Talk:Moldovans/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "mold-census" :
  • National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova: [http://www.statistica.md/recensamint.php?lang=ro Census 2004]
  • [http://www.statistica.md/recensamint/Nationalitati_de_baza_ro.xls 2004 census results in Moldova]

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(i lost a longer writting i did b/c of a connectivity problem) I meant for xasha to copy here because of his perma ban to edit this particular article. this obvioulsy only refers to him. anyone else can obviously write directly into the article and remove my edits if inappropriate. my word is not supperior to anyone's. if xhasa was more intelligent and civil he wouldn't be in this situation now. / my internet provider does some tricks now, or perhaps just mentainance, and i might loose connectivity again for some minutes... Dc76\^talk 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Population links

I agree with Olahus on removing country populations where only the citizenship is listed (that is people from Moldova), as that is not an ethnic description. On further elaboration over geography, Moldavia is the correct article for that. On the "Romanian Moldovans" thing - this must be discussed first, as, clearly, the Moldovans in eastern Romania do not consider themselves to be a distinct ethnic group, as Moldovans from Moldova do, meaning that they must be mentioned in a separate section (part of the controversy) and their relation should be explained in a neutral manner. --Illythr (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the issue of conflict (too tired to follow both of you), so I wish you good luck. But I would kindly ask not to remove country population without prior discussion. It is well known that ca. 80% of Moldova's population are ethnic Moldovans, so those numbers are relevant. (Ethnic Molodvans among migrants to those counties are most probably over 90%.) If we start on this path, it would appear to the reader Moldovans only live in the former Soviet Union. You do understand that some counties explicitly forbid ethnic questions in censa. Dc76\^talk 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to confirm that those people are ethnic Moldovans. Those censa merely say that they came from Moldova, leaving their ethnicity to them. --Illythr (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

About the Romanian Moldovans thing - you can take a look at the huge heap of flood above. To put it short, Olahus' position seems to be that Romanian Moldovans and Moldovan Moldovans are the same group, a point of view that is supported by both nationalists and Voronin, albeit for diametrally opposite reasons.

As this moment is part of the controversy (no official Romanian figures mark the population of eastern regions as anything other than Romanians), I think it is worth noting in the text, but as part of the controversy. Olahus wants to implicitly recognize both groups as one and the same, which I think is a bad idea, because this article describes the group which considers itself separate. Lumping it together with the group that doesn't will make the issue even more confounded than it is now.

Metropoly of Bessarabia

The chain of court decisions was mangled in the text - the ECHR ruled in 2001 only about official recognition in Moldova, not that it was the heir. That MB is the heir of the pre-1944 See was confirmed by the supreme court of Moldova in 2004. Or so it seems. The links are dead, so I removed that part. Probably too deep for an article about the people anyway. But this should be sorted out in the article about the Metropoly. --Illythr (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe we have a slight FORK in this regard. I can count 4 articles:

• Religion in Moldova
• Moldovan Orthodox Church
• Metropolis of Bessarabia
• History of the Orthodox Church in Moldova

In principle, the topics are ok, but we must edit so that the same info is not repeated too much, i.e. we have to know which goes where and have this in mind for the future. Can you find more related articles? Dc76\^talk 12:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A fifth one:

• Freedom of religion in Moldova

Any more? Dc76\^talk 12:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no fork (or spoon) if these articles handle their respective topics correctly and don't overlap. So far, I only see some overlap between all of them. Only the court thing needs to be corrected, but I couldn't find any live links to determine the timeline. --Illythr (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I meant: the articles cover their respective topics, which all are legitimate topics and desearve separate articles if those articles are more or less developed (let's say "have sections"), BUT there is an overlap (fork) of content in the sense of the same infos being sometimes releated. However, I am not willing to do this today. It can potentially take serious time to edits that, and I don't want to waste the whole Sunday. Dc76\^talk 13:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

An overlap is not a fork, because the overlapping stuff is more or less the same in all the articles (although it can become one if two different articles are expanded to the point they contain nearly the same info, as was (and to a degree still is) the case with History of Bălţi, which pretty much repeated the contents of Bessarabia, Moldavia and History of Moldova articles). --Illythr (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, but I really don't have the time, nor interest for that article now. If I remember correctly, I only cleared the middle ages. Dc76\^talk 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

do Moldovans consider themselves Dacians?

like many of the Vlachs do? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

yes. Dc76\^talk 22:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent concerns

Please list concerns about article below (Dc76\^talk 09:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)) :

• I agree that this map is not very explanatory. Could you, please, propose 1-2-3 sentences to introduce in the text in order to explain this issue. Thank you. Dc76\^talk 10:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The map is fine. It is based on sources. --Olahus (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Then mention this somehow in the caption. Something like "Map based on..." or simply add 2-3 refs to the existing caption. Without some kind of supporting argument for the map, Anonimu will nominate it as "dubious" or smth similar again and again. Dc76\^talk 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, DEX as source?Anonimu (talk)

Sorry, I wasn't very careful. The map is indeed based on a number of sources: just click the file. Nobody prevents an alternative map to be created if there are alternative sources and alternative interpretations. But adding OR tags just because one is too lazy is not a valid reason. Dc76\^talk 11:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources do in any way support the map. The first is a Romanian dictionary, and is about the definition of Moldavian (i.e. people from the region of Moldavia, as opposed to Moldovans). The second just has some info about Romanian internal migration, again not making any claims about Moldovans, while the third is just a fringe view, and says nothing about the exact geographic location. Thus the map lacks proper sources.Anonimu (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

May I respectfully disagree? Violette Rey - Atlas de la Roumanie and Brockhaus Enzyklopädie seem like reliable sources, and you would have to go to the library to get them. The census results are obviously there for the reason of completeness of sources used when drawing the map, not for anything else. "Vladimir Socor - an article from the Jamestown foundation" is as fringe a source as any mainstream publication. The only thing to consider is that Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române, Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică "Iorgu Iordan", Editura Univers Enciclopedic, 1998 might use the term "Moldoveni" with the English sense of "Moldavians". But the problem is that only in English there are two words: "Moldavians" and "Moldovans". All other languages, including Romanian have one word. Giving them two senses would be saying that there are two ethnic designations: Moldavian and Moldovan. There aren't!

We need to think better about this, because we cannot justify things solely for their politically correct usage in English, when such notions don't exist in reality. Here is what I suggest: Let us have two sections: "Moldavians" and "Moldovans", each describing the uses and meanings of each word in English, with appropriate data and maps. The article could be titled, for example ""Moldovans" and "Moldavians"". It will be focussed on explaining the meaning of both terms. It would be perfectly inter-wiki-able. Dc76\^talk 11:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dc76 claims 7 million Moldovans in Romania => überfringe.Anonimu (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I claim nothing. I just copyeditted. I took on good faith what other editors brought in. While you blindly reverted it without even bothering to first add a cn tag to ever sentence you find questionable. You did not even bother to list below what you find questionable. Dc76\^talk 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why add cn tags to unsourceable things? Fact tags are not a carte blanche to present false information on WP.Anonimu (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you did not bother listing in the talk page what things you consider incorrect. Dc76\^talk 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dc, there's a simple issue which you're missing from the picture, and this misunderstanding of yours doesn't help the article move on. For one, insisting on the ambiguous Romanian term as indicative of anything is not at all constructive, it is absurd: it adds an amphibology, and mixes the pots. Secondly, the subject of this article is about the ethnic identity (as questioned or questionable as that identity is or isn't). That ethnic identity is primarily designated as "Moldovans", regardless of whether the term also has a regional (inhabitants of Moldavia) or national sense (citizens of Moldova). That term, in this context, also has the alternative "Moldavia" (just like Moldova is sometimes known as "Moldavia", and just like the inhabitants of Moldavia may sometimes be known as "Moldovans"). Do we understand each other?

The convoluted, confusing and absurd internet meme that says otherwise (like in the case of "confusion" between the Romani people and the Romanians) is a joke, if not a diversion. By tweaking the lead to say something unnecessary (or necessary only if we assume that readers of this page are complete morons), you are, unwittingly I presume, giving credibility to that joke. You also introduce a false certainty, since, as I said, the difference between regional and ethnic identities is not consecrated in the names (which are, up to a certain degree, interchangeable). And what's more, wikipedia does not (as a rule) have or need distinct articles on regional identities or citizenships, which are mere notes to their respective articles on regions or countries. You may also want to read up on WP:COAT. Do we understand each other?

Needless to say, the map in question is bogus. It posits on the basis of the amphibology I mentioned (which, not long ago, was populating this entire article) and is frankly hilarious. Its claims about sources are purposely misleading, and some of those sources are unreliable. The overall result is a sample of WP:SYNTH. Dahn (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And may I add: this entire article is still lame. I can't get past the large section entirely "sourced" with direct interpretation of obscure primary sources, apparently from one editor who has never read or cared about WP:PSTS. A large, large part of the article reads like an essay. An amateurish essay. Dahn (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this the first article about an Eastern European ethnic group you read? ;) Anonimu (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me started... :) One at a time. Dahn (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, I actually I do not understand a number of points you make. The best way would have been for you to copyedit the entire article and say: "this is what it should tell". That would simplify a lot any discussion because it would allow us to focus on particular words and phrases.

Please, do not tell "this entire article is still lame". Either edit it, or don't blame on me; I haven't written this article. I gave a try to what copyedit I could do; but your response was a blind revert. If you can do better than me, then please do. Yes, an amateurish essay which you preferred to my version. Now, you, not me, are the one responsible for it, and I ,not you, will criticize :-) And you be ready to answer with your skin for the amateaurish essay :-) Do we understand each other? :-)

Now seriously:

• "the map in question is bogus", "It posits on the basis of the amphibology I mentioned", "is frankly hilarious", "purposely misleading". Are you a politician? Don't you have a more normal vocabulary? Can you just say what is wrong with the map instead of this monologue? Better so, create a better map! See how you feel when others call your work "hilarious" or "bogus". Such language is outrageous even if it was warranted. Moreover, you avoid the subject: what exactly is wrong with the map? which line should be where? which color is incorrect? how it should look like ideally? Either answer these questions, or stop criticizing the map. (sigh; now calmly:) Please.
• What "insisting on the ambiguous Romanian term"? What do you mean?
• Secondly, the subject of this article is about the ethnic identity (as questioned or questionable as that identity is or isn't). Isn't? You say "isn't"? If you pretend there is no controversy, then you are highly POV (not to mention factually wrong: there is a controversy. period.), and hence totally disqualified to edit or comment. Choose. Either stop with political correctness or ... Just stop with political correctness.
• If the subject of the article is the controversial ethnic identity, then a section or a sub-section could be alloted to explain the meaning "from Moldavia" which is attributed to the word "Moldoveni". Mind you, there existed such things as "Partidul Moldovenilor", hence there is a regional identity. Mind you, that is not like in Wallachia, where you cannot derive anything from "Tara Romaneasca". The term "Moldoveni" is very notable in regional sense and at least a section should be alloted to explain that sense.
• That ethnic identity is primarily designated as "Moldovans", regardless of whether the term also has a regional (inhabitants of Moldavia) or national sense (citizens of Moldova). You put the cart before the ox. The regional identity comes first, the ethnic identity derives from it, the "citizens" sense derives from the name of the country. It is ok if the article is focussed on the ethnic identity, as long at it does not forget to mention the source of the term: the regional identity, and the fact that the regional identity is still widely used.
• The convoluted, confusing and absurd internet meme that says otherwise (like in the case of "confusion" between the Romani people and the Romanians) is a joke, if not a diversion.- For God sake, stop with negative adjectives. Give the link so that we can see what you are talking about.
• you are, unwittingly I presume, giving credibility to that joke. - No, you are. Remember it is your version. You defend it! :-)
• the difference between regional and ethnic identities is not consecrated in the names (which are, up to a certain degree, interchangeable). - In Romanian: clearly not, because there is only one term. In English: to a large extent it (the "meaning", not "identity" - political correctness again, mind you) is consecrated. Other cases are exceptions. But as I said, since in all other languages except English, there is only one term, it's absolutely ok to mention that the difference between regional and ethnic meanings is not always respected even in English, and is sometimes interchangeable.
• And what's more, wikipedia does not (as a rule) have or need distinct articles on regional identities or citizenships, which are mere notes to their respective articles on regions or countries. You may also want to read up on WP:COAT. Do we understand each other? - Oh, this is really the one I would like to understand. If you are suggesting to delete this article and have [[Moldova]]ns, respectively [[Moldavia]]ns everywhere, then... you know, this might work. Is that what you propose? Dc76\^talk 23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dc76\^talk 22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply to your points in the way you raised them, one by one (though I really wish you'd stop replying to sentences cut in half):

• I don't blame anybody for this article (though I'm pretty sure you didn't write it), and I was merely commenting to show the problems that it still has. Just above, you kept claiming that we should be addressing every concern on this talk page, otherwise objections will not be taken into account (by whom?). So which is?
• Please, let's reduce the sophistry to a minimum: both versions of the article were and are amateurish, not because of the lead (which is finally acceptable), but because of the nonsense below it and throughout. So, no, I won't bite.
• I have said precisely what is wrong with the map: WP:SYNTH to name just one guideline it breaks (though the entire WP:OR is relevant here). Masquerading this clear point into a debate about "wrong colors" et al. quite frankly don't deserve a reply. In addition to that, it introduces an amphibology - I already mentioned what amphibology that is, several times so far. If you want to discuss my vocabulary (I for one don't), make it into a post on my talk page or smthg, and I'll may be tempted to reply. As we stand, there's nothing in it that has any relevancy for this topic, is there?
• I will repeat it: this article is about the ethnic term. Having an article on that name from that perspective is not an evidence of reality or endorsement, it imply defines a topic (a controversial topic, if you will). For one, wikipedia having an articles on the mighty leprechaun don't imply that leprechauns exist, just that the topic exists. For the other, "Moldovan" has become, for better or worse, an ethnic identity in the one most acceptable and rational common term this has, being adopted as such by at least a number of people, who use it to define themselves - this is and should remain the core of this article, with nothing preventing the addition of scholarly commentary on the problems this has or causes. Referencing that controversy is obviously also relevant here, but this should be done without: a) the addition of misleading and editorialized comments on other meanings of the terms, which introduce an internet meme amphibology for the sake of outside political debates; b) the interpretation of primary sources; c) the absence of reliable secondary sources; d) favoritism for any POV. Let me state this very clearly: this subject has been discussed in countless historiographic works, which deal with the many views exhaustively, and show what is to be nuanced about both views (and, yes, many times with emphasis on the fact that "Moldovan" begun its existence as a politicized term imposed artificially - or, at least, more artificially than any other ethnic identity, as they all are ultimately artificial on some level). The article blows in the face of all that by imposing coaching from opinionated wikipedia users (I don't really care which wikiepdia users), written like an essay, and making efforts to present the other view as stranger or more obscure than it is.
• Again: the regional identity is a distinct topic, does not address the same reality, and is only discussed there because it blurs the matter. If and when it should turn out that "Partidul Moldovenilor" is relevant for this topic (and, btw, it never even seemed to have even claimed autonomy, and was more of a tax reform party if I recall correctly), and if this importance can be discerned from secondary sources, that info can be added into a section at the bottom discussing the supposed similarities between the topics as related phenomenons. It should not guide the article (see also WP:UNDUE), and should certainly not promote misleading claims that is more than coincidental overlap between the two notions.
• Again, your version(s) advertised a confusion where there was none, and seemed to do its/their best to minimize the ethnic definition of Moldovan. Since it didn't attest a real phenomenon, it was very much owed to the faulty and misleading rationale according to which "Romani" would (purposefully) create confusion with "Romanians" - and, given that both that meme and the current version owe their origin on wikipedia with the same editor (whom I won't name, but who is arguably walking on thin ice), it is safe to assume that the amphibology blasted into this article was on purpose. You took that bait, I and the others who, like you, edit in good faith, didn't. Let's get over it and stop promoting that user's nonsense.
• Dc, you are right to say that in all other languages there is but one term (though the purpose of my comment was that there isn't, though one, the one we use as a title for this page, is consecrated). But that's very much like the flawed argument used for the "Romani as Romanians" stuffola - semantically, it matters not, it's this language that takes primacy. And the point is obviously elsewhere: even in those languages, the names are not synonyms, they are homonyms. Even in this case, the homonymy is addressed by Moldovan (disambiguation), not by this article. The one instance that would need a separate article is this one, because it revolves around the (contested) ethnic identity - that is a topic, the rest are just adjectives for other articles (Moldavia, Moldova).
• Your very last point appears to be a joke, based on the idea that it's funny to pretend that you could go through an entire post of mine without getting any of my points. Except it's not funny. Dahn (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read your reply once. I will read it again tomorrow and answer also tomorrow. I am sorry. I am simply too tired now. Thank you for your time and patience. I believe the lead is more or less ok. But you should re-write the entire article. If you cann't source something, I can help with that. But you need to give a backbone. Dc76\^talk 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)