Talk:Pannonian Rusyns

Untitled
All right, what the hell? Node ue, why are the Rusini not the same as the Rusyns?! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Their language is different. In addition to different vocabulary and grammar, the alphabet is different. I've found many sources that refer to a "Rusin language" and a "Rusyn language".
 * 2) As far as I could tell from the literature, Rusins live primarily in the former Yugoslavia, while Rusyns live in transcarpathian Ukraine and Hungary. Much of the literature, as well as the people themselves, seems to consider them to be separate.
 * 3) A linguistic and geographic distinction, plus the fact that Rusins seem to see themselves as separate from Rusyns. Unfortunately, there's some terminological confusion, with some people saying "Carpathian-Ruthenians" and "Panonian-Ruthenians", and others saying "Transcarpathian Rusyns" and "Vojvodina Rusyns", but what seems most common in Western literature is a tendency to refer to them as Rusyns and Rusins. --Node 05:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the source for saying they are western Slavic? If the Vojvodina Rusini are such, what about those in Croatia and Bosnia? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Joy, the Rusyn language, which is official in Vojvodina is WESTERN SLAVIC. I do not know does the Rusyns in Croatia speaks the same language as Rusyns in Vojvodina, but I know what language speaks the Rusyns in Vojvodina. And if you ask, which source claim that their language is western Slavic, I can tell you that all sources I read so far, which mentioned the classification of Rusyn language in Vojvodina, claimed that this language is western Slavic. I do not have time to search for sources about this on Internet for you, but I found this one:
 * http://rdsa.tripod.com/ramaclat.html

"According to the opinion of one side (F.Pastrnek J.Pata and others) our language is west Slovenian (Slavic) and belongs to Czechoslovak group of speech; and according to the opinion of the other side (V.Hnatjuk, H.Kosteljnik) our language is Ukrainian dialect"

Of course, the later deep study of the Rusyn language in Vojvodina have concluded that this language is western Slavic, with the eastern Slavic influence. User:PANONIAN

Also, there is interesting information here:
 * http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=rue

"Some ethnic Rusyns in Croatia are reported to speak Eastern Slovak, Sarish dialect, not Rusyn." (This is article about Rusyn language in Ukraine). User:PANONIAN

Also, according to some information, part of the Rusyns who live in Slovakia also speak a western Slavic language. That could mean that all these Rusyns who speak a western Slavic language are the same people, while Rusyns who speak a eastern Slavic language are a separate ethnic group with the same name. One thing is certain: we will do the wrong thing if we classify an ethnic group, which speak a western Slavic language, as "eastern Slavs". The Rusyns in Vojvodina are "Rusyns", but they ARE NOT eastern Slavs. User:PANONIAN

OK, now I am losing my patience. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Ruthenianss themselves and all their experts consider what you call "Rusins" a part of Rutehnians without any exceptions. And yes, eastern Slovak dialects are similar to the Rusin language, but different (so what?). Everybody claiming something else simply does not know the details and is nothing but a huge diletant. Even the Ethnologue page, which has the tendency to consider dialects separate languages, does not consider the Rusin language a separate language, which itself is very remarkable. Also, there is no serious text in Western Slavic countries, especially not in Slovakia (a country that should know its dialects, don't you think?), that would consider the Serbian Rusyns a separate ethnic group. They are just a regional affiliation, that's all. As a result, we can keep the disputed tag, but not with the current absolutely wrong version. It is bad enough that the Slavic people page is wrong, but this one will not be wrong. It is absolutely inacceptable to write just "are not to be confused with the Rusyns", given that this is just an invented ethnic group, which even calls itself Ruthenians. Juro 18:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, in fact I do not claim that Rusyns in Vojvodina are a completely separate nation than Rusyns in Ukraine and Slovakia. My intention only was to indicate what are the problems with their classification within Slavic ethnic groups. Here are the problems:

Rusyns in Vojvodina and Croatia are "Rusyns" in ethnic terms. The question is are they a part of Rusyns in Ukraine or are they a separate nation. In fact, they consider themselves to be the same nation with Rusyns in Ukraine, but that is the problem. Most of Rusyns in Ukraine consider themselves to be a subgroup of Ukrainians, while Rusyns in Vojvodina do not consider themselves to be a subgroup of Ukrainians. Both, Rusyns and Ukrainians in Vojvodina are treated as two separate ethnic groups.

Second thing, the Rusyns in Vojvodina speak an western Slavic language, while both, Ukrainians and Ukrainian Rusyns speak an eastern Slavic language. So, here are two main problems about Rusyns in general:

1. Are the Rusyns a nation or a subroup of Ukrainians? The Rusyns in Vojvodina are definitely a nation, while for Rusyns in Ukraine this is not certain.

2. Are the Rusyns western or eastern Slavs? Since their languages belong to both, western and eastern branhces of Slavic languages, we can see that their classification is a problem. If we accept the view that all Rusyns are one single nation, then we have to admit that they are both: eastern and western Slavs in the same time. Also, if we say that one same nation cannot to speak two so much different languages, then we have to divide Rusyns into two nations: one eastern Slavic, and other western Slavic (We also should have in our mind that western Slavic Rusyns live in Vojvodina, Croatia and Slovakia).

Here are the conclusions:

1. Are the Rusyns in Vojvodina same people with Rusyns in Ukraine? My answer is that I do not know.

2. Are the Rusyns in Vojvodina a subgroup of Ukrainians? They are not, since both, Rusyns and Ukrainians, are recognized as a separate ethnic groups in Serbia.

3. Are the Rusyns in Vojvodina eastern Slavs? They are not since they speak a western Slavic language.

My intention here was only to show what are the problems. Two things are certain with classification of the Rusyns who live in Vojvodina: They are not a subgroup of Ukrainians and they are not a eastern Slavs! User:PANONIAN

So, finally, who are the Rusyns in Vojvodina. There are two possible answers:

1. They are an micro nation, which only share the same name with Rusyns in Ukraine.

2. They are a part of one single Rusyn nation, together with Rusins in Ukraine. The view about one single Rusyn nation should also imply that this nation is not a subgroup of Ukrainians but one separate nation and that this nation is eastern and western Slavic in the same time. User:PANONIAN

One more thing, the "Rusyns in Bosnia" mentioned by Joy at the top of the page are actually Ukrainians. In Vojvodina live 15,626 Russins and 4,635 Ukrainians. The Rusyns also live in eastern Croatia, while Ukrainians also live in Bosnia (just checked this). User:PANONIAN

You seem to have a big personal bias caused by extensive reliance on censuses and declarations of "official offices" and table-like thinking. Point one, something like "Western Slavs", "Eatern Slavs" etc. does not really exist, that' just an artificial geographical division and is only defined a-posteriori by looking at the sum of features of the languages at the predefined territory. Secondly, the Rusyns in Serbia are not "ethnically" different from those in Slovakia or Poland (not in the ethongraphic sense and not in any other trivial sense - it suffices to look at their history). Thirdly, while the western border of the Rusyns in clearly defined, the eastern border is very disputed (which has a lot to do with the Soviet/Ukrainian government nationality policy). Fourthly, they speak a clear Eastern Slavic language (after all, it is in fact not difficult to find "evidence" that it is Ukrainian from a certain perspective - but these things are always very relative) which only has Slovak elements. It is not vice versa - basic knowledge of the history of the Rusyns shows this after all as well. If people in Serbia claim the opposite they just do not know Slovak dialects or Ukrainian and miss the necessary "linguistic distance". Another possibility is that they have analysed Slovaks in reality (and did not realize that). Next, "Micro language" is a modern terms that basically means nothing (or it means a dialect with a codified language) and the term "micro nation" means absolutely nothing in reality - unless you mean "very small nation", which is obviously wrong in this case because of the word "nation". Also, see my argument on the Slavic peoples page. Next, the fact that the Ukrainian government (and consequently some of themselves - but not most of them) considers them X means nothing in ethnical/linguistic terms. The same holds for any other government in the world, including the Serbian one. As early as in former Czechoslovakia, scientists had the problem, that they officially had to consider them Ukrainians (as the Soviet "brother" wished), but everybode knew that ethnographically that is not the case - so weird construction were invented like "the Rusyn part of the Ukrainian nation" etc. Next, it is, by coincidence, exactly the Rusyns who are a good example of how censuses are useless for the issue in question- in 1991 most of them declared themselves as "Ukrainians", but 10 years later the situation changed and they declare themselves as "Rusyns" - the objective reality behind those numbers did not change however (and this holds for all nations and all censuses). Finally, the only reason why the "Rusins" (I repeat this word simply means Rusyns) are considered "separate" (and I must point out that I have to believe YOUR interpretation that this is the case in Sebia - it is also possible that in reality in Serbia they are considered separate ALONG WITH the other Rusyns and you have misinterpreted it) is that they were not officially recognized neither in Czechoslovakia, nor in Ukraine, so that at that time Yugoslavia was the only country in the world where they were recognized, making them seemingly a separate group. This was a formal mistake that some people have "transferred" up to the present and turned into a material mistake. Juro 02:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just curious Juro, but did you know that Rusins and Rusyns speak entirely different languages? --Node 05:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh, and it seems you're editing from a clear Slovak POV. You may accuse me of editing from a Pannonian-Rusin solidarity POV, but then, I'm not Rusin, or Rusyn, or Russian, or Slavic of any kind. --Node 13:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, what about this: the "Rusins" that ended up living in Backa (Serbia) at some point during their (perhaps slow) migration south-west through the A-H empire have acquired Slovak along the way, and hence this branch today happens to speak something that resembles Slovak rather than Ukrainian? They are Rusyns by descent, customs, creed, etc, but happened to acquire another language. This is not unheard of in many other cases. For example, ethnic Serbs in Zhumberia (a region roughly divided between Slovenia and Croatia today) have acquired the Slovenian/Croatian dialect (or language if you will), but remained "Serbian" in their ethinic identity, though their distant kinsmen in Serbia would have difficulty understanding them. Also I'd like to point out that the Yugoslav/Serbian gov'ts gave official recognition to the Rusins/Rusyns simply because the people that identified themselves that way in Serbia wanted to be recognized as such. Those that wanted to be recognized as Ukrainians rather got that option as well, so the choice is completely up to the citizen to choose whether they identify themselves as Rusin/Rusyn or Ukraininan - I'm sure no Serbian offical really cares or spends sleepless nights over that... Similarly the Serbian gov't recognizes other minorities such as Bunjevci simply because a large number of these people in northern Backa want to be identified as such and not as Croatians, though there are just as many. The dispute over Bunjevci vs. Croations is really left completely to the two cultural groups to work it out between themselves... Zoran, 01/12/06

Sillyness
Constituting the Pannonian Rusyn as a different ethnic group from Rusyns is like constiuting Siberian Russians as a different ethnic group from European Russians. Yes, Siberian Russians have differing dialects from European landed Russians and most likely a different culture (as Siberia is a much different environment) but this still does not merit listing them as a separate ethnicity. Are USA Germans a separate ethnicity from Germany Germans? Give me a break. 65.10.55.131 03:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They speak completelly different language than Rusyns in Ukraine, thus, they are very different. Try to read the whole article since everything is explained there. And when I say different language, I do not mean different dialect, but language which belong to another branch of Slavic languages (West Slavic), while language of Ukrainian Rusyns is East Slavic. And I already explained to you that these tables are not only for "separate ethnicities" but for ethno sub groups as well. If you do not understand that, I cannot help you. PANONIAN   (talk)  11:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

German in US and Germans in Germany speak completely different languages too. I don't see your point. infoboxes are not for subgroups, they are only for ethnicities - otherwise you end up repeating numbers like we already have in the infobox of Rusyns. 72.144.114.25 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, directly in the Rusyns article, it states:

"There are also resettled Rusyn communities located in the Pannonian plain, as well as in parts of present day Serbia and Montenegro (especially in Vojvodina - see also Ethnic groups of Vojvodina), as well as in present-day Croatia (in the region of Slavonia). "

It's very clear by now they don't merit two infoboxes. Notice how I'm not being unncessarily critical of you not reading the Rusyns article fully yourself. 72.144.114.25 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant what Germans speak, this article is not about Germans and infoboxes ARE for ethnic subgroups as well. Where is your proof that it is not for ethnic subgroups? You do not have it. So, good by, nice to met you. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer the following questions:


 * ~Are Slovaks who moved to Vojvodina a different ethnicity from Slovaks in Slovakia? If not, why not.
 * ~Are Germans who moved to United States and speak English a different ethnicity from Germans in Germany? If not, why not.
 * ~Are Rusyns who moved to Panonia and speak a slightly different language a different ethnicity from the Rusyns in Slovakia? If not, why not. If so, why so?

72.144.68.226 23:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I will ask you one question: can one single ethnic group to speak two so much different languages that one belong to Eastern Slavic and another to Western Slavic? PANONIAN  (talk)  00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lemme jump in... I'd prefer to stay out of the dispute, but one thing strikes me. Panonian, do you have a source for that "Western Slavic" language? I'm far from an expert on the subject, but this is the first time I hear such statement, and even casual reading of Rusyn titles I encounter does not reveal any particular similarities to Slovakian.Duja
 * I have several sources, for example this one: Ranko Bugarski, Jezici, Novi Sad, 1996. Also this one: Stevan Konstantinović, Priče o Rusinima, Šid, 1995. Something you have here too: http://rusnak.netfirms.com/o_gramatici.htm Fact is that this language have both, eastern and western Slavic features, but it have more western ones, and it is linguistically closer to Slovak. It is not same as Slovak, but only share largest number of its features with Slovak. PANONIAN   (talk)  01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
To prevent continual edit warring, can I suggest you list this disagreement at Requests for comment since doesn't seem to be getting resolved here. It may help to have an uninterested party or two look it over. Yomangani 10:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile I have reverted to restore the categorization and the ethnic group template. Removing them was unhelpful. Within the template I have stated that the Pannonian Rusyns are related to the Rusyns and other Slavic peoples: I don't think anyone would argue with that. Andrew Dalby 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They are also related to Slovaks because their language is more similar to Slovak than to (northern) Rusyn. Regarding edit war, we deal here with known vandal that constantly vandalizing articles related to Slavic peoples including removal of the tables and changing of populatioon figures. There are very few of his changes that are not reverted by other users. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It still might be a good idea to take it to Requests for comment, if only to reach a consensus and stop the uninformed (like me) reverting what looks like vandalism. Sometimes it can help put a stop to POV edit warring before it becomes a point of honour. Yomangani 12:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not know how to take it to the Requests for comment, you can do it if you want, but my point is that comment should not be about this article, but about this anonymous user. See his changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=72.144.60.29 He performing this content blanking into several articles (for example Yugoslavs, Silesians, Muslims by nationality, Slavic peoples, Janjevci, etc). It is clear that we deal here with vandal and comment should be about his edits in general, not about one of the articles that he edit. PANONIAN   (talk)  14:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You can accuse me of vandalism all you want but it won't change the fact that "Yugoslavs", "Muslims by nationality", and especially "Slavic peoples" are not distinct ethnic groups and therefore do not merit "infoboxes". We're getting too infobox trigger happy. 72.144.150.20 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That IS NOT A FACT, but your PERSONAL OPINION!!!! Who are you to tell to people that nationality that they declare in census does not exist? You are smarter that thousands of people that declare themselves as Yugoslavs or as Muslims by nationality? I do not think so... PANONIAN   (talk)  22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Who qualifies as an ethnic group?
There is a dispute over whether Pannonian Rusyns qualify as a separate ethnic group from Rusyns. 18:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * Pannonian Rusyns are no more a distinct ethnic group from Rusyns than German-Americans are from Germans. Therefore they do not merit an "ethnic group" infobox separate from Rusyns. Also see Places inhabited by Rusyns.72.144.150.20 18:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Pannonian Rusyns speak an Western Slavic language and (northern) Rusyns speak an Eastern Slavic. One same ethnic group cannot speak two so different languages, while both, Germans and German-Americans speak one same language - German. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion:
 * I see three problems here:
 * Defining 'ethnic group' and 'ethnic subgroup'
 * Providing sources to back up statements as to whether Pannonian Rusyns are a separate ethnic group (or subgroup) or not
 * If they are a subgroup whether the ethnic group infobox is applicable.


 * Here are couple of definitions of ethnic group:
 * Ethnic group from WP which gives a wide definition based on any number of cultural,linguistic or genetic characteristics
 * people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture (from )
 * ...and a whole host of definitions from Google
 * Also, WikiProject_Ethnic_groups seem to have accepted the use of 'ethnic group' in its widest sense (there was even talk of including Barbary pirates as an ethnic group)


 * Ethnic subgroup seems to be used merely to differentiate ethnic groups by an alternative characteristic (so German-Americans may be seen as an ethnic subgroup of European Americans, which in turn may be an ethnic subgroup of 'white' Americans)


 * From most of these definitions it appears that we can define an ethnic group as any group that believes itself (or is believed by other ethnic groups) to be an ethnic group, so if Pannanion Rusyns in general claim they are an ethnic group then they are.


 * However from point 2 - Wikipedia demands verifiability and no original research, so in order to make the statement that they are an ethnic group or subgroup you must provide citations for the use of these terms that are from reputable sources, otherwise any editor is perfectly entitled to remove any statements that appear to be opinion. I can't tell whether the current references back this up, but they are not specically listed as supporting these statements. Equally, specifically claiming in the article that they are not an ethnic group would need references


 * As to point 3 (whether the ethnic group infobox is applicable to subgroups), I can't see a policy exists on this, but as it would seem an ethnic subgroup is just a more tightly defined ethnic group, this should be a moot point.


 * Hope this helps. Yomangani 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment (my interest is that there should be articles in Wikipedia about minority languages and ethnic groups). I agree with the following as expressed by Yomangani above: "it appears that we can define an ethnic group as any group that believes itself (or is believed by other ethnic groups) to be an ethnic group, so if Pannonian Rusyns in general claim they are an ethnic group then they are." The distinction between group and subgroup cannot be precise and is therefore not much help in deciding on the format of encyclopedia articles. While respecting the opinions of individual editors (including local experts!) I think it's best for users if the Pannonian Rusyns have an article and an infobox. Andrew Dalby 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents

 * I think both names (present time)Ruthenians and Rusyns are okay, though i prefer Rusyns as its something like Hungarian and Magyar, most if not all Hungarians call themselves Magyars.


 * I also believe Pannonian Rusyns are ethnically Carpathian Rusyns from east Slovakia region, which were separated hundreds of years ago. I have personally been to Serbia and Slovakia (spoke with people who identify themselves as Rusyn) and can say that the language is almost identical. With one having slight Serbian tones and the other Slovak tones. But the key similarity was in the words they share which are not part of the Serbian of Slovak languages.


 * As such the spelling Rusin IMHO, should not be used for Pannonian Rusyns as they are the same ethnicity as the Rusyns which inhabit eastern Slovakia.

Many Germans consider the Austrians to be Germans. And ironically many Russians consider the Ukrainians to to Russians. If the governments of the USSR, Ukrainian SSR and modern day Ukraine were to recognise the Rusyns as a distinct ethnicity within the nation of Ukraine then things might be different for the Rusyns of that region.

Idiszero 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A broken link
This link is broken. Is the sentence "the number of Panonian Rusyns declines" correct? Because I suspect it should be either "has declined" or even "is declining", but I can't determine based on the unavailable article.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pannonian 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422082420/http://www.ruskikerestur.com/Anglijski/OkerestureAnglijski.htm to http://www.ruskikerestur.com/Anglijski/OkerestureAnglijski.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306230621/http://www.blic.rs/reportaza.php?id=81230 to http://www.blic.rs/reportaza.php?id=81230
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227001603/http://www.pravosudje.hr/europska-povelja-o-regionalnim-ili-manjinskim-jezi to http://www.pravosudje.hr/europska-povelja-o-regionalnim-ili-manjinskim-jezi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621144948/http://www.sriu.hr/hrvatski/RusiniHrvatske.htm to http://www.sriu.hr/hrvatski/RusiniHrvatske.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Why Pannonian?
If anyone checks the map, it's clear, that almost none of them live in Pannonia—almost all of Rusyns in Voivodina live outside of Pannonia. Why Pannonian? Anyway, Pannonia inside Voivodina means Syrmia and only Syrmia in the ancient meaning. If somebody means the Pannonian Basin under the term Pannonian, than all Rusyns of nowadays' Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine and Rumania should be included. If somebody means the Pannonian Lowland under the term Pannonian: at least Hungary and Ukraine also have Rusyns on Pannonian Lowland, not only Voivodina. I really don't understand this new naming. Capras Dávid (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is just happens to be the most widely-used, english-language ethnonym. Despite modern populations in the lowlands of Slovakia, Hungary, etc., historically, this was the most significant migrant community in the Basin. KaerbaqianRen 💬 07:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)