Talk:Budjak

message: The data in the page comes from the 2001 All-Ukrainian Census.--Danutz
but how did u find out the national composition for each city and rayion? i couldnt find it on that census page.
Look more carefully. Just scroll down, and you'll find the nationala composition for each city and rayon. --Danutz 17:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: Shouldn't "rayon" here (a geographic unit) be "raion"? At least I believe that is the Romanian; is it spelled "rayon" in some other language? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
: In Russian/Ukrainian it's "район", which has more than one transliteration. It could be raion, rayon, rajon, etc. However, it appears that Wikipedia uses the "Raion" spelling. bogdan | Talk 05:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: This page needs renaming to "Budjak", the English form of Bugeac.  This English form is frequently used in historical and scholarly literature whereas the Romanian form rarely appears.  Furthermore, since this territory is now Ukrainian, it is questionable whether the Romanian form is the most appropriate if a foreign language version is used.
LuiKhuntek 22:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Budjak makes the most sense to me as well. Olessi 19:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would venture to say that nl: Boedjak and de: Budschak are not at all "their own exonyms", but rather transcriptions (not transliterations, which seem to be Budžak) of the Ukrainian name following Dutch and German transcription rules for Ukrainian. – Wikipeditor 14:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename this page

message: Checking the same google books link and typing in the three main spellings, I got results of:
*29 pages on bugeac
*41 pages on budjak
*25 pages on budzhak
An important qualifier of these results is that the "Bugeac" form returned Romanian-language books which should not have bearing on the English Wikipedia form.  Of course all forms should be mentioned and redirected to the same page just as "München" redirects to "Munich" or "Bucureşti" to "Bucharest" but the above numbers do little to recommend the Romanian "Bugeac" over the Slavic/exonymic "Budzhak" or exonymic "Budjak" forms for the entry name.
The case for the "Budjak" form is as follows.  The region is a multiethnic one with a recent history of political control by several countries and the significant presence of other minorities as well (e.g. Bulgarians, Gagauzes).  Use of an exonym that is different from all of the local forms helps maintain a NPOV (see Talk:Liancourt Rocks).  This form is the also the most intuitive to pronounce for an English speaker.  Neighboring regions such as Dobruja, Wallachia, and Bessarabia use exonyms and the German and Dutch entries for this region use their own exonyms (Budschak and Boedjak, respectively).  (The French also use "Budjak" but there is no Wikipedia entry for it.)
The case for "Budzhak" is that a majority of the regions inhabitants use this Cyrillic version of this form (Ukrainians, Bulgarians, and Russians) and that it is the form of the current official language (Ukrainian).  It is also reasonably intuitive to pronounce.
The "Bugeac" form is not that of a majority of inhabitants or of the official language and is not as intuitive to pronounce for someone unfamiliar with Romanian orthography (and might come out as "Boogie-ack").  It also differs from the other two forms more than the others do from each other.
In addition to the above cases, "Budjak" seems to have a clear plurality of citations followed by "Budzhak" and "Bugeac."  Taken together, the case for the exonymic form "Budjak" seems stronger than that for either the Slavic/exonymic or Romanian forms.
LuiKhuntek 08:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Budjak makes the most sense to me as well. Olessi 19:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would venture to say that nl: Boedjak and de: Budschak are not at all "their own exonyms", but rather transcriptions (not transliterations, which seem to be Budžak) of the Ukrainian name following Dutch and German transcription rules for Ukrainian. – Wikipeditor 14:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Case for "Budjak"

message: if someone is interested, here is a ethnic map of Budjac in the 1980s
 
--Anonimu 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic composition

message: Given that Ottoman Bessarabia redirects here, I would think that we need something in the article to the effect of "This area is sometimes referred to in historical contexts as as Ottoman Bessarabia, and the use of the name Bessarabia to refer to this territory predates the more modern use of that name." Am I correct in this understanding of that?
Also, the following sentence is confusing: "Although the area remains separated from the Republic of Moldova that occupies the remainder of Bessarabia, the term is rarely used, replaced normally with Southern Bessarabia." In its current context, it is very hard to tell what this means by "the term". Does it mean Budjak itself? It seems to me that (in its various forms) that name is reasonably common; does someone have evidence that Southern Bessarabia is more common? And if it is more common, then why is the article at Budjak rather than Southern Bessarabia? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When researching the various spellings of Budjak for Talk:Budjak#Rename_this_page, I found that in English-language sources, especially those dealing with wider subject areas (e.g., Romania, Ukraine), the term Southern Bessarabia was used when the area was mentioned in passing, particularly when referring to WWII territorial changes.  However, the nature of these mentions was descriptive and does not reflect on studies more focused on the subject.  (A crude comaprison would be the encyclodedic "flatulence" vs. the more common "fart.")  The article should retain the title of Budjak because that name properly situates the topic in both time and space (cf. Gaul/France, Mesopotamia/Iraq). AjaxSmack 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottoman Bessarabia and other names

message: Why were the Cyrillic spellings removed? - Jmabel | Talk 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lists like that are prone to mission creep and the Budjak cities already have 3 forms, adding two Cyrillic forms is straying toward them being more like entries in "Names of European cities in different languages."  My thinking was that the list links to articles on the cities and these articles contain the Cyrillic forms. AjaxSmack 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyrillic

message: Since "Kievan Rus' and Galicia-Volhynia" amount to something very different from "Golden Horde Tatars", this is a very substantive anonymous change without comment or citation. Since there was no citation for the previous version, either, and I don't know this history, I am not reverting. Someone should either cite for the present version or revert with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very substantive edit without comment

message: Are all of the census numbers 2001? Because the paragraph that begins "According to the the Ukrainian census, Budjak has a population of 617,200 people," goes through two more sentences before it says "The official data of the According to the the  shows…" If the data in the first two sentences comes from that same census, then the paragraph should begin, "According to the 2001 Ukrainian Census…" If not, it should be clear what census it is referring to.
Also, why do we have approximate numbers for several ethnicities followed by a precise number for Romanians/Moldavians?  
Also, is there any online source for this census data? And if not, can someone at least indicate a print source? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Census numbers

message: If a city or region name is linked (i.e., there is a Wikipedia article dealing with it), there is no need for multiple translations.  If a reader is interested in alternate forms he or she can link to the respective article on the city or region.  ("Foreign terms within the article body do not need native text if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles" from WP:BETTER.)  An exception might be for Akkerman/Bilhorod-Dnistrovs'kyi/Cetatea Alba where the historical forms differ greatly and were used in English.  —  AjaxSmack   04:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link names do not need translations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Budjak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060414080203/http://www.bnrm.md:80/memoria/files/2/1/1932-6.pdf to http://www.bnrm.md/memoria/files/2/1/1932-6.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.divers.ro/cgi-bin/buletin_ro.py?id=265#4274
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello,
The article doesn't explain at all, especially in the History section, when and how did the ethnic Ukrainians (not state citizens) arrived or settled in Budjak. Yet, the Ethnic groups and demographics section notes that they are 40%! How? Through which process/historical settlement, movement, migration etc? These two facts, need to be explained and put in concordance. For all the other ethnic groups (except with the political issue of lumping all Romanians as "Moldavians"), it is very clear from the History section, when each one of them arrived in or settled the area.
Thanks
--Codrin.B (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrival and settlement of Ukrainians in Budjak