Talk:Bukovina/Archive 1

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

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The dog

message: 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:
# 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.
# 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
#+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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: the neutrality of this page is disputed

message: 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)
thread_title:  The map 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Irpen contributions and Vasile's deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: see this. --Irpen 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EB 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Amazing Historiography 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Amazing sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Britannica 

message: That period is known for the Romanians attempts to warm its relation with Soviet Union. --Vasile 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1928-1938 warming period

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Important priority and conspiracies 

message: :The Poles were deported as well.
::By whom?  Bonaparte  talk 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I will try to find some source on the fate of the other nationalites. --Lysy (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poles in Bukovina 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The rule of Rus, Volhynian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ethnic groups, individuals 

message: Bukovina (Romance type of spelling)
: Why Romance? No major Romance language uses the "k". bogdan 21:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romance type of spelling 

message: 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)
thread_title: Due to the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact]] of 1939 it is currently split between [[Romania]] and [[Ukraine]]

message: Someone has used an open proxy to edit this article. This edit was made by an open proxy  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)
thread_title:  [[Open proxy|Open proxies]] 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Ukrainians -- forgetting their native language 

message: "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)
thread_title:  The moment t0 for the important priority 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ethnic map proposal

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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