Talk:Transcarpathia/Archive 1

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.

User:Yeti


 * 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)


 * 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" &mdash;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 Wikiquette and to take any particularly contentious issues to Current disputes over articles, Pages needing attention, Peer review (I see its already here), or 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 &mdash;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)

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

 * Ruthenians
 * Ruthenians and Ukrainians in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938)

---


 * 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)

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? -- Jmabel 00:33, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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. 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: http://www.euratlas.com/big/1600big.jpg 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: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/43.gif 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

GA nomination
First of all, the section Further reading is not a reference section so if it is one, please change the sections name or else the GA will fail on account of no citations. You can see WP:FOOT to help you. Lincher 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * (One of the first thing I noticed is that after Carpathian Ruthenia becomes a Ukranian province in 1991 its history seems to end; what about it's local government and economy since then?

Citation of the sources also seems to be a problem. There are works casually cited, i.e., the censuses and the Goldsworthy book, but they aren't organized in a reference section. And the Further reading

I aslo take issue with the sections that feature different demographics and statistics on population. This article needs to be better organized. Perhaps the historical information featured in each of these could be inserted into the historical section and the information on the present day (like the current condition of the Romas) can be put into a detailed section about the present day. No matter what you decide, I don't think it's a good idea to have so many different sections on demographics. ) TonyJoe 08:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * after Carpathian Ruthenia becomes a Ukranian province in 1991 its history seems to end
 * I was confused by this -- the best I can figure is that, as of 1991, Carpathian Ruthenia no longer exists. There seems also to be a page on Zakarpattia Oblast which effectively continues on from 1991.  The introductory paragraph states "The earlier history of the area is elaborated at Carpathian Ruthenia, a former name for the geographic region."  Perhaps this page should end with something similarly verbose so the two pages are more easily connected. -- abfackeln 21:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite. I'll do that if no one beat me to it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1918-1919
Currently in the article: "In 1918 and 1919, the region for the short time was part of the independent West Ukraine Republic. However, whole region occupied by Romanians end of 1918. This occupation lasted one year and Hungary recoccupied her." I was going to copy edit this (the last two sentences are poor English) but since the chronology doesn't make sense, I figured I'd come here first.

If the independent republic was 1918–1919, and the "whole region" (unclear: meaning the whole of "West Ukraine" or the whole of Carpathian Ruthenia) was occupied by Romanian for a year starting in late 1919, is this saying that the Romanian occupation was the same period as an only nominally independent republic, or that they overlapped? Since there are no citations on the relevant passage, I have nowhere to begin. Possibly someone is mistaken; I presume it is not the author of the first sentence, since the linked article West Ukrainian National Republic bears it out in some detail. Then again, that article makes no mention of Romania. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please check the external links in this article as well as in Carpatho-Ukraine. Some are in English. I would have gladly sorted this out myself, but I can't promise any definite time frame. --Irpen 05:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anittas has written to say that it was part of a broader Romanian occupation of Hungary, and that Poland wanted Romania to annex the region. I don't have much time to follow this up right now; we should definitely sort it out, especially how the Romanian occupation may have related to an "independent" republic. - Jmabel | Talk 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Annitas is right that it was part of the broader Romanian occupation of Hungary; however, the occupation of this region lasted from April 1919 until July or August 1919, not from 1918. As regards the statement "Poland wanted Romania to annex the region", I find it highly dubious... Dmaftei 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

merge proposal
It was suggested to merge Northern Maramureş into Carpathian Ruthenia.


 * Oppose unless convincingly proved these historical regions are exactly the same geographically. The current articles imply significant overlap, but differences as well. `'mikkanarxi 20:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, I withdraw my "Support". It seems that Mikka is right - the two are not the same region but slightly different. Dapiks 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - mainly because "Northern Maramureş" does not really exist outside of antiquated discourse (and, of course, reference to the north of the north of Romania :)). Dahn 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Part of Slovakia
The information about Ruthenia being partly in Slovakia is wrong. Never was, never is. The two are geographically distinct regions. It's true that some people of Rusyn nationality reside in Slovakia, but that's a very different subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.48.148.186 (talk • contribs).

Ruler discrepancy
I have moved the following paragraph to the talk page so the information can be clarified.
 * In 981, the western border of Kievan Rus’ was redefined when Volodimir I (the Great) of Kiev signed non-aggression pacts with Bolesław I (the Brave) of Poland and Stephen I (the Great) of Hungary. At this point Carpathian Ruthenia was wholly incorporated as a part of Kievan Rus’ lands, although this union did not last long after the death of Volodimir. Bolesław deployed his troops into Rus' for about half a year, and incorporated several western Ruthenian cities in 1019. These "Cherven towns" or Red Ruthenia, were recovered by the Rus’ forces of Halych-Volhynia in 1031. The rest of Carpathian Ruthenia was incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary.

Bolesław ruled from 992-1025, while Stephen ruled from 997-1038; both dates obviously contradict the 981 paragraph given above. Further, Stephen would have only been about six years old in 981 (assuming his article is correct). Olessi 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Archives
(1) Главное Архивное Управление при Севете Министров СССР 119817, ГСП, Москва, Г-435, Б. Пироговская,17 тел. 246-60-15 Телетайп 111134 "Истарх" 29.11.90 №4/1822 На №32 от 22.09.90

Председателю правления Общества Карпатских Русинов т. Томчанию М.М.

По поручению ЦК КПСС Ваше письмо было рассмотрено в Главархиве СССР, организован поиск интересующих Вас документов в Центральном Государственном Архиве Октябрьской революции, высших органов государственной власти и органов государственного управления СССР. Сообщаем, что протокола Первого съезда народных комитетов Закарпатской Украины на хранении в государственных архивах не имеется. Для возможного поиска документа Ваше письмо направлено в Центральный партийный архив ИМЛ при ЦК КПСС (103821, Москва, Пушкинская ул., 15), который ответит Вам непосредственно.

Заместитель начальника отдела использования и публикации документов ГАФ СССР Л. И. Солодовников

(2) Акалемия Наук СССР Ордена Дружбы Народов Институт Этнографии им. Н. Н. Миклухо-Маклая 117036, Москва, В-036, ул. Дмитрия Ульянова, 19. тел. 126-05-80 6.11.90. №14110/2171 На №25 от 27.07.90 г.

Общество Карпатских Русинов

Уважаемый тов. М. М. Томчаний!

В ответ на вашу просьбу (письмо №25 от 27.07.90 г.) Институт этнографии направляет Вам рецензию на лекцию П. Годьмаша.

Зам. директора Института, к.и.н. С. В. Чешко

Рецензия на доклад П. Годьмаша "Кто мы, подкарпатские русины, и чего добиваемся"

Интерес к историческому прошлому, поиск собственных исторических корней в наше время "этнического возрождения" вполне понятен, это наблюдается во всем мире. Однако изучением этих вопросов должны заниматься специалисты, обладающие соответствующими знаниями. Категоричный тон в изложении проблем происхождения народов совершенно недопустим, а именно в таком стиле написан доклад П. Годьмаша. I. Этническая история славян крайне сложна, особенно это касается раннего средневековья. Многие узловые вопросы темы продолжают оставаться предметом научеых дискуссий. До сегодня не существует точной локализации прародины славян, не доказана их связь с древними археологическими культурами и т. д. В частности Л. Нидерле, на авторитет которого все время ссылается автор, местонахождения прародины славян считал неопределенным. Он лишь обрисовал область расселения славян в начале нашей эры: на востоке от Днепра и отдельных районов бассейна Дона, на севере по Нареву и левым притокам Припяти, на западе - по Висле. (Л. Нидерле. Славянские древности. М. 1956, с.47, 49). Современная наука признает большой вклад Л. Нидерле в изучение славянского этногенеза, а в общей форме (с пространственными и хронологическими поправками) принимает его предположения. Главная же заслуга Л. Нидерле - комплексный подход к вопросам этногенеза, привлечение данных разных наук. В то же время появление новых данных (особенно археологических) со времени публикации работ Л. Нидерле заставили пересмотреть многие его выводы. Большинство современных исследователей считает прародиной славян територию между Одером и Вислой или более широкий ареал от Одера до Среднего Днепра. Как особая этнокультурная общность славяне выделяются в сер. 1 тыс. н.э. Деление славян на западную, восточную и южную ветвь сформировалось гараздо позднее в результате перегрупировок после их последующего рвсселения на более широкой территории. II. Хорваты, преемниками которых автор считает современное население Закарпатья, считаются племенем праслрвянского периода (на южнославянском языке говорили не они, а балканские хорваты более позднего периода).Считается доказанным, что их самоназвание (этноним) - иранского происхождения. Согласно письменным источникам, хорваты подверглись нападению аваров, в результате основна часть племени переселилась в VII в. в Далмацию, а также на запад, в верховья Эльбы, где летописеу ХII в. Козьма Пражский называет их в числе племен, соперничавших с чехами. Свидетельства письменных источников о хорватах отрывочны, отсутствует их точная датировка. Определенных сведений о территории расселении хорват они не дают. Подробнее всего о белых хорватах писал Константин Багрянородный в Х веке: далматинские хорваты его времени "происходят от некрещенных хорватов, называвшихся "белыми", которые обитают по ту сторону Туркии (Венгрии) близ Франкии (Германии) и граничат со славянами, т.е. некрещенными сербами. ("Об управлении империей" гл.30 и31. Последний полный перевод в кн. "Развитие "Этнического самосознания славянских народов в эпоху средневековья". М. 1982. Приложение, стр. 292). В определении географического положения Белой Хорватии существуют разные мнения. Некоторые ученые считают, что оставшиеся хорваты разделились на несколько племенных групп см. Ю. В. Бромлей. Становление феодализма в Хорватии: к изечению процесса кланообразования у славян. М. 1964, с.8). Польские ученые считают (Ловмяньский, Гачиньский) что хорватский племенной союз находился в VIII-IX вв. в Малой Польше и верхнеднестровских землях. Советский археолог В. Седов по данным топонимики отводит хорватам верхнеднестровские земли и Закарпатье (В. Седов. Восточные славяне в VI-XIII вв. М. 1982, с.126). В "Повести временных лет" (кон. XII в.) хорваты упоминаются несколько раз наряду с восточнославянскими племенами полян, древлян, радимичей, вятичей и др. (ПВЛ т.1, с.28) Нестору известны и южнославянские хорваты белые, наряду с сербами и хорутанами (ПВЛ, т.1,с.11). В 907 г. хорваты участвовали в составе войска, участвовавшего в походе на Византию из подвластных Киеву земель (ПВЛ, т.1, с.23) и, наконец, летопись упоминает, что "Иде Володимир на хорваты" под 992 г. (ПВЛ, т.1, с.84). Более поздние письменные источники о хорватах на этой территории никогда не упоминают. Племенные связи были заменены территориальными, остатки хорвамского населения смешались с западнославянскими и восточнославянскими племенами. Говорить о закарпатском населении как о потомках хорватов с научной точки зрения нет основания. Древнерусский Нестор, вопреки утвержоению П. Годьмаша, никогда не писал, что венгры после перехода через Карпаты покорили хорватов. Он писал, что в 898 г., пройдя мимо Киева застали за Карпатами волохов и словен, покорив словен, они поселились среди них (ПВЛ, ч.1, с.23). Речь идет по-видимому, о славянском населении входившем в состав Великоморавского государства, которое называло себя словенами. К XI в. восточная часть их территории вошла в состав Венгерского королевства. Большую роль в этнической истории Карпатского региона сыграли и волохи. III.Истормя Закарпатья была связана с Венгрией. Западноевропейские источники часто говорят о "русинах" в Прикарпатских районах государства. Этот термин - Rutheni - появился вовсе не 100 лет назад, как утверждает автор доклада. Первое упоминание о нем в германских Гильдесгейских анналах датируется 1030 годом: сын венгерского короля Стефана - воевода русинов (Henricus- dux Ruizorum) - погиб во время охоты на кабана. Некоторые ученые считают, что речь идет о вожде специальной королевской охраны, определенным образом организованной. Начиная с XIII в. термины Rutheni, Ruthenus встречаются в источниках постоянно, нередко в сочетании Valachi seu Rutheni (волохи и русины). Это объясняется тем, что в XIV-XVII вв. в Карпатах шел процесс заселения горных районов скотоводами на основе так нащываемого "волошского права", дававшего ряд привилегий. Первая волна волохов (валахов) была восточногерманского происхождения, но к ним присоединилось крестьянство из соседних областей. В результате, по мнению специалистов, термин Rutheni стал употребляться в нескольких значениях: 1. Население принадлежащее к восточно-византийской форме христианства (православию), куда относились и восточнороманские волохи; 2. Крестьяне пользующиеся "волошским правом"; 3. Члены вооруженной охраны королевского двора. (См. P. Ratkos. Problematika kolonizácie na valasskom práve na uzemi Slovenska. Gn. Historicke studie. XXIV. Bratislava. 1980. s.108-200). В XVII в. была заключена Уния между православной церковью Австрии и Римом. С этого времени русинами (по официальной статистике) стали называть греко-католиков, т.е. униатов в Галмции, восточной Словакии и Подкарпатской Руси. Связь термина "русины" с с Древнерусским государством несомненна. К западу от Карпат восточнославянское население продвигалось до появления венгров, после нашествия татар в XIII в. поток этот усилился, миграции продолжались в процессе колонизации горных районов, границы между государствами гн были столь определенными, как в новое время. Название "русы" исследователи связывали с союзом племен, территорией которых в XIII в. были Среднее Поднестровье, затем оно распространилось на Древнерусское государство и на территории, входившие в зону его владения. После распада Древнерусского государства восточные славяне расселились из центра своего формирования, но в самоназвании каждого из восточнославяских народов сохранился древний общий корень: русские, белорусы, малороссы, русины. (См. Б. А. Рыбаков. Киевская Русь и Русское княжество XII-XIII в. М. 1982). IV. Теоретически можно считать, что русины - понятие одного порядка с русскими, украинцами и белорусами, а не часть какого-либо из этих этносов. Но родственная близость языка и культуры, постоянные контакты с соседней Украиной затрудняют решение вопроса о русинах как самостоятельном этносе (народе), тем более что вопрос этот за последнее столетие до крайности политизирован. Этническая консолидация русинов как самостоятельного народа так и осталась незаконченной, она была затруднена территориальной разобщенностью Галиции, Подкарпатской Руси и Буковины. В среде деятелей "национального возрождения" в русинской среде не было единства, так как не было четкого свмосознания и существовали разные течения в борьбе за национальное равноправие в Австро-Венгрии - прорусское, проукраинское и русинское. После того, как Западная Украина, Закарпатье и Буковина вошли в состав СССР, вопрос казался решенным, так как победило проукраинское направление и процесс ассимиляции с украинцами зашел достаточно далеко. Как и при решении любого национального вопроса нужно учитывать новые условия сегодняшнего дня: возобновление греко-католической унии привело к "этнизации" религии. При многонациональном составе населения Закарпатья речь может идти о предоставлении культурной автономии сознающего себя русинами населения и свободном выборе самоназвания и самопределения каждой личности. Изучением русинской проблемы могли бы, наконец, заняться и срециалисты, археологи и лингвисты Ужгородского Университета, в распоряжении которых находятся богатейшие архивы, отдельные материалы из которых известны нам только по публикациям венгерских, чешских и польских исследователей.

(3) Институт Марксизма-Ленинизма при ЦК КПСС Центральный Партийный Архив 103821 г. Москва, Пушкинская ул., д. 15. тел. 229-97-26 14.12.1990 №1608

Председателю Общества Карпатских Русинов т. Томчанию М. М.

Уважаемый товарищ Томчаний!

В ответ на Вашу просьбу о розыске протокола первого съезда народных комитетов Закарпатской Украины Центральный партийный архив ИМЛ при ЦК КПСС сообщает, что, к сожалению, нам не удалось обнаружить интересующие Вас документы.

Зам. зав. Центральным партархивом ИМЛ при ЦК КПСС Ю. Амиантов

New information deleted, inconsistent with Wiki standards
I am new to Wikipedia, so that is why I added explicitly "please help me edit the following reference to Wiki-standards"

Now, please, help me edit this into appropriate wiki-material:

Priest Sidor is identical with Father Dymytrij Sydor which a few years ago raised the funds to build a massive new cathedral at Uzhgorod, one of the largest in eastern Europe. The Magazine Hidden Europe (www.hiddeneurope.co.uk) reports: - - (please help me edit the following reference to Wiki-standards) - - "All eyes are now on the assembly of Ukraine's Zakarpattya Oblast which meets in Uzhgorod on 1 December. The assembly is unlikely to back Father Sydor separatist aspirations. For not only does the region have a large number of Ukrainians, but it is also home to other minorities beyond the Rusyns, notably the Hutsuls. But Dymytrij Sydor is not a man to back down easily. If the oblast assembly does not support the Rusyns claim for independence, then Father Sodor says that the Rusyn minority will consider more forceful ways of securing their goals." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikarth (talk • contribs) 11:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.hiddeneurope.co.uk/barticle_info.php?articles_id=599 Wakari07 (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Independence claim
I think a demonstration by 100 people and some declaration is not worth a long paragraph. I would suggest to remove the sentences in the "Historic Overview", from "The following statement was released,..." to "...as persona non grata in Ukraine.". Especially if this "independence movement" is not worth an article under List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements. Wakari07 (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the material should be up but minus the political innuendos. I personally feel this to be very political, and that this is currently a political football. I remember reading an article some 20 years ago about how the Czech secret service was funding this successionist movement. Then there was a congress that they held in Hawaii to discuss independaence some 15 years back. How accurate these articles were is hard for me to say. The participants are however closely associated with the Moscow patriarchy of the Russian Orthodox church which has frequently demonstrated an anti-Ukrainian line in the past. It would be interesting to dig up these materials. Bandurist (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not provide a forum for uncivilized political behaviour. This father Sydor/Sidor/Sodor threatens with violence, or how should I understand "consider more forceful ways of securing (...) goals" ?  Wikarth's reference is at http://www.hiddeneurope.co.uk/barticle_info.php?articles_id=599 .  Another Russian-Orthodox reference supporting an autonomous/secessionist Carpatho-Ruthenia is http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/ruthenia.htm .  Denouncing the situation is http://www.day.kiev.ua/256357/ and url=http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373507 .  But Wikipedia should not become a newspaper either. Wakari07 (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Should be removed, not even newsworthy. 100 people? Ridiculous. In my state there is a small group of secessionists but they don't have any articles or even paragraphs on wikipedia, why? Because they are not noteworthy! Same goes with this.Zaynaq (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of language
The Ukrainian language was not persecuted in Carpathian Ruthenia during the interwar period unlike in the three other country's with a large Ukrainian population (Soviet Union, Poland and Romania).

I find this questionable. The Ukrainian language was not persecuted to the same extent however, publications in Ukrainian were requited to have russian orthography and there were other restrictions. Bandurist (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, the book I used to get the above information simply doesn't cover that.... (it's all a bit global in there), feel free to change the sentence, of course a source's would be nice :) I gotta read more books about Ukraine :) -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This I got from Vasyl Yemetz's bio book published in Toronto in 1961. He lived in Prague and established bandura schools and ensembles there in 1923. In Prague he had no difficulties with Ukrainian culture and language, however when he went on tour of Transcarpathia he wrote about the restrictions regarding his articles written about his concerts, and his published articles which required the use of a Russian orthography and no use of the word Ukrainian. In its place was the word Rus'kyj. Bandurist (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Ruthenians declare independence
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20081223_ukraine_ruthenians_declare_independence

I don't think that it's possible to name as unrecognised country or the government in exile, but it needs to be reflected in this articleShadow Vogel (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This should go into the same category as Principality of Hutt River declaration of independence. Bandurist (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Under Carpathian_Ruthenia, most of this info is included since October 27. Feel free to improve it further. I started a trial subscription and received the article you mentioned by e-mail. It only says "they" call on Russia to "help" them. I miss the info on which representative group (name, members, location,...) made this call for help, and which kind of help they expect. Prayers, pamphlets, perhaps more ? Is it the same Sidor-Zhupan group ? Reference 11 (http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/158450.html) from the Zakarpattia_Oblast article talks about it having about 100 members. With less than 0.01% apparently represented, calling them "The Ruthenians" does not seem correct to me. Regards. --Wakari07 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ukranews.com/eng/ haven't posted any news about it since "Reference 11". I agree, 100 persons demonstration is hardly a mass movement. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is another article - a Russian perspective When in Ruthenia . . . and his is a Ukrainian perspective of the same thing Ruthenian deja vu -


 * On Oct. 31, 2008, a number of Internet publications reported that on Oct. 25 the European Congress of Subcarpathian Ruthenians in Mukachiv proclaimed the Subcarpathian Ruthenian Republic. The congress was attended by 109 people, and its “international” status was secured by the presence of a single participant from the Czech Republic.

The Rusyns signed the Act of the Revival of the Ruthenian State” proclaiming the Republic of Carpathian Ruthenia, thereby reinstating its status “as of Nov. 22, 1938 (including the territories that were part of Romania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in 1945? — V.I.), and electing the “executive branch,” a government made up of 50 individuals whose identities are a secret.

There is nothing new, let alone sensational, about this conclave. It is a Ruthenian deja vu. In the past century the political history of the Zakarpattia region has demonstrated an interesting regularity: public unrest would start only in the capital cities while the central government was torn apart by squabbles, thus creating a prime opportunity for separatists.

Dr. Serhii FEDAKA, professor of history at Uzhhorod National University:

Last Saturday there emerged a [Russian-language] document entitled “Memorandum of the Second European Congress of Subcarpathian Ruthenians on the Adoption of a Packet of Documents to the Act of Proclamation of the Reinstated Ruthenian State.” Although it is ostensibly written in Russian, every paragraph contains errors of grammar and syntax. If anyone in Vladimir Putin’s immediate circle reads those ridiculous passages, the consequences for the authors of this document would be very unpleasant.

Leaving aside the emotionally-charged statements that fill this document, the end result is the desire of certain members of the Transcarpathian establishment to proclaim Zakarpattia a self-governing territory by Dec. 1, 2008, to coincide with the 17th anniversary of the barely recalled oblast referendum on this same issue. This “document,” drawn up allegedly on behalf of certain civic organizations, is legally meaningless. It is simply a trial balloon to test the responses of the local and Kyiv political communities; to find out where they will strike in return.

If one calls a spade a spade, this self-governed status means, above all, a maximum degree of independence from Kyiv in all personnel matters. To put it more plainly, it means that the oblast government would control an area of several hundred kilometers along the state border, where Zakarpattia adjoins four countries.

In other words, the subtext of this national romantic episode is another scheme to secure non-interference by Kyiv and appoint “their own people” to all law enforcement and other power structures, including customs, various controlling agencies, and forestry enterprises — whatever is left of the oblast’s economy that has not been plundered, including its historic and cultural sites. We’re talking about individual clans establishing control over all material assets, as well as the financial and trade flows in this oblast.

Needless to say, these “lucky gentlemen” have absolutely no legal ways to institute this legally absurd document, even if the confidence of the local population in the central government is at its record lowest. The level of trust in the regional authorities is no higher. The most that this document can do is help V. Chepak, the general of the militia, retain his post. All the other Napoleonic plans are still in the planning stages.

What is this adventure supposed to achieve? After all, even with all the chaos in Kyiv’s corridors of power, no one will allow a section of the state border to be leased out to a private business. Zakarpattia will never be allowed to become a platform with a special legal status, so what’s behind this circus?

The regional establishment has made its claims perfectly clear and set a maximum price: 20 billion dollars’ worth of damages stemming from having been part of Ukraine for 17 years. Obviously, after achieving independence, they will claim further damages. The point is not that these claims are in the form of a legally worthless paper, but that they have been made public knowledge.

Now they have cause for conducting lengthy negotiations with the Ukrainian business and political establishments, haggling over prices, whereby Zakarpattia will supply votes to Kyiv, especially during the presidential campaign, and Kyiv will give Zakarpattia a semblance of self-government. This haggling may well involve the presidential and other teams.

What’s more, the artificially aggravated situation in Zakarpattia may become one of many arguments in favor of enforcing an “emergency situation in Ukraine or certain of its areas,” according to Section 21, Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Of course, as a result of such an extreme move, Viktor Yushchenko will have to kiss goodbye to Ukraine’s integration into Europe, but no concrete steps in this direction can be seen in the nearest future. Instead, this is another more or less realistic chance of remaining in power, overcoming the opposition, getting the press under control, and so on.

This document may be used to finally torpedo Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic intentions. Certain forces are determined to create the absolutely unjustifiable image of Zakarpattia as a European Kurdistan. We all know that the Kurdish problem is the main reason why Turkey is barred admission to the European Union.

Last but not least, this document may have emerged because someone wants to distract the local population’s attention from the next round of worsening socioeconomic problems and the calm preparations for the next election campaign by foisting a moth-eaten debate on this community. But such hopes are in vain because there is little to be said on the subject.

Bandurist (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There’s so much aggression... But after all this case is not similar we will tell on Seelend. Transcarpathian does not create the new state, and it restores (so tells them sojm). If you remember that the USA did not recognise inclusion of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the USSR. Why then inclusion of Transcarpathia in USSR is lawful? IMHO to you any child in Slovakia and Czech Republic will tell that it illegally. Besides Kiev does not recognise ruthenians, they do not have their autonomy. Slovakia, Czech Republic, Serbia recognise them. If you remember, the argument in favour of independence of Kosovo was in that that Belgrad will cancel an kosovar autonomy. The truth I do not understand why they ask a recognition from Russia, instead of from the EU countries. It not opinion of 100 persons, there in 1991 was the referendum.Shadow Vogel (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

dubious statements

 * "A great deal of this territory and its settlers subsequently became the western edge of Rus' principality at the start of the 9th century"
 * This territory did not belong to the Rus around 800. There is no reliable source about it.


 * "Prince Laborec fell from power under the efforts of the Hungarians and the Kievan forces"
 * Prince Laborec was a fictive person. There is no reliable source about it.


 * "Local Ruthenian nobility often intermarried with the Hungarian nobles to the south."
 * Local Ruthenian nobility in Carpathian Ruthenia around 1000? And this group intermarried with Hungarian nobles? There is no reliable source about it.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Fakirbakir, I do not see that you provided any source for any of your own claims. Do you have any source that can confirm your statements? Anyway, here is evidence that Carpathian Ruthenia was part of Kievan Rus: http://faculty.unlv.edu/pwerth/Kievan-Rus'-11thcent.jpg And here are also numerous sources about Prince Laborec: . PANONIAN  17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your source did not mention that Carpathian Ruthenia belonged to the Rus in the 9th century. Moreover Prince Laborec is a fictive legendary person, written by Anatolij Kralickij (in 1863). Fakirbakir (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Source about "Prince Laborec"Fakirbakir (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Prince Laborec is a tale, the Kievian Rus was established in !!882!! and before that the Novgorodian Rus did not have any influence on this territory. So, the Rus in Carpathian Ruthenia at the start of 9th century is not correct. Moreover the Hungarian Etelköz (today south/southwest Ukraine, Moldova) was the eastern neighbour of Carpathian Ruthenia in the 9th century. The descendants of White Croat nobles could have intermarried with Hungarian nobles, but Ruthenian nobles could not, because there was no such a thing as "Ruthenian nobles" in the 9/10 th centuries in Carpathian Ruthenia. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your interpretation. Firstly, we cannot conclude from this source that prince Laborec was not real person. I do not even think that term "historical tale" is an correct English translation of "istoryčna povist". "povist" is general Slavic word for "story", no matter if that story is real or invented. In modern Croatian "povijest" means simply "history". Furthermore, here we have two additional sources that speaking about Prince Laborec like about real person:, . As for the Carpathian Ruthenia in the 9th century and Ruthenian nobles, I will investigate this issue further, but, you still did not provided sources that saying that these two statements are incorrect. PANONIAN  19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Ruthenian nobles (alias nobles of Rus) intermarried with Hungarian nobles, but that is a latter effect, it started probably from the 11th century. I did read somewhere that Hungarian chiefs had Varangian bodyguards in the 10th century and they could have been "Ruthenian nobles", however the Varangians did not belong to Carpathian Ruthenia. They were simple mercenaries from North.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I changed term to "Slavic nobility" since some of them indeed might be White Croats. Is that OK to you? Do you consider anything else disputed? PANONIAN  20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is much better now. Actually Prince Laborec is still dubious to me, I will add different opinions about it.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Extent of territory
user:Bucifal wrote: "that map represents the ethnic distribution of the Carpatho-Rusyns, not Carpathian Ruthenia"


 * Well, is there a difference between ethnic distribution of the Carpatho-Rusyns and Carpathian Ruthenia? Can somebody clarify this? PANONIAN  19:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge
There are 3 articles about the nearly same territory. Those need to be merged.
 * Carpatho-Ukraine
 * Carpathian Ruthenia
 * Zakarpattia Oblast

Fakirbakir (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No reason to merge these. Carpatho-Ukraine was the name of an autonomous region and one-day state. It was the official name for this political entity. If there is an article devoted to this political entity, the article should carry that entity's name. Zakarpattia oblast is the name of the modern state in this region. Both of these entities are significant enough to deserve their own articles. Carpathian Ruthenia is the name of the broad region. Merging these articles would be, I don't know, like merging West Ukrainian People's Republic and Lviv Oblast articles into the Galicia (Eastern Europe) article - unnecessary.Faustian (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment does make sense I am going to withdraw my proposal.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Faustian (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Carpathian Ruthenia
On October 25, 2008, 100 delegates to the Congress Of Carpathian Ruthenians declared the formation of the Republic of Carpathian Ruthenia. The Ukrainian nationalist Svoboda Party responded by releasing the following statement: "Zakarpattian separatists led by Moscow Patriarchate priest Sidor are issuing an ultimatum to the Ukrainian authorities today. Tomorrow, armed with Russian passports and money from the Kremlin, they will implement the ‘Georgian scenario’ in Ukraine." The party called on President Viktor Yuschenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to issue a political assessment of the actions in Zakarpattia and Crimea, called on the National Security and Defense Council to draft a plan to restrict separatist actions, and called on the Foreign Affairs Ministry to declare all the citizens that participated in the October 25 congress as persona non grata in Ukraine.[15] The prosecutor’s office of Zakarpattia region has filed a case against priest Dymytrii Sydor and Yevhen Zhupan, an Our Ukraine deputy of the Zakarpattia regional council and chairman of the People’s Council of Ruthenians, on charges of encroaching on the territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine.[16] On May 1, 2009 National Union Svoboda blocked the holding of the third European congress of the Carpathian Ruthenians.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.26.149 (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Carpathian Ruthenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ukrcensus.gov.ua/results/general/nationality/zakarpatia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to Carpathian Rus'
I've reverted the undiscussed move to Carpathian Rus' as not meeting with WP:COMMONNAME according to the majority sources, while it is Carpathian Rus' that is the anachronism. Please feel free to check the sources cited for their usage. Malgosci is the only contemporary scholar I'm aware of who uses Carpathian Rus', but if you check his footnotes you'll find that all of the scholarly articles he cites use the 'Ruthenia' nomenclature. I certainly don't believe this should be a unilateral decision, nor that the first half of title should be the English common name, while the second half should be a transliteration as the edit suggests. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206055441/http://ukrstor.com/karpaty.html to http://ukrstor.com/karpaty.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051130142316/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/485/45817/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/485/45817/
 * Added tag to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/485/45817/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)