Wikipedia:Peer review/Carpathian Ruthenia/archive1

Carpathian Ruthenia

A widespread tradition among the east Slavs is to treat Jews as aliens. Thus discussion of the (extremely thorough) Holocaust in Carpathian Ruthenia, is being shifted to a separate section. Perhaps this will strike the reader as a vivid, though unconscious revelation of nationalist sentiment in the area. But what do we do to preserve some neutral balance and honest history in that article? Information that doesn't suit nationalist agendas gets "revised" or deleted. Ugly.

Posted by: Wetman 05:56, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above phrase demonstrates neutrally balanced racism with respect to Slavs. Mikkalai 08:37, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not to say about double standard. Wetman himself separated "Carpathian Ruthenia" from "Ruthenia", but violently dislikes when someone else does something similar. Mikkalai 08:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I actually think there is a good bit of material in this area that needs to be re-juggled to different articles. I think moving "Carpathian Ruthenia" out of "Ruthenia" was a very good idea: the article "Ruthenia" is about too many different things. I think that "Ruthenia" can be about the use of the very problematic English-language word "Ruthenia", and the various geographic-historical referents of that word can each get an article of their own. (I actually believe that the three currently described there don't even tell the whole story.) Wetman's holocaust issues are now fairly summarized in "Carpathian Ruthenia" and detailed in a separate article: I think this splits the difference pretty well, myself. (For the record, I am ethnically Jewish, but secular.)

NPOV is tough here, and not just about the Jews (did Muscovy "subjugate" the Republic of Novgorod, "incorporate" it, or "destroy" it?) arises even in the organization of articles. I believe I don't have any particular animus here, and am available to arbitrate. I encourage all concerned to please skip the mutual personal attacks, refrain from deleting passages without some discussion (mark it as factually disputed rather than deleting), lay out their issues and cite their references on the relevant talk pages, etc. Still, there seems to be much less argument over what actually happened historically than in how to present it, and that's always particularly tough. -- Jmabel 07:26, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)