Talk:Maramureş (historical region)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] what is this article about

Maramures is not a region as the main meaning of the word region.(i hope i wont have to explain what a Maramures region implies). it is indeed a historical region of Romania Criztu 13:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

where is the the northern limit of maramures (ie how much of transcarpathia does it comprise)?Anonimu 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the so-called Romanian Maramures ... has nothing to do with the former Maramures region within the Kingdom of Hungary. The Romanian historical Maramures is somehow mixed with the former Maramures Raion, with the present day Maramures county ... etc. Transcarpathia is also a relatively new entity a direct result of the post Trianon period.

So the original Maramures was divided into present-day Romanian Maramures and Transcarphatia ... --fz22 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Maramures, from the way I look at things, is a historical region that had exactly the same boundary till 1918-1920, never being split. Presently, it is devided into a part in Ukraine (see the map at Northern Maramuresh (geographic region)) and Romania (see Maramureş County). NM is about 50% of territory and 30% of population of Zakarpattia, it is not coincident with the latter, as the political and economical centers of the later are outside NM.

This article should be about Maramures as historical region, before 1867. After 1867 we have artciles for administrative entities in the Kingdom of Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Ukraine. To help unite the issues, I intend to write an article History of Maramures, so for history can link there, but for geography, politics, culture, localities, people, one should write in the respective articles (my suggestion).

One can ask, why not writing articles for administrative units before 1867. Answer: it is almost impossible to find specific info for an article about a 20-years long administrative unit during 18th century. Sometimes one does not even know the precise year a unit was formed and dissolved, does not know who were the officials, has no demographic data for those 20 years, has no idea where to find an EXACT list of localities for that 20-year period. Such an article would be a permanent stub.:Dc76 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] was fully included in the Hungarian Kingdom in the 14th century?

Yes sure :))), were re-included teritories from some rebellious barons (Aba and Borsa family), but definetely wasn't a Slavic autonomous region ... Plus after the Mongol invasion the whole region was depopulated --fz22 20:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

after the Mongol invasion the whole region was depopulated... Care to share with us your sources for this piece of information? Dmaftei 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In 1241-1242, Tatars have stayed 7 months in Transylvania, plundered, sieged all fortresses that were shut (except for 2 or 3, all fell), and in the process killed 50% of the population. This is worse than the desease of 1350s, when only 1/4 died. The population recovered quickly (one generation) every time. No region was entirely depopulated. There were some villages that siezed to exist, some where repopulated several years later. Colonization started around 1200, i.e. almost 2 generations before. Not only Transylvania, but other parts of the Kingdom of Hungary were depopulated, and there was no special need to populate Transylvania more than other regions. By the time the kings were able to practically stimullate collonization, the population recovered. The colonization continued in its own right, based on military and political reasons, not on Tatar invasion outcome.

Maramures is first mentioned in Hungarian cronics in 1199 as unknown forrest, and exactly 100 years later, in 1299 as royal forest. From that year kings tried to bring the local nobles under their vassality. Maramures was an integral political entity at the time, a loose federation of local small nobles, viteji, under a dinastic voivod (generally, but not only, for judging matters). When the Anjou got in Hungary in 1320s, they wanted to bring Maramures under their vassality, and told the voivod he would be called a count. However, when voevods realized that meant to kneel, and generally to be called king's representative, they rejected. Carol Robert (first Anjou) had other more important problems, so he sort of gave Maramures a brake. When Louis (second Anjou) came in 1342, Maramures was among the first on the list. He managed to persuade many fighters from Maramures to participate in 1343 campain agaist Tatars in what later became Moldavia, which was very succesful. Louis struck gold by bringing Dragos to his side, for that was an old and very respected noble (not sure whether from Maramures or from Bistrita, or from Bukovina mountains). At any rate, as Dragos died in 1345, his son Sas was heart and soul with Anjou, who's determination ended Tatar yoke. Bogdan, the Maramures voevod, was not happy about this for political reasons. Louis persuaded small nobles of Maramures to come to his terms and serve as king representatives for subregions of Maramures. Bogdan was furious, and in 1349 made a sweep thoughout Maramures, throughing out everyone who swore aleagence to Louis. But in just a few months everything was back. At which point Bogdan realized, that he had to do something more radical. The move happened 10 years later, and was at least partially determined by the fact that Bogdan's daughter Muşata (a nickname, her Christian name was Margareta) was wife of a old noble in around present day Siret/Rădăuţi (and a vassal of Polish kings), who had at least two young sons from her, and at least one son from a previous mariage. Bogdan therefore had to interfere in envy between half-brothers. When Louis' sent army was defeted at Radauti 4 years later in 1363, Louis confiscated all Bogdan's lands in Maramures (theoretically Bogdan could still reclaim them, since he had just gone into an expedition), and appointed these kands to Dragos' grandsons Drag and Balc, who swore happily aleagence to Louis as voivods and counts of Maramures. So, 1363. :Dc76 18:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROBLEM

I moved Maramureş (historical region) to Maramures (historical region), but now I realize there are alomst 100 redirects here. Please help with suggestions! :Dc76 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed all of the double redirects that were created with the move, but what is important is whether there are any double redirects, ususal redirects do not do any harm... But I could run WP:AWB to fix the links. —dima/s-ko/ 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you have a program, that's great. Can you, please, however wait 2-3 days before doing that, in case some people disagree with the move - to dicuss first. Thanks for your kind help.:Dc76 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why this page was moved. Maramureş is the correct spelling. Shouldn't we be moving Crişana to Crisana then? Khoikhoi 04:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I should have discussed this more thouroughly first. (see also Talk:Northern Maramuresh (geographic region)) Maybe the move was worng, I don't know. It came out of the discussion with User:PANONIAN and User:DDima. Let's figure out. (I appologize in advance if we need to revert) Here are the reasons:

• Crişana is a region in Romania, while Maramures is both in Romania and Ukraine. In Romania it is spelled Maramureş, while in Ukraine it is spelled Maramuresh.
• If there would have been a name of some officially used administrative unit, then I understand and agree we should use the name in the language it is. E.g. Maramureş County, Máramaros (refering to the 1867-1918 county), Zakarpattia, etc. So we exclude all these cases, when the name is of some official entity.
• If a geographic or historic region is entirely in some country, then we have two options:
  • there is already a prefered English name, e.g. Transylvania
  • there is no preferred English name, so we use the one of that country in that country's spelling, e.g. Crişana
• If a region is divided betwen countries, then:
  • if there is a prefered English name, then we are done, e.g. Dobruja
  • if there is no preferred English name, we are stuck, and have to choose between one of the national spellings (POV), or find a middle solution (original research). OR might be little better solution, for in some cases the names in two languages differ very much, and we don't want to have South Eire and Northern Ireland (just a stupid example, I don't want to take any side there :-) )

This is exactly our situation: Maramureş (historical region) and Maramuresh (historical region) are national names, while Maramures (historical region) is our "invention" or "compromize". So, I (Romanian) moved a persived POV (by PANNONIAN who is Serbian and DDima who is Russian Ukrainian), to a persived original research. As I have done this, I noticed there are 100 or so links to it, and I realized I must have done something unwise. So I left the message here, and I hope someone would bring more light into the matter.

The other problem we have is Northern Maramuresh (geographic region). But this is somewhat easier: this is not an official entity, but it is situated entirely in Ukraine (although ethnically mixed), and there is no prefered English name. So, I guess according to the above here we should use Northern Maramuresh - one of the 3 Ukrainian versions, which lands 600+ google seaches, as opposed to 10 and 25 for the other two (as pointed by DDima) - also this of the 3 is more close to the prononciation in Romanian, so less chance of someone not understanding that Maramuresh, Maramureş, Mármaros, Maramures, Marmatia is actually the same thing. On the same tokken I guess it should be Southern Maramureş, which is less used, since it represents around 60% of the present day Maramureş County, and people simply refer to the county.

Maybe the first sentance of Maramures (historical region) should be:

The name Maramures is alternatively spelled Maramureş, Maramuresh, Mármaros, Marmaţia, Marmatia, etc, depending on the sourse. It denotes a historic and gepographic region, presently split between Romania (south, where it is part of Maramureş County), and Ukraine (north, where it is part of Zakarpattia Oblast).:Dc76 17:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I'm always against using misspellings on Wikipedia. "Maramures" how people spell "Maramureş" when there are technical limitations. You might also be interested in WP:UE, especially the section "Borderline cases"

Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead.

At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting Google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive).

So, as I would support a solution, I oppose this particular one. Khoikhoi 01:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I must conceed, your arguments are sounder. I am changing my point of view, now I will defend Maramureş (historical region) (at least now I would be able to argument that). I am sincerely sorry for trubble with moving pages back and forth. If this needs more fixing, list below what things should I look for. Anyway, I will go through the redirects to check. Simultaneously, this has also solved the problem with Northern Maramuresh (geographic region):Dc76 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)