Talk:Moldovans/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Ethnic

Hehe, Olahus, take a look at what Britannica writes in Moldova:Ethnic composition: The Moldovans, who ethnically are kindred to the Romanians... ;-) --Illythr (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


1) Olahus, your "Nationality versus Ethicity" thing is your original research. Please adhere to the same sourcing policy you demand from your fellow editors. 2) 1924 (when the idea of a separate Moldovan identity first surfaced) was not yet in Stalinist era (see the article Moldovenism). The US library of Congress source omits this, preferring to focus on Stalin's name instead. It doesn't say anything about the notion's origins, only that Stalin used it. 3) As for your latest addition of "sometimes... otherwise" - c'mon, this is getting silly. This thing is official in Moldova no matter how much you or whoever else doesn't like it. Voronin makes a point of it, and as long as he's in charge - it stays. Maybe in 2009 this will change, but for now it is so. --Illythr (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To 1): It can't be my original reserach since the census results are using the term "naţionalitate" instead of "etnie". See here the official page with the census results. If you see anywhere the term "etnicity" (etnie), please inform us about it.
To 2): No problem. We can change the mention "stalinist" with "soviet". It's indubitable that the idea of a separate Moldovan ethnicity is of Soviet origin.
To 3): Illythr, it's unrealistic. Voronin's point of view by itself is not "more official" than the point of view of the Moldovan Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Both are official. But we can change in the text the term "sometimes" with "often": "In the Republic of Moldova, the term Moldovans is sometimes used to officially denote an ethnicity separate from Romanians[1] Otherwise, the Moldovans are considered to be of the same etnicity like the Romanians.[2]". I think this form is quite neutral. In fact, the notion of a Moldovan ethnic group is nowhere mentioned in any law of the Moldovan Republic.

Another suggestion: the infobox should include the estimations about the Moldovans from Romania. It's usual in Wikipedia to insert estimated informations in infoboxes. See, for instance, the article Roma people. --Olahus (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1) The words ro:Nationalitate and en:Nationality do not possess exactly the same meaning. In this particular case, these mean citizenship (defined by possessing a Moldovan passport) and ethnicity (defined by census choice). Obviously, we deal with the second, as every citizen of Moldova has Moldovan nationality regardless of ethnicity.
2) It is somewhat difficult to pinpoint (Imperial Russia has also used "Moldovans", but it is unclear whether it referred to them as a separate ethnicity or not). I think it is already covered in the History section. Pulling it out into the lead would amount to scarecrow tactics, which is bad. It's like using the following formulation in the Autobahn article: Autobahn ... is the German word for a major high-speed road restricted to motor vehicles, built by the Nazis (or Hitler), using slave labor.
Even Cantemir has seen a difference between Moldavian nationality and ethnicity ( "subditi Moldavorum" vs "natio Moldavos"). And the ethnic sense is clear, since he puts Moldavians along Russians, Hungarians, Greeks etc as inhabitants of Moldavia.Xasha (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3) There is an official position of the Moldovan government. Some of substructures may deviate from it or even defy it, but there is only one official position. Sometimes is totally out of place there. As for it being unrealistic (I guess you mean "false" by that), well, take a look at this: WP:Verifiability. First sentence, bolded text.
Moldovans in Romania: Apparently, other than Voronin, nobody claimed that they are an ethnicity separate from Romanians. Is there an official source of some kind, noting how many of them are actually Moldovans? Otherwise, that depending on one's interpretation in the lead will have to be adapted for the infobox as well. --Illythr (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
1) Illythr, in Romanian, The Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language (Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române), published by the Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy, defines the term "naţionalitate" as: NAŢIONALITATE, naţionalităţi, s.f. 1. Apartenenţă a unei persoane la o anumită naţiune; cetăţenie. 2. Totalitatea însuşirilor specifice unei naţiuni; caracter naţional. 3. Apartenenţă a unei persoane juridice, a unei nave sau aeronave la un anumit stat. [Pr.: -ţi-o-] – Din fr. nationalité, germ. Nationalität. So, please, stop with this personal POV-pushing. In Romanian, the term "naţionalitate" defines primarly the belonging to a citizenship.
2) The self-designation "Moldovan" might be as old as the Moldovan Principality is. But, as many documents prooves this, the main population of the Moldovan principality never regarded themselves as a separate ethnic group from the main population of the Wallachian Principality. The statement that the Moldovans are a separate ethnic group than the Romanians is no older than the Soviet Union. Besides, don't confuse the tehnic concept "Autobahn" with the political-ethnical concept "Moldavian ethnicity". It could rather be compared it with national-socialist political-ethnical concepts terms like "Untermensch" or "Volksgenossen" or "Rassenhygiene" etc. But, Illythr, why should we actually talk here about national-socialism? It obviously doesn't suit for our discussion. And concerning Dimitrie Cantemir, the term "subditi Moldavorum" denoted the tributaries of the Moldovan principality weather they were of not citizens of the state: (so it foreigners who lived in the principality as well: Armenians, Jews, Greeks etc). In his work from 1717 Historia moldo-vlachica (translated by himself into Hronicul vechimei a romano-moldo-vlahilor), D. Cantemir stated the idea that in Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania the people share the same origin. Remind also that Grigore Ureche (1590 - 1647) wrote Letopisetul Tării Moldovei asserted that the Moldavian language was the same language as Wallachian and that Moldavians, Wallachians, and Transylvanians, were the same people.
3) Well, I expect a source to denote the "only one official position" you are claiming for. My statement doesn't hurt by far this policy. Moreover, I quoted from an official site, whereas the site you quoted from is not an official one.
Concerning the Moldovans in Romania: almost all the Moldovenist also claims the same thing Voronin does (Vasile Stati is the best example for it. He also claims that the Moldovans from Romania do speak the Moldovan language, as it is saild in his "famous" Moldovan-Romanian dictionary ) . Not to say that the reason for the But I think that the inclusion of the Moldovans in the list would equilibrate the article. It's very strange that in one case this source is fully reliable for you, while in other case it's not. For me, it looks like a POV-pushing of you. Moldovans are seen in some cases as an ethnic group, while in other cases they are seen only as an ethnic subgroup. It's not your's or my duty to establish which theory is right. As two users of this enciclopaedia, we should just create a objective article, presenting all the involved opinions (with sources, of course). --Olahus (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

break1

1)2. Totalitatea însuşirilor specifice unei naţiuni; caracter naţional. You just defeated yourself with your own argument. Unless you are trying to imply that the census determined that there are, in fact 8% Ukrainian citizens, 6% citizens of the Russian Federation and some 5% citizens of foreign states living in Moldova, among them about 1% Jews (as of 2000). I, for one, am not aware of any state that issues "Jewish citizenship".
2) Point is, there is no clear way to determine the origins of Moldovenism. We know that it was vigorously promoted by Kotovskiy and later supported by Stalin, but none of them "invented" it, as you are stating, using sources that don't back your opinion.
3) Quite simple - Moldova has only one government, the last time I checked. The sites I used attribute that POV to the Moldovan government directly. Since Socor is an avid anti-Communist, his statement is not partisan in that point. Again, the fact that some subordinated institutions ignore that position (perhaps by adhering to the POV of the opposition) does not mean that there is more than one official position of the state in that matters.
I do not challenge that article by Socor here, because he attributed those words to Voronin. Now, Voronin's statement as an official position of the state, supported by census results has a certain weight. The same statement regarding the citizens of another state, not supported by census data carries much less weight. I'm not principally against the inclusion of Romanian Moldovans, as long as the different figures are properly attributed to different POVs. But I am also interested to see the opinions of other editors about this. I understand, you have already failed to push this through here once, so I am curious if the editors (Romanian, I believe) who opposed you back then can restate their arguments. --Illythr (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
1) Sorry, but I still don't see the word "etnicity". In Moldova, many people belong two or more citizenships and this situation is growing steadily from year to year. You mentioned datas about the year 2000 (though I wonder where you get the datas from), while we are talking about the year 2004. Besides, everybody is free to answer what he desires on the census requests. And if those questionnaries contained the term "nationalitate" instead of "etnie", we shall take them as they are: nationalities. Mabye on the next census in 2014 they will ask about the ethnicity, but in 2004 they asked about the nationality. Issue closed.
2) The origins of the idea that Moldovans are a separate ethnic group from the Romanians are located to the timepoint when the Moldovans were told to belong to a differend ethnic group than the Romanians. This started during the Soviet time. And not Kotovsky invented it, but the pseudoscientist footmen employed by the Soviet Union.
3) Illythr, it's not you (or I) to decide wheather some "subordinated institutions" (as you called the Moldovan Ministery of Culture and Tourism) ignores ore not the point of view of Vladimir Voronin. Fact is that the page I mentioned is an official Moldovan page and it has to be regarded with seriousness.
The Moldovans from Romania should be included in the infobox only with the mention that the datas are estimated. In that way we would keep a neutral attitude. --Olahus (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
1) This ambiguity of what "nationality" means is eliminated by the fact that the only alternative - citizenship - is clearly not it (unless, again, you're implying that 25% of Moldova's population are citizens of foreign countries, in which case I'm curious, as to which country provides the citizenship for the Jews of Moldova). Thus, to remove the ambiguity altogether and avoid confusing persons such as yourself, the term "ethnicity" is used. This isn't even someone's POV, merely a technicality.
2) If you mean the "autochtonists", they dealt mostly with creating the language from local obscure eastern dialects. I recall Xasha providing a link to the statement of the Russian Tsar in 1812 that mentioned "Moldovans" and "Moldovan language". The "novelty" of the Soviet administration was to promote the existing regional differences to the level of separate ethnicity (this is all stated in the appropriate articles). But you are welcome to provide sources for your point anyway.
3) Ok, there is a simple solution to that: secondary sources. We have Socor here, who explicitly states that this is the official position of Chisinau. If you can provide a similarly reliable secondary source that just as explicitly states that Moldova has no official position on this question, or that it is different than what Socor portrays (I won't be surprised), then we can include your version (in a NPOVed form, as what you were trying to push through made a point at marginalizing Voronin's statement).
The issue with Romanian Moldovans has nothing to do with data on them being an estimation, but everything to do with who considers them a separate ethnicity, and who - a regional subgroup of Romanians (and whether they were counted as "Moldovans" at all). --Illythr (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
1) The Moldovan census speaks only about the nationality. There is nothing more to say about it. I didn't plead for the using of the term "citizenship", but also not for the using of the term "ethnicity". I only ask for using the term used on the census: nationality. Every interpretation of the term to "citizenship" or "ethnicity" is hurting WP:POV.
2) Agree. It's exactly the same thing I meant: the self-designation "Moldovan" is very old, but the idea that Moldovans are a separate ethnicity from Romanians has Soviet origins.
3) There is no mentioning or definition in the Moldovan legislation about a Moldovan ethnicity (as e.g. the German legislation defines the term "Volksdeutscher"). But, we can say that many Moldovan officials (especially the president) do believe that Moldovans are a distinct ethnic group. Otherwise, some institutions, like the Moldovan Ministery of Culture and Tourism, don't make any difference between Molodovans and Romanians. Regarding the language, see this ;). Besides, few lines above you called Socor "an avid anti-Communist" ... I won't be soooo sure. Do you know who his father was? :))
The article presents the Moldovans. It's not me or you to decide weather they are an ethnic group or not. If we don't take it into account we hurt WP:POV. And estimations are accepted in the infoboxes, as I know. --Olahus (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

break2

1) Know what, I shall adhere to my own proposition. Let's use secondary sources, instead of our own interpretation. Here's mine: this article at Minority Electronic Resources (with attribution to Moldova Azi) talks about "Ethnic Xs" when referring to the census. It also lists 99.6% census interviewees as Moldovan citizens, eliminating any ambiguity beyond reasonable doubt. I think this source is quite sufficient for a simple clarification. But you're welcome to bring it yours, if you can find any contradicting this one.
2) I'd even say that we only know it became prominent/official during that time.
3) We can say all we want - bring a secondary source in. About the language: Read Socor's article further: While acknowledging that Romanian and Moldovan “are of course the same language,” Voronin... ;-)
Socor: I read some of his articles, and, AFAIK, he's a member of some anti-Communist and anti-Russian US group, no? As for his father, there's a Russian proverb about the apple falling close to the apple tree...
Whether Moldovans are an ethnic group or not is, of course, not for us to decide. We simply show the POVs of notable entities who think that it is up to them to decide this. Moldovans themselves are certainly one (census). Moldovan government is another. --Illythr (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
1) and 3) It's not about the interpretation of cenus results here. Interpretatios are quite different and e.g. the CIA factbook counts the people who declared "Moldovans" together with those who declared "Romanians" on the same ethnic group: "Moldovan/Romanian 78.2%" (census: 75.8% Moldovans and 2.2%). It means that according to the CIA, Moldovans are Romanians (take also this map in account). But It's only one of the major interpretations of the cenus results, nothing more. Look also what Victor Stepaniuc said here: "naţiunea română şi naţiunea moldovenească". I don't read the term "ethncity" (etnie) anywhere in the text, only "people and "nation".
2) More than this: the idea of a separate ethnicity was born on this time. Loads of sources can proove this. I think you already know this. --Olahus (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see why estimations shouldn't be included in the infobox as long as other articles do accept them (I already mentioned the article Roma people). The mentioning of the estimations don't hurt any rule of this encyclopaedia.

break3

1) I have brought a source that explicitly states that the census data regarded ethnicity (as nationalitate), with citizenship taken care of separately in a different section. Now it is up to you to bring a source that just as explicitly states that the census was not based on ethnics. There are indeed differing opinions about that Moldovans/Romanians question, but you seem to be the sole supporter of the idea that the census data was based not on ethnicity, but on... something else you haven't even defined clearly yet. But whatever. It's all about sources. Bring 'em in. 2) As I said, bring 'em in.

Estimations: As long as Romanian Moldovans don't see themselves as a separate ethnicity, adding them in here is kinda inappropriate. I will defer to the judgement of other editors in this matter, though. --Illythr (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1) Illythr, you just speak about the interpretations of the census results. The census results are obviously and besides, I already brought the sources in my prior answer (especially the statement of Moldovas vice prime minister Victor Stepaniuc). What source did you show? The personal interpretation of Ionas Aurelian Rus ?!? Who is Ionas Aurelian Rus ? A Moldovan official? Nope!
2) [1], [2]. Now, it's your turn to bring sources for your claim.
Your proposal is POV-ish. This article is about the Moldovans, weather they are seen or not as a separate ethnic group (see the introduction of the article :Moldovans, or Moldavians (original name: Moldoveni; Молдовень in the Moldovan Cyrillic script, used nowadays only in Transnistria) are the native population in, depending on one's interpretation, all or part of the lands that correspond to the former Principality of Moldavia.'). This article must respect both opinions. Look at this article, they are big differences between the official and the unofficial data, but both are mentioned. --Olahus (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1) Problem is, your interpretation is not supported by anyone so far. The links you bring are either ambiguous (Stepaniuc), or speak against you (Dexonline dictionary entry, which demonstrates that "nationalitate" has the meaning of "ethnicity" among others).
2) Both sources speak about the Soviet authorities promoted and enforced the idea. None say that a separate ethnicity was invented at that time (the second one is also heavily POV ("Soviet empire" and all), but oh well). Okay, I'll specify: Bring in a source that supports what you claim.
I don't propose anything - you do. That "depending on one's interpretation" is the crux of the problem. If you can propose (here, on the talk page) a neutral and informative way to add that to the box, so that it will respect all those interpretations I certainly won't object. --Illythr (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1) I don't see any problem. I broght sources and statements of officials, you broght nothing. But I still wait.
2) The sources are dating the birth of the idea of a separate ethnicity. If you think this idea is older, bring sources. For my part, I did it.
My source was neutral. And the adding of this information is not hurting any rule of this encyclopedia. From this reason I will include this information in the infobox.--Olahus (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1) You didn't bring a single source that supports your specific claim of the census data not being related to ethnicity. I brought one that refutes it (separating the ethnicity research from the citizenship one).
2) The sources are dating the birth of the idea of a separate ethnicity. - I'm still waiting for you to source this claim. For your part, you provided sources that support the current status quo of "After 1924, Soviet authorities began to emphasize..." This is good, but it is already present and sourced. Perhaps you could use some of those sources to satisfy the citation requests Moldopodo introduced in the lead instead?
Please propose your changes to the infobox on the talk page first. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't look like you have much respect for consensus building. Let's see how other editors will react. --Illythr (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1)You are the one who should bring sources because you are the one who controvert official data. I broght enogh sources. First the official page with the cenus results (no mentioning of the ethnicity [etnie], not only of the nationality [naţionalitate]), twice the quotation of an important Moldovan official, the Moldovan vice prime minister Victor Stepaniuc (quote: "naţiunea română şi naţiunea moldovenească") and last but not least the official page of the Moldovan Ministry of Culture and Tourism (quote: "The majority of the population are Moldovans (Romanians), but the following national minorities live on this territory too: Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Gagauzians, Russians, Germans, Greeks, and others.").
2)I have shown you sources that prooved the fact that the idea of a Moldovan ethnicity separate from the Romanians occured only during the Soviet time, while before this date, the designation "moldovean" was never used to denote an ethnicity separate from the Romanians. You dind'n bring any contradictory source.
No, Illythr. You are the one who threat other users with disrespect. The mentioning of an estimation regarding the number of Moldovans in Romania agrees completely with every rule of this encyclopaedia. You may oppose only to the edits who contradicts with the rules of this encyclopaedia. --Olahus (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1) Okay, I'll try once more. According to the dictionary entry you provided, nationalitate can mean both ethnicity and citizenship - an ambiguity there. The source I provided (as well as the CIA World Factbook you mentioned) clarify this ambiguity in favor of ethnicity with citizenship included in a special mention. That's all there is to it. No discernible political POV, just a simple clarification.
2) Again, the sources you presented show that this idea was concentrated on and promoted during Soviet times. That much is already mentioned in the article. Now, what you are trying to do is use these sources to promote something else - that it was the Soviets who invented it. This is unlikely to be true, as we have the Russian Tsar (a link to the statement should be in the last archive I believe) speaking about "the Moldovan people" and "Moldovan language" as early as 1812. Still, if you can bring a reasonably NPOV source that that states what you claim - it can be included at least as an opinion of someone notable.
As for contradicting the rules of this encyclopaedia - take a look at this one. --Illythr (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1) So what do you propose then? To replace official datas with something unoffcial? I know that the term "naţionalitate" my also reffer to the ethnicity, but, as you can see here, but this is not the primar sense of the term. And, as you can see, only the first description of the term is from DEX (see : "Sursa: DEX '98"). Besides, the term "Nationality" with all his meanings is clearly enough explaned here.
2) The statemant of the Tsar doesn't bring anything new in the discussion, because there is no evidence weather he regards the Moldovans (and their language) to be separate from the Romanians or not. As I already said: the designation "Moldovans" is as old as the Moldovan Principality, but the idea of a separate ethnicity was invented only during the Soviet time because the documents that claim the existence of 2 separate ethnic group occured during the Soviet time. But if you think that even before the Soviet time, the Moldovans were regarded as a separate ethnic group and the Moldovan language as a separate language, please show me a source that prooves this.
My proposal doesn't hurt this. You are the one who has to explaim me why you object to include it as long as it is an usual practice in Wikipedia to include estimated datas in infoboxes (of course with the obligatory mention that these datas are estimated). Does it hurt you're personal POV? That's too bad for you, but unfortunately not a serious argument.--Olahus (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1) Why, for the sake of clarity, yes. As long as it doesn't infringe on any policy or somesuch. Sure, it has multiple meanings, so we use an impartial source to determine the one being used here. What's the problem with that?
2) Yes, the Tsar's statement is only useful to thwart those who try to push through things like "Moldovan language did not exist before 1940". As for the rest - I can only repeat what I state before: bring in a source to support your claim - "invented during Soviet time", otherwise it doesn't belong into the article as your own original research.
That's why I'm curious about opinions of other editors here. I don't care much about the inclusion of that data, as long as it's done in a NPOV way, but your fierce determination (to the point of knowingly breaching 3RR and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of vandalism) to see it in looks oddly familiar. Perhaps we can hold a vote to establish consensus... Alternatively, if you can get two of the following Romanian users to support your point, I'll go along with them: Dahn, TSO1D, Bogdanguisca, Biruitorul, Ronline, AdiJapan. --Illythr (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dahn

I admit I have lost track of what's at stake here. From what I can deduce from the controversy, I am to understand that Olahus is attempting to make it seem like "Moldovans" refers only to citizens of Moldova, and not more specifically to those citizens of Moldova who describe themselves as ethnic Moldovans - that is simply misinterpretation of the sources. As for the count - I faced the same problem at the Romanians page, where hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of people are counted twice because some wikipedians cannot distinguish between "citizens" and "ethnics", and count the former as the latter. I got really tired of that issue, especially since the POV warriors don't seem to care about what is accurate, just about what inaccuracy makes their POV shine. Presumably, this is the same kind of logic with a twist: "I say Moldovans are Romanians, so I can them conflate them with the already absurd count of Romanians" - the goal being to make it seem like Romanians are one of the most populous nations in Europe. Same old, same old... Dahn (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure Dahn, no Pov-ish edits. That's too what I'm asking for. --Olahus (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, that was actually funny! I wonder if Dahn has read this reply.  :-) --Illythr (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
He surely will.--Olahus (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

I don't think that Italy and Portugal qualify for inclusion into the infobox: They refer to Moldovan citizenship, not ethnicity ( BTW Olahus, take note: this is where it *does* make a difference). --Illythr (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We can mention in the infobox "Moldovan citizens" and the issue is solved. --Olahus (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Citizens of Moldova are only about 76% Moldovans. No go. --Illythr (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The sources are talking about "immigrants from Moldova" in the case of Portugal and "Moldovan citizens" in the case of Italy. --Olahus (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. This article is not about Moldovan citizens. --Illythr (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support a move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To solve numerous useless debates above, the page should be named with the right term, which is Moldavian. It is rather Moldovan which should redirect here and certainly not vice versa.--Moldopodotalk 00:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Another one in a long succession of trivial attempts to have Moldavia and Moldova confounded, and to stress a fringe claim that people who declare the Moldovan ethnicity in Moldova as of the past century stand for the Moldavian community in general. The same old POV-push, which, in my view, stretches the wikipedians' community patience and amounts to trolling. Dahn (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Dahn and because the English-language book on the subject is called The Moldovans. Biruitorul Talk 02:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose in the English language only Moldova refers to the current republic. Moldavia is a different territorial entity which existed in the past. Completely agree with Dahn on the attempt to push the POV that Moldavia and Moldova are identical and continuous throughout time. They are not on either count. —PētersV (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Now that you're all here, guys, might you be willing to comment on the issues two sections above this one? Oh, and...
Oppose: No supporting secondary RS provided.
Sources provided, changed to Weak oppose. To me, Moldovans and Moldavians are interchangeable synonyms meaning essentially the same people, with Moldovans being simply the most up to date name (akin to "Romanians" versus "Roumanians"). Thus, the most common English name, referring to the modern nation should be used. This appears to be Moldovans... --Illythr (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Illythr, I am afraid you are missing something in your argumentation, why this article shouldn't be renamed into "Moldavians". Think of your little argument above on the number of Moldavians to include and countries where there is a Moldavian minority...--Moldopodotalk 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
? What does that have to do with the question of what is their most common English name? --Illythr (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Everything, seriously Illythr, and you know it.--Moldopodotalk 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, POV-pusher. bogdan (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil.--Moldopodotalk 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Have a look at some interesting sourcesHutchinson encyclopedia about Moldavians Moldavian - Member of the majority ethnic group living in Moldova, comprising almost two-thirds of the population; also, inhabitant of the Romanian province of Moldavia. The Moldavian language is a dialect of Romanian, and belongs to the Romance group of the Indo-European family. They are mostly Orthodox Christians.
    They are probably descended from the Romanized original Thracian inhabitants of the area and the Slavs. They came under Slav and Byzantine cultural influences, and until the 17th century Church Slavonic was their literary and official language; the first works in Moldavian (using the Cyrillic alphabet) date from the 16th century    --Moldopodotalk 20:22, 16 June 2008

(UTC)

    • Many of those sources are from the late '80s-early '90s, when "Moldavia" was more common, in reference to the Moldavian SSR. And you still ignore King. Biruitorul Talk 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
So what, King's "seminal" but rather approximative and incoherent, highly unscientifical book was published in 2000.--Moldopodotalk 13:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Which, first, was 9 years after independence, and second - there isn't that much new material on the subject to justify a new book on the subject. Biruitorul Talk 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Who says this, User:Biruitorul on en:Wikipedia?--Moldopodotalk 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, for that matter, who says King's book is "rather approximative and incoherent, highly unscientifical"? User:Moldopodo on en.Wikipedia? The book does have a 21-page bibliography. Biruitorul Talk 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, I much rather believe New York Times or an expert Dictionary, or Dimitrie Cantemir than an unknown King with approximative knowledge of Moldavia and the region as a whole. I do not consider King a professional reference. First time in my life (as in the one of other users, I think too) we've heard of this guy here. Also I wonder whether an article on him is really worthy and has any value for Wikipedia. I am thinking to request its deletion--Moldopodotalk 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
also, compare to incoherencies in King's book, I find Playing at Tennis with Moldovans of Tony Hawks a much more in-depth analysis of Moldavian life and history.--Moldopodotalk 22:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Since 1992, the Times has used "Moldovans" 38 times and "Moldavians" just 4 times - 3 of those being in a historical context. So that argument fails.
Citing Cantemir to prove a point is original research, and anyway he calls them Moldavi, not "Moldavians".
and how do you come to the conclusion that citing Cantemir is original research, but citing King is not original research?--Moldopodotalk 13:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
King is a modern scholarly work that draws on primary and secondary sources. Cantemir is from the 18th century, used different research methods at a time when the geopolitical context was very different, and is at least risky to cite without the filter of a modern-day secondary source. Biruitorul Talk 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hawks also uses "Moldovans".
Hawks' book is a big joke, if you have any clue why I cited it here, comparing to King's unscientifical writing--Moldopodotalk 13:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster indicates that the adjective for Moldova is "Moldovan".
Merriam Webster says Moldavians - see Moldova--Moldopodotalk 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, first, see "Moldovan"; second, a dictionary is in any case not an ethnographic resource. Biruitorul Talk 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Really, so how is an unprofessional writing of King an ethnographic resource? If you are going to cite me amazon.com again, I'll tell you in advance that there are surely more people who bought the dictionary than the King's invention--Moldopodotalk 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but in what way is King's book "unprofessional" or an "invention"? Second, see WP:PSTS - secondary sources are preferred over primary (Cantemir) and tertiary (dictionaries) sources. Finally, see argumentum ad populum, especially as most people who buy that dictionary probably have hardly even heard of Moldova, much less given thought to this "dispute". Biruitorul Talk 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
In which way? He is not professional already in the way of mere scientifical definitions, with which the aforementioned, unknown professor (but with an advertisement article on English Wikipedia) has BIG problems. He uses contradictory terms without any specific explanation, which shows a BIG gap for someone as educated as "acclaimed" (yet to be established by whom) him. Furthermore as far as I have seen he has only Romanian collaborators. I am not sure they are the best impartial counsellors to give him a very good explanation of Moldavian history. And after all, why did not Oxford or Georgetown want to host another unknown phenomenon (to me at least, forgive me for my ignorance) Society of Romanian Studies? Why is this society hosted in Huntigton (I put a link in case some don't know where Huntigton is), Oxoford or Georgetown would be much more representative, don't you think? --Moldopodotalk 01:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
King, a scholar and professor of Romanian studies (and yes, he knows about Moldova too - there aren't that many Romanian studies professors in the US) who received his doctorate from Oxford, has written the definitive book in English on the Moldovans. That you haven't heard of him isn't grounds for dismissing his work.
I think you said Romanian studies. He is not professor of Moldavian studies, is he? Nor does he say so anywhere himself. I think that makes any further debate how his work is "an acclaimed reference" about Moldavia and Moldavians totally useless.--Moldopodotalk 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't be absurd. The Society of Romanian Studies says it promotes "professional study, criticism, and research on all aspects of Romanian culture and civilization, particularly concerning the countries of Romania and Moldova". 0 vs. 390. Again, the field of Romanian studies, in the US, includes Moldova. This is both for historical reasons, and because it's wasteful (from a business perspective) to separate the two. Biruitorul Talk 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
the field of Romanian studies, in the US, includes Moldova - who said this, User:Biruitorul? User:Moldopodo says that Moldova is studied in the field of CIS countries and former USSR countries.--Moldopodotalk 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the Society of Romanian Studies says this. Incidentally, he's also into the Caucasus. Biruitorul Talk 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Mr King is specialised in Romanian studies of Caucasus as well, what a versatile competence! A litte bit here, a little bit there - and here we have "the most acclamed reerence"... in what?--Moldopodotalk 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Romania and the Caucasus are two different fields; King, a professor of Romanian studies (which includes Moldova in the US) happens to know a fair amount about the Caucasus too. Not because his wife is Armenian, but because he has, you know, extensively read and researched primary and secondary sources to write a book on the subject and have it published by Oxford University Press (one of the world's leading academic presses) - typical for a scholar. Biruitorul Talk 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't find an American Uiversity proposing Romanian studies which include Moldavia. However, I found programmes like this one[3] that teach Post-Soviet studies, which include Moldavia.--Moldopodotalk 01:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Any more arguments, now that I've shot these down? Biruitorul Talk 23:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what you've shot, if it is for counterargumenting, you haven't any. If it is for shooting, it's not a shooting range or shooting gallery anayway, sorry.--Moldopodotalk 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I certainly have. If attacking King and now ignoring the Times is all you have left, I'm sitting pretty. Biruitorul Talk 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil and do not interperet the reality as it pleases you. Otherwise, please provide a diff.--Moldopodotalk 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very civil, Moldopodo. And I can afford to be: my side is winning, 5-1. Biruitorul Talk 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Cetainly", nothing is better than a personal appreciation. With sources it would sound better.--Moldopodotalk 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, Moldopodo, King's reference on the Moldovans is the acclaimed scholarly English language text on the topic. It's a poor sign of editorial judgement to simply dismiss anything (sources and otherwise) that you haven't heard of, especially if you would like to have your editorial contentions taken seriously. You might consider reading some true scholarly texts (preferably in English so English language Wikipedians can participate, this is the English Wikipedia) so that you can make your arguments based on reputable secondary sources as opposed to your own conjectures interpreting primary sources. —PētersV (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Vecrumba, please remain civil, I do not see why would be Times or Merriam Webster or Moldavian scientists or any other of my cited sources not be considered as reputable, other than you say so. I do not make any "conjectures interpreting primary sources" - anyway looks like a stylish wording, but a diff proving what you say would make it even "styler", if I can say so.--Moldopodotalk 13:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think King is overrated here. You should remember that Wikipedia is a reference work, and a single source can't dictate content over a whole subject, no matter how "acclaimed" or "definitive" that source may be.Xasha (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If I appear to be insisting King is the alpha and omega of English language references on the topic, it's only because totally dismissing it as Moldopodo has taken to doing (including, elsewhere, he never heard that Russia invaded Bessarabia in 1806), is from my perspective and at this point simply dismissing anything that he disagrees with. Unfortunately, Moldova is too important a topic to let POV run rampant. —PētersV (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
King is the alpha and omega of English language references on the topic., King's reference on the Moldovans is the acclaimed scholarly English language text on the topic - who said that, a User called Peters on Wikipedia? and since User Peters invited me to do so, here is the proof why the writing of this author should be dismissed:
He uses the term "annexed" exclusively. - Does he justify the usage of the term annexation? Stating it baldly - "there was annexation" does not mean there was one and is not scientifical at all, besides mentioning at the same time a peace treaty which fixes the "cession" is all contrary to the usage of the term "annexation"
Moldopodo, you insist there are no sources, there are. - Where are they?
You insist the take-over was peaceful, not being aware the Russian invaded in 1806
I say the treaty, where cession is explained and fixed, is a peace treaty, signed between two subjects of international law, previously at war and anyway, what do we have written on the invasion you are speaking of, invasion where, by whom against whom?
It's a poor sign of editorial judgement to simply dismiss anything (sources and otherwise) that you haven't heard of, especially if you would like to have your editorial contentions taken seriously. - User Peters, please remain civil.--Moldopodotalk 12:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For sources not mentioning the term "annexation" please see: Following the Peace concluded in Bucharest, in 1812, a part of this territory was asigned to Czarist Russia--Moldopodotalk 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • major encyclopedias speak of transfer of Moldavia to the Russian Empire
    • again "transferred/passed over to the Russian Empire
    • History of the Republic of Moldova: from most ancient times till our days - Association of Moldavian scientists "Milescu-Spataru" - Second reviewed and added edition. Elan Poligraf. 2002. pp. 95–360. ISBN 9975-9719-5-4.
    • Stati V.:History of Moldavia. Tipografia Centrală. 2002. pp. 218–220. ISBN 9975-9504-1-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) both use the phrasing According to the Article 4, Porta ceded to Russia the eastern part of the Moldavian Principality - the territory between Prut and Danube
  • Comment. I don't think the real problem here is whether the state should be called "Moldova" or "Moldavia", or how its inhabitants should be called accordingly. Obviously, both names are in use in English, with probably a trend towards "Moldovans" in politically correct usage. The problem you guys have is how to handle the resulting ambiguity between "Moldavia" as a name of the state, and "Moldavia" as the name of the wider geographical region in Romania. A problem somehow comparable to what we have a bit further south about "Macedonia" and "Macedonia". Now, the solution chosen by the majority here, of maintaining a distinction of names ("Moldova" for the one, "Moldavia" for the other) strikes me as somewhat artificial, confusing to the English-speaking reader, and possibly a home-made OR solution. I might be wrong, but I haven't seen evidence that this distinction is really widely made, explicitly and in this way, in the literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

More of the same

Moldopodo, regarding your: I say the treaty, where cession is explained and fixed, is a peace treaty, signed between two subjects of international law, previously at war and anyway, what do we have written on the invasion you are speaking of, invasion where, by whom against whom?
   I have said nothing of my own opinion of King as a reference, my characterization of him as an expert and of his book as a seminal source on the subject is based on scholarly reviews, nothing else. When I first became interested in Transnistria for my own reasons, I spent a considerable amount of time researching what books would provide the most valuable, most detailed information. King's book was at the top of the list (again, not my personal evaluation). King uses "annexation" in describing the chain of events: Russia's invasion, and that Tsar Alexander "formally annexed" the Bessarabian territory. "Formally annexed" is as "scientific" as you can get: by official act/decree of the Tsar.
   One cannot write an informed summary of events if working from descriptions of events which are already summarized: the essential informative detail has already been lost. So, putting general encyclopedias, etc. aside--which you maintain indicate an absence of annexation by the absence of their use of the term annexation:

Please remain civil. Yes, I consider this as uncivil to say solething I have not said. have said that not only the aforemntioned sources (presented by me) never use the term annexation, but they douse exactly the contrary - cessation, transfer, assignment. Let's have it clear here. And please, do not lie, it's a very bad manner and uncivil, at least in my eyes.--Moldopodotalk 01:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The Russian Annexation of Bessarabia: 1774-1828. A Study of Imperial Expansion. by George F. Jewsbury
  • from "The Revolution and the Unity of Russia," L. P. Rastorgoueff (published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law): "Her grandson, Alexander I., annexed Bessarabia, the Duchy of Warsaw, Finland,..."
  • from A Political Chronology of Europe (Europa Publications Limited), section on Moldova: "1815 The annexation of Bessarabia by Tsar Alexander I (1801-1825) was approved by the Congress of Vienna"
  • from Romania: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989, Ronald D. Bachman, ed.: "In 1806 forces of Tsar Alexander I reoccupied the principalities, and the Romanian peasants were subjected to forced requisitions, heavy labor obligations, and real threats of exile to Siberia. As a result, the Romanians, who once had looked to the tsar for liberation, developed an abiding mistrust of the Russians that would deepen in the next century. In 1812 Russia and the Porte signed the Peace of Bucharest, which returned the principalities to the Ottomans and secured Russia's southern flank during Napoleon's invasion; Russia, however, annexed Bessarabia and retained its right to interfere in the principalities' affairs. Despite Russia's concessions, the treaty so displeased the sultan that he had his negotiators beheaded."

   I regret you appear to interpret as being uncivil to you any editor commenting on your refusal to recognize as valid reputable scholarship specializing in Moldova. —PētersV (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see the last of your sentences. Again, I recall you, please be civil, do not lie, aside "I appear" you haven't produced any diff proving what you say for all editors with whom I communicated. Please, don't lie - it really is uncivil, to say the least. Now, for sources, do you have any links for verification of these sources? Any at all? Does each time each book speaks throughout its length exclusively of "annexation", (or there also other topics) or some precise page or a page range speaks of it in a specific formulation, wording?--Moldopodotalk 01:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hope now we won't battle in Google Book Search results. Enough relaible English-language books can be found supporting "cession". You mentioned an act of the Tsar: could you tell me the date of this alleged document, the year at least? Xasha (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Ceding is the act of surrendering sovereignty of a territory to another sovereign authority. That does not affect whether or not that territory was annexed or not, prior. It's not a case of "ceding" = "not annexed". Stating territory was ceded without stating it was annexed by Russia paints an incomplete and incorrect picture of events. If you wish to state that the Ottoman Empire eventually ceded by treaty to Russia the Bessarabian territory which Russia had invaded and annexed, that's fine. But you cannot leave out invasion and annexation.
   I've provided two sources confirming invasion in 1806 followed by annexation by Russia. As curious as I also am to find out exactly what day it was that Tsar Alexander formally annexed Bessarabia, I don't have the bandwidth for that level of research at this moment. If you can't find it, remind me in a couple of months. (I'm not being dismissive, the request for a reminder later is genuine.) —PētersV (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. On links, a simple google search of "tsar alexander annexed bessarabia" works just fine. —PētersV (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately for your case, you have failed to provide a single verifiable source speaking of annexation, nor have you provided answers to my questions regarding exact dates, who invaded who, etc. Funny enough, you said it was as obvious as it can be. How obvious should it be then, so that you can easily provide at least one link to an easily verifiable credible source?
  • And here is what Britannica Encyclopedia says. Cession is mentioned everywhere, no mention of "annexation" is given.
    • concessions of Mahmud II : The war with Russia, which had continued fitfully after a truce in 1807, was ended by the Treaty of Bucharest (May 28, 1812), ceding the province of Bessarabia to Russia
    • History of Moldova: The Russians secured Turkey's cession of Bessarabia—approximately half of historic Moldavia—in the Treaty of Bucharest (1812).
    • History of Ottoman Empire: Through the Treaty of Bucharest (May 28, 1812) Russia returned the principalities to Ottoman rule, although Russia retained most of Bessarabia
    • History of Russo-Turkish wars: The Russian field marshal M.I. Kutuzov's victorious campaign of 1811–12 forced the Turks to cede Bessarabia to Russia by the Treaty of Bucharest (May 28, 1812).
  • And here is what Columbia Encyclopedia sixth edition 2008 says: After the Russo-Turkish wars, the region was ceded to Russia by the Treaty of Bucharest (1812).
  • At the close of the Russo-Turkish War (1806–12) (see Russo-Turkish Wars), the Ottoman Turks ceded Bessarabia to Russia in the Bucharest Peace Treaty of 1812. - is supported by the following sources:
    • Batiushkov, P. Bessarabiia: Istoricheskoe opisanie (Saint Petersburg 1892)
    • Berg, L. Bessarabiia (Petrograd 1918)
    • Dembo, V. Nikoly ne zabuty: Kryvavyi litopys Besarabiï. Z ofitsiinykh dokumentiv (Kharkiv 1923)
    • Berg, L. Naselenie Bessarabii, etnograficheskii sostav i chislennost' (Petrograd 1925)
    • Babel, A. La Bessarabie (Paris 1926)
    • Uhlig, C. Die bessarabische Frage: Eine geopolitische Betrachtung (Breslau 1926)
    • Iorga, N. La vérité sur le passé et le présent de la Bessarabie (Bucharest 1931)
    • Nistor, I. La Bessarabie et la Bucovine (Bucharest 1937)
    • Mokhov, N. Ocherki istorii moldavsko-russko-ukrainskikh sviazei (s drevneishikh vremen do nachala XIX veka) (Kishinev 1961)
    • Istoriia Moldavskoi SSR, 1–2 (Kishinev 1965–8)
    • Smishko, P. Borot'ba trudiashchykh ukraintsiv prydunais'kykh zemel' za vozz'iednannia z URSR (1917–1940) (Lviv 1969)
    • Zelenchuk, V. Nasalenie Moldavii (Demograficheskie protsesy i etnicheshii sostav) (Kishinev 1973)
    • ...!!! - Jewsbury, G.F. The Russian Annexation of Bessarabia 1774–1828: A Study of Imperial Expansion (Boulder, Col, 1976)
    • Khotinskoe vosstanie (Sbornik dokumentov i materialov) (Kishinev 1976)
    • Moldavskaia SSR v Velikoi Otechestvennoi voine Sovetskogo Soiuza, 2 (Kishinev 1976)
    • Meurs, W. van. The Bessarabian Question in Communist Historiography: Nationalist and Communist Politics and History-Writing (New York 1994)
  • Military Experts say:
    1. The Treaty of Bucharest (1812) ended the Russo-Turkish War that was fought from 1806-1812. It was signed on 28 May 1812.
    2. Under its terms, Bessarabia (the eastern half of Moldavia)-most of it is part now of Moldova-was ceded to the British Empire, the Prut River becoming the new western Russian border.
   My dear Moldopodo, a veritable plethora of references and links have been provided by myself and others which confirm that Russia annexed the Bessarabian territory. That said annexation occured after an invasion by Russia in 1806. That said annexation was made permanent by treaty. As I have indicated, it's perfectly appropriate to state that the Ottoman Empired ceded by treaty the Bessarabian territory which the Russian Empire had already invaded and annexed.
   To not indicate that Russia annexed the Bessarabian territory is to portray the transfer of territory as somehow voluntary, which it was not.
   I prefer not to state history in terms of metaphors, but perhaps you'll indulge me:
  • Case 1
    1. We fight on the school playground
    2. We make up and shake hands at the end of the day
    3. I "let you have" ("cede") my ball
  • Case 2
    1. You attack me on the school playground
    2. We fight
    3. You take ("annex") my ball
    4. You refuse to give me back my ball
    5. We make up and shake hands at the end of the day
    6. I "let you keep" ("cede") my ball
Case 1 does not equal Case 2. Representing Case 2 as Case 1 omits the fact that you attacked me and took my ball. Again cede by treaty does not mean territory was not annexed. That "cede" = "not annexed" is your personal interpretation. —PētersV (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to understand the objection to "annexed"

  • Dear User:Vecrumba, thank you for depicting me a playground here, but unfortunately I do not see the relevance of it. Anyway, please provide a concrete source which speaks of invasion or gradual annexation confirmed later by cession or any other formulation to which you have been referring. You said first it's so obvious, then you said you'll provide the necessary source in a month or so if you have time, then you'll bring it in. Then you brought me unverifiable sources on a totally different question for the usage of the term "annexation" or "cession" (some of which sources I found saying exactly the contrary by the way)... and now you speak of playground...--Moldopodotalk 17:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Dear Moldopodo, we're obviously not communicating here. King and the ref I provided earlier (shows up on the google search I suggested) both indicate Russian invasion in 1806 followed by annexation--which, by the way, appears to have been formally effected by Tsar Alexander I in 1812, as I've indicated, I don't have a source right now with an exact date, that's the only thing I've stated I don't have time to research at the moment. If you don't believe me about what King says, I can't help you there, the only verification is if someone else here has the book and confirms I'm representing the source accurately. When you say sources said the opposite of what I indicated, please tell me which ones, specifically. My analogy is simple, "cede" means a certain thing, "annex" means a certain thing. They are not mutually exclusive, so I am at a complete loss why you are (or at least to me appear to be) so insistent that "annex" is wrong. For a moment, let's assume you accept my sources which indicate invasion and annexation. Is your issue...
      • that you don't believe Russia ever annexed Bessarabia, or
      • that if the Bessarabian territory was ceded by treaty it therefore could not have been annexed?
      • Or some other objection?
    • Perhaps we might then have a more constructive dialog. —PētersV (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, please provide the promised sources instead of speaking of something else, what is not the subject of the discussion. --Moldopodotalk 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, since you appear to refuse to accept King as a reference (already provided), from Charles Upson Clark's, "And now Napoleon comes on the scene. In 1806-7, he encouraged Czar Alexander Pavlovitch to begin another war with Turkey. Again the Turkish border fortresses, beginning with Hotin, fell into Russian hands; and Russian troops occupied both Moldavia and Wallachia. Gen. Kutussoff was made Governor-General of the Roumanian Principalities; they were formally annexed to Russia, and made into two "gubernie"-governments, provinces-of the Russian Empire. The foreign consuls and diplomatic agents had to leave Jassy and Bucharest; the Russians reestablished the ancient bishopric of Akkerman, and appointed as Bishop Gabriel Banulesco-Bodoni, a Transylvanian Roumanian who had studied at Kieff. There was a truce of several years, during which the Russians administered both countries; but the Russians finally broke it, defeated the Turks by a surprise attack, and entered into peace negotiations, first at Giurgiu and then at Bucharest. They demanded the Roumanian Principalities; the Turks offered them the Budjak and the border sanjaks of Bessarabia (all that they had any right to cede). Negotiations dragged on for weeks, the Turks playing for time, since they knew that Napoleon was on the point of breaking with Russia. The Russians finally began hostilities again, and the Sultan yielded, ceding (on May 16, 1812) the whole of Bessarabia, the Pruth now constituting the boundary between the new Russian territory and the rest of Moldavia."

  • So, annexed by Russia, then ceded by treaty, which, by the way, the Sultan had no right to do as the Ottoman Empire did not actually possess territorial sovereignty, that was still vested in Moldavia. —PētersV (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I won't refer to the annexed/ceded part, but the last part of your comment is debatable. Recent research by Romanian historians showed that the so called treaties between the Ottomans and Moldavia (at least in the form we know them today) are 19th century forgeries.Xasha (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There's always new scholarship, it would be helpful if any of it has made it into English-language sources. Do we know who created the (alleged) forgeries and why?
(translated from a Romanian article): The capitulations are agreements between the Romanian Countries and the Porte. According to them, Wallachia and Moldavia paid a tribute to the Porte and they sent soldiers to help the sultan in military campaigns. In exchange to these obligations, the two countries kept their Lord (ruler), their institutions, their language and their religion. "In the Phanariote era", says [historian] Dan Berindei, "the Romanian boyars "refabricated" these capitulations. There were some before, some documents were found in the Ottoman archives. The boyars had the ability to introduce in the capitulations they made only real things, nothing more. For instance, according to the country's traditions, Turks were allowed to come to the Principalities only with a firman from the Sultan. And they "refabricated" with such an ability, that the Turks never contested them. More than that, they were used by the diplomacy in 19th century as authentic pieces."
The arrangement between Moldavia and the Ottomans appears to have been tribute/loyalty-based at any rate (the prince being the sovereign), meaning if the allegations of forgery are correct, the Sultan had even less of basis to "cede" what the Russians annexed and named Bessarabia. (Poor Besarab, the real Besarab-ia lay elswhere, his name used in vain by Russian propagandists.) —PētersV (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the Wallachian/Moldavian - Ottoman treaties which were used by the 1821/1848 revolutionaires to claim the rights for the Romanians from the Ottomans were indeed fake, but IIRC, some real treaties were eventually found. bogdan (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
According to Lucian Boia, in his seminal work about Romanian nationalist myths, these "patriotic forgeries" were cited "as legal arguments for autonomy and in the support of the revival of rights". They were proved as false since 1908, but the nationalist historiography of Ceausescu imposed the theory of their autenticity "to prove that the Romanian lands had treated with the Ottoman Porte as equals, just like Ceausescu with Mosocw and Washington". All quotes, including italics, from History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness by Boia. He also says that the relations between the two actors were "fundamentally hierarchical", so the Ottomans could do whatever they wanted with Moldova and Wallachia.Xasha (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Moldovans

user:Olahus has made several edits to the article, that have been reverted for various reasons. So, he made a separate page, where his version of the article now resides. This diff should provide a summary overview of the proposal. My own take can be extracted from the looong discussion above. In short, I object to "commies invented moldovans", due to no confirming sources presented and "nationality means something other than ethnicity but I won't tell you what", due to unnecessary convolution of what was supposed to be a simple statement. Largely indifferent to the rest. So, opinions welcome. --Illythr (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My issue is, and always has been, the inappropriate equating of Moldovans and Moldavians. What of the Moldavians who were never annexed into the Soviet Union? Moldova began as an artificial construction of Transnistria and a piece of Ukraine. With that, all Romanian speaking individuals were now labeled "Moldovans" within the confines of the USSR. That term, Moldovan, extended into Bessarabia when it was annexed. "Moldovan" is a Soviet-invented term for its Romanian-speaking population. "Moldovan" only extends, today, to half of what are the historical Moldavians. Let's stop equating the two, they are patently not the same. They have two completely different origins. —PētersV (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh, what? Are you trying to say that the current majority population of the Republic Moldova was spontaneously created by Soviets scientists? Moldova is the native name of the historical region and the locals were called "Moldoveni" (and "Молдаване") well before Communism was conceived. --Illythr (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually the distinction Moldovan/Moldavian exists only in English, and even in English it only gained acceptance after 1989 (MSSR was "Moldavian" not "Moldovan"). Also, Moldova isn't more artificial than the state and nation created west of the Pruth in the second part of the 19th century. And anyone who would have studied the subject a bit would know that there were plenty of Romanians in the Soviet Union, a couple of thousands in Soviet Moldavia and even more in non-Bessarabian regions of Moldavia under Soviet rule. So your allegations of arbitrarily use of the ethnonym "Moldavian" are incongruent with established facts.Xasha (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are about 3 million Romanians in the former Soviet Moldavia, not "a couple of thousands". Brainwashing by a constant drumbeat of anti-Romanian, de-nationalizing Soviet propaganda (which continues unabated) leads most of them to deny this, but facts are stubborn things. Biruitorul Talk 04:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, opinions are, of course, welcome - but opinions on the first diff in this section are strongly preferred. --Illythr (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"This diff" (after) looks pretty reasonable. Instead of "notion" or versus "recognition" of Moldovans... I would use the "description" of... as a more apt word. —PētersV (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think using the "Stalinist" scarecrow for the modern development is very bad, especially the way Olahus did it (plus the replacing of the "wrong" sources with the "right" ones) - in a kind of "Argumentio ad Stalinum". Additionally, I find the whole campaign of "proving" that Moldovan Moldovans are officially called Romanians in Moldova, starting with this "minor" edit, growing over into this and eventually settling back to "sometimes", kinda lame seeing as how the whole controversy with Romania was sparked precisely because of this distinction made the Moldovan government. Another question is the "The highest numer of Moldovans live in Romania" part - how to add it if at all. --Illythr (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Romanian Moldovans, part two

A typical edit without principles of the user Xasha can be seen here when he reverted this edit made by me. He "excused" his removal stating that OSCE would have accuse Vladimir Socor for fallacies and "outrageous fabrications". And even if he was accused there is unclear if it can be regarded as a reason to neglect the estimations regarding the Moldovans from Romania, because Vladimir Socor is a venerated analyst of East European affairs and the accusals of William Hill (indeed, William Hill accused Vladimir Socor, not the organization OSCE) have nothing to do with the number of Moldovans from Romania (see here).--Olahus (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attacks, I have to say that an author whose credibility on a closely related subject has been questioned by an OSCE official is not reliable enough to be used as a source for an exceptional claim, per WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG.Xasha (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The OSCE (relative to Moldova) takes particular pleasure in denouncing Socor, who time and again has been proven to be spot-on in his analysis of where things were going with the OSCE in Moldova and its activities regarding Transnistria. Hill can defend his non-existent honor all he wants, Socor has had the mission's "number" all along. "While the head of the Moldovan OSCE mission vehemently denies Russia's hand in its activities (viz. Hill rebuttal of Socor), ...".
Erm, I'd like to interrupt this thread with a little reality check: Socor quotes Voronin there (about 10 millon Moldovans in Romania), so the "estimation" has indeed nothing to do with the usual stuff by Socor, or even with Socor himself. The problem with the insertion of that group into the infobox is whether it's right to mix the one group that recognizes itself as a separate ethnicity with the other that doesn't, and if they should be combined, how to do it best so as not to hurt neutrality and verifiability. --Illythr (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality is not giving every viewpoint, regardless of its creation or basis, equal time. Neutrality is constructing a narrative that includes viewpoints but that is based on verifiable objective historical facts. Opinion polls are opinions, not historical facts. The genesis of the term "Moldovan" was, is, and remains, the creation of the Moldovan ASSR in 1924, at which point all Romanian speakers in the Soviet Union were no longer Romanians but Moldovans. Unfortunately what I see is the POV (not based on any fact) that "Moldovan"="Moldavian" completely interchangeable as if they both existed equally throughout time referring to the same people and territory. Patently false. And that polls and questionnaires with leading questions intentionally painting Moldovans and Romanians as separate and distinct ethnic groups--let's not use "ethnicity", that's a political term--prove what they were created for and intended to show in the first place. Patently predictable. I'm sorry, but this is not encyclopedic. —PētersV (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, ethnicity itself is an opinion held by a number of people that their group, unified by certain criteria (they usually can't agree upon) should be called in a certain way. Once that opinion becomes sufficiently widespread, it becomes a fact... which is why I like natural sciences more than the "unnatural" ones. ;-) Moldovan/Moldavian is indeed the same in both Russian and Romanian, and the only "new" thing that happened to them in the 1920s was the promotion of this identity to full national status. The fact that this was done for political reasons is very old news to the concept itself (see also Irredentism).
Actually, your first statement is false. Ethnicity is as much about the views of the other as it is about self-view. Dpotop (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As concerns your second statement, that Moldovan=Moldavian in Romanian and Russian is of no concern here. We're on English Wikipedia. This is an argument first held by Dahn which seems quite consistent with Wikipedia policies (which I don't like, but that's my problem). So, from the POV of English and the English wikipedia, Moldovan!=Moldavian. Dpotop (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Self-view is primary. If it persists long enough, it becomes accepted by others. Politics plays a critical role as well.
Long-enough can be a long time. I am thinking of the German guys that were still killed or forced into exile prior and during WWII because they had a Jewish grandparent. I wonder if they considered themselves German. And not only. Dpotop (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
A couple centuries seems to be long enough, although strong political motivation can reduce this period. We're talking about recognition of reasonably large groups of people, like, at least a couple hundred thousand, yes? Not about persecution based on ethnic prejudice? Anyhow, as I said, politics is also important (probably even the main driving force). --Illythr (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself has no authority whatsoever. Sources might be nice, but so far, none of this was proposed for the mainspace so...
Vecrumba here seems to hold an opinion that Moldavians had just disappeared one day and Moldovans were conjured into a part of their former territory by either imperial Russian officials or Soviets. I am expressing my surprise over such a position. Pretty much offtopic, but what the hell... BTW, hey, would you care to say something on the topic above? --Illythr (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Not really (i.e., I wouldn't express an opinion). It's simple: I have already expressed my opinions here a long time ago. They didn't change in the meantime. WP editing on subjects that interest me reminds me of all the (bad) US movies involving lawsuits. We all know the reality, and this view is quite consistent between me (a Romanian), you (a Russian), etc. However, we are bound by a formal system that some users try, and succeed to game. The result being a long, time-consuming process of, as the French say, fucking flies (http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/enculer_les_mouches). Dpotop (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In this particular situation I'm interested in opinions not about what you (or I or whoever) think is true, but on the specific edits summarized by a diff in the section above this one. --Illythr (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
But really now, these two last sections are specifically here to discuss the changes Olahus was/is trying to introduce into the article (as he has done in ro and de wikis). Opinions should ideally be on how justified, correct and neutral these addition, and not about how evil the topic of this article is. --Illythr (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hold on, Illythr! You seem to forget that the form of the sustained by you (actually you behave like the shadow or the mirror of Xasha - you edits look in too many cases almost identical with the one of a sockpuppet of him, I say almost). You must understand that Wikipedia is not the right place for Soviet propaganda born during Stalin's era. I'm not the right person to decide weather such ideas are good or not, but, what I know, and I am sure about it: they are truly not objective. Wikipedia-users should have a equilibrate attitude, not the attitude of a Homo Sovieticus. So, regarding the article Moldovans: the idea of a separate Moldovan ethnicity was propaganded for the first time during the Soviet period in the 20's. In Bessarabia it was propaganded during the Stalinist era ([4]). Before this time, the Moldovans were never regarded as a separate ethnic group from the Romanians. I repeat:never! But you, Illythr accept only a form of the article that does'n hurt the Stalinist POV. So what can I say more? I often asked for an equlibrate form of the article with an equidistant description of both opinions, but it seems to be useless as long as Xasha has a good mirror. In fact, as I already mentioned, the idea of a separate Moldovan ethnicity isn't even sustained by the Moldovan census, where the used term was "nationality" (see the official page of the Moldovan census from 2004), not ethnicity. But you insist to use the term "ethnicity" in the article. Isn't it POV-ish, dear user Illythr? --Olahus (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid, the place of my faithful sockpuppet is already occupied by user:Whiskey, a truly evil Stalinist (or Finnish Nazi, we're still kinda undecided on that). But feel free to request a CU anyway. The more minds I absorb, the better.
Now, on topic, as said, the promotion of Moldovans as a distinct ethnicity is characteristic of the Soviet period, yes. That much has been in the article for a very long time. The census mentioned Romanians and Moldovans as a mutually exclusive choice (not to mention that attempt by Voronin to get the Romanian Moldovans acknowledged, too), with citizenship dealt with in a separate unrelated section, so your attempts to interpret nationality as something other than ethnicity (despite presented sources that acknowledge the obvious) is curious. BTW, all that ad hominem, while mildly amusing, only serves to discredit your own position. It would be much better if you focused on discussing content, instead of fellow editors. --Illythr (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, give me a break, Illythr! The official census in Moldova uses term "naţionalitate" (nationality) and we should use this term in the article. Your proposal is POV-ish. --Olahus (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, can you explain why you consider a simple clarification "POVish"? Besides, I even provided a secondary source to support it. You didn't. --Illythr (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You want to impose a personal (or even an original) POV, not supported by the primar source. And if you want also a secondary source from me, than get an official information from the page of the Moldovan Ministry of Culture and Tourism (quote: "The majority of the population are Moldovans (Romanians), but the following national minorities live on this territory too: Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Gagauzians, Russians, Germans, Greeks, and others."). --Olahus (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The primary source is ambiguous. I have provided a secondary source that helps resolve this ambiguity. You have provided a second one (CIA world factbook). turism.md equates national with ethnic, as, for instance, Gagauzians are an ethnicity and each Gagauzian is also a Moldovan national. BTW, I can read the standard font quite well, there's no need to use screaming colors. Feel free to revert my edits to your post if you feel they infringe on your rights to shout something loudly enough, though. --Illythr (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the main point of contention in this section, but I see there is an issue about the correct interpretation of the term naționalitate as used in the Moldovan census and whether the English term ethnicity is the correct equivalent. In my view the answer is clearly yes. The reason is that during Soviet times, the "nationality" of all individuals was officially recorded and this term was defined as the ethnos they belonged to, and this term has continued to be used in that sense by post-Soviet governments and has been ingrained with that definition in common speech in ex-Soviet territories. The explanation to the census questions (Semnificaţia întrebărilor din formularele de recensămînt) confirms this:

Întrebarea 7. Naţionalitatea

Componenţa naţională a populaţiei se poate obţine numai prin intermediul recensămîntului, aceeaşi putem spune şi despre caracteristica populaţiei după limbile vorbite. În chestionar se va înscrie naţionalitatea, pe care o va declara intervievatul personal. Apartenenţa etnică a copiilor minori o declară părinţii. Această sursă de informaţie va caracteriza componenţa naţională a populaţiei care corespunde realităţii şi va fi imperios necesară pentru asigurarea libertăţilor culturale şi spirituale ale populaţiei, precum şi a continuării tradiţiilor socio-culturale specifice fiecărei etnii. Elaborarea datelor în îmbinare cu alte întrebări va permite obţinerea unei informaţii diverse pe naţionalităţi: repartizarea etniilor pe sexe, pe vîrstă şi starea civilă; pe vîrstă şi nivelul de instruire; după situaţia economică; după ocupaţii etc.

As you can see the words nationality and ethnicity (apartenenţa etnică) are used interchangeably. However since in English the term nationality has a slightly different meaning, it makes most sense to use the word ethnicity for this category. TSO1D (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, "Nationality" is generally used to denote citizenship, as opposed to what it means in the census. That quote even has the word "etnii" in it, in proper context. This should definitely clear up any remaining doubts. Thanks! --Illythr (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The nationality is someting that is imposed by the state. The people declare on the census just that what is written in their identity card. The state is the one who decide to weather nationality the individual is belonging to. See this article. --Olahus (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about nationality aka citizenship. This is exactly why a clarification is necessary - citizenship was dealt with separately in the census (according to it, 99.6% of population are Moldovan citizens, or nationals). Anyhow, thanks to TSO1D, this question is closed and we can move on to other matters. --Illythr (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Socor

Cand anybody explain me exactly why the article of Vladimir Socor was deleted from the references? Vladimir Socor is a apreciated analyst of East European affairs. His disputants ar rather the exception. --Olahus (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The head of the rather impotent OSCE mission in Moldova took exception to Socor's analysis in writing. Someone (they know who they are) decided that the word of a disgruntled politico is more verifiable/valid than the word of an analyst who has been proven correct on Moldova and the OSCE time and again. I move Socor be reinserted with a footnote that the current head of the OSCE doesn't particularly care for him or his analysis. —PētersV (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What was deleted was that contentious edit Olahus kept reinserting. That article by Socor is used as a reference twice elsewhere on the page, so it's not really about him. BTW, Vecrumba, no need to scream, I can read you quite well. --Illythr (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Illythr, isn't it biased to accept only parts of Socor's article? The part concerning the number of Moldovans in Romania were deliberately cut out from the article. Why? Because they stated that the vast majority of Moldovans live in Romania and not in Moldova? --Olahus (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Because these Moldovans don't recognize themselves as a distinct ethnicity. This article seems to be mostly about those who do. Still, with neutral formulation this could be... actually, is already present in the article. Besides, as I mentioned above, the estimation is made by Voronin as well, so it really isn't about Socor's work. --Illythr (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Wong, wrong, wrong, Illythr. This article is not about particulary those who recognize themselves as a distinct ethnicity. The article is about the Moldovans. --Olahus (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I doubt they'll even describe themselves in English language as Moldovans.Xasha (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you try to be more accurate, please? --Olahus (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


BTW, Xasha, that claim about Moldovans in Romania is also made by Voronin (more so than by Socor)... --Illythr (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

They're both politically motivated (although with conflicting goals).Xasha (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
So what exactly is wrong on Socor's article? Why should he be politically motivated to say that 6-7 million Moldovans live in Romania?--Olahus (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

ESTIMATE OF POPULATION IN MOLDOVIA (ROMANIA) Adding up the population of the eight counties of Moldavia = 4.7 million. No other estimates is available of Moldovans from Romania, so Vladimir Socor is probably just guessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenusaurelius (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. The Moldovan population in Romania is, according reliable sources, insignificant if you exclude Moldovan expats. Vladimir Socor is most probably guessing, but WP is about verifiability, not truth.Anonimu (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but I totally oppose a sentence starting with "V. Socor says that" and then mentioning the wild estimate 6-7 million. He does not deserve in any way to be mentioned explicitly as an authority on number of Moldovans in Romania. He is obviously just guessing. One can at most say -- "other estimates give..." and refer to Socor's article in the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.95.7.152 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Another funny edit of User:Xasha

I must admit that I was convulsed with laughter after I read this edit and the comment of the User Xasha. Xasha, you're kidding again, right? --Olahus (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And funny, I met someone just the other day (college student) and was intrigued by her accent. So I asked. "Romanian" she answered. So, of course, I expressed my happiness at meeting her given my interest in the region. Her eyes lit up (I was down south, I suspect most are oblivious to Romania, even more so to Moldova and Transnistria), a mix of startled and gratified that for a change she didn't have to do any explaining. So, when I asked her where she was from, she said, "Moldova, actually." And so I asked, what she felt like? Not surprisingly, Romanian and Moldovan (that is ethnic group first and identity group second).
   And so it is with all these POV-reeking polls and punditry which are all created and promulgated with the sole purpose of "proving" only one or the other and carving out "Moldovan" as an ethnic group (absurdly not) versus an identity group (most certainly), and that "Moldovan" and "Romanian" can't overlap. —PētersV (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
And I just asked my nextdoor neighbour. He says he's a Moldovan ethnic, and not a Romanian. Since he's not just a guy I met on the street, but one I know since long ago, I say he's more trustworthy. That's another proof that all those Panromanians and their russophobic friends live in a imaginary world.Xasha (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Aha. So what are you going to do now, Xasha? Will you insert the imaginary comment of you're nextdoor neighbour as a "source" for your claims on the article? Do you want to raise a laugh again? --Olahus (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Not imaginary. Unlike some, I have real people to talk with...Xasha (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Aha. So you have the perfect source, right? --Olahus (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw, cut it out y'all... --Illythr (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

corrupted section : "Modern controversy"

Text: having been counted as Romanians.<[19] a single entry "Moldovan/Romanian" is used. Obviously some careless edit happened. Please fix, if you keep track of the edits; not me. `'Míkka>t

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 July 2008‎ (UTC)

My "opinion" (since someone brought it up)

... is that today's nationalist Moldovan identity, created by Stalin, then annexed into Bessarabia (one half the former Moldavia) is only distantly related to the Province of Moldavia and to all those who historically might see themselves as self-identifying with the Moldavia of old, one half in today's Moldova, one half in today's Romania. All those who push today's Moldovans as an ethnic group--let's not use the overused and modern "ethnicity"--as opposed to some other collective territorially-driven identity, do so for political reasons. Period. Every poll and survey to which the answer is Romanian or Moldovan, whatever the context, is political. Period. Every pronouncement that Moldovans have been an ethnic group for 600 years we don't need no stinkin' Romanians (only slightly paraphrasing Voronin), is political. Period. Political is not good or bad in any of these contexts. But it is political.

For those that have not seen it, I cross post, slightly updated, my response to an editor whose POV appears that Romanians don't need no stinkin' Modovans, so, the view complementary to Voronin's. (Strictly my interpretation.)

THE ROMANIAN ETHNIC WORLD ACCORDING TO UNNAMED EDITOR
as interpreted by Pēters per article content which other editors have inserted and unnamed editor has reverted/deleted

  (let's not forget the earlier precedent, Moldavians)
ROMANIANS(self-identified) MOLDOVANS
The article "Romanians" is about this ethnic group The article "Romanians" is NOT about this ethnic group

THE ROMANIAN+MOLDAVIAN+MOLDOVAN ETHNIC WORLD ACCORDING TO PĒTERS

ROMANIANS
starting with ancient history, including original divisions one of which encompasses the modern Romanians, through the 14th century
Wallachia,
parts of Transylvania 		Moldavia, Romanians as Moldavians, references to Romanian (language) as Moldavian, 15th - mid-19th century
Romanians under a united Romania
Romanians (and one half of historical Moldavian territory) under Communist Romania Bessarabian (the other half of historical Moldavian territory) Romanians under the Moldovan SSR which was created out of annexed Romanian territory, the invention of Moldovan (Romanian language transliterated into Cyrillic, NOT the original Romanian Cyrillic, etc.)
* "Bessarabia" a term
invented by Russia,
* "Moldovan" a language
invented by Stalin
Romanians in the post-Soviet era
Romania, Romanian "ethnic"* identity Moldova, Moldovan (territorial) identity purported to be an "ethnic group"
*per pick-a-census-or-poll, self-identified with regard to choices of Moldovan, Romanian, Ukrainian, Russian, etc., those choices indicated as "ethnicities," not "nationalities," on the census-or-poll; scholarship on Moldovans as an ethnicity, et al.
Discussion on the current state of Romanian ethnicity with regard to identity, to Romanian-Moldovan unification or not, to treatment by the regime in Transnistria, and to Romanians in adjoining territories and further afield in the diaspora
An article about Romanians is about this ethnic group, in toto

Hope this eliminates any confusion on anyone's part regarding my "opinion". :-) —PētersV (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, opinions are, of course, welcome - but opinions on those proposed changes are strongly preferred. This talk page has seen way too many pointless squabbles already. --Illythr (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
this is not actually an opinion. it coincides with the scholarly "opinion". But not because Peters is a scholar in this field. Vice-versa, Peters probably just read it from scholar works, or from their reproductions, citations in books, newspapers, internet. This article is about Romanians, namely about those Romanians that at present or at some moment in the past are/were called Moldavians. It is an absolutely legitimate article, and Moldovenism controversy will have to be mentioned as well. But thank god in smaller detail, so this article actually has a chance to be cleaned of issues and rv wars in foreseeable future. Dc76\talk 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be a kind of "broken phone" thread. My original opinion request was about one thing, Vecrumba here decided to reply on another and so on... I'm sure some White and Little Russians will be delighted to hear that they're just called differently for now, but wear a helmet or something when you tell this to them, ok? I bet the Black Mountain Serbs will start reacting that way too, eventually. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, "broken phone".
Now to make sure I continue the thread (not that i have to continue, but since noting better comes to my mind :) before i go to sleep) I would be proud to help Montenegrins "fight" their war as well. :) Idealism at work! :) Coca-Cola, sometimes war... :) Dc76\talk 01:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Done and moved to talk. Hm, if you support the Montenegrin ethnogenesis, why then do you oppose the same efforts of Moldovans? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, indeed, for the translation.
On the contrary, Montenegrins are just Serbs that live in Montenegro. There language is Serb. Within the Serb nation, yes they are Montenegrins. And if at this moment in history they want a separate state, that's absolutely fine. But to claim that since they are a different country, a different history must be invented for them - no, that's totally wrong. So, I see in the article:
In today's Montenegro, ethnic Montenegrins and Serbs are divided largely on the basis of political identification. Serbs are native to the state since the 7th century A.D.[9][10] and remained a majority people all the way to the 20th century.[11] Since the violent Christmas Uprising (1919), which saw fighting between the pro-Petrovic guerillas and the Karadjordjevic troops, there was a significant opposition to unification with Serbia.[12] As a consequence of the civil conflict, following the end of the WWII the population shifted overwhelmingly in favour of separate Montenegrin ethnicity (91%).[13] Following the collapse of Communism in Yugoslavia however, more and more Montenegrins began to again self-identify as Serbs (33%), while the greatest proportion of citizens of Montenegro still declare 'Montenegrin' as their ethnicity (43%).[14] This has deepened further since the movement for full Montenegrin independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia began to gain ground in 1991, and ultimately narrowly succeeded in the referendum of May 2006 (having been rejected in 1992). The Montenegro Serbs do not consider themselves separate from the Montenegrin nation but instead believe that all genuine slavic Montenegrins are Serbs by ethnicity, and that Montenegrin nation is one fraction of "Serbdom".
Recent Y-haplotype ADN studies show that Montenegro and Herzegovina was our (all Balkan people's) craddle during the last ice age. It's our borthers, you know.Dc76\talk 01:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so by the fight you mean the statehood. Ok, then. --Illythr (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
When you help someone, you help as you are asked to, you do not tell the one you help how you are going to help, otherwise it might turn in the opposite of help. BTW, ethnic identity and statehood are not the same thing! One can invent an ethnic identity and promote the concept, but the state exists or not, you can not invent or promote the concept of that state. Of course the communists identify themselves with the statehood. But any dictatorial ruling class din that since the down of time. Dc76\talk 23:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Official Chisinau Seeks Recognition Of Moldovan Ethnicity And Minority In Romania" The Jamestown Foundation, February 28, 2007, by Vladimir Socor.
  2. ^ The official site of the Moldovan Ministry of Culture and Turism: Moldova is a European Country, which has a rich ethnic history. The majority of the population are Moldovans (Romanians),[...]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moldovans/Archive_5&oldid=1140126163"