Talk:Moldovans/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Unclear phrase

"…the Romanian government as well as various other states do not recognize the existence of a Moldovan ethnic group." Romania does recognize certain ethnic groups officially, so I understand what that means and how to cite for it, but what other countries that specifically recognize ethnic groups, and where Moldovans would be relevant, are we talking about? - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've ended up rejuggling the wording, but the question still applies. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The US for instance in the list of ethnicities used for the census merge Moldovans, Bessarabians, Romanians, Vlachs, Transylavanians, etc. I am sure other countries proceed in a similar manner. TSO1D 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are wrong about the U.S. Census (though what they distinguish as Moldavian, is presumably in terms of the old principality, not the present-day state). See http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/PUMS/C2SS/CodeList/Ancestry.htm, on their official site. There are separate codes for Romanian, Bessarabian, Moldavian, and Wallachian. How they distinguish a Bessarabian from a Moldavian is beyond me. But then they also "distinguish" Hungarian and Magyar. So I'm guessing that this is all simply to accommodate self-reporting, and they are making no judgement at all. - Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, note that they do not distinguish. The relevant entry there would be the "Bessarabian" category, which it also identifies as "Romanian" (besides the fact that, as you noted, they speak of "Moldavian", not "Moldovan"); the latter identification also points out to the fact that they do make a judgement. In fact, all subgroups are identified as "Romanian" - the detailing referes solely to where the people came from, not to their ethnicity ("Wallachians" is not an ethnicity, etc.). Note that all parallels in the quoted source address regional identities ("Pomeranian", "North Irish", "Hamburg", "Cyclades" etc.) and only through sheer coincidence of region and ethnoicity ("Channel Islander", "Corsican" etc.). Dahn 07:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It can't be simply about where they come from, or it would have to include Transylvanian. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then, please expalain why it makes a difference between "Romanian" and "Wallachian" (after all, the "predilect Romanians" in popular misconception are Wallachians). I myself am willing to believe that "Romanian" covers "Transylvanian" in this example. And remember: bureaucrats taking the poll don't have to be versed or even smart. Dahn 09:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying I know their intent. I'm only saying two things: (1) TSO1D's statement that they simply "merge" all of these appears not to be correct, or they wouldn't have codes for them. (2) they use Molodavian, but not Transylvanian, so clearly it is not simply place of ancestry. Do I understand what they are doing? No. - Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You have to read the table backwards. Codes are used for collecting the information and possibly for some internal studies, however the published material only contains what they call the description. After all, you don't think the census counts "Lubeckers" or "Berliners" as non-German even though they all have their own ethnic codes. Why they ommited Transylvanian, I have no idea, but they do have "Wallachians" and "Moldavians", but not "Moldovans", which is the only potential ethnic descriptor as opposed to the other ones which are regional categories. You can see the final product here: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U. TSO1D 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The way they set up the codes is actually kind of bizare. Some of the categories are self-evident such as "Magyars" and "Hungarians" both going under "Hungarians", but those who reported their ethnicity as "Montenegrin" are classified as "Macedonians" which I cannot understand at all. TSO1D 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Selfname

As a former citizen of Soviet Union I remember that moldavians called themselves as moldavians. This is my two cents. Of course I understand that propaganda in soviet times was a powerfull gun. So, I'd readed archives of this discusion and didn't find answer to such question: how called themselves people of Principality of Wallachia and how called themselves people of Principality of Moldavia before 1859?

People from Moldavia most likely refered to themselves in Romanian as "moldoveni" and Wallachians- "munteni". It is important to note that at that time the terms had more of a regional than an ethnic meaning. TSO1D 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To complete TSOD's answer, I have to add that, for a huge time in its history, Moldavia coincided with the overwhelming irrelevancy of ethnic concepts in favour of "subject of..." concepts. It is accurate to say that "Romanian" carried no meaning to a regular person living in the 1500s, and possibly little meaning to many persons as late as the 1800s. At the same time, Moldavian intellectuals were among the first in present-day Romania to speak of Latin heritage and cultural links with Transylvania or Wallachia: these were not political programs, however, and their meaning was also irrelevant until ca.1820 (when these parts of Europe were introduced to nationalism). Ethno-nationalism actually followed nationalism, and not the other way around - for example, nationalist boyars of the 1830s in Moldavia invested more in an independent Moldavia than a Moldavia united with Wallachia. This led to the interesting situation where people from Bessarabia would define themselves as "Moldoveni", meaning either "Romanian" or "Moldavian", but virtually never "Moldovan" ("Bessarabian"). In fact, Russia itself unwittingly contributed to establishing links between Moldavia and Wallachia: first, by attempting to block the Moldavian-Bessarabian connection (which forced boyars to view themselves as more and more Moldavian); secondly, by giving Wallachia and Moldavia the first common institutions, and the common goal of tearing them down. All the avatars of Moldovenism, which are truly whimsical and induced by political choices made by Russia or the Soviet Union, followed in this pattern. I must caution people reading this against identifying Moldova with Moldavia: for very practical reasons, these terms and all identities created on the basis of them (Romanian, Moldavian, Moldovan) have remained separate and are to be treated as such (for example, no one can use anti-unionism in 1857 Moldavia as indicative of a Moldovan identity: the former never trully cared about the latter, and probably never cared about ethnical identity in general). Dahn 23:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A very good pamphlet by Dahn. While very good in political history, I mostly see him as a good (anti-nationalistic) ideologist. Well, this is my subjective impression.

More objective remarks: Romanian, in the form "Rumân" did have a meaning in the 1500. Just that the meaning was not national. If I'm not very mistaken, it meant "dependent peasant", and there are some theories concerning the ethymology of it. Second, regardless of political problems, dialectal variation (which was far greater than today), a.s.o., a sense of linguistic identity existed. And I would say that not only the Russians contributed to the creation of the common identity, but also the Phanariotes. And the Phanariotes/Russians treating the two countries similarly is also a sign of their similarity. Dpotop 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I find this whole discussion pointless. It's like discussing who was first among the chicken and the egg. Dpotop 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It was the chicken, the amniotic egg evolved later (though the chicken was a reptile at that point). TSO1D 12:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

and/or in the language section

I don't want to revive an old dispute, but I believe the recent edit warring about this truly trivial matter to be pointless. Personally I favor the version with the slash instead of and/or as that is more neutral. The and/or statement implicitly implies a difference between the two languages, i.e. there are some Moldovans who speak both Moldovan and Romanian but some only speak Moldovan and not Romanian. By writing it Moldovan/Romanian, no such implication exists. TSO1D 18:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My four points:

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 40% of the population of Moldova said that they spoke Romanian, so that leaves around 36% of Moldova's population that say they speak Moldovan. This is not a "tiny minority". We must respect this regardless of the fact that Moldovan and Romanian are the same languages.
• When someone goes to the Moldovan language article, they can see right away that it is the same as the Romanian language.
• The Moldovan government still says that their official language is "Moldovan", not "Romanian". I think that is significant.

Oh, and point four:

• I do not hate Romanians. :-) —Khoikhoi 00:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that less than 40% declared Romanian to be their native tongue, more declared their native language as Moldovan. But that is not my argument. I am not advocating just having Romanian. I fully support including the word Moldovan, but having the and/or part directly implies that the two languages are separate. Having just Moldovan/Romanian, like it is done in the Moldova article is a better idea in my view. The Moldovan/Romanian version was used for most time of the article's existence until Node went on one of his little campaigns and this is just a remnant of his copious edits. TSO1D 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

After repeating "Moldovan and Romanian" and "Moldovan or Romanian" in my head, I see what you mean. I've reverted myself. La revedere... (how do you write it in Cyrillic?) —Khoikhoi 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In Cyrillic la revedere would be ла реведере. TSO1D 03:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some issues

• "People who appear as Moldovans" - Constanzeanu, what did you mean by that? People who wear cushmas? Or carry a sign "I'm Moldovan!" around? The sentence is good enough as is originally was.
• Are there any other parties in Moldova except for the unionists who don't recognize the Moldovan identity?
• The CIA factbook presents the principal nationality of Moldova as "Moldovan/Romanian", 'not' as Romanian. This doesn't mean that no distinction is made, but rather that the agency prefers to remain neutral on the issue (I didn't change anything in the article in this relation, but it does look kind of strange). --Illythr 18:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I reworded that sentence, after I re-read it and realized that in fact it did sound really weird.

About the unionists, well for starters, right now PPCD betrayed the unionist cause, and in fact they no longer advocate for unification, even though they still identify themselves as Romanians. AMN identifies Moldovans as Romanians. The only unionist groups in Moldova right now, are the MURM, of which I donnot know much about since they are a new organization. So to sum it up, yes, other parties also recognize Moldovans to be nothing else but Romanians. Interestingly enough, the Transnistrian Government also agrees that people in Moldova are Romanians and belong to the Romanian cultural sphere. Just consult: pridnestrovie.net. It seems to me, and this is just a personal note, that the only people that keep on maintaining this outragious and Stalinist view are the communists and the Russians (who are scared that admiting that Moldovans are Romanians, will eventually lead to a UNION thus decreasing their political and economic influence). Of course, I am not denying the possibility that some ethnic-Russians might be non-hostile towards the idea of approachment with Romania, while some that are, might have been freaked out by the anti-Romanian propaganda during Soviet times and the post-2001 Communist regime.

Well, most non-resident Russians don't really care. The resident Russians were promised some nasty things during the whole 1989-1992 chain of events that freaked them out much more effectively than any propaganda, so they oppose the union, yes. However, most resident Russians (those I know, at least) are rather apathetic about the Moldovan ethicity question. So are many resident Moldovans, due to disillusionment with nationalism of the early '90s and careful public opinion shifts by the Moldovan government/presidents, who don't really want to become a regional ruling body again. I have actually met some young Moldovans, who said that they were proud of being Moldovan and that anyone claiming that they're in fact Romanians is going to have his face messed up. Such behavior confuses me, because I don't know what Moldovans might have against Romanians, and it's probably rare, but still, it's there. User:Serhio appears to hold a similar view, for example. Without the "face mess up" part, despite repeated attacks by Romanian trolls, I might add.

AMN? MURM? I don't remember seeing them in the election bill last time... Are they really separate political parties or just subcurrents of the PPCD? --Illythr 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

AMN? It's Alianţa Moldova Noastră, surely you must know them. MURM is a new grouping and is still kind of obscure, but not affiliated with the PPCD. TSO1D 01:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm rather apolitical. They weren't here, so I didn't remember. Now I recall them as the rag-tag alliance of parties banded together after a defeat in the last elections. All the current parties seem to be very careful in what they say about nationality. The current trends are "National unity" and "European intergration" worded in such a way as to attract as many different voters as possible. --Illythr 12:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

About your CIA point, I would not say that they are neutral, rather that they equate Moldovans with Romanians. If they would have been neutral they would have said Moldovans and Romanians 78.2%. Here they say Moldovans/Romanians thus implying that Moldovans -slash- Romanians (i.e. same thing) comprise 78.2% of the total population. Dapiks 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case it'd be simpler just to use "Romanians", or "Romanians(Moldovans)" on their page. Slash usually means "and/or", depending on the context. For example, the Russian-speaking minority of Moldova is sometimes (incorrectly) referred to as "Russian/Ukrainian". Then again, after reading through the section above, I think I'll just leave that part as it is until I get a hold of a CIA operative or someone like that. :-) --Illythr 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of a Moldovan ethnicity

Is any editor aware of a non-formerly-soviet state recognizing the Moldovan ethnicity? If not, why the complicated formulation:

"Although not all states recognize the existence of a Moldovan ethnicity, they are, due to the Soviet legacy, officially recognized by several states of the ex-Soviet Union as an ethnic group."

Why not:

"Due to the Soviet legacy, Moldovans are officially recognized as an ethnic group by several states of the ex-Soviet Union. All other countries for which official data is available don't recognize it (this includes the USA, Romania).

Dpotop 14:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"All" is a rather blanketing statement. Can you produce official data (from various countries) that states the the population of Moldova is 78% Romanian? You can replace "All" with "Most", but that would be too vague, you'll still need the official data. The sad truth is - most countries just don't care and will defer to the right of self-determination of Moldovans granted to them by their Constitution (at best) or to some external source such as the CIA factbook (at worst). --Illythr 22:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it is not state's business to recognize or not someone's ethnicity. BTW, you may want to check the Chernivtsi Oblast article in Britannica that lists Moldovans and Romanians separately. --Irpen 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but Britannica represents the view of an encyclopedia, not a state.Dapiks 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Britannica attempts to represent the mainstream view. In most cases it does not fail. --Irpen 01:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not supposed to have its own point of view. If it has one, then it fails its purpose as an encyclopedia. That's why we have all these NPOV drives and wars over here... :-) --Illythr 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Illythr, do you have official data for at least one country that is not ex-soviet, and which talks about Moldovan ethnicity? I presume no. Therefore, my statement is correct, and there's no original research. This is not about Britannica or something else. It's about wikipedia rules. The current formulation is needlessly vague. What *we* know is that outside the former USSR none of us could find an official recognition or record of Moldovan ethnicity different from Romanian. Dpotop 15:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Illythr and Irpen, I would not give up the crusade though. Look you can try to find out if the Dominion of Melchizedek or Sealand recognize the Moldovan ethnic group.Dapiks 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I intended to use this argument against your reasoning. Since DPotop is the one to write All other countries, would he be so kind and produce official data from Vanuatu,San Marino or Burkina Faso, stating that the current population of Moldova is ethnically Romanian? Is is it just Romania and USA (CIA) that have official data in the issue?

Thing is, Moldova recognizes it. Moldovans certainly didn't spring up from nowhere, they are obviously descendants of Romanians who lived here for ages. They have been forcibly separated from their host nation by Stalin, who induced a harsh denationalization policy, and then Khrushchev promoted the Moldovan nationality as part of the "Rastsvet Natsii"(Rise of the Nations) (no, not the game :-) ). Now, however, Moldovans are free to decide for themselves (supposedly), so it should be up to them to decide who they are, not foreign entities. And yes, Romania is now a foreign entity, too. As for crusade - I am not the one making changes now, you know.

Now, for something constructive. Here:

"The recognition of Moldovans as a separate ethnicity, distinct from Romanians, is a relatively new and controversial subject. Before the annexation of Bessarabia by the USSR in 1940, there was no such thing as a Moldovan ethnic group. Today, this group is recognized as a minority ethnic group by several CIS countries."
(My changes are italicized)

I dug this sentence out of an old version of this article, and it looks more or less neutral and objective to me. Why not use it instead of potentially POV blanket statements? --Illythr 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's OK for me. It's the factual truth, as we all know it (and therefore it's also NPOV). Dpotop 16:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Illythr. Dahn 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

the text is false in many parts in its simplicity and clumsiness. The notion of "ethnic group" is a "relatively new and controversial" sociological construct. Arguably there were "moldoveni" in ages ancient. They called themselves "moldovans" called their langauge "limba moldoveneasca" and land "tara moldoveneasca". Anyway, it is gone, no reason to rerun all arguments why it was killed. `'mikkanarxi 19:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The very notion that nationality carried a meaning anywhere in the area before 1800 is ridiculous. What goes for Romanians goes for "Moldovans". And I challenge anyone to come up with an explanation of how come the Moldovan identity survived only in what had been merely the backward corner of the Principality, incidentally under an encouraging Russian administration that Mikka seems determined to ignore (despite the fact that, the moment the latter was gone, the large majority of Bessarabians opted to join Romania - coincidentally, at a time when Romania had just been defeated in a World War).

Current identities, freely expressed and, yes, always subject to probable change, are beyond dispute. Any projection into the past is absurd and artificial. Let me add this: given the data subject to the analysis of all people who are able to read, the Moldovan identity appears to be the more artificial of the two; it makes little sense to question it today, but any idea supporting it as "traditional" deserves no real attention. Dahn 19:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, a standard Romanian disrespect towards moldovans: "backward corner of the Principality". This says it all. This has been seen throughout the history. This is reflected in Romanian humor, where Moldovans are depicted as rustic, stupid and clumsy. FUI, eg Ukraine has long been a "backward corner" of Russian Empire, but the ethnicity survived despite efforts of Russification, quite severe several times. `'mikkanarxi 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I urge you not to misinterpret me, not to select one word I have said out of the many, and not to jump to conclusions. For starters, my contributions and contacts with other Romanian users would at the very least not make my statements "standard Romanian whatever". Secondly, I have asked you a direct and simple question, one which you refuse to answer: how come the "Moldovan ethnicity" "survived" only in what was the least populous, least prosperous, least relevant corner of the Principality (look it up: no important cities or towns, no manufactures, and no roads until 1812; it was also largely ignored by Moldavian princes), and not in the place that housed Moldavia's capital (in fact, all of the capitals Moldavia ever had), with by far the bigger part of Moldavia's population, and with the most compact population (even from an ethnic perspective). Interestingly, traditional Moldavia voted to join Wallachia and form Romania (it may interest you to know that, initially, Wallachia voted against). In fact, with or without the discrepancies, Bessarabia (Bessarabia's Soviet!) also opted to join Romania in 1918.

In fact, it appears that people in Bukovina who declare themselves "Romanian" outnumber "Moldovans" by much... So, if one is to look for the "real Moldovan/Moldavian identity", he is to find that it is "preserved" not in Iaşi, not in Chernivtsi, but in Tighina and Criuleni, and ONLY there!... Dahn 20:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh: unless you aim to prove that the Ukrainian identity was once spread all the way to the Urals or something, and that it currently survives only in Ukraine, that argument about them has no relevancy in hell. Dahn 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot refer to "wikipedians" in wikipedia article. Believe me or not, but wikipeida is not a reliable source! :-) `'mikkanarxi 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole argument whether other countries recognize the Moldovan etnicity is an outright ridiculous. Countries official position have no business in this matter. We have reliably recorded results of people's self-identification. We also have scholarly sources (eg. Britannica) that confirm that such notion as Moldovans exists. This should settle the issue for the reasonable people. --Irpen 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that view, per the issues I have raised before and just above. Dahn 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

it seems to me that Dahn argues with just about anything that our "Slavic friends" have to say on the matter.

It seems to me that you cannot read. Dahn 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the anon meant "agrees", not "argues". ;-) --Illythr 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. In either case, Bonaparte cannot read long texts ;). Dahn 22:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Relatively new and controversial...

The national awakening began around 1800 in Moldavia and Wallachia (perhaphs a few decades earlier in Transylvania, but that's outside of our context). Talking before that about ethnicity is not relevant, because people thought they belonged to their local community more than to a statal or suprastatal entity.

People identified themselves by their region, as "Vrânceni", "Olteni", "Moroşeni", "Moldoveni", etc. "Moldavians" started as one of these regional names and spread farther than the others. (if anyone cares, the name is derived from the market town of "Târgul Moldovei", on the Moldova River)

However, none of these regional self-identifications overrode completely "Romanian/Rumanian". Even the medieval Moldavians chronicles of the 1600s said that "Rumanians" and "Rumanian language" were deemed synonyms of "Moldavians" and "Moldavian language". In fact, Miron Costin argued that the "Rumanian language" was more common than "Moldavian language".

bogdan 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dimitrie Cantemir (around the 1700s) also said that same thing in his History of Moldova.Dapiks 05:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that whenever someone tries to post something that Khoikhoi, Irpen and mikka do not agree with, they are automatically declared sockpuppets of Bonaparte by the very same people? I am not saying that Tunglestein is not Bonni but how can we be so sure about that? Dapiks 21

53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I am a rouge admin. Khoikhoi 21:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bonaparte claims he was *not* Trudelstein and that there is an impostor who is using his modus operandi. :-) bogdan 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He denies all the rest of them as well. :p Khoikhoi 05:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate to stir this again...

...but I believe the article needs to be clearer on:

1. Distinguishing a Moldovan ethnic identity based on the present-day state of Moldova or its Soviet precursors from one based on the entire historic principality (including the portions now in Romania and Ukraine.
2. Indicating the extent to which these two distinct constructions of Moldovan ethnic identity each have support (1) within the Republic of Moldova, (2) within Romania, (3) among Romanian-speakers (or, if you prefer, Moldovan-speakers) in Ukraine, (4) elsewhere in the CIS, and (5) elsewhere in the world.

I know that's a tall order, especially the latter, but if this is going to be a genuinely useful article, I believe all of that needs to be done. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I would only want to cite the work of Dimitrie Cantemir, one of the only Romanians who could be called a late Illuminist, "Descriptio Moldaviae", who ,while in exile..somewhere around Peter the Great's entourage..(so we're talking about the 1700) wrote that thelanguage of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia was in fact the same. I would also like to m,ention that Dimitrie Cantemir had been "Voievod" of Moldavia, and his origins Moldavian. In fact he also talked about the existence of the Romanian Dialects south of Danube, acknolidging them and their speakers, as Romanians...but that#s off topic now..

Dimitrie Cantemir

dimitrie Cantemir#s Descriptio moldaviae!!...Besides while writing in different languages (greek, turkish, Russian, LAtin) he never used "MOldavian" , but indeed he wrote some books; while using ROMANIAN

besides..no one in Austria thought about having an Austiran language! Even though the dialectal differences from "Hochdeutsch" are greater than those between Romanian and the Moldovan speech (grai) not dialect!.. because, as linguist say, the Romanian language north of the danube is a continous dialect, differences between regional speeches are smaller than those in German or Italian..Not to mention spanish, where the dialect-language line has been crossed to often. {{subst:unsigned|84.159.234.54|15 January 2007}

My changes

First of all, there are my addition of {{fact}} tags. This isn't something anyone should revert -- if you don't like it, add references (it is relatively unspecific and slightly dubious -- nobody believed in any sort of form of a Moldovan ethnicity at all before the USSR? really? it's a bit more ambiguous than that, I think)

Second of all, there is a minor syntactical fix I made so that a sentence sounds more natural "Today, outside of Moldova..." to "Outside of Moldova... currently".

Finally, I removed the word "officially" in the part about the census... it already says "according to the census". The census is official, that is already implied, we don't need to have that word in there.

...on a side note, I did a lengthy interview for a possible forthcoming documentary on Wikipedia, including a short part where I spoke in Moldovan (or did I use Romanian? I don't recall! ;-p). I hope they don't cut it, it would be fun if the world got to see that. You guys can laugh at either me or at yourselves, depending. --Node 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Moldovans

So I see there are 3.200.000 moldovans. Yes, there are realy 3,2 moldovans, but there are also 5,5 Transylvanians. So why there is no freak from Cluj or Sibiu or whatever that makes a site for the Translylvanian people? You know why? Because they are just de inhabitants of a region and ethnic romanians. That's also in RM. In Moldova there are around 2,8 milion moldovans. But what about the moldovans from Romania? In Romania you have about 5 milion Moldovans. Why does this fool, who made this site, not accumulate those 5 milion to the total of 3,2mil moldovans.

And another question. Some elder moldovans lived also in Greater Romania. What about them? Were they first romanians and became afterwards fellow moldovans??

Please, wikipedia, delete these anti-romania sites and be a serious and obiective encyclopdia.

Greets —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.95.65.76 (talk • contribs) 16 March 2007.

From the official site of the Ministry of Culture and Tourismof Moldova: Moldova is a European Country, which has a rich ethnic history. The majority of the population are Moldovans (Romanians), but the following national minorities live on this territory too: Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Gagauzians, Russians, Germans, Greeks, and others. See here the source: [1] --Olahus 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition

A small dispute started between Russian leader and Dahn; the latter being very familiar with all kind of disputes and has the habbit to make changes without first discussing them. But that's a part of his nature and no natural force can change that, so let's get down to business. Is this article about the ethnical Moldovans (excluding the Slavic population) or is it about all citizens of Moldova? I would say that it is about the ethnical Moldovans, as the article also suggests:

The recognition of Moldovans as a separate ethnicity, distinct from Romanians, is a relatively new and controversial subject.

However, how do we know whether those Moldovans who live in Portugal, and which Russian leader added to the list, and who may be of Slavic origin, do not view themselves as Moldovans? Just like in the article on Romanians, those who report that they are Romanians (in the census) are counted as Romanians and as such, are included in the Wiki article as Romanians--even though they may have different origins. How do we know that this is not the case here, as well? --Thus Spake Anittas 09:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fallacy. The issue here is simple: we know that it did not count ethnic Moldovans, since that was not the criterion used; if they should all happen to be Moldovan ethnics, we still have no assurance that they are. So, until a source tells us that there are "x ethnic Moldovans" in Portugal, that material is irrelevant. As for the Romanians article and what it did, similar "sources" there are bound to be deleted, per the talk page there. Dahn 10:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and since we're on the subject, if a non-Moldovan ethnic would report that he is Moldovan ethnic--like many Rromas in Bucharest, who report they are Romanian, do in the census, we would have to take that into consideration and count them as Moldovan ethnics. This is what you said to be on the Romanians talkpage:

"Anittas, everyone who declared himself/herself Romanian is included in the 19,409,400."

Can the same logic apply to Moldovans? As in anyone born in Moldova can declare himself Moldovan, regardless of his origin? (All except someone else on this Wikipedia who was not born in Moldova and who is not Moldovan and who doesn't speak Moldovan.) --Thus Spake Anittas 13:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, why are you persistently asking me to explain the obvious? The only way to determine ethnicity is self-definition. There is no criterion other than that - in the real world (were legislation is drawn on the basis of that) and on wikipedia (where speculations of any other nature are infringements of WP:OR). As far as perceivable reality goes (at least, in the modern world), there is no ethnicity other than self-declared ethnicity and there is no institution that would determine who is and who isn't an ethnic Romanian (thank God for that). Are we just about done moving around in circles here? And, just to clarify once and for all, the options are not the ones I or you can postulate/imagine, but the ones recorded in the census. If people are asked to provide their ethnicity and reply Moldovan, they are Moldovans; if they declare Romanians, they are Romanians; etc. Speculation about "what else they might consider themselves" does not belong in articles, but feel free to start a blog if you want to. Dahn 13:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm not so sure about your idea that "the only way to determine ethnicity is self-definition." In Sweden, for example, one can become a Swedish citizen and define himself as Swedish, but SÄPO holds records of your origin and those foreigners who, for example marry a Swede and have children--their children will also be recorded as having partial foreign ethnicity. If that child will marry another Swede and their upcoming children will only marry with Swedes, then after 6 generations they will be counted as pure Swedes. That may sound a bit extreme, but your idea sounds even more extreme. You make it to sound as if one can determine what ethnicity he belongs just by wishing for it, without having any links to it. This topic doesn't interest me too much. I just wanted to be nice and give you two a chance to discuss the issue. You know what being nice means, right? Like being friendly, showing goodwill, being generous, carring, etc. Everything that you're not. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The SÄPO argument mixes apples and oranges: if true, it is still about people who received citizenship and their descendants, not about ethnicity in the absence of another citizenship. My solution is not extreme, it is simply unavoidable (it is not "going to be so if I have my way", it is so, and there is little you can do about it).

Thank you for the suggestions, but, for as long as wikipedia doesn't adopt the omertà, I will continue to feel bound by my conscience, not by unwritten "codes". Dahn 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say, but I don't think I suggested you anything, so I have no idea what you're talking about omelets and stuff. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Anittas, great material. You should have your own show or something. I can only hope this conversation is over, but if you want to squeeze in one more punchline, feel free to do so. Dahn 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked the site and they seem to be aware of the difference between ethnicity and citizenship.

Imigrantes de países latinos:

Roménia: 10.926 legais (2003)

Moldávia: 12.632 legais (2003)

And...

4.Diferenciação étnica. Actualmente (2004), em termos de grandes esteriótipos, tende a opôr-se os imigrantes "ucranianos" aos "romenos". Os primeiros representam a elite dos imigrantes do leste, os segundos são conotados negativamente, devido à sua identificação com os "ciganos romenos". Esta distinção traduz a existência de dois grandes grupos étnicos: os grupo dos eslavos (Ucranianos, Russos, Bulgaros) e o grupo dos latinos (romenos e moldavos).

--Thus Spake Anittas 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, what does "em termos de grandes esteriótipos" have to with the numbers, which, as you may clearly see ("Imigrantes de países latinos", not "Imigrantes latinos de..."), relies on citizenship. In fact, comment 4 itself is there because, if assessing ethnicity, people should not rely on citizenship (otherwise, it would make no sense). Dahn 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on Dahn, you know just as good as I that Moldovan ethnicity is based on really fague and irrantional arguments. They are just like Romanians from the same subgroup and were created by the soviets as a separate nation. We all know that they have almost everything in common with romanians, including the language, great parts of history and a lot of rites. If that isn't enough to be the same ethnic group, than it's clear to me that this ethnic-moldovans an moldovan language bullshit is all created by a communist regime. And if we accept those ideas, than we have indeed a new ethnic group. I find it a bit scarrying that we permit and accept so easy ideas of a romanofobe regime.

---

I think it's obvious that the Romanian living in the romanian region called Moldova and the people calling themselves Moldovans in the Republic of Moldova are the same group. In fact they claim the same people as their cultural heritage (Stefan cel Mare, Mihai Eminescu, etc..) and they inhabit the 2 roughly equal sides of the old Principality. The question is more "what is an etnic group ?". A western-moldovean will call himself "moldovean" too but he will aslo consider himself romanian by contrast to say a hungarian-speaking inhabitant of Transilvania. It is understood that there's some major groups of romanians: ardeleni, moldoveni, munteni, olteni, maramureseni, moldoveni and banateni. Are they enthnic groups ? Well if you want to argue on the basis of language, major cultural differences, genetic differences even, things like that it dosen't really hold. But if you want to argue on the basis of self-identification then the moldovan census says so. The big problem is that a romanian-side person will also call himself "moldovean" without meaning ethnicity but rather origin. Not to mention since the country is called "Republic of Moldova", "moldovan" also refers to nationality. --141.85.252.73 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 22:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Moldovans or Moldovans (as a regional/ethnic/sub-ethnic group)

If this article is about the former, then it shouldn't even mention Moldovans from Romania, who by the way see themselves as ethnic-Romanians (as Dahn pointed out: The only way to determine ethnicity is self-definition). Well just as Moldovans from Moldova self-indentify themselves as ethnic Moldovans (according to the 2004 census) then so do Moldovans from Romania indentify themselves as ethnic Romanians in official Romanian censuses. If the article is about the latter (i.e. the term in general), then that box in the top-right corner should not be there since the article talks about the term "Moldovan", which depending on one's interpretation can mean a regional or ethnic identity. We don't have articles on Texans, Virginians, Ontarians, Bavarians with boxes in the top-right corner counting how many of them exist on planet Earth. Dapiks (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, those Virginians, Ontarians etc are not considered a distinct ethnic group anywhere in the world either, AFAIK. As for Romanian Moldovans, I'm not sure why Olahus brought them in, but I vaguely remember Voronin complaining about Romanian "suppression" of their self-identification, so it could be that they are considered an ethnic group by Moldovan leadership. Seeing as how the whole issue is pretty controversial and that the only real support for the "separate ethnic group" idea comes from current leadership of Moldova, I suppose the Romanian Moldovans can be included or at least mentioned somehow. --Illythr (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My last edit

One, that "declare themselves" sentence stresses that they declare themselves Romanians and not Moldovans. Which is kinda like soapboxing. A more neutral statement of the obvious, something along the paragraph above would be better, if at all necessary.
Two, Moldovenism as a Soviet policy was introduced in 1924 by Kotovskiy &Co, not after the 1940 annexation (at which point it was extended into Bessarabia). --Illythr (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here was my misunderstanding and by the weird statements in the lead: yes, it is true that people in Romanian Moldavia declare themselves Romanians, but why they should be included in this article at all is beyond me. The lead could perhaps be edited further to make this article simply about people who declare themselves Moldovan in Moldova, Ukraine etc.; opinions about how they are Romanian and about how people throughout Moldavia are Moldovan (the former being a traditional POV in Romania, the latter being the most extreme and counter-factual) should be weighed for relevancy, discussed in the text, and only summarized in the lead as to other interpretations of a fact. The fact here being that there are people who call themselves Moldovan. Dahn (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See my response to Constantzeanu above, but I would use self-expression as the main inclusion criterion as well. --Illythr (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, to the measure where they are attested, all points of view merit mention. However, it's important to keep a balance: just as people who declare themselves Moldovan should not automatically be considered Romanian because such is what (many) Romanians claim and what they themselves may dismiss or be indifferent to, so should the supposed Moldovenist POV on the whole of Moldavia/on Romanian Moldavia not be taken as the basis for the article. Especially since the latter is ambiguously expressed: it would be very hard to argue that the Moldovan state officials, for example, have ever seriously and consistently claimed the Moldovan ethnicity is to be found on both sides of the Prut. And even if they were to, it would still be just the sound of one hand clapping.

In any case, it is obvious that this article is currently in a very poor state, and that every section of it needs a lot of work. Dahn (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

MOLDOVEÁN, -Ă, moldoveni, -e s.m. şi f., adj. 1. S.m. şi f. Persoană care face parte din populaţia de bază a Moldovei sau este originară de acolo; moldav. 2. Adj. Care aparţine Moldovei sau moldovenilor (1), privitor la Moldova sau la moldoveni, originar din Moldova; moldovenesc, moldav. – Moldova (n. pr.) + suf. -ean. The source.

Estimations are very well accepted in Wikipedia. See, for example, the article Roma people. --Olahus (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. This is about the definition of the word in English, not in Romanian - meaning that what you link to is a definition of "Moldavians"; 2. Even in Romanian, the ethnic and regional terms have become homonyms, but not synonyms; 3. Have a look through WP:OR. Dahn (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. . The word "Moldavians" is a synomim of the word "Moldovans"

   Oxford English Dictionary doesn't think that. According to OED, in current usage, Moldovan refers to the Republic of Moldova, while Moldavian refers to the whole Moldavia. It refers the usage of Moldovan as "someone from Moldavia" as "obsolete" (it has a citation from 1835). bogdan (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and how old is the term "Moldovan" ? --Olahus (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. . From the moldovenist POV, even the Moldovans from eastern Romania are ethnic Moldovans (as from the Romanian POV even the Moldovans from Bessarabia are an ethnic subgroup of Romanians).

   If at all present, that claim is marginal, and has nothing to do with the fact that people declare themselves Moldovan in censuses - in their case, just as little more can be claimed about them "not being" what they declare, so is it illegitimate to presume that they could claim this identity for someone who does not. Not to mention that no such option is listed among the census questions, so there is no way of telling if they would actually claim it for anybody else - as a rule, or at all. Welcome to the modern world. Dahn (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Estimations are very well accepted in Wikipedia. Just see the template on the article Roma people. --Olahus (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. . It's not an orginal research, as you can read in the sources i already presented. Your own POV is that what you are trying to say: the Moldovans from Romania and those from Moldova are 2 separate nations. This POV is claimed by nobody. Not in Romania and not in Moldova. --Olahus (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

   Olahus, you sure are confused. First of all, do me the favor of not guessing about in respect to my POV. My POV is not that they are separate ethnicities - I presume that is what you wanted to say. I don't even care to express myself and my opinions in terms of nation, ethnicity, race, and I see little factual backing for each "concept". But, word of caution: I have informed myself on these issues, and I do not impose this view on anyone else. This is my POV, and it does not even come into play here.

   That the Moldovan and Romanian identity are different for all purposes of this article is a given. It is established by the fact that, when asked a question, some people answer "A" and not "B". You may hold the POV that A can also be B, and thus do away with centuries of tradition in the art of logic, but, as you know, ulterior interpretations are always based on sources that specifically state them, and only presented in the text as alternatives, if the opinion should prove at all relevant and if it is actually to be found in sources. This is not my POV, this is common sense and basic logic, and in strict conformity with what wikipedia requires of its editors.

   Your claim is that, to paraphrase, "Moldovans from Romania and those from Moldova are not 2 separate nations". Let's summarize the reasons why you're wrong, or perhaps the evidence that you're willingly twisting basic facts: 1) there are, to date, no Moldovans in Romania, recorded or otherwise (whatever can be imagined by that otherwise) - except, of course, the name "Moldovans" as used for "citizens of Moldova" for some expatriates who may or may not be among those who consider themselves ethnically Moldovan; 2) the Moldovan identity, like all others, relies on self-definition, and that self-definition is known to exist; 3) the POV that people in Romanian Moldavia are also Moldovan is marginal, hardly ever attested, and not in explicitly connected with the self-definition as evidenced by the census (obviously, since such an issue was never and could never have been subject to a census). Now, are we just about done? Dahn (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Moldova (the principality) is often called in the englisch language "Moldovan Principality". What are the inhabitants of this principality? The are Moldovans. The terms "Moldova" and "Moldavia", as well as the terms "Molovans" and "Moldavians" are synonyms. (a similar case in the german language "Moldau/Moldawien" and "Moldauer/Moldawier"). Ca sa-ti explic mai clar: atat oamenii de la est de Prut, cat si cei de la vest de Prut sunt moldoveni. Nici in Republica Moldova, nici in Romania nu se pune problema "unde traiesc moldovenii" ci "ce sunt moldovenii". Moldovenistii afirma ca moldovenii ar fi o etnie separata de cea romanii, pe cand in Romania (dar si partial in R. Moldova) ei sunt priviti ca fiind un subgrup etnic regional al poporului roman. Articolul de fata trebuie sa reflecte aceasta situatie. Ideea ca populatia dintre Prut si Carpati ar apartine altei etnii decat cea dintre Prut si Nistru nu este sustinuta nici in Romania, dar nici in Moldova, iar continutul articolului de fata nu poate fi considerat deloc neutru in forma actuala. Propunerea mea de interpretare este f. simpla, dar mai ales neutra: moldovenii sunt populatia de baza a fostului Principat Moldovenesc si numara aprox. 8-9 mil. persoane. In Romania ei sunt priviti d.p.v. oficial ca fiind o parte a poporului roman, iar in R.Moldova ca o etnie separata de cea romana, dar strans inrudita cu aceasta. Articolul de fata trebuie sa reflecte aceasta situatie, dar din pacate tu si Bogdan il infestati cu puncte de vedere care difera complet de cel oficial (romanesc si molodvenesc). Repet: in forma actuala, articolul NU este caracterizat de neutralitate. --Olahus (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Om bun, ţi-am răsouns deja la tot ce conta. Nu faci decât să-mi repeţi aceleaşi lucruri, care nu au nici o importanţă aici, şi să lansezi verdicte care nu se bazează pe nici un fel de argumente. Mi-e greu să cred că poţi confunda subiecte evident distincte în aşa hal, că nu poţi distinge între un etnonim prezent în ambele limbi (engleză şi română) şi un omonim prezent numai în română, sau măcar între o limbă şi alta (engleză şi română). Te rog nu mă face să cred că o faci cu scopul de a da peste cap articolul ăsta printr-un experiment personal. Dacă totuşi asta urmăreşti, lasă-mă să te informez că, datorită unor reguli clare de pe wikipedia, singurul rezultat al unui asemenea experiment ar fi că vei irosi ceva din timpul fiecărui editor de bună credinţă. I answered in Romanian, though I discourage it, only because it is manifest that my past replies went past you, and because you have used it above. However, I wish to express my opinion that, just I do not go on the Kiswahili wikipedia to comment there in English, so should users who prefer Romanian at least give themselves a chance to polish up the English language they pretend to speak. Dahn (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dahn, I will return to this issue in a few weeks, because I can bring sources to proove that what I do sustain. --Olahus (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you people restoring false and non-neutral information? Someone sent me an e-mail and told me that I can report people that restore false information more than 3 times, but I'm new here, and I don't know the procedures here. Xasha (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

That is absolutely ridiculous. You have no way of knowing which Moldovans do or don't use Cyrillic script. It was certainly significant in the history of this ethnic group; it is still used by many undoubtedly who left Moldova prior to 1989, which is the majority of the diaspora, that includes hundreds of thousands if not millions of people scattered around the globe. It also includes hundreds of thousands of people educated in Transnistrian school (although you claim they were "forced" to it). It is certainly NOT undue weight. In fact, if you want to argue undue weight, why don't we just delete this article because of the peoples of the world, Moldovans are such a tiny fraction they don't matter? --Node (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source as the basis for anything in that speculation, or are you just appealing to probability?

Before you embark on another of your trademark diatribes, word of caution: I never said anything about Moldovans not counting etc, and it matters naught to this topic how many of them all there are in the world. Moldovans, as a rule, use the Latin alphabet to express whatever is the language they call their own. Moldova has an Academy that regulates spelling and other matters. You want to contrast that rule, bring up some evidence that the supposed phenomenon you claim exists is real and noticeable. Until then, and at this point in time, the article does indicate the Cyrillic script in the text, to its place per the due weight policy. Dahn (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As a rule? Says who? Moldova? Moldova is in charge of a country, not a people that includes a large diaspora population. --Node (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Node_ue, there's no National Academy to regulate the Cyrillic script and that script is not used in Transnistria in publishing because there's no any Moldovan-language press there and in the last 10 years not even one book in "Moldovan" with Cyrillic script was published. bogdan (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ethnic specialists

" Until the 1920s, specialists generally considered the Moldovans a subgroup or regional group of the Romanian ethnos." What exactly does that mean? What specialists are there in regards to ethnicity, and how exactly would they establish that? TSO1D (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Maybe change to "...Moldovans were considered..."? --Illythr (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of ethnologists? Xasha (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that it's not as though ethnic groups can be "scientifically" separated, it's primarily based on how people identify themselves. Of course, these definitions have shifted over time, and in the nineteenth century for instance these categories were given much greater meaning as meaningful distinctions, however now that text just sounds a bit archaic. TSO1D (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a book that says that, it's OK, but now we have a source that documents only the opinion of those specialists, not of the population.Xasha (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

'Moldovans' in Romania

The article still contains the biased opinion of some users that a small number was greater then 3 people (which the surce given actually mentions)

A new sentence has popped up, stating that in the Romanian census, people who have stated that they are moldovans have been recorded as Romanians. Wrong! The source given only states that "in case of someone claiming to be Maramureshan, Oltenian, Transylvanian, Moldovan, Dobrudjan, Mountainian, then record them as Romanians. It does not say whether people actually chose to declare themselves as such. Dapiks (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

1.The source says about delegation of three... representing a group (I think Dahn's already mentioned this somewhere around here...). No actual estimation of the group's numbers is given.

2.Erm. Please clarify the difference between "claim to be" and "declare to be". --Illythr (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Apparently, Dapiks took this as an indication that I support the movement or think it is somewhat relevant for a picture larger than this article. To clarify: I do not. I also don't yet have a set opinion about whether the source quoted for this issue in the article is in any way reliable (it may be, or it may not - I for one did not look into this at all). Furthermore, I did provide Dapiks with a link to a reliable source (BBC), which shows that the organization of Moldovans in Romania is minor and very controversial, and where it is shown that, as we stand, it is not clear if the body is actually functioning. I won't comment any further on the nature of Dapiks' reply to my post, except to say that it got him an only warning from the administrators, and that, incidentally, it shows Dapiks to be in a sort of "not with me, therefore against me"-type confusion.

If I did not spend any more time trying to make this article better and adding necessary sources that would lead to a neutral perspective and cite all sides, it is because my AGF is wearing really thin when it comes to tis type of stubborn and counterproductive POV-pushing. Dahn (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The last Romanian census included people who declared themselves Moldovans ("moldoveni") in the Romanian population, claiming they are not a "real ethnic group". - I think this sentence should be reworded in a more neutral manner. Perhaps just "People who declared themselves Moldovans in the last Romanian census were counted as Romanians." --Illythr (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Dahn (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done the deed. Still, this can use a lot of improvement. --Illythr (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"People who declared themselves Moldovans in the last Romanian census were counted as Romanians." - but no source actually mentions that people who declared themselves Moldovans were counted as Romanians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.181.217 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt for now, but then I'm going to go for a usercheck on this IP, as what is happening here is somewhat less than coincidental. Dahn (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Romanian self names revert war

Ok, as an attempt at stopping this revert war, I'm pulling Constantzeanu's additions to the talk page where you guys can discuss what's wrong with it and stuff:

Removed by Constantzeanu:
In the second half of the 19th cenury, the population from Ottoman-dominated Moldavia began using the appellative "Romanian", movement which was not mirrored in Bessarabia, where the Romance-speaking population continued to consider itself Moldovan.

Added by Constantzeanu:
The self-designation of Romanians living in Transilvania, Wallachia and the Principality of Moldova as Romans is mentioned in scholarly works as early as the 16th century by mainly Italian humanists travelling to those principalities. Thus, Tranquillo Andronico writes in 1534 that Romanians (Valachi) "now call themselves Romans". In 1532, Francesco della Valle accompanying Governor Aloisio Gritti to Transylvania, Walachia and Moldavia notes that Romanians preserved the name of the Romans (Romani) and "they call themselves in their language Romanians (Romei)". He even cites the sentence "Sti rominest ?" ("do you speak Romanian ?" for originally Rom.: "ştii româneşte ?"). Ferrante Capeci writes around 1575 that the inhabitants of those Provinces call themselves “Romanians”, while Pierre Lescalopier notes in 1574 that those inhabiting Walachia, Moldavia and the most part of Transylvania say to be descendants of Romans, calling their language "romanechte" (French transcription for Romanian româneşte - Romanian).

Other first-hand evidence about the name Romanians used to call themselves comes from authors having lived in the Romanian principalities. For example, Anton Verancsics writes around 1570 that Romanians living in Transylvania, Moldavia and Walachia call themselves Romans (Romanians) and Martinus Szent-Ivany cites in 1699 Romanian expressions: "Sie noi sentem Rumeni" (for originally Rom.: "Şi noi suntem români") and "Noi sentem di sange Rumena" (for originally Rom.: "Noi suntem de sânge român")

Discussion

Thoughts, comments, complains, all go here.
As a personal take, I don't see the point of demonstrating that one weird nationalist idea can be surpassed by other, even more weird ones. Seeing as how Constantzeanu's point is to show that the self-name "Romanian" has existed in Bessarabia before 19. century, perhaps a one-two sentence summary about the existence of dissenting views can be made. --Illythr (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, maybe this map from 1816 can help somehow. --Olahus (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Was this map published in the region of Moldavia Bessarabia? --Illythr (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, in Leipzig (now Germany). The author wasn't a Romanian, but a Greek. --Olahus (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it'll help, then, as the dispute focuses on how the inhabitants of that specific region called themselves. --Illythr (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but the question should remain "Was this map published in the region of Moldavia?" (until 1812 never existed a difference between the territories est of the Prut river and those west of the Prut river). --Olahus (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha's source specifically differentiates them. I'm just correcting my statement based on my understanding of the apparent dispute. --Illythr (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What source are you talking about? --Olahus (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No.1 in the reflist above.--Illythr (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you mean Cristina Petrescu, "Contrasting/Conflicting Identities:Bessarabians, Romanians, Moldovans" in Nation-Building and Contested Identities, Polirom, 2001, pg. 157 ??? --Olahus (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement gives that particular book as a source. Is there something wrong with it? --Illythr (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there's nothing wrong with the book. Only your interpretation of this book is wrong. The contrasting/conflicting indentities between the lands located east of the river Prut and those located west of the river started to occur only in the 19th century when eastern Moldavia (called by the Russians "Bessarabia") became Russian. --Olahus (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea of the book's contents, so I don't interpret anything here. If the book does not support the statement it is used for, feel free to explain this here. --Illythr (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The book does support the statement it is used for. I rather think they are things you don't understand. The Moldavian principality united with Wallachia in 1859 and the new state Romania was born, while Bessarabia remained russian. --Olahus (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point was to demonstrate whether Bessarabians began using the self-name "Romanian" at the same time as in the west or at some later time. If that book is correct, then what's the problem? I see that Constantzeanu's version does not explicitly refute the part he kept deleting. --Illythr (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being absent and not elucidating my actions. The reason why I had a problem with the sentence introduced there is because the article on Moldovans presents 2 histories: One under Moldovan ethnos theory and the Romanian identity- clearly states that the Romanians in all 3 principalities have used the name "Romanians" to identify themselves ever since the 15-16th century (at least) and provides a few sources to back that up. However, under History, the sentence (backed by a source which is not available online in order to be validated) which I replaced seems to make the exact opposite type of argument in the case of Moldova and Bessarabia. I do not have any problem with more arguments being presented, especially in the case of such a controversial article. However, I think both viewpoints should be presented and under the same section in order to avoid confusing the reader even further. Dapiks (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that you pointed me to that section, I see that the piece you've been inserting is pretty much a direct copy from there - creating a redundancy. Second, they don't necessarily contradict each other, as Moldavia was pretty big and the way people called themselves in its western part may have caused the author to extrapolate the notion to all of it. On the other hand, that book by Cristina Petrescu refers specifically to Bessarabia. Here, I've found it online. Looks a pretty serious, neutral and in-depth research to me. --Illythr (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, I never doubted the fact that there are sources/theories which indicate that Moldovans in the east called themselves something different than Moldovans west of the Pruth River. The Soviets had the same theory - Moldovenism. And that's fine - it should be included here as well. However, this theory/account does contrast with the one I am point out to. The one I am pointing to mentions that Romanians in "Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldova(all of it - east and west since they make reference to the pre-1812 partition) have called themselves 'Romanians' ever since the 16th C. The one you have found the source for says that people in Bessarabia have called themselves 'Moldovans'. And for this reason I think both should be presented. This should be done not by putting them under different sub-sections of the article - that would just confuse the reader. I think both theories/histories should be included under the same sub-section - be it 'History' or 'Moldovan ethnos theory and the Romanian identity' . Dapiks (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read that paper, you can see that the author doesn't support the "Moldovan ethnos theory" - she clearly indicates that it was the Soviet authorities who sought to create it since 1924, and concludes that Moldovans (meaning Bessarabians) are, in fact, Romanians (last page). However, unlike most of the other sources I read about this, it doesn't treat Moldovans as a homogenous people that somehow manages to express its will "as one", but points out that "Romanianness" was important only to a tiny group of elites within the population. The peasants, who formed the vast majority of the population just didn't care (and from my own observations, I can add that little has changed in that regard in the new millennium). As such, I am inclined to consider this source's picture of rural Bessarabia as the closest to reality, as opposed to nationalist tales of "brotherly union everyone but the (few) communist dogs loved" or Soviet tales of "borgeois occupation everyone but the (few) imperialist pigs hated". Besides, the part you want to insert is already present in the article. --User:Illythr (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, I have read the article too. Besides a few points which the author seems to be making without backing up her statements - I must also admit that the article is quite well written.

I have just one main objection to her article - she bases her conclusions on the testimonies of a few peasants. I am not saying that her account is not representative of what happened - I am just saying that it might be a little of an over-statement that "all Bessarabian peasants do not care about their ethnic identity". Having said that, I like your neutrality and objective approach - I agree with you that you cannot take the entire population of Moldova as "one". Clearly the city elites and village elites were more aware of their Romanianness than some/most peasants (although this is what happens with every nationality). But my only objection was this - let's add her article to the part that I have inserted which is already present in the article – therefore juxtaposing the two accounts. Dapiks (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is probably true, although I suspect that the (ancient) sources you provided didn't exactly make an all-Bessarabian referendum either. I think the two points should be merged or set into scope of the article. Something along As the appellative "Romanian" was gaining more and more popularity throughout the western Ottoman-dominated Moldavia during the 19th century, its usage in Bessarabia, a province of the Russian Empire at the time, was limited mostly to nation-oriented elite population groups, while the majority of local population remained largely indifferent to the question of nationality and referred to itself by the regional (smartword)nym "Moldavians". --Illythr (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that something along those lines should replace the current text.Dapiks (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, looks like Bonny really likes you... ;-) --Illythr (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you reffering to the star? That was from a long time ago - I just never bothered to take it out :) Dapiks (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he keeps reverting to your versions wherever his sockpuppets surface. --Illythr (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Illythr's version, since it implies the process of adopting the name Romanian was natural,and not state-directed through the education system. Also, saying that all nation-oriented elites adopted the name is false, because it ignores those "nation-oriented" elites who wanted the freedom of Moldovans (separated from Wallachians) ( both in post-1857 Western Moldavia and Bessarabia). The same applies to calling Moldavian identification "regional", as opposed to the "national" one Romanian.Xasha (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, that's nitpicking! Besides, do you think those peasants really cared whether they were Vlachs, Romanians, Moldovans or Romans (or Martians, or whatever)? Okay, how about this:

As the appellative "Romanian" was gaining more and more popularity throughout the western Ottoman-dominated Moldavia during the 19th century, its introduction in Bessarabia, a province of the Russian Empire at the time, was welcomed mostly by Romania-oriented elite population groups, while the majority of local population remained largely indifferent to the question of nationality and referred to itself by the old demonym "Moldavians".

I am somewhat uncomfortable with using "Romania", as the country technically existed only since the middle of the 19th century. --Illythr (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is, but there so much pro-Romanian bias on Moldova related articles here that a neutral point of view is certainly welcomed. Of course they didn't, but a neutral wording is needed to counter the pro-Romanian propaganda. Now it sonds better. You coul link Romanian nationalism (although I think the current redirection is not the best possible, and things have to be said about nationalism in the 30s and under Ceausescu).Xasha (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Xasha this is a matter of opinion. You think that there is a "pro-Romanian imperialist-capitalist biased" - I think that there is an aggressive anti-Romanian and pro-Moldovenist Stalinist biased (sometimes reflected even in the discussion talk of certain users including yourself). You say that Illythr's sentence implies the process of adopting the name Romanian was natural,and not state-directed through the education system yet you seem to forget that the name Moldovan (in the national sense) was also state-directed through a Soviet imposed education and sometimes even deportations ment to remind people of what they should think and say. I am starting to think that the mission of some people here on Wikipedia is to fight against the "Romanian propaganda" with a propaganda of their own instead of contributing constructively. We all have biases - I do too (I think it's quite evident) but articles on Wikipedia have to reflect consensus as well as a neutral view reflecting all opinions. Dapiks (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The one who think this in terms of politics is evidently you. I never mentioned any political orientation in support of my opinion, but you and other Romanians here quicly jump to the conclusion that I must be a Stalinist and anti "imperialist-capitalist " (as a note, the anti-imperialist part is true, but you not all imperialists are capitalist, and not all capitalists are imperialists). Also, by reducing the Moldovan nation to Stalin you are severly insulting us. How would you feel if I said the idea of a Romanian nation was a Maria-Theresan invention to counter the Hungarian influence in the Austrian Empire? People called themselves Moldovans long before Lenin was born. Even the 16th century chroniclers, who observed the common origin of our two peoples and the similar language, called the people Moldovans.Xasha (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the 16th century chroniclers mention that Moldovans called themselves Romanians - but you seem to ignore that. Read Dimitrie Cantemir's "Moldovan History" and other works by Italian travelers to Moldova.

Secondly, you say "People called themselves Moldovans long before Lenin was born" - ok but you seem to again take this out of context and give it a Moldovenist spin. What did they understand when they called themselves Moldovans? Did they understand a regional identity, a national identity or an identity linked to the ruler they depended on? Or did some call themselves Moldovans without even thinking about what they ment, only because their neighbour in the same village did so too? This is what you seem to blatently ignore. Dapiks (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find Cantemir's "Moldovan History", but I could find his Descriptio [2]. What I could find: in the second part of this book (Politics), in chapter 16, he clearly uses Moldavian in the ethnic sense ( he says the population of Moldavia is made from Moldovans, Greeks, Albanians, Serbians, Bulgarians etc. He claims that the peasants are not really Moldavians, but Russians and Hungarians who forgot their language and adopted the Moldavian one).Xasha (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Illythr I agree with the sentence you propose because I also do think that the Bessarabian peasant was indifferent to issues such as the national/regional nature of the name "Moldovan". In fact, the idea that Moldovans are a nation is a post-1924 Soviet invention. I just think that peasants didn't care/didn't have time to care about questions such as nationality ( a relatively new current in Europe).

The idea that Romanians are a nation is a late 18th century Austrian invention. Does this means is better?Xasha (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

However, I would still keep the word 'regional' before 'demonym' because by not using it, the text implies that the peasants already made a 'national choice in favour of Moldovans as supposed to Romanians' which the article (you gave me to read) does not actually state. Moreover, it goes against the general argument and observation that peasants were indifferent to issues of nationality.

Well, I just don't know the proper smart word for this. "Self-name" doesn't appear to be proper English... Still, weren't the people referring to themselves as Moldavians during the times of the Moldavian Principality? --Illythr (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Like you pointed out - some did but some called themselves Romanians as is shown by Dimitrie Cantemir or the Italian travelers in the 16th and 17th centuries. I think in any case like this it's hard to say "ALL peasants thought of themselves like this _____". That's why I brought up the issue because there seems to be 2 conflicting accounts here 1) that Moldovans were aware of their Romanian national origin and 2) that Moldovans (in Bessarabia) were indifferent to the national question and preferred the regional name. Both I think are valid and both I think are true. I think part of the problem is that many of us see events in Europe as one-dimensional - yet we fail to acknowledge that at any given time there is a conflict between currents and at any given time, different individuals are at different stages of grasping or responding to a political/social current (be it communism, nationalism, Europeanism/globalization, etc.). Dapiks (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dimitrie Cantemir speaks about Moldavians. See above.Xasha (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The only issue I take with the sentence (and this can be solved later on):

As the appellative "Romanian" was gaining more and more popularity throughout the western Ottoman-dominated Moldavia during the 19th century, its introduction in Bessarabia, a province of the Russian Empire at the time, was welcomed mostly by the Romanian-oriented elite, while the majority of local population remained largely indifferent to the question of nationality, often opting for the old regional demonym "Moldavians".

is as follows: it does not further elaborate the reasons for indifference and I think understanding those reasons (which are explained in the article you brought up) might help the reader grasp the history of the problem. Dapiks (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added the reasons implicitly - isolation due to it being a Russian province and indifference (due to widespread illiteracy). Perhaps this could be further expanded... It's just that making it short - "they didn't care because they were illiterate/had no cultural education" - sounds kinda insulting. --Illythr (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it does :) I think we should work on the wording while still managing to keept it short yet complete. Dapiks (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: aren't sources 2,6,7 above rather irrelevant? They mention Vlachs calling themselves "Romans", not "Romanians". I understand that one builds upon the other, but a line really should be drawn somewhere between the claims of association with someone powerful and an actual ethnic concept built on this claim. Is there some kind of documentary evidence of when the name has become (locally) widespread to denote a people of a distinct ethnicity, as opposed to sporadic claims of being Romans/Roman descendants? --Illythr (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I will be slowly coming back, but not to full speed. I have read the discussion above, and frankly speaking I was gladly surprised by the level of courtesy and careful argumentation. As the Romanian phrase goes: Jos palaria. I whole-heartedly support the versions presented above by Illythr and Dapiks. Thumbs up! Dc76\^talk 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually forgot to add it to the mainspace. Meh. Anyhow, I think it should be expanded further to explain the "underwhelming" results of the Romanianization during the interwar period as well (with reasons,results and all). --Illythr (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)