Talk:Moldovans/Archive 2

message: Here are my reasons for reverting:
*If you've seen Moldova's census, you'd know that 36% of Moldova's population said that they spoke "Moldovan", so let's not try to push any particular POV here.
*Don't remove  tags, no matter what. If you have neutral, reliable sources, then provide them and replace the tags.
*The last thing you added is already mentioned in the Footnotes section, FYI.
—Khoikhoi 06:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here are my reasons as to why your revert and arguments are totally misplaced and out of conext:
* Yes I have seen the census. 36% of Moldova's population did say the speak Moldovan. This does not mean that A) every Moldovan said he spoke "Moldovan", B) every Moldovan that said he speaks "Moldovan" understands "Moldovan" to be neccessarily different from Romanian (IF YOU HAVE ANY PROOF REGARDING THIS MATTER, PLEASE LET US KNOW).
** Try proving it. You can't, because you can't prove a negative.
*** Really? And who says so? You, NODE-UE, the all powerful and all-knowing, defender of Stalinists and Moldovenists wherever they may be?Constantzeanu 17:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantzeanu's edits 

message: I have semi protected both the talk and the main page becuase of the trolling, however, I am reluctant to keep it long on the talk page. I will check in a few days. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will unprotect the talk page, and see how it goes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi protected

message: Before I address the deeper concerns here, I will address some of Constantine's personal jabs at me.
First of all, "Really? And who says so? You, NODE-UE, the all powerful and all-knowing, defender of Stalinists and Moldovenists wherever they may be?"
What? Umm... no, it's a simple rule of logic. You simply can't prove a negative. It's impossible.
There are a few books of Moldovan history:
* A. Brezianu's "Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Moldova"
* T. Hegarty's "Moldova"
* V. Nedelciuc's "The Republic of Moldova: a short history"
* And ESPECIALLY Charles King's "The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture"
These are just the English titles, of course; there are many more books in Romanian, Russian, Moldovan, and various other languages about it.
And you act as if a revert war is one-sided. It is not. It takes at least two people. If you don't want a revert war, the solution is simple: stop reverting! You can't expect other people to stop reverting unless you do.
Now, that aside, things have gone a bit far here. Everyone needs to realize that this article is a Wiki article. Nobody is "in charge" of it. It wasn't "my decision", or "Khoikhoi's decision" if a certain sentence was there. IT is the decision of the majority. Look at the history of this article. How many people have reverted to Khoikhoi/my/Mikka's version? Many. That means those people support it. When we talk about the need to discuss changes, it means all changes, including yours. If you want to discuss changes, go ahead, discuss your own, and I will discuss mine. But you cannot make changes and say "OK as of now, no-one can make any more changes without discussing them!", because that's unfair and hypocritical. Notice I said the action is hypocritical, not the person who is doing it.
We have already discussed the issues at hand, and you are repeating the same things now. About Romanian words and their translations.
The thing about Wikipedia is that it is built by humans, through consensus. If the majority agrees to put something "incorrect" in an article, that's just too bad. So if something here is incorrect, don't expect that it will get removed just because you say it's incorrect, you have to convince people. --Node 19:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt you've read any of these books, but in case you have, what do they say? Tell me the page number, etc. Also, you don't speak Moldovan, so saying on your userpage that you speak the language at Level 2 is laughable. --Candide, or Optimism 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how much he knows. Wikipedia:Babel/Levels indicates that level 2 is acceptable for a badly educated native speaker. I don't know if Node qualifies. --Telex 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't even qualify for Level 1. --Candide, or Optimism 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anittas, please retract your personal attacks. --Node 21:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a personal attack to say that you don't speak Moldovan. --Candide, or Optimism 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you phrased it, it is. --Node 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of hand 

message: I merely want to point out at a stupidity of the quoted anti-census argument, that somehow populace was tricked by communists into calling themselves Moldovans (note I don't intend to remove it from article). The claim is of equally stupid merit as a counter-claim that the remaining populace declared themselves romaniand under the pressure of "Greater Romania" propaganda. While it was OK when there was an attractive goal to separate themselves from USSR. Today, with USSR gone for good, it looks like that joining the Romania is not equally attractive goal, so I see nothing unusual that population has differing opinions on the subject, and we must reflect this difference, rather than to insist that half of population is brainless. `'mikka (t) 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a Romanian asks me what I am, I answer them Moldovean; but that doesn't mean I'm not Romanian. I think that many of the Moldovans answered that they are Moldovan - because they are Moldovan - but without realising that their choice meant that Moldovan was different from Romanian. Also, in the last two to three years, I think Moldovans are becoming more aware of their Romanian identity. We've seen some good indications of this and 5 years from now, we will know better. --Candide, or Optimism 01:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's going to happen in 5 year? Vox Populi (TSO) 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anittas and the Secret Society of Unionist Looneys are planning to advance an army of volunteers to convert Moldovans into Romanians by force. (lol. not really!) --Node 06:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, Mikka, I can understand your Great Russian discourse, giving that you were indoctrinated during Soviet times. But I still cannot understand Node_ue. It's funny to see that the harshest supporter of soviet-style moldovanism was born in the US. But, well, he did not yet explained his relationship with Moldova. If his parents were forced to leave, I can understand his bitterness. Also, if they were state employees in charge with moldovanization, I could also understand. :):):) Dpotop 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please show me where exactly you see "Great Russian" discourse in my remark? By the way, I am not Russian, if you want to play personal attack games, you are missing the target. `'mikka (t) 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know you are not russian, but soviet (russian) propaganda did have an influence on you. Just like Romanian nationalist propaganda (communist and other) had an influence on me. This is why you are more likely to support the claims of Node, and I am more likely to oppose them. Dpotop 06:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  My parents left because of USSR, like many others. They knew they wanted children, they did not want to raise them in a communist country, and much of the family was already living in US and Canada. However, just because they didn't agree with Stalinism, doesn't mean they didn't agree with Moldovenism. --Node 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, from what I know, it was not that simple to emigrate for the regular Ivan. So, "leaving because of the URSS" is not clear enough for me (a person that knows the system). Sounds too much like propaganda. Dpotop 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just to be clear: I am not trying to do political police here. I have simply expressed by astonishment. If you choose to reply or not, it's your own choice, I am by no means questioning your editor status. Dpotop 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently you're not too well read up on the USSR. Soviet Jewish emigration was not uncommon. Some Jews were denied exit visas by the USSR. Most Jews heading for Israel or America were denied exit visas. Fortunately, my parents were an exception, and . Other family members, however, had more difficult passage, including some who were never able to leave. The year they left was 1986, after marriage. Jewish emigration was on an ebb that year, so that may be why their application was accepted with only a few months delay. --Node 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  In another note, I concur with Anittas, for once. I am Moldovan, and also Romanian, just like Californians are also Americans. Free Moldovans chose in 1859 to create Romania by uniting with Wallachia. The ones annexed by Russia had to wait until 1918. Now, if current-day inhabitants of Rep. of Moldova don't want union, it's their right, but don't try to mess with historical facts. Dpotop 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what? Californians are also Latinos, Germans, Russians, Jews. But they still are Californians. And who is messes with historical facts? You are throwing accusations here and there. Talk facts, not slurs. `'mikka (t) 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I am talking facts, and if Node_ue got my idea (see below, and even though he may not agree) I consider it was clear enough. Dpotop 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Free Moldovans? You mean, the peasants, in a democratic vote, decided to unite, like in Montenegro in reverse? Haha. --Node 21:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, yes. If you know enough Romanian, take a look at :ro:Adunare_ad-hoc. It was a form of democracy, as much as you hate it. They were elected consultative bodies comprising members of all the estates, mandated by the Peace Congress of Paris (1856) to make proposals on the structure of the new state "The United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldova". It is these bodies that took advantage of a loophole in the Treaty of Paris and elected the same prince, thus effectively forming Romania (the initial idea of the Great Powers of the time was that the only common thing between the Principalities would be a set of laws and a Court of Cassation). Then, it was a Moldovan prince (Alexandru Ioan Cuza) that finally established the capital of the new state in Bucharest (Wallachia). You can also take a look at . Dpotop 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A *form* of democracy. Who was represented? The church, the boyars, the upper middle-class, and "the servant peasants"? How were these peasants represented? In the feudal society of the time, I somehow doubt it was a true representative democracy. I'm guessing the church, the boyars, and the upper middle class (I'd like to avoid the direct translation of "burgheze" because of negative connotations) were very well represented with good democratic election, but that the peasants weren't well-represented. --Node 01:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I gave you references, in the literary form of Romanian, which is identical with the literary form of Moldovan. Did you read them? Dpotop 05:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Ad-hoc assemblies indeed included representatives from the dependent peasantry. And representatives were indeed elected. The elections were indeed separate for the 4 estates (boyars, church, bourjoisie, dependent peasantry). Unfortunately, I cannot give you very exact sources right now. Looking for them. Dpotop 05:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stupid argument

message: Dpotop, please cease your personal attacks (re: "as much as you hate it"). If you proceed in this way, you will be blocked for persistent uncivility. You are hurting your own logic: after reading your "..as you hate it", I doubt your opponent would look neutrally at your subsequent reasonable comment on history. `'mikka (t) 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikkalai, first of all your intervention is offtopic (this is why I de-indented it). Second, you start again to side with Node_ue by applying double standards. If you see my intervention as offensive, then it's perfectly in line with Node's "Secret Society of Unionist Looneys" and other remarks. You cannot accept one side throwing shit at the other, but not the reverse. Dpotop 06:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My "offtopic" remark was intended to show that both sides can throw the basically the same shit onto each other, hence it is perfectly neutral. What I can or cannot accept is your guesswork about me, which I am asking again stop to write here. 23:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ha, ha :):). How can you say that when your remark (five lines above) was exclusively and explicitly targeted at me. No mention about "both sides". :):) Dpotop 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, I did not intend it to be offensive (unlike your and Node's remarks at Anittas). Node has shown a record of disconsidering everything Romanian (including the "peasants" above, followed by a Haha). So, yes, it's quite obvious that some form of hate exists. This is not just an idea of mine. And I also did not disconsider Node for this. I'm just noting it, and I asked for info. Dpotop 06:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which exactly my remarks about Anittas are offensive? It seems I was the only one person who was defending him in his recent mortal brawl. Once again, you are exressing your preconceived ideas about me. For the Nth time, please discuss the article, not editors. `'mikka (t) 23:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally, the term "personal remarks" does not mean that they have to be offensive to be discouraged. They are discouraged exactly because they are "personal": they address messenger, not the message. For N+1-th time: please discuss merits of arguments, not of writers (note: the text "your sentence is the KGB POV" will not work either). `'mikka (t) 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you will stop Node_ue from discussing about "Greater Romanian POV", then I will stop. Until then, your remarks as an admin are flawed by blatant partiality, and I will disconsider them. OTOH, I have always appreciated you as an editor. Dpotop 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mikkalai applies double standards

message: I was able to fill two of the "citation needed" placeholders by citing King. I found parts of his book online here: http://dacoromania.spb.ru/texte/noi/moldovenii/01.htm. It was kind of odd that I could only reach the place through two Russian portals, but there really aren't that many good online sources in Romanian or English regarding Romanian history, and http://dacoromania.spb.ru/start.htm offers a great gateway (it has works in Russian and Romanian).
In the introduction he gives a brief overview of Moldovans, their Romanian identity and how the Soviets tried to fabricate a new ethnicity (not my words but his). For the first citation here is the passage (in Romanian though) 
"Această carte urmăreşte un proiect sovietic de construire a naţiunii care a eşuat, dar care a făcut-o într-un mod ciudat si ambiguu înainte de 1920, putini specialişti considerau că moldovenii pot fi si altceva decât o prelungire estică a românilor"
"This book follows a Sovietic project that failed to forge a new nation in a strange and ambiguous way, before 1920 few specialists considered that Moldovans could be anything other than the eastern expansion of Romanians."
and the second is: 
"În anii '20 totuşi, un nou popor şi o nouă limbă păreau să apară deodată pe scena mondială. în mica Republică Autonomă Sovietică Socialistă Moldovenească (RASSM), înfiinţată în 1924 la graniţa vestică a Ucrainei Sovietice, istoriile, manualele, gramaticile, ziarele moldoveneşti precum şi alte publicaţii erau salutate de autorităţile ruse ca primele realizări ale naţiunii moldovene în formare. Persoane a căror limbă şi etnie fuseseră până atunci considerate „româneşti" păreau să devină peste noapte „moldoveni", iar propagandiştii sovietici au început să se agite pentru unificarea tuturor moldovenilor, care locuiau mai ales în anumite părţi ale Ucrainei şi în provincia românească Basarabia, într-un singur stat sovietic moldovenesc. Mai ales după 1940, când părţi ale provinciilor româneşti Bucovina şi Basarabia au fost anexate de Uniunea Sovietică şi absorbite într-o Republică Sovietică Socialistă Moldovenească (RSSM) mai mare, au apărut deodată două popoare „romanice estice" independente acolo unde fusese înainte numai unul."
I am not going to translate this whole passage, but it basically states that the Soviets undertook a massive effort to artificially create a Moldovan ethnos and language. 
I have to say that I have to thank Node for steering me towards this source, although I saw it in a bookstore a few months ago I did not have time to read it then, but now I see that it is indeed a good source for whoever wants to learn more information about the ethno-political state of Moldova, and I agree with most, though not all of his conclusions.Vox Populi (TSO) 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read our article History of the Moldovan language, which spells it all, and even more. And you will see that there is no Soviet conspiracy in wikipedia to hide soviet tricks. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand Mikka, did I ever imply that such a conspiracy took place? The two passages are for Node who indicated that two sources needed to be provided within the text, which is exactly what I did. Vox Populi (TSO) 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What Constantzeanu probably means is that Moldovans certainly exist in Romania, though they are not recognized as a separate ethnic group but rather as a subcategory of the Romanian ethnos. The Moldovans from Moldova and those from Romania belong to the same ethnos, a fact undisputed by any side. Thus if you want to discuss the ethnic characteristics of Moldovans, one cannot limit the discussion to the political borders of the Republic. Vox Populi (TSO) 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This interpretation of "Moldovan" is even assumed by the Russian Orthodox Church "Mitropolia Chisinaului si a intregii Moldove", and I remind you that in Romanian(Moldovan) Moldova=Moldavia. :) Dpotop 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Concerning "sub-ethnoses", a.s.o. I would say Moldovans or Romania are ethnic Romanian, period. Like in other countries, inhabitants of one region may have a different accent, but this does not change their perceived and accepted ethnicity. Saxons and Bavarians are Germans, no doubt about it. Francilians and Poitevins are French. There is no such thing as Francilian ethnicity. Dpotop 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I suggest Romanians here not to invent a new "sub-ethnos" just because it may seem to advance the discussion with Mikka and Node_ue. You know this discussion does not advance. Dpotop 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? I said that Moldovans are a subgroup of the Romanian ethnos. How in the world can you dispute that? I mean there are some differences among the various Romanian people and it makes sense to group them by grai, which I called a subgroup.TSO1D 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: As it stands right now besides the points indicated by Vox Populi, the article has a number of shortcomings.
*First of all Khoikhoi claims, although I do not know who is he to make such claims, that the article reffers only to the so-called Moldovan ethnicity. First of all, let me remind you that the existance of this ethnic group is still debatable so the first sentence should not read "Moldovans are an ethnic group", rather "Moldovans are the autochnonous population of..." --> for the sake of sounding more NPOV - right Khoikhoi???
*Second of all, Moldovans in Romania have to be adressed. Not doing so would seriously harm the quality of the article. Dapiks 23:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Constantzeanu probably means is that Moldovans certainly exist in Romania, though they are not recognized as a separate ethnic group but rather as a subcategory of the Romanian ethnos. The Moldovans from Moldova and those from Romania belong to the same ethnos, a fact undisputed by any side. Thus if you want to discuss the ethnic characteristics of Moldovans, one cannot limit the discussion to the political borders of the Republic. Vox Populi (TSO) 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This interpretation of "Moldovan" is even assumed by the Russian Orthodox Church "Mitropolia Chisinaului si a intregii Moldove", and I remind you that in Romanian(Moldovan) Moldova=Moldavia. :) Dpotop 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Concerning "sub-ethnoses", a.s.o. I would say Moldovans or Romania are ethnic Romanian, period. Like in other countries, inhabitants of one region may have a different accent, but this does not change their perceived and accepted ethnicity. Saxons and Bavarians are Germans, no doubt about it. Francilians and Poitevins are French. There is no such thing as Francilian ethnicity. Dpotop 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I suggest Romanians here not to invent a new "sub-ethnos" just because it may seem to advance the discussion with Mikka and Node_ue. You know this discussion does not advance. Dpotop 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? I said that Moldovans are a subgroup of the Romanian ethnos. How in the world can you dispute that? I mean there are some differences among the various Romanian people and it makes sense to group them by grai, which I called a subgroup.TSO1D 14:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortcomings

message: In Brazil, there are at least 40,000 modolvans or descendants just in São Paulo 
:The reference is completely ambiguous: Você sabia que a comunidade da Moldova - a ex-república soviética que era conhecida como Moldávia - também está representada em São Paulo? São cerca de 40 mil descendentes moldovanos que se concentram na Zona Leste da Capital - Vila Prudente, Moóca e Vila Formosa - e no Grande ABC. Os primeiros imigrantes daquele país, situado na Europa Oriental e fazendo fronteira com a Romênia e Ucrânia, chegaram no Brasil na década de 1920, mas boa parte preferiu ficar mesmo em São Paulo por causa das boas oportunidades que a região já oferecia na época. It says that the first immigrants from "Moldova" came in the 1920s... when Moldova, which is defined just above as an ex-Soviet republic (? in the 1920s?), did not exist. Does this mean that the community now is comprised of Moldovan citizens, of people who have family in what is today Moldova (and thus have no particular vision on what it means to be Moldovan), or of people who, when asked, have answered that they are Moldovan? Dahn 13:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article as of right now includes not a NPOV stance, but rather the views of certain editors, while at the same time disconsidering everything that other editors might have to include. Also the view of some editors like Khoikhoi goes totally against the Wikipedia standards on "Good Faith", as Khoikhoi has explained several times that because of the attitude of Boni, he will take the anti-Romanian stance. Fore more info please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewDapiks 18:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to take my quote out of context. Since when is "anti-Greater Romania" the same as "anti-Romanian"? —Khoikhoi 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you are not just anti-Greater Romania. Your stance is far less NPOV than just anti-Greater Romania. As far as being anti-Greater Romanian goes, I am one too but that does not mean that one has to go 180 degrees against anything that seems to favour a pro-Romanian argument.Dapiks 18:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, shame on me. I am an enemy of the Romanian nation. —Khoikhoi 18:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement shows that you are not really serious and that in fact you have nothing better to say but be sarcastic. Dapiks 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. —Khoikhoi 23:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil