Talk:Medzhybizh

Name

Before we start another revert war, here is one source that specifically uses Sieniawski: Google print link. Plus, the whole family, which provided many Commonwealth hetmans, is frequently referred to by the Polish spelling in books listed on Google Print.

If you want to "depolonize" the spelling, please provide English-language sources that would justify this.

Finally, if you really think the Polish form should not be used, then consider moving the whole Mikołaj Sieniawski article, and discuss things on that talk page. Balcer 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said ad nauseum before, all the articles on 15th-century and 16th-century Lithuanian nobles should be moved to their Ruthenian names, as those nobles had no Polish and would have revolted to see themselves referred to by Polish monickers. I know that fighting polonization in this project is next to impossible so I leave the task to Ukrainian and Belarusian editors. If they like some of the most important Ukrainian/Belarusian historical personalities to sit at Polish names, well, it's their choice. --Ghirla | talk 15:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it concensus has not been reached in favor of such a move. Still, I must say I missed out on that discussion. Can you tell me where it was conducted? Anyway, I would suggest transparent linking to the Mikołaj Sieniawski article for now, as such direct linking to the actual article name seems to be a good practice. If you have some good sources that show the name should be changed, please present them on Talk:Mikołaj Sieniawski. Balcer 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Check Talk:Michael Glinski, for example. --Ghirla | talk 15:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) at Mediation Cabal

A long-simmering editorial dispute between Klezmer (talk · contribs) and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs) over how to deal with information about certain Hasidic topics has reached the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Please see and provide any helpful input at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). Thank you, IZAK 16:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Synagogue

The last time I visited Medzhibozh, I was told that the stone fortress-like synagogue was that of R. Sirkes. To me it looked very old, which would match. To claim it is the Apter Rebbe's shul (which would be not that old in the scheme of things in Ukraine), we need a citation. That's news to me and other references (c.f. Chapin & Weinstock, p. 133).--Klezmer (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I ran across the reference to the Bick's synagogue in the Wiki article Rapoport-Bick (rabbinic dynasty) that does NOT support the premise that this was the Apter Rebbe's shul. I'll give you guys a couple of weeks to come up with a valid citation to prove your point, otherwise I will revert it back to the way it was (which apparently is well-supported).--Klezmer (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Polish name

Here it's listed as Międzybórz, Międzyborz or Międzybóż. The Polish Wikipedia has it as Międzybuż or Międzyboż. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.150.112 (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyplace I've ever seen it spelled in Polish, it's always Międzybóż. But these documents are from the 18th century. Don't know how it was spelled in Polish before or since. c.f. Rosman, M. Founder of Hasidism 1996, ISBN 0-520-20191-4, who has reproduced many original documents from that era.--Klezmer (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax list from Medzhybizh, 1758

There seems to be controversy about the exact spelling of Medzhybizh in Polish. At least in old Polish, it is spelled with a diacritical mark over the last o. See for instance Rosman's usage in the reference cited above. And if you don't believe Rosman, here's a document I found in the Czartoryski Archive from 1758 with the same spelling. And don't tell me it comes from a different town, because there's all kinds of evidence that it's from the town we are talking about in this article. --Klezmer (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And while we're discussing the origin of the name of the town, I've visited the region and can attest to the locals claiming the river is indeed the Bug river, meaning "God" in the local language. At least that's what they've told me. In fact, they call it the Yuzhny Bug River, meaning the Southern Bug, to distinguish it from the more well-known northern counterpart.--Klezmer (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, while we're discussing the name in various languages, I can't find one reference that has the German spelling as now listed in the article. I have several German maps - one from WWI and another from WWII and they seem to use the Polish spelling.--Klezmer (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of your queries can be explained by a knowledge of the languages. In early slavic languages vowel use was yet distinctly formulated. It is the use of vowels which is one of the main distinction between Polish, Ukrainian, and Russian. i.e. The word milk:

Pol: mleko, Ukr: moloko, Russ (pronounced malako) written moloko.

All have the mlk but the use of vowels is different.

In Ukrainian when a syllable is opened (i.e. it is a consonant followed by a vowel) it is voiced i.e. vo, when it is closed (consonant-vowel-consonant) it is transformed into an i. This is done to make the language smoother. Thus we have: Pol: Lwow, Ukr: Lviv, Russ: Lvov.

However, when we go to Lviv in Ukrainian it's v Lvo-vi, not Lvi-vi.

In the case of the river: in Ukrainian it is known as Boh (In Russian Bog, and in Polish also Bog). In the locative case the h/ ending - h changes to a zhe in Ukrainian, and g to a ge in Russian. Occasionally the o is pronounced midway between a o and an oo. (u).

Yuzhny is Russian, Bug is also a Russian pronunciation. In Ukrainian it is Pivdennyj The diacritical mark only means that the accent within the word falls on that syllable. The accentation in Polish and Ukrainian often fall on different syllables from each other. In texts for words that may not be well known by the reader or in encyclopedias these accents help to determine the pronunciation of the term.

What is interesting is that the Yiddish version reflects the manner in which the name of the town is pronounced by the local Ukrainian population. Bandurist (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

The numbers for the population of the town are a bit screwed.

In 1571:

You had 96 Ruthenians, 35 Jews, 30 Poles for a total of 161 inhabitants.

In 1648:

Apparently the town had 12,000 inhabitants and 5,000 Jews were killed by the Cossacks.

In 1678

You had 275 Jews living in the town.

In 1765

You had a 2039 Jews living in the town making up approximately 50% i.e. 5000 people

This is part of the golden age of the town's development.

In 1897

You had 6040 Jews (64%) of the population of 8164.

In 1926

You had 4614 Jews (52.18%) despite the numerous pogroms and mass emigration during the revolution.

In 1942

2558 Jews were massacred by the Nazis.

In 2001

The total population is currently 1168.

What stands out in these numbers, are the 5000 Jews massacred in 1648 out of a population of 12,000.

I don't think that the city had such a large population at that time, nor could it support a population of 12,000. IMHO the population is out by a factor or 10, and should be around 1200. This then makes the Jewish massacre numbersat the hands of the Cossacks disproportionate. IMHO this number is also out by a factor of 10.

When analysing the numbers for the total Jewish population for 1648 in Ukraine, (which is estimated at being 40-50,000 Jews) this town had 1/10 of Ukraine's Jewish population which seems to me incorrect, possibly an overstatement or an inaccurate source.

Whewre is the source for this number and Can anyone enlighten me as to why such a large population of Jews were living in this city, and how many actually died in the Massacres and pogroms.

Thanks,

Bandurist (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You butchered this article up so bad, you failed to read the original words: "At the time, there were approximately 12,000 residents of Medzhybizh and environs." That would be the entire estate lands, probably the size of Podolia itself. Remember, at the time, Medzhibizh was essentially the only large town for many tens of kilometers. The source is Chapin and Weinstock, 2000, listed in the article. They, in turn, reference each population source, you can look it up in there. --Klezmer (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

All chronicles usually overstate the casualties by the factor of 10. Consider that in 1648 Cracow had a population of 20000.Galassi (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of interpretation, that's simply what the original source says. Therefore, they are Wiki facts according to Wiki rules. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It has to be reported as-is with no judgment, whether you agree with the numbers or not. --Klezmer (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Subtelny's Ukraine: a History (p.127–128) says

Within a few months, almost all Polish nobles, officials, and priests had been wiped out or driven from Ukraine. Jewish losses were especially heavy because they were the most numerous and accessible representatives of the szlachta regime. Between 1648 and 1656, tens of thousands of Jews—given the lack of reliable data, it is impossible to establish more accurate figures—were killed by the rebels, and to this day the Khmelnytsky uprising is considered by Jews to be one of the most traumatic events in their history.

This passage is endnoted with the following (sorry for the long quotation):

Estimates of Jews killed in the uprising have been greatly exaggerated in the historiography of the event. According to B. Weinryb, the total of losses reported in Jewish sources is 2.4 million to 3.3 million deaths, clearly a fantastic figure. Weinryb cites the calculations of S. Ettinger indicating that about 50,000 Jews lived in the area where the uprising occurred. See B. Weinryb, "The Hebrew Chronicles on Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Cossack-Polish War," Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1 (1977): 153-77. While many of them were killed, Jewish losses did not reach the hair-raising figures that are often associated with the uprising. In the words of Weinryb (The Jews of Poland, 193-4), "The fragmentary information of the period—and to a great extent information from subsequent years, including reports of recovery—clearly indicate that the catastrophe may have not been as great as has been assumed." Bandurist (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? Seems to me that last I checked, Chapin and Weinstock also did an analysis of historical epics and probably compared it to Weinryb. Their number is 5000, which doesn't seem to me to be so far out of line. You have to consider that as a source. Look, it's not our job to rule on whether one source is more legitimate than another. According to Wiki rules, if a source reports something, you have to include it, whether you agree with it or not.--Klezmer (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI- "Hist.Lid" combines casualties from Medzh. AND Bar. So it was 2500, not 5000.Galassi (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop these reverts and start collaborating

The recent history of the article shows a revert war in which three editors repeatedly revert each other's versions of the article to their own previous version. Matters are made worse by the fact that few of the statements under dispute are supported by references, thus it's one editor's opinion against another. Please stop, reflect on Wiki's principles, and collaborate via this page. In particular, please stop reverting multiple edits to multiple sections; this is very disruptive. Instead, please improve one point at a time, supplying sources to support each change and accurately describing the change in the edit summary. Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It would also be nice if the edit warriors stated point by point what there problem with the article is (1, 2, etc.) -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bug / Buh

The article uses both versions of the river name. Can we settle on one version or the other for consistency within the article? (Redirects already exist so changing the name where it is wikilinked is no problem).

For my two-penne'th I'd suggest we use the Ukrainin transliteration, Buh, since that is the contemporary national language of the loaction. Of the three present occurrences of Bug two are in a contemporary context (caption to a modern photo and "sites to see) which seem unjustified. The only occurrence where I would consider that the historical context may justify using a former spelling is in "Earliest history" where the river is mentioned in the context of an era of Polish administration.

-- Timberframe (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. The river was previously known as Boh, and was changed during Soviet times to Buh (in its Ukrainian transliteration). My understanding was Boh means God and the Soviets didn't want a river to be named God and towns such as "Between Gods" to exist. There is another river called Bug in Poland and obviously this adds tot the confussion. Having it as Buh differentiates it from the Polish Bug river and adding the term Southern to Southern Bug. Bandurist (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern Ukrainian maps have Southern Buh. I would suggest we use that one. And I guess the origin is unclear. Even though it seems to have been pronounced Boh or Bog in Polish it doesn't have to have the meaning God [1]. Närking (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Notoriety of "Famous people associated with Medzhybizh"

Forgive me for insulting what I'm guessing are the relatives of contributors, but the last third or so of [list of famous people] seems to be made up of people who aren't actually famous. The list starts with Sirkes and the Baal Shem Tov, but by the end we're reading about tailors and bankers of no particular note -- as evidenced by none of them having pages of their own. I don't mean to say their stories aren't interesting -- as a descendant of a tailor from Medzhybizh, I was happy to see their stories, but I would cast a vote for their removal. I hesitate to do it myself without first raising the issue, as this seems to happen in lots of articles. Rabdill (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medzhybizh. 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/20081008004028/http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/wumag_old/archiv/1_99/medz.htm to http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/wumag_old/archiv/1_99/medz.htm/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)