![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The fact that they call themselves "Moldovans" is not a proove that they don't consider themselves to be Romanians. In fact, Moldovans are an ethnic subgroups of the Romanians, and the OFFICIAL source quoted in the article prooves that. I presented you the an official point of view. Don't forget that most of the Moldovans live in Romania (4,5 Mill: the population of the counties Suceava, Botosani, Neamt, Iasi, Bacau, Vaslui, Vrancea and Galati), not in the Republic of Moldova (only 2,5 Mill). And the question on the census from Moldova was not about the ethnicity (etnie), but the nationality (naţionalitate). -- Olahus ( talk) 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above...) I've been watching this latest episode from the sidelines. If the article is about the ethnic group the Romanians, then it includes the Moldovans. If the article is about the geopolitical identity group Romanians, then it does not include the Moldovans. Since the article is about the former, "Romanians" includes "Moldovans." That Moldovans (inhabitants thereof) may or may not consider themselves Moldovan over Romanian, however they are interpreting those two states of identity and of being, is, at best, a footnote to this article. I find AdrianTM's latest edit commentary to be rather mean-spirited and in poor taste. Perhaps if the initial Romanian-Moldovan unity movement hadn't pressed quite so hard in its initial post-Soviet rapture and recognized the political aspect of the "Moldovan" identity as opposed to seeming to threaten to eliminate it through assimilation, there might be less "Moldovanism" today. The article should cover all ethnic Romanians, which at a minimum (core historical territory) means ethnic Romanians in Romania, Moldova, and beyond the Dniester into the Ukraine. "Moldovan" is not an ethnicity, it is a political identity. — PētersV ( talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. AdrianTM, you're obviously free to start another article over Romanian and Moldovan political identity, especially as most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over that issue has been in chauvinistic side squabbles like this rather than dealing with it as a topic worthy of its own discussion. But that is not this article. — PētersV ( talk) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
@AdrianTM:
To Adrianzax, I wasn't saying language is immaterial, I was saying that calling the language Moldovan instead of Romanian is immaterial. See edit in red. — PētersV ( talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me a bit odd to say that Moldovans were Romanians until 1945, and then their ethnicity changed. This seems to me to be a pretty classic formation of a sub-ethnic or sub-national identity (much as the distinction from roughly the same date of Palestinians from Arabs in general, which is generally excepted, except perhaps by the more extreme Zionists). Yes, Moldovan identity is a "legitimate" ethnic/national identity (and, given the nation-state model that prevails throughout the region, I don't think ethnic and national are easily extricated from one another), but from an anthropological point of view it seems silly to say that Moldovans aren't Romanians.
Really, all we can do is cite sources, not "find truth". And we should give proportionate weight to the scholarly points of view out there. It seems to me that the matter deserves to be handled more at the article on Moldovans than the one on Romanians, and that here all we really need is a paragraph or so noting that the controversy exists, citing a few sources for the presumably predominant view that Moldovans are Romanians and the single most respectable statement of the dissenting view that we can find, and annotate any statistics to make it clear where our numbers include self-identified Moldovans and how many.
Typical English-speakers coming to this article for information about Romanians—I think that characterizes the primary audience for the article—are not going to be nearly as interested in this distinction as are people who are embroiled in the politics of unification or non-unification of the two states. - Jmabel | Talk 18:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is a simple one: in an official context, a human being is asked to answer what his ethnicity is. In this context, one of the options was "Romanian". As far as censuses allow us to deduce, and as legitimate the concerns are about the absolute credibility of such censuses, these people stated, simply, that their ethnicity is x, where x is "something other than Romanian". And, yes, gentlemen: ethnic identity is always a subjective thing, and that degree of subjectivity is a basic human right.
Dwelling on either geopolitics or language to deduce another ethnicity is not only an infringement of that right, it is also in manifest contrast to the standard as applied in the civilized world (in short, wherever the intellectual mind was able to move beyond romanticism). Based on the same shaky logic, one could easily conclude that Afrikaaners and Flemings are Dutch, that Walloons are French, that Macedoniams are Bulgarian, that Montenegrins are Serbs and (why not?) that Ukrainians and Belarusians are Russians, that all Latin American people are Spanish, etc.
Furthermore, it ridiculous that some one-time sentence posted on a ministry of tourism site is used in the process of "sourcing" this deduction - not only is this not something for it or any other institution to decide upon, but, as the person who added it very well knows, possibly all other Moldovan institutions make a special point of refuting this claim. For more, see WP:REDFLAG. Dahn ( talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Dahn. I'm sorry, but if a leopard chooses to call itself something else, it cannot change its spots, it is still a leopard. Your stridency on this topic is misplaced, there is no academic source extant which I have found which says anything other than the historical inhabitants of the eastern-most territories of Romanian habitation, who today choose to call themselves Moldovan, are ethnic Romanians. It is a plain and simple fact. You don't create an ethnicity by renaming someone. You create an identity--which absolutely no one is disputing here.
The census/survey you tout incorrectly identifies Moldovan and Romanian as ethnicities and then has people select one or the other identity. Well of course many will pick Moldovan. That doesn't make them not ethnic Romanian.
Lastly, no one's right to their identity is being abrogated here, don't be preposterous. Rather, we're affirming that Moldovans have carved out their own unique identity. But that doesn't make them an ethnic group. Let's get real here. —
PētersV (
talk)
01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So, this would be the point where Adrianzax has completely discredited himself. Dahn ( talk) 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's not get into personal discussions, nobody on Wikipedia is interested who discredited, to what degree, or when. Let me add one simple element, when a state wants to determine the ethnicity of its population they use a census, they don't take blood and test DNA, that should give you a clue what's relevant here. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
(section was getting a bit long)
First, my comment regarding uber-whatevers was not directed at Dahn. It was directed at the positions which have been stated here and elsewhere along the lines of (and I exagerate only slightly to make the point):
Neither of those positions merit representation in an encyclopedia article.
The current Moldovanism is not the first controversy. Indeed the story of the Romanians begins with the formation of the Daco-Roman continuity theory under which much later territorial actions were taken justified by "historical" precedent. And as far as territory is concerned, that which now forms Romania and Moldova, that has been overrun on a more regular basis by a more varied assembly of peoples and ruled or allied with more powers than nearly any other place in Europe. The latter of course belongs in a history of Romania/Moldova, the territory. The former is a gripping story of a people, which is what we should be relating in the article.
The very last chapter of that story is the current Romanian/Moldovan schism. That schism does not change who "Moldovans" are or where they came from. To suggest otherwise results in pushing a political POV which has no place in a discussion of the history of an ethnic group (as defined by culture, traditions, customs, language). Whether the intent was to push a POV or not is immaterial, it is the result that counts.
To write an article which denies the Romance(ethno-linguistic)/Romanian roots of the Moldovans, framing that denial in the form of "dispute," turns this into a pulpit for people to proselytize their personal views of post-Soviet developments, having nothing to do with telling the story of the Romanian people. I've already indicated the appropriate fashion for including the Romanian/Moldovan schism in the narrative.
I'm sorry, Dahn, but I have to most vociferously disagree with your comment: this article should not decide for the reader that Moldovans are Romanians, as it currently does - due to Adrianzax, who is infringing on several wikipedia guidelines. There's no "decision" to be made here. In fact, the current article is currently going out of its way to say Moldovans aren't Romanians (Romanians primary inhabitants of Romania, minority everywhere else including Moldova, the "dispute", etc.). And I'm sorry, I have seen editors invoke "Wikipedia guidelines" to quash discussion more than once, in 99.999(repeating)% of cases to push their POV. Such contentions (or indicating discussion is ended) do not promote discourse.
Every academic source shows Romanians at the turn of the 20th century being the inhabitants of the Romanian/Bessarabian territories. The subsequent censuses and who conducted them and when and who called themselves Romanian whether they were or not and Stalin/Moldova/Moldovan and less-than-successful post-Soviet reunification, ad nauseum are all geopolitical issues of the 20th century. I welcome discussing those in a section regarding "Modern identity" or "Schisms in modern identity" or even "Schisms in modern ethnic identity". But let's not invent what does not exist and let's not deny what does exist. That is adhering to "Wikipedia guidelines." —
PētersV (
talk)
17:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Moldova had the current anthem of Romania untill 1989 which is translating "Awaken romanian" [2]
The Dna Halpogroups shows identic DNA structure of Moldovans and Romanians [3]
The Biggest Moldovan poet Mihai Eminescu writes in his poems :
Section was getting a bit long to edit... About the earlier "Ethnicity is always based on the identity people attribute themselves, and all statements about "common traits" etc begin from that statement." Well, of course, and of course not. Genetics plays a lesser role today because people marry further afield from home, but "ethnicity" is language, culture, and custom. It is not "I woke up and have decided to call myself something else today, even though I am still speaking the same language, hold dear the same traditions and symbols of the past, wear the same traditional garb on special occasions,...." Your [Dahn's] contention that people who carve out a separate geopolitical identity thereby also carve out a new heretofore non-existent ethnicity would appear to be exactly the WP:OR you rail against. — PētersV ( talk) 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dahn again, this is what happens when you create political/territorial/identity questions and pose them with the label "ethnicity." When you say Moldovans (inhabitants) were asked to "define themselves ethnically", my whole point is that the question was really, "Do you consider yourself Moldovan or Romanian?" That question has nothing to do with ethnicity. The notion that the group one identifies themselves with makes them into a (new) ethnicity is not tenable. Ethnicity, by every characteristic which defines it, is apolitical.
You then argue the corollary of your contention, that any definition of ethnicity is ultimately political. This is pure personal POV. You express alarm over alleged suppression of Moldovan freedom of association and identity in denying their "ethnicity." Rather, in the case of Moldovans/Romanians, you are taking a rich common culture and traditions and reducing them to a one-dimensional political choice. And the corollary of that reduction is that you take the diversity of cultures and traditions --especially rich across Eastern Europe--and reduce that all to that same one-dimensional political choice.
Ethnicity (along with territorial and other considerations) gives rise to political identity--for good reasons, beyond the scope of the discussion here; political identity does not give rise to ethnicity. Moldovan is a label/identity for Romanians who have associated themselves with a historical area of settlement and may see their interests as Moldovans (inhabitants) differing from Romanians (inhabitants). It is not an ethnic group. —
PētersV (
talk)
17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. To, Dpotop, how a society organizes itself or who was a member of what or who stole what from whom does not impact ethnicity. All those factors only confirm that Moldovan is a political identity choice, not an ethnicitiy. — PētersV ( talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
While the issue about Romanians = Moldovans is more an issue of NPOV and there is much debate, it's wrong to say that study claims the Romanians' Y chromosomes are identical to the ones of Moldovans.
It doesn't. It simply shows a pie-chart with the percentages of Romanian types of Y chromosomes over the map of Romania. It also happens that the pie chart is too big and it "overflows" in Moldova. It doesn't mean that the study has any data from Moldova.
Also, you shouldn't be using Y-Chromosome arguments in ethnical studies. There are plenty of articles which say it's not a valid argument. For instance, see:
Rosser, Zoë H., et. al., Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67:1526–1543, 2000
bogdan ( talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A new text was introduced:
A number of recent genetic studies [1] [2] show a diversity of Y-DNA haplogroups in the Romanian population, as follows (without any of them forming an absolute majority): haplogroup I 22.2% [2](it can be found in most present-day European populations, with greatest density in Scandinavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Sardinia), haplogroup R1a 20.4% [1], haplogroup R1b 13% [1], haplogroup E 7.4% [1], haplogroup J 5.6% [1] and haplogroup G 5.6% [1]. The results of these genetic studies [1] [2] show the same diversity in the Romanian population, as the culture of Romania and the history of Romania show.
This was not accepted by the user User:Rezistenta and led to a small edit war, see talk. —Preceding comment was added at 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Signed User:MariusPetruStanica
Added at: 13:39, 02 July 2008 (UTC) by: User:MariusPetruStanica After receiving no comments, no answers on the talks, no emails, unless very arrogant short statements, I see myself forced in changing the page. The answer from the User:Rezistenta is just silence and edit-war. I introduced a new text, without deleting what was previously written. This was immediately undone, with the explanation of Vandalism by User:Rezistenta.
A modern tendency is to relate Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup and Mitochondrial DNA genetic studies with the ethnogenesis of peoples. However, just a small number of works exists today, especially for the area of Eastern Europe, so that one would be enabled to correlate them with the ethnogenesis of Romanians or of any other people, in a fully scientifical accepted way. Usually, such studies are performed using a reduced number of persons, as a sample size, thus presenting limited nation-wide generalized results.
Some results from recent genetic studies may be interpreted in the way that the ethnic contribution of the indigenous Thracian and Daco- Getic population have made a significant contribution to the genes of the modern Romanian population and to the contribution to other Balkan (Albanians, Bulgarians and Greeks) and Italian groups. [3]
Other results may be interpreted as small genetic differences being found among Southeastern European populations and especially those of the Dniester– Carpathian region. The observed homogeneity suggests either a very recent common ancestry of all southeastern European populations or strong gene flow between them. The genetic affinities among Dniester–Carpathian and southeastern European populations do not reflect their linguistic relationships. The results indicate that the ethnic and genetic differentiations occurred in these regions to a considerable extent independently of each other. [1] [4] [5]
Haplogroup J is mostly found in South-East Europe, especially in central and southern Italy, Greece and Romania. It is also common in France, and in the Middle East. It is related to the Ancient Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians ( J2), as well as the Arabs and Jews ( J1). Subclades J2a and J2a1b1 are found mostly in Greece, Anatolia and southern Italy, and are associated with the Ancient Greeks. [6] Haplogroup I2 comprising 22.2% of the Romanian population, can be found in present-day European populations, with greatest density on the Balkans, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and also in Sardinia). [2]
A possible conclusion of all these studies is that no Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup or Mitochondrial DNA is highly dominant among the sample numbers of Romanians, fact supported by the long and diverse history of Romania.
Indeed, it seems that:
My impression is that both directions are false because they are extreme and over-simplifying:
I feel that 3 aspects should be mentioned here, as in other articles:
Of course, in Eastern Europe this last criterion is not so useful, because of the formidable mix of populations. More recent immigration waves, such as the Gypsies, may try it (though I presume there is considerable mix by now), but for separating Romanians and Moldovans (or even Hungarians, Bulgarians, Serbs) it's not so useful. Dpotop ( talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone keeps on reverting the population of romanians from 21.5-24.8 to 19.5-22.8 million. without relevant sources to back up your claim, the numbers you provide are your original work, which cant be used sorry. Please stop from vandalising the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.45.44.160 ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Dahn's since the reason for the tags is certainly not the fact that one confused user thinks that ethnicity is an objective matter (and that we were discussing anything other than ethnicity, which is the very subject of this article)-I'll be so bold as to interpret that as my confusion.
I am not confused at all, I am merely attempting to present facts correctly. Since words have failed, as Dahn has come to the good-faith conclusion I am confused (again, apologies if he meant someone else), I ask the other editors to indulge my use of visual aids in an attempt to clarify:
THE ROMANIAN ETHNIC WORLD ACCORDING TO DAHN
as interpreted by Pēters per article content which other editors have inserted and Dahn has reverted/deleted
(let's not forget the earlier precedent, Moldavians) | |
ROMANIANS | (self-identified) MOLDOVANS |
The article is about this ethnic group | The article is NOT about this ethnic group |
THE ROMANIAN ETHNIC WORLD ACCORDING TO PĒTERS
ROMANIANS starting with ancient history, including original divisions one of which encompasses the modern Romanians, through the 14th century | |
Moldavia, Romanians as Moldavians, references to Romanian (language) as Moldavian, 15th - mid-19th century | |
Romanians under a united Romania | |
Romanians under Communist Romania | Bessarabian Romanians under the Moldovan SSR, the invention of Moldovan (Romanian language transliterated into Cyrillic, NOT the original Romanian Cyrillic, etc.) |
Romanians in the post-Soviet era | |
Romania, Romanian "ethnic"* identity | Moldova, Moldovan "ethnic"* identity |
*per pick-a-census-or-poll, self-identified with regard to choices of Moldovan, Romanian, Ukrainian, Russian, etc., those choices indicated as "ethnicities," not "nationalities," on the census-or-poll; scholarship on Moldovans as an ethnicity, et al. | |
Discussion on the current state of Romanian ethnicity with regard to identity, to Romanian-Moldovan unification or not, to treatment by the regime in Transnistria, and to Romanians in adjoining territories and further afield in the diaspora |
The article is about this ethnic group, in toto |
This is an encyclopedia article about the ethnic group the Romanians, that is, the collective progeny of Romanian heritage, regardless of nom de jour. It is not a soapbox to debate over whose politicians and leaders are more vile, about botched unification, about Romanian supremicists, about Moldovan nationalists, and most especially not about which polar opposite of "I'm Romanian, not Moldovan" and "I'm Moldovan, not Romanian" is currently doing a better job of disowning the other. Partisan politics does not belong in, nor should it ever be used to define, ethnic heritage. How quickly we forget how badly things go when that path is taken. — PētersV ( talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent...) AdrianTM, I'm not at all being dismissive. But the issue you bring up and how it is handled elsewhere on Wikipedia (or here) is the attempt to frame historical ethnicity in politicized self-identification. Let's see, why would Moldovans not want to be Romanians? There's always botched reunification to point to. Let's see, why would Austrians not want to be Germans? There's always Nazi subjugation. Neither changes that Moldovans are Romanian and that Austrians are German--if one is constructing an article on ethnic heritage and history.
The real issue is that editors here and elsewhere should be working to construct reputable articles on ethnic heritage--a proper encyclopedic narrative includes all history and current developments in the context of that history. But instead, editors are seeking to build platforms from which to proselytize their viewpoints--none of which affect the narrative of the ethnic heritage and history of the Romanians/Moldovans (or the Germans/Austrians).
To write an article on ethnic heritage and history based on nom de jour is a complete and unsustainable contradiction, which is why the "conversation" here keeps degenerating into who said what yesterday. Voronin railing about 650 years of history or that the Moldovans will keep their identity sacrosanct from Romanian pollution for another 6,500 makes for good press but changes ethnic heritage and history not one iota. That's just another part of the article under "Current developments."
So, my question is, are we here to write about history or are we here to debate identity? —
PētersV (
talk)
02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"The Turkish occupation enriched the language with a picturesque Turkic vocabulary" -- that sounds weird to me, and defintely POV. I will re-write it shortly. Entbark ( talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
About... Adrianzax's (1) Romanian countries were never part of Ottoman Empire, they were only tributary states...... Wallachia, Moldavia, along with Silistre and the Crimean Khanate were part of the Ottoman Empire by 1606, with a large chunk of Ukraine added by 1683. (There was a major military campaign straight through the heart of Moldavia in 1538.) Yes, Wallachia and Moldavia were vassal states, but you can't really argue they weren't part of the empire. — PētersV ( talk) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. * it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
This tag doesn't belong in this article Rezistenta ( talk) 14:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. * it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
do you find that your claims are backed up by the rules of this tag ? use the "citation needed" if you feel some numbers are in doubt Rezistenta ( talk) 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's 1 sample of your disruptive behaviour towards extremely many users Rezistenta ( talk) 15:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Dahn, Could you, please explain, what do you see as original research here? Do you say the source is bogus? Do you say it is irrelevant to the article? You say it fails to stress the point, but honestly, I can not understand what point is the source supposed to stress. To me, it simply looks as a source saying how many ethnic Romanians were in the Moldavian SSR. And I think the source stresses this point pretty clear. Hence, I get you mean some other point. Which one? Thanks, : Dc76\ talk 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Dc, let's not wonder any further into the territory of speculation. That source is currently used for the following statements (and copied twice in the text, which is a breach of the Manual of Style but never mind that). What are the two notions? 1. "[Romanians] are the majority inhabitants of Romania and Moldova (identifying themselves as either Romanians or Moldovans)"; 2. "With respect to geopolitical identity, many individuals of Romanian ethnicity in Moldova prefer to identify themselves as Moldovans."
Neither of these statements traces back to the source - they both belong to the editor who added them. There is no indication there that people who say Moldovans are in fact/mean to say they are in fact Romanian - at most, and only if the text is read in one way, it is an indication that, back in 1989, one source decided to conflate the two identities. May I remind you that, in Soviet censuses, no Romanian identity was ever recorded, meaning that all numbers of Romanians are speculative when it comes to an issue like this, and that all people likely to declare themselves Romanian were considered Moldovan?
May I also remind you that, ever since that census, there was another one which recorded both identities? Now, you claim (even though we've been through this already) that people who declare themselves Moldovan do not say "as opposed to Romanian". That is absurd: they were asked to state their ethnic belonging, and, as far as that goes and we can tell, they made a conscious choice. Either that or they didn't realize what the question was about, and then they are all imbeciles - a possibility I find highly unlikely.
Let me also point out the following. Sources that contest this issue will say that the census under-counted Romanians and officials may have discouraged many people from declaring themselves Romanian. That is a reasonable point, and it is a perspective worth noting somewhere (though not necessarily in this article). The only logical conclusion of such a point is certainly not that "all Molodvans are Romanian", but that "a number of the Moldovans may in fact be Romanian" (i.e.: would actually say that they are, but were prevented from). I don't know how much of the census results are placed in doubt by such an objection, but I can certainly say that, at this point in time (not in 1989, and, let's say, probably not tomorrow), people who declare themselves ethnic Moldovan do exist, and that this article is not/should not be about them (as wrong as you may think they are, and as irrelevant as right and wrong may be in such issues for me). At most, the objections raised may allow one to speculate (not in the article, mind you) that it is Moldovans who are the minority in Moldova - but those people who are a minority would still not be Romanian as far as common sense goes.
I even find this consistent with Romania's official view, as expressed by Foreign Minister Ungureanu when he was still in office. In this interview, he simply says that there may be "much more Romanians" than the census indicates, based on the number of Moldovan citizens who apply for Romanian citizenship. Also note that the interview refers to Ungureanu's earlier statement, in which he refers to the Foreign Ministry supporting only those who "have not abdicated their Romanian identity" - meaning that, while Romania frowns on this process, it does not claim people are Romanian when they no longer say they are. Dahn ( talk) 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What is so dubious about sourced numbers? -- Cat chi? 11:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
explain please . 14:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The numbers are cited by sources, if you feel those numbers are not real why not modify them instead of adding tags everywhere ? If you can justify their presence, specify why are so many tags needed in this article Rezistenta ( talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There is much need for genetic research and DNA studies to support any old claims for the Romanian identity. There is no mention of this within this article.
Other ethnic groups such as the Basques and the Kelts have provided such DNA proof which in itself has now proven that the Basque and the Kelts although speaking different language type are actually gentically the same and have the same male anchestor. Something like this would be much needed on this article for it to stand up as fact in modern standards.
In the text It is believed that they diverged from the Romanians in the 7th to 9th century, ie suggesting that all Balkan Romance-speaking people have a common origin. OK, point stated. But we should also state the other (and I dare say more realistic) theory that Balkan Romance peoples aree not homgenous and only share the commonality of speaking a latin -derived language. The Vlachs of Macedonia could well represent groups autochthonous to Macedonia and Thessaly that continued to speak vulgar latin after the arrival of the Slavs and Byzantine empror Justinian's reforms. Hxseek ( talk) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is he the only Voivode being shown or rather why not stick with culture people. If any Voivode is to be shown at all it should be either Stefan the Great who is far more popular and beloved in Romania, or Vlad Tepes a.k.a. Dracula who is more well-known in the anglophone world. I wish to remind you that some of Alexandru Ioan Cuza's actions are contested as he aligned himself first with the "Red" (socialist or radical) liberals and then became pretty much a dictator and even the radicals abandoned him. Of course he is a SYMBOL of the unity of Romania, but then King Ferdinand is much more a symbol of the unity of Romania than Cuza, though... Ferdinand wasn't exactly a Romanian. And the conservatives of Cuza's times, the boyars the onservatives of the following years are not the only ones that contest Cuza. Some of his measures had negative influences over the Greek minority in Romania and the showing of him might be seen as an aggresive stance. Also the communist regime used the image of Cuza very much in their propaganda and thus the numerous anticommunists in Romania (myself included) have come to dislike the use of his IMAGE as a symbol of Romania and while not contesting his positive actions, he was just a human being with good and bad parts: in one word: he's controversial. Why not use a generally accepted figure like Stefan the Great who would create no disputes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.151.89 ( talk) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I support the related ethnic group boxes, because natrually, there are populations in the vincinity that are related to each other. I am wondering in the most curious and non-sarcastic sense; How are the Romanians and Italian people related. I guess what they may have in common is language, that both were occupied by Roman (Italic) peoples, and both recieved some Celtic migration. But Romania seems to be a little isolated. Can someone please explain? Galati ( talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Galati
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The fact that they call themselves "Moldovans" is not a proove that they don't consider themselves to be Romanians. In fact, Moldovans are an ethnic subgroups of the Romanians, and the OFFICIAL source quoted in the article prooves that. I presented you the an official point of view. Don't forget that most of the Moldovans live in Romania (4,5 Mill: the population of the counties Suceava, Botosani, Neamt, Iasi, Bacau, Vaslui, Vrancea and Galati), not in the Republic of Moldova (only 2,5 Mill). And the question on the census from Moldova was not about the ethnicity (etnie), but the nationality (naţionalitate). -- Olahus ( talk) 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above...) I've been watching this latest episode from the sidelines. If the article is about the ethnic group the Romanians, then it includes the Moldovans. If the article is about the geopolitical identity group Romanians, then it does not include the Moldovans. Since the article is about the former, "Romanians" includes "Moldovans." That Moldovans (inhabitants thereof) may or may not consider themselves Moldovan over Romanian, however they are interpreting those two states of identity and of being, is, at best, a footnote to this article. I find AdrianTM's latest edit commentary to be rather mean-spirited and in poor taste. Perhaps if the initial Romanian-Moldovan unity movement hadn't pressed quite so hard in its initial post-Soviet rapture and recognized the political aspect of the "Moldovan" identity as opposed to seeming to threaten to eliminate it through assimilation, there might be less "Moldovanism" today. The article should cover all ethnic Romanians, which at a minimum (core historical territory) means ethnic Romanians in Romania, Moldova, and beyond the Dniester into the Ukraine. "Moldovan" is not an ethnicity, it is a political identity. — PētersV ( talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. AdrianTM, you're obviously free to start another article over Romanian and Moldovan political identity, especially as most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over that issue has been in chauvinistic side squabbles like this rather than dealing with it as a topic worthy of its own discussion. But that is not this article. — PētersV ( talk) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
@AdrianTM:
To Adrianzax, I wasn't saying language is immaterial, I was saying that calling the language Moldovan instead of Romanian is immaterial. See edit in red. — PētersV ( talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me a bit odd to say that Moldovans were Romanians until 1945, and then their ethnicity changed. This seems to me to be a pretty classic formation of a sub-ethnic or sub-national identity (much as the distinction from roughly the same date of Palestinians from Arabs in general, which is generally excepted, except perhaps by the more extreme Zionists). Yes, Moldovan identity is a "legitimate" ethnic/national identity (and, given the nation-state model that prevails throughout the region, I don't think ethnic and national are easily extricated from one another), but from an anthropological point of view it seems silly to say that Moldovans aren't Romanians.
Really, all we can do is cite sources, not "find truth". And we should give proportionate weight to the scholarly points of view out there. It seems to me that the matter deserves to be handled more at the article on Moldovans than the one on Romanians, and that here all we really need is a paragraph or so noting that the controversy exists, citing a few sources for the presumably predominant view that Moldovans are Romanians and the single most respectable statement of the dissenting view that we can find, and annotate any statistics to make it clear where our numbers include self-identified Moldovans and how many.
Typical English-speakers coming to this article for information about Romanians—I think that characterizes the primary audience for the article—are not going to be nearly as interested in this distinction as are people who are embroiled in the politics of unification or non-unification of the two states. - Jmabel | Talk 18:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is a simple one: in an official context, a human being is asked to answer what his ethnicity is. In this context, one of the options was "Romanian". As far as censuses allow us to deduce, and as legitimate the concerns are about the absolute credibility of such censuses, these people stated, simply, that their ethnicity is x, where x is "something other than Romanian". And, yes, gentlemen: ethnic identity is always a subjective thing, and that degree of subjectivity is a basic human right.
Dwelling on either geopolitics or language to deduce another ethnicity is not only an infringement of that right, it is also in manifest contrast to the standard as applied in the civilized world (in short, wherever the intellectual mind was able to move beyond romanticism). Based on the same shaky logic, one could easily conclude that Afrikaaners and Flemings are Dutch, that Walloons are French, that Macedoniams are Bulgarian, that Montenegrins are Serbs and (why not?) that Ukrainians and Belarusians are Russians, that all Latin American people are Spanish, etc.
Furthermore, it ridiculous that some one-time sentence posted on a ministry of tourism site is used in the process of "sourcing" this deduction - not only is this not something for it or any other institution to decide upon, but, as the person who added it very well knows, possibly all other Moldovan institutions make a special point of refuting this claim. For more, see WP:REDFLAG. Dahn ( talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Dahn. I'm sorry, but if a leopard chooses to call itself something else, it cannot change its spots, it is still a leopard. Your stridency on this topic is misplaced, there is no academic source extant which I have found which says anything other than the historical inhabitants of the eastern-most territories of Romanian habitation, who today choose to call themselves Moldovan, are ethnic Romanians. It is a plain and simple fact. You don't create an ethnicity by renaming someone. You create an identity--which absolutely no one is disputing here.
The census/survey you tout incorrectly identifies Moldovan and Romanian as ethnicities and then has people select one or the other identity. Well of course many will pick Moldovan. That doesn't make them not ethnic Romanian.
Lastly, no one's right to their identity is being abrogated here, don't be preposterous. Rather, we're affirming that Moldovans have carved out their own unique identity. But that doesn't make them an ethnic group. Let's get real here. —
PētersV (
talk)
01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So, this would be the point where Adrianzax has completely discredited himself. Dahn ( talk) 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's not get into personal discussions, nobody on Wikipedia is interested who discredited, to what degree, or when. Let me add one simple element, when a state wants to determine the ethnicity of its population they use a census, they don't take blood and test DNA, that should give you a clue what's relevant here. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
(section was getting a bit long)
First, my comment regarding uber-whatevers was not directed at Dahn. It was directed at the positions which have been stated here and elsewhere along the lines of (and I exagerate only slightly to make the point):
Neither of those positions merit representation in an encyclopedia article.
The current Moldovanism is not the first controversy. Indeed the story of the Romanians begins with the formation of the Daco-Roman continuity theory under which much later territorial actions were taken justified by "historical" precedent. And as far as territory is concerned, that which now forms Romania and Moldova, that has been overrun on a more regular basis by a more varied assembly of peoples and ruled or allied with more powers than nearly any other place in Europe. The latter of course belongs in a history of Romania/Moldova, the territory. The former is a gripping story of a people, which is what we should be relating in the article.
The very last chapter of that story is the current Romanian/Moldovan schism. That schism does not change who "Moldovans" are or where they came from. To suggest otherwise results in pushing a political POV which has no place in a discussion of the history of an ethnic group (as defined by culture, traditions, customs, language). Whether the intent was to push a POV or not is immaterial, it is the result that counts.
To write an article which denies the Romance(ethno-linguistic)/Romanian roots of the Moldovans, framing that denial in the form of "dispute," turns this into a pulpit for people to proselytize their personal views of post-Soviet developments, having nothing to do with telling the story of the Romanian people. I've already indicated the appropriate fashion for including the Romanian/Moldovan schism in the narrative.
I'm sorry, Dahn, but I have to most vociferously disagree with your comment: this article should not decide for the reader that Moldovans are Romanians, as it currently does - due to Adrianzax, who is infringing on several wikipedia guidelines. There's no "decision" to be made here. In fact, the current article is currently going out of its way to say Moldovans aren't Romanians (Romanians primary inhabitants of Romania, minority everywhere else including Moldova, the "dispute", etc.). And I'm sorry, I have seen editors invoke "Wikipedia guidelines" to quash discussion more than once, in 99.999(repeating)% of cases to push their POV. Such contentions (or indicating discussion is ended) do not promote discourse.
Every academic source shows Romanians at the turn of the 20th century being the inhabitants of the Romanian/Bessarabian territories. The subsequent censuses and who conducted them and when and who called themselves Romanian whether they were or not and Stalin/Moldova/Moldovan and less-than-successful post-Soviet reunification, ad nauseum are all geopolitical issues of the 20th century. I welcome discussing those in a section regarding "Modern identity" or "Schisms in modern identity" or even "Schisms in modern ethnic identity". But let's not invent what does not exist and let's not deny what does exist. That is adhering to "Wikipedia guidelines." —
PētersV (
talk)
17:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Moldova had the current anthem of Romania untill 1989 which is translating "Awaken romanian" [2]
The Dna Halpogroups shows identic DNA structure of Moldovans and Romanians [3]
The Biggest Moldovan poet Mihai Eminescu writes in his poems :
Section was getting a bit long to edit... About the earlier "Ethnicity is always based on the identity people attribute themselves, and all statements about "common traits" etc begin from that statement." Well, of course, and of course not. Genetics plays a lesser role today because people marry further afield from home, but "ethnicity" is language, culture, and custom. It is not "I woke up and have decided to call myself something else today, even though I am still speaking the same language, hold dear the same traditions and symbols of the past, wear the same traditional garb on special occasions,...." Your [Dahn's] contention that people who carve out a separate geopolitical identity thereby also carve out a new heretofore non-existent ethnicity would appear to be exactly the WP:OR you rail against. — PētersV ( talk) 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dahn again, this is what happens when you create political/territorial/identity questions and pose them with the label "ethnicity." When you say Moldovans (inhabitants) were asked to "define themselves ethnically", my whole point is that the question was really, "Do you consider yourself Moldovan or Romanian?" That question has nothing to do with ethnicity. The notion that the group one identifies themselves with makes them into a (new) ethnicity is not tenable. Ethnicity, by every characteristic which defines it, is apolitical.
You then argue the corollary of your contention, that any definition of ethnicity is ultimately political. This is pure personal POV. You express alarm over alleged suppression of Moldovan freedom of association and identity in denying their "ethnicity." Rather, in the case of Moldovans/Romanians, you are taking a rich common culture and traditions and reducing them to a one-dimensional political choice. And the corollary of that reduction is that you take the diversity of cultures and traditions --especially rich across Eastern Europe--and reduce that all to that same one-dimensional political choice.
Ethnicity (along with territorial and other considerations) gives rise to political identity--for good reasons, beyond the scope of the discussion here; political identity does not give rise to ethnicity. Moldovan is a label/identity for Romanians who have associated themselves with a historical area of settlement and may see their interests as Moldovans (inhabitants) differing from Romanians (inhabitants). It is not an ethnic group. —
PētersV (
talk)
17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. To, Dpotop, how a society organizes itself or who was a member of what or who stole what from whom does not impact ethnicity. All those factors only confirm that Moldovan is a political identity choice, not an ethnicitiy. — PētersV ( talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
While the issue about Romanians = Moldovans is more an issue of NPOV and there is much debate, it's wrong to say that study claims the Romanians' Y chromosomes are identical to the ones of Moldovans.
It doesn't. It simply shows a pie-chart with the percentages of Romanian types of Y chromosomes over the map of Romania. It also happens that the pie chart is too big and it "overflows" in Moldova. It doesn't mean that the study has any data from Moldova.
Also, you shouldn't be using Y-Chromosome arguments in ethnical studies. There are plenty of articles which say it's not a valid argument. For instance, see:
Rosser, Zoë H., et. al., Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67:1526–1543, 2000
bogdan ( talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A new text was introduced:
A number of recent genetic studies [1] [2] show a diversity of Y-DNA haplogroups in the Romanian population, as follows (without any of them forming an absolute majority): haplogroup I 22.2% [2](it can be found in most present-day European populations, with greatest density in Scandinavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Sardinia), haplogroup R1a 20.4% [1], haplogroup R1b 13% [1], haplogroup E 7.4% [1], haplogroup J 5.6% [1] and haplogroup G 5.6% [1]. The results of these genetic studies [1] [2] show the same diversity in the Romanian population, as the culture of Romania and the history of Romania show.
This was not accepted by the user User:Rezistenta and led to a small edit war, see talk. —Preceding comment was added at 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Signed User:MariusPetruStanica
Added at: 13:39, 02 July 2008 (UTC) by: User:MariusPetruStanica After receiving no comments, no answers on the talks, no emails, unless very arrogant short statements, I see myself forced in changing the page. The answer from the User:Rezistenta is just silence and edit-war. I introduced a new text, without deleting what was previously written. This was immediately undone, with the explanation of Vandalism by User:Rezistenta.
A modern tendency is to relate Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup and Mitochondrial DNA genetic studies with the ethnogenesis of peoples. However, just a small number of works exists today, especially for the area of Eastern Europe, so that one would be enabled to correlate them with the ethnogenesis of Romanians or of any other people, in a fully scientifical accepted way. Usually, such studies are performed using a reduced number of persons, as a sample size, thus presenting limited nation-wide generalized results.
Some results from recent genetic studies may be interpreted in the way that the ethnic contribution of the indigenous Thracian and Daco- Getic population have made a significant contribution to the genes of the modern Romanian population and to the contribution to other Balkan (Albanians, Bulgarians and Greeks) and Italian groups. [3]
Other results may be interpreted as small genetic differences being found among Southeastern European populations and especially those of the Dniester– Carpathian region. The observed homogeneity suggests either a very recent common ancestry of all southeastern European populations or strong gene flow between them. The genetic affinities among Dniester–Carpathian and southeastern European populations do not reflect their linguistic relationships. The results indicate that the ethnic and genetic differentiations occurred in these regions to a considerable extent independently of each other. [1] [4] [5]
Haplogroup J is mostly found in South-East Europe, especially in central and southern Italy, Greece and Romania. It is also common in France, and in the Middle East. It is related to the Ancient Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians ( J2), as well as the Arabs and Jews ( J1). Subclades J2a and J2a1b1 are found mostly in Greece, Anatolia and southern Italy, and are associated with the Ancient Greeks. [6] Haplogroup I2 comprising 22.2% of the Romanian population, can be found in present-day European populations, with greatest density on the Balkans, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and also in Sardinia). [2]
A possible conclusion of all these studies is that no Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup or Mitochondrial DNA is highly dominant among the sample numbers of Romanians, fact supported by the long and diverse history of Romania.
Indeed, it seems that:
My impression is that both directions are false because they are extreme and over-simplifying:
I feel that 3 aspects should be mentioned here, as in other articles:
Of course, in Eastern Europe this last criterion is not so useful, because of the formidable mix of populations. More recent immigration waves, such as the Gypsies, may try it (though I presume there is considerable mix by now), but for separating Romanians and Moldovans (or even Hungarians, Bulgarians, Serbs) it's not so useful. Dpotop ( talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone keeps on reverting the population of romanians from 21.5-24.8 to 19.5-22.8 million. without relevant sources to back up your claim, the numbers you provide are your original work, which cant be used sorry. Please stop from vandalising the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.45.44.160 ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Dahn's since the reason for the tags is certainly not the fact that one confused user thinks that ethnicity is an objective matter (and that we were discussing anything other than ethnicity, which is the very subject of this article)-I'll be so bold as to interpret that as my confusion.
I am not confused at all, I am merely attempting to present facts correctly. Since words have failed, as Dahn has come to the good-faith conclusion I am confused (again, apologies if he meant someone else), I ask the other editors to indulge my use of visual aids in an attempt to clarify:
THE ROMANIAN ETHNIC WORLD ACCORDING TO DAHN
as interpreted by Pēters per article content which other editors have inserted and Dahn has reverted/deleted
(let's not forget the earlier precedent, Moldavians) | |
ROMANIANS | (self-identified) MOLDOVANS |
The article is about this ethnic group | The article is NOT about this ethnic group |
THE ROMANIAN ETHNIC WORLD ACCORDING TO PĒTERS
ROMANIANS starting with ancient history, including original divisions one of which encompasses the modern Romanians, through the 14th century | |
Moldavia, Romanians as Moldavians, references to Romanian (language) as Moldavian, 15th - mid-19th century | |
Romanians under a united Romania | |
Romanians under Communist Romania | Bessarabian Romanians under the Moldovan SSR, the invention of Moldovan (Romanian language transliterated into Cyrillic, NOT the original Romanian Cyrillic, etc.) |
Romanians in the post-Soviet era | |
Romania, Romanian "ethnic"* identity | Moldova, Moldovan "ethnic"* identity |
*per pick-a-census-or-poll, self-identified with regard to choices of Moldovan, Romanian, Ukrainian, Russian, etc., those choices indicated as "ethnicities," not "nationalities," on the census-or-poll; scholarship on Moldovans as an ethnicity, et al. | |
Discussion on the current state of Romanian ethnicity with regard to identity, to Romanian-Moldovan unification or not, to treatment by the regime in Transnistria, and to Romanians in adjoining territories and further afield in the diaspora |
The article is about this ethnic group, in toto |
This is an encyclopedia article about the ethnic group the Romanians, that is, the collective progeny of Romanian heritage, regardless of nom de jour. It is not a soapbox to debate over whose politicians and leaders are more vile, about botched unification, about Romanian supremicists, about Moldovan nationalists, and most especially not about which polar opposite of "I'm Romanian, not Moldovan" and "I'm Moldovan, not Romanian" is currently doing a better job of disowning the other. Partisan politics does not belong in, nor should it ever be used to define, ethnic heritage. How quickly we forget how badly things go when that path is taken. — PētersV ( talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent...) AdrianTM, I'm not at all being dismissive. But the issue you bring up and how it is handled elsewhere on Wikipedia (or here) is the attempt to frame historical ethnicity in politicized self-identification. Let's see, why would Moldovans not want to be Romanians? There's always botched reunification to point to. Let's see, why would Austrians not want to be Germans? There's always Nazi subjugation. Neither changes that Moldovans are Romanian and that Austrians are German--if one is constructing an article on ethnic heritage and history.
The real issue is that editors here and elsewhere should be working to construct reputable articles on ethnic heritage--a proper encyclopedic narrative includes all history and current developments in the context of that history. But instead, editors are seeking to build platforms from which to proselytize their viewpoints--none of which affect the narrative of the ethnic heritage and history of the Romanians/Moldovans (or the Germans/Austrians).
To write an article on ethnic heritage and history based on nom de jour is a complete and unsustainable contradiction, which is why the "conversation" here keeps degenerating into who said what yesterday. Voronin railing about 650 years of history or that the Moldovans will keep their identity sacrosanct from Romanian pollution for another 6,500 makes for good press but changes ethnic heritage and history not one iota. That's just another part of the article under "Current developments."
So, my question is, are we here to write about history or are we here to debate identity? —
PētersV (
talk)
02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"The Turkish occupation enriched the language with a picturesque Turkic vocabulary" -- that sounds weird to me, and defintely POV. I will re-write it shortly. Entbark ( talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
About... Adrianzax's (1) Romanian countries were never part of Ottoman Empire, they were only tributary states...... Wallachia, Moldavia, along with Silistre and the Crimean Khanate were part of the Ottoman Empire by 1606, with a large chunk of Ukraine added by 1683. (There was a major military campaign straight through the heart of Moldavia in 1538.) Yes, Wallachia and Moldavia were vassal states, but you can't really argue they weren't part of the empire. — PētersV ( talk) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. * it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
This tag doesn't belong in this article Rezistenta ( talk) 14:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. * it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
do you find that your claims are backed up by the rules of this tag ? use the "citation needed" if you feel some numbers are in doubt Rezistenta ( talk) 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's 1 sample of your disruptive behaviour towards extremely many users Rezistenta ( talk) 15:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Dahn, Could you, please explain, what do you see as original research here? Do you say the source is bogus? Do you say it is irrelevant to the article? You say it fails to stress the point, but honestly, I can not understand what point is the source supposed to stress. To me, it simply looks as a source saying how many ethnic Romanians were in the Moldavian SSR. And I think the source stresses this point pretty clear. Hence, I get you mean some other point. Which one? Thanks, : Dc76\ talk 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Dc, let's not wonder any further into the territory of speculation. That source is currently used for the following statements (and copied twice in the text, which is a breach of the Manual of Style but never mind that). What are the two notions? 1. "[Romanians] are the majority inhabitants of Romania and Moldova (identifying themselves as either Romanians or Moldovans)"; 2. "With respect to geopolitical identity, many individuals of Romanian ethnicity in Moldova prefer to identify themselves as Moldovans."
Neither of these statements traces back to the source - they both belong to the editor who added them. There is no indication there that people who say Moldovans are in fact/mean to say they are in fact Romanian - at most, and only if the text is read in one way, it is an indication that, back in 1989, one source decided to conflate the two identities. May I remind you that, in Soviet censuses, no Romanian identity was ever recorded, meaning that all numbers of Romanians are speculative when it comes to an issue like this, and that all people likely to declare themselves Romanian were considered Moldovan?
May I also remind you that, ever since that census, there was another one which recorded both identities? Now, you claim (even though we've been through this already) that people who declare themselves Moldovan do not say "as opposed to Romanian". That is absurd: they were asked to state their ethnic belonging, and, as far as that goes and we can tell, they made a conscious choice. Either that or they didn't realize what the question was about, and then they are all imbeciles - a possibility I find highly unlikely.
Let me also point out the following. Sources that contest this issue will say that the census under-counted Romanians and officials may have discouraged many people from declaring themselves Romanian. That is a reasonable point, and it is a perspective worth noting somewhere (though not necessarily in this article). The only logical conclusion of such a point is certainly not that "all Molodvans are Romanian", but that "a number of the Moldovans may in fact be Romanian" (i.e.: would actually say that they are, but were prevented from). I don't know how much of the census results are placed in doubt by such an objection, but I can certainly say that, at this point in time (not in 1989, and, let's say, probably not tomorrow), people who declare themselves ethnic Moldovan do exist, and that this article is not/should not be about them (as wrong as you may think they are, and as irrelevant as right and wrong may be in such issues for me). At most, the objections raised may allow one to speculate (not in the article, mind you) that it is Moldovans who are the minority in Moldova - but those people who are a minority would still not be Romanian as far as common sense goes.
I even find this consistent with Romania's official view, as expressed by Foreign Minister Ungureanu when he was still in office. In this interview, he simply says that there may be "much more Romanians" than the census indicates, based on the number of Moldovan citizens who apply for Romanian citizenship. Also note that the interview refers to Ungureanu's earlier statement, in which he refers to the Foreign Ministry supporting only those who "have not abdicated their Romanian identity" - meaning that, while Romania frowns on this process, it does not claim people are Romanian when they no longer say they are. Dahn ( talk) 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What is so dubious about sourced numbers? -- Cat chi? 11:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
explain please . 14:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The numbers are cited by sources, if you feel those numbers are not real why not modify them instead of adding tags everywhere ? If you can justify their presence, specify why are so many tags needed in this article Rezistenta ( talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There is much need for genetic research and DNA studies to support any old claims for the Romanian identity. There is no mention of this within this article.
Other ethnic groups such as the Basques and the Kelts have provided such DNA proof which in itself has now proven that the Basque and the Kelts although speaking different language type are actually gentically the same and have the same male anchestor. Something like this would be much needed on this article for it to stand up as fact in modern standards.
In the text It is believed that they diverged from the Romanians in the 7th to 9th century, ie suggesting that all Balkan Romance-speaking people have a common origin. OK, point stated. But we should also state the other (and I dare say more realistic) theory that Balkan Romance peoples aree not homgenous and only share the commonality of speaking a latin -derived language. The Vlachs of Macedonia could well represent groups autochthonous to Macedonia and Thessaly that continued to speak vulgar latin after the arrival of the Slavs and Byzantine empror Justinian's reforms. Hxseek ( talk) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is he the only Voivode being shown or rather why not stick with culture people. If any Voivode is to be shown at all it should be either Stefan the Great who is far more popular and beloved in Romania, or Vlad Tepes a.k.a. Dracula who is more well-known in the anglophone world. I wish to remind you that some of Alexandru Ioan Cuza's actions are contested as he aligned himself first with the "Red" (socialist or radical) liberals and then became pretty much a dictator and even the radicals abandoned him. Of course he is a SYMBOL of the unity of Romania, but then King Ferdinand is much more a symbol of the unity of Romania than Cuza, though... Ferdinand wasn't exactly a Romanian. And the conservatives of Cuza's times, the boyars the onservatives of the following years are not the only ones that contest Cuza. Some of his measures had negative influences over the Greek minority in Romania and the showing of him might be seen as an aggresive stance. Also the communist regime used the image of Cuza very much in their propaganda and thus the numerous anticommunists in Romania (myself included) have come to dislike the use of his IMAGE as a symbol of Romania and while not contesting his positive actions, he was just a human being with good and bad parts: in one word: he's controversial. Why not use a generally accepted figure like Stefan the Great who would create no disputes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.151.89 ( talk) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I support the related ethnic group boxes, because natrually, there are populations in the vincinity that are related to each other. I am wondering in the most curious and non-sarcastic sense; How are the Romanians and Italian people related. I guess what they may have in common is language, that both were occupied by Roman (Italic) peoples, and both recieved some Celtic migration. But Romania seems to be a little isolated. Can someone please explain? Galati ( talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Galati