Talk:Moldovans/Archive 1

message: I wonder who came up with the wonderful idea for this topic. Nevertheless, if you want to propagate this bizare theory at least proceed thus in a logical manner. Why would the ethnic boundary of the "Moldovan people" be at the Prut? Is the river such an important ethnic barrier. At least if you want to talk about the Moldovan people inlcude those currently living in Romania, as they also consider themeseleves to be "moldoveni" although they do not view this as an ethnic distinction but rather as a subdivision of the Romanian ethnicity. TSO1D 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tso1d, umm, hello... did you consider that the history of RM/Basarabia/whatever you want to call it has been separate since the early 1800s? Such a long time (nearly 2 centuries now) of political and historical separation creates some ethnic differences. Also check that this is a "disambiguation pagE". It includes definition of "Moldovan" as someone from Moldova, and also as someone from Moldavia (or as racist Romanians would say, Basarabia and Moldova). --Node 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "historical separation creates some ethnic differences"??? With all my respect for you, I sincerly doubt the validity of this statement. The minute differences that exist among the inhabitants of the two sides of the Prut do not constitute different ethnicities, by any reasonable standards. BTW, Nonde, may I ask where your interest in Romanian topics stems from?TSO1D 23:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very interesting article 

message: I agree with User:Node ue's version because it sort of puts you in the mind of someone other than a Romanian. The other version just shows how Romanians see who Moldovans are. Wikipedia has Neutral Point of View policy and articles cannnot be slanted towards one side or the other. --Khoikhoi 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a Moldovan, I don't see how Node_ue's version is NPOV, by posing Romanians as occupants. --Just a tag 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that? --Khoikhoi 21:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the Moldovans are not of Romanian ethnicity, then were during the period of Greater Romania under the occupation of the Romanians. bogdan 21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok 

message: Khoikhoi, the version you are supporting is full of weasel words. Please make a version without such expression:
:  are considered by some Pan-Romanianists...
:  they allege that such a classification...
:  they allege a new identity...
Thank you, bogdan 21:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll try, how would I be able to change the weasel words? Do you have any suggestions? --Khoikhoi 21:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See that link, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, for some explanations. bogdan 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, are considered by some advocates of Greater Romania is just as weaselish as the other expression.bogdan 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: * Moldovans comprise 76.1 % in Republic of Moldova 
* Moldovans comprise 258,619 out of 48,457,000 = 0.53 % in Ukraine  
** Moldovans comprise 67,225 out of 922,800 = 7.28 % in Chernivtsi Oblast  
** Moldovans comprise 123,751 out of 2,469,000 = 5.01 % in Odessa Oblast 
This information is taken from the official censuses held in Moldova in 2004 and in Ukraine in 2001. Other numbers shouldn't be invented. --Zserghei 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official censuses data 

message: 1. The term "Moldovans" is another name of Romanians. Ethnicaly, "Moldovans" are Romanians.
2. There is a second meaning of this term. It means "citizens of the Republic of Moldova" (regardless of their ethnicity). Which is: Russians, Ukrainians, Gagauzs etc. who live in Republic of Moldova are also Moldovans, as they are all citizens of the Republic of Moldova ).
P.S. This article creates a big confusion (between citizenship and ethnicity), coused by a logic error.  Please, use your logic, when writing on Wikipedia. Don't make fools of yourselves. :)  --82.170.2.111 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many, yes. But not all Moldovans consider themselves Romanians, so it would be POV to label them as a sub-group of Romanians. —Khoikhoi 06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All Moldovans from Romania consider themselves Romanians. Now, maybe not all Moldovans from Moldova consider Romanians but most of them admit that they speak romanian language.
--Andrei George 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic group? See the definition of "ethnic group".  

message: Since we (the editors) have not been able to reach consensus I have added a NPOV tag to this article.
I hope everybody agrees that we have rather divergent personal views, and we cannot use Wikipedia
for such disputes.
Sufitul 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus on what? The dispute was months ago. —Khoikhoi 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know either. I will remove the tag until a specific neutrality dispute will be presented. TSO1D 03:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I have a question for the guys here that believe Moldovan!=Romanian. Is the claim of Moldovenists that Eminescu is Moldovan correct? If yes, why? Eminescu never lived in a unified Moldova, and was only 9 years old when Romania was formed. Moreover, he was a Romanian nationalist. :) The same for Creanga. Dpotop 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eminescu

message: This is POV - Most Romanians, as well as a large part of the Moldovan populace, claim that external interference led to Moldova's increasingly separate identity rather than any actual differences [citation needed].
Where reference for that? Also the no.4 reference at the bottom of page isn't a ref at all. Cheers -- max rspct leave a message  19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you would like, the word most can be replaced with numerous. However, I don't believe that any sources will be found to back the statement as it appears obvious to anyone familiar with the situation. The idea of conducting a study to determine the views of Romanian citizens subject is anologous to having asked West Germans whether a German from East Berlin was German during the Cold War. TSO1D 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in article

message: I reverted edits of PANONIAN since his edits are missleading. The best example is given by TSO1D when he said he is a Moldovan and also a Romanian. --147.102.222.220 11:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep it simple

message: Pannonian, I don't think you saw my comments above, I added some below each of your paragraphs. I am not basing my argument on the historical link between Bessarabia and the Principality of Moldavia and Romania. I am simply stating that the table will present misleading factual information. Outside of the context provided in the article the numbers don't really make any sense. Again I am not challanging the basis of the Moldovan ethnicity in regards to the table, I just don't think that the table will aid anyone in this case. And about the Austrian page, it has some disambig info at the top however the main disambiguation page is Austrian.  TSO1D 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I told you, if some data in the table is wrong, then why you do not correct that data instead to delete the table? I do not object that we can include in the number of Moldovans those who live in Romania and who consider themselves Romanians but also Moldovans. Tell me how many Moldovans live in Romania and we can include that too. PANONIAN (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PANONIAN what you're proposing doesn't sound like a POV? You're pushing a POV here I would say. To answer you: there are 7-8 millions romanians that live in Romanian Moldova and there are other 3 millions romanians that live in Republic of Moldova. --Andrei George 16:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That is exactly my point though, it will be impossible to find a correct number to describe the situation. The official Romanian census does not count Moldovans as forming a distinct ethnos. In Moldova, on the other hand, people were encouraged to declare themselves as Moldovans. Then one has to decide which Moldovans to count. Should all Moldovans on both sides of the Prut be counted (as the Moldovanist theory dictates), or should just those who declared themselves Moldovan be counted, etc. Choosing a certain figure cannot make much sense so I see no use for the table. TSO1D 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that in the introduction the article states that the term Moldovan here is used to denote a separate ethnos that mainly resides in the Republic of Moldova. Yet most Moldovans on the other side of the Prut do not declare themselves as Moldovan and do not believe in the existenence of a separate ethnos, therefore why should they be included in the table. The trick would be to see if there are actually Moldovans in Romanian Moldova who declared their ethnicity as such. But I see no way to determine that. TSO1D 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I am not contradicting myself. I am stating that there might be people in Romania who declared their ethnicity as Moldovan, and these should be included in the main count. However, this data cannot easily be found as that category was not accepted in the Romanian census. This is precisely what my argument is. No number can come even close to providing a logical estimate for the numer of Moldovans because of the varying definitions. By the way your second argument was to "3 million Moldovans who declare themselves as such and 8 miliion who declare themselves as Romanians" not to count the Moldovans who declared themselves as Romanians (by this I assume you mean Moldovan nationals who declared themselves as Romanians). Nevertheless, this does not make sense as the whole point of this article is to discuss the possibility of a Moldovan ethnos which would be based on the self-identification of the people. What would be the point in counting people who declared themselves as Romanian as Moldovan? 
Btw, sorry if my answer sounds consusing, but I don't know how to make it more lucid. However, this just illustrates my point that a table cannot provide a decent amount of clarity to readers. TSO1D 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: Is this article referring to what TSO1D had just said in his edit summary: Moldovan ethnos developed by Soviet propaganda? 
--Andrei George 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrei, if you read the rest of the article you will see that it discusses the existence of a separate Moldovan ethnic group dinstinct from the Romanian one. As a result it would not be right to state that Moldovans are a sub-group of the Romanian ethnic group in the introduction. Although this is true, the article discusses the existence of a independent Moldovan ethnic group. TSO1D 16:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be maybe an article Moldovans (ethnos developed by Soviet propaganda)? Of course not, TSO1D. This article is good when we say that moldovans are a sub-ethnic group of romanians. Because they really are.
--Andrei George 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You can include a sentence later in the article that explains this fact. Nevertheless, the article mainly deals with the existence of a separate ethnos. The article includes a significant portion that explains the flaws of this theory. Nevertheless, its goal is to provide an explanaiton for the appearance of the ethnic categroy Moldovan in some censuses. TSO1D 16:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: As I understand, the main objection to the table was that it does not show correct number of Moldovans. So, here is a little improved table, and I want to know is something wrong with it. PANONIAN (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the notion of Moldovan ethnicity is controversial. And clearly Moldovans are Daco-Romanians, even if they claim a distinct ethnicity from Romanians. The table should indicate this, not just jump to "other Latin peoples". I'm not sure exactly how this should all be handled, but if this article is going to exist as an article about an ethnicity, then it should have the table. Otherwise, it should be re-cast as a article about a word, as we do with Negro. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, this page already does not treat the concept of Moldovans as a clear separate ethnos. The page only has a few senteces declaring the idea of a distinct Moldovan ethnic group, whereas the greater part of the article dwells on the political aspects of the issue. TSO1D 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Again about the table

message: ===I support that table shown above should be included into article=== 
#PANONIAN (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem though. The page does not follow the standard for an article for an ethnic group because this situation is abnormal. Whereas for groups such as the Germans, Russians, etc., you can have ordinary pages, when it comes to subgroups of a certain ethnos the situation becomes more complicated. For instance, the Austrian page mainly talks about the political implication in the varying identification of the people but does not suggest that the Austrians constitute a distinct population. As a result the page does not follow standard wiki ethnic group format and lacks a table such as this. My point is that the Moldovan page should be treated in an identical manner. TSO1D 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There were 31,9% of Moldovans in Transnistria in 2004 : i.e. 31,9% of 555500 = 177204. About 33,000 moldovans were declared in Kazahstan in 1989 . Results for the census of 1999 in Kazahstan were published only for the most numerous nationalities and moldovans were not mentioned. So, the total number is: 3211380. It is possible to write 'approx. 3,2 million'. --Zserghei 07:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Kazakhstan, in 1999 they are 19,458 "Moldovans" according to this pdf --Anonimu 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe my source is outdated and full results were published later. Thanks for the better link. --Zserghei 14:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the case only for Republic of Moldova, not Kazakstand and other regions of former Soviet Union. --Candide, or Optimism 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other regions do not have official policy, but if you go to the site of the Ukrainian parliament, you can find information on minority populations and their cultures, and they have separate ones for Moldovans and Romanians. --Node 08:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: #PANONIAN (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I support that table shown above should be included into article

message: # Oppose. Dpotop 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I oppose that table shown above should be included into article

message: *Also to say that this is not supposed to be final look of the table. The voting is only about whether to include table into article or not, but if anybody think that table could be improved or changed he is welcome to do that. PANONIAN (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem though. The page does not follow the standard for an article for an ethnic group because this situation is abnormal. Whereas for groups such as the Germans, Russians, etc., you can have ordinary pages, when it comes to subgroups of a certain ethnos the situation becomes more complicated. For instance, the Austrian page mainly talks about the political implication in the varying identification of the people but does not suggest that the Austrians constitute a distinct population. As a result the page does not follow standard wiki ethnic group format and lacks a table such as this. My point is that the Moldovan page should be treated in an identical manner. TSO1D 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There were 31,9% of Moldovans in Transnistria in 2004 : i.e. 31,9% of 555500 = 177204. About 33,000 moldovans were declared in Kazahstan in 1989 . Results for the census of 1999 in Kazahstan were published only for the most numerous nationalities and moldovans were not mentioned. So, the total number is: 3211380. It is possible to write 'approx. 3,2 million'. --Zserghei 07:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Kazakhstan, in 1999 they are 19,458 "Moldovans" according to this pdf --Anonimu 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe my source is outdated and full results were published later. Thanks for the better link. --Zserghei 14:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the case only for Republic of Moldova, not Kazakstand and other regions of former Soviet Union. --Candide, or Optimism 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other regions do not have official policy, but if you go to the site of the Ukrainian parliament, you can find information on minority populations and their cultures, and they have separate ones for Moldovans and Romanians. --Node 08:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: For TSO1D: if you place image where it is now, then it push table to the right and create large empty space between the text and the table. It looks ugly. We should find better place for image. PANONIAN (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that problem with the current layout. I tried looking at the page with IE and Firefox and it looked fine. What browser are you using? I wonder if other users are experiencing the problem described by you, for me it's just the opposite. One of the previous versions created a huge gap in the middle of the article when viewed with IE. TSO1D 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use Opera, and it look very bad on this browser. PANONIAN (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment