Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian nobility of Galicia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian nobility of Galicia[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious WP:Content forking of articles Ruthenian nobility and Szlachta. The article seems to be written in a very one-sided manner, with a clear goal: most of the nobility in Galicia had Ukrainian ancestry from time immemorial, i.e. from the early Middle Ages, and despite "Polonization" they always remained Ukrainian. This statement is, of course, fundamentally false, because the history of the formation of the noble state is much more complicated, involving a large influx of nobles from Poland, the ruthenization of nobles of Polish origin, the Polonization of nobles of Ruthenian origin, the influx of people from Romania, Germany, Hungary and so on.

The article, by the way, is based largely on the writings of Ukrainian researcher Lubov Slivka, who has promoted precisely this way of seeing the issue, which has been criticized by other researchers. Polish researcher Konrad Rzemieniecki wrote in his review of her work: Summing up the book itself, one can say that the author approached the research with a preconceived thesis and selected sources under this thesis. If one were to reverse the selection of sources and rely mainly on Roman Catholic metric books, materials of only Polish social organizations and interviews only with Polish representatives of the Galician petty gentry, one could easily show that most of the petty gentry were part of the Polish nation.

The article contains sentences that are downright false: Western Ukrainian nobles enjoyed the legal rights and privileges of other nobles. They had their own court system and unlike Ukrainian peasants were not under the authority of the Polish landlords. - suggests that there was a legal separation between Polish and Ukrainian nobles, which isn't true since 1430 when Red Ruthenia was fully incorporated into the Polish Crown. The elected heads of self-governing Ukrainian noble communities were called prefects. - there was no such office in PLC as prefect. Unlike Ukrainian peasants, Ukrainian nobles worked on their own lands and were not forced to work for the Polish nobility. They enjoyed their own court system and were not under the authority of local Polish-dominated courts. - again article suggests that there was a legal separation between Polish and Ukrainian nobles, this time in Austro-Hungary, which isn't true. In contrast to the Polish nobles who had owned serfs, the Ukrainian nobles did not experience economic losses when serfdom was abolished. - the article suggests that "wealthy noble = Pole, poor noble = Ukrainian" or that only Polish nobles were so evil to own serfs; reality wasn't that simple. These are just examples.

The article generally focuses on Polish-Ukrainian relations, we will not learn much about, for example, the relationship with the Austrian government during the partition period, the relationship with Russia, the Soviet Union. The position of the descendants of this social group in modern Ukraine, etc.

Moreover, the title itself is unclear. The use of the term "Galicia" suggests the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, an Austrian administrative unit. But the article focuses on the eastern part of it. Moreover, there is no mention of nobility, but rather of petty nobility. I believe that the article in its current state and in this view does not meet the requirements, those parts that meet the requirements should be combined with Ruthenian nobility.

Of course, the subject of Ukrainian nobility or Petty gentry in Galicia itself is worth describing, but not in this form and impartially. Marcelus (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses multiple sources as can be seen in the sources, it is not based on a single source. Slivka is a reliable source. She is a historian at a Ukrainian university who specializes on this topic. She has written a lot about it, thus her works are heavily used, but other works are also used, such as John-Paul Himka, the Encyclopedia of Ukraine published by University of Toronto Press [1] and several others. If you feel that other reliable sources contradict her conclusions, feel free to also include them. Feel free to include additional information about topics not covered in this article, such as the relationship with Russia, Austria, Soviet Union, etc. (it is covered briefly actually, but can certainly be expanded). In other words, improve and expand the article rather than delete an article with numerous sources.Faustian (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the criticism of Slivka by Konrad Rzemieniecki. He complains that her work is focused on the East Slavic/Ruthenian/Ukrainian petty gentry of the Carpathians and ignored those of Podolia, who likely were of Polish colonist origins. It's a sort of irrelevant criticism with respect to this article. The focus of Slivka's work is the East Slavic/Ukrainian petty gentry in Galicia, not the Polish one that was also present there. Each group lived in different parts of Galicia. So his criticism doesn't make much sense. The scope of her work (and of this article) isn't about all gentry in Eastern Galicia but only the Ukrainian ones specifically.Faustian (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rzemieniecki criticizes the fact that Slivka is actually describing petty nobility in a small area, when in fact the title of the work suggests otherwise. But this is only one element of the work he criticizes in his review, not at all the most important. The most important criticism is ethnocentrism and writing the work for a predetermined purpose, that is, to show that the majority of the petty gentry in Galicia was 100% Ukrainian, and in fact always has been. The article repeats this fallacy. This makes Slivka not reliable, and the article largely a historical hoax. Marcelus (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each group lived in different parts of Galicia. So his criticism doesn't make much sense. The scope of her work (and of this article) isn't about all gentry in Eastern Galicia but only the Ukrainian ones specifically; This is what the fallacy of the article is all about. These groups were not separate, and their identities were complex. I am able to imagine an article Petty gentry in Eastern Galicia that would describe the subject honestly. But the current take is pure WP:NATIONALISM. Marcelus (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the article is pinned to the article from Russian Wikipedia: Шляхта королевства Галиции и Лодомерии и герцогства Буковина (Nobility of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and the Duchy of Bukovina); which is completely different topic. Marcelus (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. It is well-sourced with sufficiently numerous WP:RS. See WP:ATD: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. It seems like Marcelus' nomination is mostly about him disagreeing with what is written in the article. If the statements in the article are wrong, then they should be corrected according to reliable sources not WP:OR. The presupposition that the mention of Galicia is about the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria instead of the region of Galicia (Eastern Europe) is absurd.Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Last1in @Cukrakalnis I disagree. The main reason why I think the article should be removed is WP:Content forking, it is an artificially separated part of the article: Ruthenian nobility, Nobility and the currently non-existent Nobility in Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (or another version of the name).

The second reason is WP:NATIONALISM: Ethnic group does not stem from another ethnic group. This is a fundamental problem with this article. The article now conclusively resolves the nationality of the petty gentry social group in the area. Marcelus (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Taking the second item first: WP:NATIONALISM is an excellent point and seems valid. That would warrant a {{POV}} banner, not deletion. WP:CFORK is harder to evaluate here. Comparing the Ruthenian nobility article to this one, I don't see this as just a CFORK. Even if we can assume that Slivka is hopelessly biased and thus an invalid source, the depth of other sources makes it difficult to substantiate that argument. I remain unconvinced. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that you have made a far strong case for NPOV (and improvement) than for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for WP:CFFORK is that it is an artificial separation of part of a socially homogeneous group (petty gentry) in terms of ethnicity/nationality which is completely anachronistic for that time. We can move this article under the name Petty gentry in Eastern Galicia and work on removing the POV. But in my opinion, the article is written so badly and the POV is so extreme that working on it would mean writing from scratch anyway. Marcelus (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article is a case of WP:NATIONALISM. The article is literally called Ukrainian nobility of Galicia. There could very well be an article called Polish nobility of Galicia. Choosing to write about Canadians instead of Belgians is not a case of nationalist POV, so what Marcelus is saying regarding this is questionable. Also, considering what Marcelus quoted (Ethnic group does not stem from another ethnic group), I will say that specifying this sentence is a) rather tangential to what is being written about in this article or b) even worse, a case of WP:NPOV by Marcelus wanting to prioritize the Polish origins section as truth over the Ukrainian or East Slavic origins. As of now, both are equally presented in the section Origins. Both sections are presented with attributing statements, so I would not consider it as some NPOV text that must be removed due to it contradicting Wiki policy because it does not contradict Wiki policy as all potentially biased opinions seem to be attributed. Also, addressing the roots of a specific group is not necessarily nationalism - writing that Canadians are not descended from Belgians but instead from other groups is not a case of nationalist POV, so why would pointing out the East Slavic roots of Ukrainian nobles be nationalist? What Marcelus is saying is highly questionable.

I am more ambiguous about whether this is a WP:CFORK. This article is 40 kB, while the Ruthenian nobility is <28 kB. Putting the content of this article into the Ruthenian nobility would give the latter an overly heavy focus on a very limited region in Ukraine compared to the Ruthenian nobility article's scope actually being about far more than that. Either way, this article is rather informative and I see no reason for its deletion because its topic and content are notable and should not be erased from history or Wikipedia.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

even worse, a case of WP:NPOV by Marcelus wanting to prioritize the Polish origins section as truth over the Ukrainian or East Slavic origins; that's an obvious misinterpretation of my words, I never advocated for such thing. On the contrary, I object to the categorical, POV views, presented in the article, that the petty gentry in Galicia was purely "biologically" Ruthenian/Ukrainian. The truth is that it was mixed, with many families coming from central Poland or other countries and regions.

As of now, both are equally presented in the section Origins; this section is an exceptional POV. It contrasts the obvious strawman of "Polish historians of the 1930s" as preachers of false theses, with the position of "modern Ukrainian historians" who easily refute their theses. The conclusion is clear: the petty nobility in Ukraine has always been fully Ruthenian/Ukrainian. I don't know how one can fail to see the fallacy in this section.

I am more ambiguous about whether this is a WP:CFORK. This article is 40 kB, while the Ruthenian nobility is <28 kB. Putting the content of this article into the Ruthenian nobility would give the latter an overly heavy focus on a very limited region in Ukraine compared to the Ruthenian nobility article's scope actually being about far more than that; please read WP:POVFORK, and as I said there is little to be salvaged here. And really it's a fork of non-existing right now Petty gentry of Eastern Galicia article or something of the sort. Marcelus (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not an appropriate article for AfD per Cukrakalnis's quote of AtD as well as AfD itself: Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. This is not a severe case. The article needs a lot of work and probably an NPOV tag, not deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comments above.Faustian (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussions so that this overly long deletion rationale can be fully considered. Of course, as with all relisting, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ruthenian nobility. GScholar/Books show next to zero hits for "Ukrainian nobility of Galicia". There is some referenced content here that may be valuable to merge, but the article's title and nom's comment suggest serious POVFORK/OR issues. Also noting no interwikis, even to uk wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that, is that this is an article about a specific and discrete group - the ethnic Ukrainian gentry of Galicia. They have their own history and circumstances different from those of other regions.Faustian (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. NYC Guru (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.