![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The oblast was formed only after the war but as of now the entire history section is devoted to the interwar period. This rightfully needs merged into Carpathian Ruthenia and the post-war times need to be described instead. Also, when doing so, please avoid duplicating and attempts to reproduce the History of Ukraine in 2-3 sentences of narrow articles about locations. Only what's relevant to the location belongs here rather than general phrases like "Since 1991 the territoryu became part of independent Ukraine..." So was every territory of UkrSSR. Since this is going to be written anew, let's avoid common traps. -- Irpen 03:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Zakarpattia Oblast! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre ( talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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."
Wikarth ( talk) 11:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The only official language is Ukrainian and not any other without any exceptions. The link provided does not support the fact that in some seven villages the official language is Hungarian. That is crazy and needs to be checked as it gives bias information. And if there will be no responses on this subject it will be removed. People come up with all kinds of strange stuff like that the official language of Crimea is Russian. It is de facto language, but it does not make it automatically the official, please, refer to the Constitution of Ukraine for more information. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The only official language is Ukrainian. And I have nothing to add. Ultrasonic220 ( talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Ultrasonic220
Why isn't
File:Zakarpattia-Oblast-flag.gif used in the infobox, and why is there a message stating Please do not include any flags into this field; the province does not have any officially-recognized flags? Can anyone explain this?
☺
Spiby
☻ 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The council of this oblast hasn't adopted any flag yet. This is the only oblast in Ukraine without its own flag.
Iurii.Fedyshyn (
talk)Iurii.Fedyshyn
@ Лобачев Владимир: This was discussed here before. The page you referred, does not contain any color code, it could be a faulty interpretation of a picture on the web page, see also : https://photo.unian.net/photo/189541-zakarpatye-region-s-official-flag-flag-of-ukraine-and-uzhgorod-s-flag. Please give a reference, where it is written in black and white that Zakarpattia Oblast implemented a different color than in Flag of Ukraine. JSoos ( talk) 15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok that is my mistake. Sorry. JSoos ( talk) 16:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Here are some comments of an author about this issue. He says that some scholars confuse "autonomy" and "self goverment status", and this is what happened on December 1991 un Ukraine. I think that it is important to include it in the article, because it show other pont of view. Here it is the reference: Kuzio, Taras "The Rusyn Question in Ukraine: sorting out fact from fiction". Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, XXXII, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.132.150 ( talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I replaced the opening sentence of the second paragraph in this section. The text as it stood declared:
"Although ethnic Rusyns are in the majority (80.5%), other ethnic groups are relatively numerous in Zakarpattia."
As source, a reference was included to the English-language pages of the Ukrainian census site, with the 2001 census results for the Zakarpattia region. (I updated the link to those pages, as they changed the URL.) In addition, an editing note was added to say: "2001 Ukrainian Census does not recognise Rusyns as a separate nation, instead, as a subgroup of Ukrainians. Rusyns and the Rusyn language are thus included in Ukrainians and Ukrainian language group."
This was a bit problematic. The census results provided in the source say nothing about what percentage of the population is Rusyn, specifically: they just list 80.5% of the population as being Ukrainian. If the editing note is right that this is because the census did not recognize Rusyns as a separate nationality, and they were subsumed among Ukrainians, that makes sense - but that doesn't make it OK to bluntly declare all of those 80.5% Ukrainians to be Rusyns. That's certainly not substantiated by the source given. Going only on the source, we have no idea how many of those 80.5% people declared Ukrainians are Rusyns, or really just Ukrainians. So I replaced the sentence with a more neutral wording, i.e.:
"Although Ukrainians, including ethnic Rusyns, are in the majority (80.5%), other ethnic groups are relatively numerous in Zakarpattia." No-itsme ( talk) 02:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! So I was just submitting a minor edit on the Hungarian Wikipedia regarding the Ukrainian and English version of the name of the region, and something caught my attention. I was looking for an English source on this page to support my edit for the English name version and I found none. "Google is youl fliend", said Pontius Pilate to the plebs back in the day, so I did a Google search and it did not retrieve any official source for the name version. (I even ventured to the abandoned wastelands of the Second and the Third pages of the Google search and still nothing.)
So I was wondering, what is the official English name for this region? "Transcarpatia" seems like a rough translation of the Ukrainian version, literally, "Over the Carpathian mountains", while the Hungarian version says "The [bottom] of the Carpathians", which could be best translated to "Subcarpathia". Perhaps the best version would be a Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia OR "Transcarpathia or else, Subcarpathia" kind of name? That would be most precise and encyclopedic in my opinion. What do the Slovekian and Romanian colleges say? I believe in Romanian, the "Transcarpathia" version is used, but how about Slovekian? How do the Slovekian citizens of the region call it?
So I'm going to submit a small edit to the "Name" section of the page, describing this background with the various versions, but I'm not editing the first section until we could come up with a more detailed version that all Wikipedians can agree on. -- StarOfFlames ( talk) 10:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
In Romanian has other names, for the region Marmaţia(Ung to Okna River, Zepmplen(only Ung basin), Bereg,Ugocsa(only north of Tisa and of course Maramureş), for the region between Maramureş and Okna river with Tisa as south border the name is Bârjava, and for Maramureş, Maramureş :). So if you want to name it will probably be „Marmaţia de Nord¸”. But because romanians gone extinct in most part of Bârjava starting with XV century, the region is name Subcarpatia, or Maramureşul de Nord, Subcarpatia(under Carpaţi), but is not a local name is a translation of the name created in XX century. Vasile iuga ( talk) 17:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Why are we spelling Zakarpattia with a double T when the Cyrillic spelling does not? Constant Pedant ( talk) 05:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Azure94,
please stop these unprofessional trials. No, territorial rearrangement have been carried out in 1945.( KIENGIR ( talk) 10:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
KIENGIR, you're rewriting history. So here's a refresher for you:
On June 9, 1942, The Soviet Union joined the rest of the Allies in declaring the pre-1938 Czechoslovak border the only legally valid border. This means that since mid-1942 date, Mukachevo was NOT considered a legal part of Hungary by both the USSR and international law, instead, it was treated as illegally occupied territory of Czechoslovakia. Thus, your claim that the USSR still legally recognized Hungary's annexation in 1944, when it already liberated Mukachevo, is factually incorrect. The post-WW2 transfer you previously mentioned was between Czechoslovakia and the USSR, and not between Hungary and the USSR.
Wikipedia articles need to strive to be NPOV, and when it comes to using the names of cities in areas that changed hands, it's important to use the name that was in that year recognized by international law.
For many years, this article had the following sentence: "On 26 November 1944 in Mukacheve took place the First Congress of People's Committees of Zakarpattia Ukraine". As you can see, this sentence originally used an earlier historic spelling for Mukachevo, fitting for the time period when it was controlled by the Soviet Union, after their army liberated this Czechoslovak territory from Hungarian occupation, an occupation that the USSR and international law considered illegal. Then,
in February of this year, you suddenly changed it to the Hungarian form "Munkács", and put the Ukrainian name into brackets. In doing this, you expressed your refusal to accept how the international law and Allied forces viewed the towns status in 1944, and instead decided to recognize Hungary's illegal irredentist view, even though Hungary no longer controlled the city at this point. Your decision to do this is baffling, and can be only explained by the fact you're simply pushing your biased nationalist POV (it's not a surprise to me that you're a self-identified Hungarian).
In short, your POV edit was done to give the appearance that Wikipedia claims that in 1944 Mukachevo was a legal part of Hungary that the USSR was "illegally" occupying.
My edit was done to restore the previous consensus that existed for many years on this article, the consensus that you unilaterally ignored this February. If you will refuse to revert your POV edit, you will leave me with no other choice but to take this issue to higher places.
Azure94 (
talk) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:WIAN, the most widely accepted name should be used. Seeing as in 1944, after Mukachevo was liberated and years after the Vienna Arbitration was annulled by the Allies, the only one using the Hungarian variant was Hungary and Germany. Everyone else called it Mukachevo. Azure94 ( talk) 18:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Every nation has their own history of territory based on current political attitudes. One example: about this kind of terror after Hungarian occupation, we can read only in Ukrainian sources. I can not found any clue in Hungarian or other European or USSR sources about 27000 people were shot dead. Moreover, it is unidentifiable what is the source of the linked article so use of this source is not met with scientific expectation.
I guess occupation was not bloodiness but this count of terror should be documented by other nations and should be visible in death rate as well. I advise clarification of this statement. 2A01:36D:118:8FB7:1D8E:1B74:6B4:8CDC ( talk) 20:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Would it be out of place to add more information on the historical Jewish community of Zakarpattya as it seems unfair such a large part of Transcarpathian history is reduced to two sentences mentioning the Holocaust. IF anyone has any suggestions for possible sources to add more lmk , otherwise I will do some research :) thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troll empire chief ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Ukranian and Russian nationalists, forcefully annexed the Hungarian plain to the zakarpatti oblast, despite the linguistic, geographic & historic contrast between the Hungarian populated Hungarian plain and the East Slavic populated Carpathian highlands. Forcefully calling the Hungarian plain the Carpathian will not change the fact that the open Hungarian plain will never ever become Carpathian, you will find out soon. Zagabor ( talk) 17:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello all,
Should the first line and infobox of this article be changed to line up with the title (in line with the other oblasts of Ukraine), that is, replacing "Zakarpatska" with "Zakarpattia" in the English version? Bayonet-lightbulb ( talk) 04:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The oblast was formed only after the war but as of now the entire history section is devoted to the interwar period. This rightfully needs merged into Carpathian Ruthenia and the post-war times need to be described instead. Also, when doing so, please avoid duplicating and attempts to reproduce the History of Ukraine in 2-3 sentences of narrow articles about locations. Only what's relevant to the location belongs here rather than general phrases like "Since 1991 the territoryu became part of independent Ukraine..." So was every territory of UkrSSR. Since this is going to be written anew, let's avoid common traps. -- Irpen 03:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Zakarpattia Oblast! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre ( talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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."
Wikarth ( talk) 11:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The only official language is Ukrainian and not any other without any exceptions. The link provided does not support the fact that in some seven villages the official language is Hungarian. That is crazy and needs to be checked as it gives bias information. And if there will be no responses on this subject it will be removed. People come up with all kinds of strange stuff like that the official language of Crimea is Russian. It is de facto language, but it does not make it automatically the official, please, refer to the Constitution of Ukraine for more information. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The only official language is Ukrainian. And I have nothing to add. Ultrasonic220 ( talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Ultrasonic220
Why isn't
File:Zakarpattia-Oblast-flag.gif used in the infobox, and why is there a message stating Please do not include any flags into this field; the province does not have any officially-recognized flags? Can anyone explain this?
☺
Spiby
☻ 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The council of this oblast hasn't adopted any flag yet. This is the only oblast in Ukraine without its own flag.
Iurii.Fedyshyn (
talk)Iurii.Fedyshyn
@ Лобачев Владимир: This was discussed here before. The page you referred, does not contain any color code, it could be a faulty interpretation of a picture on the web page, see also : https://photo.unian.net/photo/189541-zakarpatye-region-s-official-flag-flag-of-ukraine-and-uzhgorod-s-flag. Please give a reference, where it is written in black and white that Zakarpattia Oblast implemented a different color than in Flag of Ukraine. JSoos ( talk) 15:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok that is my mistake. Sorry. JSoos ( talk) 16:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Here are some comments of an author about this issue. He says that some scholars confuse "autonomy" and "self goverment status", and this is what happened on December 1991 un Ukraine. I think that it is important to include it in the article, because it show other pont of view. Here it is the reference: Kuzio, Taras "The Rusyn Question in Ukraine: sorting out fact from fiction". Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, XXXII, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.132.150 ( talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I replaced the opening sentence of the second paragraph in this section. The text as it stood declared:
"Although ethnic Rusyns are in the majority (80.5%), other ethnic groups are relatively numerous in Zakarpattia."
As source, a reference was included to the English-language pages of the Ukrainian census site, with the 2001 census results for the Zakarpattia region. (I updated the link to those pages, as they changed the URL.) In addition, an editing note was added to say: "2001 Ukrainian Census does not recognise Rusyns as a separate nation, instead, as a subgroup of Ukrainians. Rusyns and the Rusyn language are thus included in Ukrainians and Ukrainian language group."
This was a bit problematic. The census results provided in the source say nothing about what percentage of the population is Rusyn, specifically: they just list 80.5% of the population as being Ukrainian. If the editing note is right that this is because the census did not recognize Rusyns as a separate nationality, and they were subsumed among Ukrainians, that makes sense - but that doesn't make it OK to bluntly declare all of those 80.5% Ukrainians to be Rusyns. That's certainly not substantiated by the source given. Going only on the source, we have no idea how many of those 80.5% people declared Ukrainians are Rusyns, or really just Ukrainians. So I replaced the sentence with a more neutral wording, i.e.:
"Although Ukrainians, including ethnic Rusyns, are in the majority (80.5%), other ethnic groups are relatively numerous in Zakarpattia." No-itsme ( talk) 02:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! So I was just submitting a minor edit on the Hungarian Wikipedia regarding the Ukrainian and English version of the name of the region, and something caught my attention. I was looking for an English source on this page to support my edit for the English name version and I found none. "Google is youl fliend", said Pontius Pilate to the plebs back in the day, so I did a Google search and it did not retrieve any official source for the name version. (I even ventured to the abandoned wastelands of the Second and the Third pages of the Google search and still nothing.)
So I was wondering, what is the official English name for this region? "Transcarpatia" seems like a rough translation of the Ukrainian version, literally, "Over the Carpathian mountains", while the Hungarian version says "The [bottom] of the Carpathians", which could be best translated to "Subcarpathia". Perhaps the best version would be a Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia OR "Transcarpathia or else, Subcarpathia" kind of name? That would be most precise and encyclopedic in my opinion. What do the Slovekian and Romanian colleges say? I believe in Romanian, the "Transcarpathia" version is used, but how about Slovekian? How do the Slovekian citizens of the region call it?
So I'm going to submit a small edit to the "Name" section of the page, describing this background with the various versions, but I'm not editing the first section until we could come up with a more detailed version that all Wikipedians can agree on. -- StarOfFlames ( talk) 10:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
In Romanian has other names, for the region Marmaţia(Ung to Okna River, Zepmplen(only Ung basin), Bereg,Ugocsa(only north of Tisa and of course Maramureş), for the region between Maramureş and Okna river with Tisa as south border the name is Bârjava, and for Maramureş, Maramureş :). So if you want to name it will probably be „Marmaţia de Nord¸”. But because romanians gone extinct in most part of Bârjava starting with XV century, the region is name Subcarpatia, or Maramureşul de Nord, Subcarpatia(under Carpaţi), but is not a local name is a translation of the name created in XX century. Vasile iuga ( talk) 17:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Why are we spelling Zakarpattia with a double T when the Cyrillic spelling does not? Constant Pedant ( talk) 05:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Azure94,
please stop these unprofessional trials. No, territorial rearrangement have been carried out in 1945.( KIENGIR ( talk) 10:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
KIENGIR, you're rewriting history. So here's a refresher for you:
On June 9, 1942, The Soviet Union joined the rest of the Allies in declaring the pre-1938 Czechoslovak border the only legally valid border. This means that since mid-1942 date, Mukachevo was NOT considered a legal part of Hungary by both the USSR and international law, instead, it was treated as illegally occupied territory of Czechoslovakia. Thus, your claim that the USSR still legally recognized Hungary's annexation in 1944, when it already liberated Mukachevo, is factually incorrect. The post-WW2 transfer you previously mentioned was between Czechoslovakia and the USSR, and not between Hungary and the USSR.
Wikipedia articles need to strive to be NPOV, and when it comes to using the names of cities in areas that changed hands, it's important to use the name that was in that year recognized by international law.
For many years, this article had the following sentence: "On 26 November 1944 in Mukacheve took place the First Congress of People's Committees of Zakarpattia Ukraine". As you can see, this sentence originally used an earlier historic spelling for Mukachevo, fitting for the time period when it was controlled by the Soviet Union, after their army liberated this Czechoslovak territory from Hungarian occupation, an occupation that the USSR and international law considered illegal. Then,
in February of this year, you suddenly changed it to the Hungarian form "Munkács", and put the Ukrainian name into brackets. In doing this, you expressed your refusal to accept how the international law and Allied forces viewed the towns status in 1944, and instead decided to recognize Hungary's illegal irredentist view, even though Hungary no longer controlled the city at this point. Your decision to do this is baffling, and can be only explained by the fact you're simply pushing your biased nationalist POV (it's not a surprise to me that you're a self-identified Hungarian).
In short, your POV edit was done to give the appearance that Wikipedia claims that in 1944 Mukachevo was a legal part of Hungary that the USSR was "illegally" occupying.
My edit was done to restore the previous consensus that existed for many years on this article, the consensus that you unilaterally ignored this February. If you will refuse to revert your POV edit, you will leave me with no other choice but to take this issue to higher places.
Azure94 (
talk) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:WIAN, the most widely accepted name should be used. Seeing as in 1944, after Mukachevo was liberated and years after the Vienna Arbitration was annulled by the Allies, the only one using the Hungarian variant was Hungary and Germany. Everyone else called it Mukachevo. Azure94 ( talk) 18:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Every nation has their own history of territory based on current political attitudes. One example: about this kind of terror after Hungarian occupation, we can read only in Ukrainian sources. I can not found any clue in Hungarian or other European or USSR sources about 27000 people were shot dead. Moreover, it is unidentifiable what is the source of the linked article so use of this source is not met with scientific expectation.
I guess occupation was not bloodiness but this count of terror should be documented by other nations and should be visible in death rate as well. I advise clarification of this statement. 2A01:36D:118:8FB7:1D8E:1B74:6B4:8CDC ( talk) 20:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Would it be out of place to add more information on the historical Jewish community of Zakarpattya as it seems unfair such a large part of Transcarpathian history is reduced to two sentences mentioning the Holocaust. IF anyone has any suggestions for possible sources to add more lmk , otherwise I will do some research :) thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troll empire chief ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Ukranian and Russian nationalists, forcefully annexed the Hungarian plain to the zakarpatti oblast, despite the linguistic, geographic & historic contrast between the Hungarian populated Hungarian plain and the East Slavic populated Carpathian highlands. Forcefully calling the Hungarian plain the Carpathian will not change the fact that the open Hungarian plain will never ever become Carpathian, you will find out soon. Zagabor ( talk) 17:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello all,
Should the first line and infobox of this article be changed to line up with the title (in line with the other oblasts of Ukraine), that is, replacing "Zakarpatska" with "Zakarpattia" in the English version? Bayonet-lightbulb ( talk) 04:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)