Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia
|
|
| Contents |
Complaints about editing
Wetman. Your article does not match any basic standards NEIGHTER of Wikipedia NOR any other encyclopedia. There is no sense.
Good habits require not not to edit articles if a user does not have at least basic knowldege of the subject. I don intend to edit articles about nuclear phisics or information technology becouse my knowledge of these subjects is poor. You clearly does not have any knowlege of history of this area and language issues. Please. Stop doing mess.
I tried to explain you what is the point, but you appear not to understand my arguments or you just ignore it.
It should be deleted and the link redirected to Ruthenia. Alternatively the article could be replaced by text about Carpathian Ruthenia from Ruthenia page. I suppose other users interested in the subject will agree with me.
- Wait and see what other more experienced Wikipedians, with better self-control and more familiarity with open discourse and democratic procedure, think. Wetman 18:11, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Removal of the Jewish ghetto
East Slavic nationalists have attempted to remove the story of the lost Jews of Ruthenia into a separate article. I have returned the section, which is an integral part of Ruthene history. Non-Slavic Wikipedians will immediately recognize that the ghetto is not dead in Ruthenia, even after all the Jews have been eliminated. Let history stand. Nationalism and anti-semitism cannot be separated in east Slavic culture. Such people cannot conceive how disgraceful this stance appears to Europeans and educated Americans. Wetman 04:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I am am an educated american. And I am a bit confused by your objection/revert. From what I have seen at the wiki, large, controvercial portions of articles are covered in brief, and then linked to a seperate page where they are discussed in detail (and faught over, etc...). Linking is what the wiki is all about. Jack 07:20, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The moved piece not simply controversial, it is anti-Slavic. But I didn't remove a single word from it. It is a very nice example how the word "anti-Semitism" is used as a heavy weapon against not only political opponents, but mere bystandes like me. Mikkalai 08:09, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- But you must always keep in mind, "anti-semitic" is a more powerful word than "anti-slavic" in this postmodern world. There has been a cultural pecking order thru all of history, and our modern time is no exception. Jack 08:20, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I had in mind when I wrote "heavy weapon".Mikkalai 08:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- But you must always keep in mind, "anti-semitic" is a more powerful word than "anti-slavic" in this postmodern world. There has been a cultural pecking order thru all of history, and our modern time is no exception. Jack 08:20, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The question is not about controversy. If you look into List of Jewish history topics, you will find quite a few articles "History of Jews in..." or similar. And this is normal. Jews lived in diaspora almost everywhere. And they have history everywhere they lived. Germans also lived in many countries, so did Russians, Chinese, Irelands... Imagine the article history of a country which would consist of sections "History of Germans in XYZia" ""History of French in XYZia", "History of Ukrainians in XYZia"... Mikkalai 08:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Some citizens of Carpathian Ruthenia were Jews. Mikkalai and others don't see it that way. Ruthenians and the authorities registered them as "aliens." The idea that any Ruthenian happened to be Jewish is hard for Mikkalai to conceive. Now all the Jews of Ruthenia have been exterminated, except for a handful. They are history. And now their very historical existence is to be swept away into a separate article. "This is normal" Mikkalai tells us. Brilliant! Face the Holocaust, don't just give this historical development the NPOV label "controversial" —and then, move on: why is that "anti-slavic"? No one is mentioning "shame." Wetman 15:10, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Politeness
I want to remind everyone here to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette and to take any particularly contentious issues to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, Wikipedia:Peer review (I see its already here), or Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, as appropriate. I understand that you fellows have strong feelings here. That does not mean you cannot edit politely here, and focus on a concensus goal of a quality, informative, NPOV article :) Jack 07:25, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Politeness include actions as well as words. Deletions of material that is factually pretty accurate is not Wikipedian. If material counter to one's agenda looms disproportionately large, add some good solid information to give balanced context. This is good procedure anywhere at Wikipedia. Wetman 15:21, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
An Example of Removal
"Up to 1920 Carpathian Ruthenia formed part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. From 1920 to 1938 it continued to be neglected as part of Czechoslovakia, without significant autonomy. Hungarian rule followed the occupation of March 18, 1939, and then after 1944 the province was attached to the Soviet Union, and Russianized as a frontier area of the Ukraine. At present it is part of Ukraine, administered from Kiev."
This was recently removed. Can't it be NPOV'ed, and the facts put back into the article? Jack 08:20, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Jack, please look into the history. It was removed by accident. I probably hit "Save" on an older version. I immediately noticed that and restored. Apologied for inconvenience. Mikkalai 19:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is this the NPOV snippet: "it continued to be neglected"? Or, actually, just the word neglected —right? Why remove all that perfectly sound information? Just remove the little bit, the single word, which is critical equally of Austro-Hungary and Czechoslovakia. You might insert a brief sentence of your own about the lack of investment in this area between 1867 and 1945. The general problem is that people are so busy censoring at this entry, there hasn't been much contributing. So why not add some material to improve the context. It doesn't have to be all that earth-shattering: a list of towns with their populations, for instance? An NPOV word, indeed! Wetman 15:01, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I did not remove the it, and after your edit, I do accept its return, assuming their are not other objections? Jack 15:41, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Is it the word neglected that offends? I'm not quite clear. Perhaps User:Mikkalai who removed it, would be generous enough to edit out anything that doesn't suit him, and then return whatever remains to the article. User:Mikkalai is currently proposed for admin privileges, by the way, so his objections will soon count considerably! Wetman 16:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I will not be going to edit out anything. Presence of Jews in Ruthenia remained duly noted. Holocaust is duly noted. Your full text is just one mouse click away. Mikkalai 19:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The majority of the information given is false, does not match the subject (Carpathian Ruthenia), is offensive and extremely POV.
1. Wikipedians and readers should avoid confusion with different geographical and historical meanings of "Ruthenia," 'Rus'" and "Russia" which are easily confused in Slavic usages. English usage is followed in the English Wikipedia; Ukrainian usage is followed in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. For the grandest interpretation on the boldest scale, see Ruthenia.
The author does not understend or pretend not to understand what is the point. In Slavic languages there is no confusion about usage of the above words - the problem does not exist. "Ruthenia," 'Rus'" and "Russia" are merely translations of the Slavic words, which meaning is very clear. Translations commonly used in science and in international English. More information: Ruthenia.
2. This article merely concerns Carpathian Ruthenia, the small former Austro-Hungarian province that Europeans have long recognized by the designation Ruthenia, in which usage English speakers merely follow suit.
There is already an article about Carpathian Ruthenia: constitutes a part of the Ruthenia page. It could be moved to a separate page.
3. In 1911, the Encyclopaedia Britannica characterized the Ruthenians as those "Little Russians" who were at that time subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, specifically a province of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Dual Monarchy.
We live in 2004, not in 1911. To get the thing worse Wetman clearly does not know what he is writing about and contradict himself. Carpathian Ruthenia is just a small country on the southern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains. It's inhabitans are often known in English as Rusnaks, Rusyns, Carpathian Ruthenians or just Ruthenians. However, Wetman writes not about them but about people populating the following territories: eastern part of autonomous province of Galicia and province of Bukovina. These areas have nothing to do with Carpathian Ruthenia.
4. The name (Ruthenians), it was pointed out, is a form of the word "Russian".
Both are translations of the ethnic name: Rusy or Rusiny - from the word Rus’.
5. The Ruthenians were separated from the bulk of Russians by the accident of two feudal Russian principalities having fallen to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
POV. The Ruthenians did not separate from Russians by accident. In this case Russians and Ruthenians are the translations of the same word. The (ancient) Russians or (ancient) Ruthenians - have split into several separate nations.
6. In 1911, the Encyclopaedia Britannica recorded that ethnic Ruthenians numbered some three million in Galicia, Bukovina, and in the Carpathian mountains along the edges of Hungary. In religion the Ruthenians mostly belong to the Uniate Church, acknowledging the Pope, since the meetings at Brest in 1508, but retaining their Old Slavonic liturgy and most of the outward forms of the Greek or Eastern Orthodox Church. Their intellectual centre was Lvov, which the Austrians called "Lemberg", where some lectures in the university were being given in Rusyn, and intellectuals were agitating for it to have equal rights with Polish. Yet the Austrian policy towards minority languages was more free than in imperial Russia, and in Lvov/Lviv/Lemberg, Rusyn found the center of its published literature.
Nothing about Carpathian Ruthenia again. And lots of confusion.
The chapter about Ruthenian Jews is extremely POV and offensive. Besides, Jews were just one of many ethnic minorities. Besides, which Jews the author means: from Carpatho Ruthenia, Galicia, Ukraine, the whole Ruthenia. I have no idea. I think that Wetman does not have as well.
I intend to correct fragments that are obviously false or POV as well as to merge this article with an article about Carpathian Ruthenia from Ruthenia page. It will make the subject much more clear. If someone does not agree with me, please point out where I am wrong.
Yeti 00:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There is a strong POV in "continued to be neglected as part of Czechoslovakia, without significant autonomy". Without significant authonomy may be true, but Czechoslovak government put great effort in developing country economicaly, lot of schools were build and teachers from Czechia and Slovakia sent there. Also there was significant developement of tourism, industry, transportation.
At least Czech POV is that developement of Carpathian Ruthenia (Podkarpatska Rus) was greatly subsidized from republics budget. Also in the countryside you can find many traces of what was build in 1918-1938 and then neglected and destroyed during Soviet times.
Also Czechs and Slovaks were expelled after anex by Soviets and their property and investments confiscated.
I've aded dispute flag to article.
(Anonymously posted: 81.27.192.16, 14:12, 7 Feb 2004)
- I suppose a dispute flag may be in order, but this is a very recent article under very active editing. I would suggest making your edits on what you think is wrong and see if anyone even objects. I doubt anyone gave a great deal of thought to one slighting choice of verb toward Czechoslovakia. You seem familiar with this portion of the history. Please, help us improve the article instead of carping that it isn't objective. -- Jmabel 22:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I've added dispute flag mostly because of history of previous edits and after reading Talk page. I dont know enough about other covered subjects, but in the point where I know enough, its differen from what I know.
- So - next edit I'll
- move problematic parts to talk page, replace it by links to Ruthenians and Ukrainians in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938) which is more detailed and better.
- remove dispute flag 81.27.192.19 10:50, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- So - next edit I'll
Up to 1920 Carpathian Ruthenia formed part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. From 1920 to 1938 it continued to be neglected as part of Czechoslovakia, without significant autonomy. Hungarian rule followed the occupation of March 18, 1939, and then after 1944 the province was attached to the Soviet Union, and Russianized as a frontier area of the Ukraine. At present it is part of Ukraine, administered from Kiev.
- Comments
- 1920 should be 1918. Maybe for 1918-1938 make some brief summary of Ruthenians and Ukrainians in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938) and note economic developement?
- WWII story can not be sumed as occupation by Hungary.
- 81.27.192.19 10:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yeti's new article
Carpathian Ruthenia, Carpathian Ukraine or Carpatho-Ukraine is a region inhabited by Ruthenian speaking population of former kingdom of Hungary. Today it is inlcuded in Trans-carpathian Discrict (Zakarpatskaya Oblast) of Ukraine and in eastern Slovakia.
Historic overview
Carpathian Ruthenia became part of Hungarian state in 10th century and was a part of it untill 1918. After the World War I the Treaty of Trianon ceded the area to new created Czechoslovakia. In September 1938 the Munich Agreement was signed by Germany, Italy, France, and Britain. The agreement stipulated that Czechoslovakia must cede Sudetes territory to Germany. In November 1938, under the Vienna Arbitration, which was a result of the Munich agreement, Czechoslovakia (and later Slovakia) was forced by Germany and Italy to cede southern Slovakia (1/3 of Slovak territory) and southern Carpathian Ruthenia to Hungary. Soon afterwards the truncated state, renamed Czecho-Slovakia [the so-called Second Republic], was reconstituted in three autonomous units - Czechia (i.e. Bohemia and Moravia), Slovakia, and Ruthenia. On March 15 the Carpatho-Ruthenia declared its independence and was immediately invaded and annexed by Hungary. Finally, on March 23 Hungary invaded and occupied from the Carpatho-Ukraine some further parts of Slovakia (eastern Slovakia). In June 1945 a treaty ceding Carpatho-Ruthenia to the Soviet Union was signed between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. The area was included into the [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Ethnic situation
The area of present day Carpathina Ruthenia was probably settled down by Slavic speaking tribes in 5th century AD. Generally the population ethnically was the same as on the other side of the border - in Polish Ruthenia (Ukraine). However, because of geografical and political isolation from the main [Ukrainian]] speaking territory the inhabitans developed some distinctive features. In 19th and 20th centuries Carpathian Ruthenia was a field of struggle between Ukrainian nationalist and pro-Russian activists, that claimed Carpatho-Ruthenians to be an ethnicity separate from Ukrainians. In contrary to Ukrainian national movement, modern (Carpatho)-Ruthenian movement was based on the concept of unity with Russians.
Related articles
- The current article may be slightly pro-Rusyn as it is, but the above is more than slightly pro-Ukrainian. Replacing the article will just mean we're back to square one, except that we have more litter in the page history. --Shallot 21:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- I do not indent to replace one pro- with another pro-. The problem with the current article is that it has nothing to do with Carpathian Ruthenia. It is a brief of article about eastern Galicja from Britannica 1911, by the way clearly and irrationally anti-Slavic. Galicja is a "slightly" different area than Carpathian Ruthenia. ;-) Yeti 22:07, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm. I went over the article again, and there does seem to be a fair bit of mixing with Galicia although this seems reasonably consistent with the interpretation that it talks about primarily about the place inhabited by Rusyns. Perhaps you're right, this title may have been picked incorrectly, but I'd still prefer if you picked the current article apart piece by piece, explaining why each chop is necessary, rather than just slapping over a whole new one. Also, we'd need something like Places inhabited by Rusyns to place the remaining offtopic content in. --Shallot 20:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- How's this look like now? --Shallot 12:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm. I went over the article again, and there does seem to be a fair bit of mixing with Galicia although this seems reasonably consistent with the interpretation that it talks about primarily about the place inhabited by Rusyns. Perhaps you're right, this title may have been picked incorrectly, but I'd still prefer if you picked the current article apart piece by piece, explaining why each chop is necessary, rather than just slapping over a whole new one. Also, we'd need something like Places inhabited by Rusyns to place the remaining offtopic content in. --Shallot 20:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I do not indent to replace one pro- with another pro-. The problem with the current article is that it has nothing to do with Carpathian Ruthenia. It is a brief of article about eastern Galicja from Britannica 1911, by the way clearly and irrationally anti-Slavic. Galicja is a "slightly" different area than Carpathian Ruthenia. ;-) Yeti 22:07, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the "Vlach settlement", process of settlement in Carpatians that originated in Eastern Carpatians and spread north-westwards to Poland, started much later. 14 century-16 century I guess. On the other hand, some historians claim that Ruthenian settlement of the valleys comes from the times of Mongol invasion on Kijovian Rus. It is very unlikely that Carpatian Ruthenians come from 5th century. Cautious 21:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC) The other point is that, if Eastern Slovakia was populated by Ruthenians as well, maybe Hungary occupied in 1939 Carpato-Ruthenia and Slovakia ocupied 1945 part of Carpato-Ruthenia as well? Cautious 21:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Remember that the Slavic settlement from 5-6th centuries was a different thing than Vlach colonisation from 13th-15th centuries, which significantly influenced local Ruthenian population and moved Ruthenian-speaking area more west.Yeti 21:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I will try to modify the existing article. Yeti 21:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- One thing remains unexplained, what are the latest census statistics about the ethnicity of the inhabitants? I.e. do they say that they're Ukrainians or that they're Ruthenians (as in Rusyns), or is there both, in which case, what's the ratio? Does the statistics bureau perhaps not consider/register the Rusyns as a separate nationality? I was googling for the 2002 census results but didn't find anything on the topic. --Shallot 22:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- I went over http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/ and only saw one reference to nationalities in some booklet (section 16.10, population composition by major nationaliy), but couldn't find the actual data. Help would be appreciated... --Shallot 22:21, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, I'm confused. The following material recently was cut from the introductory part of the article. Are people saying it is wrong, irrelevant or what?
- The phrase "(but also Ukrainian, Hungarian, Slovak) population. Until 1944 Carpathian Ruthenia had a large Jewish community."
- "Europeans have long recognized this region by the designation "Ruthenia", in which usage English speakers merely follow suit, without any kind of prejudice towards various Slavic nationalists. It should not be confused with different geographical and historical meanings of Ruthenia." I believe this could be better put, but it seems apparent to me why it's there: to avoid another screaming match (like we have had several times) about a potentially confusing and sensitive issue.
-- Jmabel 00:33, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I had to stop editing before I have completed it. I will try to place the explanations today. Yeti 12:15, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- 1. Every area of Central Europe had a large Jewish population. Does it mean that we should it in every article about Central Europe? There were larger ethnic groups that Jews in Carpathian-Ruthenia. Why the Jews are to be mentioned in the heading? 2. Europeans have long recognized... - This problem is described in Ruthenia article. Regards. Yeti 13:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's not just Jews that were cut, it's Ukrainians, Hungarians, and Slovaks. The reason Jews need separate mention is that they are an important historic, but not a present-day, part of the population. -- Jmabel 16:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- 1. Every area of Central Europe had a large Jewish population. Does it mean that we should it in every article about Central Europe? There were larger ethnic groups that Jews in Carpathian-Ruthenia. Why the Jews are to be mentioned in the heading? 2. Europeans have long recognized... - This problem is described in Ruthenia article. Regards. Yeti 13:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- 1. I removed U, H, S because it makes the heading more consistent. I added a chapter about ethnic minorities instead. 2. This is not an article about Jews in CR but about CR. Sorry, but it is ridiculous to pleace Jews in heading of every article about Central Europe. The mention in the text is sufficeint, do not you think?80.44.223.103 22:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I didn't pick up on the addition, just noticed the removal. And Jews belong listed precisely if other ethnicities are listed. In cases where Jews (or any other group) relatively recently formed a significant portion of the population, but no longer does, that's worthy of mention (e.g. Germans in the Siebenburgen of Transylvania) -- Jmabel 02:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Hungary
Claims that various regions of Central Europe were part of Hungary for 1000 years are ridiculous. Ottomans destroyed Hungary in 1526, and new autonomous Hungary was created only in 1867. I can show to you many historical maps, which will confirm this. For this time, here is one, but if somebody want more, just have to ask:
User:PANONIAN
OK. You are right, of course. We all know that you do not have to prove it...:)Juro 19:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- The question in those eras is really more one of what is meant by "Hungary" at that time. It was not always the name of a kingdom or nation-state; it was a normal designation for an area of Europe. Insofar as "Hungary" had meaning at that time, Carpathian Ruthenia was part of it. Would you also say that there was no such thing as Germany or Italy in the 18th century because each had no political unity? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, here is more detailed map of the region: 
You can see that Carpathian Ruthenia was part of Ottoman Empire and Transylvania in 1648, and it was not part of so called Royal Hungary, which was Austrian dominion. Part of the region (but not all) was included into Royal Hungary only in 1683, while other part remained part of Transylvania. It is obvious that region was not uninterrupted part of Hungary for 1000 years. My thought is that Wikipedia should be accurate in presenting things. User:PANONIAN
- Yes, I understand that in terms of political rule, but all I am saying (and maybe I shouldn't pursue this, because I am not actually trying to change anything about the article) is that terms like "Hungary", "Germany", etc. were used more loosely at that time and did not necessarily refer to areas under a single political jurisdiction. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Just for information. There was a great difference between the use of Germany and Hungary in the past. "Hungary" was clearly defined by its borders, especially because most of what you assume here to be the non-political-Hungary did not even speak Hungarian, while Germany was defined either as the German kingdom or as the sum of German speaking mini-states. The two cases are totally different...Juro 03:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Juro. Hungary was clearly defined political unit in the time period in question. So, to refer to some other territories as Hungary, would be a source of misunderstanding for people who read the article. I do not doubt that some sources mention Hungary as geographical term (as Jmabel say), but these sources are obviously wrong, because most of people who lived there were not Hungarians (as Juro already explained). User:PANONIAN