The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
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. |
How can one write an article about Moldovans and not write about the Moldovans of Romania? Tsk, tsk.
BTW, it's interesting that:
bogdan | Talk 21:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Despite writing that short article about the Moldavians a decade ago, and my continued interest since then, I do not consider myself an expert on that subject by any means. But I quoted experts.
Yours
Attla Demko
There are about 1% of Ukraine. This includes all (so called moldovans), being the third largest minority group in Ukraine.
So please correct the data. Bonaparte talk 08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder who came up with the wonderful idea for this topic. Nevertheless, if you want to propagate this bizare theory at least proceed thus in a logical manner. Why would the ethnic boundary of the "Moldovan people" be at the Prut? Is the river such an important ethnic barrier. At least if you want to talk about the Moldovan people inlcude those currently living in Romania, as they also consider themeseleves to be "moldoveni" although they do not view this as an ethnic distinction but rather as a subdivision of the Romanian ethnicity. TSO1D 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with User:Node ue's version because it sort of puts you in the mind of someone other than a Romanian. The other version just shows how Romanians see who Moldovans are. Wikipedia has Neutral Point of View policy and articles cannnot be slanted towards one side or the other. -- Khoikhoi 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, the version you are supporting is full of weasel words. Please make a version without such expression:
Thank you, bogdan 21:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This article in its current form is really dubious. Besides the controversies and weasel words, there are also extreemly dubious statements like the comparison with the Azeris. I would like to see a scholarly article on that. Otherwise, that little section has to go. Personal research is not accepted by Wikipedia. Constantzeanu 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This information is taken from the official censuses held in Moldova in 2004 and in Ukraine in 2001. Other numbers shouldn't be invented. -- Zserghei 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
And where are the romanians? Moldovans are romanians don't invent your own sovietic theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisinau ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1. The term "Moldovans" is another name of Romanians. Ethnicaly, "Moldovans" are Romanians.
2. There is a second meaning of this term. It means "citizens of the Republic of Moldova" (regardless of their ethnicity). Which is: Russians, Ukrainians, Gagauzs etc. who live in Republic of Moldova are also Moldovans, as they are all citizens of the Republic of Moldova ).
P.S. This article creates a big confusion (between citizenship and ethnicity), coused by a logic error. Please, use your logic, when writing on Wikipedia. Don't make fools of yourselves. :) -- 82.170.2.111 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Since many moldovans consider themselves romanians, I am going to change the phrase "Moldovans are an ethnic group" to "Moldovans are a sub-ethnic group of romanians", one of the reasons for that, is that a very large part of moldovans live in Romania (the historical region of Moldova), and many more in the Rep. of Moldova consider themselves romanians(according to the 2004 census), if anyone has any objections feel free to make any changes and discuss with me if possible.
68.32.214.27 06:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Andrei George 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since we (the editors) have not been able to reach consensus I have added a NPOV tag to this article.
I hope everybody agrees that we have rather divergent personal views, and we cannot use Wikipedia
for such disputes.
Sufitul 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am questioning the validity of this sentence. Given the controversy of the issue, I would like to know exactly:
I presume no "Siberian" ethnicity exists in Russia.
I have a question for the guys here that believe Moldovan!=Romanian. Is the claim of Moldovenists that Eminescu is Moldovan correct? If yes, why? Eminescu never lived in a unified Moldova, and was only 9 years old when Romania was formed. Moreover, he was a Romanian nationalist. :) The same for Creanga. Dpotop 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is POV - Most Romanians, as well as a large part of the Moldovan populace, claim that external interference led to Moldova's increasingly separate identity rather than any actual differences [citation needed]. Where reference for that? Also the no.4 reference at the bottom of page isn't a ref at all. Cheers -- max rspct leave a message 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Article is better with this table and I do not see a good reason that somebody should remove it. Moldovans are one of the large European nations and they deserve good article about them (including table). PANONIAN (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
How they can be Romanians if they did not declared themselves as such? On the last census in Moldova there were 76.1% Moldovans and 2.1% Romanians. They are clearly listed as separate nations in census results, so your claim that Moldovans are Romanians is only your opinion that cannot be proven by official statistics. Furthermore, the status of Moldovans as a separate ethnos is controversial only among Romanian nationalists who want to assimilate Moldovans and to "unite" Moldova with Romania. Such opinion can be clearly labeled as irredentist one and I do not think that it should be a base for one scientific article. PANONIAN (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, here is the problem: it is not about history but about official state recognition. Since both, Moldovans and Romanians are listed separatelly in the census results, it is clear that state of Moldova recognized them as two separate nations. If the state recognized them as one single nation it then would listed them under only one name (whether this name is Moldovan or Romanian). But, since they are listed separately, it is clear that they are recognized as separate groups by the state of Moldova. Also, I did not said that you are a nationalist, but that opinion that Moldovans are not Moldovans but Romanians come from nationalistic sources, it is not same thing. PANONIAN (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
And now about distinction between Moldovans and Romanians, I do not claim that culture and language of these two peoples are distinct but national consciousness. The difference between Moldovans and Romanians is same as difference betwen Serbs and Montenegrins. There are Montenegrins who consider that they are Serbs, but there are those who do not. So, can you prove that ALL Moldovans consider that they are also Romanians or you cannot? It is all about what they consider. If some Moldovans think that they are only Moldovans and not Romanians then they are not Romanians. It is simple as that. It is all about their human right to be what they want. So, I understand this issue very well, and it is not about what was in 1917, but what is now in 2006. PANONIAN (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that there is the matter of self-identification, however look at the Austrian example. Some Austrians prefer to view themselves as Austrian, others as German, but this is a matter of small nuances no one truly maintains that Austrians are not German-speakers and thus constitute a separate ethnos. For this reason the Austrians ethnic group page does not include a table similar to the one that currently exists on this page. They also had a long discussion regarding what to include in the table and finally came to the conclusion that is served no constructive goal. That is the maximum extent of my argument, I am against the table not the idea of some Moldovans declaring themselves as such in terms of their nationality. TSO1D 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Montenegrins article have a table, and, as I said, the example is similar. Some Montenegrins consider that they are also Serbs, but some consider that they are not, and table is there because of that Montenegrins that do not consider themselves as Serbs. If some Serb who do not recognize Montenegrin nation (same as some Romanian that does not recognize Moldovans) would want to remove table from Montenegrins article, I would object to that too. Also, the Szekely article also have table, and most of the Szekely declare themselves as Hungarians. Of course, there are those who declare themselves as Szekely, and it was me who posted that table there anyway. The point is, even if one ethnic ethnic group is part of another larger group there is no reason not to have table in its Wikipedia article. Every article about ethnic groups is better with table (by my opinion only, but there are people who would agree with me here). Why you do not improve this table if you think that something should be changed in it instead simply to remove it? Of course, if you want, we can start voting whether to include table into article or not. PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I myself am from Moldova (Bessarabia) and am part of the population discussed (I am as Moldovan as you can get), I am not a Romanian citizen who wants to infiltrate nationalistic propaganda here. I also want to add that it will be very difficult to assess the actual number of "Moldovans" as several countries do not count Moldovan as a separate ethnicity (ex. Romania) whereas in other places people are encouraged to declare themselves as Moldovans (in Moldova). This of course just proves the absurdity of creating this artificial difference, but that's another topic. I am not fully familiar with the Montengrian situation, but the inclusion of a table in that category might be just as bad an idea as it is here. I only gave the Austrian example to show that after a long discussion editors concluded that the table does more harm than good and only brings more problems than solutions. It is the same here. I am not questioning the logic of having a "Moldovan ethnos" (at least not in relation to this table), I just don't believe that the table will help anyone. The article presents the information in a superior manner. 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) TSO1D 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, Austrians is an disambiguation kind of article. Even if one want to post table there, he would not know about what that table should be. On the contrary, the "Moldovans" article clearly say that it is about Moldovan ethnic group, while for other uses we have Moldovans (disambiguation). PANONIAN (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
TSO1D 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardles the controversial status, they are officially counted and the table represents official data. You have no right do delete it. You have right to comment it, providing reputable references. `' mikka (t) 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You based your arguments on history, which have nothing to do with the present situation. Your argument is that if Moldovans were Romanians 100 years ago that they should be Romanians today too, but is that mean that if humans lived in caves 30,000 years ago that they should live in caves today too? As for Austrians article, I did not said that it is disambiguatian, but "kind of it", here is a quote from Austrians article:
Austrians is used in reference to:
Historically also:
So, if somebody want to post table there, about which of these four meaning that table should be? We do not have this problem in the article about Moldovans. PANONIAN (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I reverted edits of PANONIAN since his edits are missleading. The best example is given by TSO1D when he said he is a Moldovan and also a Romanian. -- 147.102.222.220 11:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should to learn that there is a whole World outside of Romania. I wonder whose sockpupet you are... PANONIAN (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Pannonian, I don't think you saw my comments above, I added some below each of your paragraphs. I am not basing my argument on the historical link between Bessarabia and the Principality of Moldavia and Romania. I am simply stating that the table will present misleading factual information. Outside of the context provided in the article the numbers don't really make any sense. Again I am not challanging the basis of the Moldovan ethnicity in regards to the table, I just don't think that the table will aid anyone in this case. And about the Austrian page, it has some disambig info at the top however the main disambiguation page is Austrian. TSO1D 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
We can put in table exactly what you said: we can write that there are 3 million Moldovans who declare themselves as such and 8 miliion who declare themselves as Romanians. So, what is wrong with that? PANONIAN (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second:
So, do you see that your secong argument confront with your first argument? What is the REAL reason why you do not want table here anyway? PANONIAN (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Btw, sorry if my answer sounds consusing, but I don't know how to make it more lucid. However, this just illustrates my point that a table cannot provide a decent amount of clarity to readers. TSO1D 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this article referring to what TSO1D had just said in his edit summary: Moldovan ethnos developed by Soviet propaganda? -- Andrei George 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Andrei George 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
As I understand, the main objection to the table was that it does not show correct number of Moldovans. So, here is a little improved table, and I want to know is something wrong with it. PANONIAN (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Regions with significant populations | |
---|---|
Moldova: 2,564,849 (2004) [7] Ukraine: 258,619 (2001) [8] Russia: 172,330 (2002) [9] Belarus: 4,300 (1999) [10] Tajikistan: 300 (2000) [11] Kyrgyzstan: 778 (1999) [12] Romania: unknown | |
Languages | |
Moldovan/ Romanian | |
Religion | |
Predominantly Eastern Orthodox. | |
Related ethnic groups | |
other
Latin peoples, especially
Daco-Romanians |
And just to explain why table is important: The table provide some basic information about certain ethnic group, thus the Wikipedia readers who search only for one specific information about ethnic group (such is the language they speak or location) do not have to read entire article to find that, but only to see the table. So, I propose fair voting whether to include table into article or not. If majority of voters vote not to include table I will not insist on it any more. PANONIAN (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the numbers, Zserghei, do you perhaps know total number of Moldovans? According to my sources it is 3,600,000, but I do not know is this number correct. PANONIAN (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
No, we should not include the table, because many of those Moldavians/Moldovans that were exiled to Kazakstan were taken from Romania proper, and consider themselves as nothing else but Romanian. Even the Moldovans from what is now Republic of Moldova, who have been moved to other parts of the-then Soviet Union, consider themselves Romanians, because they were never exposed to the kind of propaganda the Moldovans had to endure. I don't know why you created this table, or why Mikka and Jmabel voted in its favour. Another thing is that the census is stupid. If you would ask me if I am Moldavian/Moldovan, I would answer yes. If you were to ask me if I am Romanian, I would also answer yes. So just because those people said they are Moldovan, doesn't mean they don't view themselves as Romanians. -- Candide, or Optimism 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes exactly my opinion earlier presented, when you say Moldovan you automatically say Romanian. Why is this table needed? To make things much more confuse?-- Andrei George 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Table is needed because certainly there are people who when they said that they are Moldovans they think that they are only Moldovans but not Romanians. It is because of them. Second thing, both, Moldovans and Romanians are officialy recognized as separate ethnic groups by the state of Moldova. If that is not the case, they would not be listed separatelly in the census results, but they would be listed together under one single name whether that name is Romanians or Moldovans. Since they are listed separatelly in the census results, the official point of view of the Moldovan state is that they are separate ethnic groups. The opposite opinion is only unofficial one. PANONIAN (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
For TSO1D: if you place image where it is now, then it push table to the right and create large empty space between the text and the table. It looks ugly. We should find better place for image. PANONIAN (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Moldovans/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This is a tricky one and will bear watching, because the existence of a distinct Moldovan ethnic group is a quite controversial and politically charged issue. - Jmabel / Talk 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
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. |
How can one write an article about Moldovans and not write about the Moldovans of Romania? Tsk, tsk.
BTW, it's interesting that:
bogdan | Talk 21:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Despite writing that short article about the Moldavians a decade ago, and my continued interest since then, I do not consider myself an expert on that subject by any means. But I quoted experts.
Yours
Attla Demko
There are about 1% of Ukraine. This includes all (so called moldovans), being the third largest minority group in Ukraine.
So please correct the data. Bonaparte talk 08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I wonder who came up with the wonderful idea for this topic. Nevertheless, if you want to propagate this bizare theory at least proceed thus in a logical manner. Why would the ethnic boundary of the "Moldovan people" be at the Prut? Is the river such an important ethnic barrier. At least if you want to talk about the Moldovan people inlcude those currently living in Romania, as they also consider themeseleves to be "moldoveni" although they do not view this as an ethnic distinction but rather as a subdivision of the Romanian ethnicity. TSO1D 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with User:Node ue's version because it sort of puts you in the mind of someone other than a Romanian. The other version just shows how Romanians see who Moldovans are. Wikipedia has Neutral Point of View policy and articles cannnot be slanted towards one side or the other. -- Khoikhoi 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, the version you are supporting is full of weasel words. Please make a version without such expression:
Thank you, bogdan 21:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This article in its current form is really dubious. Besides the controversies and weasel words, there are also extreemly dubious statements like the comparison with the Azeris. I would like to see a scholarly article on that. Otherwise, that little section has to go. Personal research is not accepted by Wikipedia. Constantzeanu 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This information is taken from the official censuses held in Moldova in 2004 and in Ukraine in 2001. Other numbers shouldn't be invented. -- Zserghei 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
And where are the romanians? Moldovans are romanians don't invent your own sovietic theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisinau ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1. The term "Moldovans" is another name of Romanians. Ethnicaly, "Moldovans" are Romanians.
2. There is a second meaning of this term. It means "citizens of the Republic of Moldova" (regardless of their ethnicity). Which is: Russians, Ukrainians, Gagauzs etc. who live in Republic of Moldova are also Moldovans, as they are all citizens of the Republic of Moldova ).
P.S. This article creates a big confusion (between citizenship and ethnicity), coused by a logic error. Please, use your logic, when writing on Wikipedia. Don't make fools of yourselves. :) -- 82.170.2.111 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Since many moldovans consider themselves romanians, I am going to change the phrase "Moldovans are an ethnic group" to "Moldovans are a sub-ethnic group of romanians", one of the reasons for that, is that a very large part of moldovans live in Romania (the historical region of Moldova), and many more in the Rep. of Moldova consider themselves romanians(according to the 2004 census), if anyone has any objections feel free to make any changes and discuss with me if possible.
68.32.214.27 06:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Andrei George 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since we (the editors) have not been able to reach consensus I have added a NPOV tag to this article.
I hope everybody agrees that we have rather divergent personal views, and we cannot use Wikipedia
for such disputes.
Sufitul 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am questioning the validity of this sentence. Given the controversy of the issue, I would like to know exactly:
I presume no "Siberian" ethnicity exists in Russia.
I have a question for the guys here that believe Moldovan!=Romanian. Is the claim of Moldovenists that Eminescu is Moldovan correct? If yes, why? Eminescu never lived in a unified Moldova, and was only 9 years old when Romania was formed. Moreover, he was a Romanian nationalist. :) The same for Creanga. Dpotop 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is POV - Most Romanians, as well as a large part of the Moldovan populace, claim that external interference led to Moldova's increasingly separate identity rather than any actual differences [citation needed]. Where reference for that? Also the no.4 reference at the bottom of page isn't a ref at all. Cheers -- max rspct leave a message 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Article is better with this table and I do not see a good reason that somebody should remove it. Moldovans are one of the large European nations and they deserve good article about them (including table). PANONIAN (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
How they can be Romanians if they did not declared themselves as such? On the last census in Moldova there were 76.1% Moldovans and 2.1% Romanians. They are clearly listed as separate nations in census results, so your claim that Moldovans are Romanians is only your opinion that cannot be proven by official statistics. Furthermore, the status of Moldovans as a separate ethnos is controversial only among Romanian nationalists who want to assimilate Moldovans and to "unite" Moldova with Romania. Such opinion can be clearly labeled as irredentist one and I do not think that it should be a base for one scientific article. PANONIAN (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, here is the problem: it is not about history but about official state recognition. Since both, Moldovans and Romanians are listed separatelly in the census results, it is clear that state of Moldova recognized them as two separate nations. If the state recognized them as one single nation it then would listed them under only one name (whether this name is Moldovan or Romanian). But, since they are listed separately, it is clear that they are recognized as separate groups by the state of Moldova. Also, I did not said that you are a nationalist, but that opinion that Moldovans are not Moldovans but Romanians come from nationalistic sources, it is not same thing. PANONIAN (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
And now about distinction between Moldovans and Romanians, I do not claim that culture and language of these two peoples are distinct but national consciousness. The difference between Moldovans and Romanians is same as difference betwen Serbs and Montenegrins. There are Montenegrins who consider that they are Serbs, but there are those who do not. So, can you prove that ALL Moldovans consider that they are also Romanians or you cannot? It is all about what they consider. If some Moldovans think that they are only Moldovans and not Romanians then they are not Romanians. It is simple as that. It is all about their human right to be what they want. So, I understand this issue very well, and it is not about what was in 1917, but what is now in 2006. PANONIAN (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand that there is the matter of self-identification, however look at the Austrian example. Some Austrians prefer to view themselves as Austrian, others as German, but this is a matter of small nuances no one truly maintains that Austrians are not German-speakers and thus constitute a separate ethnos. For this reason the Austrians ethnic group page does not include a table similar to the one that currently exists on this page. They also had a long discussion regarding what to include in the table and finally came to the conclusion that is served no constructive goal. That is the maximum extent of my argument, I am against the table not the idea of some Moldovans declaring themselves as such in terms of their nationality. TSO1D 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Montenegrins article have a table, and, as I said, the example is similar. Some Montenegrins consider that they are also Serbs, but some consider that they are not, and table is there because of that Montenegrins that do not consider themselves as Serbs. If some Serb who do not recognize Montenegrin nation (same as some Romanian that does not recognize Moldovans) would want to remove table from Montenegrins article, I would object to that too. Also, the Szekely article also have table, and most of the Szekely declare themselves as Hungarians. Of course, there are those who declare themselves as Szekely, and it was me who posted that table there anyway. The point is, even if one ethnic ethnic group is part of another larger group there is no reason not to have table in its Wikipedia article. Every article about ethnic groups is better with table (by my opinion only, but there are people who would agree with me here). Why you do not improve this table if you think that something should be changed in it instead simply to remove it? Of course, if you want, we can start voting whether to include table into article or not. PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I myself am from Moldova (Bessarabia) and am part of the population discussed (I am as Moldovan as you can get), I am not a Romanian citizen who wants to infiltrate nationalistic propaganda here. I also want to add that it will be very difficult to assess the actual number of "Moldovans" as several countries do not count Moldovan as a separate ethnicity (ex. Romania) whereas in other places people are encouraged to declare themselves as Moldovans (in Moldova). This of course just proves the absurdity of creating this artificial difference, but that's another topic. I am not fully familiar with the Montengrian situation, but the inclusion of a table in that category might be just as bad an idea as it is here. I only gave the Austrian example to show that after a long discussion editors concluded that the table does more harm than good and only brings more problems than solutions. It is the same here. I am not questioning the logic of having a "Moldovan ethnos" (at least not in relation to this table), I just don't believe that the table will help anyone. The article presents the information in a superior manner. 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) TSO1D 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, Austrians is an disambiguation kind of article. Even if one want to post table there, he would not know about what that table should be. On the contrary, the "Moldovans" article clearly say that it is about Moldovan ethnic group, while for other uses we have Moldovans (disambiguation). PANONIAN (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
TSO1D 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardles the controversial status, they are officially counted and the table represents official data. You have no right do delete it. You have right to comment it, providing reputable references. `' mikka (t) 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You based your arguments on history, which have nothing to do with the present situation. Your argument is that if Moldovans were Romanians 100 years ago that they should be Romanians today too, but is that mean that if humans lived in caves 30,000 years ago that they should live in caves today too? As for Austrians article, I did not said that it is disambiguatian, but "kind of it", here is a quote from Austrians article:
Austrians is used in reference to:
Historically also:
So, if somebody want to post table there, about which of these four meaning that table should be? We do not have this problem in the article about Moldovans. PANONIAN (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I reverted edits of PANONIAN since his edits are missleading. The best example is given by TSO1D when he said he is a Moldovan and also a Romanian. -- 147.102.222.220 11:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should to learn that there is a whole World outside of Romania. I wonder whose sockpupet you are... PANONIAN (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Pannonian, I don't think you saw my comments above, I added some below each of your paragraphs. I am not basing my argument on the historical link between Bessarabia and the Principality of Moldavia and Romania. I am simply stating that the table will present misleading factual information. Outside of the context provided in the article the numbers don't really make any sense. Again I am not challanging the basis of the Moldovan ethnicity in regards to the table, I just don't think that the table will aid anyone in this case. And about the Austrian page, it has some disambig info at the top however the main disambiguation page is Austrian. TSO1D 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
We can put in table exactly what you said: we can write that there are 3 million Moldovans who declare themselves as such and 8 miliion who declare themselves as Romanians. So, what is wrong with that? PANONIAN (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second:
So, do you see that your secong argument confront with your first argument? What is the REAL reason why you do not want table here anyway? PANONIAN (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Btw, sorry if my answer sounds consusing, but I don't know how to make it more lucid. However, this just illustrates my point that a table cannot provide a decent amount of clarity to readers. TSO1D 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this article referring to what TSO1D had just said in his edit summary: Moldovan ethnos developed by Soviet propaganda? -- Andrei George 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Andrei George 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
As I understand, the main objection to the table was that it does not show correct number of Moldovans. So, here is a little improved table, and I want to know is something wrong with it. PANONIAN (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Regions with significant populations | |
---|---|
Moldova: 2,564,849 (2004) [7] Ukraine: 258,619 (2001) [8] Russia: 172,330 (2002) [9] Belarus: 4,300 (1999) [10] Tajikistan: 300 (2000) [11] Kyrgyzstan: 778 (1999) [12] Romania: unknown | |
Languages | |
Moldovan/ Romanian | |
Religion | |
Predominantly Eastern Orthodox. | |
Related ethnic groups | |
other
Latin peoples, especially
Daco-Romanians |
And just to explain why table is important: The table provide some basic information about certain ethnic group, thus the Wikipedia readers who search only for one specific information about ethnic group (such is the language they speak or location) do not have to read entire article to find that, but only to see the table. So, I propose fair voting whether to include table into article or not. If majority of voters vote not to include table I will not insist on it any more. PANONIAN (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the numbers, Zserghei, do you perhaps know total number of Moldovans? According to my sources it is 3,600,000, but I do not know is this number correct. PANONIAN (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
No, we should not include the table, because many of those Moldavians/Moldovans that were exiled to Kazakstan were taken from Romania proper, and consider themselves as nothing else but Romanian. Even the Moldovans from what is now Republic of Moldova, who have been moved to other parts of the-then Soviet Union, consider themselves Romanians, because they were never exposed to the kind of propaganda the Moldovans had to endure. I don't know why you created this table, or why Mikka and Jmabel voted in its favour. Another thing is that the census is stupid. If you would ask me if I am Moldavian/Moldovan, I would answer yes. If you were to ask me if I am Romanian, I would also answer yes. So just because those people said they are Moldovan, doesn't mean they don't view themselves as Romanians. -- Candide, or Optimism 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes exactly my opinion earlier presented, when you say Moldovan you automatically say Romanian. Why is this table needed? To make things much more confuse?-- Andrei George 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Table is needed because certainly there are people who when they said that they are Moldovans they think that they are only Moldovans but not Romanians. It is because of them. Second thing, both, Moldovans and Romanians are officialy recognized as separate ethnic groups by the state of Moldova. If that is not the case, they would not be listed separatelly in the census results, but they would be listed together under one single name whether that name is Romanians or Moldovans. Since they are listed separatelly in the census results, the official point of view of the Moldovan state is that they are separate ethnic groups. The opposite opinion is only unofficial one. PANONIAN (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
For TSO1D: if you place image where it is now, then it push table to the right and create large empty space between the text and the table. It looks ugly. We should find better place for image. PANONIAN (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Moldovans/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This is a tricky one and will bear watching, because the existence of a distinct Moldovan ethnic group is a quite controversial and politically charged issue. - Jmabel / Talk 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)