Talk:Anti-Romanian sentiment

New organization of this article

The article was very badly written. therefore I have reorganized it. I hope you agree with the big ouline. Let us make comments to each of these sections separately:

2.3.3 United Kingdom and other cuntries of Western Europe

---

Someone trying to find information on the subject would have read only some senseless fragments, and some written while in hot mind. It was (and still is) by far unprofessional. The issue is real, but must be addressed thoroughly, without any exageration, without bias, without ommisions, and as informative as possible. The article must address each sub-issue fairly. Sometimes discrimination was based not, or not only on ethnical basis, and this must be stated. Sometimes on hot mind some authors approximate incorrectly. For example, if in some instance 10,000 people were killed - this is a tragedy. It wouldn't be a revenge, a redemption, or any use to state 20,000. The crimes are not diminished if one writes 10,000. On the contrary, exagerated numbers suggest to an outsider that the issue is fictious. The worst denigration to those who suffered and died is when people tend to dismiss an issue b/c someone has exagerated some numbers. Exageration is as big an offence as denial. It is like spitting on inocent men's graves. If you find somewhere exageration of facts imputed to Romanians, be sure the truth will always come true, this is why people value it. One can always fool one man; one can fool everyone once; but noone can not fool everyone everytime. I would also like to point out that many areas of anti-Romanian discrimination are not adressed at all! This article needs a lot of contribution, documentation, images, links. Please help!

Should it be deleted?

I think this article should, in its current form, be deleted. It's a load of crap, entirely unreferenced, totally POV, and the entire thing was contributed by an anonymous contributor who has displayed vandalistic tendencies on articles relating to Romania, Moldova, and Russia. --Node 06:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC) The article still needs more cleaning up, but so far it is starting to look much better already.

Strong support. --Ghirlandajo 06:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Strongly againstConstantzeanu 20:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not the wikipedia policy. We don't delete articles for being POV. We fix them. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 08:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This one is hopeless. --Ghirlandajo 08:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not a valid deletion criterium. bogdan | ^Talk 08:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I remember an article once called Occupation of Palestine. When it was created, it seemed like it was hopelessly POV. I fixed it, with the help of a person whose viewpoint was the opposite of mine, and it turned out to be a relatively nice, well-rounded article. Then, it was deleted. The end. --Node 00:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Strongly against.--Deguef (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Mr. Mystery-man has created an article without referencing it and yes he did revert the content of the “Moldovan” article.

However, we should also take note that Node Ue is NOT PERFECT either and is an ardent anti-Romanian himself. Node you should not be the one to point out others’ shortcomings since you do not have exactly a stellar history either. You are the sysop of a very controversial wiki called the Молдовенякэ/Moldovan wikipedia( a language which does not exist). By the way I still reserve the right to call new elections for another sysop at any time since we long passed the 45 day period. Also Node has affirmed his hatred or at least dislike of Romanians on a number of times. The reason for this remains a mystery to us. Is it because he descends from Moldovan Russofiles? Is it because he is a communist? Is it because his Jewish ancestors were persecuted by the Iron Guard? Is it because he is a homosexual and he knows that Romanian law on homosexuals is not exactly the most tolerant? Maybe he had a Romanian boyfriend once who broke his heart. Who knows? (Mihaitza)

1) if I'm anti-romanian, you're anti-moldovan.

2) the Moldovan Wikipedia does not have anything to do with my track record on en.wiki. It is not relevant to this discussion. Your continued insistance that it shouldn't exist is a bit daft. By the way, I will challenge your right to vote on mo.wiki, given that you have made less than 25 contributions to content pages before today.

3) Remind me when I reaffirmed my hatred or at least dislike of Romanians. I have no problems with Romanians. I only have problems with jerks. Thus, while I have no problem with Ronline (we do have our disagreements, but he's very cordial all the time, never pokes fun, and that stuff), I have a problem with you, Goie, and your little crew. I do not descend from "russofiles", if I were a communist I would've banned pests like Goie from editing on mowiki but have I? No. Jewish ancestors persecuted by the Iron Guard? Not that I know of. Any reasons relating to homosexuality: there are countries with far worse levels of tolerance, such as Singapore, most Arab countries, South Korea... in fact, in some countries, homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. So Romania is relatively nice in that regard. --Node 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh? What Romanian law on homosexuals? AFAIK, the only Romanian law that mentions them is the one against discrimination. bogdan | ^Talk 09:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In any case, Node, I would like to point out that whatever your reason for your loathing, maybe you should hate a little less. Maybe, before calling something a piece of crap, you should pause a little bit and consider the fact that maybe our anonymous friend might be a newbie that does not know precisely how Wikipedia works.

Going back to the article. Yes it needs changing. No it does not necessarily have to be deleted. I know of something that should be deleted though. It’s the Moldovan Wikipedia ;)Mihaitza 05:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That is your _opinion_. I think it does have to be deleted, unless somebody fixes it, which I doubt will happen. The article is actually a piece of crap. Our anon friend has been editing since May, he should know how WP works by now, and if he doesn't, he should ask. --Node 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on one of the editors are unworthy of the Wikipedia. The article should be deleted, and that's it. --Ghirlandajo 07:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You may nominate it at VfD, but the nomination would likely have the same fate as Anti-Polonism, so it would just be a waste of time. (see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism) bogdan | ^Talk 09:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

G., you seem to be very inflexible on the issue. I hope its not because you are a Russofile and you don't like the refferences made to Russia and Soviets in the article.

As far as my comments are concerned, I did not insult anyone. Tell me where did I ever call Node a "faggot", "fag", "homo"? Node is really a homosexual. Thats not an insult. Its a fact. It says so in his profile(unless its a prank that someone made).

Going back to "Anti-Romanianism", there is an anti-Polinism article, right? So why should there be no "anti-Romanianism"? A Google search will show more then 3000 hits for "Romanofobia"/"Rumanofobia"/"Roumanofobia", "anti-Romanianism"/"anti-Rumanianism"/"anti-Roumanianism", "anti-Rumanian"/"anti-Roumanian"/"anti-Romanian", anti-Moldovan(which is almost the same thing, etc. etc... Of course the o/u/ou variation obviously means the same thing. Mihaitza 13:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

1) What is it with you and the term "russofile"? I'm sure if you can find credible references (not from Romania or Russia because they're too involved -- same rule has been applied to Polish topics) for either side of the argument, that would help.

2) You didn't explicitly call me any names or use offensive terms (the people who have done that are Danutz and Goie), but you mocked me in a subtle way when you said "Maybe he had a Romanian boyfriend once who broke his heart". I can assure you this is not the case, as I am a virgin (can you say "TMInfo gxgxgxlapsfoasffasdfr"?), and in my life have only had one girlfriend and no boyfriends, at least in the real sense.

3) I have no problem with the continued existance of this article, provided that it is completely re-written. I don't dispute that Anti-Romanianism exists. But this article greatly exaggerates its scope. In addition, "anti-moldovanism" is generally a politically-charged term used in Moldova to refer to unionism or to people who say that Romanian and Moldovan are the same language. It's usually only used in that sense by extremist nationalist crazies like Vasile Stati. It's also sometimes used to refer to some of the more common Romanian attitudes towards Moldova. So I would not say it's the same thing. --Node 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Node, the only article that is going to be voted for deletion is your silly Moldopedia :)

This article is a "load of crap". You know what's a "load of crap"? The maldavianiasko wikipedia:) I am sorry to have been absent for so long. Allow me to propose the "maldavanian" wiki for a VfD.

PS: Mihaitza nu exista roumanofobie, ptr ca cuvantul este in romana. oricum sunt cam 2000-3000 de "hituri". Also Mihaitza there is no law against homos in Ro. The law alows for gay sex but does not allow for gay unions.Domnu Goie 17:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think it is better to discuss the article than to indulge in ad-hominem attacks on other editors, whatever their contributions to other wikipedias might be abakharev 00:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

1 ) homos este un cuvint homophobic .

2 ) your strange spellings were funny at first, but i'm not laughing anymore. the term is "moldovan", formerly "moldavian". Nobody ever called it "maldabian", "moldabian", "maldavinian", "moldobian", "maldavanian", "maldavianiasko", or any of your other crazy misspellings.

3 ) as has been noted by heaps of people, there are people who actually use the language variety which is used in mowiki. it's at least more useful than the Wikipedia in Ido or the one in Lojban or the one in interlingue (ex occidental). all the reasons you've given so far for deleting a Wikipedia which has well over 100 articles now are politically rather than practically motivated. --Node 01:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This Article should NOT be deleted but maintained. Here it is written about one of the most less known problem outside Romania, the tragedy of the Romanian population in the occupied teritories in the last 9 centuries. The writer of the article may come also with demographical data for example to sustain the discrimination of Romanians in Bukovina and Basarabia by the Russians/Soviets, hungarians and Austrians. In Transylvania there were named the judiciary sistem and the Uniom Trium Nationum political alliance between the 2 minoritary hungarians populations and the german one against the Romanian population who formed the vast majority. Maybe quoting from the laws of the time would help the people understanding the article isn't subjective but only insufficient sustained by given data.

And about the homosexuality of one of the controllers. 1)The sexual orientation is first a personal matter and it constitutes no reason for criticism. 2)The fight should consist on Ideas and principals and not on irrelevant personal attacks. 3) The Law in Romania has changed for several years from now. Homosexuality is no longer punished. The discriminatory law articles have been removed, because of the pressure of integrating EU and because the Police and Secret Services have better other things to do regarding public money spent on them.(Andrew)

To Ghirlandajo: POV tags

I'd like that you point out the problems you think the article has now. If you don't, I'll remove the tags. bogdan | ^Talk 19:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Article name

I think the topic is worthy of an article and this article may actually evolve with time into something encyclopedic. But two things for now:

1. article name: we cannot use neologizms, sorry. Encyclopedia reports on things that already happened and studied, not introduces the terminology even if the terminology is justified. See No original research. I suggest we move article to Discrimination of Romanians or smth along these lines.
2. Because this is a controversial topic with accusations liberally spread towards all the neighbors of Romanians (and justifiably or not is a separate issue), every fact has to be sourced. I request that authors of the article take this request seriously. One cannot of course site a source of every sentence, but ona has to do it on every major idea the article introduces, unless, of course, something is a common knowledge. Please take this call seriously and cite your sources.

Thanks, --Irpen 21:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I see my consern #1 is already addressed. Thanks! Please address the problem with sources asap. --Irpen 21:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think that sourses have to be found asap. In that respect I am in total agreement with Irpen.

On the other hand, I don't think this includes personal research. There really is a term called anti-romanianism. Domnu Goie 23:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it a term used in English? --Node 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No, there are very few instances, see google test (make sure you check "English only" in options). --Irpen 03:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think the topic is valid, though quit controversial and flame-baiting. Some sentences are have to be edited in NPOV style, but this is doeable. The main problem is to separate universally accepted facts from opinions. The opinions should be balanced by other opinions. The facts should be sourced and check.abakharev 02:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah, in essence, abakharev kinna said it. For instance, the part with hungary persecuting romanians since 1001( which although it is not mentioned exactly like that, it is pretty much what it implies). Now that, is pure nationalist propaganda. That is certainly going to fall under the "opinions/not facts". I really don't think the Hungarians in the 1000s, 1100s and even 1600s thought "lets persecute those damn Romanians". Hungarian villagers were persecuted as well. It wasn't really about nationality back then, rather about nobility vs. the rest.

Hungarians under the Horthy government in 1940 was a total different thing. That was anti-Romanianism. I think there are 100s of books on that topic. About Stalinist crimes against the Romanians of North Bukovina, I have persoanlly read himself right here on Wikipedia. Same thing goes for Stalinist crimes after 1944 and Transnistrian policy towards the Romanians after 1989. In any case I think we can do a better job with the sourses.

PS: one more thing. Under the current form "Anti-Romanian discrimination" this article will be read by nobody. compare this with Antipolonism. Most people that go on wikipedia and search for such an article will not find it. Moreover, if one does not type the actual words exactly and with capitalized letters, one will not reach the article. So I propose that we do something about that. Domnu Goie 22:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It’s ridiculous to have “Anti-Romanian discrimination”. For other anti-s we don’t have the word “discrimination” after them. Why does the Romanian case have to be different? Does Anti-Polonism exist in the Webster’s dictionary? I doubt it but it was fine to have it here, right? Same for Anti-Slavism.

Now going back to the question of the word “Anti-Romanianism” existing in the English language, I would like to remind everyone that there is no academy of English language like there is a Frech or Spanish or Romanian academy of those languages respectively. The English langauge is not controlled or regulated by anyone which is why it is the language with the most number of words. I think every day, a new word enters the language which puts the total at something like 500.000- 1.500.000 words. If you do not believe me, please consult other resourses like what wikipedia has to say on the English Language. Thus I would really like to propose that we change this long title to something that people could type and find resourses for. I noticed that for Anti-Polonism, any of the following combinations work: “antipolinism”, “antipolonism”, “anti-Polonism”, “anti-Poland”, “anti-poland”, “antipolon”, “Polonophobia”, “polonophobia”, etc. etc. Mihaitza 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Just make all the redirects you want. I am not sure Anti-Polonism is right as an article name either. The google test provides a useful guidance. It shows the usage and internet is even less regulated than English language. Anti-Romanianism term is unheard of (or almost) among the English language sites. hits intenretwide seems convinsing. --Irpen 04:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Irpen. --Ghirlandajo 07:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Irpen I understand what you are saying, but even if anti-romanianism is very rarely seen in the English language, it still means it is used in that language.Mihaitza 13:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If it is so rarely seen, it means we can't use it as an article entry, but a redirect is OK. That's all I was saying. I can, say, make a web-page outside WP devoted to this topic and choose to call it ANTI-ROMANIAISM. Also a morphologically possible name. This would not qualify it for an article entry and ANTI-ROMANIANISM, is just about as used. It may well be used in Romanian media, I just don't know. It is not used in English in any significant way. --Irpen 16:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

you may be right. a redirect may be a good solution. as long as people can put "anti-romanianism" in the search-engine and still get to this article, I don't think it matters how it will be called. With that out of the way, we should concentrate on bringing more sourses as well as making the article more NPOV.Mihaitza 18:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted part

I just want to elaborate here why I deleted section "Yugoslavia and modern Serbia and Montenegro". If somebody want to write about "persecuted Romanians in Timok Valley", he should to prove two things:

• 1. That people who live in Timok Valley consider themselves a Romanians.
• 2. That people who live in Timok Valley consider that they are persecuted.

Both claims cannnot be proved or supported. People who live in Timok Valley do not consider themselves Romanians, but consider themselves to be a distinct Vlach nation different from both, Romanians and Serbs. Also, they do not consider that they are persecuted. They are fluent in both languages, Serbian and Vlach, and they never asked for separate schools or institutions where they would use their language, since they use Serbian language in their everyday life (They use Vlach language mainly in home). But, as I said, they never asked for official use of their language in schools or in local administration. If they asked for it, Serbia would provide that for them, but they never asked. The one cannot claim that rights of people are abused if they never asked for these rights. User:PANONIAN

---

The further discussion about this can be seen here: Talk:Romanians of Serbia

---

Wow, as a foreigner who lived in Russia, this is a poor argument with many pathetic grammatical and spelling mistakes. This article is purely based on a biased view of Moldovians. Rubbish!

Factual accuracy.

I see the factual accuracy dispute tag. Ghirlandajo, I'm waiting... Please dispute some facts! bogdan 17:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Should I assume you no longer dispute it ? bogdan 18:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Funny. Looks like everybody in the neighborhood is/was against Romanians. I must say this article was written from a biased perpective. Nasty Russians, nasty Hungarians, nasty Saxonians, etc. Some examples:

Example 1: "the Romanians were not allowed to reside within the walls of some Transylvanian cities such as Sibiu or Braşov"

That's correct. In medieval times it was a privilege to live in cities. People there were granted special rights from the king, and peasants or shepherds were not allowed to enter the city, except for market days. Eg. in Brasov the gate where they could enter the city was called the "Bulgarian Gate". Vallachian (as today's Romanians were called), Bulgarian and Hungarian peasants lived in their own villages, under the supervision of their landlords (or in free communities, like the Székelys). Quite usual in medieval Europe.

This wouldn't be an ethnic issue if there was some Romanian ethnic landlords, but there were none. In Transylvania, being Romanian was equal with being a serf. This was why the laws stated clearly that no Romanians were allowed to live in those cities. bogdan 13:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know, Romanians were mostly peasants and shepards. It was the Saxonians who - thanks to their West-European traditions and connections - were able to build those beautiful towns.

Indeed, the Hungarians and Romanians took the organization of the towns from the Germans. In fact, some of the first cities in Wallachia and Moldavia were organized by the Saxons: Câmpulung in Wallachia, Târgu Neamţ, Piatra Neamţ in Moldavia. bogdan 21:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, In many places in Hungary, too. --KIDB 08:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that the rules about immigration into the towns were set by the local council and they restricted peasants (of any ethnic background) from settling down within the crowded area surrounded by the city walls. Just like in any European city of that period. --KIDB 16:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the peasants were restricted. But, Romanians were restricted by default. Not even craftsmen were allowed to stay in the city

Only Romanian craftsmen were restricted by the Saxons? Where do you have this information from? When did this happen? --KIDB 08:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Example 2: "ruthlessly suppressed by the Hungarian nobles who would execute peasant leaders and their admirers by breaking on the wheel. This method of execution consisted of the victim being laid on the ground whilst the executioner would break the prisoner’s bones with a spiked wheel. Other peasants would be forced to watch the executions in order to frighten them from attempting future uprisings" Again, these nasty Hungarian nobles. Do you remember what Vlad Tepes did to his peasants? :-)

Example 3: "The Romanian population of Transylvania was never directly represented in the Transylvanian Diet which consisted of German, Hungarian and Szeckler nobles (the Unio Trium Nationum), despite the fact that the three groups were minorities, whilst the Romanians comprised an overwhelming majority of the Transylvanian population."

a) There is no evidence about the Vlach People being in majority in Transylvania in the medieval period, because nobody was interested in ethnic issues.

At least in late medieval period they were for certain the majority. bogdan 13:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

b) Representation in the Diet: Similarly to the previous examples, try to imagine yourself in the medieval times. In those days, ethnic issues were not significant, people were either nobles or peasants. Only those social (not ethnic) groups were represented in the Parliament that had legal privileges from the king. (Remember, in the time of the French revolution only nobles and church leaders were represented in the French Parliament.)

Again, it was different thing, because the nobles shared the ethnicity with the peasants. In Transylvania, it would not be possible for a Romanian to become a noble. (with some exceptions, where he would be assimilated as a Hungarian) bogdan 13:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's clarify this issue. I think we can agree that neither Hungarian, Romanian nor German peasants were represented in the Diet. So the issue here is

1. whether Romanians could become nobles in Transylvania? (I have no information about this.)

2. If not, why? This is really an interesting question. During the times when Transylvania was quasi independent, how could the Hungarian nobles hold their positions without the support of the Hungarian Kingdom? And during the Habsburg domination? Hungarians, including Transylvanian Princes, were always revolting against Habsburgs. I wonder why the Habsburgs did not promote some Romanians to become nobles when they were in majority in the region anyway?

Or they could have even imported nobles from Valachia, to lead their fellow Romanians.

It's funny that it's the other way around: the Wallachians imported nobles from Transylvania and the Moldavians from Maramureş.

That's true. Now I recall that Vlad Tepes is said to have been born in the Saxonian city of Segesvár (now I cant recall the Romanian name of the town).

1. Now we have a good example about a Vlach person living in a Saxonian city

2. And also about a family with noble ancestry living in South Transylvania. They didn't convert to catholicism, did they?  :-)

--KIDB 08:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wallachia was organized by two main groups of nobles: one was Cuman of origin, coming from the East (the "Basarabi") and another was Romanian, comming from north, from Făgăraş region. So, it's no wonder that the first capital, Câmpulung, was near a mountain pass (Torzburg) that leads to Transylvania and that it was initially a vasal of Hungary. In Moldavia, also the nobles came from Maramureş and the state was initially a vasal of Hungary.

If you don't believe the old historic records, just look at the way Romanian is roughly divided into two main dialects: northern (Maramureş to Moldova) and Southern (Southern Transylvania and Wallachia), which support the theory of colonization

During the middle ages up until modern times, there were quite many Romanians that came from Transylvania to Wallachia: just see the number of villages named "Ungureni" (i.e. 'people from the Hungarian lands'). It seems that even in the 19th century it was quite common this migration: my great-great-great-grandfather came from Transylvania and settled in a village south-east of Câmpulung. :-) bogdan 21:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, Bogdan in late 2008, I recalled this little discussion of ours. Not intending to return editing, just would like to leave a remark: This year, the economic crisis will decrease employment opportunities for the one million Romanians who moved to Italy and Spain in recent years. When many of them return home you can say they immigrate to Romania from their ancient native lands :-) --KIDB (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, if Romanians were in majority, why the Hungarian landlords did not assimilate during the centuries they spent together in thet Romanian environment? So, what is the reason behind all these? --KIDB 16:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost all Europe speaks Indo-European languages, although the Indo-European invaders were rather few. Less than 15-20% of the genes of Europeans are of I-E origin. The pre-Indo-Europeans learned the language of their invaders in order to become part of the 'privileged class'. Now you're asking, why this was not the case in Transylvania? Because of religion: the Romanians did not wanted to abandon their religion. If the Romanians were Catholics, now Transylvania would have been almost pure-Hungarian. bogdan 21:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your statements:

As far as I know, Bulgarians are of Turkish origin, but adopted the Slavic language during the centuries from the locals.

Not really. The Bulgarians have their name from the Turkish Bulghars (just like the French got their name from the Franks), but they are mostly Slavicized Thracians. You know that genetically, the nations in Southeastern Europe are similar to the peoples that lived a few thousands years ago. The 'pure' races for nations is a nonsense: The Serbs have little 'Slavic' blood, (if they were pure Slavic they'd be blonde like most Russians and Poles) the Romanians have little 'Roman' blood, etc. Even the Magyars are the same: most of them have few of the genes of the Magyars that founded the the Hungarian state: they are mostly Germans, Slavs, Romanians that were assimilated. bogdan 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

- Of course, it would be silly to think about any Central European nation being genetically unchanged. In addition to the assimilated ethnic groups, just think about the dosens of different armies marching trough the region, from the Tatars, to Turkish and Russian invaders. What was their first thing to do after killing all the men and robbing out the villages? (Like during Balkan wars in the 1990s.) And the Habsburg armies with German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, etc. soldiers were also not to kind to villagers.

- I do not want to comment about Bulgarians being mostly Slavicized Thracians, because I have not enough information about the issue.

- There were Slavs and a mixture of others in Hungary when Magyars arrived. It is disputed if there were Vlachs, or if the number of them was significant. Lets leave this issue to be discussed in the History of Romania/Hungary/Transylvania articles. --KIDB 09:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, religion was important, and the landlords usually forced their peasants to practice the kind of religion they preferred. (Catholic Székelys gather in Csíksomlyó every year on Whit Sunday. This was originally a celebration of their military victory over the Prince of Transylvania, who wanted them to convert to Protestantism.)

I believe that the landlords did not force to their peasants any religion. I just can't see how orthodoxy would have survived for centuries as illegal religion. bogdan 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to define which time period we are talking about. By the end of the middle ages there was already a higher level of freedom of religion in Transylvania than in many European countries. --KIDB 09:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Slovaks have the same religion as Hungarians, even more, Slovakia had never been independent from Hungary until the Trianon treaty - and the region is certainly not "pure-Hungarian".

In Slovakia there was a different thing: the local language has a higher local prestige than Hungarian since Slovakian had already a literary culture at the time. As a proof of this, Hungarian borrowed extensively words from Slovakian. They were also united in a state. The Romanians were not organized and their organization was a late reaction to the Hungarian conquering. bogdan 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote "If the Romanians were Catholics, now Transylvania would have been almost pure-Hungarian." This is why I gave you the example of Slovaks. And in this issue it is not important whether Slovaks were better organised, or their language had a higher prestige 1100 years ago than the Vlach language. By the way, I think it would be more appropriate to say that Hungarians borrowed words extensively from Slavic languages, rather from Slovakian. --KIDB 09:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel like I still have not received satisfying answers to my questions. I have no information about the ratio of ethnic groups in Transylvania in the medieval period. Some Hungarians say that Hungarians were in majority, some Romanians say that Romanians were in majority. If the latter is true, it would be interesting to know why the Romanians of Transylvania could not take advantage of the situations when Transylvania was independent, or when it was controlled by Habsburgs? Why couldn't they develop a noble class of their own? --KIDB 08:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough on the Habsburgs to answer to this question. bogdan 23:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It is enough to know that they were great players, this is why the dynasty survived for almost a millennium. When they had the opportunity, they gladly used Hungarians and Romanians against each other. --KIDB 09:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

In Transylvania, three groups had royal privileges: the nobles, the Székely fighters and the Saxonian cities. --KIDB 12:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Both of you are right and wrong, depending on the period the anti-romanian sentiment was caused by religious or national reasons. We could argue it was started by religious reasons and ended being a sentiment based on ethnic reasons in the Transylvanian Principality who was cut of from Hungary and faced a great problem in having a Romanian majority. So from the Unio Trium Nationum we can talk about blatant discrimination.

Also, I would like to say that Moldova was founded by Maramuresh and spoke the dialect of Maramuresh till XVII century. Also Maramuresh had a Romanian nobilit, but they wore petty nobles in 1848 due to their religion. So not all regions faced the same conditions as in Transylvania and Bogdan is right, the recorded migrations wore( there wore smaller personal ones from the south mostly in the Austrian era) from Maramuresh and Transylvania to Cumania(Muntenia and most of Moldova) and Halicia, where they founded new states. Also, the Austrians tried to uplift the Romanians till 1868, but they never wanted to upset the church or the Hungarian nobility too much, and played the Romanian card with caution, using both sides to their good.

We can see lots of barons and two Romanian regiments as evidence, we can see a huge boom in culture with the Transylvanian School after the Union with Rome. Also, is sad that people equal Hungary with the Hungarian kingdom, and Old Magyars with the Magyar Nation without seeing that Romania and Hungary have their origins in revolutionary France, more than in any other region, and that this historical revisionism is a double edge sword. 1. People tend to claim the glory of the Magyar nobility(regardless of Origin) for Hungary and it's nation, people tend to held responsible Hungary and it's nation for the atrocities committed by the Magyar nobility(regardless of origin, because some wore Romanians, some Poles, some French, some Slavs, beside the Old Magyar element). Well, Hungarian Kingdom was first the land of the King, then the land of the nobility and church(Catholic), and the administration language for the papers was the Latin Language and most of the Hungarian peasants wore mostly Slavs.

The last thing. I will not say the Slovaks wore not affected by Magyarisation and the Church did not help with this, since most of Hungary today was Slavic when the Magyar Horde arrived, but I will not agree with Bogdan in viewing the Orthodox Eastern Church(The Latin Church was also Orthodox till the Schism) adopted by Romanians from Bulgarians in IX-XIII century as a saving element. This is just historical revisionism from the Orthodox Oligarchs who want to have a role the the national movement of Romanians so they can use the card to pipe the state budget.

The article should not be deleted, it needs another title

This article contains lots of misbeliefs, scientifically unproven statements. There are also proven facts in it. I think, this set of information is valuable because the writers have collected, and are collecting the popular myths fuelling Romanian xenophobia. The article was interesting for me to read, because these stories are not commonly known by Hungarians. This also helps to understand the way of thinking of another Nation. I would like to stress: I am not saying that everithing in the article is false! I also don't think that there are no similar myths amongst Hungarians or others.

I suggest that most of the collected stuff is reorganised and included in a new article called eg. Popular myths amongst Romanians or Beliefs fuelling Romanian xenophobia.

To help in this work, I have uploaded two photos on the frescos in the Orthodox Romanian Cathedral in Targu Mures (built in the 1920s), depicting people dressed as medieval noble Hungarians torchuring poor people dressed Romanian peasants...--KIDB 11:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

File:Fresko 1.jpg

File:Fresko 2.jpg

The title has to stay. Maybe some of the content related to Hungary has to be toned down a little or backed by sources.Constantzeanu 20:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It all needs to be backed up by sources. - FrancisTyers 15:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Polish view

I am from Poland. My view is this:

The evidence of direct anti-Romanian actions undertaken by the USSR in the 1920s is abundant. The convention of October 28, 1920, whereby the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan recognized Romanian sovereignty in Bessarabia, was rejected as invalid by the USSR. Moscow even denied the validity of that part of the convention that stipulated that, upon Russian request, the Council of the League of Nations could be empowered to arbitrate the Russo-Romanian dispute over Bessarabia. In short, the Kremlin insisted that Romania was illegally occupying Bessarabia. And it was because of this intransigent attitude that the Soviet Union refused to make any concessions. Romania's attempts, in the early 1920s, to seek accommodation with the USSR on all issues except the Bessarabian fell on deaf ears as the Kremlin encouraged revolutionary activities by Bolshevik elements in Bessarabia. The establishment in October, 1924, of the Autonomous Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic as a focal point for eventual reincorporation of Bessarabia into the USSR indeed eliminated the possibility of peaceful resolution of Russo-Romanian differences.

The exact position of the USSR on these issues is unknown except for Moscow's unwillingness to make any concessions to Bucharest on Bessarabian issues. Recent tracts by Romanian historians have emphasized the support given by Romanian Communists to the "democratic forces" opposed to alteration of the status quo in Transylvania in 1938 and subsequent years. True as this may be, there has been no evidence presented in support of any fundamental change in Moscow's traditional anti-Romanian positions with respect to Bessarabia in 1938 and subsequent years.

Whether the Kremlin envisaged this entire scenario in August, 1940, is uncertain. But that this possible scenario was within the realm of Russia's long-range plans for Romania and Eastern Europe cannot be doubted. The Romanians were aware of Russian intentions throughout the interwar period, and the Hungarians were also conscious of the potential advantages to be derived from Russia's anti-Romanian attitudes in an eventual resolution of the Transylvanian question. And it is undeniable that the Romanians and the Hungarians remain aware of Russia's interests in Transylvania forty years after the Vienna Diktat.

Romanian ethnic soldiers from Moldova were sent in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union 1980-1989

Romanian ethnic soldiers from Moldova were sent in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union 1980-1989. --203.188.144.61 08:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that was an example of discrimination, since soldiers all over the Soviet Union were sent there. bogdan 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Protected from anon edits against revert war by a flock of anon accounts. mikka (t) 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Your POV fork again. Bonaparte talk 10:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

...you mean, his protecting it from anon vandalism. ...unless the anon was a sockpuppet of you.

Nobody seems to substanciate their claims so I have erased the tags. Unless people come with clear objections then I see no point for them. There was an original research tag but the article has sources, there was a factual account tag but nobody bothered to explain what was not factual and there was a totally neutrality tag but I think everyone would agree that some parts of any article are more neutral then others.Constantzeanu 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tags, they are explained at talk and edit summaries and they are not addressed. The article is a mess. Did you actually takw a look? --Irpen 04:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Many sources have been brought in since the tags appeared and since the edit summaries were made. So the situation now is not like it was...say...a few months ago. I would like whoever thinks that the tags should stay, to make a newer version or a newer list of problems which we can adress so we can imrpove the article and remove the tags. If no such problems are presented here on the talk page, then I guess no problems exist and the tags can go. Don't just say that the tags should stay without showing why.Constantzeanu 05:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"learn Ukrainian primarily"

The following info is not supported by any citation:

The Ukrainian government has followed a policy of Ukrainization from 1992 until today, which among others requires students belonging to ethnic minorities to learn Ukrainian primarily, rather then their own languages

As far as I know (and confirmation can be easily found) there are Romanian-language scools in the regions with substational fraction of Romanian population, where Romanian is learned as primary language. --AndriyK 14:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans as a separate minority ?

the very existence of the classification of Moldovans as a separate minority can be perceived as an attempt to downplay the importance of Romanian culture in Ukraine.

Please elaborate the meaning of this statement. There are people considering themselves as Moldovans. (They do not consider themselves as Romanians.) What should a Romanian-freandly state do? Forbid them to call themselves "Moldovans"? But this would mean an anti-Moldovan discrimination, which is not acceptable in a democratic state.--AndriyK 14:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

From the point of view of Moldavians/Romanians, there is no contradiction in calling yourself with both designations. Romanian referes to the language and what in the west is called ethnicity, while Moldavian means the regional designation, which is associated with rich distinctive point from the general Romanian population. To make a comparison, Moldavians consider them Romanians and Moldavians at the same time, as Bavarians consider them simultaneously Germans and Bavarians. This discussion is not refering to citizenship.

The problem arrises from the fact that during the Soviet period people were required to select between Moldavian and Romanian. This prectice continues after 1989-1991, although nnot longer so agresively. The existence of this practice is a form of racial discrimination, due to the fact that the Moldavian/Romanian community has repeatedly and constantly required not to force people designate themselves as M or R. Although it is a very mild form of racial discrimination.

The sentance as presented above is not very clear, because it does not elaborate. As such, it is unsubstanciated. But the issue behind it is substanciated. The sentance, in my oppinion, must be expanded in a couple of paragraphs, refering directly to the facts. Noone in sane mind questions it is a form of discrimination, but it is necessary to edit in cold mind. The majority of readers have never heard of the things the authors assume to be well-known facts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dc76 (talk • contribs).

Dc76, please do not mix things up here. Soviet practices aside (and discussing the Soviet practicing is a valid point) your "This practice continues after 1989-1991" is a false statetemnt, at least as far as Ukraine is conserned. There is not a single case in any paperwork, such as job application, passport, birth certificate, etc., where anyone in Ukraine is required to state his/her ethnicity. The former Soviet "nationality" (meaning ethnicity) field is eliminated from Ukrainian passports and any other ID documents. In this climate, people are asked during census what their ethnicity is. Some Ukrainian citizens choose to answer Romanian, while others choose to answer Moldovan. There is no discrimination in this whatsoever!

"Moldavian/Romanian community has repeatedly and constantly required not to force people designate themselves as M or R." This is exactly what is happening in Ukraine. No one is forcing anyone. People are free to designate themselves as they wish. Moreover, they do not have to designate themselves anything if this is what they wish as one could leave the field blank in the census form, as well as leave any other field blank or even refuse to answer any census questions.

Nevertheles, some complain that the Ukrainian government publishing the census results in accordance with people's answers is some sort of anti-Romanianism. It is hard for me to understand what these people want. I guess they want the Ukrainian government to falsify the data and substitute the answers given by people by different asnwers. Whatever those who complain want, it should be clear what they complain about, that is the very existence of a separate category for Moldovans in Ukraine. --Irpen 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Irpen. I guess it's again you and me. if we could use our energies in a common direction, what good could be done for society! Also, thanx for showing me the scan of the 2001 census form.

As you can see in that form, after people write in their "ethicity", there are codes, in order to count (this is absolutely logical). So, when there are codes both for Romanian and for Moldovan, people get confused. It is like asking someone to choose between German and Bavarian. Yes, you observed correctly, the very existence of a separate category for Moldovans in Ukraine is perseaved by Romanian community as a form of discrimination against it. If you want to use both terms, than it would be fair to allow people to use both designation, i.e. the total number of answers can be more than 100%. But you see, the question in the census is not for curiousity, it has political implications.

Most nations go around this problem in a very simple and inteligent way. In some countries, e.g. USA, France, it is illegal to ask "ethnicity". One can ask "native language", one can ask "religion" (although in many countries the latter is also illegial). It is not illegial to poll people on this issues, but it is illegal to census on them. (Personnally) I believe that if not in the next, than after the next census in Ukraine, people will talk about "native language", and not "ethnicity" any more. BTW, those with Romanian as native language in Ukraine are fewer than those "ethnically" R+M.

You see, the community is roughly 20% of the oblast, hence it would have rights under the European convension for minorities, such as education at all levels in native language, and writing the names of all settlements in both languages. But if it is split, than the rights can be refused.

Romanians did give such rights to the German community even in places where they are 1%, and the result is excellent relations. Why is this not possible between Ukrainians and Romanians in Ukraine? Of course, many local bosses are still former Soviet appartchiks, but do you think it will change with a younger generation? If you were given to be Governor of the oblast for 24 hours, and could decide, will you want to make both languages usable, in the sence of street names, university in Romanian, even encourage people to learn and freely speak both languages? You see, if you would feel like doing so, than even if there would be 99% Romanians in the oblast, noone would ever question Ukrainian sovernty over it. Like Sweeds and Finns do it, and there is no problem, even if historically a region belonged to the other country. It does not matter, people enjoy the same rights, in all aspects, and they are happy with their neighbors. Are you happy with me as your neighbor?:Dc76

ROMANIANS IN UKRAINE

• Moldovans living in Ukraine belong to the Romanian ethnic group although the Republic of Moldova in an independent State. Austria is an independent State but the Austria-connected minority living in South Tyrol in Italy is named German. --Deguef (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine

Since nobody provided any referencies concerning the Anti-Romanian discrimination in Ukraine, I changed the text according to the available sources. Still, I lived the tag {{dubious}} so far, to bring the attention of Romanian editoprs to the issue. If you disagree and can support you agreement by relyable sources, you I wellcome to discuss. I hope we can work together to find a muturally acceptable formulation.--AndriyK 10:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Someone removed this, so I've added it back. The whole article needs reading over by a non-Romanian. Stuff like:

Dispite the 1997 treaty with Romania, which among others requires the two countries to respect each others minorities, Ukraine has continued to close down Romanian schools, while reports show that Romanian recruits in the Ukrainain army are systematically persecuted and humiliated.

Isn't even vaguely neutral. Let alone sourced. I shall add the verify tag too. - FrancisTyers 19:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

Could a linguist give me the linguistic criteria which determine if a particular language is more "primitive" than another. - FrancisTyers 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It was tried even to introduce a “Moldovan” language, non-Romanian and totally artificial alleged to be “of a Slavonic origin” that was different from the Romanian language by its grotesque primitivism, in the Russian alphabet and abundant in Russisms.

I guess the author refers to things like replacing customary words with jargon. As I have written above to a different issue, no sane person says there is no discrimination. But addressing such an issue, one must do it 1) calmly, 2) documenting every statement (which is not difficult to do, because the facts are there), and 3) addressing a reader, who say comes from USA or China, and has no idea about things that East-Europeans consider well-known.

Reverting other people's work

Recent revert by Constantzeanu seems like a totally bad faith edit wich restored a version which was even formatted poorly. Additionally, that version had received some copyediting, comments, formatting, etc. by me only to see it undone by a quick-fix. If Constantzeanu has a thing or two to say about this article, he should not use the fast-hand fixes like quick reverts to the older POV poorly formatted versions. It now took me amother good chunk of time to go over this mess. If people insist on my correction and comments being wrong, they should work through them, rather than quick revert. Please respect other people's work. -Irpen 23:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Russian democide

I want the person who tried to remove that section to explain his actions. Why is that section nonsense? Everything included there is supported by sources. It is not nonsense. --Candide, or Optimism 09:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First, it was not Russian, it was Soviet. Second, it was not killing of Romanians because they were romanians. It was Soviet-wide politics to eliminate "enemies of worker's class". There was no specific anti-Romanian discrimination (this is the title of the article). Russian kulaks faced the same fate in much greater numbers. Third, the numbers quoted are fantasy IMO, taken from some obscure website, in which three years 1950-1952 account for 1,000,000 (!) Romanians dead by Stalin. I'd really like to see a wikipedia article about such a notable fact before this number starts walking all over wikipedia. mikka (t) 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your hatred and ignorance toward romanians exeeds the border of common sense. As a matter of fact you were not blocked for Anti-Romanian discrimination by Ronline ✉ for nothing I suppose. You're just an *personal attack removed* anyway. You lie again mikka, there was a systematic anti-romanian discrimination from the Russians. They changed the population aiming to change the ethnic composition of the population. Romanians were sent to Siberia for the simple fact that they were Romanians.--82.100.207.155 21:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

About the Ukraine section

No, it's not world common practice. Not when you have such a huge minority. Romania, for instance, gives Hungarians opportunity to study at universal level in their own language. --Candide, or Optimism 01:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you that it's not necessarly world practice. However, this is a Ukraine-wide practice equally applied in Bukovina and in Russophone Eastern Ukraine. It is not directed against Romanians in particular in any way. --Irpen 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a huge minority of Chinese and Lations here in California. I didn't hear about state-sponsored university education in Chinese or Spanish language. I've never heard in Germany about university educaton in Turkish or in France in Arab. mikka (t) 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe not, but we're talking about minorities and not immigrants. For example, there are more Romanians living in Italy than in Ukraine, but no one asks the Italians to build universaties for Romanians, because we have no right to such thing. When it comes to Bukovina, this land was a part of Moldavia and those Romanians living there should have the right to maintain their identity and culture. --Candide, or Optimism 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Spanish is no more an immigrant language in California than is English. Yes, the number of speakers may have been vastly increased due to recent immigration, but the Spanish language has been spoken in California for hundreds of years earlier than has English. This is basically the same as if millions of Romanian citizens were to move to Ukraine today -- they themselves would be immigrants, but their language could not be considered an immigrant language. Or anglophone Canadians in California. Regarding Chinese, some variety or other of Chinese has been spoken in California about as long as, if not longer than, has English. Chinese was a widely spoken ethnic/community language in the old days when California was still part of México. Languages of East Asian origin are specifically protected by US law. Their presence in the Western US of Chinese predates statehood of most states where it is spoken. Due to discriminatory Chinese exclusion laws, Chinese speakers formed cohesive communities ("Chinatowns") in many parts of the US, where their langauge was preserved for many, many, many generations while other non-dominant immigrant languages (Italian languages, German languages, Polish) tended to die out within families after two generations maximum (excepting Mennonite and Amish communities, as well as certain isolated German communities of the north-central US). Chinese and Spanish (but not Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean, although a case could be made for each of them) are definitely minority languages in California, if all things in this world were just, there would be Universidades and Daaihok in California. --24.251.68.181 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Article corrected. BTW, Anittas, the article Education in Romania misses the "University" section. Could you please update it? mikka (t) 01:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I never checked on that article, but I'll pass your request to others who might know more about the issue. I do know that Hungarians have their own universaties, but I don't know exactly where. --Candide, or Optimism 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian-language university education is offered in state-run universities in Romania, such as the Babeş-Bolyai (UBB) in Cluj. There universities offer courses both in Romanian and in Hungarian as a medium of instruction (there is a large Hungarian department at UBB). Additionally, there are a number of private Hungarian-only universities in the Szekely Land. There is currently discussion over whether the state should finance these universities or not (currently it doesn't). Ronline ✉ 05:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It would be nice if you could add that to the article, if you haven't already. --Candide, or Optimism 08:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please when writing for this section do not confuse the consequences of the Ukraine-wide policies of Ukrainization with the narrow term of the anti-Romanian discrimination. The country's entire educational system became significantly Ukrainized in the last 15 years and education was switched to Ukrainian at all levels reducing not only Romanian but the Russian education as well (and to a much more significant degree). This has to do with the state policies towards other languages in general. Lack of sensitivy in such policies is of course not a good thing but this is not some kind of an ethnic discrimination directed against the specific minority that the articles tries to portray. The discussion on the Ukrainian policies towards its ethnic and language minoritues belongs to other articles, such as Ethnic minorities in Ukraine. Please do not present such stuff under a much more deplorable name such as anti-Romanian discrimination. Ukraine has no anti-Romanian discrimination policies whatsoever. --Irpen

I think that the Ukraine chapter of this article largely confuses two things by presenting the uniform minority policies of the Ukrainian state not directed against any nation in particular but rather towards ensuring the implementation of the Ukrainian national concept, as it is seen by the country's government, as an anti-Romanian discrimination. If you can find some valid and sourced objections to such policies of Ukraine, this is a legitimate topic to cover but to present it as anti-Romanian discrimination is plain incorrect. As an example, please consider the Romanian interwar policies. We rightfully describe them in the Rumanization article and even if anti-Ukrainian discrimination ever gets started, I would not move the information on Rumanization, the assimilationist policy of Romania directed towards minorities in general, as anti-Ukrainian discrimination. Such policies affected not just Ukrainians but also, Hungarians, Rusyns and I don't know who else.

Please understand that the policies of Ukraine that you try to describe in the article, similarly belong elsewhere. Therefore, my suggestion is for now to start from the History of the Romanians in Ukraine as well as Romanians of Chernivtsi Oblast (should they be merged btw?). After gaining some consensus on how to present these issues in "Romanians in Ukraine" article(s), we can try to figure out what of this (if anything) belongs to the discrimination article and in what form. How would this sound? --Irpen 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphans thrown into the street? Beaten by troops?

This would be very grave if it could be proven to be true: " In the orphanage of Tighina, Romanian children were beaten by Transnistrian and Russian troops and forced to sleep in the streets for a few months "
As it stands now, it is unreferenced. Questions: When was this (date)? How many children? For how many months did they lie in the street? Any reliable sources? Photos? The OSCE is quoted as having been involved. As an international organization they write a report of all involvement. Where is the papertrail of this? As it stands now, the sentence smells of urban myth. Similar to Saddam's troops throwing newborns out of their incubators when invading Kuwait in 1990.
Besides, beating orphans would certainly be outside the rules of engagements for the Russian contingent to the Transnistrian Joint Control Commission. (ConsultantJoe 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

What can you ask from a people who kill their own women? --Candide, or Optimism 22:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There was an incident, but the description is probably not all correct. A Unicef report, OSCE report, A news report in Romanian bogdan 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tighina orphanage: I am afraid there is a translation problem. The reports say that "children returned from vacation". It is unthinkable that orphans in this country could go somewhere else on vacations, so I suppose it was so-called "internat", or schoolchildren hostel for schoolchildren from remote areas, a very common establishment since Soviet times. In this case the proper term would be "boarding school". Can anybody find any russian-language reference? mikka (t) 22:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The factual issue is: a boarding school for orphans in Tighina was closed because the children there were Romanians, not Russians or Ukrainians. This was done during when the children were away b/c of repairs, and they have nowhere to return. The number of children affected was about 50 (I might be slightly wrong, could be 30, or could be 90, but you get the idea). The agravating fact: Moldova is the poorest county in Europe, and it is very unlikely those children will find state or private funds for a new building. Consequently they will be very much afected, given their age.

I suggest, that instead of the sentance above to write something like the paragraph I've written above, but to reference it well. The sentance obviouly was written on hot mind. But on the same token, the issue must not be ignored.

Outstanding Disputes

Would all users who disagree with various aspects of the article please list specific grievances here so that they can be addressed. TSO1D 16:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia

I reverted the Macedonia section simply because the minority in question are Aromanians not Romanians. This article refers only to discrimination against ethnic Romanians, not including other Eastern Romance peoples ("Vlachs"), such as Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, etc. Additionally, Macedonian is the only official language of the Republic of Macedonia. For that reason, it seems normal to me that passports are only ever published in the official language of the respective state (do other countries do this differently?). In my opinion, Macedonia has one of world's best minority rights legislation and protection. UPDATE: Apparently the source claims that Albanians already have this right, but Albanian, because it's spoken by more than 20% of the total population, has this right enshrined in law (because, under some interpretations, it is the second official language of the country). It is also declared as an official language after Macedonian (Article 7 of the Constitution). Other languages do not have this right, not because of any discrimination, but because they simply don't have the numbers to pass the threshold. Just because the 100 Italians that live in Oradea don't have the right to use their language in justice system (where the cutoff is 20%), or the 2000 Georgians who live in Spain (made up stats) don't have their language officially-recognised doesn't amount to discrimination. In any case, this is not Anti-Romanian discrimination. Ronline ✉ 08:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that's not a discrimination. There are around 20,000 remaining Vlachs in Macedonia that fully identify themselves as Vlachs. Macedonia give them all kind of rights and allow Ro to have schools for them, etc., but you can't give every minority a passport in their own language. That's stupid. --Candide, or Optimism 01:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My bad. —Khoikhoi 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sfatul Ţării

Please, no not add the sentence that the council only represented the Romanian population of the country. Among the members of the council, 101 deputies were self-declared Moldovan, 12 were Ukrianian, 8 were Russian, 7 were Bulgarians, etc. The ethnic composition of the council reflected that of the entire region. TSO1D 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Two issues

User:Mikkalai refuses the normal conflict resolution process. While knowing this page is sensitive, he makes controversial edits without even letting a note on the talk page. I suggest we try to define a position here. Dpotop 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

democide vs. politicide

The killing of 700.000 people out of some 3.5 million is a genocide by any measure. It is also a democide and a politicide, but it was not exclusively politic, and its result is mainly ethnic today. The overwhelming majority of these people were Romanian/Moldovan and the region was subject at the same time to slavicization by immigration of Ukrainians and Russians, and to ethnic engineering that resulted in the created in the creation of the Moldovan nation. Dpotop 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the transition from Russian claims to Soviet ones in the evolution of anti-romanian discrimination?

I believe yes, because the Soviet anti-romanian discriminations have their roots in the refusal of the Soviet government to accept the decisions of the Chisinau Soviet. Therefore, they must be mentioned, to mark the continuity between Russian and Soviet policies. Dpotop 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet politicide numbers need revision

The Soviet politicide sections claims 2.34 million Romanians were deported from Bessarabia and Bukovina, of which 700k died, but the numbers appear inflated and the references given are very shady.

First of all, according to the Bessarabia article "The two provinces had an area of 20,000 square miles (51,000 km²) and they were inhabited by about 3.75 million people, mostly Romanians.". It is hard to believe that 2.34 million of those were deported and over 75% of Moldova's population is still claiming Moldovan/Romanian ethicity today.

Second, during World War II Romania allied with Germany and took back Bessarabia and Bukovina for several years. Russians had invaded the two regions in July 1940 (after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) and held them until June 1941 when Romanians/Germans recovered them. They were under Romanian rule from 1941 until August 1944 when they were taken by the Russians again during Operation Iassy-Kishinev. Under these conditions I find it very hard to believe that "390,000 Romanians were deported of whom 51,000 were killed" between 1941-1945 as claimed here.

So if someone can provide more reliable references on the number of Romanians deported by the soviets from Bessarabia and Bukovina please do so.

Western Europe

What about discrimination against Romanian immigrants (including Romanian Romas) in Western Europe?

I believe this article is about discrimination against people of the Romanian ethnicity, not all Romanian citizens. TSO1D 13:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be written Roma ethnicity instead of Romanian Ethnicity.--Deguef (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have managed to either provide sources for the yet unref. statements or erase them altoghether. As of right now, all issues with the articles have been adressed. Creating a section on discrimination in Western Europe should however be more complicated. The only thing i can think of is the 2004 racist spanish song. Dapiks 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article

Rename the article Roumanian minorities and start from there. It does the discussion no good if all statements about these minorities come under the heading of an alleged hatred against them. The result is about as misleading as an article about the Jewish diaspora entitled "Antisemitism". And, it might perhaps be added, there IS antisemitism, for instance in Roumania; while there is no term as distinct to describe the situation of other minorities in Europe. Actually, to claim a "status of equal persecution" could be seen as a very right-wing concept within the Roumanian political framework itself. Attention, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klaus rabe (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, I thought that this was automatically done by the talk engine. Klaus rabe

I'm not sure that is exactly the right title, but I agree that a more neutral title that would readily embrace positive as well as negative treatment would make more sense. "Minorities" is tricky because of the case of a possible majority in Hungarian-ruled Transylvania. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as far as Transsylvania is concerned - it might be a good idea to consider that LATIN was the common denominator, as a language of political power, for everyone concerned, while the concept of Roumanian as a cultural factor did not even exist in a socially divided society where access to the Latin sphere of culture defined participation in regional power. Roumanian speakers were as invisible as their (poor) Hungarian or German counterparts. Note as well that Latin was the official language of state in the kingdom of Hungary right into the 19th century. In any case, the term minority would apply to Transsylvania as well, since the region formed an integral part of the kingdom of Hungary as a whole. (Klaus rabe 14:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Well how about the Moldovan SSR then? Of course Romanians formed a minority in the entire Union but a majority in the republic, so the term minority is probably not the best one as the Romanian population was also subject to discrimination at the republican level. TSO1D 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to remember that there is a big difference between a formally sovereign state like Moldavia where a minority among a majority were able to rule based on a dominant power's influence, but where discrimination was political and not ethnic, and countries where a vernacular culture re-emerged through the ascent of 19th century nationalism and AS A REACTION TO THE SAME PHENOMENON LEADING TO THE REPLACEMENT OF LATIN by the newly-emerged Hungarian language in Hungary ... After all, it is the nationalist movements on all sides AND alphabetization, i.e. cultural modernization of non-urban or metropolitan areas which led and leads to clashes between ethnic groups: the concept of minorities could not appear as a political factor in a society deprived of literacy. Which is not, of course, an argument in favour of analphabetism ... but a reason to look very closely at these cultural conditions before transferring contemporary points of view to earlier epochs where the ethnic differences could sometimes much more easily be bridged than after the advent of education and emancipation of the underprivileged classes in very, very backward and yet rather peaceful societies. (Klaus rabe 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

Concerning your argument on Transylvania, the article makes it quite clear that there were two rather distinct periods, with different arguments. During the middle ages, discrimination was largely defined by religion. However, it remains "anti-romanian" because the religious divisions corresponded to the ethnic ones. And it is not concerning a *minority*, because Transylvania was *not* an integral part of the kingdom of Hungary until 1948/1967. Then, after 1867, things changed indeed. The reason for persecution was no longer religion, because most Romanians already converted to Catholicism. Now, Hungarians wanted Romanians to speak Hungarian and declare themselves Hungarian in the censuses. This can be compared with what happened in other national states, but remains ethnic discrimination. And, of course, Romanians were a minority in the Kingdom of Hungary. But so did the Hungarians until 1900 (until 1910, if you count out the Hungarian-speaking Jews), as you can see [Demographics_of_Hungary|here]. Dpotop 10:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument on "urban vs. rural" is also flawed. We are not talking, in Transylvania, about people asking to be left to be analphabets. Instead, the Hungarian government closed existing publicly-funded Romanian schools. You know, the situation of the Romanians was quite bad, but after their conversion to Greek Catholicism they did develop a class of intellectuals. BTW, it is this class of intelectuals that made possible the union of 1918. Dpotop 10:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference apparatus

(I've restored the talk page and am placing my comment at the bottom. I first wrote this without noticing that there was a deleted talk page.)

The reference apparatus is a mess. Hand-entered footnotes like "[2]". Multiple references with the same number. This should adopt cite.php... if anyone can tell what references are for what statements. - Jmabel | Talk 23:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to clean what I can of this, but: is

• Afară cu bolşevicii din Basarabia românească!, Tricolorul, April 2006

really an acceptable citation? (Before I got there, by the way, this was just a blind URL.) Looks to me like a propaganda sheet, not a newspaper. - Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bogdangiusca has now removed that citation, which is fine with me. - Jmabel | Talk 23:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Serbia

The section on Serbia is only tangenitally connected to reality. All the five sources are from the same "alternative" website, which has as its motto the following conspiracy-minded quote: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. (George Orwell) Intrigued, I took a look at the English language version, which has as its top story that "Black hatemongering robbers murdered a 5-year-old white girl". In the corner, we are informed the website is "for people of European descent". Another story informs us that a video of David Duke is the most popular on Youtube. You should get the picture by now that this is a racist blog (yep, it is a blog), and by no means qualifies as a reputable source. This should justify the POV tag, and I shall be rectifying the section in the days to come. --Еstavisti 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Altermedia should not be used as a source: it's just a bunch of racist nationalist "Christians". These issues were reported by BBC Romanian and the mainstream press -- I'll try to find some good sources. bogdan 12:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

here are 2000 pages of sources

https://www.helsinki.org.rs/serbian/doc/Knjiga%205-2.pdf

https://www.helsinki.org.rs/serbian/doc/Knjiga%205-1.pdf 77.243.27.211 (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Vlachs call themself Vlachs before romanian nation started to exist, after the unification of Valachia nad Moldavia in one state and nation. So, they (Valachs in Serbia) didnt change there own nation. Someone said things about denationalization of Valachs in Serbia. So how he can explain that after 150 years of Valachian life in Serbia they still today speaking vallachian language in their homes? They are werry proud about their origin and great patriots of Serbia. You could ask any about their ethnicity, they will tells you that they are Vallachs of Serbia, and they dont have anything with state of Romania or romanian people exept similar ethnic origin from the old times, like Serbs with Poles or Czechs anyway... --Boris Godunov (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

These are only legends. Name was changed after 1948 from Romanian to Vlach.

I cite the provision of Paris Conference Commission on Yugoslavia and Romania 77.243.27.211 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The Vlachs in NYTimes

BTW, I found an 1952 interesting article in New York Times (reprinted from "The Party Worker", the official newspaper of the Serbian Communist Party) which names the Vlachs "savages" and describes some very unlikely customs:

The Party Worker reported that, if one of two children born simultaneously in a village should die, the villagers perform an act of necrophilia to preserve the surviving child. Earth is brought from the grave of the dead child, mixed with water, and fed to the survivor.

According to the party worker, the most primitive of all the rites performed by the Vlachs is the public initiation of adolescent boys and girls to sex. As a result of this rite, which is preceded by mass drunkenness, child marriages are numerous.

Murder! Necrophilia! Cannibalism! Drunken orgies for teenagers!

Those Vlachs are fun people, eh? :-) bogdan 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: RACIST UNSUPORTED CRAP DELETED (User:86.104.216.79)

Yes, I know it's racist, I know it's unsupported. But that's the point why I added it in here -- it might be useful for writing the article.

BTW, here's the link to NY Times archive: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A1EF83D5E177B93C6AB1788D85F468585F9

bogdan 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Roma comment

despite the similarity in name, the Roma are no more closely related to the Romanians than they are to the other peoples of Europe.

I think this comment, or explanation, is a bit unnecessary. It sounds more like an excuse than an explanation. It is also POV. Lastly, I'm not so sure that comment applies so well to Muntenians. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no connection, the 2 romanian states are documented some 3-400 years before the arrival (and sadly prompt enslavement) of the first roma emigrants in their eastern migration. Regardless, it's not really that relevant. Well both groups have been discriminated against, roma probably even more then romanians (Hitler genocide and all that). --Helixdq 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All unsourced material should be removed at once

As always, a few incompentent Romanian editors come here to write out of their memory on controversial topics such as this one without using sources. Because of their incompetence, others now want to delete the article. I say that all unsourced material is to be removed and only sourced statements and information should be kept. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be deleted as long as other similar articles exists. Why should this kind of articles regarding the balkanic countries, be deleted, but not the ones about other cultures? I wonder what would happen if articles like Anti-Pakistani sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiments, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Pakistani sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment would be proposed for deletion together with the already proposed articles, in the same deletion series? R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  18:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Some sources about: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what other articles look like. Any article, including those you have mentioned, which is deemed as controversial and which does not present its (credible) sources can be challenged; and if no sources are presented, each unsourced material can be removed. This is a part of Wikipedia policy and for once in a lifetime, I agree with it. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the recent events in Italy?

Where the mayor or Rome himself made some anti-Romanian declarations? Somebody whould include these recent news —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 08:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• The paragraph on Italy should be deleted because Romanians are not discriminated in this country and Romania is EU member. Some politicians in Italy make confusion between Roma and Romanians. I remember a minister of the Prodi Government contending in a TV debate that the name of Romania comes from Roma-Gypsies. --Deguef (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-Romanian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830230721/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua:80/eng/organization/ to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/organization/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027141344/http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=19. to http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=19.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027141344/http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=19. to http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=19.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514084325/http://www.saske.sk/cas/1-2000/gulpa-petrisce.html to http://www.saske.sk/cas/1-2000/gulpa-petrisce.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027141332/http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=146&document=3 to http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=146&document=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Romanian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027141344/http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=19. to http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=19.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027141344/http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=19. to http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=19.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514084325/http://www.saske.sk/cas/1-2000/gulpa-petrisce.html to http://www.saske.sk/cas/1-2000/gulpa-petrisce.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027141332/http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=146&document=3 to http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=146&document=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)