Talk:Ruthenians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Belarus To-do:

This article is part of Wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization. If you have a comment which might be relevant for other articles on Russian history, consider posting at Wikipedia talk:Russian History Harmonization.

Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Is there any relation between the names Lemko and Lemberg, the Austrian/German name of Lvov? In any case, what is the etymology of the name Lemko? Mikkalai 03:48, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Lemkos and L'viv/Lemburg

The "Lemkos" take their name from their regional conversational style, which is to frequently use the word, "lem", which means, "well", "like," "you know," and most commonly "but."

On the other hand, "L'viv" takes it name from it's founding in the mid-13th century by Prince Danylo (Daniel) of the Halych-Volynia, the successor state to Rus' proper. Danylo named the city after his son Lev (or Lew or Leo) essentially calling it 'Leo's City'. Hence, the classic version on some maps, "Leopolis." Why the Germanic version include an "M" not clear to me. Lv'iv is not part of Lemkivshchyna or Lemko-land, which lies to the south and west, in today's Poland.

Thank you. Since it seems you know the subject well, can you tell something about the etymology of Bojko and Hucul? And how about starting articles about all these three peoples? Mikkalai 18:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get around to it sometime!

Right next to the Lemkos are the Lyshaks who rther than using the word *Lem* - use the word *Lysh* The Boikos are also characterised by their language perculiarities using BOI. --Bandurist 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hucul, Hutsul, or Hutzul? What should be the spelling used on Wikipedia? The books I have (Orest Subtelny's Ukraine: A History and a travel guide) both use the spelling Hutsul, so that's what I've used so far, but I would love to hear your opinions on this. --Iceager 16:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hutzul is Germanized version, Hucul is Polonized, Hutsul is typical transliteration from Cyrillic. The first form is definitely out. Of two remaining I'd prefer as more "historically natural". Also, Google shows mild preference of the hucul form. But dont count my vote: I am no expert. Mikkalai 16:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The article is not consistent with other acticles on the similar topics. Drbug 10:56, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's not neutrality dispute. Can you be more specific? --Jiang 10:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Stressed use of Ruthenians in sense of Rus and Russians is sure Non-NPOV. Drbug 11:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

no comprehende. try using complete sentences. --Jiang 23:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removed.

  1. Ruthenians or Ruthenes- group of Slavic tribes living in Eastern Europe between the Black Sea (south) and the White Sea (north). Their name first appears in the 9th century AD. The most important tribes were (according to the Primary Chronicle): the Polans (the area around Kyiv), the Volhynians (Volhynia), the Dregovichs (Drehovichs) (Polesie, Belarus, Ukraine), the Drevlians, the Radimichs, the Krivichs, the Vyatichs, the Severians, the Ulichs, the Tiverians, the Ilmen Slavs.

This suggestion is anachronism. They are not Ruthenes. They are what they are: Slavic tribes, according to the mentioned Primary chronicle. Mikkalai 07:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I didn't remove this clause earlier only to avoid accusations in "Russian imperialism"... Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 11:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's actually not a case of anachronism. Ruthenia and Ruthenes were titles created for this place and these people by explorers from Greco-Roman societies to the south. It is likely how Greek or Latin speakers rendered Rus' in their own languages. For this reason, Latin language maps from throughout Europe nearly always called the land Ruthenia (just like Britannia, Germania, Hibernia, et al., even though none of those people called themselves Germans or Hibernians (Britons is a term used only in modern times by English people). As such, it is correct from an historical point of view to call those Slavic tribes Ruthenes collectively.

[edit] Ruthenia

Isn't Ruthenia just a Latin word for Russia? With respect, Ko Soi IX 08:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's latin word for Rus'. Unomano 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that Ukraine used to be called as Ukraine-Rus? And all this confusion about the new Latin-made nationality is a crazy talk. Part of my heritage is what you call Ruthenian. It is no Ruthenian. It's Ruski who came from Rus. There is a town of Rava-Ruska in Lviv oblast, not Rava-Ruthenian. Don't confuse it with today's Russia. That is what the Petro I decided to have the Moscovy to be called so and declaring that Moscow is the third Rome. Some people are trying very hard to differentiate Ukrainians and it's very irritating. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert needed

It is such a mess - the words "Ruthenian" and "Rusyn" are used about a lot of things and this article in its current state doesn't help to alleviate the confusion between them. I've heard it used about people in - no significant order - Belarus, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine and even North America.

Is there an unbiased expert in Slavic history that can clean it up? --Amir E. Aharoni 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Amir. Let me tell you not as an expert in Slavic history, alas. Until 18th century the territory of Ukraine was known as Rus. During Polonization the named was corrupted to so-called Latin transliteration as Poles tried to covert every one into Catolicism and write in Latin letters (which is total idiocy). When crazy Petr I renamed his empire, Ukraine changed Ukraine-Rus. Poles, in their turn, use that as an excuse to spread a confusion worldwide. But let me tell you -- UKRAINIANS DON'T WRITE IN LATIN, because we are Orthodox and we are true to our traditions. Also there is no pronounciation of "th" in any Slavic languages as in English. Please, pard'n my emotions, I hope you uderstand. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect

The photo titled - Carpatho-Rusyn sub-groups - Transcarpathian Rusyns in original goral folk-costumes from Maramureş. Photo: Village Mokre near Sanok (Poland). 2007 - has young people in Central Ukrainian folk costume rather than Ruthenian. It should be corrected. --Bandurist 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruthenes

After studying Austria-Hungary this year in school, it has become clear to me that the English-language word Ruthene is the most common way to refer to all East Slavs living in that empire before 1918. This article should reflect that. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is somewhat unclear. It could be understood like this: "After studying American books of a hundered years ago, it has come clear to me that all Afro-Americans were refered to as "niggers" or "negroes" before 1961. The article should reflect that."

The term "Ruthene" is the term used at that time for what are now refered to as Ukrainians. Bandurist (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope Kevlar67 doesn't take it personally. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I meant, it would appropriate to mention that: a) in English-language historiography the word "Ruthene" refers to East Slavs that lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. People will encounter the word when reading say Oszkár Jászi or Alan Sked (as I did) and will wonder what it means. b) it is a more historically correct way to refer to the western branch of the East Slavs before they adopted the current terms Ukrainian or Belarusian or before English had a seperate word for Rusyn (allthough it might offend modern sensibilities). Which by the way, is why I would support re-purposing this article to reflect that. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the term was used for the Belarus who were not part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Bandurist (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

During disambiguation exercise I have come across two links I was unable to resolve. Perhaps someone with knowledge of subject would be able to do that. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)