Talk:Carpathian Ruthenia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCarpathian Ruthenia was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
June 11, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Carpathian Ruthenia. 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:

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) 18:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust[edit]

The Holocaust should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the History of the Jews in Carpathian Ruthenia it is mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
It should be linked in the page, is it?Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Holocaust, the link, the Jews etc. already mentioned at the Carpathian_Ruthenia#Jews section.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
were taken - by whom? By Germans, but Hungarians created labout batallions, members of which mostly died. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relation between the scope of this article and its title[edit]

It seems that current title ("Carpathian Ruthenia") and current scope of this article are at odds with each other. Content of this article is focused on Ruthenian territories on the inner side of Carpathians, or more precisely, the focus is on Ruthenian regions that are approximately corresponding to the territory of modern Zakarpattia Oblast. And there lies the problem: the term "Carpathian Ruthenia" has much wider meaning, since it also covers Ruthenian territories on the outer side of Carpathians. In other words, we should make some choices. If we want to keep the current title, then we should widen the scope of this article, by including additional content related to Ruthenian territories on both sides of Carpathians, thus covering the entire territory of Carpathian Ruthenia. On the other hand, if we want to keep the current focus of this article on Ruthenian territories on the inner side of Carpathian Mountains, then we should adjust the title in accordance with the real scope of this article's content. In that case, the title could be changed, but there comes the question, into what? First choices that come to mind are terms like "Subcarpathian Ruthenia" and "Transcarpathian Ruthenia" but both of those terms are relative in nature, since they are used as descriptive designations for Ruthenian territories on inner or outer sides of the Carpathians, depending on a point of observation and local customary uses, that differ significantly. There is another, neutral solution, based on geographical terminology. Since this article is focused on Ruthenian territories on the inner side of Carpathians, its title could be changed into "Inner Carpathian Ruthenia" or something like that. Such title would reflect the real scope of this article, and it would be based on geographical terminology, thus avoiding the use of relative terms that are coined with ambiguous (sub-/trans-) prefixes. My choice would be to keep the current title, but widen the scope of this article, by including additional content related to all territories of Carpathian Ruthenia. Sorabino (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would choose to rename the article then in case, since the term and the current content clearly is associated with the historical region inside of the former Kingdom of Hungary, inside it's classic borders (or today with Zakarpattya Oblast) (as you would say, inner of the Carpathians). Thus, I would doubt that addig "inner" would be a proper solution, Subcarpathian or Transcarpathian Ruthenia would be more feasible.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, that would be an easier solution, and it would reflect the current scope of the article's content, but it would still require some serious editing in various sections, including the lead. I am aware that term "Inner Carpathian Ruthenia" is primarily geographical, but if we should have to chose between alternative terms, like Subcarpathian Ruthenia and Transcarpathian Ruthenia, then I would support the term "Subcarpathian Ruthenia" since it corresponds more directly to the original term Subcarpathian Rus' (Rusyn: Підкарпатьска Русь). Sorabino (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subcarpathian Ruthenia is ok with me.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Objectivity, sources[edit]

The page generally lacks sources at almost every topic, resulting in the information being very one-sided. Objectivity can also be questioned, as anything Hungary-related is considered "contested", while paragraphs based on Czechoslovak/Soviet/Ukrainian opinions are mentioned as they were facts. Zsovar24 (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter & Other Names for Carpathian Ruthenia[edit]

User:Blindlynx I understand why you removed the additional languages from the passage below to reduce clutter. However, it's my opinion that they should still be included considering the history of diversity of the area.

Carpathian Ruthenia, or Zakarpattia[a] (Rusyn: Карпатьска Русь, Karpat'ska Rus'; Ukrainian: Закарпаття, romanized: Zakarpattia or Карпатська Русь; Slovak and Czech: Podkarpatská Rus; Polish: Zakarpacie, Hungarian: Kárpátalja; Romanian: Transcarpatia; Russian: Карпатская Русь, romanized: Karpatskaya Rus'; German: Karpatenukraine) is a historic region on the border between Central and Eastern Europe ...

One idea is to cut it down to the following, emphasizing the bordering countries, while also cutting it down a bit...

Carpathian Ruthenia[b] (Rusyn: Карпатьска Русь Karpat'ska Rus'; Ukrainian: Закарпаття Zakarpattia; Slovak and Czech: Podkarpatská Rus; Polish: Zakarpacie; Romanian: Transcarpatia)[c] is a historic region on the border between Central and Eastern Europe ...

I'm personally not a fan of using {{efn}} in this context...maybe a separate section on nomenclature or similar would be better. Let me know if you have a better idea. --💬KaerbaqianRen 04:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I went per MOS:LEADLANG, that honestly isn't followed a whole lot. I agree {{efn}} isn't great in this context. Perhaps a names section like Lviv has would work, admittedly a few names are listed in the lead itself there though. It would allow for a little more detail about what they mean as well.
Also, I think we should include 'Підкарпатьска Русь' or 'Підкарпатя' in whatever we decide on—blindlynx 14:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I put in your proposal as a temporary thing until we can agree on something better—blindlynx 21:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms[edit]

As best I can tell, the cost of arms used by the Oblast is slightly different from the one used by the Republic, notably the bear's head is different. Is this true or am I imagining things? Kelvinnkat (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what are you basing this on?—blindlynx 02:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a long-time student of heraldry, I would remark that in heraldic terms, this would be insignificant. Official descriptions (blazons) of arms describe arrangements, objects and colours, but allow wide scope for artistic interpretation and do not prescribe non-essential details exactly.
Some official bodies or corporate organisations might demand only a very particular version of their arms be used, but this is a relatively modern innovation: it may or may not be the case here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.249.29.80 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carpathian_Ruthenia&oldid=1216722550"