Talk:Krai

Meaning

It is too narrow scope and not whole interpretation of "krai" which is a popular Slavonic word meaning rather "land" and root for Krajina. We have countries as Srbska Krajina, Ukraine ('Ukrajina' in Ukrainian) all coming from "Krai", meaning naturally "land of people", but not self proclaming as "borderland".

I would agree that meaning "borderland" is but one opinion. Even in Russian language expression "dalnie kraya" means "faraway lands" and "rodnoi krai" means "native land". I cannot imagine that a man from Rursk will call his homeland "native borderland". `'Míkka>t 15:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well yes the word just has multiple general meanings, where the simplest single definition would be a region separate in its identity from the lands around it, so this can be either in the sense of specific frontier region historically isolated from the rest of Russia, such as Krasnodar, Zabaikalskyy or Primorskyy (lit. "beyond the Baikal" and "before the sea" in the latter two cases respectively) but it can also just be in the sense of a generic term for a region that the speaker wishes to highlight as being separate from its peers, such as in the generic expression of "moy radnoy krai" or "moyi rodnyye kraya" to refer to one's place of birth regardless of where it is in Russia and whether or not if fits the legal or historical definition of the word. If no one has any objection I think we can just mark this as having reached consensus, as soon as someone can find a good enough source we can update the page. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Being a native russian I could say, that "Krai" has at least 2 meanings: Land and Borderland. But considering the fact that we are talking about the meaning of this word in the context of russian history, in this case "Krai" means only "Borderland". In the Age of Exploration (16-th - 17-th cent.) almost all borders of Russian Tsardom were called "Krais", including Ukraine ("Okraina" or "Dikoe Pole" or "Wild Fields") and even Siberia (this land was often called as "Sibirskaya Okraina" or Siberian Borderland). These lands were not populated by the Slavs before the Age of Exploraion and if you still think, that "Krai" could be used as a "land of people", you are not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.67.200 (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I came today looking for the difference between Krai versus Okrug. I didn't find it. It would be appropriate, or at least a link to somewhere that is explained.

It's complicated. There isn't one particular difference which can be simply explained in one place. You should, however, be able to get a general idea by reading this article and comparing it to what's in okrug#Russia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 3, 2018; 16:20 (UTC)

Also the explanation with krai meaning "border" makes literally no sense. Nobody thinks of a krai as a border, but rather as an edge or cliff or in case of maps literally "an edge of the world". Like a point after which there is nothing. A "border" is "granitsa" and it means also "a limit" or "a bound". I understand that there might be 2 different borders in english - behind one there is a different country and behind the other there be dragons, but the first one is "granitsa" and the second one is "krai" in russian and other slavic languages. I would not mention a border as a translation of "krai" at all, definitelly not in the first place. Had to think about how the heck krai means border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.164.40 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Differences?

Ezhiki, please explain what difference you see between the terms "administrative division" and "federal subject", i.e, why you think that a federal subject is not one of "administrative division", i.e., "political division". Why "province is an administrative division and "oblast" is not. AFAIU, "admin division" is an "umbrella term" for any way a country is split for the purpose of governing ("administration", if you wish). I suspect you are splitting hairs here, colleague. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the 1993 Constitution of Russia, the republics, krais, oblasts, autonomous okrugs, autonomous oblast, and the federal cities are all equal in status and are the constituent members of the Federation (equally represented in the Federation Council). This is not unlike the US states, which are not "administrative divisions" either. Furthermore, a dictionary of Russian constitutional terms which I happen to have devotes several paragraphs to the explanation why it is incorrect to refer to the federal subjects of Russia as "administrative divisions". If I am splitting hairs, it's only because that's what the academia does, and we are supposed to follow them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2011; 19:48 (UTC)

Here's the applicable excerpt:

В Российской Федерации административно-территориальное устройство (АТУ) - категория, которая относится к уровню только субъектов РФ - республик в составе РФ, краёв, областей, городов федерального значения, автономной области, автономных округов. То есть будет ошибочно сказать "АТУ РФ", поскольку Российская Федерация состоит не из административно-территориальных единиц, а из государств и государственно-территориальных образований. Можно говорить лишь об АТУ республики, области и т. д.

Энциклопедический словарь конституционного права. Сост. А.А. Избранов. — Мн.: Изд. В.М. Суров, 2001.

Hope this suffices.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2011; 20:02 (UTC)

No, not suffices. Since, as you say, "dictionary of Russian constitutional terms ... devotes several paragraphs", the same must do wikipedia. Please write about this somewhere not in talk page. I may understand that the major difference is between the concepts of "division" and "union". But in the case of "oblast" this distinction is quite arbitrary. It may also be the interlanguage problem or Legal parlance issue. (E.g., "infraction" in Legal meaning is something special, and not 100% one-to-one correspond to Russian law) Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, what do you expect me to write? That federal subjects are not administrative divisions? That statement belongs in the article on the federal subjects, not in the article about krais. What exactly are you contesting? Remember, we are talking about a descriptive sentence in the lead, not about a statement of fact. I might as well ask you to provide a source confirming that the "distinction here is quite arbitrary", but to what end? What purpose would it serve?

Additionally, the dictionary I quoted is not a legal document. It is a reference work compiled by the constitutional scholars for laymen like you and me; not unlike any other specialized dictionary/encyclopedia out there. Plus, the Russian term for "administrative division" matches the English term quite precisely, so there isn't an interlanguage disconnect here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2011; 20:42 (UTC)

re: "Umm, what do you expect me to write?" - Something like you wrote here. re "not in the article about krais." - thet's what I meant: "Please write about this somewhere not in talk page". re "What purpose would it serve?" - removal of confusion and propagation of good knowledge. Russia is divided into oblasts, but this is not administrative division. I would say it is quite confusing to a simple man. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. And please don't think that I am the only one who is so stupid. Wikipedia article "Constituent state" has a phrase "Administrative units that are not federated", from which it is easily inferred that "federated units" are special case of "administrative units", just as I thought. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you think that I think you stupid. We have a disconnect of sorts here, true, but I don't think I implied stupidity in any of my comments above.

That said, I still don't understand what it is you want me to write. We have a sentence stating that "krais were a type of administrative divisions of the Russian Empire and the RSFSR, and are a type of federal subjects of modern Russia". Those who don't know what a "federal subject" is can follow the link to federal subjects of Russia. Those who don't understand why federal subjects of Russia are not administrative divisions should do the same (granted, that information is not currently there, but that's where it should be, because this information applies to all types of federal subjects equally). Additionally, Russia (modern Russia—this is an important distinction) is not divided into krais/oblasts; it is a Federation that consists of them (and units of other types, known collectively as "federal subjects"). Just like the United States is not divided into states; it is a union.

As for the constituent state article, notice that it is a general overview, which makes (as it should) some ~simplifications for the sake of clarity. The article about krais, on the other hand, is Russia-specific, and it is simply not logical to apply a generalized, vague definition to a country-specific situation. We need to use a definition that is relevant, and in context of modern Russia (and undoubtedly some other countries as well) the term "administrative divisions" does not refer to federated entities (to which end I supplied a quote above). At any rate, modern Russia is not a federacy, it is a federation, so your example does not even apply.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2011; 21:14 (UTC)

re: "granted, that information is not currently there," - my point exactly. And that's what I wanted from you: "Please write about this somewhere not in talk page". re: "in context of modern Russia (and undoubtedly some other countries as well) the term "administrative divisions" does not refer to federated entities" Therefore the article administrative division must be split in two or more: one for the generic term, per dictionary: "administrative division - noun - a district defined for administrative purposes" and one or more for countries which have precise legal definition of the term. re: "simplifications for the sake of clarity" what exactly was simplified in the phrase I quoted? There is a big distinction between "simplified" or "sloppified", or "dumbed down". For the latter we have Simple English wikipedia. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

When you think information is missing from some article, you should request it on the talk page of that article. Since you are requesting me to write something on the talk page of this article, naturally, I assume you want me to add something to this article, which is why I went through all the motions to explain to you what the information you requested does not belong here. Similarly, if you think there is something wrong with the administrative division article, please post a comment there (I, for one, have no interest in editing it). Finally, as for the "simplification", that, perhaps, was not the best term to use. What I meant is "generalization". An article about a constituent state is supposed to summarize the information and to give general overview, and only then go into the specifics and idiosyncrasies pertaining to individual countries. You were taking a generalized definition and tried to argue that it should be applied to a Russia-specific subdivision such as krai, which would've made it OK to not distinguish between the administrative division status of the Imperial/Soviet Russian entities and the political status of the modern Russian entities. There's a logical fallacy in that kind of reasoning, which is what I was trying to demonstrate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2011; 16:26 (UTC)