Talk:Romanian military intervention in Bessarabia

Bolhrad

@Anonimu:, @Rgvis: According to this book the Romanian intervention in that region began on 10 January when the Romanians disarmed the Bolhrad garrison of the 6th Russian Army after a brief firefight. Which contradicts this passage "Attempting to enter Bolhrad, they were met by the troops of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the 4th Army along with Moldavian detachments. The defenders managed on January 22 to disarm them after a short battle and proceeded to clear the Romanian troops in Bolhrad."--Catlemur (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There's some difficulty with the dates, as different authors use either Old Style and New Style, and some seem to be confused themselves. I'll recheck my translation regarding Bolhrad, maybe I misunderstood who disarmed whom.Anonimu (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Catlemur: As I see you are a native speaker of Russian, could you explain who exactly is said to be disarmed in this quote from the source "Вошедшая было в Болград, румынская воинская часть боя с революционными русскими подразделениями ВРК VI-ой российской армии, к которым примкнули молдавские солдаты, не приняла и в ночь на 9-ое января разоружилась." In the mean time, I'll also check other sources.Anonimu (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Anonimu: "The Romanian army unit that entered Bolhrad did not engage the 6th Russian Army and the Moldavian soldiers that supported it and was disarmed on the night of 9 January." Seems like the sources contradict each other and you misunderstood the Roman numeral used in the Russian army name.--Catlemur (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right about the numeral. I've found another source suggesting the Romanians were the ones disarmed, though no exact date for the event is provided: "В своих воспоминаниях председатель армейского комитета 6-ой армии левый эсер Л. С. Дегтярев (впоследствии большевик) отмечал, что в Болграде, где. находился штаб армии, назревал бой между румынским отрядом в составе 250 человек и революционными русскими войсками. К последним примкнули 50 солдат «Бессарабского полка», состоявшего из молдаван и насчитывавшего «до 600 солдат и до ста офицеров». Но румынский отряд бой не принял, он сдался, а затем солдаты и офицеры были отпущены."Anonimu (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Its then fair to deduce that the Romanians were disarmed.--Catlemur (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Anonimu: Can you add an English language translation for all the Romanian language source titles? You can use the "|trans-title=" template.--Catlemur (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

POV Pushing and Disrupting Editting

I am getting tired of @Rgvis:'s pattern of disrupting editing. It includes spamming 2, 3 clarification tags such as when the sentence is crystal clear. Accusations of COPYVIO for a 4 word quote, OR, OR2 while the information is clearly stated in the source's text. Throwing accusations of POV pushing 2 all while purposefully misinterpreting the source to fit a pro-Romanian narrative of the events. Every time he disagrees with the source he modifies the sentence to make it look like this. Not to mention the addition of off topic information just because it paints Romania's opponents in a negative light. @Anonimu:. I am open to bringing to the attention of WPMILHIST, so that we get a the opinion of someone uninvolved in this.--Catlemur (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently more interested in sourcing the article at the moment. If disruptive behavior continues, probably formal dispute resolution would be required.Anonimu (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Catlemur: Which tag addresses the issue of new and old style data (as per MOS:OSNS); consequently, I will continue to tag, wherever necessary. Otherwise, from my point of view, you are the ones who try to impose, in a forced and totally unbalanced way, the Soviet/post-Soviet historiography, whose methods are well known everywhere: [1], [2]. (Rgvis (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC))

@Rgvis: The article does not contain a single Soviet era source. Savchenko is Ukrainian and notable enough to have his own article, as does Mikhail Meltyukhov. The according to X wording is only suitable when you can provide a legitimate source that contradicts the claim, something you have not done yet. Every single date is in new style except where specifically noted, this you could have verified before spamming the article with tags. To try and prove a point by sending me articles in a language I do not understand is a waste of time.--Catlemur (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not clear at all, as long as some authors used only OS dates. On the other hand, when you provided a correct link to a source in Russian language, it was not difficult for me to check your (post) Soviet sources and find inaccuracies between what the source wrote and the added content. We are in the 21st century, aren't we? (Rgvis (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC))

BTW, regarding the Romanian gold, I would recommend you the following series of articles (and, maybe that's how you'll understand more) - The rupture of the Russian-Romanian diplomatic relations (January 13/26, 1918) and the problem of the (Romanian) treasure from Moscow: [3], [4], [5]. (Rgvis (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC))

Given your long history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, edit warring etc, I see no reason to continue this discussion. The next time this issue will be raised will be at a dispute resolution platform of some sort.--Catlemur (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No one expects the supporters of (pro/post) Soviet historiography to admit arguments or positions expressed by other historiographies (Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Romanian, or most of the contemporary Moldovan historiography). (Rgvis (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC))

The thing is that you have a history of disruptive editing even against people who have produced some of the best content on the website (Borsoka). All while producing no content worth mentioning yourself. You complained about works produced by modern Ukrainian and Moldovan historians within this very article, so don't pretend you care about objectivity. So for you to accuse me of POV means that I am doing something right.--Catlemur (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL - What you do in psychology is called projection. Basically, by the statements you make about someone else, you are talking about yourself. Most likely, behind this behavior are various frustrations, which probably come from the fact that there are other opinions on English Wikipedia articles, different from the ones you promote.

Returning to the topic, from contemporary Moldovan historians, only a minority are still related to pro-Soviet historiography (if you still don't know, the historiography of Moldova has gone through a process of de-Sovietization, in the last 35 years). Most of the references I have made in this article refer to contemporary Moldovan authors: Silvia Corlăteanu-Granciuc, Ion Gumenâi, Lidia Pădureac, Valeriu Rusu, Vlad Spânu, Ion Șișcanu, Octavian Țîcu, Ion Țurcanu, Vasile Vasilos.

About the Soviet historiography and propaganda, other Moldovan scholars such as Anatol Petrencu, Valentin Burlacu, or Ion Valer Xenofontov (and many others that can be used at any time as references) have also very suggestive studies: [6], [7], [8].

On the other hand, it is embarrassing and ridiculous to use in a single article, dozens of times (over 60 times (!!) in one case, or 40 times (!!) in another), two sources as references ([9]), Meltyukhov - known in historical circles outside Russia as a promoter of some of the ideas of Soviet historiography [10], and Polivțev - known in the historical circles of Moldova as one of the authors who promote pro-Russian views [11]], from which wide passages (many futile) are extracted, just to cover as much space as possible in the content of the article (and to give weight to a certain agenda). In this context, it is obvious that any other editings, which do not share these point of views, will be called "disruptive".

Therefore, at this time, this article still does not follow some of the basic principles of Wikipedia, in particular WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALASP, WP:BALANCE, and WP:IMPARTIAL.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has long faced all sorts of web brigades, which makes the work of independent and honest editors very difficult. (Rgvis (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bitwa o Bendery 1918.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)