Talk:Bessarabia

Dear Wikipedians,

The changes to the article "Bessarabia" made at 19:46 on 30 Jan 2005 have nothing to do with vandalism. Their purpose is to make the article to conform the NPOV policy. If you do not agree, let us start a discussion, but do not merely revert the changes.

First of all, you should "Log In", so you can sign your statements and all your changes will show with the same ID.--AAAAA 12:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Secondly, the information you deleted is factual, unless you have information to the contrary. Instead of just deleting, you should try to ADD more information, if you think the article needs more balance.--AAAAA 12:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear AAAAA, you write an ecyclopedia article on Bessarabia, not an article on anti-Semitism or on Jewish history.

If anybody would "try to ADD more information" to balance what you have written, this would make the article too large and unsuitable for wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia article, not a monography on the history of Bessarabia, after all.

There is no such a rule, that the balance should be reachet only by adding information, not by deleting it.

The NPOV policy is obligatory for everybody who edits the article. It is not normal, if somebody makes obviously biased articles and other wikipedians have to correct this.

Regards,

AndriyK

BTW, just noticed that there were some quotes involved. AFAIK, the policy is to put them in wikiquote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bessarabia and then link it here. Bogdan | Talk 13:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it would also be nice that the history part to be re-written as a text, not as a timeline and the population data to be moved to their own section. I'll do this myself when I'll get some free time.13:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To AAAAA: You may consider writing a separate article "History of Jews in Bessarabia" or something like this. So you can publish all the facts about Jews in Bessarabia without making the original article "Bessarabia" biased and strange-looking.

Regards,

Andriy

Dear Jpgordon, There is a special article on the Kishinev pogrom. Is it necessary to repeat it here? I think a short mentioning with a link woud be sufficient.

Regards,

Andriy

That was too short. I've made it a reasonable length now, significantly shorter than before. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jewish community

If you add information about Jewish comunity, you should add comparable pieces of information about Moldavians(Romanians), Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Germans, Gagauz and Russians. Otherewise the article looks unbalanced in contradiction to the NPOV policy. Note that the majority in Bessarabia are Moldavians(Romanians).

Removal of information is inadmissible. The problem of balance is related to opinions, not to facts. You are free to add info about Gagauz. Mikkalai 19:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In would suggest you to make a separate article on Jewish comunity in Bessarabia and cross-link the pages.

A reasonable idea, but you should have done it yourself instead of deletion. Mikkalai 19:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Restoring your deletion. Mikkalai 19:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I made it a separate article and cross-linked the pages. --AndriyK 20:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moldavia, Bessarabia, SSR Moldoveneasca and Moldova

there are 3(+1) articles about same region. perhaps the history of Bessarabia should begin in 1812, anything before that date should be linked to Moldavia, anything after 1918 should be linked to Romania, anything about a jewish Pogrom should link to the Pogrom article, anything about "Anything Remarcable, Requiring a Separate Dedicated Article", should be linked to an "Article on Important Things that Deserve Writing About Them and Hapened in Bessarabia" -- Criztu 20:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bessarabia is not identical to Moldavia or SSR Moldoveneasca. Southen and Nothen Bessarabia belong to the Ukraine. --Andriy 20:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Burebista

Please, remove the references to "Burebista's state" from this and other pages. Professional historians have shown that there is no reason to call it anything other than "a polity" (and a very loose one for that). Otherwise, you include a thesis which has as its only "merit" the fact that Ceauşeuscu endorsed it. BTW: it is highly unlikely that Bessarabia was ever included in a Dacian construction. Dahn 15:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burebista did conquer the Celtic town of Aliobrix (which was on the left bank of the Danube, but while theoretically in Bessarabia, it had more connections with Dobruja, where there were many other Celtic towns) and the Greek colony Tyras (on the Dniester). It seems that we don't know much about what happened inland, but it is certain that it was sparsely populated. There were a few Dacian tribes/settlements that lived in Bessarabia (see this). bogdan | ^Talk 15:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Bessarabia

The original inhabitants were Cimmerians, and after them came Scythians.
During the early centuries of the Christian Era, Bessarabia, was invaded by many successive races.
In the 2nd century AD, it was occupied by the Getae, a non-Thracian tribe, whom the Roman emperor Trajanus conquered in 106 AD; he then incorporated the region in the province of Dacia.
In the 3rd century, the Goths, a Germanic tribe, poured into this quarter of the empire, and in the 5th century it was overrun one after the other by the Huns, the Avars and the Bulgarians.
Then, in the 7th century, followed the Bessians, a Thracian tribe, who gave their name to the region.
Finally, in the 9th century, followed the Ugrians, that is to say, the ancestors of the present Magyars of Hungary, the country being then known as Atel-kuzu.

Links

www.1911encyclopedia.org

--IonnKorr 18:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

This part of Bessarabia history oddly omits the period of Romanian ownership and ends with September 1940 - six years before the end of WWII. Strange. Illythr 19:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens is that many Wikipedians are not super-experts in the field, and might not have known or found enough about the subject. Please feel free to add information if you know it.--AAAAA 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody want to translate it, the German WP covers the time:
de:Bessarabien#Rumänische Zwischenkriegszeit nach 1918. My grandmother lived there at that time, but I don't think she knows anything that might be relevant here.—Wikipeditor 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation mostly finished, maybe a bit more cleanup... --Illythr 18:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"no annexation through treaty"

Well... the treaty was signed by the Ottomans and Russians, not by the Moldavians... bogdan 16:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems that virtually all historians consider it an "annexation".

For example:

"Following the annexation of Moldavia between the Prut and the Dniester rivers, or Bessarabia, in 1812 Russian authorities had as their long-term goal the merging of the province into the general administrative structure of the empire."

Hitchins, Keith (1994) Rumania : 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe). Oxford University Press, p 239.

bogdan 16:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the POV of Russophobic writers and don't think Wikipedia should reflect it. They are always eager to portray Russia as an ever annexing and ever invading monster. In fact, this particular war was started by the Turks and lasted for six years, before being concluded by a treaty, whereby the Turks ceded the territory to Russia. It doesn't conform to any definition of annexation I have seen as yet. If you want a typical example of annexation, it was Catherine II's taking of Crimea, when Russian forces just invaded the area and proclaimed it the Russian possession. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I suppose the title Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty is an outright oxymoron, right?

An annexation is taking a territory by the means of force. In this case, neither the Turks and Moldavians gave it in willingly. The Turks thought they would lose if they continued fighting and the Moldavians, the actual inhabitants of the region, had nothing to say in all this. bogdan 17:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan, annexation is unilateral taking the territory by the use of force, such as annexation of good chunk of Ukraine by Romania in '41 through the allied with Nazi invasion of the USSR. Territorial changes through the treaties, are not annexations. Yes, treaties are often imposed by the strong on the weak, or by the allied war victors on the war loosers. In such cases, you just described what happened in the article but to use annexation is simply incorrect. Aneexation is, basically, just grabbing something and saying that's mine. --Irpen 18:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the sentences about the murderous Jews

The only source I have on this is the Nazi propaganda of the time, that was justifying the massacres of Jews in Bessarabia and Transnistria. Note that the two sentences are apparently part of a single text. I'd like to see that text. The other one was quite demonstrative. Why are you trying to insert just one of the two?

The "blatant anti-romanian POV pushing" edit summary (apparently by Bonaparte) was rather hilarious, too. There is nothing anti-Romanian in those two sentences, but plenty anti-Semitic. Unless backed up by a respectable source, this stuff should stay out. --Illythr 22:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it was included in propaganda of that time doesn't make the fact to disappear. There are many references to that that don't come from fascists or their supporters. I understand that's an uncomfortable truth, but nevertheless we should not forget the bad parts of the history just because they are inconvenient. If you know Romanian, read "Săptămâna Roşie" by Paul Goma, starting from page 163 the amount of evidence is overwhelming, and it comes from multiple sources: soldiers' leters addressed to relatives censored by the army, secret communication (that was meant to remain secret, so there's no reason to believe it was meant to be used as propaganda), local and foreign newspapers, declarations of many witnesses, etc. -- AdrianTM 08:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, Adrian, how wolud you react if someone publicly called you a murderer? Not even accused you of this, simply stated as fact. "Let's see what the convicted murderer Adrian writes today...", "We should not forget the bad parts of your life just because they are inconvenient...", that kind of crap.

Now that you sourced it, however, I'll let it stay. It's up to real historians to "examine the evidence". Especially since I don't know Romanian enough to read the whole book. Although, according to his ro:Paul_Goma entry (which I *can* read), he's quite suspicious himself. --Illythr 09:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't think anyone called you a murderer, just as if you say that Romanians killed Jews you don't call me a murderer (I hope). This is not the only reference that I can find about the subject, but it's pretty detailed, the guy is of course "suspicious" to the people who don't agree with him (and he was also tortured by Communist Jews in prison so he doesn't necessarily loves them and his family had to flee Bessarabia because of the invasion), however, he quotes enough original sources and nobody to my knowledge accused him of falsifying sources, I referenced to him for convenience, I don't feel like going to archives and lose time to get exactly the same stuff he got.... -- AdrianTM 09:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me. The example was not about you or me. I just used your nick so that you could realise (for a moment) how it feels to be falsely (I hope) accused of something. When someone claims that another person or group did something bad, that claim must be backed up by evidence of some sort. Otherwise that person is subject to legal action for libel (depending on the seriousness of the allegation). On Wikipedia, perpetrators of slander cannot be prosecuted, however. So, the policy of Wikipedia:Libel is used instead.

1) Now, originally, it was just "the Jews" there, not just Communist Jews. You know, like, all of them. Woman and child. "The jewish violence of hate", "Stalin promised Hebrew SSR", "genitals in their mouth" - that's Nazi propaganda almost verbatim. No sources, dates or names (or just bogus ones), just general things aiming to rouse the crowd. That's really getting old, you know. 2) Also, if he was indeed tortured by Communist Jews, than it will be much harder for him to realize that not all of the Bessarabian Jews are bloodthirsty murderers, who deserve nothing more than what eventually happened to them, as he shows them to be. If that sentence does indeed come from his book, of course. --Illythr 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You comment about sentences that I didn't add or that I already changed into a more neutral format. What I'm here interested is about the facts, not about blaming people, being them Communists, Jews, Romanians etc. I think it's pretty much a fact (that's verifiable) that a part of the local population attached both the Romanian Army and the Romanian population. We could choose to ignore that "detail" or we could choose not to try to identify who did that, just say that "a part of the civilian population attached Romanian Army", I think though it would be a lie through omission, and it would be misleading, people won't understand who and why attacked the Romanians. We could change that to "Communists, mostly ethnic minorities: Jews, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, etc and but also some Romanians attacked the Romanian Army" and then the we could say that "later on Antonescu regime used this as an excuse to kill innocent Jews and Gypsies in Bessarabia". I'm not an adept of occulting facts because they are uncomfortable, that book is pretty detailed and contains many declarations of witnesses and in general verifiable info. It is also important to add that because it's a well known assertion (being it true of false) in Romania and Moldova (there are still people alive that went through WWII and others heard the story from their parents), by putting things out in the light we can give a chance to other people to come with references that refute that assertion if that's the case. Otherwise, people will still know the "unofficial" story and take it as true, even if there are very good arguments against it (they will never have the chance to hear the arguments _against_ the story, they will just assume that historians are intimidated and afraid to be labeled as "antisemites" and are afraid to discuss that issue because of that). -- AdrianTM 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get the strangest feeling that you're implying that I am trying to (convince you to) occult facts. Let me assure you, that I am genuinely unaware about these things you present as facts. A quick search of the Internet shows that I am not alone in not knowing them. Similarly, there is no mention of this in other Wikiarticles including the German (from which I originally translated the section you have edited) and Romanian ones. In fact, the only places I find a mention of these "facts" are either openly anti-semitic hate sites or historical articles describing Nazi propaganda of the period. If it is such a well known fact, then digging up unbiased evidence (preferrably in English) for it would be trivial, don't you think?

I wasn't implying anything, I was merely stating my reasons. -- AdrianTM 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I must apologise. I am but stating my reasons as well. --Illythr 21:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need really, it's probably my fault that I wasn't clear and didn't talk more at the object -- AdrianTM 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to add that because it's a well known assertion (being it true of false) - presenting a "well known assertion" whose veracity is not known in the form of a confirmed fact is not the way of Wikipedia, don't you agree? The burden of proof of such an assertion lies wholly upon the asserter, in this case, you. Your reasoning in the last few sentences looks extremely... weird to me. It's like saying "Since we all know that John Doe is a paedophile, let's just say that he is, so that if he is not people will come and present arguments refuting the claim".

To change a little bit your example: a guy moves into a neighborhood, he's a nice guy but somehow everybody just "knows" that he's a pedophile, therefore everybody avoids him, nobody has a chance to talk to him and ask him what's the real story: he actually _saved_ a kid, not molested, but somehow that was "lost in translation", he has no clue why neighbors are avoiding him. This was only an argument for an open discussion and search for more info about the issue and put it in the light, it's not something that should replace evidence. -- AdrianTM 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, gather them together, make them sort out their issues together. A noble goal. The internet analogue of this is a forum or a blog, however, but most certainly not an encyclopaedia. Anyhow, I'll ask around... --Illythr 21:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Say, the retreating Romanian army was still an army, right? Armed soldiers and all? So, how did the Jewish population manage to attack them, armed with pitchforks and torches as it were? And what was the point attacking them, as those Romanians were retreating anyway? --Illythr 13:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this kind of information is to be found either in the archives of those time AKA "fascist sources" or in anti-semitic books, sites, etc because that's the kind of people that are interested in that kind of issue. It also doesn't help that people who bring this issue up are imediatelly labeled "anti-semites". In that book there's a quote from a book published in US: "Green Shirts and Others: a History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania" by Nagy-Talavera, Nicolas M. the quote sounds like (approximate translation by me): "In the chaos generated by a hasty and unorganized Romanian retreat many things happened that were not supposed to happen [...] Jew and Ukrainian population, in the enthusiasm generated by the departure of Romanian authorities, which made out of this province the worst administered part of the country, have treated the retreating Romanians in a way that will cost them direly one year later". So there you go, an American Jew historian wrote that in 1970. (I will add the reference) This book by Paul Goma just details the issue and provides documents, testimonials and references.

See, no "jewish violence of hate" there. That kind of sentence is certainly worth of being included because it's stilistically neutral and comes from a reputable source. Unfortunately, it allows for a lot of diametrally different interpretation. --Illythr 21:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence has been already deleted. It's possible to interpret Jews behavior at that time as racial hate or "antiromanism" (or how should I put it in English?) but that's clearly a point a view, not a fact, so it doesn't belong in here, here we need to look at facts and from my limited access to materials the facts presented in that book are pretty convincing, as I already explained. I would like though to have more people bringing here historical description of those events (hopefully without labeling and ad hominem type of arguments). -- AdrianTM 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may also make sence to add something from this section so as to provide a feasible reason for those events, if they indeed have taken place. --Illythr 21:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This, by the way, is one way to discern an anti-semite or any other anti-national - instead of pointing out a responsible group from among the target nationals, they'll make a broad all-encompassing statement, like "Jews, Russians, Romanians etc murdered his family", thus hinting that all Jews, Russians, Romanians etc are the same. --Illythr 21:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like generalizations. I introduced the word "some" in the sentence. In this case it's hard to say it otherwise (especially if there's no organization or ruler who was responsible) and I don't think it implies "all", in any case I made it clearer by saying "some". -- AdrianTM 22:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for your last point, I think part of the issue was that Romanian Army was under the order not to open fire and many soldiers didn't even had ammunition distributed. And you'd be surprised to find out that people at that time had also guns, not only pitchforks and torches. Also, in some cases those attacks were on captured soldiers (Soviet Army captured the soldiers and civilians were doing the beating and killing). They also attacked Romanian civilians, not only the Army from what I understand. -- AdrianTM 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jews were already second class citizens by that time, I find it doubtful that they'd be allowed to posess any significant firepower. But I'm just speculating. --Illythr 21:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were armed patrols called "Patrula apararii civile" (Civilian defense patrol). Also, remember that Romanian Army was on the move (actually running) it's one thing to confront an army on the battle front and another thing to attack tired and possible unarmed soldiers that were marching for miles on foot. -- AdrianTM 22:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bessarabian SSR

The following paragraph: "A Provisional Workers' & Peasants' Government of Bessarabia was founded on May 5, 1919, in exile at Odessa, by the Bolsheviks. On May 11, 1919, the Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic was proclaimed as an autonomous part of Russian SFSR, but was abolished by the military forces of Poland and France in September 1919 (see Polish-Soviet War).", is in fact copied from article Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic (remember: Wikipedia is not a reliable source), which was proposed for deletion. I believe this Bessarabian SSR of 1919 was not a real republic, but a dream or desire of some Soviet activists, especially if we see that it was proclaimed outside Bessarabia. Please join the deletion discussion and share your thoughts, if article will be deleted we will delete the paragraph also from this article.--MariusM 13:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slavs after the Bulgars

I have taken out the following sentence:

These peoples came mostly as small, strong armies of mounted warriors, and did not leave notable traces.

It was placed after the arrival of the Slavs. Slavs were never mounted warriors. I am not sure about the 'notable traces' but the first part of the sentence should be attributed to Avars and Bulgars, though they moved in larger numbers.

Also, did that Thracian tribe actually arrive after Huns, Avars, Bulgars and Slavs? Seems like a factological mistake to me. As far as I am concerned Thracians were extinct by then as a Thracian entity. They were assimlilated by other groups or moved to the mountains and merged with other mounteneers. To speak of a Htracian tribe around that time seems a bit odd.