Talk:Bukovina/Archive 1

Archive 1

text from "Bukovyna"

All text from entry Bukovyna has been added at the end of this entry. Editing is needed. Wetman 15:11, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I must ad, that on the german side, next to the term Bukovina there was used the term Buchenland.= birchtreeland and the german minority was called Buchenlanddeutsche . One famouse Austrian member of this minority, in terms of his fathers background was, Kurt Waldheim. Johann

Slavic

The article seems to be overwhelmingly written from a Romanian point of view. It's not even mentioned that the very word Bukovina is Slavic :-) Jakob Stevo 21:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is Slavic ? I thought it was adapted from an older German name: "Buchenland". "-ina" is a common sufix for both Romanian and Slavic languages. Bogdan | Talk 23:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, -ina may be common to Slavic and Romanian, but -ov- sounds rather Slavic to me. Besides, it resembles much more the Slavic word buka than the German Buche (which happen to mean the same: beech tree) - the "Lautverschiebung" had taken place long before any German entered the region.

OK. -ov- seems to indicate a Slavic origin, so at least the Romanian version is taken directly from the Slavs. I googled and found that the first reference to this name was in a treaty of 1412. [1] (That article also says that "Bukovina means "beechwood" in Romanian"  :)

Does it? I don't know much Romanian (although I was there last summer). But returning to German: although the Old High German version must have been something like buka, it changed tu Buche (buh-schwa-) as early as the tenth century, making it rather unlikely, imho, that the origin is German (unless it would be Low German)--Jakob Stevo 22:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Starting with the 11th century, Saxons (Saşi; also some Germans from as far as Flandre) were colonized in neighbouring Transylvania.

Besides, you do know that your first name's Slavic? Jakob Stevo 09:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. And my last name has a Slavic sufix. (-ushcă) ;-) Bogdan | Talk 18:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have a lot of Slavic words, right? I remember izvor, mucenik, proorok, da, and some Turkish like carapa, cizma, aide, ...--Jakob Stevo 22:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the Slavic had quite some influence on the Romanian vocabulary, mostly Old Church Slavonic/Bulgarian, since that was the liturgy's language. Bogdan | Talk 22:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Halych and Bukovina

There is any prove sustaining the following sentence: "In the 9th to early 14th centuries the province came under the control of Kievan Rus and later, its Ukrainian successor state of Halych-Volynia."? I think it's hardly speculative. --Vasile 06:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't see how any speculation was used to arrive at these facts. I do find that the Black Sea coast between the Danube and the Dnipro up into Ukrainian/Ruthenian (Rus') territory is incorporated into the realm of Kyivan Rus' tribes from the 10th-12th centuries, according to "A Thousand Years of Christianity in Ukraine: An Encyclopedic Chronology, (p26). I alos note that "Kievan Russia" (please excuse the imperialistic spelling) by George Vernadsky, calims that fisherman from Halychchyna came to dwell on the lower Danube river in the 1100s! (p 107.) Hope this helps! Genyo 23:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But a modern encyclopedia assertion is not a proof. That assertion should based on proofs. Could you produce any other proof that Halych controlled Bukovina and Bessarabia, other than the fishermen came to Danube?

Meanwhile I am gonna move here the assertion from the article.--Vasile 02:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another quote from Britannica "History > Western Ukraine under the Habsburg monarchy > Bukovina": : "A small territory between the middle Dniester River and the main range of the Carpathians, Bukovina had formed part of Kievan Rus and the Galician-Volhynian principality." The challenge by above user: "But a modern encyclopedia assertion is not a proof. That assertion should based on proofs. Could you produce any other proof.." makes little sense to me. I don't see how an assertion in a respected encyclopedia is not a proof. Well, it is not a proof that something indeed took place, but it is a proof that so considers the mainstream historical thought. Writers of encyclopedia can never claim with 100% accuracy that all the facts there are true. But respected encyclopedias do reflect the mainstream historic knowledge. And so should the Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to restore this in the article, except I don't think it is correct to call Halych-Volynia "a Ukrainian state" and this should not indeed go into the article. Just in case, I would like to request that people here conduct discussions civilly. "Transnistria" was enough. Thanks! --Irpen

The dog

For the dog breed, see Ciobãnesc de Bucovina.

Well, I don't think it's OK to put the name of the dog breed in front. You know, in the article on Australia, there is not in front a link to Australian Shepherd. We could however mention it somewhere inside the article. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The challenge is that the breed is sometimes called just the "Bukovina" or "Bucovina", whereas the Australian Shepherd is never just called the "Australian" or "Australia". It is sometimes called an Aussie, and that's a short article (at least at the moment) with the reference near the end, so someone looking for "Aussie" the dog will find the reference quickly. Someone looking for "Bucovina" the dog needs to be able to find it from here--one useful alternative would be to have Bukovina (disambiguation) and reference that at the top of this article, but the only purpose for that page would be to get to the dog page, so it seems not like the *best* alternative. It is common practice in wikipedia to put "for xxxx, see yyyy" at the top of articles in which a disambig page isn't warranted. Maybe we could do a See also section here with a reference to the dog, but I'm just concerned that people won't naturally scroll down to find it when they see right off the bat that the article is about a location. Elf | Talk 22:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which part of Bukovina became part of Odessa oblast

The part with "part of it became part of Odessa oblast" is wrong. It is impossible that it could be so, since bocovina has no boder with odessa oblast. The author probably ment that the northern part of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina became Chernivtsi oblast and southern part of Bessarabia became part of Odessa oblast. He mixed up Bassarabia with Bukovina.

Domnu Goie

NPOV (interwar Rumanization)

the policies of Rumanization were carried in the interwar period.

...and the article says nothing about the anti-Romanian policies the Soviets/Ukrainians, such as the massacres of Romanian civilians (during the war) and ethnic cleansing after the war (deportations to Siberia). Until those issues have been resolved, I don't believe it is NPOV. bogdan | ^Talk 20:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan, I see your point. I agree that any sourced info, if balanced and well written, about any atrocities against Romanians in Bukovina belongs to the article. However, the war period is a separate issue from the interwar period. Sourced info about crimes against Romanian civilians in Bukovina are not the only thing that happened at that time omitted from the article, as you know. You are welcome to add this but going into details of WW2 period would also require an elaboration about the crimes that happened under Romanian occupation during the WW2. Currently the article has just one sentence ("deportation of Jews") about the whole issue and it is easy to find plenty of info about mass killing of Jews conducted there by Romanian and German forces often with an eager help of the local Ukrainians. And there is nothing in the article about interaction of the Axis forces with Ukrainians at all. This is clearly insufficient and you are welcome to elaborate on pre- during or post-WW2 events. I might set aside some time to do that too, but that would require me to go through a lot of reading, which of course is a good thing.

As for the interwar period, take a look at this quote from Britannica. It had a chapter on this period in:

Ukraine→History→"Ukraine in the interwar period"→"Bukovina under Romanian rule":

In the formerly Austrian province of Bukovina, Ukrainians constituted two-fifths of the total population but two-thirds in the northern half (in 1931). Following the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy, northern Bukovina was briefly proclaimed part of the Western Ukrainian National Republic, before the entire province was occupied by the Romanian army in November 1918. Under a state of emergency that lasted from 1919 to 1928, Bukovina was subjected to strong assimilationist pressures. Provincial self-government was abolished and the Ukrainian language removed from administrative use. The extensive Ukrainian school system and the university chairs at Chernivtsi were liquidated, and the Ukrainian press and most organizations banned. A relaxation that began in 1928 led to the reemergence of organized life, but this was almost totally suppressed with the institution of the royal dictatorship in 1938.

Currently, the WP article summarizes this in two short sentences:

"With the collapse of Austri-Hungary in 1918 the province was occupied by Romania. Although local Ukrainians have unsuccesfully attempted to incorporate parts of northern Bukovina into the short living West Ukrainian National Republic, the Romanian control of the province was finally formalized in the Treaty of St. Germain in 1919 and the policies of Rumanization were carried in the interwar period."

I don't think this summary is tilted against the Romanians as compared to the respected source I used. The main shortcoming of this part is its brevity, since the WP has the means to go in a greater rather than a smaller details than EB.

So, I would like to suggest the following. We separate the interwar period from the period closer to the war years and will try to write a balanced account of what happened in late 30s - late 40s. Until nothing is written about this time (as it is now, except a single sentence I mentioned earlier), I see no basis for the POV dispute. Once the article will be describing those years it should get an NPOV tag, should anyone find it unbalanced. As for the interwar period account, there seem to be no dispute over the accuracy, at least in your post above.

In any case, you are welcome to improve what I wrote, add more about war and post war years and to keep the tag, if you see fit (I will not remove it now). But please do not delete the info about interwar Rumanization. Actually, I appreciate that you raised the dispute rather than delete the info while I disagree with having the NPOV tag over this issue. In any case, I would have responded with similar detail even if you just raised the objection without placing a tag on the whole article. Regards, --Irpen 23:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Could it be assumed that everyone is fine with my suggestion above and the tag can be removed? Or people are just to busy to respond? We really should not keep the tag if the discussion died out. I will wait some more for objections. If there is still a disagreement I have no intention to try to hide it and delete the tag of course. But let's try to deal with this rather than allow a tag to stay and do nothing. --Irpen 00:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

As per above, the tag removed only today. We really gave time for objections to be raised, but if some still remain and tag needs restored, we can start it all over with a new round. Regards, --Irpen 21:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

the neutrality of this page is disputed

The article on Bukovina (Bucovina, Bukowina) has been the subject and object of some bitter dispute. Not only Ukrainian and Romanian viewpoints are alternatively errased and replaced, but also neutral editings are deleted by more extreme wikis.

I therfore suggest that everyone who reads this agree on the following policy:

1. Let us with common sense edit some basic undisputed information and agree on the content list. I suggest that this part (the definition of the term Bukovina, the map and the first numbered item) be very short and state that there are opposing viewpoint on some issues, and that the users of Wikipaedia have agreed to present both (or more) viewpoints on this page without erasing information one does not agree with.
2. Each item that follows should contain 2 (or more if necessary) subitems - one stating Ukrainin viewpoint, and the other Romanian viewpoint. For example:

Etymology

Ukrainin viewpoint

Bukovina is a Ukrainian name and means the are no Romanians here

Romanian viewpoint

Bukovina is a Romanian name and means the are no Ukrainins here

1. +2 Incredibly much information would be common! That information would be very helpful for non-Ukrainians and non-Romanians. But it would obviously be presented in the context differently by the two parts. Understand me right, I do not claim that both parts are equally right or equally wrong, I claim that when both oppinions are presented, intelligent readers would easely understand which one is more truthful. If you support one viewpoint, feel free to edit your part, and edit it well, for the better you will, the sounder you viewpoint will be. But do not touch the other part. Feel free, though to critisize the other part whe you are writting your part. I believe that in the end both parts would reach a more or less neutral viewpoint with only 1-2 differences. The outside world is interested in the oppinions of both sides on these differences, not only in the one's which has edited the last.

On purpose, I have not edited any word, though I disagree with many, and can prove some information is obviously wrong. (The map of Bukovina in green is the most obvious example: one should not include Herta/Herza district, nor northern Bessarabia, nor Botosani county, not the Baia-Falticeni part of the Suceava county, those are not part of Bukovina. I suggest we replace it by the Austrian map found lower in the text.)

If you agree to my suggestion, leave a not on this Talk page. Let's say, when 5 supporting notes are there, the 5th person go ahead and edit the page as agrees. But do not erase enything, even something obviously wrong, just place it is the corresponding viepoint section.

There remains though one question - to decide on the list of contents. Please, leave your suggestions below. 193.226.4.163 15:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) D

Hi anonymous, please list specifically your objections to the neutrality of the article if you want to keep the tag. --Irpen 23:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

And what exactly are the Romanian and Ukrainian viewpoints on the matter? I for instance, am a Romanian. My viewpoint may not exactly coincide with another Romanian's viewpoint.

The thing with "there are no ucrainians here" may be something that is true for some Romanians but not me. Northern Bukovina is full of Ukrainians. One cannot deny that. Ucrainians represent 70-75% of the population. Ucrainians lived in northern Bukovina ever since 1775. In 1918 the Ucrainians and Romanians initially agreed to devide the region between north and south but then the west ucrainian republic got dissolved so Romania took everything. in 1940 the USSR said it "reclaimed the north" but they drew the border incorrectly and not according to ethnic lines.As a result, there are still 180.000 Romanians inside the Ucraine today. They are generally centered in the districts(rayons) around the district(rayon) of Herta.

I think we should keep the green zone on the map(maybe erase botosani judetz).Mihaitza 07:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, unless specific problems with neutrality are listed soon, I will remove the tag. Nothing would prevent the anon user, or anyone else from restoring it, if they come up with specific reasons. There are several discussions above with neutrality tag placed and removed when objections were addressed or not supported. --Irpen 07:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the last call for an anon editor to specifically list the neutrality problems. Otherwise, the POV tag will be removed. The protracted essay above is an interesting reading nut lacks specifics required to keep the tag --Irpen 02:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The map

I disagree with the map. The Botosani county was not considered a part of the region of Bukovina. Someone needs to remake that map. --Anittas 14:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Irpen contributions and Vasile's deletion

Definitely, you are not at your best writing on Bukowina and city of Cernauti, as you dislike the region. Please refrain on reverting without reading or thinking on others contribution. --Vasile 14:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, your accusations that I dislike something are just silly and baseless. I will edit articles with reading and thinking as I see fit and in accordance with Wiki-ethics and Wiki-policies. You deleted significant pieces from the aricle besides the name section without any explanation. This cannot be tolerated--Irpen 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

At least you don't pretend you have read my edits. Your guardian senses felt some motion and this, you said, can not be tolerated. You want to tell me that there is a special secret admin policy regarding some articles on Wikipedia? --Vasile 18:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I read your edits. As for the rest of your message above, I can't make any sense of it. Please rephrase what you want to say in a comprehensible way if you want a response.

In your edit [2] you deleted big chunks of information from the article without even attemting to raise whatever problems you had with the article at talk. This is on the borderline of vandalism and would have been reverted by someone else, if not by me, anyway. --Irpen 19:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What Vasile calls "personal comments about Romanian prioroties" and info on interwar Romanization may easily be found in Britannica articles such as Bukovina and History of Ukraine. --Irpen 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no need of rephrasing as you don't know the answer to the question anyway. Those "big chunks of information" were simply garbage. In fact, in your action of revert my vandalism, you erased the wiki-link to a poem dedicated to Bukovina ("La Bucovina", Mihai Eminescu). As you are good on regulations, I am sure you'll be able to fit your law-breaking. --Vasile 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, you should justify your deletions. --Anittas 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, I apologize if I accidentally deleted the link to a poem. You may restore it of course. I don't know what you mean by garbage. If you call any info, no matter how well supported, a garbage because it doesn't support your POV, I can't help it. Such a deletionist's approach is addresses in the Wikipedia guideline: Be_bold#...but_don.27t_be_reckless.21. --Irpen 19:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't cost me much to repair the accidentally deleted link, but if you really want me to believe the sincerity of your regrets, you might be so kind to repair yourself that link. It may appear futile, but the poem also reflects dozens of testimonies that could be found on the internet, regarding the impressive natural beauty of the region. --Vasile 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture." This phrase is used out of its context (probably 1918-1919). This kind of diplomatic reasoning was convincing at that time. --Vasile 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember that I wrote this sentense. I used Britannica as the source of the info. Right now, I cannot access an exact quote, but I will cite it here as soon as I can. --Irpen 20:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But I can. Here is the quote, from Britannica:

When Romania achieved independence in 1878, it sought unification with Bukovina. It did so because Bukovina was not only the historical cradle of the Moldavian principality but also the repository of the finest examples of Romanian art and architecture, having unique painted monastic churches of the 15th and 16th centuries. Romania occupied Bukovina when Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1918. Although local Ukrainians had tried to incorporate their districts in northern Bukovina into the Western Ukrainian National Republic, Romania gained control of the whole province (Treaty of Saint-Germain; 1919) and pursued a Rumanization policy there. In June 1940 the Soviet Union occupied the northern part of Bukovina, but Romania temporarily regained this territory as Germany's ally after the latter had invaded the U.S.S.R. in 1941. Soviet troops retook the northern districts in 1944. Northern Bukovina became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic under the peace treaty of 1947; the ancient Moldavian capital Suceava and the surrounding area, including the most famous of the monasteries, became part of the Romanian People's Republic.

This text is copyrighted and should not be used on Wiki. --Anittas 20:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is an exact quote and I remember it very well. I hope it addresses Vasile's deletion urge. --Irpen 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This text is including probably the Romanian diplomatic reasoning used into the negotiations of the treaty of Saint-Germain, in order to convince the Western world about the rights of Romania in the region. The expression "Rumanization policy" sounds (let aside the pejorative form) very heavy for the present time. Indeed especially the Germans were not able to accept the new situation in the former colony. The last sentence is simply erroneous, R.P.R. being proclaim after the signing of the peace treaty of 1947 and Suceava being already part of Romania since 1918. --Vasile 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if you want to say that the authors of Britannica, which is rather selective in picking its contributors, use the wrong terms, you either have to argue with them in scholarly literature first, to prove them wrong and yourself right, or find other respectable scholars that argued that for you thus claiming that Romanian policy towards the Ukrainian population was friendly and benevolent. I can certainly cite several books on Ukrainian history that support Britannica's version.

Also, as far as I know, the results of the 2001 Ukrainian census is the only veryfiable data available today for the linguistic [3] and ethnical [4] composition of Northern Bukovina. The results of census (unless we have any claims that it was rigged) simply reflect the answers people gave in the forms by checking the boxes "Ukrainian", "Romanian", "Moldavian" on the page. No one forced or discouraged anyone to select as they wished and, I repeat, the results represent not some official "registration" data or what's written as "nationality" in the passports but people's own selection.

It is not yours or anyone else's job to add up the number of Romanians and Moldavians as per census to make up some different numbers and interpret them. If you have any respectable text that explains why Ukrainian census should be discounted and which numbers are more correct, bring it to this talk page. --Irpen 05:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanization

The Ukrainian schools were closed for a few years after the revolt, but were shortly re-opened again. We need references for the closing of other cultural facilities and for forced Romanization. If not, this term shouldn't be applied to the article. --Anittas 05:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

SO, are you saying that Britannica isn't enough? I am surprized but I will provide more, if you insist. Please note, however, that rejecting the respected sources and demanding more may be pursued endlessly. Imagine someone starting the argument over single/separate identities of Moldovans/Romanians all over and simply rejecting all the sources the Romanians bring saying "bring more references". The respectable reference uses the term in an explicit form. As such, the burden of proof is rather on the side that wants to disprove Britannica and not vise versa. --Irpen 06:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes, Britannica is not enough. Want me to prove it to you? Britannica claims that Stefan cel Mare was victorious at the Battle of Vaslui and at the Battle of Valea Albă, but he wasn't victorious at Valea Alba. He actually lost control of Moldavia for a short period of time and had to rebuild his army in Poland. This message, however, was in reply to your claims that we closed theaters and other cultural institutions, and I would like to see references for this, because I don't think Britannica said this. As for Britannica, I had to email them several times and asked them to add new content that they didn't bother to add. They had nothing on George Palade, but they do now, so don't think they're so perfect. There are many different authors who write for Britannica and it is known that errors have been found in their content. --Anittas 06:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that EB is a bible. Any respectable source may include occasional errors. All I said, is that if the claim is made by a respectable source, it is the opposition's burden to prove it wrong and not the other way around. --Irpen 06:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You can try to "convert" a population without using offensive means, but simply with "culture". You said we closed theaters, etc. That would mean a forced Romanization of the population, but I'm not so sure we were that agressive. --Anittas 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can read in Ukrainian, take a look at the third from the bottom paragpraph of uk:Буковина article in Ukrainian wikipedia, a well referenced article BTW. If you insist I can provide the translation and get a hold on the article's sources that describe the Romanian state policies against the Ukrainian language, closure of cultural and educational institutions, newspapers and magasines, oppression of the Ukrainian church and change of the Ukrainian names for the Romanian ones. If this is not Romanization, I wonder what is then. After the Romanian occupation returned in 41, the Romanization policies were renewed and Ukrainian activist were sent to concentration camps. The article cites "The Handbook on the History of Ukraine", editor I. Pidkova and others. --Irpen 07:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I dare you that was not Romanization. I say that was a Romanian-Soviet cold war. These books of Ukrainian history were written without studying the Romanian politcs and Soviet-Romanian relations. This kind of history is partial and by that, it can't be considered anything else that simply unacceptable propaganda of a defunct system. --Vasile 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Ukranian and I was hoping you would give me a non-Ukrainian and non-Romanian source, to make sure they're objective. I also think we should cover the current Ukrainian policy that discriminate against ethnic Romanians that live on the land that was theirs for centuries. --Anittas 09:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To Vasile, these books of Ukrainian history I am referring to are the post-Soviet books written after Ukrainian independence. They have nothing to do with the cold war.

Anittas, your request for non-UA/non-RO sources is already satisfied since Britannica's ref is given. OTOH, I have no objection to include the referenced info on the anti-Romainian policies in the Soviet Union. Please note, however, that these policies were part of the wider Soviet policies, rather than having been particularly related to Bukovina. As such, they belong to more general articles, like perhaps Anti-Romanian discrimination, Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union#Transfers_of_ethnicities, etc, whith a simple mention here. OTOH, the anti-Ukrainian policies of the interwar Romania, are specifically Bukovina related. In any case, if you can bring such info in a referenced and encyclopedic form, we could discuss it. And I would be interested to learn myself about the "current Ukrainian policies that discriminate against ethnic Romanians". If you have any respectable sources that describe this, please bring them up. --Irpen 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica should be based on some reliable sources, like any other encyclopedia. Whether or not Britannica included non reliable information is not my business. They need to make a living too. The question here is if you able and kind to name any reliable non-Ukrainian sources about that Romanization process. That post-Soviet book of history is also most probably based on some research work made on the Soviet time. What you probably should know is the fact that the frictions between Romania and Ukraine didn't start in the same time with the new independent state.

There must be some historic works constituing base for that big post-Soviet history. That research is PARTIAL and thus is propaganda. You don't need to be very creative to do that. There is a lot work developed inside the Hungarian culture since 1918. The Romanian minority is discriminated not comparing just with the Ukrainian majority. It suffices to compare the rights of Hungarians in Ujgorod with those of Romanians in Cernauti or Odessa. --Vasile 21:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, if you want to argue with the authors of Britannica, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Write articles in historic journals. Wikipedia requires references, you've got the quote from one of the most respected reference books world-wide. You say, it is possible Britannica is wrong and you are right.

Actually, Britannica is not a valid reference for our purposes and many wikipedians reject sources such as general encyclopedias, so it would be better that we find some published books or articles. bogdan 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the more refs the better. However, discounting Britannica is plain ridiculous. "Many Wikipedians" as well reject sources that carry information not to their liking. How can we accomodate them all? In any case, we have the Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy page. Go to Village Pump to argue modifying the policy to make Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources policy section mention Britannica among the tabloids, personal sites and blogs. Additionally, I also cited books and can easily cite more. Vasile is requested to bring here some IMPARTIAL sources as per below. --Irpen 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well, the burden is now on Vasile to prove it. Bring some IMPARTIAL, as you like to say, sources that praise the benevolent treatment of minorities in the interwar România Mare as well as by the allied to Hitler government during the WW2 and we will discuss it. Since you were so persisting, I looked into "Orest Subtelny. Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 3rd edition (2000) ISBN 0-8020-8390-0." that you can get in any library. On page 447 ("Ukrainians under Romanian Rule" chapter) you will find that all Ukrainian schools were closed and Ukrainians were even refused the right to be called a separate nation, that Ukrainians were called the "citizens of Romanian origin that forgot their native language", that all autonomy was abolished and Bukovyna was turned to an ordinary Romanian province, you will read about brutal liquidation of Ukrainians' rights (that's for pre '27 time). Then the book speaks about relatively liberal 28-38 period when Ukrainian culture were given some limited means to redevelop. However, with arrival of '38 "cruel and almost totalitarian" dictatorship the Ukrainian political party, as well as many other Ukrainian organizations were banned. You can read more in the book.

Ah, so we wanted you to be Romanians. Is that so bad? It's not so bad to be Romanian. Besides, many Ukrainians have Romanian blood, so it wouldn't be totally untrue. ;) --Anittas 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's better to put that in perspective: in 1938, Carol II of Romania assumed dictatorial powers and banned all political parties of Romania, as well as many other non-political organizations, so it was not something against the Ukrainians. bogdan 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You cannot keep denying the references simply because you dislike information in them. The oppression of Romanians in modern-day Ukraine, whether it exists or not, is a separate issue. Bring in some refs and we will discuss them. --Irpen 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me remind you in case you don't know, that it is not your duty here to establish the roles, whose burden is which.

For that one small precious pre-war Bukowina related page of Ukranian history, there should be some references (a great amount of work, historian work) enumerated at the end of the book as a base for the author tough conclusions. :You can not count Romanian references in the books of Mr. Subtelny. No Ukrainian historian, excluding NKVD or KGB agents, ever made historical research in Romania. You can not consider Soviet intelligence impartial when it comes about Romania.

You can't link the actual inflamatory brutal sistematic "Rumanization" accusations to the subsequent Romanian crimes of WWII. Those war crimes could not create a presumption for the alleged precedent facts.

You don't have any credible evidence of sistematic process of "Rumanization" and no presumption of culpability . This is Ukrainian national propaganda.

It was not so complicated to repair your regrattable mistake. The fact you didn't take any action, it clearly shows your bad faith and the bias against Romanian culture. --Vasile 01:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not establishing whose burden is which. All I said, is that I brought up several verifiable sources that support the information I added to the article:

1. a book by a Ukrainian historian,
2. a book by a Canadian historian,
3. the most respected English language encyclopedia.

The most respected English encyclopedia is based on some other books, so this is not a source. The Canadian-Ukraininan books are not neutral. So I will erase the pejorative statement about "Rumanization". --Vasile 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thus, I met and exceeded the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requirement. The book by Subtelny you can buy at amazon or borrow from any library has 36 pages of Bibliography and references. You are welcome to study those particular ones that relate to the issue at hand and find your own references that disprove them all one by one. Prof. Subtelny (a Harvard Ph. D.) [5] is one of the most respected modern scholars in the field who, BTW, in addition to writing one of the most used Ukrainian history monographies, wrote the "Ukraine" article for Encarta and many other books. You are not in position to argue with him. Some other authors might, so cite them and we will continue. Similarly, the statement of Britannica that something happened has more clout than the statement by user:Vasile that it didn't happen.

Your calling the references that support information you simply dislike (including Britannica) a "Ukrainian national propaganda" is nothing but trolling. I could have easily brought up more references because this is not a little known or little studied topic, but what is already here is enough for anyone but user:Vasile and with your approach to call any source you dislike "propaganda", there is no way to make you happy.

Your baseless accusation of myself in the bad faith and the bias against the Romanian culture are not worth commenting. As such, until you can say something on the issue, I will not be responding to your rant. I have seen that from you in the past at Transnistria article. No way you can pull the same trick here again. --Irpen 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

When you admit a mistake you have to take measures to repair it or to pay the damage. You did neither so you are in a breach of good faith. I demand you to refrain in editing this article as your bias against Romanians is clear.

Thank you for the actual address of Mr. Subtelny. How do you know he will not answer my questions? --Vasile 02:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He may answer your questions. I meant that when it is just your word against the word of an accomplished scholar, I would rather accept what is said by the latter one. --Irpen 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Priorities

"Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture."

This is simply a speculation, based on nothing else than the Romanian diploamtic reasoning on Treaty of Saint-Germain. I suggeste its removal or better, to be placed in its context. --Vasile 04:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, I see that you resorted again to deletion of referenced passages not to your liking [6]. Please remember that unsubstatiated deletion of referenced info from the article is on the borderline of vandalism and is usually reverted on sight.

As for your proposal above, I object to the removal of any referenced information purely because user:Vasile doesn't want to see it here. The hypothesis on why the author of an EB article, most likely an accomplished historian, wrote what he wrote, is a pure speculation by Vasile and as such I see no reason to take it at face value.

Please refer the assertion. --Vasile 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Firmly rejecting Vasile's "demand" to refrain from this article, I OTOH, have no objections to see and discuss the proposal to place this in the broader context, but again, based on the referenced information, not some speculation by Wikipedia editors. --Irpen 05:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case please stop pursuing your careless actions against Romanian culture. --Vasile 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

EB

They found Britannica to average almost three errors per article. By comparison, Wikipedia contained close to four errors per article. [5]

See Encyclopedia Britannica

Please do not repeat the same arguments. Not only Britannica, but any history book can contain errors. Vasile or yourself are welcome to prove the referenced information wrong with your own references and we will change the article accordingly. I also cited other scholarly works above. You can't dismiss the respectable source simply claiming that "books also make mistakes" because we would end up with everyone simply rejecting any info one doesn't like. If you disagree with what Britannica says in Bukovina article, show how it erred specifically in the article in question, not by saying that it erred somewhere else. --Irpen

Actually, EB is not counted as a direct reference, but an indirect one. --Anittas 05:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

see this. --Irpen 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing Historiography

http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istorie1918-1940/1-2.htm No reaserch was made in Romania by Ukrianians historians as the the royal decrets and Romanian laws were ignored. --Vasile 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Declaration of Union

Here is the original declaration of union between Bukovina and Romania:

http://moldova.go.ro/pagini/istorie/unire.htm#bucovina

I thought this was known. I don't think it would be smart for someone to fake something that is so easy to verify. --Anittas 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then please elaborate, at least at talk since I can't read in Romanian, what was that General Congress of Bukovina, who did it represent and how was it elected. Maybe you haven't heard but many Soviet expansionist moves were at the time presented as responses to the genuine requests of the local people voiced through some fastly concocted "representative body". However, the scholarly literature customary holds the move of Romania into the territories of collapsed Austro-Hungary as an occupation. References are already given above. --Irpen 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The General Congress of Bukovina, representing the supreme power of the country and being the only authority with law-giving rights, in the name of the national Sovereignty, We decide:

The non-conditional and eternal union of Bukovina within its old borders up to Ceremuş, Colacin and the Dniester, with the Kingdom of Romania.

So, no, it does not say how it was elected, but only that it has the authority. bogdan 00:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I don't object then if:

1. We make it clear that it represented only Romanian population with the will of non-Romanians (particularly Ukrainians) who were a significant part of the population, being ignored
2. We don't mask the widely used in literature term "occupation" with weasel "unification". While ethnic Romanians might have felt unified with their brethren, it was certainly not "unification" for a very significant portion of the population of the region who didn't have their national state at the time, unlike Romanians, to support their national aspirations. --Irpen 00:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Other nationalities were represented in the Congress. They were 74 representatives of the Romanian National Council, 7 of the German Council, 6 of the Polish Council, and 13 ruthenes. So saying that the Congress represented only the Romanian population of the province is not accurate --Anonimu 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If this was a representative body, how come it only included 13 ruthenes only out of 74 total. The article itself says that according to 1880 census the population was 41.5% Ukrainian and 33% Romanian and according to 1930 census it was 45% Romanian and 29.2 % Ukrainian. 13 out of 74 is much less than that. Was this an elected body? How was it elected? If we give its decision the clout of legitimacy, wee need to elaborate on that. --Irpen 22:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Just because the Romanians won the vote, doesn't mean the rest were not represented. This is the way it usually goes: the majority decides. This is what happened with Transylvania and this is what happened when half of Banat decided to unite with Romania, and the other half with Serbia. --Anittas 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Similar votes were in Transylvania and Bessarabia, too.

• In Transylvania, only Romanians and Germans representatives voted (I'm not sure whether the Hungarians refused or were not allowed to vote; the Romanians and Germans made up together about 75% of the population, so the Hungarians wouldn't have changed the result of the vote)
• In Bessarabia, the minorities were presented in "Sfatul Ţării" and they voted "for", "against" and "abstaining". Probably the major reason why many representatives of the minorities voted "for" was the of the civil war in the Soviet Union and the fear of chaos getting to Bessarabia, too. bogdan 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Transylvania analogy doesn't apply here. The Northern Bukovina, where Ukrainians were a majority, was also "united" with Romania, unlike the part of Transylvania with Serbian majority. Ukrainians were not given any say in this matter. They tried to organize the Western Ukrainian Republic but their attempt was suppressed by the emerging regional powers, Poland and Romania, who wanted the entire territory to themselves. --Irpen 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the territory belong to Moldavia? Weren't you sent there to colonize some of the cities by the Russians, just like they did to Basarabia? Basically, you're saying that we should have let the people who took what was ours, to decide our fate. --Anittas 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please choose your wording more carefully and don't assign the collective guilt. No one is trying to throw on you the matters that are unrelated to the discussion such as Iaşi pogrom or Bogdanovka. So keep in on topic. The reasoning why Romania wanted the whole territory is obvious and any power would have wanted to grab the territory likewise. Similarly obvious is that the will of much of the people was ignored and their national aspirations were brutally suppressed. And not only by Romania. Other big powers, like Poland and, later, the Soviets, acted similarly. The term occupation exactly applies. Please keep it cool and keep the discussion on the topic. --Irpen 01:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In the mind of the Romanians, the territory belonged to us. That was our reasoning. Others may live of the land, and they are welcome to, but they shouldn't decide the fate of our land. It would be wrong to say that we supressed. We did not supress when we wanted our territory back. We only supressed when we discriminated. --Anittas 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, yet again you are talking off-topic. Your presenting the general view that Romanians throughout the history were eternal do-gooders and all they did was resisting the oppression of the outside aggressors leads us off topic, whether such view is true or not (and it is never true for any nation, even for Romanians). This belongs to Usenet: soc.culture.romanian raher than to the specific Wikipedia talk pages that should concentrate on the articles' content. --Irpen 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not off-topic. I just don't agree with your reasoning when saying that we oppressed Ukrainians by uniting with Bukovina, without having your concent, because it had nothing to do with you. We just wanted our land back. --Anittas 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing sources

Britannica history (and any other ENCYCLOPEDIA) could not be considered a historiographic source. Please present a reference to the book, edition, author etc, including that statement. --Vasile 03:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Until you succeed in modifying the current WP:Verifiability policy to include "Britannica (and any other ENCYCLOPEDIA)" among the tabloids, personal sites and blogs in the Dubious sources list, your deletion of referenced to EB info is pure vandalism unless you can back it up with equally solid references. I am not going to discuss this issue with you any further. I already broke my pledge not to feed trolls. --Irpen 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Vasile. -- Bonaparte talk 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A quick look through academic literature produced the following quotes:

• "Having grabbed Bukovina, the Romanian occupiers instituted a savage regime of terror, economic and political oppression" (V. Kurylo et al. Pivnichna Bukovina, ii mynule i suchasne. uzhorod: Karpaty, 1969, p. 92).

• "Bessarabia's seizure by bourgeois Romania in 1918 is an indisuptable fact. This is the most shameful page in the history of royalist Romania". (Lazarev. Moldavskaya Sovetskaya Gosudarstvennost' i Bessarabskiy Vopros. Kishinev: Izdatelstvo kartya Moldovenyaske, 1974). --Ghirla | talk 12:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But Basarabia declared their reunion with Romania. Here is the photo of the declaration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unification_of_Romania_%26_Bessarabia.jpg

--Anittas 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica is far from perfect (or updated), but as Irpen points out, it is a source we often use here. WP:V clerly states that a reference like Britannica is better then none, but if you can get primary sources that contradict Britannica, then we have a problem - how to determine who is right? If you cannot reach a consensus and the academics are divided (i.e. we are not dealing with some obvious fringe conspiracy or denial theory), then the proper way to do is to write something along the lines 'X state that Y, but A state that B'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica should have some well-known references sources for that paragraph. Or maybe it is just a invention of its editor. This would not be history, but spreading rumours (propaganda). --Vasile 14:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, any History book may and does have errors. To say that books make mistakes is an empty statement and cannot be used here because any source can be dismissed by this logic. So far, we don't have a lack of consensus between academic sources because Vasile refuses to bring any that disagree with Britannica. Until he finds a statement in an equally respected book that would say that since its independence the Kingdom of Romania never entertained the idea to grab the whole Bukovina, the statement of Britannica is unopposed. However, I am sure that if we check any notes from the negotiations of the Treaty of St. Germain we will find the exact same reasoning by the Romanian delegation making a case for the allies to give them Bukovina. I did not check those notes and I am not bringing this to the article. I only brought here what I found in a respected book. Vasile is welcome to bring anything he finds to argue. His repeated deletion of referenced information just because he doesn't like it, is nothing but vandalism and will be treated as such. The paragraph is properly referenced as per WP:Verifiability policy and will be restored. --Irpen 22:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A non-referenced source is not better than any source. You are not able to bring references of the statement, that the reason I remove the statement. It is not enough to write a statement under a well-respected signature. You have to have nice, clean historical references. Your logic seems like it doesn't matter the way you obtain a testimony and the process of writing of the history of Ukranians is a rush matter like the war against terrorism. --Vasile 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica

I am pretty sure that Britannica would offer its public editorial references as it is not NKVD archive. --Vasile 02:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to be "pretty sure" or not so sure. Go check EB youself.

The reference is provided to you and your deletion is vandalism and the info will be restored. Just for you I compiled some very incomplete list of publications that represent the Romanian ideology of the time. You are welcome to got to your library and check the publications. First goes a historian professor Nistor, a chief idelogue of the "historical right" of Romania on Pokucie, Bessarabia and Bukovina:

• Nistor I. Die moldauische Anspriiche auf Pokutien.—Wien, 1910
• Nistor I. Romanii si rutenii in Bucovina: Studiu istoric si statistic.— Bucuresti, 1915
• Nistor I. Der nationale Kampf in der Bukowina: Mit besonderer Berucksictingung der Rumanen und Ruthenen historisch beleuchtet. — Bukarest, 1918
• quote: "the etnographic map attached to the German edition of the book was used in Paris and other talks as the base for negotiations and main source of the information to justify our rights on Bukovina". From "Grecu V. Ion I. Nistor ca istoric // Omagiu lui Ion I. Nistor: 1919—1937.—Р.30"
• Viata noua.—1918.—27 oct.: "Historically and geographically there is only one Bukovina. It's an absolutely Romanian territory not only from Suceava to Prut but from Vatra-Dornei to Dniester" (Surprized?)
• Here is another one: "Glasul Bucovinei.—1918.—25 oct.": "We do not recognize any right of Ukrainians for any piece of the Bukovinian land and call on all Romanians to resist to the partition of our ancient land
• Nistor himself in "Nistor I. Unirea Bucovinei: Studiu si documente.— P.169." admits that General congress was not a representative body and had no authority to decide the future of the Northern Bukovina.

I could add more but that's enough. I listed the article for RfC and I hope more editors will take a look at this dispute. --Irpen 02:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's nice you bring much more interest and care into this subject. Your entire list starts from 1910, the majority are from 1918. --Vasile 03:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of references is supposed to concern the ideology of the early twentieth century. True, works written at that time will not have the light of history shining upon them. Nonetheless, they are valuable sources and should be used. I concur with Irpen's edit. --Arviragus 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the dispute about?

Hi. I have looked on the talk page and in the article history, but I can't really seem to gauge what the dispute is all about. I think the best thing to do now would be to take every disputed statement to the talk page and explain why you think it's wrong (on one side) and why you think it's right (on the other), preferably using sources. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The truth of the statement could be discussed by serious historians. The King hasn't had a formal alliance with Austria? Does Bukowina was ever mentioned in discussions with Entente in 1916?

These are not relevant here because wikipedia doesn't seek the truth. But statement is not referenced by any historian work. --Vasile 02:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the most disputed things for now is the statement about Romania's wanting Bukovina since its independence. This statement is referenced to Britannica. I also added refs to I. Nistru, Romanian historian and a chief ideologue of the Greater Romania. While Nistru works are from 1910 and on, they are historic works and reflect on the past. In any case, EB should suffice as per WP:V unless Vasile backs up his disagreeing with some respected works too. He instead resorts to dismissing Britannica, which is totally ridiculous. Read above. --Irpen 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ion Nistor, if you care. And that statement is not referenced by any historian work. --Vasile 02:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that he was Ion. As for your deletion it will be restored until you find anything that proves Britannica wrong. I will try to get Nistru's book in the language I could comfortably read and I would welcome ISBN links. However, even without his specific quotes, the text is already referenced. Until you succeed in changing WP:V policy to include Britannica among dubious sources, the statement is properly referenced and its deletion is nothing but vandalism. --Irpen 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not surprise that in Kishinev, the books of Ion Nistor rise no interest. a list could be found here: http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/database.html --Vasile 02:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't ever make any assumptions about someone's origin and ethnicity and especially don't try make them sound offensive like some of your fellow compatriots do here. While I haven't even been in Chisinau, I do have friends both from Moldova and from Romania so you can't offend me by this. From what I can tell of my experience of dealing with your compatriots, the raving Romanian nationalism is rather rare and such a prominence of it in Wikipedia is very much an anomaly in my view. Your statement sounds offensive to anyone from Chisinau who might read it. As for your persistent deletions they will be treated as vandalism until you provide some sources that discredit the version by EB. Or, alternatively, you succeed changing the WP:V Policy to iclude your bizarre opinion that Britannica is not a respectable reference. --Irpen 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I did no assumption on anybody origin or travels. Those asumptions exist only in your savage imagination. Your experiences don't interest me as I don't recieve confessions for free.

You are not able or not willing to respect a reference (Ion Nistor) , buit still talking about "respect".

RfC

I see nothing wrong with using Encyclopedia Brittanica as a reference. This article is badly in need of references. If another editor disputes that source's accuracy, then the appropriate response is to provide a second citation that presents the other side. Durova 06:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. --Irpen 06:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What I respectfully request is the historian source of that Britannica statement. I don't deny historian sources, I request sources and much more care for the subject. If somebody would tell "Durova is a stupid person" is not for you to provide information for that you are not as asserted, but for that person to prove the eventual assertion. Thanks for your interest in the matter. --Vasile 17:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica is not somebody. I am reverting your vandalism. --Irpen 19:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica is not somebody, but another encyclopedia having its editors or sources. It is not something usual to borrow large passages from one encyclopedia to bring them into wikipedia. Did someone saw the entire artcile on Britannica? --Vasile 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I did as well as Anittas. The quote is above. You can also see it: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. You will need a supscription or take a free trial to read full article. Or you can do it through any library for free. Or you can go to any library and take EB from the shelf. Or you can buy a supscription. Or you can buy a CD. Possibilities are abundant if you want to read. --Irpen 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is called "content dispute", not "vandalism". bogdan 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Content dispute is when people argue about the different versions of the events and bring up some arguments and references in support of their versions. Blanking the entire paragraph referenced to a respected source is vandalism. --Irpen

A different question. Historic literature call the interwar and war-time Romania as Rumania and the assimilationist policies as "Rumanization". That's why I used the term. Besides Romanization may be confusing because it means a totally different thing (see article). I am not aware that Rumania sounds offensive to modern-day Romanians and if so, please let me know and I will refrain from using it. But what term should be used then? I was thinking about staring a Rumanization article for which there is by far more academic references than for someone's pet article Antiromanianism but if "Rumanization" is indeed an offensive name, please say so and explain why. I will then think of some other name. --Irpen 19:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an article Romanianization, refering to the policy in Transylvania. bogdan 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but is the term "Romanianization" a widely used one or it was invented for Wikipedia like Antiromanianism? Also, please tell me whether Rumania is offensive because having seen that in so many history and WW2 books I hardly thought so. --Irpen 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not offensive, just non-standard. Both Român and Rumân are dialectal forms. Two-hundreds and so years ago, the form "Român" was chosen as standard by the Transylvanian "Latinists" (it's obvious why, it's closer to "Roman"), instead of Rumân. However, most countries continued to use the name derived from the other version "Rumân", that was more common in some regions inhabited by Romanians. bogdan 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Follow up I suggest you take this to mediation. It looks like this dispute is about something other than whether Britannica is an acceptable reference source. Durova 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from RfC page

I moved the following from the RfC main page, which clearly states at the top that the debate should not continue there. CDC (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV fork by Irpen. He has to talk on talk page first. Bonaparte talk 16:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Irpen wisely found in Britannica article at least one important factual error. The sophisticated disputed statement is a guesswork asserting the existence of a conspiracy.

2) I don't incite to plagiarism, although a reference to other encyclopedia could be a prejudice for Wikipedia. --Vasile 04:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgeting the native language

ethnic group being called "citizens of Romanian origin that forgot their native language".

Do you have a citation for that ? bogdan 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I do, see talk above "Orest Subtelny. Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 3rd edition (2000) ISBN 0-8020-8390-0.". --Irpen 19:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I meant "Who said that?". Was it integrated in Romanian laws or official documents or was it just an opinion of some nationalists? bogdan 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The education law explicitely said that citizend of Romanian origin who "forgot" their native language are required to send their children to public or private schools where teaching is conducted in Romanian. (Monitorul oficial.—1924.—26 iule.) --Irpen 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that. Here's a quote of the law: from Bucharest University:

Învăţământul primar în şcoalele statului se predă în limba română.

Elementary school teaching in the State Schools is done in Romanian language.

În comunele cu populaţie de altă limbă decât limba română, Ministerul Instrucţiunii Publice va înfiinţa şcoale primare cu limba de predare a populaţiei respective, în aceeaşi proporţie ca şi comunele româneşti. În aceste şcoale studiul limbii române va fi însă obligatoriu în numărul de ore stabilit prin regulament.

In the communes that have a population of other language than Romanian, the Ministry of Public Instruction would found Elementary Schools that teach in the language of that population, in the same proportion as in the Romanian communes. (i.e. does not favour Romanian-speaking communes in the number of school set up) In these schools, the study of Romanian language would be compulsory in the number of lessons as established through the regulations.

bogdan 20:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No historian from Ukraine ever did historian research in Romania. Let him write the article. --Vasile 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

1928-1938 warming period

That period is known for the Romanians attempts to warm its relation with Soviet Union. --Vasile 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Important priority and conspiracies

"Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian Principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture."

This is a conjecture extracted from Britannica as Irpen says. The statement is about Romanian politics. So, it was found significant proves of some Romanian conspiracy against Austrian colonies. Therefore we are in a middle of a imperialistic dispute. I understand that an article of encyclopedia has to synthetize facts. But prior historian sources -if any- should demonstrate this Romanian conspiracy conjecture. Nobody produced any historical documents, opinions, sources that could subtantiate this Romanian so-called important priority since 1878. Once again, it is not for me to prove that the "demonstration" is incorrect and the statement is dubious. I understand that wiki-policies prevent me to remove the statement at this moment and I expect other wise opinion able to convince me that I am wrong. By the way, the wiki-policies allow such inclusions of a large part from another (copyrighted) encyclopedia? It will be better to follow Irpen advice to buy Britannica encyclopedia? --Vasile 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile, no part from another encyclopedia is "included" in the article directly. So, there are no any copyright or other policy violations you are alluding. The info from Britannica is used in an entirely proper way with not a single phrase directly pasted. In fact, it is used in the same way as any other source would be used. --Irpen 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is not a worse source than any other. The information may be correct or not. History books may contain incorrect data as well. If you disagree with the statement, the best way to deal with it seems adding at the beginning of it: “According to Britannica…” and then providing sources that disagree with the opinion. Or, if there are no such sources, then it may be written in the article that the information is not confirmed by historians in the main books about history of Bukovina.--SylwiaS | talk 00:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And to make a latter statement, the user has to be at least well familiar with the works of other historians. Since Vasile is obviousy fluent in Romanian, he could read the works of Ion Nistru cited above. I wonder whether he would still find the desire of Romania to get a hold of entire Bukovina from its inception "unconfirmed" after this reading. --Irpen 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's for Irpen either malice or stupity as he/she is insisting to name "Ion Nistru" the historian Ion Nistor. --Vasile 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for misspelling the Romanian name of the historian. I did not do it on purpose and I don't see why make such a big deal of an innocent mistake. Vasile's speaking of his opponent's "stupidity" speaks more of his manners than of anything else. --Irpen 03:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Britannica article is worse than any other source. As the statement discussed here pretended a great expertise on Romanian modern history, it has been reported here that Britannica editor is missing the date of the proclamation of "Romanian Popular Republic". Every Wikipedia editor is able to know this essential date of the Romanians history.
• It is not for me to prove that the Romanian conspiracy didn't exist. The sophisticated statement discussed here, insinuates a imperialistic plot of Romania for gaining the colonies of other empires. A book of history edited in Romania, as in 1910 having a high rate of iliteracy, and no political or financial means to influence the great powers, is the only evidence presented here supporting the decade long imperialistic Romanian plot. Britannica editor, in its careless and negligent manner, asserted a COMINTERN anti-Romanian thesis of the Stalinist era.
• Tough I don't know the nature of the relation Wikipedia has with Britannica, a reference such as “According to Britannica…” brings prejudice to Wikipedia.
• For these reasons I consider that the statement should be discarded. --Vasile 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the repetition by Vasile of what he already said. If the argument is between what the pseudonymous Wikipedia editor user:Vasile "considers" and what the author of Britannica article considers, the latter wins by default. Many people suggested Vasile to cite some respected work that contradicts Britannica statement to which he responds with just another rephrasing of his personal opinion that Britannica is wrong and he is right.

However, I thought that maybe it's just me who thinks that information from Britannica is usable but everyone else, like Vasile, thinks that this is a propaganda booklet written by Stalinists who infiltrated the Western historians' community since the time of Senator Joseph McCarthy. So, I placed a call for more attention to the article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. So far, editors who came by prompted by my call seemed to agree that Britannica cannot be discounted purely because user:Vasile doesn't like what it says.

Finally, Vasile, let me remind you that the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy page says: "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." Please make your summaries [12], [13] reflect your content rather than your opinion of me. Besides, I am already aware of the latter. --Irpen 03:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile, why do you think that a reference such as “According to Britannica…” brings prejudice to Wikipedia? Please, read Wikipedia:Citing sources.--SylwiaS | talk 04:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand the situation, Wikipedia and Britannica are competing organisations. If this is the situation, a frequent borrowing of the competitor content could appear like an unfair practice that is legally punishable (money wasted). Having references from the competing encyclopedia content would rise a problem of image too, afecting Wikipedia (less money). Finally, it could be dificult to find the sense of this editing intelectual activity on Wikipedia if the best way is to borrow -mechanical activity- from the respectable competing encyclopedia. --Vasile 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nay, there's no such problem. W and B are not competing, as Wikipedia is free and non-profit. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Poles in Bukovina

The Poles were deported as well.

By whom? Bonaparte talk 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The article now says "9,000 Poles deported in 1946–1949", so I'd guess the Red Army. bogdan 20:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Were the Poles from Northern Bukovina deported ? I know that this was not the case in Southern Bukovina, where we can still find a Polish minority, see: Polish minority in Romania. bogdan 10:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

While the Gypsies (Rrom) are mentioned in the reports as systematically deported and killed by the Romanian military government, I was not able to find any similar referrences to national communities in Bukovina, other than Jews. --Vasile 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find some source on the fate of the other nationalites. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The rule of Rus, Volhynian

"From 9th to early 14th century the territory was a part of Kievan Rus' and one of its successor states, Galician-Volhynian principality."

While no city in the region is mentioned by the Kievan or Volhynian princes, it is somehow difficult to assert a sovereignity or a peaceful rule in that time. It seems more like a tribal order of rule of force. --Vasile 03:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The only bases of the sovereignity of Galicia-Volhynia over Bukovina are a document "from 1134", who proved to be a 19th century fake, and a poem praising some galician ruler, full of exagerations (even fantastic elements), thus making it unworth for historiography. V.B. Antonovici, in his Monografii po istorii zanadnoi i iugo-zanadnoi Rossii (Монографии по истории Зап. и Юго-Зап. России) (Kiev, 1885) , says that Galicia-Volhynia never extended south of Ushitsia and Kuchelmin (both on the norther border of Bukovina). Anonimu 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Some representatives of those Volhynian Kings might happened to "visit" the area. A lot of imagination in these passages of ancient history. What do you propose for the text in the article? --Vasile 21:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

While declaring the nationality is a personal choice, the nature of the ethnic group is of some other nature (state). Existence of Moldovan groups should be proved by cultural or political activities. I know the very existence of Romanian education at University of Cernauti, and there is at least one Romanian cultural society in Cernauti, but I never heard of any kind of Moldovan schools, newspapers or societies. --Vasile 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile, it is very simple. The census data cannot be interpreted by presudonymous Wikipedians like ourselves as we like. I could create an artificial "slavic" group by adding Russian and Ukrainians but I don't do that either. The discussion on the controversy of Moldovan/Romanian split, which was artifically introduced, belongs to the Moldovans, Romanians and other articles. Wikipedia users cannot question the cesnus results on their own. Find any accounts in reputable press that show that the people who answered the census were pressured somehow or that the results don't reflect the answers for any other reason (rigged, falsified, etc.)

I repeat that the data in the article simply reflects the census data which was never questioned. It does not reflect some abstract "registration" by Ukrainian authorities in their "anti-Romanian" quest. --Irpen 20:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, Vasile has an impression that somebody is trying to promote the idea, that Moldavians and Romanians are two separate nations here. My personal position is that they are not and I always ask my Romanian friends - why you did not unite after revolution? To me it seems very natural move. Anyway, the census data is a document data. Even if my native Ukrainian government separates this nation into two groups (which, probably, reflects political division of Romanians into Moldova and Romania) and it contradicts my personal point of view, yet, I can not twist, erase, add, substract someting from these data. But I would add a note (somewhere in brackets), that there is a POV that Moldovans=Romanians with a link to related article.--Bryndza 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with such a note written in neutral form provided that it is brief and does not turn this article into an extensive discussion on the side issue that belongs to other articles.

To Bryndza's question, I think they were not united for political reasons and, partly, due to the fear of significant Russian/Ukrainian minority in Moldova of the consequences of such "Unification". I take no position on whether such fears were justified but it is obvious that they were there. Also, the current surveys of public opinions in Moldova reflect that the idea now does not have a wide support among the coutnry population. Again, some may ascribe it to a real or imaginary anti-Romanian propaganda, but this is a fact. --Irpen 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Vasile and Irpen, the way Ukrainian, Romanian, and other governments count minorities is always biased. And explanation is simple - the less number of people you count - the less the government will ove them in rights, education on native language, seats in parlament etc. So ther is always political motivation behind. Just look how Romanian government counted Ukrainians in Romania [14]. And realy, Irpen had a very good point here - people were given to choose between Moldavian and Romanian nationality freely. If they chose Moldavian somehow - then it realy represents their POV. And may be it could be inerpreted as "limitaion of rights" if you do not provide them with such choice? Don't you think so? --Bryndza 21:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I agree that languages are identical and the usage of two names has a purely political history. But, justly or not, the statistics reflect the naming that has established itself. It also reflect people's choice freely and, as such, should not be hidden or obscured by this or that WP user who choose to do his/her own math to make a point. --Irpen 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

it seems to me that ukrainians consider romanians the ones west of the prut river, and moldavians those east of it. i don't know what's happening now, but this was the situation in the 80s

Ethnic composition in the 80s

Anonimu 21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic groups, individuals

Ethnic groups it is not the same things with counting individual options in a census. One can have an ethnic origin although not belonging to the group with the same name. For a ethnic goup to exist, it has to exist a community that could be objectively determined. I doubt that the Moldovan community really exists as there are no newspapers in Moldovan, no Moldovan organizations and no education in their language at University of Cernauti. The fact there are 100,000 individuals declaring themselves as Moldovan on census does not form automatically an ethnic group. The cows are counted too but nobody says they form a social or ethnic group. Therefore, as nobody could prove the existence of this Moldovan ethnic group, I will erase it from the ethnic groups. --Vasile 22:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice info on ethnicity in Romania [15]. Unfortunatly, in Polish only. Vasile, you are very nice talking about Moldovans as of covs. Why don't you call them pigs to be honest? And I wonder why do you want so much those cows to be counted together with Romanians?--Bryndza 00:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This map has some flaws. First of all there are almost no "Moldovans" in Hertsa. Secondly, Novoselitsa is half-Ukrainian but Mahala is fully Romanian. Here Novoselitsa is marked as fully "Moldovan" and Mahala as Ukrainian. Most importantly, the division between Romanians and Moldovans is simply wrong. Other then that though, it is fairly accurate. I was wondering if our friends who made the map maybe can take a look at Bugeac and maybe make an ethnic map there too(save for the Romanian-Moldovan division). Constantzeanu 08:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

that map is based on a soviet map of the nationalities in ukraine SSR in the 80s . Things can change in 20 years. If this map isn't accurate, i don't think that of bugeac would be either. (BTW, they are only "moldavians" in Bugeac, no romanians ;) ) Anonimu 21:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

When I said that there are some flaws, I had the "Romanian"/"Moldovan" artificial divide in mind. The rest seems fairly good to me. According to the Romanian census of 1930, the Romanian minority occupied about the same territory as depicted on this map(except for the Novoselitsa-Mahala point which I have brought up above). That is why I would have liked a map of the Bugeac as well(with Romanians marked as Romanians and not "Moldovans" of course). Constantzeanu 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Romance type of spelling

Bukovina (Romance type of spelling)

Why Romance? No major Romance language uses the "k". bogdan 21:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 it is currently split between Romania and Ukraine

Due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 it is currently split between Romania and Ukraine. 213.179.243.4 07:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Census

To: Irpen who said that everyone in Ukraine has the right to declare themselves whatever they wish and if 7% of the Cernautzi Region said they are Moldovans well then that's too bad because it is their right--> One should keep in mind that democracy in Ukraine is not exactly the most consolidated out of all nations in Europe. I mean, look at the 2004 elections if you want to look for proof. It's true that all ended well (in terms of the result of the election, not the dissapointment after) and Yushchenko won (something that many voters now regret) but it could have well ended up in a bloody confrontation as well. And just the fact that people had to take it to the streets for so long in order to have their basic human rights respected shows that democracy there is a long way from western standards.

In that sort of an enviornment, who can really expect anyone to seriously believe that people in Bukovina actually chose to be called "Moldovans" in 2001, during Kuchma's presidency. Is it so hard to see that if the Ukrainian government admits that 20% of the Cernauti region is Romanian then they are going to have to allow for the Romanian language to be official at the regional level and allow for bilingual signs throughout the oblast? All this when many interest groups throughout Romania advocate for declaring the treaty of 1997 null?

I understand the need to make refferences to the official census but somewhere there it should be stated that in fact Romanians and Moldovans are the same nation and therefore 20% of the population there is Romanian. Constantzeanu 08:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, you are right that official poll results or official census results showing something does not necessarily mean that this is what people really chose. The reason why is that the results may be rigged. You a right to show the 2004 presidential election as an example. But please note that the fact that the original results are questionable have been brought up in respectable sources. Whether people would have taken to the streets or not, the reports of irregularities are widely published. You can see there reports about that election irregularities in many respectable news sites. I have yet to see a respectable challenge to the fact that the census results were honestly counted. Yes, there may have been a census fraud, similar to a vote fraud. But your, mine or Vasile's suspicion that census results don't look right is not the reason to challenge them in WP. We need someone more respectable than us, with reputation and the real name, not a pseudonymous Wikipedian's account.

As for using bilingual signs in local level, it has nothing to do with particularly anti-Romanian policies. In the regions that are not 20 % but 100 % russophone all signs are in Ukrainian because so is required by constitution. It is incorrect, if you ask me, but it is so. --Irpen 10:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is less criticism about the Ukrainian 2001 census then there is about the vote of 2004. But that is only natural. The vote of 2004 affected all Ukrainians. The census probably affected only some of the minorities. I don't know if the Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians or Tatars complained. Romanians only complained because of the artificial divide. As far as I know(I could be wrong) but I don't know of similar divides among Russians, Hungarians, Poles, etc. Romanians are a small group inside Ukraine and they are minorities even in Bukovina and Bugeac. And those minorities are largely rural, not urban. In other words these people are villagers who as you well know have 1000 problems on their hands aside from the question of a right and fair referendum (which I don't see how it affects their everyday life).

Most of the complaints come from the few urban and more educated ethnic-Romanians from the cities such as Chernivtsi or Romanian scholars inside Romania or Moldova. I could come with sources which state that the census was inaccurate but then you will say they are POV because it will come from Romanians.

I think it's really useless to argue about the issue. Nobody is denying that the Ukrainian statistics have to be used. Those that think that Romanians were undercounted should take a look at Romania's own census of 1930, then subtract the deaths due to the Soviet regime and they too will arrive at a percentile of 20%. What we should however correct is the misleading classification. I propose that we state that almost 20% of the population is Romanian which the census divided into Romanians 12.4% and Moldovans 7.2%. That way we satisfy both sides.Constantzeanu 18:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, thanks for handling this disagreement with collegiality. Now, let me respond to your points. I follow the Ukrainian politics rather closely. As for the census, there were some complaints indeed. The complaints I've heard were about the formulation of the questions in the census forms but never about people being pressured when filling them up or about the counting of people's actual answers being falsified.

The example of the complaints I've seen was the question about the native language being formulated like "What is your native language?" instead of "What language do you mostly use in everyday life?". Many of those ethnic Ukrainians, who happen to primarily speak Russian, still consider Ukrainian as "Native" and answered the Q. accordingly. That made the census data under-representing the number of the Russian speakers in UA. Another example is that Rusyns were denied the right to be listed as a separate ethnicity for the political reasons and only as a sub-group of Ukrainians. So, the complaints were about how some questions were formulated in order to make the results more compliant to the official view.

Now, you may argue that the very presence of "Moldavian" and "Romanian" as two separate choices in both language and ethnicity questions is also, somehow, unfair. But note, that the presence of "Moldavian" as an alternative answer could not prevent the respondents to choose "Romanian" answering either question. And many didn't pick Romanian. That is of course unless I am mistaken and there were complaints about the counting fraud that I haven't heard of.

If you know of any such claims, even in Romanian press, about the counting itself being rigged, bring it up, and we will mention it in the article with attribution. If all complaints are simply about the presence of "Moldavian" as one of the answers, I am sorry, but I don't see how it affects the fairness unless we can find some reports about people being pressured to enter "Moldavian" while they actually wanted to enter "Romanian". --Irpen 23:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If this info can help you guys. From here [16]

"Romanian - Ukrainian tensions resurfaced when Romanian Foreign Minister Andrei Plesu on 26 August 1998 told the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee that the teaching of Romanian in minority schools in Ukraine is to be replaced by the teaching of the "Moldovan language."

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has rejected claims voiced recently in Romanian press that the Ukrainian authorities have banned the use of Romanian (called Moldovan in Ukraine) in schools in Odessa Oblast."

"The Romanian government on 9 September 1998 rejected recent accusations by the Ukrainian government that Bucharest has canceled subventions to "Vilne Slovo," the only newspaper in Ukrainian published in Romania.

Romanian Foreign Minister Andrei Plesu on 16 September 1998 appealed to journalists to display more "seriousness and responsibility" when reporting on the situation of the Romanian minority in Ukraine."

See, we have very good relationship :). Sorry, had, bacause now all is beautiful. Isn't it Vasile? And you even have no claims to our territory] anymore as a member of NATO. Am I right? --Bryndza 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Then we should look for sources that show complaints about the Moldovan/Romanian artificial divide. Bryndza, I answered to your own talkpage about your last point since the answer was too much of a tangent and too long to be posted here.Constantzeanu 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am sure that there are plenty of compliants about such a divide and we really devote much space in many articles to this issue. However, in relevance to this discussion, we need complaints (if there are any) that the census results were falsified at the stage of counting or that people were pressured to give certain answers. If there are such complaints, yes, they are relevant to the census data.

But if there weren't any, than this is too general for this article. We cannot have the topic of this artificial divide to be present in every article were the word "Moldovan" is present. All controvercial topics whould be discussed in their narrow articles and other articles should just link to them. --Irpen 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That is what I ment. Complaints about "pressure" or "fraud". Constantzeanu 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies

Someone has used an open proxy to edit this article. This edit was made by an open proxy 213.179.243.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which I have indefinitely blocked. Editing Wikipedia through open proxies is not allowed and IMO is it a shame that there is no way to find out who is using them. Trolling in this manner is unacceptable in my opinion and I see it as a very cowardly approach; Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. (Message to whoever is using them): if you want your edits to be accepted, please use the talk page to justify them - IMO using open proxies rebuts WP:AGF and may run contrary to our policy on sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet). Izehar 12:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainians -- forgetting their native language

Ukrainian was practically banned from public life and Ukrainians were not even recognized as an ethnic group being called "citizens of Romanian origin that forgot their native language".

I removed this text, as the issue brought up in "Forgeting the native language" section on this talk page was not answered. bogdan 21:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The moment t0 for the important priority

"Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian Principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture."

The statement is misleading with its historical aproximation. Formally, Romania was a kingdom since 1881, although the official name of the country remained Romania, until the complete downloading of the Communist regime from Moscow, in 1948. The Kingdom of Romania had no priority since 1878 because existed since 1881. "According to Britannica" for a dubious inaccurate statement brought from the Russian Bolshevik propaganda against "Kingdom of Romania", contradicted by the preceding phrase. If the state priority existed, then it was prior to 1878 as the 1871 jubilee was organized with funds from Romania. --Vasile 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

University Chernvitsi

The university deserves an article itself. --Vasile 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. See new Chernivtsi University article I just created. I used Ukrainian sources so they may not be fully objective. Particularly they do not cover the oppression on the Romanian faculty following the Soviet takeover. You are welcome to add that.

In the meanwhile, I don't see why should we bring the University into this article. There are other universities too, including in the Romanian Bikovina. The Universities belong to their articles and their city articles. They have not so much to do with a too general article about this historic province. --Irpen 19:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent resources about of UChernvitsi. Speaking of demographics and languages in northern Bukovina, the college of Philology trains students in three fields of study (Ukrainian, Russian and Romanian). --Vasile 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica once again

"The 1871 and 1904 jubilees developed at Putna Monastery, near the tomb of Ştefan cel Mare, have constituted tremendous moments for Romanian national identity in Bukowina. Since Romania's gaining of independence, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian Principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture."

This paragraph is entirely, word by word, from Britannica? --Vasile 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is rephrased info from Britannica to avoid copyright ingringement. The Original paragraph from Britannica says:

When Romania achieved independence in 1878, it sought unification with Bukovina. It did so because Bukovina was not only the historical cradle of the Moldavian principality but also the repository of the finest examples of Romanian art and architecture, having unique painted monastic churches of the 15th and 16th centuries. Romania occupied Bukovina when Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1918. Although local Ukrainians had tried to incorporate their districts in northern Bukovina into the Western Ukrainian National Republic, Romania gained control of the whole province (Treaty of Saint-Germain; 1919) and pursued a Rumanization policy there.

--Irpen 04:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic map proposal

I propose that based on the 2001 Ukrainian census we should have some kind of an ethnic map that will accompany the text. I propose this map. Constantzeanu 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't it be a ethnic map of all bukovina, since the articles reffers to the southern part also? Anonimu 20:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Division

While the Ukrainian state sustain financially the minorities (the schools), it is subsequent that the actual division between "Romanians" and "Moldovans" is still a policy of state in Ukraine. (Nevertheless, the external financing should be possible in Ukraine, the "Orange revolution" is an ilustrous example.) The ethnic map is good, but it doesn't reflect the money received by each community from the central and regional govs. --Vasile 12:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So what if it does not reflect the money each community gets. According to this sort of argument, no ethnic map should ever appear anywhere if it does not show where money is allocated... That just does not make any sense. Please do not erase the map.

Also to 212.26.133.82, it would be great if you could not erase maps or tags such as the one Irpen has posted. Although I do not agree with his objection, I have at least the common sense to respect it, just like he respects what I wrote and does not revert it without talking about it first. Constantzeanu 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Vasile ment that if he was given appropriate amount of money - he could change his nationality to Roma (or Moldovan, and in worst case - Ukrainian). Also he seems to be jalous about those fortunes that people made participating in Orange Revolution. He also meant that USA was paying too high hourly wages to all participants. Especially overtime for those who remained in tent cities at night.--Bryndza 00:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You missunderstood my words. 1) A long dictatorial regime (anyway non-democratic) existed in Ukraine and USSR. The peoples are still tended to "behave nice" with the government that, in this case, provides the financing for their minority schools. So, if the government didn't change that Moldovan/Romanian issue, nobody said nothing. 2) It is excellent that external non-gov financing is possible in Ukraine. That means external support (books and other materials or even money) would be possible for Romanian schools too. My impression is that the Kiev central gov., and not the regional oblast gov., is mainly sustaining the schools (including the university) in Chernovitsi. --Vasile 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Just joking. You are right, Kyiv finances the schools. But money are distributed not exactly directly to destination. Who knows how much is getting "lost" on the way. By the way, I'm not sure if it is financially cheaper for Kyiv to artificially "sustain" two monoroties - Romanian and Moldavian rather than only Romanian. The recognition that both nationalities use same language abd go to the same schools proves this idea. This census division is rather some "rudimentary" thing from USSR, or some "technical" question.--Bryndza 02:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to see any independent survey results in addition to census. Such a ref would improve the article although until we get the sourced information about the census fraud, we should still rely on the census. Equally interesting for me would be to see the results of similar surveys taken from Moldova itself: what percentage of people there self-identify themselves as ethnic Romanians rather than Moldavians? What I am looking for is not the ethnographists' classification or arguments in favor or against the division but how people themselves tend to self-identify. If anyone is aware of such information, please post it here. --Irpen 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"quotation marks" and other subtle POV pushing

Quotation marks don't belong to the census data. They reflect editor's opinion's on the issue and belong to talk if anywhere at all. There is a whole paragraph devoted to the classification controversy. Don't insert your favorite points everywhere you can in the article to make it more conspicuous. Census results presented, next valid criticism given and attributed. Finally, I haven't seen any refs to complaints of Romanian organizations inside Ukraine. If I missed them, please remind me and I will be happy to remove the tag myself. --Irpen 00:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the " ". That was a little wrong of me. About the sources, they are either here or on the chernivtsi page. If you cannot find them in the archives here, go look for them there. Constantzeanu 00:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please point them to me, I only remember the criticism in Romania press someone quoted. As not an expert in Romanian organizations in Ukraine, I would like to see them complaining. I do not deny that they might have, but I would like to see any evidence.

I am glad we agree top get rid of quotation marks. But please note that the phrase you inserted in the census paragraph (that I removed) simply duplicated what the next paragraph was already saying. The appropriate way to present the issue is to present the census data first, and then present its criticism. It is simply a matter of style. We all want this to be a good article and style matters. It sometimes happends from time to time, that the editors like their favorite points repeted as many times as possible, even in the intro paragraph. This damages the article by advancing the POV and brings no new information to it. --Irpen 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that "criticized" is a much better and neutral word. About that paragraph, it just seems really long to me and useless. All that can be said in one sentence. I don't think that style is compromised here. If we write all that census data and then put that paragraph really further bellow, people will lose their train of tought. Let it be there right after data is presented. I hope you will not make a revert war over that little detail.Constantzeanu 01:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Those organisations in Ukraine have no internet visibility. Usually they are using newspapers (Romanians or Ukrainians) in order to carry their messages. I don't know how much visibility has these Romanian organisations in Ukrainian language media since Romanians & Moldovans are representing some 1-2% of population. (Not to mention their remote position.) It is practically impossible to provide you a English stable reference to those organisations; but they do exist if you doubt about this. The majority of them, including the umbrella organisation "Comunitatea romanilor din Ucraina" (leader Ion Popescu, former Deputy in Rada), will sustain "Party of Regions", but I see a couple of them in Cernauti supporting "Our Ukraine". --Vasile 02:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile, I don't insist on English online refs. If you have anything in Romanian, and on paper, cite it and briefly say what they claim. --Irpen 07:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is recent: http://www.rgnpress.ro/content/view/11163/ (Romanian)

As they are dispersed in three regions, they want that political disputes between those regions do not affect their unity of language: "dreptul de a folosi oficial Limba Noastra Materna" -the right to use their language. --Vasile 14:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know whether this is a general complaint in the Romanian press or specific complaint made by a "Romanian organization inside Ukraine". I don't doubt that Romanian press has such an opinion over the issue. I tagged the statement that complaints are being made by "Romanian organizations in Ukraine". --Irpen 20:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, just for the sake og the style, the criticism of census should be lumped together. It is being criticized, as far as this article is conserned by two points: that RO and MO are separate groups and that Rusyns aren't. The best way to do it is the next paragraph. Why do you visagree that this is the proper way? --Irpen 20:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well for starters that is not all you did. You also put in brakets (Ukranians) right after Ruthenians. Can you provide ample scholarly articles that show that Ruthenians are Ukranians and that Hutsuls are Ukrainians. You would have reverted me in 2 secs. if I dared to put Romanian in brakets after Moldovan. Secondly, you do not need a whole paragraph to explain the Moldovan-Romanian division. Constantzeanu 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I need the paragraph not just for RO/MO division, but for census census discussion where MO/RO is not a single issue. We have to let the reader know somehow that Ruthenians is an obsolete name for the ethnos now called Ukrainians. If you can do it in any other way, please propose. We do criticize the division into MO and RO which assumes that they are one and the same from the ethnographist's POV. I never said that Hutsuls are Ukrainians. I've seen them considered either Ukrainians or Rusyns, and many consider Rusyns a separate nation from Ukrainians, this particular view seems more convincing to me personally, but my persona views don't matter. --Irpen 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, in my view we cannot write Ruthenian(Ukranian) in one paragraph but then when it comes to Romanians and Moldovans, we go 2 paragraphs bellow and discuss it in a mish-mashy macaroni-type of article about the division. The reason for that is that the reader will see the Ruthenian(Ukranian) and he/she will say "aha so Ukrainian means Ruthenian". Then they will see the part with 12% Romanianians and 7% Moldovans and he/she will most likely have little patience to read the next paragraph and will say "aha so Romanians and Moldovans are different peoples".

Either we will explain everything on the bottom, including Ukranians being Ruthenians, and Moldovans being Romanians. Either we will keep the Ruthenian(Ukrainian) format but for Moldovans we will add Moldovans(Romanians) in order to be neutral and consistant overall. I find the first option a bit tiresome on the part of the reader. Why not explain the different names right after you give it to them. We could write Ruthenian and Hutsul. And like I did for the Moldovans, you could add a sentence explaining that Ruthenian is considered by most scholars to be an older name for Ukrainian.Constantzeanu 00:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If you like to elaborate about "Ruthenian (Ukrainian)" thing more than the way I did it, fine with me. Please propose and also, something should be done with history and demographic sections largely duplicating each other. I think an existence of a separate demographic section isn't necessary and this all can be embedded in history. The MO/RO controversy is not "two paragraphs below", it just follows the census paragraph. I already explained why I think we should not interject the census presentation with a sentence of its criticism and then have more criticism after that. I don't want to revert war about this and since you persist that your version should be there while this is being discussed, so be it. However, the unfamiliar reader should be alerted about the controversy while we are resolving it here, so I will tag a section with "POV-section" tag for now. It's bad to have a tag, but it is better than a revert war while the discussion at talk is ongoing. --Irpen 01:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Demographic history can be compressed with the History itself. I don't quite see why you have put a neutrality tag. It seems to me that the issue is not neutrality but wording. Those two are quite different things.Constantzeanu 01:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans and Romanians

Wikipedia should reflect facts, not opinions. Census results are the facts. What different groups think about the results - that is opinions. It would be wise to take the discussion whether Moldovans and Romanians are the same nation or not to a separate page. Uapatriot 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that Moldovans and Romanians are linguistically and ethnologically the same group. bogdan 18:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true that lingvistically and ethnologically Moldovans and Romanians are from the same group, for example, like Americans and English. Still, there are significant social and political reasons behind Moldovan and Romanian differentiation. Majority of citizens of Republic of Moldova consider themselves Moldovans, and the world (including "big brother" Romania) should respect their choice. Similarly, if someone in Bukovina considers himself Moldovan, then it's his choice.

It's a bit different than the English and Americans. In Ukraine, the Romanians are also Moldovans (they were all from the principality of Moldavia) and the Moldovans are also Romanians (ethnically). bogdan 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In Ukraine during the census each person was asked about his nationality. Somebody answered Moldovan, somebody answered Romanian. And that's it. Respecting people's choice is the key element of democracy. Uapatriot 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Overall, the page is too biased toward demographic discussion, counting up to decimals Ukrainian/Romanian/Moldovan population. All other aspects of Bukovina's life, like economic development, infrastructure, social and cultural aspects, geography and nature are left in shadow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by uapatriot (talk • contribs) .

It would be included, don't worry about that.--Vasile 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Many Romanians/Moldovans in Cernauti(Chernovtsi) Oblast are rural. They do not see their Moldovan identity and Romanian identity as something different. They are Moldovans but all Moldovans are Romanians. By offering this choice, Ukraine managed to confuse a lot of rural people and make it seem like the Romanians are fewer then the actually are. This is a very old Soviet and Stalinist strategy. In any case Yuschenko lately has admited that in fact Romanians and Moldovans are the same thing and that the Moldovans in Ukraine are nothing else but Romanians.

About your comment concerning the downplay of economic development, infrastructure, social life, well maybe that is because the territory is still a contested one despite the so-called 1997 treaty( which Romania will probably cancel pretty soon) and because the article reflects just that. Constantzeanu 01:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "so called" treaty? How is it not to be legally binding? "Will cancel pretty soon?" Huh, that's a revealing statement of yourself. Good luck with its "cancelling" as well as the consequences such "cancelling" will bring to Romania's international standing and its membership in international institutions. Fortunately for Romania, its leadership did not do any of such weird stuff and, on the contrary, brought the country closer to the Western realm by joining NATO and getting closer to EU membership. (Are you aware BTW that lack of border disputes is the condition to be a member of NATO?) Would it be run by people with such strange ideas like redrawing borders and denouncing treaties, I would watch for the news from there with more attention, like say, from Iran right now. Thanks god this is just the hypothesising of a Wikipedian but please drop us a line here when (if) the prime-minister or the president of the country will announce the intention to "cancel" the border treaties. I would concentrate on the Romania related news from that moment on.

Your last statement showing your lack of interest in "economic development, infrastructure and social life" of Bukovina being covered in the article just shows that you came here with political agenda rather than to write encyclopedia. Too bad. Until this moment I still thought differently. --Irpen 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are really quick to judge. To answer to your remarks:

• First of all, I never said that we should downplay economic development, infrastructure and social life. Please do not distort my own statements. I know we do not quite agree on a lot of issues but please try to be balanced in your assessment. Do not try to demonize other Wikipedians just because you disagree with them. I said that these things have been downplayed because the issue has turned into something historical and political. Does this mean that I had a "political agenda"? No, not really. On the other hand, the fact that you like to maintain this Stalinist and chauvinist idea of a difference between Moldovans and Romanians, seems to me that it reveals something of a "political agenda" on your part. Constantzeanu

I did not "demonize" you in any way. You did not expect from you the proposals to "cancel" treaties and I explained what I think about such proposals. Besides, not at all I "maintain" the [skip your attack] idea of a difference between Moldovan and Romanians. In fact, I take no position on this issue. All I am saying is:

1. that the census data should be presented unaltered.
2. the valid criticism of the census on how the questions were formulated should be presented from all sides right after the census data, not somewhere far away in the article but not in between the census data interjecting it either
3. if there is an evidence that not only census questions are purposefully formulated in a certain way, but the published census result do not truthfully represent the answers people gave (counting fraud) or that people were not free to answer as they wished (lack of free choice), this info should be presented as well, especially if the fraud was of the significant scale.

Note, that whatever personal opinion we have on the division issue or any other one, we should avoid allowing that to affect our edits. We only present facts, published respectable interpretations (rather than our own) and just connect them ourselves with some leeway allowed by common sense. --Irpen 04:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Secondly, redrawing borders may seem strange if you are the one that gained from those redrawings. When you are on the losing side, things look quite different. Things look also quite different if those borders were drawn after a NAZI-SOVIET secret agreement and have been condemned ever since. Personally though, that is not what I meant by "declaring the treaty void pretty soon". As you know, the treaty was signed by Romania in a hurry and under pressure to join NATO. Ukraine took a lot of advantage and a lot of the articles in the treaty were so ambiguous that Romanians only learned years later about the extent to which the Kuchma regime would go around the treaty to put impediments to the Romanian minority(the Moldovan-Romanian split is a great example). Also, Ukraine agreed that it would demilitarize Snake Island(Zmirnyi Ostrov) and that it would not settle it with people, until the ICJ would decide what it's final status would be and who it actually belongs to (Notice that the USSR-Romanian treaty of 1948 was not ratified by either side and the USSR now does not exist). Ukraine has failed to do either, hence in essence braking the treaty. It is true that in order to join NATO, we had to sign that treaty, yet now it is no longer necessary to do so; we are already in NATO. We would not be the only NATO country with territorial claims towards another country. Greece and Turkey are yet two other examples. And I think Norway too has some issues with Russia. So does Latvia and so does Estonia. It is also true that after 10 years, any country can cancel a treaty, usually with no questions asked. This is the reason why many interest groups inside Romania have launched the idea of a Romanian unilateral withdrawal from that treaty and a possible demand for Ukraine and Romania to sit down again at the negotiating table and draw a newer treaty. Constantzeanu

Redrawing the borders in Europe seems dangerous and, hence, wrong to me regardless of who gained from such a redrawing. I explained that already and I can repeat. No borders are ever fair. Period.Which borders are more fair than which can be endlessly discussed and the subjective outcome depends on at what time you want to look back. This reasoning may lead to arguing for giving Connecticut to Mohegans, Ontario to the Iroquois, Israel to the Arabs or vice versa, entire Palestine to the Jews. Until some point it is rather harmless theorizing but when you come to the stage of implementation of border redrawing, the history teaches us that the outcome is always one and the same: the War. My view is that since no borders are fair, the best way would be to leave them alone. The T₀ moment then should be now. Forget it! However you draw them, someone else would be unhappy. Some rare exceptions to peaceful border redrawing don't really count.

You are dead wrong about Latvia and Estonia having "territorial claims" to Russia. They renounce any claims long time ago. The lack of border treaties is caused by both countries bickering about formulations that may or may not lead to future compensation claims. There are Wikipedia articles about these things that you may want to read. You may start from Abrene region, and if it is too long, read just the last paragraph. Now, back to personal opinions, I am all for Romania and Ukraine sitting down at negotiating table. Negotiations are always good. Personally, I don't believe any borders will end up being redrawn no matter how much the Partidul România Mare raves to rally more supporters in the elections seasons. However, such negotiations may actually help reduce the remaining tensions. Personally, my hope is, as I wrote earlier, that at some point both Ukrainians in Romania and Romanians in Ukraine will live comfortably and go to churches and/or their relatives through the meaningless and transparent borders. People will leave in the area where they find the best job to their liking and happily drink Tsuica and Horilka on the mixed weddings. --Irpen 04:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• About your constant reverts, please stop them. I see no reason for them, you have not explained them so don't just do them because you are so used to disagreeing with me that reverting anything that comes from me has become a reflex by now. Thank you. Constantzeanu 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not explained what? I explained several times that it is wrong to interject the interpretations right into the census data. All criticism belongs together and just right after the census. Also, by a wholeslae revert you undo other changes people make to the article, icluding the grammar ones.

Now, let me say that if I wrongfully concluded from your "hopefully cancelling the border treaty" remark that you are interested only in this part of Bukovina article, I am sorry for my misunderstanding of yours. I would welcome your contributions about "economic development, infrastructure, social life", etc and will try to help the best I can. --Irpen 04:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you need to learn how to read what is in front of you. Where did I ever talk about border changes? Please show me, in my comments, one place where I said Ukraine has to give Romania back, this and this territory. I said that "certain interest groups inside Romania would like the treaty canceled and then extend an invitation to the Ukrainains to draw a new treaty".Notice the word "new treaty". This is not my invention. I have followed the news and read it in the media. Did I ever say the word "border change"? No. I said that these groups have noticed the manner in which the old treaty was signed and they want a newer treaty signed on better terms. To go from that and jump to refferences to Romania Mare Party, somehow hinting that I am repeating their rethoric, is offensive to say the least. Maybe you do not know much about this party but you can't just go off and accuse people of that.

About the article, please leave it alone. It is pretty clear to me that by now you are just reverting this thing for no good reason. Leave the explination where it is, please. Constantzeanu 06:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice to learn to read. I refreshed my reading skills and returned to this page. This is your quote: "We would not be the only NATO country with territorial claims towards another country." How can having territorial claims be compatible with "not wanting some territory"?

If you're refering to Snake Island, then Ro doesn't really have territorial claims from you because officially, Ro never recognized the island as being yours, therefore, Ro doesn't need to make territorial claims on the island. What Ro does is to try to solve the dispute by trying to prove that the island should be under Ro administration and not under Ukrainian administration. Ro gave the island to Soviet 'on loan'. The island was never entirely given to Soviet. The treaty where Ro recognized the Soviet annexation of Northern Bukovina and Basarabia never included the island. --Candide, or Optimism 08:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Now to the placement of the comments to the census: I explained why interpretations don't belong to the census data but should be placed separately and you did not provide any reason why your comments should interject right in the middle of the official results. Leave them with other comments please. They are right in the very next paragraph. If you disagree, we may ask others (non-Romanian and non-Ukrainian) editors to take a look. And your comment says: "dont revert vasile's additions". Vasile's recent addition was capitalizing U in ukraine. I of course kept that.--Irpen 08:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuck yeah we want the 1940 border. We are not gonna pussy out and be content just with Snake Island and Herta Region.WE SHOULD GET ALL OF IT. ROMANIA MARE - DE LA NISTRU PAN LA TISA. And we are going to get it. Ukraine will dissapear soon. The east will want to join Russia, so will Krimea. Bukovina is gonna go to us. Subcarpathian Ruthenia is going to go part to Hungary and party will become independent. Western Ukraine will form its own central european state. Central Ukraine will be swallowed by Russia and we will be done with your little fake-country. Sometimes I think that the Russians were much better then the Ukrainians. Anyways, Irpen, what you did here is a joke. This article is full of bullshit Ukrainian propaganda and I am not going to put up with it or the Ukrainian spies like Irpen and their Romanian minions(traitors). Duca 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone, please do not delete the post above. I will delete it myself when Duca gets blocked. Thanks, --Irpen 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Duca, I don't care if this will get you mad or if I will be getting chastised for my language, but you are a real jerk. What did the Ukrainians do, that you support their dismemberment as a state? Don't you realize that is bad for us too. I would rather have Ukraine next to us, then a Russia that is stronger after annexing Ukraine. How can you use that language and come up like that with that kind of nationalist rhetoric?

I would like to ask you one more time to please tone down your aggressive and offending comments or I will personally ask for an admin to block you. Constantzeanu 02:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, you are wasting your time talking to him. Check his earlier contribution here. I will post this to WP:AN/I when I have time. To the article, now that you perhaps thought of it more, would you allow to have census criticism lumped together for better structure? Thanks, --Irpen 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Romanian propaganda

One can very easily notice here the same subtle Romanian propaganda, as for Transylvania. I made some correct edits, actually not related with this R. prop., but they were reverted. Please note that after 1775 we speak about the "Duchy of Bukowina" (Herzogtom Bukowina), and not later. Erdelyiek 05:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I only reverted the part of your edit which was a deletion. As for your using of the term "annexed" after the Partitions of Poland, it is an incorrect usage of the term. Annexation, by the definition is the unilateral move. The Poland was partitions trhough the partitions treaty between the partitioning parties. While no one asked the Poles, this was still not the annexation. Besides, much of the land controlled by Poland before the partitions was not Polish to begin with. --Irpen 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, I will take a look on how "annexation" is defined. Erdelyiek 15:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry for deleting link to hu article.. i looked only at the red thingies... next time i'll verify the green ones too ;) Anonimu 20:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

1775 census

Hello! "According to the 1775 Austrian census, the province had a population of 60,000 Romanians (Moldovans) and Ruthenians or Hutzuls. " I simply do not believe that the whole province only had 60,000 people at that time....Erdelyiek 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the census says so and who are we to tamper with it. The population was actually 86.000 but 60.000 was the Romanian population. The rest were Hutsuls and others. The population of eastern Europe at the time was roughly 10-15 times less then it is today. Romania's population would not have surpassed 2 mil people in 1775. So actually the number of 86.000 is not that unbelievable. Constantzeanu 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that. I thin that the population of North an South Bukovina alltogether was more than 86,000. I will verify this shortly. Erdelyiek 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well I have noticed that user 128.etc.etc.etc. has started to revert my changes. First of all, I don't think the user understands the simple concept that Chernivtsi Oblast is not the same as North Bukovina. Chernivtsi Oblast is North Bukovina plus Herta region, plus the northern part of Hotin county. Anonimu was kind enough to provide us with an ethnic map of Bukovina( the historical region which this article is about) as it was after the 2001 Ukrainian census and after the 2002 Romanian census. Notice how this map looks pretty similar to the 1910 Bukovina map under Austria-Hungary(save for the German and Jewish minorities). He replaced the previous map with ethnic groups in Chernivtsi Oblast with this one. This is quite a positive move since one should not confuse the two. I also noticed that the demographic information is not really about the historical region, rather about oblast. I have added info pertaining to the historical region and I have given 2 sources of info - both which give ample data about the Ukrainian census. I would like 128.etc.etc.etc. to please refrain from making such reverts, unless he/she has real objections which can be backed up by sources.Constantzeanu 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu: What you named a simple concept is not that simple as you want to present it. You want to claim that Bukovina is a territory, which exactly matches the borders of Austrian province Bukovina as of 1918. This view does make some sense. However, in 2006 things do not look the same as a hundred year ago. Nowadays, many think of Bukovina as Chernivtsi oblast. And this view does also make sense, because people are used to move on, and austrian borders are not "for all times". What I am asking you is to be specific when you use terms like "historic Bukovina". Please specify that you mean the territory of Bukovina "as of 1918", or "under Austian rule".

Second, your source [17] of North Bukovina demographic is quite questionable. In the source only Romanian population is calculated is an unclear way. In your calculations I worry that you aggregated Romaninan and Moldovian population together. If you did, it's acceptable.

I'm quoting what Keith Hitchins says in his history of Romania on the demography :

Until the 1870s the Rumanians had been more numerous than the Ruthenians, but by the 1880 census they had fallen behind 239,690 to 190,005, a situation which prevailed until the First World War. The number of Ruthenians increased primarily because of steady immigration from Austrian Galicia. Rumanian nationalists claimed that the Rumanians were the only autochthonous inhabitants of Bukovina and accused Austrian authorities of encouraging Ruthenians to emigrate and favouring them over Rumanians in order to weaken the ties between the province and Rumania.

Hitchins, Keith (1994) Rumania : 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe). Oxford University Press

bogdan 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The immigration of Ruthenians/Ukrainians started much earlier. Under the reign of Stephen the Great, Ruthenians were settled in Bukovina and "almost two per cent of the population around Suceava was comprised of people of Ukrainian origin". (Source: Stephen the great: leadership and patronage on the fifteenth-century Ottoman frontier; Randal H. Munsen, ASIN: B000BNK3DA). We should add these two sources to explain the Ruthenian immigration into Bukovina. --Candide, or Optimism 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bogdangiusca, I read that book too. That is what it says but it talks about Bukovina as in the Bukovina as it is depicted on the map, here in the 1910 version and Anonimu's version. About Bukovina now meaning Chernivtsi Oblast, I am sorry but that is not true. Bukovina is bukovina and Chernivtsi Oblast is Chernivtsi Oblast. Let's not mix up the two things. Constantzeanu 23:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Northern Bukovina towns

Someone should check the towns in the Northern Bukovina section and remove those that are not actually in Bukovina, like Hertsa (in Hertsa region) and Hotin (in Bessarabia). bogdan 23:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to question this statement. As of today, expecially if you look on that not from Romanian angle, Northern Bukovina = Chernivtsi oblast. I don't see a reason for Herta region not to counted as nowadays Bukovina.

This is the strangest comment I have ever heard. If you look at Bukovina from any angle, North Bukovina is North Bukovina, Herta region is Herta region, Khotin county is Khotin county and Chernivtsi Oblast is all of them put toghether. Please bring reliable scholarly articles to back up this crazy idea.Constantzeanu 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The stangest comment is "All Moldovans are Romanians". Austrian borders of Bukovina as of 1918 are no better or worse than any other borders. Now the European borders are such that Herta region is a part of Bukovina.

Well I see you belong to the neo-Stalinist, Soviet school of thought. Moldovans are Romanians, buddy. About Herta region, you are wrong yet again. European borders are such that Herta region is now part of Ukraine and Chernivtsi Oblast, not of Bukovina. Don't forget that the USSR only annexed northern Bukovina and not the southern part. About your comments, please give ample scholarly articles to back them up, otherwise it is pointless for you to repeat the same thing all over again based on YOUR opinion alone. Constantzeanu 00:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan was saying that not all towns originally belonged to the Bukovina region; some belonged to the Bessarabia region. I had to remove Saveni from the list a while ago because the town doesn't belong to the Bukowina region. --Candide, or Optimism 00:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans are not Romanians. They would be in a dream world, but in the real world Moldovants don't want to be in Romania, and they don't want to be Romanians. Moldova has a great history by itself. And who knows, if Soviets were to annex the Southern Bukovina too, there would be comments today like "All Romanians are Moldovans" and talks about "Great Moldova".

I am not a neo-Stalinist. You are making a mistake assuming that views similar to mine are only expressed by neo-Stalinists. The popular view in Ukraine is that Bukovina = Chernivtsi oblast. I guess, such view is in interest of Ukraine, and for that reason it's like to stay that way. What is a popular view today also is like to became a historical view tomorrow.

You are pretty far off, buddy. Go pick up a history book first and read it and only after come here and state your arguments. Don't just repeat your POV, hoping that if you do it long enough, people will accept it as the truth. Also I find this sentence of yours pretty funny "You are making a mistake assuming that views similar to mine are only expressed by neo-Stalinists". Well if you share views with neo-Stalinist, then what does that make you? In my book, if you share views with Nazis, then that makes you a nazi- sympathizer; if you share views with Stalinists, then that makes you a Stalinist-sympathizer.Constantzeanu 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Several people said above that Chernivtsi Oblast is not the same thing as Northern Bukovina. I can't but agree. In view of this, I will remove the Romanian name from the Oblast article. That article is about the modern Ukrainian subdivision which has nothing to do with Romania. While the Romanian name certainly belongs to the first line of the Chernivtsi, Hertsa and Bukovina articles which are articles on the old historic topics, it does not belong to the article about the modern Ukrainian administrative subdivision, especially since our Romanian colleagues seem to agree that Chernivtsi Oblast and Bukovina are different things. I hope our friends will be as tolerant as our Polish friends. Similarly, to this one, the Polish name is present in Lviv article but not in Lviv Oblast one. --Irpen 01:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that the two are not the same thing, are you sure Irpen that this and Lviv Oblast are a similar cases? For instance, there are almost no Poles left in Lviv oblast but there are still 20% Romanians in Chernivtsi Oblast and so these people are allowed (according to Ukrainian law) to use their language at the regional level and raion level with the authorities. Would they not use the name "Regiunea Cernauti"? Constantzeanu 01:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The guy hates Romanians, so let him do whatever he wants. He will soon grow tired of it. --Candide, or Optimism 01:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I will leave Anittas' personal attack without response. To Constantzeanu: I have no doubt that Romanians in Ukraine and Romania use the Regiunea Cernauti. The issue here is that this is English Wikipedia. "Regiunea Cernauti" has no English usage in the meaning of the modern Chernivtsi Oblast. That is unlike the city name itself which can be found under Romanian as well as the German name in the history books. As you are correctly saying, "people are allowed to use" the Romanian name and I have no problem with that. Also, I am sure that the article exists under this name in Romanian Wiki. This is the English wiki, however. The Regiunea Cernauti is not used in English in the specific context of the modern Ukrainian subdivision called the "Chernivtsi Oblast". Old papers might be found in English in the archives with the Russian name of the same Oblast (Chernovtsy Oblast or Chernovitskaya Oblast) whose borders in the Soviet Ukraine coinsided with the modern ones. So, the Russian name might me in order. --Irpen 01:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Let's conitnue this narrow issue at talk:Chernivtsi Oblast. --Irpen 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack... that's funny. --Candide, or Optimism 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of choice in UA census

This part "However, the census respondents were free to claim their ethnicity as they wished with no predermined set of choices, not to respond to any particular census question or not answer any questions at all. Some have chosen to claim to be Rusyns or Hutsuls, which are ethnic groups that were not previously recognized. Thus, the census official results adequately reflect the answers freely given by the respondents as no serious allegation of the counting fraud were ever brought up."

is pure speculation, has no sources and should be erased. The Ukranian census makes no ref. of Hutsuls and Rusyns. Constantzeanu 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In Ukrainian census, the respondents were giving the answers to the question in the form as they wished. They didn't even pick among the multiple choices, but entered the answers to the ethnicity questions as they wished. I can give you a link to a census form, I saw it online some time, if you insist. Now, it is up to you to provide the refs that the census results have been rigged, not the other way around. --Irpen 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we've been through this already once, a long time ago. My problem is with the wording itself. Please, if you would be so kind, can you provide me the link with the census results that show those who chose to say "hutsul" or "Russyn" as described in this text? Constantzeanu 19:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(Reference #1) The First All-Ukrainian Census of Population: historical, methodological, social and ethnic issues:[18], State Statistics Committee of Ukraine [19]
From the total number of Ukrainians 32.4 thousands belong to ethnographic groups that by cultural and linguistic peculiarities differ from the main part of the Ukrainian ethnos. The most numerous groups are Hutsuls (21.4 thousand, mainly at Ivano-Frankivs Oblast) and Rusyns (10.2 thousand, mainly in Transcarpathia). There are 672 Lemkos, 131 Boykos, 22 Lytvyns, 9 polishchuks.

(Reference #2) Ethnic palette of the modern Ukrainian socium[20], The National Institute for Strategic Studies (NISS) [21]
Perhaps, for the first time the census registered the desire of representatives of some Ukrainian subethnos to mark their identity: 21.4 thousand Hutsuls, 10.2 thousand Rusyns, 672 Lemkos, 131 Boykos, 22 Lytvyns, 9 Polishchuks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.98 (talk • contribs)

Exactly right! I replaced the Ukrainian text above with the translation into English for our Romanian friends. --Irpen 01:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bukovina

Good point about the Slavic part. My last name is Bukovina and I am a proud Slav!!!

Are they talking about the same place in this article? "...The commission's conclusion supports the testimony of elderly witnesses in the nearby village of Bykovnia, who said they saw trucks dripping blood en route to the site in the 1930's, before the Nazis occupied the area.

Unofficial estimates put the number of bodies in the grave at 200,000 to 300,000. Villagers in Bykovnia broke five decades of silence to accuse Stalin's secret police after the Ukrainian government erected a monument in May 1988 blaming Nazi occupiers for the crime. The villagers in December forced Ukrainian authorities to establish the commission, saying three previous investigations had covered up the truth by blaming Nazi troops. ..."

http://www.polskieradio.pl/polonia/article.asp?tId=40422&j=2