never called "Galicia." john k (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This region is named after the city of Galich I think (like [Vo]Lodomeria is named after Vladimir-in-Volhynia), rather than the Gauls. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In Spanish

Just Galitzia, to avoid homonimy with Galicia in Spain, a.k.a. Galiza in Galician ( the Galician and the Portuguese are basically the same language). The Spanish Galicia/Galiza is named after Gallaecia, that in turn seems to be named after the Gauls (like Gaul and Galatia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galitzia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2009 (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 page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Galicia (eastern Europe) → Galicia (Eastern Europe) — The article has been moved back and forth a number of times, the main question being how to describe the location of Galicia: Eastern Europe, Central Europe or East-Central Europe. All of these terms (according to respective articles) are quite oblique, mean different regions in different sources and may be considered derogatory. While I try to be neutral on socio-political issues and would accede to anything in paranthesis, the present title with lowercase e is certainly improper. —94.29.52.50 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For convenience, here is the sequence of titles:

• 15 December 2003 User:Halibutt created the article under the title Galicia (Central Europe) with the summary 'moved from "Galicia (Eastern Europe)"'
• 28 May 2009 User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (moved Galicia (Central Europe) to Galicia (Eastern Europe): ukraine is definitely not in central europe)
• 11 June 2009 User:Mibelz (moved Galicia (Eastern Europe) to Galicia (East-Central Europe): Galicia (Lviv, Kraków) is a historical region in East-Central Europe.)
• 17 June 2009 User:Gryffindor (moved Galicia (East-Central Europe) to Galicia (Central Europe): restoring name of back to "Central Europe", discuss first on discussion page)
• 5 July 2009 User:Mibelz (moved Galicia (Central Europe) to Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe): correct name (see literature))
• 20 October 2009 User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (moved Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe) to Galicia (eastern Europe): there's no Galicia in "West Eastern Europe" or "East Eastern Europe" ... keep it simple and accurate)

Also note that the respetive category is Category:Galicia (Central Europe), with several subcats, and on commons:Category:Galicia (Central Europe). Unless the present article is restored to original title, these cats should be renamed. 94.29.52.50 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Galicia is closer to the Urals than to the Atlantic; it is therefore in the eastern half of Europe. It is also in Eastern Europe as that term has been defined since 1945; although there may be a definition which restricts Eastern Europe to the former Russian Empire, it is not usual. Therefore both are correct; why move? and, more importantly, what will be the wording of the WP:LAME entry? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My concern is only capitalisation. I first proposed this at WP:RM as uncontroversial [4], but somehow with no result, so decided to give the warring parties an opportunity to settle the question. 94.29.52.50 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's correct either way, so why stir the kettle? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it? Articles Eastern Europe and Central Europe always capitalise the adjective, and I had the impression that it is a single (compound) name. 94.29.52.50 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And in any case, the names of the article and of the categories should still be uniform. In either form. 94.29.52.50 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My rather simplistic Google books and scholar searching (published since 1990, galicia, eastern-europe vs central-europe) suggested that Eastern Europe beats Central Europe but not by a huge margin (roughly 4:3). So I slightly prefer Eastern but as long as it's either Eastern or Central I won't be too bothered. Not East-Central though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment how about Galicia (non-Western Europe since Galicia in Western Europe is "Western Europe", probably incontestably so. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Galicia_(eastern_Europe) is fine. Galicia (Central Europe) is not. Every common definition of Eastern Europe puts Galicia there. Ukraine, where almost all of it is (and indeed modern primary usage would put ALL of it in Ukraine), is in eastern Europe. A tiny bit of it is in eastern Poland, also in eastern Europe. Some contrived definitions of Central Europe place Poland in this, and few place Ukraine in "Central Europe". The common man thinks Russia is not in Europe, so "Central Europe" for a place on the borders of Russia is odd. Let's be honest, it was only at "(Central Europe)" for any time because of certain nationalisms that wished to cast the appellation of "Eastern European" off, not for encyclopedic purposes. And indeed did Wikipedia work only on encyclopedic purposes, we wouldn't be having this debate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:36, 24 December 2009 (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.

Eastern Europe?

Now that the article suggests Galicia lies in Eastern Europe I'm tempted to add more info on that in the header. The problem is that Galicia has always been part of Central Europe, both geographically, culturally and architecturally. The article on Austria-Hungary places it in Central Europe - and rightfully so. And Galicia is Austro-Hungarian creation in all possible aspects.

Go to Krakow or Lvov and you'll see buildings reminiscent of Vienna and Munich and not Moscow, Austro-Hungarian cuisine (and not Eastern Slavic), you'll encounter people using gallicisms in their daily speech (in this context meaning mostly borrowings from other languages of former Austria-Hungary like German, Hungarian and even Italian), and so on. Not to mention the fact that the Geographical centre of Europe is either north, south or even east of Galicia, but not to the west (note that one of the pretending towns is actually in Galicia).

Having said that, I believe East-Central Europe could be acceptable if Central Europe hurts someone (?), but Eastern? Come on, this version doesn't hold much water (and judging by the books available from Google Books English-speaking scholars think likewise). Alternatively we could modify the articles on Austria, Hungary, Poland and Germany to call them Eastern European countries. Of course this would be counter-factual, but that at least would be consistent. //Halibutt 23:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those distinctions will be meaningful to many people. Galicia has some traditional central European architecture in addition to its sprawling communist infrastructure ... what does that mean? St Petersburg looks more like Edinburgh than Kazan, doesn't mean it's in Western Europe. Relax anyway, most readers won't attach the kind of significance you seem to worry about in descriptions like "Eastern Europe".

The problem is that Galicia has always been part of Central Europe, both geographically, culturally and architecturally

Strange assertion. Galicia lies far into what most Anglophones call Eastern Europe, speaks a Slavic—Eastern no less—language, and is an old province of Kievan Rus.

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And the United Kingdom lies pretty much in the very centre of what the UN calls Northern Europe. So? //Halibutt 09:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you tell me ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing that we can be sure of is that it's definitely not in Western Europe. So how about Galicia (not Western Europe). Or, even better, Galicia (not the one in Spain)? — Kpalion^(talk) 16:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like "most Anglophones" haven't adjusted to changed realities associated with the fall of the iron curtain? Considering even Poland as Eastern Europe (↑ above) is way out of the world - and so is to compare distances to Atlantic or Ural. In any case, limiting the language's usage to Anglophone speakers only would seriously restrict English language reach? - Galicia (Carpathians) may also be another option? --88.77.144.158 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yiddish: גאליציע (Galitsie) or (Galitsye)

Please verify with Yiddish Typewriter. Regards ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Central-Eastern Europe

This is the only proper way the article should be named. The division between Central, or rather Western and Eastern Europe was tradicionally and historically based on the Latin (Roman Catholic Church, baptized by Vatican) vs Greek (East Orthodox Church, baptized by Byznatium) speheres of influence. Likewise, this obviously implicates the differences in culture, language spoken during religious rituals (latin/greek). Finally, the distinction can be made also upon the terms of West Slavic (tradicionally roman-catholic) and East Slavic (east-orthodox) nations, where West Slavs inhabited Galicia and East Slavs inhabitet East Galicia. That's why Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia are always considered as being part of the so called West (not maybe strictly geopgraphically, but culturally) and Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia of the European East.--83.12.91.242 (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The only remaining solution is to divide the article into two separate articles: Galicia and East Galicia. Those terms are COMMONLY used among e.g. Polish scholars, to distinguish the differences mentioned above. This seems like a reasonable choice.--83.12.91.242 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Languages on Wikipedia that add geographical region to that term, us it in Central or middle Europe context. --Rejedef (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

POV

I think I got to to object to inclusion of this text [5], at least as it is being presented. The source is pretty clear that this is the point of view of German (in the wide sense)-nationalists at best, and propaganda at worst. It does not portray this information as factual but rather as a reflection of how Austrians justified their administration of conquered territory.

More generally, come on, it's usually the case that a power that conquers another land will justify its occupation by describing the natives as "barbarians" who need to be "civilized". It's how the British justified their empire, how the Americans justified their treatment of Native Americans, how Southern whites justified slavery, and hell, it's probably even how Poles justified their treatment of Ukrainians.

So the passage needs to be rewritten or removed.VolunteerMarek 20:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I used the words claimed and alleged. It's notable that this is how the new Austrian rulers saw things, and understandable given the total power over the peasants that the Polish nobles had - a contrast to the norms in Austria at that time. The Austrians probably weren't totally making things up IMO - noble behavior towards peasants probably was rather brutal and extreme at times - this may explain the desperate savagery of the Galician slaughter. I can fix the wording a little but it doesn't seem to be extremely off-base.Faustian (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here are my changes: [6].Faustian (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)