Talk:Moldovans/Archive 2

The Map

That map is inaccurate. Galati is shows as speaking the Muntenesc grai, which is wrong! It's Moldavian! Also, I didn't know that the whole of Dobrogea spoke the Muntenesc grai. Since when? You also expanded the Muntenesc grai into the Moldavian mountains! This is Bucharestnean propaganda. --Candide, or Optimism 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not make the map, I simply placed the picture here as I thought it was relevant to the subject at hand. As for your comments, I see Galati is right at the border between the two graiuiri which does reflect society to some extent as the city is diverse. As for the Dobrogea, even though I have never been there, from what I've heard the grai spoken there is closer to the Muntenesc version than the Moldovan version, and they don't have a separate grai of their own. But if you feel the map is misleading, just change the main picture, if you conduct research and are certain that the changes are correct. TSO1D 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of Dobrogea speaks a clear Muntenesc grai (if you've ever been to Constanţa, you'd know). The northern part is influenced by the Moldovenesc grai, but still they don't speak a clear Moldovenesc grai, so it's halfway. Heh! My great-great-grandfather came from Moldavia and settled in the norhtern part of Dobrogea a hundred years or so ago. :-) bogdan 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to shrink the Wallachian grai influence in the mountains and expand the Banatean grai in Vojvodina. Is the Wallachian grai really that strong in Transylvania? I know you had Fagaras, but still. --Candide, or Optimism 21:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the table should be expanded more. I heard there are a lot of moldovans in portugal, spain and russia. More figures should be placed in the table. (BaNaTeaN 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

Well, numerous Moldovans work in other countries, some as seasonal workers. I don't think those should be counted in the categories for other countries. Besides, that would present the risk of counting them twice, once in the Moldova data and then for other countries as well. TSO1D 20:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, there has to be a moldovan diaspora. I think every nation has a diaspora. There must be a fair sized moldovan diaspora. Also, we should do some research into the moldovans in moldova, because a lot of people that ticked either ukrainian or russian, on the census could infact be Moldovan. These people could have been surpressed over time to indicate their ancestry as russian or ukrainian. (BaNaTeaN 07:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

I am certain that a diaspora occured, however, the number of those who permanently emigrated to Western Europe cannot be that great. As for Moldovans being pressured to declared themselves as Russian or Ukrianian, I don't believe that there is evidence for this, except maybe in the case of mixed families. The government dissuaded the use of the Romanian ethnonym in favor of Moldovan, but people were not forced to declare themselves as belonging to another ethnic group. TSO1D 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I cannot base this on official data, since there is none, many Moldovans who go abroad present themselves either as Russians or Romanians. This is more of a personal experience rather then something stated somewhere in a statistic - so I don't know how much that helps here.

I would like to point out that the fact that Moldovans are officially recognized only in former USSR republics says something about the artificial manner in which this ethnicity was invented in that very Soviet Union. The article should make some kind of statement about that. Constantzeanu 16:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its more like, those are the only places where there is really a significant population, and which ask about "nationality" on census forms. If you looked at the US census, there are probably people who claim to be Moldovans, but I imagine it's a relatively small number -- most probably claim to be Russians. --Node 06:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues

First of all, the page says something like "The Romanian census didn't record any Moldovans" -- OF COURSE it didn't! If you wrote your ethnicity as "Moldovan", you are automatically counted as Romanian! Some people here have said that it's wrong to offer "Moldovan" as a separate option or to count Moldovans separately, but if you consider your ethnicity to be Moldovan, don't you have a right to be counted that way?

Of course Moldovans are not counted in Romania! Do you count new-yorkers as a separate ethnicity in the US? I remind you that the Principality of Moldova took part in the Union of 1859 that produced Romania. Nobody forced Moldovans to unite. :) Dpotop 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone writes that their nationality is "New Yorker", it will be counted this way. The only reason you don't see it in census statistics is because there isn't a significant number. I imagine there are probably 10 or 20 people who wrote that as their ethnicity, maybe less, maybe more, and if you look at the full list you would find it, but in summary tables it doesn't appear. --Node 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, and, regarding the union, remind me who voted on that? Wasn't it a small circle of Bessarabian intellectuals?? The people really had no say. If you want to claim the "will of the people", you need a democratic vote. --Node 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Bessarabia here, but of Moldavia, as you would say. Which democratically decided the union in 1859. As you certainly know, it's not Romanian/Moldovan that makes a difference between the terms Moldovan and Moldavian. This is just an artificial English translation. In Romanian/Moldovan, the word "Moldovean" covers both. Therefore, you cannot make a difference between Moldavian (that is, Romanian from Moldavia) and Moldovan in the census form. Actually, I think the translation to "Moldovan" was introduced by moldovanists and by their Russian bosses to facilitate the task of people like you. Dpotop 11:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Moldovenists and their Russian bosses? You have a very one-sided view of history. It's not as if there was never any will from Bessarabians themselves to have a separate identity. No, there was not some giant revolution in the streets of Chisinau, but there were and have always been people from the region who see themselves as non-Romanian. Soviets did not invent a new ideology, they simply stole it from Bessarabian nationalists (and there were never many, considering most Bessarabians were peasant farmers who didn't care about such matters), and made a few changes to suit their own goals (that is, talk about the "glory of communism" and the like).

Moldovenist history does not talk about some great love affair with Russia, as you make it sound like. Russia and Romania are both depicted as foreign nations, and in fact Romania is depicted (nowadays -- for some of the 60's and 70's, it was the other way) as historically closer to Moldova than Russia. If you read the proposed Moldovenist history book, you will find that Russia is never considered a "good guy" or "mother russia" or anything. Moldovenism is about Moldova and Moldovans, the history of Moldova, not about Russia.

Ultimately yes, ideological policies were approved by Russians, but they were mostly enforced, discussed, expanded, and taught by native Moldovans. --Node 08:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, it says "Certain Moldovans have pressed for recognition of an ethnic Moldovan identity, separate from that of Romanians. Nevertheless, in the 2004 Moldovan Census, about 40% of the population of Moldova (55% of all Moldovans [5] and Romanians in Moldova) reported Romanian as a native tongue, rather than Moldovan."

WTF!? Many Moldovans consider themselves to not be ROmanians, but to speak the Romanian language. AS an example see our very own User:Serhio, who has explicitly stated that he is Moldovan, and not Romanian, but that the language he speaks is called "Romanian".

Yes, that's because Serhio is of Russian/Ukranian ancestry, but identifies himself as Moldovan. Just like you are a Jew, but call yourself Moldovan. The only difference is that Serhio speaks the language and lives in Moldova. --Candide, or Optimism 13:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1) How do you know Serhio's ancestry? 2) Regardless of his ancestry, he most likely would count himself as "Moldovan" on a census, and write that his language is "Romanian", thus his statistic would be included here. --Node 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As any demographics expert will tell you, you can't count the members of an ethnic group based on the speakers of a language -- for example, of all the Irish people, how many claim Irish as their native tongue? What about Gagauz? Nowadays most Gagauz claim their language as Russian. But their ethnicity is still Gagauz.

Ethnicity and language are connected, yes, but at the same time, they are very different. --Node 07:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• So what are you proposing? --Telex 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding the fact that some Moldovans have declared themselves as Russian? I doubt that this took place on a large scale. Some people of the Romanian ethnicity were encouraged to declare themselves as Moldovan (in the Moldovan SSR) other as Romanians (in the Ukrainian SSR) in order to fit the policy of the state. After the breakup of the USSR some of these patterns remained, but I don't see why some would have declared themselves as Russian. And also I urge you Node not to add a fact tag after every other sentence, some of the information is common knowledge and does not have to be sourced. Vox Populi (TSO) 21:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I keep adding it because... it's common knowledge! It doesn't need a source! Oh my! If you take a look at demographic trends in Russia, you find that people declare themselves Russians often when they're not really Ethnically Russian. Also, in the US, I know from experience, many Moldovans tell people they arE Russian, because most people have never heard of Moldova. If you say, "I'm Russian", people get it, if you say "I'm Moldovan", only the smart people get it. Everyone else says "You're what?" "What's Moldova?". And I doubt that information is common knowledge. SIncerely. Find a source, or I will remove it. --Node 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article says many Moldovans declared themselves as Romanians. There's no source for that, either. And according to most sociologists, someone who defines themselves as a Romanian can't be a Moldovan (same is true with Russian). Both should be removed. --Node 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What sociologists have you heard explain that a Moldovan cannot be Romanian? Then what would a native of Iaşi for instance be? He would be of the Romanian ethnos but of the Moldovan subcategory. But that's beside the point. I actually agree that the whole sentence should be removed, so I will proceed thus, if you disagree you can always revert. Vox Populi (TSO) 01:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu's edits

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 {{fact}} 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)

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)

• The fact-tag is useless. If you do not believe me, please go and pick up the book "History of the Romanians" by Hitchins (an American author) and you will find out that Moldovan was invented as a language and ethnicity in 1940.

• • Why use a source about Romanian history? Why not one about oh, say, Moldovan history? Believe me, they do exist. And they are less one-sided.

• • • Please show me a Moldovan history book that says what you are claiming. You can't. You know why? Because in Moldova, the history learned in schools is the "History of the Romanians".Constantzeanu 17:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• About the "last thing I addded" I did not quite understand what that "last thing was". As far as I know, the "last thing" I did was to erase one of Boni's retarded remarks about Russians. Constantzeanu 08:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Bonaparte may be banned, and I certainly do not like him, but nevertheless I think we should try to keep things civil here, lest it get to the level of chaos that happened at Moldovan language for a while. We may not agree with Bonaparte's remarks, and we may think they are unreasonable, but on Wikipedia we should refrain from calling them "retarded". If you want to send a private e-mail to, say, Khoikhoi, Ronline, me, or anyone else and say that, or say it in a chatroom, fine, but please not on WP. --Node 08:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Notice how I noted that his remarks were retarded, not the individual himself. I would really like you Node to actually adress the changes and discussion at hand, not go off on tangents - thank you! I would also like you not to engage in a revert war. I propose 3 days of no reverts and insead of discussions HERE, before we go on to make changes to the article itself. Constantzeanu 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What this article is about

Constantzeanu, I think you're confusing the subject of this article. This doesn't include the Moldavians at all, it's about the former Soviet Moldovans. Now I'm aware that in Romanian the words are the same, but this is English Wikipedia, and the subject of this article is about the main ethnic group in the Republic of Moldova, nothing more. —Khoikhoi 17:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(Bonaparte censored)

Boni, please don't talk like that. Nevertheless, Khoikhoi, I tend to disagree. This article cannot be only about the Soviet Moldovans. That is like saying that an article on Koreans is only about North Koreans but not South Koreans. The article if it's trully a Wikipedia article should be on all Moldovans and what the term Moldovan actually means. Constantzeanu 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid you're mistaken. This article has never included Moldavians and it probably never will. That's why it clearly says, "in Romania, despite its proximity to Moldova, no Moldovan ethnicity has been reported in the 2002 census, and the Romanian government as well as various other states do not recognize the existence of a Moldovan ethnic group". You see now? Also I removed Bonaparte's comments because he's not allowed to edit. —Khoikhoi 17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are mistaken Khoikhoi and I would really ask you to please sit down and listen for a second to the whole story. You call Moldovans from Romania Moldavians, but that is an artificial differentiation: the terms Moldavia and Moldova are interchangable. In fact, before 1989, it was the current Republic of Moldova that was called SSR of Moldavia or Moldavian SSR. In Romanian, Moldovans from the east and west of the Prut River are all called Moldovans. Besides that, if no Moldovans have been reported in the Romanian 2002 census does not mean that those people are not Moldovans. Their identity still remains a Moldovan one. I am really disturbed by people here who have a tendency to think in terms of black or white. Why is it so hard for you to accept that for a large segment of the population, perhaps millions to be Moldovan is the same as to be Romanian. Constantzeanu 17:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You just proved yourself wrong. You admitted that in Romanian both are called Moldovans, but it's different in English. This is the English Wikipedia, and you can't use it to "fix" what you think is wrong. They're called different people, and you're trying to push a certain POV into this article above all others. —Khoikhoi 18:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You may say germans or allemand but they are the same...

In Romanian, we say moldovean (singular), moldoveni (plural). I'm not sure what you mean when you say "they're called different people". --Candide, or Optimism 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anitas, I think its safe to assume that Khoikhoi is not really interested in reasonable arguments and has his own "views" on what should be in this article and what should not: namely, that Moldovans are not Romanians, period.Constantzeanu 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nooo, I didn't prove myself wrong. I think you did by showing that you fail to be a listener and instead push your own POV. I am only trying to explain to you that even in English, this is not a rule of thumb. Moldovans may mean Moldovans from Romania as well :)) Constantzeanu 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, fine. I'm just trying to explain to you that this article does not include the Moldavians, and if you want to change that it has to be discussed first. —Khoikhoi 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but who decided that this article does not also include Moldovans from Romania? Mikka, a known anti-Romanian or Ghirla, another POV pro-Russian, pro-Soviet pusher? Or is it Node ue that decided on this? Regardless on who did decide who should be included in this article and who should not, it is extreemly important for the article to tell the whole story, not just the opinion of a few so yes Moldovans from Romania should be touched upon. Constantzeanu 18:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But you can't just change that unilaterally, you have to build consensus on these things... —Khoikhoi 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How come not to include Moldavians since Moldovans=Moldavians? Explain better and include some reliable sources for your explanation. 168.126.28.25 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. —Khoikhoi 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused. It has nothing to do with NPOV or POV. In English, the old name for Moldova and Moldoveni is Moldavia and Moldavians, the latinized form of the name which was created, more or less by Dimitrie Cantemir when he wrote a book about Moldavia in Latin. When Republic of Moldova gained her independence, they used the Romanian form of the name, which is what we are using here. The old Latinized name was then attached to the old Principality of Moldavia and the current region in Romania, while the latter is designed to identify the Moldovans across Prut, now in Republic of Moldova. The difference is needed to identify who lives where, not to make a distinguishment between the two people. If you look at Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources, you will see that it clearly states that the two people are one and the same. Imagine the need of clarifying who is North Korean and who is South Korean. They are both Koreans, but they are either North- or South Koreans. Understand? --Candide, or Optimism 18:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but the difference between the Moldavians of Romania and the Moldovans of Moldova is that not all of the latter identifies as Romanians, and we have to respect that. This article is about the fake ethnicity created by the Soviets, and whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant. If the article aready says "there are no Moldovans in Romania", we can't just begin to change that without discussion. See what I'm saying? —Khoikhoi 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add to this that it was in fact the Republic of Moldova that was called the Moldavian SSR, before 1989, and it was not the western Romanian province that was called Moldavian. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask people on all sides of this argument to stop reverting. I have just added a newer and more accuarte map with the Romanian grais, so reverting to the Moldovenist version would distrub that. If you have an issue, please discuss it here first in a civilized and non-combative manner. It is obvious that a great deal of people have have their own POV's but let's try to do our job as wikipedians and be as neutral as possible. Constantzeanu 18:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Khoikhoi, in this case, I believe that you are mistaken. This article talks about the Moldovans as in the descendants of the main grouping of people that inhabited the former Principality of Moldavia. Yes, technically in English you could say that people who at this point are live in the Romanian region called Moldova of Romania are "Moldavians", whereas those living in the Republic of Moldova are "Moldovans", however this would only take into account regional differences, not ethnic ones. What I mean is that by this standard a Hungarian living in Romanian Moldavia would be a "Moldavian" and a Russian living in Moldova would be a "Moldovan". Thus, even though you can use two different name for the regions (despite of the fact that it's the same in Romanian), doing so for the names of the people living on the two sides simply makes no sense. Whether the Moldovans form another ethnic group is a matter of controversy, however the fact that the Moldovans in Romania and Moldova are of the same ethnicity is not contested by anyone. Vox Populi (TSO) 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi protected

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)

I will unprotect the talk page, and see how it goes. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of hand

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)

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)

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)

He doesn't even qualify for Level 1. --Candide, or Optimism 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anittas, please retract your personal attacks. --Node 21:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to say that you don't speak Moldovan. --Candide, or Optimism 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The way you phrased it, it is. --Node 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Focus

This article is about the controversial term "Moldovans" as applied to Republic of Moldova. The rest belongs to whatever grows out of Moldovans (disambiguation). One opic per article please. `'mikka (t) 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the article could discuss all aspects of Moldovans, not just the separate ethnos theory. Wouldn't it be better to have a longer article detailing various traits and details regarding all Moldovans and then have a section that would discuss the theory of a separate Moldovan ethnicity? Vox Populi (TSO) 23:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As my opponents correctly mention, there is nothing much to discuss about "all aspects of Moldovans", because historicaly Moldovans are part of Romanians with historically not large cultural peculiarities (at least no one has written something opposing yet). The only topic that deserves "detailing" is exactly the controversial "theory of a separate Moldovan ethnicity". The rest can be safely placed into "history" section. Americans is a redirect to United States despite being a huge population, because there is nothing to write about them besides that they live in America (and Demographics of the United States covers the detail). Just the same, there is nothing much written about "generic Moldovans" besides speaking a graiul of Romanian language and living in Moldova (historical region).

Of course, if I am mistaken and someone can write much more specifically "Moldavian" differing from "Romanian", we have the "Moldovans (historical)" page to fill. Unfortulately until now our Romanian friends are mostly busy proving that Moldovans=Romanians and don't bother to describe differences. For example I would very much like to know why in Romanian humor "Moldoveni" are seen as stupid and primitive. (the view also seemingly expressed by "ovservers", who basically declared that Moldovan "moldoveni" are so stupid that did not understand that they are Romanians during the recent census). `'mikka (t) 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one who created this article, but my argument is that even Moldovenists continually emphasize the point that Moldovans from both sides of the Prut are of the same ethnos. Virtually no one disputes this fact. Thus if you want to discuss the Moldovan people, regardless of their status, you have to take into consideration the whole group of Moldovans. As for the jokes, I suppose it was common for Romanians of one group to make fun of those in the others. The Moldovans have more jokes about Transylvanians, as do the Wallachians who also have many regarding the Oltenians, etc. TSO1D 13:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stupid argument

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)

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)

What's going to happen in 5 year? Vox Populi (TSO) 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. Dpotop 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Allow me to clarify some matters. First of all, Moldavia did not have "dependent peasants" by the time of the elections (indeed, serfdom was ABOLISHED IN 1749) - in fact, serfs did not exist on either side of the border, as Bessarabia was never integrated into the Russian feudal system (because peasants tended to run to free Moldavia the minute they believed the Russians were getting ready to turn them into serfs). Not only had Moldavia always preserve a massive totally free peasantry, but those peasants who weren't practically free were so only because, despite the denounciation of serfdom, they would be trapped in an ongoing social issue because clever landowners never formalized work duties into contracts.

Node, you do not have a point: the one voice to oppose the Union came "backwards" according to your criteria. I have in front of me the text of the 1858 Paris Convention, the constitutional charter (but not exactly the constitution) given to the principalities by the powers, and I will write down provisions in article 46: "All privilege, exemptions, or monopolies which a few classes still enjoy, shall be discarded, and the law which regulates relations between landowners and landworkers, in order to improve the social condition of peasants. Municipal institutions, urban and rural alike, shall receive all rights stipulated by the present convention."

Now, let us not forget that the vote in the ad-hoc assemblies was not about "the union", which the Paris convention had already ratified as final in the vaguest of form (one which was largely nullified by the unusual result of the vote, and which only allowed for shared institutions at the top), but about the election of two princes. The unionist and radical group noticed that there was nothing in the convention to prevent a person from running in both Bucharest and Iaşi, and this outcome annoyed the Powers, but had to be dealt with and recognized as the will of the people. It certainly was the will of the people, since the population chose to turn the union into a fait accompli without being called to do that.

To the vote system itself: articles of the Addendum to the convention establish the limits of this. Two categories of electors were established: primary and direct (working as the two chambers of a parliament, basically, since the latter had the power to ratify the vote of the former). You may note that this system tends to give not less numerical representation to the peasants, but less power to their vote; this was, however, of no consequence, since all sources indicate that the votes coincided, with, in fact, a larger percentage of vote against Cuza among the direct electors (it is my understanding that votes against Cuza in the primary vote were negligable in both Moldavia and Wallachia.

Who was eligible to vote? Well: in the primary for the countryside, "people who could prove they owned a property giving a revenue of 100 lowenthalers a year" (which should include the larger part of peasant proprietors). You may think this is restrictive, although it counts as one of the largest electoral pools of its time, but consider that the convention limits the direct electors in the same way, preventing owners of less than 1,000 lowenthalers (in the countryside) and less than 6,000 in the cities from voting in the respective college. (Adding to this provisions against non-Christians and women - while noting that the convention called for the former categority to be integrated in the future —sadly, this was not to happen until 1923, after numerous scandals created by the successive anti-Semitic governments.) What does this mean? Basically, that proprietors of minor estates were integrated with primary votes, alongside the bourgeois. And, again, the voted in both colleges was carried by Cuza.

Let me also note that, were the vote not to have been democratic enough for 21st century eyes (and I do not see why it wouldn't), it would still not allow you to question two basic facts: 1. it was, at the very least, as democratic as they got back then; 2. it was backed and enforced by international conventions then and since.

To Mr. Cuza and his party. Let us note, firstly, that Cuza himself was not a boyar. Secondly, the unionist party was comprised of the most radical personalities of the time, virtually all of them agreeing to an agrarian reform (perhaps because most of them were small and smallish boyars, and the rest proprietors of minor plots, and even the upper class of peasantry; the immense majority of activists had been present in the 1848 revolutions). Please note again that the convention called for a revision of relations between peasants and boyars; also note that the Paris Congress met just after previous elections in Moldavia had been fraudulently handled by Nicolae Vogoride, an anti-unionist charged with overseeing the electoral proceedings, who was a high boyar backed by high boyars, blocking the rise of radicalism/unionism which, again, threatened boyar privilege. When Cuza came to power, he enforced a rather radical agrarian reform, and meant to restructure the vote and expand colleges when he was deposed by a coalition of proprietors (I call them that because the reform had effectively anulled the boyar class).

Let me also note that, despite an arguably "Moldavian identity" (or, respectively "Wallachian") self-assigned by the boyars, most of them had no problem integrating post-union politics as members of the countrywide Conservative Party - which also had the distinction of blocking most of Cuza's intended reforms for the next decade, causing the latter to dissolve the Parliament and rule according to his perspectives on life and society. Through the years following the elections, some boyars encouraged their clients to riot in places like Craiova (in Wallachia, that is) against the union which they saw as a threat to privilege, and which they argued (note, please note) was a drain on Wallachian economy!

To place further stress: Cuza was perceived throughout and since as "a peasant-voivode" in populist rhetoric, and he has been the cause celebre of radicalism in Romania (from the republican half of the Liberal Party during the rule of Carol I, through the Romanian version of Narodniks, all the way to communists).

A quick galnce at the scene of "Moldavian identity" in the 19th and 20th centuries, as seen from inside Bessarabia. Zamfir Arbore-Ralli, who wrote his book in the 1890s, was a socialist anti-Semite who campaigned for Bessarabia's union with Romania; he was, at the time, in line with all radicals in Bessarabia (from Constantin Stere, to Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, to the low boyars) - all unionists, all anti-semites - as opposed to the landowners and, interestingly, a large part of the peasantry (which, because of Russian generosity, fared better than they would have had in Moldavia). As emigrants, these radicals integrated into the cultural life of Romania, as Narodnik and dissident Liberal. They were received with indifference by the Romanian establishment, who either had its priorities in Transylvania or was, like the (Moldavian-led!) Junimea, simply not interested in anti-statu quo fantasies (especially since Romania was well-placed inside the Central Powers). The only welcome they received was from the many successive parties formed by Nicolae Iorga, who was one of the few supporters of a Greater Romania before Greater Romania came to be. The Bessarabians got into vitriolic arguments with the conservatives and indifferent Liberals (Hasdeu was ridiculed by Junimea because, well, he was ridiculous; Stere's activism inside the Liberal party went against the party line to the point were Bratianu told him something on the lines of "you'll never work in this town again", and he became a hot potato in the hands of every party he joined afterwards; Arbore was simply universally anonymous). This is to indicate that: 1. Moldavia was relatively settled in the borders it had, and had integrated Romania as is; 2. The Wallachains had not shoved anything down Moldavia's throat that Moldavia did not want in there to begin with; 3. The Moldavian identity was a non-sequitur at that moment and until the creation of a Moldavian ASSR inside Ukraine (interestingly, one of the latter's main figures was Ecaterina Arbore, the daughter of... you guessed it).

Let me also stress the fact that the first common institutions of Wallachia and Moldavia had been introduced by the Russian Empire in 1831/1832, when it occupied both countries, and had partly been the basis of the Paris convention - which recognisied as statu quo that the two countries had the same legal tradition, and decided, despite its manifest hostility to Russian politics, to enforce this particular aspect. This is to say that common institutions had been present not only before the 1859 act, they had been present without interruption (except, of course, for 1848) between 1832 and the Crimean War! Dahn 09:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai applies double standards

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sources

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)

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)

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)

---

I added the third one today also from page three: "Mulţi au început să afirme public că popoarele României şi Moldovei Sovietice împărtăşeau o singură identitate naţională, panromâ-nească." Many affirmed that the populations of Moldova and Romania had a single pan-Romanian national identity. TSO1D 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Shortcomings

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)
  • According to Romanian census there is no separate Moldovans in Romania. You cannot have it both, colleague. Either Moldovans=Romanians or Moldovans != Romanians. Make your choice. We don't have an article Americans that says "Americans are population of America", precisely because there is no ethnic group "Americans". Instead, we have Demographics of the United States. And for Autochn]tonous americans we have Native Americans. You are welcome to fill the Moldovans (historical) or even start Native Moldovans, but here we have a well-defined topic: "moldoveni of Respublic of Moldova", or, as you prefer, "the so-called Moldovan ethnicity" (who speak, as Bonaparte liked to write, "the so-called moldovan language" or was it you? I dont remember who did it.) `'mikka (t) 00:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pen names

What the deal with these aliases, Vox Populi, Dapiks...? Do you want to show casual readers that there is more people who support you opinion? `'mikka (t) 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol, no I chose my name when I realised how retarded TSO1D really was. Vox Populi isn't really something I am planning on sticking with, I was just messing with the signature option happy that I finally understood how to change it, but in any case it's better than what it was before in my view. It's not as if TSO1D were my real name, so Vox Populi isn't more of an alias than that. Vox Populi (TSO) 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particulat meaning in "TSO1D"? I actually kind of liked it (it a sense it was easily recognizable), as compared to other punkish peacock-colored multiline signatures with icons and Klingon fonts, which occupy half a page in the edit window. `'mikka (t) 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really, I was in class one day and I made some comment and someone said "aren't you the smart one?" Later I was bored and I wrote the initials of that statement: TSO. I used it for e-mail accounts as such, initially as a joke. But since most know me as TSO1D I'll go ahead and revert to that. TSO1D 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your motivation, colleague, I'm not sure, though what prompted Constantine to refer to himself as "dapiks". Maybe I shall adopt the penname "Maldovan naush"? --Node 01:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What would that mean? TSO1D 01:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the motivations of Constantine, but Dapiks is probably a form of Dapyx, a Dacian king from Dobruja (where Constanta is, hence Constanteanu). Dpotop 05:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What does "naush" mean? I know nosh (yiddish nashn, m-w.com), but not naush. And "nosh" makes no sense. Why would you be a snack? Dpotop 10:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"naos" is how it's supposed to be spelt I guess. --Node 04:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So now you're the inner part of the church... Of course! It's the sect of worshipers of Moldo, and you are their prophet! :) Dpotop 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he means neaoş [2] Anonimu 12:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right Dpotop, as you pointed out Dapyx was a Dacian king in the Dobrogea region, where I was born, and like Decebalus/Decebal a couple centuries later, he commited suicide rather then be cought by the Roman legions. I liked this name better then Constantzeanu since Constantzeanu is sooo long and probably even annoying for some to spell. I see that Node ue and Mikka even write it wrong: Constantine. But Mikka, as always, in his true neo-Stalinist and Communist style paranoia, he thinks that I did this on purpose to hide my true ID (when in fact anyone can go and cick on Dapiks to see who I am)... Why don't we stick to the subject at hand Mikka? Or is it that when you run out of arguments you start diverting people's attention to say : my nickname?? You don't see me making fun of Node ue for his name or of your name: Mikka.Dapiks 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I use "constantine" as a Nickname. I am perfectly capable of writing "constantzeanu". --Node 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Notably, Bonaparte has taunted me before calling me "nodu", as in "tu ai pierdut nodule". I like it when he says "you have no credibility kid". What is credibility kid? And to clarify, I'm not making fun of your nickname. I just don't understand why anyone needs an alternative. --Node 04:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this time nobody has a problem with you, so please don't feel offended. The problem is a perceived partiality of Mikka. Of course, Bonaparte made fun of you, but he was banned (at least in part) for it. Now, Mikka seamed to have a problem with Constanteanu's and TSO1D's new nicknames (Dapiks and Vox populi). So, just like you did not like the way Bonaparte treated you, Constanteanu does not like the remarks of Mikka. Which seems to be part of a larger pattern of partiality of Mikka. Dpotop 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is partial. Nobody lacks a POV. Mikka isn't "making fun" of anyone. --Node 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not making fun of your name. And it is not paranoia: I just remembered a couple of Romanian trolls that liked to use a new name twice a day. In such situations it is very difficult to trace who said what and when. I am fine with your new name as long as you will not change it every day. And this is not diverting attention, it is my legitimate concern about convenience of tracking various discussions.

Now next. You wrote: "when you run out of arguments". Let me use your own word: it your anti-Soviet paranoia that you think I am in deep disagreement about historical facts here. My point in the current discussion, repeatedly pereated is that each topic that takes more than one page to write must be in a separate article. It is a generaly way how wikipedia works and has nothing to do with me being "Polish KGB anti-Romanian spy". There are two significantly different topics: Moldovans that have ben living in historical region of Moldova and Moldovans of Republic of Moldova made into separate ethnicity by Soviets and who persist calling themselves "Moldovans" even after USSR is gone. What exactly is your disagreement here? `'mikka (t) 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think that it is not necessary to have separate articles for the two topics, as this article is structured as one regarding an ethnic group. Thus, it could discuss all Moldovans and include a section describing the theory of a separate Moldovan ehtnos and census numbers for countries where Moldovans describe their ethnicity as such. My point is that not a single person doubts that all Moldovans are part of the same ethnos and are grouped under one category, as a Romanian sub-group by one side and as a separate ethnos by the other, but always together. No one makes the argument that the Moldovans in the Republic of Moldova are in an ethnic category distinct from the Moldovans in Romania. Thus it would be absurd to have an article shaped as one that describes an ethnic group and yet limit it by political boundaries. TSO1D 19:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Border between Romania and Moldova isn't just political -- it's geographic. There is the real division of the Pruth. --Node 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am by no means a unionist, Node, and yet I cannot help but notice you are contradicting yourself big-time. You first stated that the Moldovan identity spreads on both sides of the Pruth, and now you tell us that the Pruth is a real border... Am I to add to this dichotomy that you believe Ukrainian rule in the Bujak to be illegitimate? (There sure is no Pruth running across Bessarabia...). Btw, I note you would rather spend your energy on this section of the page than cut me some feedback on the long text I've written just above only for you and Mikka. That is to say: do you still stand by your views on the matter and why? Lest I am to understand that you have zero knowledge of Romanian history, and were just opening a can of worms for the sake of opening a can of worms. Note: I find this irresponsability to be recurring alarmingly on both sides of this debate - admit that you are wrong or stop coming back with the same sophistry once the reply you could not answer to gets archived (this is, again, my message to both sides) Dahn 01:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, that's not a contradiction. Yes, I do think that the peoples across the Pruth share common cultural characteristics, but at the same time, the Pruth is a real division and there are differences between them as well. Budjak's current political status isn't of much import; Ukraine is by no means a tyrranical state, and minorities get their fair representation. I do still stand by my views, because what you said was so wildly missing my point that it doeds not merit a response. Perhaps if you read what I wrote again, you will see why what you said doesn't make sense as a response to what I said. --Node 20:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But what are then the "divisions" between the Bujak and Moldova (which is what I had asked in the first place)? And how dare you imply that Romania is a tyranny?! Dahn 20:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain myself a little. My message was essentially questioning how legitimately/truthfully representation was awarded to peasants. You say they elected representatives, you say this, that, etc., but at that time period, it does not work. They may have said it was a "Representative Election", but I doubt the majority of Bessarabians really got a say in the matter. --Node 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell was talking about Bessarabia?! You really need to pick up a history book: it had been occupied by Russia 40 years before Moldavia chose to unite with Wallachia. If you still want to contest that case, note that you are contradicting common sense because, as I had proven, a vote for the union was a vote against the upper class. And if you want to contest the elections for the Bessarabian Soviet in 1917, you would be the first one to say that the February Revolution brought forth representation for the rich... Are you familiar with words like zemstva? Are you aware of the common knowledge fact that the peasantry was not dependent on any-goddamn-body in Russia since 1861, and that it had never been dependent in Bessarabia (or, rather, had not been dependant on anybody since 1749)? Are you aware of the fact that, with the agrarian reform in Imperial Russia, Bessarabia had by far the largest per capita land distributed? No? Then, excuse me, but your "pertinent comments" belong on Uncyclopedia Dahn 20:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And, since I took the trouble of writing paragraph after paragraph, please don't dismiss is as "this and that", and do not pretend you have some sort of secret expertise on electoral proceedings of the 1850s -ESPECIALLY when you prove you have none, and when you were the one not gatting what this was about in the first place, and not having the curtesy of reading around and informing yourself on blatant issues before you viewed me and other Romanians as suspects. And let us not forget a very, very important thing, Node: I had given you DATA, not impressions and personal beliefs; therefore, I hadn't asked you how you would place yourself in accordance to my beliefs (and, in any case, if you read my original message this time around, you'll see that it also tears down some favorite myths Romanians have), but how you place yourself in accodance to SHEER FACTS. Go to your local library or whatever, and ask where you could find the text of the Paris convention. Pick it up and read it. Dahn 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

<<huge hersonal attack removed>> Dapiks 23:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard that new song by Shakira? —Khoikhoi 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are way more cultured than that question, Khoikhoi. Dahn 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just couldn't think of anything better to say. —Khoikhoi 02:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But given that even the Russian Orthodox church mixes them, how could we distinguish them? :) Dpotop 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop has brought in a very good point. And on top of that, to sepparate them would be extreemly redundant. The article should not just say "Moldovans from RM are not Romanians". <personal attack removed> The article should explore the contrversy behind this term and what this term means (including the fact that the term means Moldovans from the Cis-Pruthian Moldova (for a lack of a better word). Dapiks 01:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We've seen your work censoring "personal attacks", Mikkalai. Now, can you actually answer questions posed? Dahn 01:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

they were not "personal attacks". They were personal attacks. Now, can you actually state the questions you want me to answer? `'mikka (t) 02:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's one four for starters. Do you believe that the Moldovan identity extends on both sides of the Pruth and why? Do you believe that the Moldovan identity extends in the Bujak and why? Do you believe that the Moldovan identity extends in Bukovina and why? Do you believe that the Moldovan identity extends on both sides of the Dnestr and why? Dahn 14:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is one answer for all four of them. These qustions demonstrate a fundamentally flawed way of reasoning of quite a few editors on Moldova topics. It is not your damn business to know what I believe. It was written countless times: DISCUSS ARTILE, NOT EDITORS. Until you start thinking in terms of facts rather than policical convictions of writers, this bickering will never end. Next questions, please. `'mikka (t) 18:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing the reasons behind why a text in the article should ever be contested on principle. I had not asked you what your political convictions are, I had asked you to have the curtesy and explain why you think it is ludicrous to indicate that the Moldovan identity was created by the Soviets in the clear context where in most references it is confined to a region having its borders defined by the Soviet state. It is a common sense service to me and others to explain whether your cryptical crankyness is reflecting the view that Moldovans live inside and outside Moldova or the enirely different option where you would view Moldovans as being confined to the territory of the Republic. Or, indeed, if you (like me), do not have a particular theory on what "Moldovans are", but on the fact that ethnicity is entirely subjective.

To state this again as clearly as I possibly can: after all this bickering, Mikkalai, we all should have an insight into what you consider to be logical, and not just into what you consider to be illogical. Precisely because we have to consider this page and others being kept neutral: if your vision has the privilege of not being explained, then kindly refrain from assuming you can point your finger at other visions. That would only perpetually leave others as suspects, and give you a cosy armchair as a prosecutor.

I particularly resent this (paradoxically judgemental) comment: demonstrate a fundamentally flawed way of reasoning of quite a few editors on Moldova topics. I am certainly not one of the "quite a few editors", as my posts should have made clear by now. And, again, I had not asked what your convictions were (that was TSOD), I had asked you what you would consider acceptable and why. If, when answering that, you (like Node) should happen to display blatant ignorance of the topic, then I and everybody should be excused when not considering your view as "a partner in dialogue", but simply as "the profane". Dahn 19:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I never asked Mikka what his convictions were. Anittas and Constantzeanu might have done that but I did not. TSO1D 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, instead of a question I see a long personal attack. Can someone else translate to me what exactly this guy wants to know besides my opinions? I am not going to waste my time on his mixture of loaded questions ("why you think it is ludicrous to indicate that the Moldovan identity was created by the Soviets") and other attempts my mind reading and interpreting. Last time, don't ask me about my opinions, ask about article. Example: Your question: "Do Moldovans like to grow mustache more than Ukrainians?" My answer: "I don't know". Why is it so difficult to understand? `'mikka (t) 00:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, I believe he did. For example, he asked you whether you thought that Moldovans are restricted to Moldova or if the they also exist in Bugeac, Bukovina, Romania, etc., and how this article should describe the situation. Of course, your views are involved, however this question is key as to how the article will be structured, i.e., whether the article will be confined to the territory of RM and other regions where people described their ethnicity as Moldovan or other territories as well, including Romania where other Moldovans live but where they are counted as part of the Romanian ethnic group rather than representatives of a separate ethnos. TSO1D 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

TS01D, he did not. I am repeating again and again and again: my views have nothing to do with article content. Until you learn how to ask proper questions, I am no longer answering them: on wrong questions you will most probably get useless answers. `'mikka (t) 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanking TSOD1D for making my point even more explicit, I want to stress the spirit of my questions yet again: Since you have at length stated your views on what Moldovans are not, why don't you express where you stand on what Moldovans are? This perhaps does call for your personal take on the matter, but it is prompted by the fact that you and others have been criticising a view without ever explaining what it should be contrasted with. I really need you to take in view that this is because:

• while the views on how Moldovans are not Romanians perpetually converge on criticising the sterotype Romanian pov, they do not represent a single vision. Therefore, it would be vital if someone whom you refer to as having a pov (nevermind that you called it "racist" on Talk:Moldova) would know if (s)he has to answer to:
  • the belief that Moldovans are a single group from the Milcov to the Dnestr and from Hotin to the Danube - which would ultimately imply that Romanians=Wallachians (with consequences for both 1859 and 1917)
  • the belief that Moldovans are an ethnicity confined to Moldova (or, respectively, to Moldova, Bukovina, and perhaps the Bujak), which would indicate that Moldovans=Bessarabians, an ethnicity without any possible claim to Moldavian precedent
• while the vision of ethnicity as entirely subjective is quite plausible (and I tend to support it, before you ever imply that I wouldn't just because I am Romanian), dismissing nationalism as pov (and indicating that it is the monopoly of Romanian perspectives) would be completely absurd if the rival claim is that Moldovan ethnicity is objective.
• criticism of the Romanian pov based on the Romanian interpretation of the facts is anything from acceptable to welcome. BUT: criticism of the Romanian pov based on indifference towards and lack of information about the facts is neither. In this last case, I would certainly like to know your take on Moldovan ethnicity in 1859 and 1917 as opposed to Moldovan ethnicity in 1940 or 1989 - precisely because you have begun this by implying it was not a concept first ever used in this sense by the Soviets. Since there are a thousand different attitudes which make the same claim, and they all disguise as one (Mikka+Node=actions against Romanian pov; however Mikka's vision on what Moldovans are=/=Node's vision on what Moldovans are).
  • For M+1th time: it is none of your business for you to know about "my take", about length of my penis, and whether I brush my teeth twice a day or twice a week. All these things are equally irrelevant to the article content. Once you start at least trying to understand what I mean, I will start answering your questions. `'mikka (t) 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Understand, please, that this is about whether we all accept the same facts, not about whether we accept the same conclusons. I am merely trying to determine if you have a different take on historical events (1859, 1917, etc.), or if your view (or anybody else's who would dismiss the Romanian version) simply fails to note them altogether. Dahn 03:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Understand please, this is about whether we will present facts in proper manner. I am merely trying to point out that it is not our business to discuss our take; we have to discuss the published and reasonably notable take, with proper attribution. `'mikka (t) 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. This is why I had asked you to define what other points contradict a certain view. Because, Mikkalai, up to now you have been a noted censor of the Romanian pov, I am asking you about the logical succession of facts. If a published work that you cite will switch from considering Moldovans as being the inhabitants of medieval Moldavia to Moldovans as an ethnicity prevalent in Moldova but not present in Moldavia, then that source is of no credibility. It is certainly easy to bombard a page with published oppinions, but it should be also within our goal to establish what oppinions have the minimal qualification, and what oppinions are just jerking off. If I am to use your take, and only it, then I should go on the Earth article and ask them to reference the claim that "[It] is the third planet in the solar system in terms of distance from the Sun", since there sure as hell have been published materials arguing that it is neither a planet, nor placed anywhere else but in the center of the Solar System. Let me also note that the switching from a Moldavian legacy to a Moldovan identity limited to Moldova is a habit very much present in published (and even official) material. Also, I think clarifying the view on this is vital, as it should tell us whether the article ought to even make reference to events in the 1850s or 1920s (which many published material do not even inclde in their assessment), or merley stick to post-1940 (which the same published material may find insulting). Because, you see, I welcome criticism of all views, as long as it is not whimsical. Dahn 16:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am ignoring all this, since it starts from a presupposition: "censor of Romanian POV", I am not going to play logocal games that would lead to endorsement of your precnceived notions about me. I suggest you to read a very useful article from "Logical fallacy" series, starting with "straw man". `'mikka (t) 18:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And I suggest you do a little reading about taking sentences out of context. It is perfectly fine that you are a censor of a pov: for Chrissake, we should all be striving to be that. Keep playing with the negative connotations of the word "censorship", if you will, but note the connotations "pov" has on wikipedia. I certainly did not mean your quite subjective (IMHO) drive to erase "personal attacks", I meant your will to prevent pages from sinking into Romanian euphoria. My reason for asking is because I certainly do not want these pages to open themselves to some other sort of euphoria. By my last remark, before you take me out of context yet again, I don't mean the arguments you bring against the Romanian pov, but the surreal dialogue I have had with Node. If it is acceptable for someone to question attitudes while (s)he is simply not aware of important facts, then it is certainly my concern that people might be given the impression that lack of information is "no-POV". If you want me to say it, and it will make you feel better, I will say this: in pure terms, I do not care one bit about what your opinions are. However, if I am wrong about this and that, then I should deserve to know what is presented and considered as "being right". Common curtesy, Mikkalai. Dahn 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In supporting the position of Dahn, I remind that it is well-founded in the Wikipedia policy of NPOV (one of the 3 fundamental editing policies). I remind User:Mikkalai that the purpose of this collaborative process is to present our conflicting views in a fair and non-asserting way. All views, according to their perceived weight. Therefore, it is essential that he exposes his POV (just like the other editors should express theirs). I also suggest User:Mikkalai reads WP:NPA#Examples that are not personal attacks before qualifying other people's comments as personal attacks. Dpotop 09:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I remind Dpotop that the purpose of collaborative process is to present published conflicting views. You are entitled to your views, but they have no place in wikipedia. There are plenty of chat rooms for shoting out your political convictions. Wikipedia is not one of them. I also suggest Dpotop reads WP:NPA, in partifcular such statements as "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. ". And if Dpotop thinks that the expressions like "your views are Communist, Nazist, revisionist,... etc." are not personal attacks, then they are badly mistaken and can run into a trouble some day. Therefore I suggest User:Dpotop reads WP:NPA#Examples that are not personal attacks himself and thinks carefully about the difference betwen two sentences: "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" (from the examples)) and "Your statement is a Communist (Nazist, idiotic, etc.) point of view, not fact". `'mikka (t) 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is my last answer to personal questions (ie. questions involving expressions "what do you think" and similar) on this page. Also, I officially declare that sentences with phrases "mikka's anti-Romanian views" and the like will be randomly deleted from this talk page, and you can go to mediation, arbitration, whatever, and see what happens there. `'mikka (t) 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true commarde. By the way thanks for blocking me --> I still did not understand why but let me tell you that abusing your power is a serious offence. Dapiks 18:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks please. —Khoikhoi 18:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So if I say "thanks for blocking me" I am making a personal attack. Way to be objective there khoikhoi. I don't see you criticising him for blocking me for no reason.Dapiks 18:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, mocking him callin him a "commarde", right after you got blocked for accusing him of being a Stalinist is a personal attack. —Khoikhoi 18:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, what's wrong with calling him a "commarade"? Nixon called Gorbachev "commarade" because that was his title. And besides, aren't we all commarades here since we are all Wikipedian? How is this a personal attack? Dapiks 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stupid, Constantzeanu. —Khoikhoi 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Brazil

In Brazil, there are at least 40,000 modolvans or descendants just in São Paulo [3]

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)

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)

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)

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)

You're right, shame on me. I am an enemy of the Romanian nation. —Khoikhoi 18:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Indeed. —Khoikhoi 23:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)