Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe): Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Eastern Europe (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Austria C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Human geography C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Celts C‑class Mid‑importance Galicia (Eastern Europe) is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Galicia and Lodomeria page were merged into Galicia (Eastern Europe). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think I got to to object to inclusion of this text [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, here are my changes: [2].Faustian (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without endorsing new or old name, this article was improperly moved. It should be moved back to Galicia (Eastern Europe), and a proper WP:RM should be started for one or more of the new proposed names (presumably, Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe) and Galicia (Central Europe)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}, I have spent over three hours reverting changes done by this particular Editor and a) I'm not the only Editor working on this and b) I'm not done yet. I believe it was all done in good faith but it created a heck of a lot of work for everyone else to clean up and impacted probably over a hundred articles and categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per both Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Liz, my concern is with following Wikipedia protocols (WP:NOR, WP:WIAN, WP:COMMONNAME, etc.). I spent 4 hours undoing this editor's 'contributions' yesterday. If there is a case to be made for other categories, they must go through the correct channels and not be executive decisions on behalf of a single user. This user has also recategorized Jewish historical articles and current Polish and Ukrainian regions according to a unilateral interpretation. I'm extremely irate at having had to dedicate so much of my Wikipedia time to cleaning up and, like Liz, I've not finished following the breadcrumbs either. Whatever our personal positions may be on any given subject, policies and guidelines exist for good reason. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The irony, Iryna Harpy, is that there might be a good argument for making this change (I see that Galacia is listed under Central Europe in the WMF Commons). But individual Editors can not rewrite geographical boundaries that impact this many articles without gaining a consensus to make this change.

When I think of the hours both Iryna and I have spent on this (I'd guess it's at least 8 or 9 at this point), it shows how a well-intentioned but misguided Editor who knows how to edit Wikipedia can inflict a lot more turmoil than a vandal who doesn't know what they are doing.

I'm going a similar debate elsewhere where a single Editor decided that being "Jewish" meant that one was "of Asian descent", no matter what country they came from and lived. Hence, we come up with categories like "Icelandic Jews with Asian descent" (when the individuals are are clearly European) and this situation apparently has existed since the summer. It makes me even more watchful towards categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the complaint at WP:AN today that this page was moved without discussion, I moved it back and put on two months of move protection. This is without prejudice to any Requested move that might be opened. I also notified two editors of the WP:ARBEE sanctions since (whether intended in a nationalistic spirit or not) such undiscussed moves might be viewed as nationalist warring. Is it more prestigious to be located in central Europe rather than eastern Europe? One of the parties I notified had moved more than a dozen pages on 16 November to refer to central rather than eastern Europe. That person I think doesn't grasp WP:CONSENSUS since their talk page proclaims how technical this should be; she sees herself as just fixing things to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few slippery customers lurking around, including the other party you warned, EdJohnston. I left an additional note for the party currently in question as the purported naivety issue can easily be dismissed simply by taking a look at a Teahouse question submitted in January of this year and editor responses: which were polite but clear on the issue of policy, guidelines, consensus and consultation with other editors. Personally, Liz, I could argue myself into a stroke over the terminology. I suspect that, possibly despite myself, I'd have to argue for retaining the current conventions as secondary sources wouldn't be able to establish any conventional use of 'central European' for the areas under dispute. The term Central European is used in Linguistics, but it evolved simply as an academic device to distinguish between non-Romance and non-Germanic languages using Latin rather than Cyrillic scripts. I've seldom encountered the use of 'central European' and certainly no 'central Europe'. We don't use the terms 'South Europe', 'East Europe' (et al) but 'Western' and 'Northern' without an absolute centre having been defined. The policies of no original research and NPOV may be awfully frustrating but they serve a vital function: saving ourselves from ourselves. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. But this was waaaay more than a dozen pages affected. It took two people much of the past 24 hours to undo, revert and fix the hundreds of articles, lists and categories that were affected (and I'm sure there were some we missed). Just look at the 300+ contributions of Martina from November 16 and almost every single one of them had to be addressed. If this hadn't concerned an obscure regional area of the Ukraine, it might have been caught sooner. As it was, I think Iryna just luckily stumbled on to one of the involved pages yesterday (and me, today) and got started repairing the damage. I didn't know this error had made it's way to AN/I but I'm glad it was addressed. However well-intentioned, it was a gigantic mess! Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Galicia was an isolated incident until I got to one of my low priority watchlist pages which I've been cleaning up and finding correct nomenclature and links for yesterday. As soon as I saw the user's name I checked her special contributions carefully and discovered just how 'special' they were! It wasn't even a job for HotCat (which Liz couldn't deploy until every page had been checked for changes manually). I think that between us we've probably sorted out most of the mess, but I still have to go through every page and any other related pages thoroughly a little later in the day. That's my Wikipedia day gone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More power to you, Iryna Harpy! I admire your thoroughness. I have had my fill. I wish to no longer see the name, Galacia! Well, at least until tomorrow. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My anal nature is more a curse than a blessing, Liz. Thanks for all of your hard work! If you ever need a hand with anything, feel free to drop me a line. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it has became clear, we should hold a new discussion (new, because the topic has been subject to several prior discussions - see archive of this talk page) on what should be the name of this article. We have three reasonable choices:

• Galicia (Eastern_Europe) (current)
• Galicia (Central_Europe)
• Galicia (Central and Eastern_Europe)

This topic is of course a larger part of the discussion about the bounders of Central Europe, Eastern Europe. Note we also have the articles on Central and Eastern Europe and East-Central Europe. This seems to be the usual variation of people disliking "Eastern Europe" (backwards, primitive, negatively connotated) and preferring the term "Central Europe" (modern, positively connotated). Please note that the current article defines Galicia (in an unreferenced way) as "a historical region in Eastern Europe that currently straddles the border between Poland and Ukraine". Ukraine is defined as a country in Eastern Europe (tough luck redefining that...) and Poland seems secured in Central Europe. (Thus my own personal preference is to rename this article to "Galicia (Central and Eastern_Europe)"). Unless there are any other proposed names, I'd like to start a RM to determine the consensus for which of those names is the best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe) as there is enough evidence of the use of variants on central European in Linguistics, political and other spheres for Poland being referred to as being a Central European country. The category must be proscribed, however, as Galicia per se is defunct, although it remains as a vernacular political ideology. Current Ukrainian regions cannot be incorporated on the basis of a mindset, however real it is. If the situation changes for Ukraine, of course it would need to be reviewed at that future point in time. As creating the category would also impact on articles on Jewish history, I would suggest that editors working on/involved with those areas should be consulted as to how it could be incorporated into their categories. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a move to Galicia (Central Europe), because I think the crucial factor is that eastern Galicia partly lies in Western Ukraine, a culturally distinct region that could more easily be described as Central European than perhaps Central, Southern and Eastern Ukraine. I also think there is another plausible name in Galicia (Carpathia) or a variant thereof, which avoids the whole Eastern/Central argument but then again not all of Galicia lies in the Carpathian Mountains. Whatever the outcome I think serious consideration should be given to recreating Category:Galicia (Central Europe) and whichever becomes the main category, the other should be kept as a category redirect. Green Giant (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just chime in here and suggest that this should be approached with caution, Green Giant. Despite various classifications of Poland as being an Eastern European country, there is also enough evidence of its being classified as a Central European country to be able to retain such a classification in Wikipedia. While Poland is currently categorized as being Central European, the ramifications of declaring Galicia as the same may attract attention which may blow up into an undesirable ideological backlash. Bear in mind that articles such as Ugartsthal, carry the Galicia category for historical purposes and, consequently, so does the Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast (as do other former Galician territories). Ukraine is unequivocally categorized as being Eastern Europe and being defined as both Central Europe and Eastern Europe for the same article may raise challenges which can only be responded to with emotive arguments: all English secondary sources regard Ukraine as Eastern Europe. Factoring in a potentially conservative decision on the matter, raising a question mark over whether the category for Poland should be tweaked to reflect both Eastern and Central European classifications is not a direction I'd like to hazard. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the term "central Europe" disappeared during the Cold War, when Galicia was certainly in the east. There is a POV issue as to where the east in a tripartite division, east, central, and west should be. I would suggest that the eastern boundary of USSR would be a good one to identify to split east and central, with France at the beginning of the west. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cold War is long gone...--Martina Moreau (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cold War may be "long gone" (sic) but, considering that the CIS was quickly established after the fall of the Soviet Union, there is merit in Peterkingiron's observation. Dependent on the multitude of sources at our disposal, there appears to be a consistency in having transposed the post-WWII boundaries of the USSR as being the template (bar East Germany and Poland) for current interpretation of east and west in English-language sources. Like it or not, English-language sources are considered the first point of reference as secondary sources for English Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How about using the Library of Congress subject heading Galicia (Poland and Ukraine)? [3] — Kpalion^(talk) 23:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support that (very specific and to the point, and equivalent of Galicia, Spain), or "central Europe". Others have too little merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martina Moreau (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go for thinking outside the box, Kpalion! It would certainly circumvent geopolitical disputes while simultaneously carrying cultural continuity as being read. I like to analyse it a little further as there may be some less obvious pitfalls... but it's definitely an option worthy of consideration. Addendum: I've already identified a potential problem in that it may be construed to imply the entirety of two modern, sovereign nation-states as somehow being a single entity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying possible pitfalls for any idea is certainly a good thing, but I believe most Wikipedia readers are aware that Poland and Ukraine are two separate countries today. The existence of historical regions straddling modern national borders shouldn't be particulary surprising either. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly an interesting idea, through to keep parallel with Galicia, Spain we probably should consider Galicia, Poland and Ukraine? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, Galicia, Poland and Ukraine reads too much like a series of three entities. For the sake of consistency, it might be better to move Galicia, Spain to Galicia (Spain). — Kpalion^(talk) 13:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kpalion: that's a good solution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you've astutely observed below, Prokonsul Piotrus, if we are to be precise about the straddling of borders, it would have to be defined as Galicia: Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine (or some variant on the structure). BUT ...

I SEE AN INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM WITH THIS OPTION- I knew there was a stirring in my cynical bones regarding the use of current nation-states as qualifiers. If we were a body like the Library of Congress, we could proscribe the use of such a convention. As an entity working within the structure of Wikipedia, we can't proscribe its use and need to recognise that we could be setting a highly undesirable precedent open to interpretation in any area of Wikipedia. For example, there would be no reason to disallow the use of Russian Empire: Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Poland, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan.... (obviously, for the sake of sanity, I'm omitting the vast number of etceteras and specific historical sub-regions which could be popped into a category). Multiply this by various interest groups and geopolitically sensitive areas (oh, let's say the Middle East). Are you getting a sense of the ramifications of the transposition of historical regions onto modern nation-states/modern nation-states being transposed over historical regions? Even if looked at as case by case application for changing or adding new categories, even if they're not snuck in, there is going to be an avalanche of submissions to an infrastructure that is already overburdened. The time and energy required is not justifiable. I've fallen behind with projects in serious need of attention just over this one matter over the last few days. Wikipedia's health must be my foremost concern.

CONCLUSION - Workable: yes. Ethically appropriate for 'project Wikipedia': a 'categorical' no! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Striking comment. Off on a tangent heading in a completely different direction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna, I don't think I really understand your point. Russian Empire and Middle East don't need disambiguating, so why bring them up here? There is little doubt as to where Poland and Ukraine are located today, as opposed to Central Europe and Eastern Europe, of which nobody knows for sure where they are. I still think that Galicia (Poland and Ukraine) is the most neutral and workable option. Galicia (not the one in Spain) or Galicia (Central Europe or Eastern Europe, depending on whom you ask) may be neutral too, but not as workable. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd, I'm as thick as two planks. My apologies. I'd forgotten that this would be used explicitly as a disambiguation, hence automatically proscribing its use. I'm striking the previous comment. Any thoughts on the Slovakia and other peripheral regions issue (although I can see that keeping it simple - largest areas - is probably justifiable)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tend to use the UN guidelines on geography and (continental) regions and the UN does not identify "Central Europe", keeping the divisions of Europe to North, South, East and West. I'm sorry that some people perceive a stigma to any geographic location identifier but I think it's important to have a NPOV and not let any nationalistic feelings define regional names, especially those that are based on compass directions, not place names.

So, while I accept that some people might use a "Central Europe" identifier, I don't use it myself. But I understand that I might not represent the majority opinion on Wikipedia or accepted practice (which I follow). The only matter I feel strongly about is that one country should be located in one region with not one part of the Ukraine in Central Europe while another part is considered Eastern European. When this is done, one is making geographic decisions based on similarities of culture, not on accepted boundaries. If this means that there are dissimilar cultures and demographic ethnicities within the borders of one country, well, welcome to modernity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I respect your opinion, but I'd just like to say that I completely disagree with you. It's quite normal to me that countries straddle regions and vice versa. There's an infinite number of ways in which you can divide the world into regions and any of these ways may be useful for a particular purpose. The UN scheme may be useful for the purpose of running the United Nations Organization – or at least it was when that organization was founded at the dawn of the Cold War. Depending on what criteria you accept, Poland may be a Central European country, an Eastern European country, or a Northern European country. It may be all of these at once; they are not mutually exclusive. And historical regions, such as Galicia, are notoriously volatile and fuzzy, and they tend to overlap a lot. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it is a contentious issue, Kpalion, and well-intentioned people will disagree. From my point of view, people can consider any place any way they want! I'm a native Northern Californian and, growing up there, there was a widespread view that Southern California should be split off from the North because it was like a separate state. And now I live in the woods of New Jersey and I'm aware that NJ, to a lot of people and in popular culture, is a toxic sinkhole. But my small town is beautiful. I understand, in a small way, the desire to separate one's location from ones neighbors and also how the name of a place can have negative connotations. So, if people in Poland or Galacia believe they live in "Central Europe", far be it from me to correct them.

But what we are concerned about here is not an individual's (or even a group's) point of view or even what was believed to be true in the past. This isn't 1713 or 1983, it's 2013 and while it should be noted how our understanding of geography has changed over time, Wikipedia needs to rely on recent reliable sources, not you or me or even an esteemed political historian. On WP, it comes down to a presentation of reliable sources and editors' powers of persuasion to arrive at consensus.

Much of geopolitics is volatile and fuzzy, I agree, because it involves a sense of personal and national identity. But, for better or worse, on WP, decisions have to be made one way or another or there has to be a consensus to decide an issue on a case-by-case basis. Either way, I can guarantee you that not everyone will be pleased with the outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the UN Statistical unit doe s NOT consider its classification as relevant worldwide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eastern_Europe#Response_from_the_UN_about_the_geoscheme

I think that this new map could use improved coloring (the light yellow, IMHO, is almost invisible). If you agree, please leave a comment with the author here. PS. Ping User:Gryffindor.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the map (above) and remembering my recent (summer 2012) trip to Galicia, in which we also crossed the Slovakian border, I find it really surprising that both the article, and the map, defines Galicia as only in Poland and Ukraine. Why isn't the borderland of Slovakia also seen as Galicia? If there are certain geographical features (Carpathians? Dukla Pass?) that draw a clear border between those regions, it would be great if we could describe it (and reference it). PS. Incidentally, pl wiki has some related artcles, neither of which does discuss this particular topic, but they are worth knowing about as a red links for the future, in particular the Polish-Slovakian border (pl:Granica polsko-słowacka) is to be noted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, could you be a but more specific, please? Which parts of Galicia do you think might belong to Slovakia (I can't think of any)? And do you have any sources? — Kpalion^(talk) 12:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kpalion: No sources, I just find it a bit dubious that based on the cited map the border between Poland and Slovakia seems to flow exactly mirroring the borders of Galicia. It may be correct - but it would be nice to have an explanation why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation why it hasn't changed? Why should it have? It's a natural border after all. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched for possible mentions of Galicia (Halič) as a part of Slovakia (in Slovak sources) but I can't find anything. Halič is described only as a part of Poland and Ukraine. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Piotrus is referring to is "Lemkivshchyna", an area that borders Galicia, was part of Austrian Galicia from 1772 and was split mainly between Poland and Slovakia, after a short lived republic. Perhaps the Wikipedia definition of Galicia needs to be looked at again? I too am curious about whether parts of Galicia might lie in Slovakia. I am also intrigued about the "natural border" that Kpalion refers to above. Green Giant (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]