Talk:Zakarpattia Oblast

History at the wrong place

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)

• This region has been always considered very important on the military strategy point of view because it can control all the wide Pannonian lowlands. --Deguef (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Latin Europe

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)

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."

Wikarth (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Language

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)

I'll clarify: minority citizens/inhabitants in 7 villages of the Muchachivskyi Raion can choose to educate their children in Hungarian. This is from the Zakarpattia Oblast State Administration website. No one is saying that Hungarian is co-official in Zakarpattia. Maybe the "Hungarian language has some official rights" part confused you.. The language just has some rights as a language of a minority in several of those villages. Though don't forget Article 10 of the Constitution: In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed. Feel free to reword it to make it less confusing. —dima/talk/ 03:56, 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

• A liberal country should recognize also other languages spoken by minority ethnic groups.--Deguef (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Does your comment has any relevance to this article.93.73.16.199 (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Flag

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

A flag has been adopted! But is is slightish different the the one in the infobox. You can see a picture of the new flag here. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you, Mariah-Yulia. This question was interesting for me. I looked throught the news and really this flag was adopted yesterday. Now there is a need to update this article in other languages.Iurii.Fedyshyn (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

@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)

Official coat of arms of Zakarpattia oblast (1990)

• Are the official websites of the government and the parliament of the region not authoritative sources? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Лобачев Владимир: You are correct! It is not! If there is only a picture with no specific reason containing different color than the official Flag of Ukraine then it is supposedly just an administrative mistake by the web administrator of the webpage! JSoos (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If the regional parliament was mistaken and adopted or published the wrong flag or coat of arms, then it is not for us to correct it. We only show the official image as it is. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to argue. If you think you're right, cancel my edition. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the official flag was correctly represented, in the file you changed. Could you justify, why do you think that the previous editors all are mistakenly wrong both here and both in Commons? Why do you think that Zakarpattia implemented a different color than the State itself? Could you please cite any source which clearly write down that the colors in the flags differ of the state and the oblast? JSoos (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any complaints about the coat of arms too? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that is correct, it is the same color than the flag of Ukraine. This shows also that there is a mistake on the page you cite [1], because also in the web page header and also the coat of arm picture is correct, but the picture of the flag was not adjusted to true color representation, that is why I say this is supposedly a mistake of the webadministrator. JSoos (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Then why the official image of the coat of arms was removed, and instead of it now the author's version of the Wikipedia editor Alex Tora? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Author's version of Alex Thor

Ok that is my mistake. Sorry. JSoos (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

And now the flag has the wrong coat of arms. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You can create a new SVG file with the better COA, however, it is much better to show this than the flag with the wrong color, and COA in the flag is not that important, it is small, and next to it there is COA in big. JSoos (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Some comment about autonomy of Transcarpathia

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)

Demographics section: Rusyns and/or Ukrainians?

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)

Actually, if you delve into the Ukrainian-language 2001 census database, it does have a table with data for the "Distribution in the Transcarpathian region of those identifying themselves as Rusyns and indicating the Rusyn language as a native language," so the editing note isn't actually right. And it lists those people as making up just 0.54% of the total population of Zakarpattia. I suppose that this still leaves the question of how many people might identify themselves as Rusyns but do not speak Rusyn as their native language, but it's not up to Wikipedia to speculate. No-itsme (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Name

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)

Spelling

Why are we spelling Zakarpattia with a double T when the Cyrillic spelling does not? Constant Pedant (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Azure94,

please stop these unprofessional trials. No, territorial rearrangement have been carried out in 1945.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

No territorial changes in 1945??? Are you Serious? That was the year when the largest territorial changes happened. Carpathian Ruthenia became part of the USSR in that year. You don't seem to know even basic history. You're the one who's acting unprofessional. Azure94 (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, if you don't know that Carpathian Ruthenia was transferred to the Soviet Union in 1945 as part of the Ukrainian SSR, we have nothing to dicuss really...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

And do you remember that it was Czechoslovakia who ceeded it to the Soviet Union? Not Hungary? That's because the USSR did not recognize Hungarian occupation of it, and the moment it was occupied in 1944, it stopped being part of Hungary. Therefore, it is correct to use the name used by both Czechoslovakia and the USSR, and not by Hungary which at that time no longer controlled the town. If you can't understand this then we have nothing to discuss really... Azure94 (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia's cede was a formal act after Czeshoslovakia was recreated, to dismiss any claim Benes' heritage would have been. The USSR recognized Hungary's pre-war borders, however, occupations during war conditions has nothing to with any recognition, since it is evident then they don't respect such things, btw. the whole is not dependent solely on any USSR recognition, since Hungary had to sign to resign of those territories, which she should not have to, if those would not exist. Don't mix occupation with legal affairs.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:20, 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)

I did not rewrite anything. The Soviet Union and rest of the Allies declarations are non-binding to the international law, especially in war conditions dozens of such happened vica-versa from both sides, even contradicting ones, mutual agreement needed in order to change the status quo, per the international law itself (which indeed represented the pre-war status quo). Moreover, I did not say what you try to identify I said. In 1945, Hungary signed the resignation of the territory, and as Czechoslovakia was recreated, the transfer has been as well signed between her and the Soviet Union. Hence the rest of your overheated contemplations were not necessary, yes WP:NPOV is very important which unfortunately you did not really follow, as well due lack of expertise knowledge in the subject, for which we have seen numerous examples. I am sorry you did not drop personal attacks as well, it's a pity.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC))

Again with the rewriting of history by you. Hungary could not legally cede territory they had no right to in the first place. You also have a complete misunderstanding of what international law is. As I already said before, The Vienna Arbitration was declared invalid in 1942, and as such, Mukachevo was from then on considered occupied Czechoslovak territory. It's also frankly incredibly hypocritical of you to complain about personal attacks while you falsely accuse me of a lack of expertise and knowledge, in broken English no less! Anyway, I have no choice but to conclude that you're trying to push irredentist Hungarian POV by forcing a Hungarian name for a Czechoslovak town liberated by the Soviet Union armed forces. I will seek out help and a review of your repeated POV edits. Azure94 (talk) 18:30, 26 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)

• Might I add:
• 1) This is English Wikipedia, addressed to an audience of native English speakers — Americans, Britons, Australians etc. 99%+ of them have not heard of Mukachevo or Munkács. From that viewpoint, one meaningless name is enough, it’s not like we’re talking about London, Birmingham or Seattle. The only effect of the second name, really, is cluttering up the text and interrupting the flow.
• 2) Nothing in WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, WP:PLACE or other relevant policies requires two names. There is simply no such obligation, and I see no compelling reason to do it. If readers want to know alternative names for the city, they need do no more than click Mukachevo. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Azure94,

repeating the same mistakes does not help. Hungary had legally right on the territory, and the basics of the international law is that status quo changes are concluded with mutual agreement. Any allied declaration did not have mutual agreement, moreover Czechoslovakia did not exist in 1942, about hypocrisy you should better silence, since a few pages you reinforced your erroneous assertions on many topics, about just a bit wiser historian would amaze (not to even to mention that contradiction that if your conclusion would have been true, then Hungary would not had to resign on the territory, anyway fully the issue was resolved only in 1947). Biruitorul, we all now about WP:HISTORICALNAMES, and the standard to put in brackets the historical and modern name, it is fully fullfilled, as a possible option, how interesting why you forget to mention this...(sigh).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, WP:HISTORICALNAMES pertains to English name, and Mukachevo happens to have about 1,050,000 results through Google, whereas to Munkács which has only 334,000 results. Also, Czechoslovakia did exist, as an occupied state and an government in exile. The Allies continued to recognize Czechoslovakia and pointedly refused to recognize the Bohemian Protectorate or the Slovak State, as per international law which considered Nazi Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia to be illegal. And since you're now bringing up "physical, de facto existence" as your point, I would like to remind you that in 1944 Hungary no longer controlled Mukachevo, that means that by your own criteria Hungary didn't "exist" on the land where Mukachevo lies. So your attempt to appeal to "de facto" status only undermines your own claim. Another point, Hungary had nothing to "resign", as their claim to Mukacevho was invalidated in 1942 by law, when the Arbitration was annulled, and by force in 1944, when they were ejected from the city. That's the reason why the sentence at the center of this dispute mentions the First Congress of People's Committees of Zakarpattia Ukraine, which happened in Mukachevo because it was now legally de jure and de facto no longer part of Hungary. Azure94 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Biruitorul, Mukachevo is also the modern name of the town, so suffice to say that more Americans, Britons, Australians etc. have heard of this, than its temporary Hungarian name during its WW2 Hungarian annexation. Azure94 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:HISTORICALNAMES requires the presence of the name by which the city was briefly known while under the occupation of a murderous regime. That’s just a diversion.

Azure94, you are of course correct. To the small extent the Anglophone world knows about this place, it knows it as Mukachevo. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Azure, your argumentation is again flawed the policy I cited may be used for names in historical context, and it has nothing to do with about what google shows. The fact you repeat again your mistaken thories which have been already proven wrong, again does not help. Czechoslovaka did not exist as an occupied state, since the country ceased to exist before World War II. Much later, the Allies recognized a Government-in-exile which was mean a further base for the recreation of future Czeshoslovak state. You again erronouesly believe that one-way wartime declarations would effect international law, but it does not with lack of mutual agreement (to say nothing of Germany did not occupy Czechoslovakia, but acquired the Sudetenland and later the Protectorate was formed, that's her part). I already told you it is not about control, but belonging, nevertheless before the Red Army arrived, were under Hungarian control in fact. So you again repeat your 1942 mistake. Sorry, there are official documents of the resignation of the territory of 1945, so this chapter is over, sorry, it has been part of of Hungary then.

Biruitorul, I am really sorry about your recently continuous bad faith behavior, and your nice "euphemism", about "diversion", in fact you are the one who is not reading carefully, since I talked about an option. As part of the wikietiquette, we are long over that time when some editors by nationalist reasons tackle contemporary names, or any futher names, but we respect that, as well widely in Romania or any other related articles, shall it be any time of history, even during WWII, which you even even know and apply, but don't worry, I fully understand your motives, which is not connected to this issue, but better to me.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC))

"Czechoslovaka did not exist as an occupied state" makes you sound like you're following Axis view on how Europe should look like. Anyway, KIENGIR's banned now, so unless there are other editors who agree with him I'm gonna go and restore my edit. Azure94 (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Some statement should be checked about history ofbterritory

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)

More info on Jewish community?

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)

Hungarian plain

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Name of article vs first sentence

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)