Talk:Moldovans/Archive 3

message: I am confused, where does the Original Research tag apply. POV is one thing, and you can argue exactly where you believe the infringemnet took place, but the original research header seems unwarranted. If anything this article has too many sources as some editors questioned every other sentence here. TSO1D 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with TSO1D on this point. Where are those "unreferenced claims"? I would also very much like to know who placed that tag in the first place, and why (s)he was not questioned by now. Dahn 21:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constantzeanu put up the tag a few minutes ago, and we are discussing the move right now. TSO1D 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I placed the tag. Sorry but to state that Moldovans are an officially recognized group seems to me like original research and the same goes for stating that "Moldovans are a group living primarily in the Republic of Moldova" Dapiks 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fact is that they are officially recognized as a separate ethnic group. Personally I believe that this distinction is misleading and merely political, however that doesn't change the fact that the Moldovan government recognizes Moldovans as a separate ethnic group. That is not original research but common knowledge. TSO1D 21:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Constantzeanu's second objection is just paradoxical. Sure "primarily in the Republic of Moldova" is an educated guess rather than direct statement, but lemme know if you would back the option that they actually live as a distinct group inside Romania (perhaps even "primarily in Romania"). Dahn 21:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Constanteanu, the Moldovans are indeed an officially-recognized ethnic group in the ex-Soviet space. This is how our problems came to existence, due to this recognition. The real problem and the ambiguity of the definition is what this term covers: the Daco-Romanians from the ex-Soviet Union that (came to) believe they are not Romanians? the descendants of the inhabitants of the principality of Moldova (including Romanian "Moldovans")? the descendendants of Bessarabians? Dpotop 07:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This ambiguity exists not only in the Romanian discourse (both "Dahn-like" and Greater Romanian), but also on the Russian side, and the West imported this problem along with the word "Moldovan" whose meaning is not as clear as it seems. Dpotop 07:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Moldovans are an ethnic group only officially recognized in the ex-USSR, then the article should say exactly that (and explain why) and certainly this should not be a in the leading sentence. The fact of the matter is that in most countries Moldovans are not recognized as a sepperate ethnic group. See CIA World Factbook USA. Dapiks 12:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact sentence reads: "They are officially recognized by several states as an ethnic group..." That is certainly true. TSO1D 13:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?

message: I am in doubt that when someone says "Molodvans" he most probably refers to inhabitants of Principality of Moldova. I think in 90% of case he speaks about population of Moldova. And this should be the topic of this article. Historical Moldovans, if someone dares to write something meaningless (for a change from political bickering), is a matter of a seoparate article. This is how wikipedia works: dominant usage matters, even if 90% of people are wrong, it is not wikipedia's job to "correct" people's habits. `'mikka (t) 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here's my doubt, Mikka: while I believe that in 99% of the cases "Moldovans" refers to the inhabitants of Moldova in English, I am yet to be pointed out why the scandal arose in Bukovina and the Bujak about people being referred to as "Moldovans" instead of whatever, and I have not yet found if the on-and-off claim by the Moldovan gvt. that Moldova reflects the heritage of Moldavia was ever voiced in a rational manner. For example, is "ethnic group inside the Ukraine" mean to say "a diaspora from Moldova", or "a section of the more traditional population of Bukovina"? As it is, this article fluctuates between two very different views with very different consequences. Also note that "a word used for inhabitants of Moldova" does not mean "a word for an ethnic group" (as much as I personally consider any definition of an "ethnic group" to be fallacious, this, I presume, defines an ethnic group as an anthropologist would), and that Belgians redirects to Belgium. Dahn 19:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me make my point even clearer: are Moldovans in Ukraine the same as inhabitants of Moldova? Dahn 20:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree to some extent, however if the term Moldovan would simply refer to the population of Moldova, then it would not have an ethnic connotation but would rather refer to all the inhabitants of the state. If on the other hand you want to use the term to describe the ethnic Moldovan group, then it wouldn't make sense to confine the article to the political borders of Moldova. This would actually be misleading as a reader unfamiliar with the situation would conclude that Moldovans only live in Moldvoa and Ukraine, whereas in reality Romania has just as a large a Moldovan population. Once again, regardless of whether you view Moldovans as distinct from Romanians or not, all are part of the same ethnic group, this is a fact accepted by all sides and if you have an article describing the group you have to take all into account. And I don't understand your argument about "historical Moldovans." Even today millions of people in Romania would describe themselves as Moldovans (only as a subgroup of the Romanian ethnos). TSO1D 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The today millions of people in Romania that would describe themselves as Moldovans are very Romanians. In fact they are more nationalist as other Romanians. --Brasoveanul 08:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Moldovans" is a valid encyclopedia topic only insofar as refers to something like an ethnicity (which we can presumably all agree is a subgroup of Daco-Romanians, the controversy is only over whether it is a subgroup of Romanians) rather than place of residence. Otherwise, we've already got Demographics of Moldova and Demographics of Romania. - Jmabel | Talk 20:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro definition 

message: I see that my simple question  sparked an interesting discussion, but my intent is far simpler: If only ex-USSR states recognize the Moldovan minority (not the Moldavian one, which is a Romanian denomination), then the article should state it. I have been challenged over the US and Brazil censuses. For the US, I brought proof. For Brazil, I reject the comparison for 2 reasons:
# As Dahn pointed out earlier, it's English that distinguishes Moldovan from Moldavian (and not Romanian/Moldovan). Then, if Romanian is not meaningful for English, a Portuguese-language source is not meaningful for English.
# The Brazil link talks about people originating in Moldova/Moldavia (maybe including Russians, it's not clear), whereas we are talking here about an ethnic group. Dpotop 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, if we have to bring this up again, I wish to point out that you are either missing the implications or pretending to do so. Sure, English does distinguish between Moldavians and Moldovans, but that is roughly analogous to the distinction between Romanians and Moldovans present in every language (not saying that it is a proper distinction or whatever, I'm just saying that it is out there). You may read my post on the Brazil issue again, and see that we agree on its ambiguity; BUT, if we are to be proven that in Brazil or country x the term "Moldovan" exists because those people were asked and they answered, then we ought to assume that the meaning is most likely ethnical (note my choice of wording), especially since they would have had the choice to declare themselves Romanian. Let me also note that you are misusing the term "recognized minority", which per se means minority that has reached a significant number to achieve this and that right. Whether censuses record "Moldovans" could be a possibility, but whether they do or do not is ultimately of little relevance - since I think they nowhere exceed hundreds of people. Dahn 07:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dahn, please answer my concerns, do not avoid it by enlarging the discussion. My purpose, and my question, are simple. Dpotop 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't even noticed you were going through all of this because you had been reverted in the text. I support your version; I had originally thought that you were using the ouside to prove that other countries do not make the distinction (which is not true), not that other countries simply don't deal with the issue (which is true). Dahn 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  And since you go back to Brazil: Some days ago you supported the link Moldova->Republic of Moldova by saying that in English Moldova<>Moldavia, and that their identity in Romanian means nothing since we talk about English words, not their Romanian counterparts. Following this logic of yours, what may or may not happen in Portuguese has zero influence on en.wiki. So, following your logic, the entire discussion about Brazil is meaningless here. Dpotop 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While bearing in mind what I have just answered, let me note that you are focusing on a non-sequitur: it does not matter whether the distinction is made between Moldovans and Moldavians, but whether it is made between Moldovans and Romanians. All the assumptions that a person does not know his own criteria for differentiating between Moldovans and Romanians rely on the assumption that the said person is a moron - if you are asked your ethnicity, in both Ro and Md, it should be common sense that you have answered to that question, and not some other. Dahn 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Of course, my position is simpler: Moldovan=Moldavian, Moldova=Moldavia, because they translate the same Romanian/Moldovan word. Disambiguation pages need to be written for both, stating the perceived biases implied by the use of one or the other (e.g. Moldovan is probably used by a moldovanist or a person from the ex-USSR, whereas Moldavian is the traditional version of the term. Similarly, people say Moldova to discriminate from Moldavia, but still are ambiguous, or simply because they don't know English). Dpotop 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. That may well even be true, but we will argue about whether it is until Kingdom Come, and I beg of you not to base your tactics on wearing your opponents out. Dahn 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I, too, believe that we fundamentally agree on what an ethnic group is (and is not), etc. We probably agree, also, on what we think Moldovans and the Moldovan language are. But you are trying here to be more catholic than the Pope, in the hope that somehow you would reach an agreement with Node_ue and Mikka. You remind me of Titulescu (he tried that, too, but it ultimately did not work, because the Soviet part was just toying with him). And I can see the shortcomings of Titulescu in many of the "illuminated youth" of Romania. There is, at some point, a, mesianic willingness to impose the personal POV to the other, without trying to understand him first, and without taking into consideration his/her fears (that may be justified by experience). Dpotop 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...er...yeah... Meanwhile, I have aided more in exposing whimsical contributions coming from the other side in the last two days than you in the last months. I did not even try to reach a compromise with them, I have asked them things which they can't seem to be able to answer, but which render their main points void of all content. Dahn 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, when I started to edit the first time here, I have had the same impression. But then, after 3 days or a week, some editor comes and reverts everything, and the discussion starts again whereit was one month before. Don't overestimate reason - it can do nothing when the arguments of the other side are irrational. Other users, too, have had the same impression before me and you. Dpotop 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recognized as a minority, reloaded

message: See Emigration/Romanian Ancestry:
The 2001 Statistical Yearbook mentions that 13039 Moldovans and 75832 Romanians received asylum green cards between 1946-2001, that 218 Moldovans and 2818 Romanians entered the US in 2001 on study visas, that 105 Moldovans and 1457 Romanians resided in the US in 2001 on H-1B visas.
According to the "Legal Immigration To California" reports: 989 Romanians and 261 Moldovans emigrated in FFY96 to California according to FFY96 report which draws the data out of INS public use tape FFY96. Also, 828 and 824 Romanians, 308 and 107 Moldovans emigrated to California in 1997 and 1998 respectively according to FFY97/98 report.
2001: 781 Romanian and 47 Moldovan kids were adopted by US citizens (according to the 2001 Statistical Yearbook, table 15)
To say that they're recognized only in the former USSR would be misleading. —Khoikhoi 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mixing up citizenship and ethnicity. As immigrants, those people are what their documents say they are, and their documents do not indicate ethnicity. Dahn 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think the Moldovans the source is referring to includes Russians and Ukranians, the website seems to be about people of Romanian ancestry, and that would include Romanian Moldovans, but not Slavic Moldovans (or Turkic). —Khoikhoi 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the link itself indicates that it does not consider Moldovans an ethnic group, but citizens of Moldova. They are all considered "of Romanian ancestry", and divided into "MD-born immigrants" and "RO-born immigrants". Where does this site indicate that it considers Moldovans anyhting but citizens of Moldova? Dahn 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, my bad. Is there a source for Brazil? —Khoikhoi 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brazil is not an english-speaking country. Therefore, the english minority name "Moldovan" cannot exist in Brazil. See the discussion upper this page. (recall that this argument has been used when deciding that Moldova is different from Moldavia, the fact that only English use is meaningful on en.wiki). Dpotop 21:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this argument. The Republic of Moldova is not an English-speaking country either, yet a Moldovan ethnonym does exist, namely "Moldovean". Look at the equivalent of this article in Portuguese here. TSO1D 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So would "Moldávios" be on the Brazilian census? Also, I hope the new images aren't seen as an attempt to separate Moldovans from Romanians (making it seem like they have a completely different history). I'm afraid I'm going to be accused of being a Stalinist again... —Khoikhoi 22:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have no idea about that. Some states like Romania and the US automatically include Moldovans under the Romanian category. Other states, such as Russia and the Ukraine separate the two. I do not know what Brazil's policy on the matter is. TSO1D 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had addressed this in my reply to the initial post about Brazil, Khoikhoi. The text is ambiguous and even anachronistic. If this is the way Moldovans are defined in Brazil (if the Brazil gvt. does indeed bother), it is of little relevance. Dahn 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way we could see the official census data, however? —Khoikhoi 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Record de Legalizações. Ao longo do ano 2001 legalizaram-se em Portugal, ao abrigo do novo Decreto Lei de Imigração (4/2001 de 10 de janeiro), com “Autorização de permanência”, perto de 130.000 imigrantes. A saber, citando apenas as comunidades com mais de 1.000 imigrantes regularizados: 42.252 ucranianos, 22.426 brasileiros, 8.404 moldavos, 6.926 romenos, 5.174 cabo-verdianos, 4.777 russos, 4.723 angolanos, 3.203 chineses, 3.082 guineenses (Bissau), 2.784 paquistaneses, 2.670 indianos, 1.506 são tomenses, 1.465 búlgaros, 1.178 guinenses (Conacri). Juntando este número aos 22.456 cidadãos estrangeiros legalizados em Portugal até 31.12.2000, pode-se dizer que a população legal residente no país poderá atingir o meio milhão, nos próximos dois anos."
It refers to people who were allowed to settle (imigrantes regularizados) in Brasil, but have remined citizens of other countries. The lead here is obviously citzenship, and there is no indication of what they decalre themselves. All other variants of the word Moldovan in Portuguese, coupled with "Brasil" and "censo", do not show any results.official site of the 2000 census does not seem to have any data on ethnicities - if there are, I could not find any. Dahn 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I looked at the same source and I couldn't find any data either. I looked at the official form, seems they do not ask that information for some reason. TSO1D 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While I believe the above point could discard its personal attacks, I agree with its conclusions: Stephen the Great, Eminescu, and Cebotari could only through accute sophistry be described as "Moldovan". Dahn 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit skeptical about the pictures, but my initial reactin wasn't quite as negative. I am not using the Moldovenist theory, but simply using the Romanian definition of the word. Ştefan was certainly considered to be a Moldovan during his time, though of course as Constantzeanu pointed out the current nationalistic divisions were not formalized at that point. Eminescu was a Romanian activist, nevertheless, he never would have denied that he was also Moldovan (though of course as a part of the Romanian ehtnos). I do not really know Cebotari's biography and genealogy well enough, but I assume she is from a Moldovan Romanian family. I guess my point is that you might be overreacting by using the politicized definition of the word instead of simply looking at what means. TSO1D 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agin with the ambiguities? If this about an ethnic group, I certainly do not see how a reasonable person would have indicated that (s)he has two ethnicities. Where appliable, these people considered themselves "Moldavians" (inhabitants of Moldavia, not an ethnic group), not the neologist "Moldovans". Dahn 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dahn, I am as confused as most here. I myself find it extremely hard to understand what this article is or should be about. If you go by the definition in the intro: "the native population of the lands that corresond to the former Principality of Moldavia," then the aforementioned people fit the category. I was against classifying this article one that describes an ethnic group for numerous reasons, but others insisted that several states do recognize Moldovans as such, which is also true. I believe that the main definition expressed in the first paragraph should be used, regardless of the distinctiveness of Moldovans which is elaborated upon in later sections. This way for example you can state that Eminescu was a Moldovan while ignoring whether he was or wasn't also a Romanian (which he obviously was). TSO1D 00:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, how about Sofia Rotaru? She's not Slavic, but of Romanian ancestry, and she identifies as a Moldovan! Haha! —Khoikhoi 00:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, that hurt! --Telex 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was also from Bukovina (not in Moldova, but in Moldavia). I have been exploring this issue to death above on this page: if the claim is that "Moldovans" is an ethnic group distinct from Romanians and connected to the territory of Moldova, then Moldovans in Bukovina are left unaccounted for (Bukovina has no logical connection to Bessarabia); if the claim is that "Moldovans" are the same as Moldavians, then they are not an ethnic group. See my point? If not, please don't make me repeat myself and read my previous replies starting with the questions I had addressed to Mikkalai (Archive 2, beginning under the header Pen names; I also suggest you read the section Stupid argument). If She's not Slavic, but of Romanian ancestry but she identifies as a Moldovan, then MOLDOVANS ARE NOT REALLY AN ETHNIC GROUP. Telex, please stop your claims that I would be supporting a Greater Romania - it is character assassination. Dahn 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see your point. I'll try to find someone else. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I was incorrect about the "Romanian ancestry" part. I meant to say that she was a non-Slavic non-Turkic Moldovan. —Khoikhoi 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you playing mindgames now, Khoikhoi? As I have pointed out, she was not born in Moldova (the Republic), but in Bukovina (Ukraine), so she does not fall into the predilect category for defining Moldovans, and she is not a non-Slavic, non-Turkic Moldovan - she is a person who declares herself Moldovan while presenting us with all the ambiguities of the definition, since she was not born in Moldova. Dahn 00:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when does place of birth define an ethnicity? Octavian Goga was born in (what then was) (Austria-) Hungary - that doesn't prevent him from being Romanian. It's how the person sees himself/herself that is the definitive factor. --Telex 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated until my fingers bled, I certainly agree that self-definition should be the criterion, and that ethnicity is everything between subjective and irrelevant. However, the claim here is that "Moldovan" is an ethnic group which, although I simply find its very definition irrelevant, is supposed to be a little more than that. Its definition as an ethnicity clashes with several issues, and fails to explain certain obvious things (such as what is the Moldovans' relation to 1859 or 1918). People believing that they are Moldovan is to be referenced exactly as "people who believe that they are Moldovan" (as Belgians or, indeed, Britons do not get separate articles, no matter how many of them ignore all other possible identities they could have); the definition of Moldovan would revolve around their claims, not on whether Moldovans are an ethnicity. Again, not my POV: the definitions. Dahn 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I am not playing mind games, lol. I understand now that it does not fit in the definitions. Jesus Christ. —Khoikhoi 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to figure out whether one can rely on the right to self-determination to determine of what ethnicity they are, or how the (already existing ethnicity) should be governed. On other articles I'm used to editing regarding communist invented ethnicities (Montenegrins vs Serbs / Macedonians vs Bulgarians), where pointing that fact out is deemed to be denying the said ethnicities like the hyper-nationalist I am, the test for determining whether an ethnic group exists, comes down to what the purported members of the ethnic group in question themselves say. In other words, in order to determine whether a Moldovan ethnicity and language exist, you ask the purported "Moldovans". To find out how to determine Rotar, you should fist find out how she determines herself! If she says she's ethnically Moldovan, then she's ethnically Moldovan, period. On the other hand, if Eminescu said he's Romanian, then he's Romanian - also, period. Nationalists on either side of the Romania - Rep. Moldova border do not get to decide on the ethnic identity of purported Romanians-Moldovans, that's for the people themselves to determine. --Telex 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why don't you go and write an article on Belgians, because I can assure there are people who decalre themselves that over Walloon and Flemish. Do that for Swiss people as well. Do we have the same understanding of what an ethnic group is? I do not believe that any ethnic claim is objective, but you seem to: according to the definition of an Ethnic group, the self-definition criterion was not enough to generate articles on the Swiss and Belgians (yes, the links turn blue: do click on them and see where they lead). Dahn 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or for British people, as English people, Scottish people and Welsh people are inadequate. --Telex 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States recognizes Moldovans as an ethnic group 

message: This is really getting ridiculous. So now we have pictures eh? Well sorry to distrub the Neo-Stalinist Commie camp but first of all this article is about a debate on the Moldovan ethnicity and if there is one, not an ethnic group per se. Notice how we say that they are recognized in some countries (mostly all ex-USSR) and not in others (mostly democratic countries like USA and Romania) --> therefore the issue is still up in the air. Second of all even if Moldovans were an ethnic group, Stephan the Great is not an ethnic Moldovan since he lived in a time way before nationalism came about. Cebotari considered herself a Romanian and so did Mihai Eminescu (after all it is he who wrote "Noi suntem Romani si Punctum!/We are Romanians, period!" and "Ce-ti doresc eu tie Dulce Romanie, Tara mea de glorii, tara mea de dor/What I wish you thy Romania, my sweet country, blah blah". It is bad enough when some try to make this article seem to suggest that fore sure there are Moldovans and they are nothing like Romanians, but its getting over the top when you take the national heroes of one country and you present them as being the heroes of another country, which the same people claim that have nothing to do with Romania in the first place. Which one is it commarades? You can't have it both ways.Dapiks 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I believe the above point could discard its personal attacks, I agree with its conclusions: Stephen the Great, Eminescu, and Cebotari could only through accute sophistry be described as "Moldovan". Dahn 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit skeptical about the pictures, but my initial reactin wasn't quite as negative. I am not using the Moldovenist theory, but simply using the Romanian definition of the word. Ştefan was certainly considered to be a Moldovan during his time, though of course as Constantzeanu pointed out the current nationalistic divisions were not formalized at that point. Eminescu was a Romanian activist, nevertheless, he never would have denied that he was also Moldovan (though of course as a part of the Romanian ehtnos). I do not really know Cebotari's biography and genealogy well enough, but I assume she is from a Moldovan Romanian family. I guess my point is that you might be overreacting by using the politicized definition of the word instead of simply looking at what means. TSO1D 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agin with the ambiguities? If this about an ethnic group, I certainly do not see how a reasonable person would have indicated that (s)he has two ethnicities. Where appliable, these people considered themselves "Moldavians" (inhabitants of Moldavia, not an ethnic group), not the neologist "Moldovans". Dahn 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dahn, I am as confused as most here. I myself find it extremely hard to understand what this article is or should be about. If you go by the definition in the intro: "the native population of the lands that corresond to the former Principality of Moldavia," then the aforementioned people fit the category. I was against classifying this article one that describes an ethnic group for numerous reasons, but others insisted that several states do recognize Moldovans as such, which is also true. I believe that the main definition expressed in the first paragraph should be used, regardless of the distinctiveness of Moldovans which is elaborated upon in later sections. This way for example you can state that Eminescu was a Moldovan while ignoring whether he was or wasn't also a Romanian (which he obviously was). TSO1D 00:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, how about Sofia Rotaru? She's not Slavic, but of Romanian ancestry, and she identifies as a Moldovan! Haha! —Khoikhoi 00:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, that hurt! --Telex 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was also from Bukovina (not in Moldova, but in Moldavia). I have been exploring this issue to death above on this page: if the claim is that "Moldovans" is an ethnic group distinct from Romanians and connected to the territory of Moldova, then Moldovans in Bukovina are left unaccounted for (Bukovina has no logical connection to Bessarabia); if the claim is that "Moldovans" are the same as Moldavians, then they are not an ethnic group. See my point? If not, please don't make me repeat myself and read my previous replies starting with the questions I had addressed to Mikkalai (Archive 2, beginning under the header Pen names; I also suggest you read the section Stupid argument). If She's not Slavic, but of Romanian ancestry but she identifies as a Moldovan, then MOLDOVANS ARE NOT REALLY AN ETHNIC GROUP. Telex, please stop your claims that I would be supporting a Greater Romania - it is character assassination. Dahn 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see your point. I'll try to find someone else. —Khoikhoi 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I was incorrect about the "Romanian ancestry" part. I meant to say that she was a non-Slavic non-Turkic Moldovan. —Khoikhoi 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you playing mindgames now, Khoikhoi? As I have pointed out, she was not born in Moldova (the Republic), but in Bukovina (Ukraine), so she does not fall into the predilect category for defining Moldovans, and she is not a non-Slavic, non-Turkic Moldovan - she is a person who declares herself Moldovan while presenting us with all the ambiguities of the definition, since she was not born in Moldova. Dahn 00:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when does place of birth define an ethnicity? Octavian Goga was born in (what then was) (Austria-) Hungary - that doesn't prevent him from being Romanian. It's how the person sees himself/herself that is the definitive factor. --Telex 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have stated until my fingers bled, I certainly agree that self-definition should be the criterion, and that ethnicity is everything between subjective and irrelevant. However, the claim here is that "Moldovan" is an ethnic group which, although I simply find its very definition irrelevant, is supposed to be a little more than that. Its definition as an ethnicity clashes with several issues, and fails to explain certain obvious things (such as what is the Moldovans' relation to 1859 or 1918). People believing that they are Moldovan is to be referenced exactly as "people who believe that they are Moldovan" (as Belgians or, indeed, Britons do not get separate articles, no matter how many of them ignore all other possible identities they could have); the definition of Moldovan would revolve around their claims, not on whether Moldovans are an ethnicity. Again, not my POV: the definitions. Dahn 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I am not playing mind games, lol. I understand now that it does not fit in the definitions. Jesus Christ. —Khoikhoi 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to figure out whether one can rely on the right to self-determination to determine of what ethnicity they are, or how the (already existing ethnicity) should be governed. On other articles I'm used to editing regarding communist invented ethnicities (Montenegrins vs Serbs / Macedonians vs Bulgarians), where pointing that fact out is deemed to be denying the said ethnicities like the hyper-nationalist I am, the test for determining whether an ethnic group exists, comes down to what the purported members of the ethnic group in question themselves say. In other words, in order to determine whether a Moldovan ethnicity and language exist, you ask the purported "Moldovans". To find out how to determine Rotar, you should fist find out how she determines herself! If she says she's ethnically Moldovan, then she's ethnically Moldovan, period. On the other hand, if Eminescu said he's Romanian, then he's Romanian - also, period. Nationalists on either side of the Romania - Rep. Moldova border do not get to decide on the ethnic identity of purported Romanians-Moldovans, that's for the people themselves to determine. --Telex 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why don't you go and write an article on Belgians, because I can assure there are people who decalre themselves that over Walloon and Flemish. Do that for Swiss people as well. Do we have the same understanding of what an ethnic group is? I do not believe that any ethnic claim is objective, but you seem to: according to the definition of an Ethnic group, the self-definition criterion was not enough to generate articles on the Swiss and Belgians (yes, the links turn blue: do click on them and see where they lead). Dahn 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or for British people, as English people, Scottish people and Welsh people are inadequate. --Telex 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: This issue is meaningful here because User:Constantzeanu has been banned for editing here. Given my experience on wikipedia, his edits do not justify a block.
Mikka, according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Controversial blocks, you should be willing to discuss the motives of you blocking User:Constantzeanu. So, I will ask you to explain why you did it, and how your reasons fit into the accepted reasons for blocking, listed at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#When blocks may be used. Dpotop 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He also blocked User:Nixer just because he cannot accept the fact that Nixer has other opinions then himself.--Brasoveanul 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really you make now personal attacks? I will remove any threats, personal attacks and other forms of your harassment! --Brasoveanul 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad someone else has noticed. --Vlachos 15:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean it was a personal attack, after having been blocked for it before? --Vlachos 15:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mikka blocked Constantzeanu

message: Given the amount of activity on Moldovan-related pages, it seems that Node_ue has much more time than usual. Maybe summer vacations started. Dpotop 09:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I do s. o/l. The only reason I'm more active is because I decided that I didn't want to let the a-holes get me down anymore, and thanks to some friendly encouragement from Irpen to that effect, I decided to return. So it doesn't really matter -- besides, how is it relevant? HMM? --Node 13:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ^Hey. Mikka. Rm personal attack. Now. Dahn 14:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the PA? --Tēlex 14:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The a-holes. Just checking to see if Mikka puts his glasses on for Node. Dahn 14:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did use the term "a-holes", but I didn't direct it at anyone in particular. Besides, what's wrong with Armenian caves? --Node 03:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: He will now ;-) --Tēlex 14:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Node_ue entered his summer vacations. Ouch! 

message: Let me expain the obvious to you, Node, before you continue removing that and move closer to getting banned (I jnoticed you received a stiff warning for "according to one wikipedian's opinon"). If you would have done us the favor of reading what has by now been archived, you would perhaps have some sense of why that is in there. Hell, read the article itself... Can you read in the article where it says "The document states that Moldovans and Romanians are two distinct peoples and speak two different languages, Romanians form an ethnic minority in Moldova, and that the Republic of Moldova is the legitimate successor to the Principality of Moldavia"? It would do you some good to follow my advice and stop embarassing yourself by not having basic informations on obvious facts. Because, you see, if Moldova is successor to Moldavia, then it must mean that the idea of Moldovans not being Romanians could also implicate people from inside Romania - which is where the bulk of Moldavia is. Do you understand this? "According to interpretation" means that those who claim Moldovans are an ethnicity have not implied what they mean by Moldovans, not that I don't (or whomever that "one wikipedian" is does not) agree. Dahn 04:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shouldn't be embarassed by your poor English. "According to interpretation" is meaningless newspeak in this context. What you meant to say was clearly "depending upon one's interpretation". --Node 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here I actually agree with you Node. TSO1D 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All or part of