Talk:Bukovina: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:53, 3 January 2006 editIrpen (talk \| contribs)32,604 edits apology (more typos, very much sorry!!!)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 08:38, 23 November 2023 edit undoKammerer55 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,213 editsm reassessed as C-class: not enough inline citations and the text is often disjoint or not ordered properly
(227 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	==text from "Bukovyna"==
			{{WikiProject Ukraine\|importance=High}}
	All text from entry ] has been added at the end of this entry. Editing is needed. ] 15:11, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Romania\|importance=High}}
	==Slavic==
			{{WikiProject Former countries\|HRE-taskforce=yes\|AH-taskforce=yes\|AH-taskforce-importance=high}}
	The article seems to be overwhelmingly written from a Romanian point of view. It's not even mentioned that the very word Bukovina is Slavic :-) ] 21:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Austria\|importance=Mid}}
			}}
			{{Annual readership}}
			{{archive box}}

			== Lipovans ==
	: It is Slavic ? I thought it was adapted from an older German name: "Buchenland". "-ina" is a common sufix for both Romanian and Slavic languages. ] \| ] 23:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

			There is nothing about Old-Russian settlement in Bukovina. Could somebody write more about that? ] 11:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Well, -ina may be common to Slavic and Romanian, but -ov- sounds rather Slavic to me. Besides, it resembles much more the Slavic word ''buka'' than the German ''Buche'' (which happen to mean the same: beech tree) - the "Lautverschiebung" had taken place long before any German entered the region.

			Lipovan and Rusyn are homonyms for Ukrainians, Russian speakers and (Ruthenian) speakers. ] (]) 13:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
	::: OK. -ov- seems to indicate a Slavic origin, so at least the Romanian version is taken directly from the Slavs. I googled and found that the first reference to this name was in a treaty of 1412. (That article also says that "Bukovina means "beechwood" in Romanian" :)

			== The flag is wrong ==
	::::Does it? I don't know much Romanian (although I was there last summer). But returning to German: although the Old High German version must have been something like ''buka'', it changed tu ''Buche'' (buh-schwa-) as early as the tenth century, making it rather unlikely, imho, that the origin is German (unless it would be Low German)--] 22:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

			The flag is all wrong: first of all, the blue-red colours were disposed vertically! You'll have to rotate the picture to the right, I guess. And the flag also had the coat of arms af Bukovina disposed in the center (see it here: http://ro.wikipedia.org/Imagine:Bukovina_1910_%28Wappen%29.jpg.). At least the colours must be fixed. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::: Starting with the ], Saxons (Saşi; also some Germans from as far as Flandre) were colonized in neighbouring Transylvania.

			==Bukovina Germans' role; Roman Dacia==
	::Besides, you do know that your first name's Slavic? ] 09:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
			I read the mindless drivel and stupid nationalist arguing on the other talk page. You guys are all nuts. It was the Bukovina Germans who civilized all you lot, gave you the first decent government you had (Maria Theresa and Joseph, 1775-1790) and freed you from the Ottoman yoke. Fortunately, most of them were intelligent enough to get out of there and come to decent countries like the US and Canada. I note that in the current article there is only one sentence dedicated to them, though they built everything that is still standing from the 1775-1918 period, and they made up some 25% of the population for a century and a half.

			And if we want to argue about who treated the Jews worse, the Romanians and Ukrainians are right up there with the Germans in the great historical guilt sweepstakes. So get over all these ancient grudges and behave like adults.
	::: Yes. And my last name has a Slavic sufix. (-ushcă) ;-) ] \| ] 18:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

			Oh, by the way, no Romans ever came anywhere near Bukovina. Roman Dacia was an obscure minor province, barely settled, basically a military buffer zone, and its boundaries stopped a couple of hundred kilometres south of Bukovina. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::You seem to have a lot of Slavic words, right? I remember ''izvor'', ''mucenik'', ''proorok'', ''da'', and some Turkish like ''carapa'', ''cizma'', ''aide'', ...--] 22:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

			:I find this last part to be quite bizarre. To say that Roman Dacia was "obscure", "minor", "barely settled" is unrealistic. Roman documents and archaeological fids show the extensive Roman settlement in Dacia, the establishment of Roman cities, the thriving economic life, reason for which it became known as "Dacia Felix", therefore not a just a "military buffer zone". It is known that what was designed in 1775 to be "Bukowina" was not part of Roman Dacia. And, yes there should be more in the article regarding the German contribution to Bukovina`s cultural and economic life, but I reject altogheter this kind of atitude: "the Bukovina Germans who civilized all you lot", which is simply insulting to everything there was before 1775, and to the other ethnic groups in Bukovina.(] (]) 12:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
	::::: Yes, the Slavic had quite some influence on the Romanian vocabulary, mostly Old Church Slavonic/Bulgarian, since that was the liturgy's language. ] \| ] 22:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

			: Romanians have built over there (before the arrival of the "civilized" germans) some things which are nowadays part of the UNESCO patrimony. On the contrary there are not a single one built by the the germans. Also.. keep your ignorance for yourself (your boorishness is only your problem) even you've been trying to spread it around with some political correctness false spices. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	==Halych and Bukovina==
	There is any prove sustaining the following sentence: "'''In the 9th to early 14th centuries the province came under the control of ] and later, its Ukrainian successor state of ].'''"? I think it's hardly speculative. --] 06:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	I can't see how any speculation was used to arrive at these facts. I do find that the Black Sea coast between the Danube and the Dnipro up into Ukrainian/Ruthenian (Rus') territory is incorporated into the realm of Kyivan Rus' tribes from the 10th-12th centuries, according to "A Thousand Years of Christianity in Ukraine: An Encyclopedic Chronology, (p26). I alos note that "Kievan Russia" (please excuse the imperialistic spelling) by George Vernadsky, calims that fisherman from Halychchyna came to dwell on the lower Danube river in the 1100s! (p 107.)
	Hope this helps!
	] 23:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			::@the OP--You are half correct with your mention of Roman Dacia, as consisted of Transylvania proper, Banat (including Serbian Banat) and Lesser Wallachia, and briefly including the rest of Wallachia, southernmost Moldavia and Southern Bessarabia (South of Upper Trajan's Wall), though for the most part, the overwhelming majority of Moldavia was un-effected by Roman rule. It seems that both sides rely too much on Dacia--one disregarding it entirely, the other making it their cornerpiece while the truth most likely lies in the middle--with equal emphasis on the Romanized inhabitants of Bulgaria north of the Balkan Mountains, northeast Serbia (excluding Vojvodina) and the Dobruja who would have fled north (and a smaller number south to the Pindus region) after the Bulgarian invasion and settlement of those regions and adjunct regions to the south and southwest.
	: But a modern encyclopedia assertion is not a proof. That assertion should based on proofs. Could you produce any other proof that Halych controlled Bukovina and Bessarabia, other than the fishermen came to Danube?
	Meanwhile I am gonna move here the assertion from the article.--] 02:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
	::Another quote from Britannica "History > Western Ukraine under the Habsburg monarchy > Bukovina": : ''"A small territory between the middle Dniester River and the main range of the Carpathians, Bukovina had formed part of Kievan Rus and the Galician-Volhynian principality."'' The challenge by above user: "But a modern encyclopedia assertion is not a proof. That assertion should based on proofs. Could you produce any other proof.." makes little sense to me. I don't see how an assertion in a respected encyclopedia is not a proof. Well, it is not a proof that something indeed took place, but it is a proof that so considers the mainstream historical thought. Writers of encyclopedia can never claim with 100% accuracy that all the facts there are true. But respected encyclopedias do reflect the mainstream historic knowledge. And so should the Misplaced Pages. Therefore, I would like to restore this in the article, except I don't think it is correct to call Halych-Volynia "a Ukrainian state" and this should not indeed go into the article. Just in case, I would like to request that people here conduct discussions civilly. "Transnistria" was enough. Thanks! --]

			::As for the rest of your post, it is garbage. The Romanians established ] own by in the region the mid 14th century and those of Moldavia had no contact with any Germans, only those of Transylvania and Wallachia did so via the Transylvanian Saxons who were an isolated outgroup. Regarding the Bukovina Germans, they were simply sent into the region to populate it, in the same sense as the Danube Swabians were sent into Hungary to repopulate it because of the devastation of the Turkic wars. The policy of populating Bukovina proved fortunate in the short run but disastrous in the long run (just as with the repopulation of Hungary) as large numbers of Ukrainians, along with smaller numbers of Jews and Poles were moved in from neighboring Galicia, reducing the previously homogenous Romanian population to a minority, concentrated around the southeastern third of North Bukovina.
	==The dog==
	:''For the dog breed, see ].''

			::This minority status thus allowed Soviet Russia to act on it's 'Drang nach Westen' policy of gorging itself on foreign lands and deporting the inhabitants in violation of everything civilized, just, honorable and human, lowering it's already near bottom standards to that of Nazi racial policies and greater states, something that the USSR's successor states have yet to raise themselves above, with Belarus still celebrating September 17th--the 'official' day of the 4th partition of Poland. Instead of annexing what was simply Ukrainian and Belorussian--about 2/3 of North Bukovina, the northernmost parts of Bessarabia around Khotin, and just over half of Poland 'east of the Curzon Line'--everything was taken. What happened to North Bukovina--where a third of the native Romanian population was murdered or deported between 1940-1959, much like what was done in Eastern Poland (and to a lesser extent Bessarabia, though ] replaced deportation for the most part following WWII, just like with the ] in ]), despite the Polish majority in the Wilno region (the western 3/4 of Wilno, northwest 3/5 of Nowogrodek and eastern Bialystok) and the mixed Polish and Pro Polish population of northeastern Galicia (eastern Lwow and all of Tarnopol), the whole region was swallowed by the USSR and purged of it's 3,500,000 Poles, along with the additional 1,200,000 in the USSR and 150,000 in the Baltic States...however by 1950 only 2/7 of the 4,850,000 Eastern Poles remained in their homelands. Likewise, the which had a Romanian majority (up to the Tasbunar River) which was likewise eliminated. ] (]) 20:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
	Well, I don't think it's OK to put the name of the dog breed in front. You know, in the article on ], there is not in front a link to ]. We could however mention it somewhere inside the article. ] \| ] 21:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			==Massacre of Fantana Alba==
	:The challenge is that the breed is sometimes called just the "Bukovina" or "Bucovina", whereas the Australian Shepherd is never just called the "Australian" or "Australia". It is sometimes called an ], and that's a short article (at least at the moment) with the reference near the end, so someone looking for "Aussie" the dog will find the reference quickly. Someone looking for "Bucovina" the dog needs to be able to find it from here--one useful alternative would be to have ] and reference that at the top of this article, but the only purpose for that page would be to get to the dog page, so it seems not like the best alternative. It is common practice in wikipedia to put "for xxxx, see yyyy" at the top of articles in which a disambig page isn't warranted. Maybe we could do a See also section here with a reference to the dog, but I'm just concerned that people won't naturally scroll down to find it when they see right off the bat that the article is about a location. ] \| ] 22:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			I noted with surprise that the ] in Bucovina (see wikipedia English and Romanian) has not been mentioned. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Bukovinan or Bukovinian ==
	== Which part of Bukovina became part of Odessa oblast ==

			Which is the correct attributive (or adjectival) form of the place name? ''-- ] (]) 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)''
	The part with "part of it became part of Odessa oblast" is wrong. It is impossible that it could be so, since bocovina has no boder with odessa oblast. The author probably ment that the northern part of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina became Chernivtsi oblast and southern part of Bessarabia became part of Odessa oblast. He mixed up Bassarabia with Bukovina.

			== ow2do? ==
	]

			\|flag_p1=Flag_of_Moldavia.svg
	== NPOV (interwar Rumanization)==
			\|s1 = Kingdom of Romania
			\|flag_s1= Flag of Romania.svg
			\|flag_s2= Flag of Ukraine.svg
			last1misin--] (]) 05:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

			==Expulsions==
	:''the policies of Rumanization were carried in the interwar period.''
			''After the war the Soviet government deported or killed about 41,000 Romanians.''

			Presumably, the Soviets also expelled or killed the ethnic German residents, as they did elsewhere in Eastern Europe. ] (]) 15:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
	...and the article says nothing about the anti-Romanian policies the Soviets/Ukrainians, such as the massacres of Romanian civilians (during the war) and ethnic cleansing after the war (deportations to Siberia). Until those issues have been resolved, I don't believe it is NPOV. ] \| ] 20:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
			:The Germans of North Bukovina were re-settled by Nazi authorities between 1940-41 much as their counterparts in Eastern Poland, the Baltics and Bessarabia were. ] (]) 19:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

			== Ethnic Breakdown according to the 1930 Romanian census: ==
	:Bogdan, I see your point. I agree that any sourced info, if balanced and well written, about any atrocities against Romanians in Bukovina belongs to the article. However, the war period is a separate issue from the interwar period. Sourced info about crimes against Romanian civilians in Bukovina are not the only thing that happened at that time omitted from the article, as you know. You are welcome to add this but going into details of WW2 period would also require an elaboration about the crimes that happened under Romanian occupation during the WW2. Currently the article has just one sentence ("deportation of Jews") about the whole issue and it is easy to find plenty of info about mass killing of Jews conducted there by Romanian and German forces often with an eager help of the local Ukrainians. And there is nothing in the article about interaction of the Axis forces with Ukrainians at all. This is clearly insufficient and you are welcome to elaborate on pre- during or post-WW2 events. I might set aside some time to do that too, but that would require me to go through a lot of reading, which of course is a good thing.

			Bukovina:
	:As for the interwar period, take a look at this quote from Britannica. It had a chapter on this period in:
			* 379,691 Romanians or 44.51%
	::Ukraine→History→"Ukraine in the interwar period"→"Bukovina under Romanian rule":
			* 248,777 Ukrainians or 29.16%
			* 92,492 Jews or 10.84%
			* 75,533 Germans or 8.85%
			* 29,680 Poles or 3.48%
			* 11,881 Hungarians or 1.39%
			* 7,948 Russians or 0.93%
			* 7,197 Others or 0.84%
			* 853,009 Total

			The above numbers were derived from combining the statistics of the inter-war Romanian counties of , , , and . The Ukrainian total includes 12,437 of the Hutsul regional Ukrainian subgroup, who on their own account for 1.46% of the region's population. ] (]) 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
	::''In the formerly Austrian province of Bukovina, Ukrainians constituted two-fifths of the total population but two-thirds in the northern half (in 1931). Following the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy, northern Bukovina was briefly proclaimed part of the Western Ukrainian National Republic, before the entire province was occupied by the Romanian army in November 1918. Under a state of emergency that lasted from 1919 to 1928, Bukovina was subjected to strong assimilationist pressures. Provincial self-government was abolished and the Ukrainian language removed from administrative use. The extensive Ukrainian school system and the university chairs at Chernivtsi were liquidated, and the Ukrainian press and most organizations banned. A relaxation that began in 1928 led to the reemergence of organized life, but this was almost totally suppressed with the institution of the royal dictatorship in 1938.''

			== Division of Bukovina Map from US State Department ==
	:Currently, the WP article summarizes this in two short sentences:
	::''"With the collapse of Austri-Hungary in 1918 the province was occupied by Romania. Although local Ukrainians have unsuccesfully attempted to incorporate parts of northern Bukovina into the short living West Ukrainian National Republic, the Romanian control of the province was finally formalized in the Treaty of St. Germain in 1919 and the policies of Rumanization were carried in the interwar period."''

			It would appear that holds merit to the division of Bukovina in 1940 (and again 1947), both in the ethno-linguistic situation of the time and in what, at least then, the US State Department thought the borders should be, though I'd like to see what others have to say about it. While on the subject of Romania and the border changes of 1940-1947, there is a of Bessarabia.
	:I don't think this summary is tilted against the Romanians as compared to the respected source I used. The main shortcoming of this part is its brevity, since the WP has the means to go in a greater rather than a smaller details than EB.

			] (]) 00:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
	:So, I would like to suggest the following. We separate the interwar period from the period closer to the war years and will try to write a balanced account of what happened in late 30s - late 40s. Until nothing is written about this time (as it is now, except a single sentence I mentioned earlier), I see no basis for the POV dispute. Once the article will be describing those years it should get an NPOV tag, should anyone find it unbalanced. As for the interwar period account, there seem to be no dispute over the accuracy, at least in your post above.

			== External links modified ==
	:In any case, you are welcome to improve what I wrote, add more about war and post war years and to keep the tag, if you see fit (I will not remove it now). But please do not delete the info about interwar Rumanization. Actually, I appreciate that you raised the dispute rather than delete the info while I disagree with having the NPOV tag over this issue. In any case, I would have responded with similar detail even if you just raised the objection without placing a tag on the whole article. Regards, --] 23:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	Could it be assumed that everyone is fine with my suggestion above and the tag can be removed? Or people are just to busy to respond? We really should not keep the tag if the discussion died out. I will wait some more for objections. If there is still a disagreement I have no intention to try to hide it and delete the tag of course. But let's try to deal with this rather than allow a tag to stay and do nothing. --] 00:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
	:As per above, the tag removed only today. We really gave time for objections to be raised, but if some still remain and tag needs restored, we can start it all over with a new round. Regards, --] 21:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:2\|one external link\|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	==the neutrality of this page is disputed==
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050509082846/http://www.putna.ro:80/istorie/cronologia.htm to http://www.putna.ro/istorie/cronologia.htm
	The article on ] (], ]) has been the subject and object of some bitter dispute. Not only Ukrainian and Romanian viewpoints are alternatively errased and replaced, but also neutral editings are deleted by more extreme wikis.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071022185521/http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro:80/legbelso.php3?nev=127 to http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/legbelso.php3?nev=127

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
	I therfore suggest that everyone who reads this agree on the following policy:
	# Let us with common sense edit some basic undisputed information and agree on the content list. I suggest that this part (the definition of the term Bukovina, the map and the first numbered item) be very short and state that there are opposing viewpoint on some issues, and that the users of Wikipaedia have agreed to present both (or more) viewpoints on this page without erasing information one does not agree with.
	# Each item that follows should contain 2 (or more if necessary) subitems - one stating Ukrainin viewpoint, and the other Romanian viewpoint. For example:
	:Etymology
	::Ukrainin viewpoint
	:::''Bukovina'' is a Ukrainian name and means ''the are no Romanians here''
	::Romanian viewpoint
	:::''Bukovina'' is a Romanian name and means ''the are no Ukrainins here''
	#+2 Incredibly much information would be common! That information would be very helpful for non-Ukrainians and non-Romanians. But it would obviously be presented ''in the context'' differently by the two parts. Understand me right, I '''do not claim that both parts are equally right or equally wrong''', I claim that '''when both oppinions are presented, intelligent readers would easely understand which one is more truthful'''. If you support one viewpoint, feel free to edit your part, and edit it well, for the better you will, the sounder you viewpoint will be. But do not touch the other part. Feel free, though to critisize the other part whe you are writting your part. I believe that in the end both parts would reach a more or less neutral viewpoint with only 1-2 differences. The outside world is interested in the oppinions of both sides on these differences, not only in the one's which has edited the last.

	On purpose, I have not edited any word, though I disagree with many, and can prove some information is obviously wrong. (The map of Bukovina in green is the most obvious example: one should not include Herta/Herza district, nor northern Bessarabia, nor Botosani county, not the Baia-Falticeni part of the Suceava county, those are not part of Bukovina. I suggest we replace it by the Austrian map found lower in the text.)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	If you agree to my suggestion, leave a not on this '''Talk page'''. Let's say, when 5 supporting notes are there, the 5th person go ahead and edit the page as agrees. But '''do not erase enything, even something obviously wrong''', just place it is the corresponding viepoint section.

			Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 11:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
	There remains though one question - to decide on the list of contents. Please, leave your suggestions below. ] 15:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) D
	: Hi anonymous, please list specifically your objections to the neutrality of the article if you want to keep the tag. --] 23:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

			== Northern Bukovina within Ukraine ==

			the map of Northern Bukovina within Ukraine in teh SU section is pretty useless for people who dont read cyrillic, and after all this is enWP. neither Ukrainian
	And what exactly are the ''Romanian'' and ''Ukrainian'' viewpoints on the matter? I for instance, am a Romanian. My viewpoint may not exactly coincide with another Romanian's viewpoint.
			can someone please change the map/ the words in cyrillic letters ?

			Also, its legend is sloppy, like no explanation whhat the yellow shaded part is.--] (]) 23:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
	The thing with "there are no ucrainians here" may be something that is true for some Romanians but not me. Northern Bukovina is full of Ukrainians. One cannot deny that. Ucrainians represent 70-75% of the population. Ucrainians lived in northern Bukovina ever since 1775. In 1918 the Ucrainians and Romanians initially agreed to devide the region between north and south but then the west ucrainian republic got dissolved so Romania took everything. in 1940 the USSR said it "reclaimed the north" but they drew the border incorrectly and not according to ethnic lines.As a result, there are still 180.000 Romanians inside the Ucraine today. They are generally centered in the districts(rayons) around the district(rayon) of ].

			== External links modified ==
	I think we should keep the green zone on the map(maybe erase botosani judetz).] 07:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:Anyway, unless specific problems with neutrality are listed soon, I will remove the tag. Nothing would prevent the anon user, or anyone else from restoring it, if they come up with specific reasons. There are several discussions above with neutrality tag placed and removed when objections were addressed or not supported. --] 07:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

			I have just modified {{plural:3\|one external link\|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::This is the last call for an anon editor to specifically list the neutrality problems. Otherwise, the POV tag will be removed. The protracted essay above is an interesting reading nut lacks specifics required to keep the tag --] 02:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006123106/http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=3 to http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=3#_ftn2
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113170140/http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istorie1918-1940/13-4.htm to http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/kuk_bukowina.htm
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=1

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).
	== The map ==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	I disagree with the map. The Botosani county was not considered a part of the region of Bukovina. Someone needs to remake that map. --] 14:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 13:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
	== Irpen contributions and Vasile's deletion==

			== External links modified ==
	Definitely, you are not at your best writing on Bukowina and city of Cernauti, as you dislike the region. Please refrain on reverting without reading or thinking on others contribution. --] 14:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
	:Vasile, your accusations that I dislike something are just silly and baseless. I will edit articles with reading and thinking as I see fit and in accordance with Wiki-ethics and Wiki-policies. You deleted significant pieces from the aricle besides the name section without any explanation. This cannot be tolerated--] 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:: At least you don't pretend you have read my edits. Your guardian senses felt some motion and this, you said, can not be tolerated. You want to tell me that there is a special secret admin policy regarding some articles on Misplaced Pages? --] 18:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	I read your edits. As for the rest of your message above, I can't make any sense of it. Please rephrase what you want to say in a comprehensible way if you want a response.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017111137/http://www.unibuc.ro/studies/Doctorate2012Ianuarie/Mihai%20Florin%20Razvan%20-%20Minoritatea%20ucrainiana%20din%20Romania/REZUMAT-FLORIN-RAZVAN-MIHAI.pdf to http://www.unibuc.ro/studies/Doctorate2012Ianuarie/Mihai%20Florin%20Razvan%20-%20Minoritatea%20ucrainiana%20din%20Romania/REZUMAT-FLORIN-RAZVAN-MIHAI.pdf
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628161431/http://www.unhcr.md/article/masspop_ro.htm to http://www.unhcr.md/article/masspop_ro.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110620192543/http://unknown-ukraine.co.uk/articles/chernivtsi-regionoblast to http://unknown-ukraine.co.uk/articles/chernivtsi-regionoblast
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113170140/http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istorie1918-1940/13-4.htm to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/Chernivtsi/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	In your edit you deleted big chunks of information from the article without even attemting to raise whatever problems you had with the article at talk. This is on the borderline of vandalism and would have been reverted by someone else, if not by me, anyway. --] 19:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
	:What Vasile calls "personal comments about Romanian prioroties" and info on interwar Romanization may easily be found in Britannica articles such as Bukovina and History of Ukraine. --] 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:: There is no need of rephrasing as you don't know the answer to the question anyway. Those "big chunks of information" were simply garbage. In fact, in your action of revert my vandalism, you erased the wiki-link to a poem dedicated to Bukovina ("La Bucovina", Mihai Eminescu). As you are good on regulations, I am sure you'll be able to fit your law-breaking. --] 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
	Vasile, you should justify your deletions. --] 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

			== The Name Is WRONG! Please Change The Title! ==
	Vasile, I apologize if I accidentally deleted the link to a poem. You may restore it of course. I don't know what you mean by garbage. If you call any info, no matter how well supported, a garbage because it doesn't support your POV, I can't help it. Such a deletionist's approach is addresses in the Misplaced Pages guideline: ]. --] 19:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

			The name Bukovina is wrong. The right one is Bucovina.I am Romanian and I know this. Please, may you change the title as it may annoy some people.
	: It doesn't cost me much to repair the accidentally deleted link, but if you really want me to believe the sincerity of your regrets, you might be so kind to repair yourself that link. It may appear futile, but the poem also reflects dozens of testimonies that could be found on the internet, regarding the impressive natural beauty of the region. --] 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
			] (]) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
			::Hello, plecase note that this Misplaced Pages written in English, and consequently uses the name most common in English language sources. The Misplaced Pages written in Romanian indeed uses the name you mention, therefore I see no problem.] (]) 20:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

			== Neutrality concerns ==
	: "Since Romania's gaining of independence in ], it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture." This phrase is used out of its context (probably 1918-1919). This kind of diplomatic reasoning was convincing at that time. --] 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
			<small>Original heading: "Some edits" ] (]) 22:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)</small>

			Hi {{u\|Haldir Marchwarden}}, I gave a more careful look at your edits and they have many issues. Maybe the article wasn't neutral before, but it for sure isn't now. I am going to list the issues:
	I remember that I wrote this sentense. I used Britannica as the source of the info. Right now, I cannot access an exact quote, but I will cite it here as soon as I can. --] 20:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

			"Then, in the 14th century, Bukovina passed to Hungary. King Louis I of Hungary appointed Dragoș, Voivode of Moldavia as his deputy, facilitating the migration of the Romanians from Maramureș and Transylvania in the territory. Thereafter, Ukrainians and Moldavians cohabited Bukovina, fighting together against invaders and oppressors." First of all, not only Bukovina was under Hungarian control, but also the whole future principality of Moldavia or at least Western Moldavia, which I feel should be mentioned. Also, this part of the text portrays Romanians as late migrants in the region who didn't exist before the 14th century. As I mentioned, this only goes with one of the two main theories of the origin of the Romanians, the other being that of the Daco-Roman continuity (according to which Romanians would also be natives in Bukovina). There's no need to completely change the text but I'd appreciate it if we fixed this issue. Also, after that quote goes the Duchy of Bukovina, completely ignoring Moldavian rule over Bukovina, which I don't see correct.
	But I can. Here is the quote, from Britannica:

			"the Shypyntsi land" this name uses a transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the region. There's however also a Romanian name. Do we know which one is more common. What name do English sources give to this land?
	''When Romania achieved independence in 1878, it sought unification with Bukovina. It did so because Bukovina was not only the historical cradle of the Moldavian principality but also the repository of the finest examples of Romanian art and architecture, having unique painted monastic churches of the 15th and 16th centuries. Romania occupied Bukovina when Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1918. Although local Ukrainians had tried to incorporate their districts in northern Bukovina into the Western Ukrainian National Republic, Romania gained control of the whole province (Treaty of Saint-Germain; 1919) and pursued a Rumanization policy there. In June 1940 the Soviet Union occupied the northern part of Bukovina, but Romania temporarily regained this territory as Germany's ally after the latter had invaded the U.S.S.R. in 1941. Soviet troops retook the northern districts in 1944. Northern Bukovina became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic under the peace treaty of 1947; the ancient Moldavian capital Suceava and the surrounding area, including the most famous of the monasteries, became part of the Romanian People's Republic.''

			"Eventually, this state collapsed, and Bukovina passed to Hungary. King Louis I appointed ] as his deputy, facilitating the migration of the Romanians from ] and ]." same as in the first point.
	This text is copyrighted and should not be used on Wiki.
	--] 20:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
	:Yes, this is an exact quote and I remember it very well. I hope it addresses Vasile's deletion urge. --] 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

			"Pokuttia was likewise inhabited by ] (the predecessors of modern Ukrainians together with the ], and of the ]). Further there were the ]s, who also resided in western Bukovina." there also were Romanians. I can give sources if you wish.
	: This text is including probably the Romanian diplomatic reasoning used into the negotiations of the treaty of Saint-Germain, in order to convince the Western world about the rights of Romania in the region. The expression "Rumanization policy" sounds (let aside the pejorative form) very heavy for the present time. Indeed especially the Germans were not able to accept the new situation in the former colony. The last sentence is simply erroneous, R.P.R. being proclaim after the signing of the peace treaty of 1947 and Suceava being already part of Romania since 1918. --] 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			"Rumanization" keep in mind the term is ]. Also, the term is mentioned 15 times in the article. Don't you think this is excessive? Why is "Ukrainization" not even mentioned once?
	I am sorry, but if you want to say that the authors of Britannica, which is rather selective in picking its contributors, use the wrong terms, you either have to argue with them in scholarly literature first, to prove them wrong and yourself right, or find other respectable scholars that argued that for you thus claiming that Romanian policy towards the Ukrainian population was friendly and benevolent. I can certainly cite several books on Ukrainian history that support Britannica's version.

			"In the 16th and 17th centuries, Ukrainian warriors (Cossacks) were involved in many conflicts against the Turkish and Tatar invaders of the Moldovian territory. Notably, Ivan Pidkova, best known as the subject of Ukraine's bard Taras Shevchenko's Ivan Pidkova (1840), led military campaigns in the 1570s. Many Bukovinians joined the Cossacks during the Khmelnytsky Uprising. As part of the peasant armies, they formed their own regiment, which participated to the 1648 Siege of Lviv. Ukrainian Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky himself led a campaign in Moldavia, whose result was an alliance between Khmelnytsky and its hospodar Vasile Lupu. Other prominent Ukrainian leaders fighting against the Turks in Moldovia were Severyn Nalyvaiko and Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny." I don't really like this paragraph. It is overly Ukrainian-focused when we are talking about Moldavia. What were the Romanians of Bukovina doing then?
	Also, as far as I know, the results of the 2001 Ukrainian census is the only veryfiable data available today for the linguistic and ethnical composition of Northern Bukovina. The results of census (unless we have any claims that it was rigged) simply reflect the answers people gave in the forms by checking the boxes "Ukrainian", "Romanian", "Moldavian" on the page. No one forced or discouraged anyone to select as they wished and, I repeat, the results represent not some official "registration" data or what's written as "nationality" in the passports but people's own selection.

			"From the 16th to the 18th centuries, "Bukovina maintained cultural ties with other Ukrainian lands. Moldovian ''hospodars'' founded a number of churches in Ukraine, and many natives of Bukovyna studied in Kyiv and Lviv." same here.
	It is not yours or anyone else's job to add up the number of Romanians and Moldavians as per census to make up some different numbers and interpret them. If you have any respectable text that explains why Ukrainian census should be discounted and which numbers are more correct, bring it to this talk page. --] 05:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			The section of "Late 19th to early 20th centuries" (which I renamed to "Rise of nationalism") is quite biased. Specially "The region is quite important to the history of Ukraine. It was occupied early on by Ruthenians; was part of Kievan Rus..."
	== Romanization ==

	~~The~~ Ukrainian ~~schools~~ ~~were~~ ~~closed~~ ~~for~~ a ~~few~~ ~~years~~ ~~after~~ ~~the~~ ~~revolt~~, but ~~were~~ ~~shortly~~ ~~re-opened~~ ~~again~~. We ~~need~~ ~~references~~ ~~for~~ the ~~closing~~ of ~~other~~ ~~cultural~~ ~~facilities and~~ for ~~forced Romanization. If~~ ~~not~~, ~~this~~ ~~term~~ ~~shouldn't~~ be ~~applied~~ to the article. ~~--]~~ ~~05:51,~~ 27 ~~December~~ ~~2005~~ ~~(UTC)~~		"Ukrainian national movement" why do we have a section for this, but not for the Romanian national movement...? I also find worrying the lack of even a mention for ], which in my opinion only shows the article has been given an Ukrainian POV.
	:SO, are you saying that Britannica isn't enough? I am surprized but I will provide more, if you insist. Please note, however, that rejecting the respected sources and demanding more may be pursued endlessly. Imagine someone starting the argument over single/separate identities of Moldovans/Romanians all over and simply rejecting all the sources the Romanians bring saying "bring more references". The respectable reference uses the term in an explicit form. As such, the burden of proof is rather on the side that wants to disprove Britannica and not vise versa. --] 06:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			"In the beginning, Bukovina joined the fledging ]" it was only the north... I am starting to be seriously worried for your edits.
	Sometimes, Britannica is not enough. Want me to prove it to you? Britannica claims that ] was victorious at the ] and at the ], but he wasn't victorious at Valea Alba. He actually lost control of Moldavia for a short period of time and had to rebuild his army in Poland. This message, however, was in reply to your claims that we closed theaters and other cultural institutions, and I would like to see references for this, because I don't think Britannica said this. As for Britannica, I had to email them several times and asked them to add new content that they didn't bother to add. They had nothing on George Palade, but they do now, so don't think they're so perfect. There are many different authors who write for Britannica and it is known that errors have been found in their content. --] 06:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
	:I am not saying that EB is a bible. Any respectable source may include occasional errors. All I said, is that if the claim is made by a respectable source, it is the opposition's burden to prove it wrong and not the other way around. --] 06:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			"After passing to Hungary in the 14th century, the Hungarian king appointed Dragoș as his deputy and facilitated the migration of Romanians from Maramureș and Transylvania into Bukovina. Then, a process of Romanianization was carried out in the area." already stated.
	You can try to "convert" a population without using offensive means, but simply with "culture". You said we closed theaters, etc. That would mean a forced Romanization of the population, but I'm not so sure we were that agressive. --] 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
	:If you can read in Ukrainian, take a look at the third from the bottom paragpraph of ] article in Ukrainian wikipedia, a well referenced article BTW. If you insist I can provide the translation and get a hold on the article's sources that describe the Romanian state policies against the Ukrainian language, closure of cultural and educational institutions, newspapers and magasines, oppression of the Ukrainian church and change of the Ukrainian names for the Romanian ones. If this is not Romanization, I wonder what is then. After the Romanian occupation returned in 41, the Romanization policies were renewed and Ukrainian activist were sent to concentration camps. The article cites "The Handbook on the History of Ukraine", editor I. Pidkova and others. --] 07:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			"In spite of this, the north of Bukovina managed to remain "solidly Ukrainian." While there exist different views on the ethnic composition of the south, it is accepted that the north of Bukovina remained largely, if not wholly, Ukrainian." yeah...
	:: I dare you that was not Romanization. I say that was a Romanian-Soviet cold war. These books of Ukrainian history were written without studying the Romanian politcs and Soviet-Romanian relations. This kind of history is partial and by that, it can't be considered anything else that simply unacceptable propaganda of a defunct system. --] 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			"The southern, or Romanian Bukovina reportedly has a significant Romanian majority (94.8%) according to Romanian sources" of course...
	I don't speak Ukranian and I was hoping you would give me a non-Ukrainian and non-Romanian source, to make sure they're objective. I also think we should cover the current Ukrainian policy that discriminate against ethnic Romanians that live on the land that was theirs for centuries. --] 09:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			"However, Ukrainians claim that the number is actually 250,000–300,000, that is four times the number stated by Romanian authorities." I am sorry but this is obviously false. How can half of the population of Suceava County be Ukrainian?
	:To Vasile, these books of Ukrainian history I am referring to are the post-Soviet books written after Ukrainian independence. They have nothing to do with the cold war.

			"Romanianization, with the closure of schools and suppression of the language, happened in all areas in present-day Romania where the Ukrainians live or lived. The very term "Ukrainians" was prohibited from the official usage and some Romanians of disputable Ukrainian ethnicity were rather called the "citizens of Romania who forgot their native language" and were forced to change their last names to Romanian-sounding ones." you do a reminder of the interwar policies of the Kingdom of Romania but you didn't do the same with the Soviet oppression of Romanians in the Ukrainian SSR. Why is the closure of Romanian schools in Bukovina and Bessarabia not mentioned anywhere?
	:Anittas, your request for non-UA/non-RO sources is already satisfied since Britannica's ref is given. OTOH, I have no objection to include the referenced info on the anti-Romainian policies in the Soviet Union. Please note, however, that these policies were part of the wider Soviet policies, rather than having been particularly related to Bukovina. As such, they belong to more general articles, like perhaps ], ], etc, whith a simple mention here. OTOH, the anti-Ukrainian policies of the interwar Romania, are ''specifically Bukovina related''. In any case, if you can bring such info in a referenced and encyclopedic form, we could discuss it. And I would be interested to learn myself about the "current Ukrainian policies that discriminate against ethnic Romanians". If you have any respectable sources that describe this, please bring them up. --] 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			This is way worse than I had expected before reading the article. As it stands now, it is unacceptable. I ask for comprehension from your side. What if similar edits had been done in this article, giving huge weight to the Romanians in the region and largely ignoring the Ukrainians? I highly doubt you will attempt to fix this as the problem is really big and would take many hours to fix, so the neutrality issues are either fixed by most likely the removal of content or I'll revert the page to the latest version before you edited. I can wait for days or weeks if you are willing to fix the issues I gave. ] ] ] 10:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
	:: Britannica should be based on some reliable sources, like any other encyclopedia. Whether or not Britannica included non reliable information is not my business. They need to make a living too. The question here is if you able and kind to name any reliable non-Ukrainian sources about that Romanization process. That post-Soviet book of history is also most probably based on some research work made on the Soviet time. What you probably should know is the fact that the frictions between Romania and Ukraine didn't start in the same time with the new independent state.
	:: There must be some historic works constituing base for that big post-Soviet history. That research is PARTIAL and thus is propaganda. You don't need to be very creative to do that. There is a lot work developed inside the Hungarian culture since 1918. The Romanian minority is discriminated not comparing just with the Ukrainian majority. It suffices to compare the rights of Hungarians in Ujgorod with those of Romanians in Cernauti or Odessa. --] 21:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			:], I don't feel the need to discuss the history of Romanians here as you are doing. If a piece of information has sources and pertains to the article (in this case Bukovina) it goes in it, if it doesn't it doesn't. The article lacked sources. I expanded it citing sources, and marked the unsourced and/or dubious material. Anyway,
	As I said, if you want to argue with the authors of Britannica, Misplaced Pages is not the place to do it. Write articles in historic journals. Misplaced Pages requires references, you've got the quote from one of the most respected reference books world-wide. You say, it is possible Britannica is wrong and you are right.

			a) Here we go, that is what the source(s) say.
	: Actually, Britannica is not a valid reference for our purposes and many wikipedians reject sources such as general encyclopedias, so it would be better that we find some published books or articles. ] 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
	:: I agree that the more refs the better. However, discounting Britannica is plain ridiculous. "Many Wikipedians" as well reject sources that carry information not to their liking. How can we accomodate them all? In any case, we have the ] official policy page. Go to Village Pump to argue modifying the policy to make ] policy section mention Britannica among the tabloids, personal sites and blogs. Additionally, I also cited books and can easily cite more. Vasile is requested to bring here some IMPARTIAL sources as per below. --] 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			b) that's what the source(s) say. c) ditto; d) same (and yes, do it, that's the point).
	Very well, the burden is now on Vasile to prove it. Bring some IMPARTIAL, as you like to say, sources that praise the benevolent treatment of minorities in the interwar ] as well as by the allied to Hitler government during the WW2 and we will discuss it. Since you were so persisting, I looked into "Orest Subtelny. ''Ukraine: A History.'' Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 3rd edition (2000) ISBN 0-8020-8390-0." that you can get in any library. On page 447 ("Ukrainians under Romanian Rule" chapter) you will find that all Ukrainian schools were closed and Ukrainians were even refused the right to be called a separate nation, that Ukrainians were called the "citizens of Romanian origin that forgot their native language", that all autonomy was abolished and Bukovyna was turned to an ordinary Romanian province, you will read about brutal liquidation of Ukrainians' rights (that's for pre '27 time). Then the book speaks about ''relatively'' liberal 28-38 period when Ukrainian culture were given some limited means to redevelop. However, with arrival of '38 "cruel and almost totalitarian" dictatorship the Ukrainian political party, as well as many other Ukrainian organizations were banned. You can read more in the book.
	::: Ah, so we wanted you to be Romanians. Is that so bad? It's not so bad to be Romanian. Besides, many Ukrainians have Romanian blood, so it wouldn't be totally untrue. ;) --] 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
	: It's better to put that in perspective: in 1938, Carol II of Romania assumed dictatorial powers and banned '''all''' political parties of Romania, as well as many other non-political organizations, so it was not something against the Ukrainians. ] 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			e) (Rumanization) the article was written from a pro-Romanian stance, (and it still is in those parts). Since I don't believe in deletion (at least not before discussion and voting), I countered the pro-Romanian stance, not with ''lies'', but by emphasising ''facts''.
	You cannot keep denying the references simply because you dislike information in them. The oppression of Romanians in modern-day Ukraine, whether it exists or not, is a separate issue. Bring in some refs and we will discuss them. --] 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

			f) I like it, it has sources and pertains to the article. The fact it was included in the UK Encyclopedia's entry of Bukovina speaks for itself. "What were the Romanians of Bukovina doing then?" Then add it. If it pertains to Bukovina, and you have sources where it is mentioned in the context of Bukovina's history, by all means add it.
	: Let me remind you in case you don't know, that it is not your duty here to establish the roles, whose burden is which.
	:For that one small precious pre-war Bukowina related page of Ukranian history, there should be some references (a great amount of work, historian work) enumerated at the end of the book as a base for the author tough conclusions. :You can not count Romanian references in the books of Mr. Subtelny. No Ukrainian historian, excluding ] or ] agents, ever made historical research in Romania. You can not consider Soviet intelligence impartial when it comes about Romania.
	:You can't link the actual inflamatory brutal sistematic "Rumanization" accusations to the subsequent Romanian crimes of WWII. Those war crimes could not create a presumption for the alleged precedent facts.
	:You don't have any credible evidence of sistematic process of "Rumanization" and no presumption of culpability . This is Ukrainian national propaganda.

			g) That is what the source(s) say.
	:It was not so complicated to repair your regrattable mistake. The fact you didn't take any action, it clearly shows your bad faith and the bias against Romanian culture. --] 01:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			h) what reported in the article, which is what the source(s) say, is probably biased if you are looking at it as a Romanian, from a Romania point of view. The article was written from a pro-Romanian stance. Because, like I said, I don't believe in deleting, instead of removing the pro-Romanian formulae I juxtaposed it to what non-Romanian sources say. I am not Ukrainian, I am not Romanian; I am not Slav, I am not Vlach. And I know for a fact you are Romanian. That says it all. Can you see that maybe you are not the best editor for deciding what is biased and what isn't in this article?
	I am not establishing whose burden is which. All I said, is that I brought up several verifiable sources that support the information I added to the article:
	#a book by a Ukrainian historian,
	#a book by a Canadian historian,
	#the most respected English language encyclopedia.

			''"The region is quite '''important''' to the history of Ukraine. It was occupied early on by Ruthenians; was part of Kievan Rus..."''; all true, and added to, e.g., in response to ''The 1871 and 1904 jubilees held at Putna Monastery, near the tomb of Stephen the Great, have constituted '''tremendous''' moments for Romanian national identity'', without even sources.
	: The most respected English encyclopedia is based on some other books, so this is not a source. The Canadian-Ukraininan books are not neutral. So I will erase the pejorative statement about "Rumanization". --] 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			i)''I am starting to be seriously worried for your edits.'' I refrained from commenting your editing, even if really liked to; you should've done the same. Also, that is what source(s) say.
	Thus, I met and exceeded the ] policy requirement. The book by Subtelny you can buy at amazon or borrow from any library has 36 pages of Bibliography and references. You are welcome to study those particular ones that relate to the issue at hand and find your own references that disprove them all one by one. Prof. Subtelny (a Harvard Ph. D.) is one of the most respected modern scholars in the field who, BTW, in addition to writing one of the most used Ukrainian history monographies, wrote the "Ukraine" article for Encarta and many other books. You are not in position to argue with him. Some other authors might, so cite them and we will continue. Similarly, the statement of Britannica that something happened has more clout than the statement by ] that it didn't happen.

			l) when? how? in the lead?
	Your calling the references that support information you simply dislike (including Britannica) a "Ukrainian national propaganda" is nothing but trolling. I could have easily brought up more references because this is not a little known or little studied topic, but what is already here is enough for anyone but ] and with your approach to call any source you dislike "propaganda", there is no way to make you happy.

			m) ''"In spite of this, the north of Bukovina managed to remain "solidly Ukrainian." While there exist different views on the ethnic composition of the south, it is accepted that the north of Bukovina remained largely, if not wholly, Ukrainian." '''yeah...''' '', is this irony? That is what the source (Britannica) says. Again, can you see for yourself ifyou are the best editor to decide what's biased and what isn't on this particular topic?
	Your baseless accusation of myself in the bad faith and the bias against the Romanian culture are not worth commenting. As such, until you can say something on the issue, I will not be responding to your rant. I have seen that from you in the past at Transnistria article. No way you can pull the same trick here again. --] 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			n) exactly

			o) ''I am sorry but this is obviously false'', then provide source. Is it false like (and I barely looked through you guys' edits)?
	: When you admit a mistake you have to take measures to repair it or to pay the damage. You did neither so you are in a breach of good faith. I demand you to refrain in editing this article as your bias against Romanians is clear.
	:Thank you for the actual address of Mr. Subtelny. How do you know he will not answer my questions? --] 02:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			p) ''you do a reminder of the interwar policies of the Kingdom of Romania but you didn't do the same with the Soviet oppression of Romanians in the Ukrainian SSR. Why is the closure of Romanian schools in Bukovina and Bessarabia not mentioned anywhere?'', I didn't because my purpose here is to undo the pro-Romanian stance of the article. Future editors will read the history of Bukovina from all sources provided and external sources, and then compare the article as it was to as it is. I don't have mentioned those because there was (and ''is'') enough pro-Romanianism. My purpose here was giving a voice to the Ukrainians who seem not to be very active on Misplaced Pages, or, rather, .
	He may answer your questions. I meant that when it is just your word against the word of an accomplished scholar, I would rather accept what is said by the latter one. --] 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			q)''What if similar edits had been done in this article, giving huge weight to the Romanians in the region and largely ignoring the Ukrainians'' this is the kind of hypocrisy that really tingles me. The article was pro-Romanian nationalist garbage. ''so the neutrality issues are either fixed by most likely the removal of content or I'll revert the page to the latest version before you edited.'' that would be considered suppression, censorship, Super. Which is definitely not acceptable in wp:en and in the free world. You have doubts? Use templates and ''do not'' delete material with sources. Why do you want to suppress the Ukrainians? Why do you want to tell the story only form one side? Why do you want to delete history? Why don't you want to write from a neutral point of view? Why can't you see that you should not decree what's neutral and what's not in this article? I can wait for years to decades to revert your attempt at suppression. I still believe the article is not written from a neutral pov, it being pro-Romanian, so I agree with the template you added.
	== Priorities ==

	"Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture."

			I believe in fair editing, in a neutral point of view. I look forward to you correcting the pro-Romanian formulae as well as unsourced/dubious material. All that includes, but is not limited to:
	This is simply a speculation, based on nothing else than the Romanian diploamtic reasoning on Treaty of Saint-Germain. I suggeste its removal or better, to be placed in its context. --] 04:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			"Based on the above anthroponimical estimate for 1774 as well as subsequent official censuses, the ethnic composition of Bukovina changed in the years after 1775 when the Austrian Empire occupied the region. "
	:Vasile, I see that you resorted again to deletion of referenced passages not to your liking . Please remember that unsubstatiated deletion of referenced info from the article is on the borderline of vandalism and is usually reverted on sight.

			"Whether the region would have been included in the Moldavian SSR, if the commission presiding over the division had been led by someone other than the Ukrainian communist leader Nikita Khrushchev, remains a matter of debate among scholars."
	:As for your proposal above, I object to the removal of any referenced information purely because ] doesn't want to see it here. The hypothesis on why the author of an EB article, most likely an accomplished historian, wrote what he wrote, is a pure speculation by Vasile and as such I see no reason to take it at face value.

			" As a result of killings and mass deportations, entire villages, ''mostly inhabited by Romanians,'' were abandoned"
	:: Please refer the assertion. --] 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			". According to official data from those two censuses, the Romanian population had decreased by 75,752 people, and the Jewish population by 46,632, while the Ukrainian and Russian populations increased by 135,161 and 4,322 people, respectively."
	:Firmly rejecting Vasile's "demand" to refrain from this article, I OTOH, have no objections to see and discuss the proposal to place this in the broader context, but again, based on the referenced information, not some speculation by Misplaced Pages editors. --] 05:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			"As reported by Nistor, in 1781 the Austrian authorities had reported that Bukovina's rural population was composed mostly of immigrants, with only about 6,000 of the 23,000 recorded families being "truly Moldavian". " (either removed or Nistor's bias reported)
	:: In this case please stop pursuing your careless actions against Romanian culture. --] 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			"The Romanians mostly inhabit the southern part of the Chernivtsi region, having been the majority in former Hertsa Raion and forming a plurality together with Moldovans in former Hlyboka Raion. Self-declared Moldovans were the majority in Novoselytsia Raion. In the other eight districts and the city of Chernivtsi, Ukrainians were the majority. However, after the 2020 administrative reform in Ukraine, all these districts were abolished, and most of the areas merged into Chernivtsi Raion, where Romanians are not in majority anymore."
	== EB ==

			This is nothing compared to how the article used to be; to how the how the mention of Ukrainians had been completely neglected, without, just for a stupid example, a single image testifying to their presence; a single image about Ukraine's Bukovina. How the article started (''In 1940, the northern half of Bukovina was ] by the ] in violation of the ] and '''currently is''' part of Ukraine)'' was even scary, and dangerous to tell the truth; as are many of your edits and articles you created.
	'''They found Britannica to average almost three errors per article. By comparison, Misplaced Pages contained close to four errors per article. '''

			You are welcome to edit what you perceive as biased, by providing reliable sources (though I reiterate that I do not think you are the best option for this article); I will counter-edit if it's the case. Just don't remove material anymore, just like I always did--use templates instead! I will now undo your last edit to this page, because you deleted parts of the article. Let's hope for collaboration from some other editors--] (]) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
	See ]
			:I am sorry... are you telling me after this huge focus on the Ukrainians you have given the article, constantly reminding of Romanian assimilatory policies and criticizing the censuses the country does, that the article ''still'' is pro-Romanian!?
	:Please do not repeat the same arguments. Not only Britannica, but any history book can contain errors. Vasile or yourself are welcome to prove the referenced information wrong with your own references and we will change the article accordingly. I also cited other scholarly works above. You can't dismiss the respectable source simply claiming that "books also make mistakes" because we would end up with everyone simply rejecting any info one doesn't like. If you disagree with what Britannica says in Bukovina article, show how it erred specifically in the article in question, not by saying that it erred somewhere else. --]
			:"a) Here we go, that is what the source(s) say." you cannot just add a viewpoint of something controversial when there are more.
			:"b) that's what the source(s) say." yes, the Historical Dictionary of Ukraine and the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine.
			:And it simply is pointless to discuss more. You cannot just rewrite an article based entirely on a few Ukrainian sources and change its whole POV. Your actions are highly damaging and I see no immediate possible solution but administrative action. By the way, that I am a Romanian does not affect my participation at articles related to Romania in any way. And I did not "remove sourced content". ] ] ] 12:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
			::{{u\|Haldir Marchwarden}}, by the way, I invite you to tell me what's so wrong with my edits and the articles I have created. ] ] ] 13:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
			:::{{u\|Super Dromaeosaurus}} You:''constantly reminding of Romanian assimilatory policies''. The article did and does make such claims:

			"Some friction appeared in time between the church hierarchy and the Romanians, complaining that Old Church Slavonic was favored to Romanian, and that family names were being slavicized. "
	Actually, EB is not counted as a direct reference, but an indirect one. --] 05:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
	:see . --] 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			:::You: ''criticizing the censuses the country does''; the article did, and does, make such claims:
	== Amazing Historiography ==

			"The fact that Romanians and Moldovans, a self-declared majority in some regions, were presented as separate categories in the census results, has been criticized by the Romanian Community of Ukraine – Interregional Union, which complains that this old Soviet-era practice, results in the Romanian population being undercounted, as being divided between Romanians and Moldovans."
	http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istorie1918-1940/1-2.htm
	No reaserch was made in Romania by Ukrianians historians as the the royal decrets and Romanian laws were ignored. --] 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

			:::All with no sources whatsoever, in contrast to my edits. Can you see the hypocrisy of this whole argument? Is it "controversial"? Have you sources for this claim? If so, are there more point of views? Yes? Then, instead of vandalizing pages by removing material, add those other points of view! This has not been done with Ukrainians, the article completing neglecting them, to the point of being ridiculously one-sided, and so pro-Romanian as to even endanger the state of peace. You: "''The Historical Dictionary of Ukraine and the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine...''" What do you mean by it? Please, be clear when you speak. I remind you that you also scorned ], and I point out that the difference is that the Romanian sources in the article are books by Romanian authors, published by Romanian publishing houses. That, on the other hand, is an entry in a ]. If we start to question those it's the end.
	== Declaration of Union ==
			:::I don't like to discuss the matter here with you, but what is wrong with your editing is that it's biased and dangerously pro-Romanian. As for the articles you created, for example there was a list of surnames of living ] people in the article ], sorted by the place they live (20 to 100 inhabitants' villages), implying they were of Romanian ethnicity. Refrain from removing sourced material, like I did, are you might get be reported.--] (]) 13:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
			::::Yes, the article mentions Romanians suffered assimilation policies, just like the Ukrainians. I am not opposed to the mention of that, but I repeat: "Rumanization" is mentioned 13 times (+1 Romanianization), Ukrainization is mentioned exactly 0 times. Such a pro-Romanian article. Also, there is a difference between a Romanian minority organization opposing the division of Romanians into Romanians and Moldovans and "Concerns have been raised about the way census are handled in Romania." Such a claim is not present in any source, it comes from you. By the way, I referenced your second quote and added the number the Romanian minority of Ukraine claims to have, without criticizing "the way census are handled in Ukraine". And stop accusing me of "removing content", I haven't done such a thing. "the article completing neglecting them" false. Prior to any of your edits, the article mentioned words starting with "ukrain" 87 times. "What do you mean by it?" that an Ukrainian encyclopedia is not going to show a viewpoint that affects Ukraine or Ukrainians. That doesn't mean there are not more viewpoints. You won't find many Romanian encyclopedias saying Romanians are migrants in... anywhere. Why ignore them and only stick to Ukrainian sources? Why do you expect someone else to do the work you left incomplete?
			::::I don't understand what are you talking about with the article Ćići. The people with those surnames were not said to be Romanians in the article, and I only did one edit there, which is this one . The surnames were there since the article was created in 2014 (I wasn't even an editor then). ] ] ] 17:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
			:::::Replying to your comment at ToBeFree's talk page:
			:::::"but you criticized the way I edit, and accused me" I did so after you reverted my wording change and addition of NPOV templates for being "possible vandalism" and because I "removed sourced material". I don't think a friendly answer would be expected to come after such claims. And with demonization of the Romanians I refer again to the repeated mention of Romanianization policies and the lack of mentions to Ukrainianization ones. "What I did was expanding the article on Bukovina, which I perceived as markedly pro-Romanian, '''completely''' neglecting the history of Ukrainians in Bukovina ''(not true)'' and even making dangerous claims such as that " currently is part of Ukraine."" I understand this. I agree the article might have been too Romanian-focused, and I 100% agree such was the case in ]. I don't have complains with your edits there. But what you did here was switch the focus from Romanians to Ukrainians. Why just change the issue when you could have solved it? "I also invite you to expand the article with the Romanians' history, if you think it's being neglected." I'd be doing that already, but realize how many Bukovina-related pages you have edited in the last days. That's just demoralizing. I didn't even see what did you do in the other articles. I don't really feel like spending horus searching for sources just so Romanians and Ukrainians are given the same weight in one article and then go to another. This could be solved by just removing a few parts of this article excessively focusing on the Ukrainians (and they don't have to be completely deleted from Misplaced Pages, they can be added somewhere else in a more Ukraine-focused page) and changing the wording to be truly neutral. This is what I had expected to achieve when I made my first comment here listing the issues I perceived but I didn't get a reply from you with the intention of doing this. ] ] ] 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
			::::::] Do you have sources for "Ukrainization" in the region? Most importantly, do you have sources for such a term, "Ukrainization"? So the sources I provided don't mention Ukrainization and it is my fault? But Moldavians do define themselves as such or not? ''"Concerns have been raised about the way census are handled in Romania." Such a claim is not present in any source, it comes from you.'' First, you are saying that you searched and read ''all'' sources? And second, this is yet another accusation from you, and I perceive it as a breach of Misplaced Pages's principle of assuming good faith. ''I haven't done such a thing. "the article completing neglecting them" false'', this is a lie, and by saying this you admit that you knew the way the article used to be. The work I left incomplete?? Man, what the heck are you talking about?'' Why just change the issue when you could have solved it?'', because, again, I don't believe in deleting, and if I had done it, you would have undone it. ''That's just demoralizing.'' No, sadly it isn't; it's trying to make artices that weren't neutral neutral, and if you can't see this it means you should really refrain from editing such articles. For example, you quickly undone my edit at ]. You reiterated your accusation of demonizing Romanians, so I am going to tell you again to please stop making such accusation. You doubted me, Britannica and a nation's encyclopedia. Meanwhile the article lacks sources, and the few it has are from Romanian authors, but not encyclopedic ones. And yet in all this, I keep telling you that whatever you wish to add is fine as long as it has sources, and I invite you again to help improve the article.--] (]) 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
			:::::::Here you have a few sources about modern and Soviet-era Ukrainization of Romanians in Ukraine . I don't need a source for the term itself, ]. "So the sources I provided don't mention Ukrainization and it is my fault?" no, but I repeat, Romanianization is mentioned 14 times, Ukrainization is 0 times, and you claim this article to still be pro-Romanian. "First, you are saying that you searched and read all sources?" no, I checked the next cited source after that statement, which is the Romanian census results. "by saying this you admit that you knew the way the article used to be" I literally just went to and searched how many times was "ukrain" mentioned in the article. "it's trying to make artices that weren't neutral neutral" but it isn't. Undue weight is given to Ukrainians. "You reiterated your accusation of demonizing Romanians" I didn't. I explained the only one I did. Don't point out this much these accussations when you've called my edits "possible vandalism" and "removal of unsourced content". Both of us are guilty here. And I didn't talk about Britannica at any moment. I don't understand why it has to be someone else the one having to fix the issues that your edits may provoke. I'd be willing to do rerewrite this article to fix all the issues I perceive if I counted with your help to leave the article without a single problem but I don't think you'll do this. ] ] ] 19:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
			:''and you claim this article to still be pro-Romanian'', yes and no: I said that this article has a pro-Romanian "matrix", and that I did not remove the pro-Romanianisms with no sources (except for the dangerous "North Bukovina ''currently'' is part of Ukraine) so yeah, in a way; instead, I expanded the article telling the history of Ukrainians in the region; which hadn't been done in this article. Yes, you did, but now you say you didn't. You: ''" In spite of this, the north of Bukovina managed to remain "solidly Ukrainian." While there exist different views on the ethnic composition of the south, it is accepted that the north of Bukovina remained largely, if not wholly, Ukrainian." yeah... ''. I consider removal of unsourced content with no reason vandalism; however, I already ], as I did ]. I admit my own mistakes, and I usually don't get into disputes regarding something I'm bond to because I know I'd be crooked when discussing it. ''. I don't understand why it has to be someone else the one having to fix the issues that your edits may provoke''; again, what the heck are you talking about man? ''I'd be willing to do rerewrite this article to fix all the issues I perceive if I counted with your help to leave the article without a single problem but I don't think you'll do this''. That is not the best solution. I do take pride in having contributed to this article, I like the way it looks, and I didn't think it should be written by Ukrainians or Romanians in the first place. Look, I will reiterate what I already said: instead of doing all this mess, you are free to expand the article by further expanding on the Romanians' history in the region; you are free to contest my additions when they don't have sources, the sources are not reliable or whatever other reason it may be, just use templates. I didn't delete, or rewrite, the work done by yourself and other editors, which, just like you do, I perceived as markedly pro-Romanian, so why do you want do delete or rewrite my work?--] (]) 20:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
			:Misplaced Pages, this land was inhabited before this conquest and you are now making the correct historical references. Please add the ramanians and dacians into this as the continuing land inhabitants that they are. This is not a company and you only speak of the last owner. It's a country with rich history that academia is trying to ignore. Truth always comes on top. Do the right thing! ] (]) 22:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

			== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
	Here is the original declaration of union between Bukovina and Romania:
			The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
			* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion \| 2021-09-23T16:09:51.498272 \| Slavic peoples 6th century historical map.jpg -->
			Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

			== Eastern Europe defined ==
	http://moldova.go.ro/pagini/istorie/unire.htm#bucovina

			If it's west of the Bug or the Dniestr, it cannot be in Eastern Europe, which begins with the Urals and the Volga. The Iron Curtain split Central Europe it did not redefine its history or geography. ] (]) 13:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
	I thought this was known. I don't think it would be smart for someone to fake something that is so easy to verify. --] 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
			:According to whom? Traditionally, eastern Europe meant Poland, Czech/Slovakia, Hungary, the Balkans, the Baltic states and Ukraine-Russia .... ] (]) 06:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
	:Then please elaborate, at least at talk since I can't read in Romanian, what was that ], who did it represent and how was it elected. Maybe you haven't heard but many Soviet expansionist moves were at the time presented as responses to the genuine requests of the local people voiced through some fastly concocted "representative body". However, the scholarly literature customary holds the move of Romania into the territories of collapsed Austro-Hungary as an ''occupation''. References are already given above. --] 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	:''The General Congress of Bukovina, representing the supreme power of the country and being the only authority with law-giving rights, in the name of the national Sovereignty, We decide: ''
	:''The non-conditional and eternal union of Bukovina within its old borders up to Ceremuş, Colacin and the Dniester, with the Kingdom of Romania.''
	:So, no, it does not say how it was elected, but only that it has the authority. ] 00:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	::OK, I don't object then if:
	::#We make it clear that it represented only Romanian population with the will of non-Romanians (particularly Ukrainians) who were a significant part of the population, being ignored
	::#We don't mask the widely used in literature term "occupation" with weasel "unification". While ethnic Romanians might have felt unified with their brethren, it was certainly not "unification" for a very significant portion of the population of the region who didn't have their national state at the time, unlike Romanians, to support their national aspirations. --] 00:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
	::'''Other nationalities''' were represented in the Congress. They were 74 representatives of the Romanian National Council, 7 of the German Council, 6 of the Polish Council, and 13 ruthenes. So saying that the Congress ''represented only the Romanian population of the province'' is not accurate --] 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	:::If this was a representative body, how come it only included 13 ruthenes only out of 74 total. The article itself says that according to 1880 census the population was 41.5% Ukrainian and 33% Romanian and according to 1930 census it was 45% Romanian and 29.2 % Ukrainian. 13 out of 74 is much less than that. Was this an elected body? How was it elected? If we give its decision the clout of legitimacy, wee need to elaborate on that. --] 22:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	I don't agree. Just because the Romanians won the vote, doesn't mean the rest were not represented. This is the way it usually goes: the majority decides. This is what happened with Transylvania and this is what happened when half of Banat decided to unite with Romania, and the other half with Serbia. --] 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	::: Similar votes were in Transylvania and Bessarabia, too.
	:::* In Transylvania, only Romanians and Germans representatives voted (I'm not sure whether the Hungarians refused or were not allowed to vote; the Romanians and Germans made up together about 75% of the population, so the Hungarians wouldn't have changed the result of the vote)
	:::* In Bessarabia, the minorities were presented in "Sfatul Ţării" and they voted "for", "against" and "abstaining". Probably the major reason why many representatives of the minorities voted "for" was the of the civil war in the Soviet Union and the fear of chaos getting to Bessarabia, too. ] 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	:The Transylvania analogy doesn't apply here. The Northern Bukovina, where Ukrainians were a majority, was also "united" with Romania, unlike the part of Transylvania with Serbian majority. Ukrainians were not given any say in this matter. They tried to organize the ] but their attempt was suppressed by the emerging regional powers, Poland and Romania, who wanted the entire territory to themselves. --] 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the territory belong to Moldavia? Weren't you sent there to colonize some of the cities by the Russians, just like they did to Basarabia? Basically, you're saying that we should have let the people who took what was ours, to decide our fate. --] 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	:Please choose your wording more carefully and don't assign the collective guilt. No one is trying to throw on you the matters that are unrelated to the discussion such as ] or ]. So keep in on topic. The reasoning why Romania wanted the whole territory is obvious and any power would have wanted to grab the territory likewise. Similarly obvious is that the will of much of the people was ignored and their national aspirations were brutally suppressed. And not only by Romania. Other big powers, like Poland and, later, the Soviets, acted similarly. The term occupation exactly applies. Please keep it cool and keep the discussion on the topic. --] 01:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	In the mind of the Romanians, the territory belonged to us. That was our reasoning. Others may live of the land, and they are welcome to, but they shouldn't decide the fate of our land. It would be wrong to say that we supressed. We did not supress when we wanted our territory back. We only supressed when we discriminated. --] 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	:Anittas, yet again you are talking off-topic. Your presenting the general view that Romanians throughout the history were eternal do-gooders and all they did was resisting the oppression of the outside aggressors leads us off topic, whether such view is true or not (and it is never true for any nation, even for Romanians). This belongs to raher than to the specific Misplaced Pages talk pages that should concentrate on the articles' content. --] 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	I'm not off-topic. I just don't agree with your reasoning when saying that we oppressed Ukrainians by uniting with Bukovina, without having your concent, because it had nothing to do with you. We just wanted our land back. --] 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	==Amazing sources==

	Britannica history (and any other ENCYCLOPEDIA) could not be considered a historiographic source. Please present a reference to the book, edition, author etc, including that statement. --] 03:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	:Until you succeed in modifying the current ] policy to include "Britannica (and any other ENCYCLOPEDIA)" among the tabloids, personal sites and blogs in the ] list, your deletion of referenced to EB info is pure vandalism unless you can back it up with equally solid references. I am not going to discuss this issue with you any further. I already broke my pledge not to feed trolls. --] 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
	::I agree with Vasile. --] ] 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	A quick look through academic literature produced the following quotes:
	*"Having grabbed Bukovina, the Romanian occupiers instituted a savage regime of terror, economic and political oppression" (V. Kurylo et al. Pivnichna Bukovina, ii mynule i suchasne. uzhorod: Karpaty, 1969, p. 92).

	*"Bessarabia's seizure by bourgeois Romania in 1918 is an indisuptable fact. This is the most shameful page in the history of royalist Romania". (Lazarev. Moldavskaya Sovetskaya Gosudarstvennost' i Bessarabskiy Vopros. Kishinev: Izdatelstvo kartya Moldovenyaske, 1974). --] \| ] 12:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	But Basarabia declared their reunion with Romania. Here is the photo of the declaration:

	http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Unification_of_Romania_%26_Bessarabia.jpg

	--] 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	] (or updated), but as Irpen points out, it is a source we often use here. WP:V clerly states that a reference like Britannica is better then none, but if you can get primary sources that contradict Britannica, then we have a problem - how to determine who is right? If you cannot reach a consensus and the academics are divided (i.e. we are not dealing with some obvious fringe conspiracy or denial theory), then the proper way to do is to write something along the lines 'X state that Y, but A state that B'.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 14:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	: Britannica should have some well-known references sources for that paragraph. Or maybe it is just a invention of its editor. This would not be history, but spreading rumours (propaganda). --] 14:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	Piotrus, any History book may and does have errors. To say that books make mistakes is an empty statement and cannot be used here because any source can be dismissed by this logic. So far, we don't have a lack of consensus between academic sources because Vasile refuses to bring any that disagree with Britannica. Until he finds a statement in an equally respected book that would say that since its independence the ] never entertained the idea to grab the whole Bukovina, the statement of Britannica is unopposed. However, I am sure that if we check any notes from the negotiations of the ] we will find the exact same reasoning by the Romanian delegation making a case for the allies to give them Bukovina. I did not check those notes and I am not bringing this to the article. I only brought here what I found in a respected book. Vasile is welcome to bring anything he finds to argue. His repeated deletion of referenced information just because he doesn't like it, is nothing but vandalism and will be treated as such. The paragraph is properly referenced as per ] policy and will be restored. --] 22:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

	: A non-referenced source is not better than any source. You are not able to bring references of the statement, that the reason I remove the statement. It is not enough to write a statement under a well-respected signature. You have to have nice, clean historical references. Your logic seems like it doesn't matter the way you obtain a testimony and the process of writing of the history of Ukranians is a rush matter like the war against terrorism. --] 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Britannica ==

	I am pretty sure that Britannica would offer its public editorial references as it is not NKVD archive. --] 02:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


	There is no need to be "pretty sure" or not so sure. Go check EB youself.



	The reference is provided to you and your deletion is vandalism and the info will be restored. Just for you I compiled some very incomplete list of publications that represent the Romanian ideology of the time. You are welcome to got to your library and check the publications. First goes a historian professor Nistor, a chief idelogue of the "historical right" of Romania on Pokucie, Bessarabia and Bukovina:

	*Nistor I. Die moldauische Anspriiche auf Pokutien.—Wien, 1910
	*Nistor I. Romanii si rutenii in Bucovina: Studiu istoric si statistic.— Bucuresti, 1915
	*Nistor I. Der nationale Kampf in der Bukowina: Mit besonderer Berucksictingung der Rumanen und Ruthenen historisch beleuchtet. — Bukarest, 1918
	*quote: "the etnographic map attached to the German edition of the book was used in Paris and other talks as the base for negotiations and main source of the information to justify our rights on Bukovina". From ''"Grecu V. Ion I. Nistor ca istoric // Omagiu lui Ion I. Nistor: 1919—1937.—Р.30"''
	*Viata noua.—1918.—27 oct.: "Historically and geographically there is only one Bukovina. It's an absolutely Romanian territory not only from Suceava to Prut but from Vatra-Dornei to Dniester" (Surprized?)
	*Here is another one: "Glasul Bucovinei.—1918.—25 oct.": "We do not recognize any right of Ukrainians for any piece of the Bukovinian land and call on all Romanians to resist to the partition of our ancient land
	*Nistor himself in "Nistor I. Unirea Bucovinei: Studiu si documente.— P.169." admits that General congress was not a representative body and had no authority to decide the future of the Northern Bukovina.

	I could add more but that's enough. I listed the article for RfC and I hope more editors will take a look at this dispute. --] 02:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)



	: It's nice you bring much more interest and care into this subject. Your entire list starts from 1910, the majority are from 1918. --] 03:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

	::The list of references is supposed to concern the ideology of the early twentieth century. True, works written at that time will not have the light of history shining upon them. Nonetheless, they are valuable sources and should be used. I concur with ]'s edit. --] 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

	== What is the dispute about? ==

	Hi. I have looked on the talk page and in the article history, but I can't really seem to gauge what the dispute is all about. I think the best thing to do now would be to take every disputed statement to the talk page and explain why you think it's wrong (on one side) and why you think it's right (on the other), preferably using sources. Thanks, ]] ''']''' ] 08:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

	: The truth of the statement could be discussed by serious historians. The King hasn't had a formal alliance with Austria? Does Bukowina was ever mentioned in discussions with Entente in 1916?
	These are not relevant here because wikipedia doesn't seek the truth. But statement is not referenced by any historian work. --] 02:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	:One of the most disputed things for now is the statement about Romania's wanting Bukovina since its independence. This statement is referenced to Britannica. I also added refs to I. Nistru, Romanian historian and a chief ideologue of the Greater Romania. While Nistru works are from 1910 and on, they are historic works and reflect on the past. In any case, EB should suffice as per ] unless Vasile backs up his disagreeing with some respected works too. He instead resorts to dismissing Britannica, which is totally ridiculous. Read above. --] 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

	:: Ion Nistor, if you care. And that statement is not referenced by any historian work. --] 02:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	I know that he was Ion. As for your deletion it will be restored until you find anything that proves Britannica wrong. I will try to get Nistru's book in the language I could comfortably read and I would welcome ISBN links. However, even without his specific quotes, the text is already referenced. Until you succeed in changing ] policy to include Britannica among dubious sources, the statement is properly referenced and its deletion is nothing but vandalism. --] 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


	: It is not surprise that in Kishinev, the books of Ion Nistor rise no interest. a list could be found here: http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/database.html --] 02:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	Don't ever make any assumptions about someone's origin and ethnicity and especially don't try make them sound offensive like some of your fellow compatriots do here. While I haven't even been in Chisinau, I do have friends both from Moldova and from Romania so you can't offend me by this. From what I can tell of my experience of dealing with your compatriots, the raving Romanian nationalism is rather rare and such a prominence of it in Misplaced Pages is very much an anomaly in my view. Your statement sounds offensive to anyone from Chisinau who might read it. As for your persistent deletions they will be treated as vandalism until you provide some sources that discredit the version by EB. Or, alternatively, you succeed changing the ] Policy to iclude your bizarre opinion that Britannica is not a respectable reference. --] 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	: I did no assumption on anybody origin or travels. Those asumptions exist only in your savage imagination. Your experiences don't interest me as I don't recieve confessions for free.
	You are not able or not willing to respect a reference (Ion Nistor) , buit still talking about "respect".

	==RfC==

	I see nothing wrong with using Encyclopedia Brittanica as a reference. This article is badly in need of references. If another editor disputes that source's accuracy, then the appropriate response is to provide a second citation that presents the other side. ] 06:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
	:Ditto. --] 06:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	: What I respectfully request is the historian source of that Britannica statement. I don't deny historian sources, I request sources and much more care for the subject. If somebody would tell "Durova is a stupid person" is not for you to provide information for that you are not as asserted, but for that person to prove the eventual assertion. Thanks for your interest in the matter. --] 17:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	Britannica is not somebody. I am reverting your vandalism. --] 19:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	: Britannica is not somebody, but another encyclopedia having its editors or sources. It is not something usual to borrow large passages from one encyclopedia to bring them into wikipedia. Did someone saw the entire artcile on Britannica? --] 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	::I did as well as Anittas. The quote is above. You can also see it: , , , , . You will need a supscription or take a free trial to read full article. Or you can do it through any library for free. Or you can go to any library and take EB from the shelf. Or you can buy a supscription. Or you can buy a CD. Possibilities are abundant if you want to read. --] 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	: Actually, that is called "content dispute", not "vandalism". ] 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	Content dispute is when people argue about the different versions of the events and bring up some arguments and references in support of their versions. Blanking the entire paragraph referenced to a respected source is vandalism. --]

	:A different question. Historic literature call the interwar and war-time Romania as Rumania and the assimilationist policies as "Rumanization". That's why I used the term. Besides ] may be confusing because it means a totally different thing (see article). I am not aware that Rumania sounds offensive to modern-day Romanians and if so, please let me know and I will refrain from using it. But what term should be used then? I was thinking about staring a ] article for which there is by far more academic references than for someone's pet article ] but if "Rumanization" is indeed an offensive name, please say so and explain why. I will then think of some other name. --] 19:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	:: There is an article ], refering to the policy in Transylvania. ] 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	Thanks but is the term "Romanianization" a widely used one or it was invented for Misplaced Pages like ]? Also, please tell me whether Rumania is offensive because having seen that in so many history and WW2 books I hardly thought so. --] 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	: It's not offensive, just non-standard. Both Român and Rumân are dialectal forms. Two-hundreds and so years ago, the form "Român" was chosen as standard by the Transylvanian "Latinists" (it's obvious why, it's closer to "Roman"), instead of Rumân. However, most countries continued to use the name derived from the other version "Rumân", that was more common in some regions inhabited by Romanians. ] 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	'''Follow up''' I suggest you take this to mediation. It looks like this dispute is about something other than whether Britannica is an acceptable reference source. ] 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	==Forgeting the native language==
	:''ethnic group being called "citizens of Romanian origin that forgot their native language".''

	Do you have a citation for that ? ] 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
	:I do, see talk above "Orest Subtelny. ''Ukraine: A History.'' Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 3rd edition (2000) ISBN 0-8020-8390-0.". --] 19:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
	:: No, I meant "Who said that?". Was it integrated in Romanian laws or official documents or was it just an opinion of some nationalists? ] 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	:::The education law explicitely said that citizend of Romanian origin who "forgot" their native language are required to send their children to public or private schools where teaching is conducted in Romanian. (Monitorul oficial.—1924.—26 iule.) --] 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	:::: I doubt that. Here's a quote of the law: :

	:''Învăţământul primar în şcoalele statului se predă în limba română.''
	::Elementary school teaching in the State Schools is done in Romanian language.

	:''În comunele cu populaţie de altă limbă decât limba română, Ministerul Instrucţiunii Publice va înfiinţa şcoale primare cu limba de predare a populaţiei respective, în aceeaşi proporţie ca şi comunele româneşti. În aceste şcoale studiul limbii române va fi însă obligatoriu în numărul de ore stabilit prin regulament.''
	::In the communes that have a population of other language than Romanian, the Ministry of Public Instruction would found Elementary Schools that teach in the language of that population, in the same proportion as in the Romanian communes. ''(i.e. does not favour Romanian-speaking communes in the number of school set up)'' In these schools, the study of Romanian language would be compulsory in the number of lessons as established through the regulations.
	:] 20:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	:: No historian from Ukraine ever did historian research in Romania. Let him write the article. --] 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

	==1928-1938 warming period==

	That period is known for the Romanians attempts to warm its relation with Soviet Union. --] 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


	== Important priority and conspiracies ==

	"Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian Principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture."

	This is a conjecture extracted from Britannica as ] says. The statement is about Romanian politics. So, it was found significant proves of some Romanian conspiracy against Austrian colonies. Therefore we are in a middle of a imperialistic dispute. I understand that an article of encyclopedia has to synthetize facts. But prior historian sources -if any- should demonstrate this Romanian conspiracy conjecture. Nobody produced any historical documents, opinions, sources that could subtantiate this Romanian so-called important priority since 1878. Once again, it is not for me to prove that the "demonstration" is incorrect and the statement is dubious.
	I understand that wiki-policies prevent me to remove the statement at this moment and I expect other wise opinion able to convince me that I am wrong.
	By the way, the wiki-policies allow such inclusions of a large part from another (copyrighted) encyclopedia? It will be better to follow ] advice to buy Britannica encyclopedia? --] 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

	::Vasile, no part from another encyclopedia is "included" in the article directly. So, there are no any copyright or other policy violations you are alluding. The info from Britannica is used in an entirely proper way with not a single phrase directly pasted. In fact, it is used in the same way as any other source would be used. --] 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

	:Britannica is not a worse source than any other. The information may be correct or not. History books may contain incorrect data as well. If you disagree with the statement, the best way to deal with it seems adding at the beginning of it: “According to Britannica…” and then providing sources that disagree with the opinion. Or, if there are no such sources, then it may be written in the article that the information is not confirmed by historians in the main books about history of Bukovina.--] \| ] 00:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

	::And to make a latter statement, the user has to be at least well familiar with the works of other historians. Since Vasile is obviousy fluent in Romanian, he could read the works of Ion Nistru cited above. I wonder whether he would still find the desire of Romania to get a hold of entire Bukovina from its inception "unconfirmed" after this reading. --] 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

	::: It's for ] either malice or stupity as he/she is insisting to name "Ion Nistru" the historian Ion Nistor. --] 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

	::::I '''sincerely apologize''' for misspelling the Romanian name of the historian. I did not do it on purpose and I don't see why make such a big deal of an innocent mistake. Vasile's speaking of his opponent's "stupidity" speaks more of his manners than of anything else.

	::::This below is the repetition of what he already said. If the argument is between what the pseudonymous Misplaced Pages editor ] "considers" and what the author of Britannica article considers, the latter wins by default. Many people suggested Vasile to cite some respected work that contradicts Britannica statement to which he responds with just another rephrasing of his personal opinion that Britannica is wrong and he is right. --] 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

	::The article of Britannica is worse than any other source. As the statement discussed here pretended a large expertise on Romanian modern history, is has been reported here that Britannica editor is missing the date of the proclamation of "Romanian Popular Republic".
	:: The statement insinuates a imperialistic plot of Romania for the colonies of other empires. A book of history edited in 1910 in country with high rate of iliteracy, having no political or financial means to influence the great powers, is the only evidence presented here supporting the decade long imperialistic Romanian plot. Britannica article, in its careless and negligent manner, asserted a COMINTERN anti-Romanian thesis.
	For these reasons I consider that the statement should be discarded. --] 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Poles in Bukovina ==

	:''The ] were deported as well.''

	Were the Poles from Northern Bukovina deported ? I know that this was not the case in Southern Bukovina, where we can still find a Polish minority, see: ]. ] 10:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:38, 23 November 2023

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ukraine High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romania High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Help Romania reach at least GA-status
- Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD
- Request an article or create a missing one
Assess :
- Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality
Cleanup :
- Review the Romania-related cleanup listing
- Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Misplaced Pages
Disambiguation :
- Disambiguate project articles and get points
Expand :
- Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania
Translate :
- Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Misplaced Pages
- Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian)
Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara.
Other :
- Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site)
- Review newly created Romania-related articles
- Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items
- Create Awards for WikiProject Romania
- Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks

Former countries: Austria-Hungary / Holy Roman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
	This article is supported by the Austria-Hungary task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Holy Roman Empire task force.

Austria Mid‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Lipovans

There is nothing about Old-Russian settlement in Bukovina. Could somebody write more about that? Luka Jačov 11:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Lipovan and Rusyn are homonyms for Ukrainians, Russian speakers and (Ruthenian) speakers. Athanasius V (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The flag is wrong

The flag is all wrong: first of all, the blue-red colours were disposed vertically! You'll have to rotate the picture to the right, I guess. And the flag also had the coat of arms af Bukovina disposed in the center (see it here: http://ro.wikipedia.org/Imagine:Bukovina_1910_%28Wappen%29.jpg.). At least the colours must be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.107.121.199 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bukovina Germans' role; Roman Dacia

I read the mindless drivel and stupid nationalist arguing on the other talk page. You guys are all nuts. It was the Bukovina Germans who civilized all you lot, gave you the first decent government you had (Maria Theresa and Joseph, 1775-1790) and freed you from the Ottoman yoke. Fortunately, most of them were intelligent enough to get out of there and come to decent countries like the US and Canada. I note that in the current article there is only one sentence dedicated to them, though they built everything that is still standing from the 1775-1918 period, and they made up some 25% of the population for a century and a half.

And if we want to argue about who treated the Jews worse, the Romanians and Ukrainians are right up there with the Germans in the great historical guilt sweepstakes. So get over all these ancient grudges and behave like adults.

Oh, by the way, no Romans ever came anywhere near Bukovina. Roman Dacia was an obscure minor province, barely settled, basically a military buffer zone, and its boundaries stopped a couple of hundred kilometres south of Bukovina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.1.119 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this last part to be quite bizarre. To say that Roman Dacia was "obscure", "minor", "barely settled" is unrealistic. Roman documents and archaeological fids show the extensive Roman settlement in Dacia, the establishment of Roman cities, the thriving economic life, reason for which it became known as "Dacia Felix", therefore not a just a "military buffer zone". It is known that what was designed in 1775 to be "Bukowina" was not part of Roman Dacia. And, yes there should be more in the article regarding the German contribution to Bukovina`s cultural and economic life, but I reject altogheter this kind of atitude: "the Bukovina Germans who civilized all you lot", which is simply insulting to everything there was before 1775, and to the other ethnic groups in Bukovina.(Daniel1918 (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

Romanians have built over there (before the arrival of the "civilized" germans) some things which are nowadays part of the UNESCO patrimony. On the contrary there are not a single one built by the the germans. Also.. keep your ignorance for yourself (your boorishness is only your problem) even you've been trying to spread it around with some political correctness false spices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabricioRB (talk • contribs) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

@the OP--You are half correct with your mention of Roman Dacia, as it's core consisted of Transylvania proper, Banat (including Serbian Banat) and Lesser Wallachia, and briefly including the rest of Wallachia, southernmost Moldavia and Southern Bessarabia (South of Upper Trajan's Wall), though for the most part, the overwhelming majority of Moldavia was un-effected by Roman rule. It seems that both sides rely too much on Dacia--one disregarding it entirely, the other making it their cornerpiece while the truth most likely lies in the middle--with equal emphasis on the Romanized inhabitants of Bulgaria north of the Balkan Mountains, northeast Serbia (excluding Vojvodina) and the Dobruja who would have fled north (and a smaller number south to the Pindus region) after the Bulgarian invasion and settlement of those regions and adjunct regions to the south and southwest.

As for the rest of your post, it is garbage. The Romanians established a state on their own by in the region the mid 14th century and those of Moldavia had no contact with any Germans, only those of Transylvania and Wallachia did so via the Transylvanian Saxons who were an isolated outgroup. Regarding the Bukovina Germans, they were simply sent into the region to populate it, in the same sense as the Danube Swabians were sent into Hungary to repopulate it because of the devastation of the Turkic wars. The policy of populating Bukovina proved fortunate in the short run but disastrous in the long run (just as with the repopulation of Hungary) as large numbers of Ukrainians, along with smaller numbers of Jews and Poles were moved in from neighboring Galicia, reducing the previously homogenous Romanian population to a minority, concentrated around the southeastern third of North Bukovina.

This minority status thus allowed Soviet Russia to act on it's 'Drang nach Westen' policy of gorging itself on foreign lands and deporting the inhabitants in violation of everything civilized, just, honorable and human, lowering it's already near bottom standards to that of Nazi racial policies and greater states, something that the USSR's successor states have yet to raise themselves above, with Belarus still celebrating September 17th--the 'official' day of the 4th partition of Poland. Instead of annexing what was simply Ukrainian and Belorussian--about 2/3 of North Bukovina, the northernmost parts of Bessarabia around Khotin, and just over half of Poland 'east of the Curzon Line'--everything was taken. What happened to North Bukovina--where a third of the native Romanian population was murdered or deported between 1940-1959, much like what was done in Eastern Poland (and to a lesser extent Bessarabia, though brainwashing replaced deportation for the most part following WWII, just like with the Bulgarians in Vardar Macedonia), despite the Polish majority in the Wilno region (the western 3/4 of Wilno, northwest 3/5 of Nowogrodek and eastern Bialystok) and the mixed Polish and Pro Polish population of northeastern Galicia (eastern Lwow and all of Tarnopol), the whole region was swallowed by the USSR and purged of it's 3,500,000 Poles, along with the additional 1,200,000 in the USSR and 150,000 in the Baltic States...however by 1950 only 2/7 of the 4,850,000 Eastern Poles remained in their homelands. Likewise, the southwestern most portion of Bessarabia which had a Romanian majority (up to the Tasbunar River) which was likewise eliminated. Prussia1231 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Massacre of Fantana Alba

I noted with surprise that the Fântâna Albă massacre in Bucovina (see wikipedia English and Romanian) has not been mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo Mauri (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bukovinan or Bukovinian

Which is the correct attributive (or adjectival) form of the place name? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

ow2do?

|flag_p1=Flag_of_Moldavia.svg |s1 = Kingdom of Romania |flag_s1= Flag of Romania.svg |flag_s2= Flag of Ukraine.svg last1misin--i'v]>typin=v.v.hard4me!!>contactme thruMSNpl

Expulsions

After the war the Soviet government deported or killed about 41,000 Romanians.

Presumably, the Soviets also expelled or killed the ethnic German residents, as they did elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Sca (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Germans of North Bukovina were re-settled by Nazi authorities between 1940-41 much as their counterparts in Eastern Poland, the Baltics and Bessarabia were. Prussia1231 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic Breakdown according to the 1930 Romanian census:

Bukovina:

379,691 Romanians or 44.51%
248,777 Ukrainians or 29.16%
92,492 Jews or 10.84%
75,533 Germans or 8.85%
29,680 Poles or 3.48%
11,881 Hungarians or 1.39%
7,948 Russians or 0.93%
7,197 Others or 0.84%
853,009 Total

The above numbers were derived from combining the statistics of the inter-war Romanian counties of Câmpulung, Cernăuți, Rădăuți, Storojineț and Suceava. The Ukrainian total includes 12,437 of the Hutsul regional Ukrainian subgroup, who on their own account for 1.46% of the region's population. Prussia1231 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Division of Bukovina Map from US State Department

It would appear that this map holds merit to the division of Bukovina in 1940 (and again 1947), both in the ethno-linguistic situation of the time and in what, at least then, the US State Department thought the borders should be, though I'd like to see what others have to say about it. While on the subject of Romania and the border changes of 1940-1947, there is a similar map of Bessarabia.

Source Prussia1231 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bukovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Northern Bukovina within Ukraine

the map of Northern Bukovina within Ukraine in teh SU section is pretty useless for people who dont read cyrillic, and after all this is enWP. neither Ukrainian can someone please change the map/ the words in cyrillic letters ?

Also, its legend is sloppy, like no explanation whhat the yellow shaded part is.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bukovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006123106/http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=3 to http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=3#_ftn2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113170140/http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istorie1918-1940/13-4.htm to http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/kuk_bukowina.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://noinu.rdscj.ro/article.php?articleID=149&document=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bukovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Name Is WRONG! Please Change The Title!

The name Bukovina is wrong. The right one is Bucovina.I am Romanian and I know this. Please, may you change the title as it may annoy some people. Serbt001.310 (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, plecase note that this Misplaced Pages written in English, and consequently uses the name most common in English language sources. The Misplaced Pages written in Romanian indeed uses the name you mention, therefore I see no problem.Anonimu (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

Original heading: "Some edits" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Haldir Marchwarden, I gave a more careful look at your edits and they have many issues. Maybe the article wasn't neutral before, but it for sure isn't now. I am going to list the issues:

"Then, in the 14th century, Bukovina passed to Hungary. King Louis I of Hungary appointed Dragoș, Voivode of Moldavia as his deputy, facilitating the migration of the Romanians from Maramureș and Transylvania in the territory. Thereafter, Ukrainians and Moldavians cohabited Bukovina, fighting together against invaders and oppressors." First of all, not only Bukovina was under Hungarian control, but also the whole future principality of Moldavia or at least Western Moldavia, which I feel should be mentioned. Also, this part of the text portrays Romanians as late migrants in the region who didn't exist before the 14th century. As I mentioned, this only goes with one of the two main theories of the origin of the Romanians, the other being that of the Daco-Roman continuity (according to which Romanians would also be natives in Bukovina). There's no need to completely change the text but I'd appreciate it if we fixed this issue. Also, after that quote goes the Duchy of Bukovina, completely ignoring Moldavian rule over Bukovina, which I don't see correct.

"the Shypyntsi land" this name uses a transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the region. There's however also a Romanian name. Do we know which one is more common. What name do English sources give to this land?

"Eventually, this state collapsed, and Bukovina passed to Hungary. King Louis I appointed Dragoș, Voivode of Moldavia as his deputy, facilitating the migration of the Romanians from Maramureș and Transylvania." same as in the first point.

"Pokuttia was likewise inhabited by Ruthenians (the predecessors of modern Ukrainians together with the Rus', and of the Rusyns). Further there were the Hutsuls, who also resided in western Bukovina." there also were Romanians. I can give sources if you wish.

"Rumanization" keep in mind the term is Romanianization. Also, the term is mentioned 15 times in the article. Don't you think this is excessive? Why is "Ukrainization" not even mentioned once?

"In the 16th and 17th centuries, Ukrainian warriors (Cossacks) were involved in many conflicts against the Turkish and Tatar invaders of the Moldovian territory. Notably, Ivan Pidkova, best known as the subject of Ukraine's bard Taras Shevchenko's Ivan Pidkova (1840), led military campaigns in the 1570s. Many Bukovinians joined the Cossacks during the Khmelnytsky Uprising. As part of the peasant armies, they formed their own regiment, which participated to the 1648 Siege of Lviv. Ukrainian Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky himself led a campaign in Moldavia, whose result was an alliance between Khmelnytsky and its hospodar Vasile Lupu. Other prominent Ukrainian leaders fighting against the Turks in Moldovia were Severyn Nalyvaiko and Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny." I don't really like this paragraph. It is overly Ukrainian-focused when we are talking about Moldavia. What were the Romanians of Bukovina doing then?

"From the 16th to the 18th centuries, "Bukovina maintained cultural ties with other Ukrainian lands. Moldovian hospodars founded a number of churches in Ukraine, and many natives of Bukovyna studied in Kyiv and Lviv." same here.

The section of "Late 19th to early 20th centuries" (which I renamed to "Rise of nationalism") is quite biased. Specially "The region is quite important to the history of Ukraine. It was occupied early on by Ruthenians; was part of Kievan Rus..."

"Ukrainian national movement" why do we have a section for this, but not for the Romanian national movement...? I also find worrying the lack of even a mention for Josephine colonization, which in my opinion only shows the article has been given an Ukrainian POV.

"In the beginning, Bukovina joined the fledging West Ukrainian National Republic" it was only the north... I am starting to be seriously worried for your edits.

"After passing to Hungary in the 14th century, the Hungarian king appointed Dragoș as his deputy and facilitated the migration of Romanians from Maramureș and Transylvania into Bukovina. Then, a process of Romanianization was carried out in the area." already stated.

"In spite of this, the north of Bukovina managed to remain "solidly Ukrainian." While there exist different views on the ethnic composition of the south, it is accepted that the north of Bukovina remained largely, if not wholly, Ukrainian." yeah...

"The southern, or Romanian Bukovina reportedly has a significant Romanian majority (94.8%) according to Romanian sources" of course...

"However, Ukrainians claim that the number is actually 250,000–300,000, that is four times the number stated by Romanian authorities." I am sorry but this is obviously false. How can half of the population of Suceava County be Ukrainian?

"Romanianization, with the closure of schools and suppression of the language, happened in all areas in present-day Romania where the Ukrainians live or lived. The very term "Ukrainians" was prohibited from the official usage and some Romanians of disputable Ukrainian ethnicity were rather called the "citizens of Romania who forgot their native language" and were forced to change their last names to Romanian-sounding ones." you do a reminder of the interwar policies of the Kingdom of Romania but you didn't do the same with the Soviet oppression of Romanians in the Ukrainian SSR. Why is the closure of Romanian schools in Bukovina and Bessarabia not mentioned anywhere?

This is way worse than I had expected before reading the article. As it stands now, it is unacceptable. I ask for comprehension from your side. What if similar edits had been done in this article, giving huge weight to the Romanians in the region and largely ignoring the Ukrainians? I highly doubt you will attempt to fix this as the problem is really big and would take many hours to fix, so the neutrality issues are either fixed by most likely the removal of content or I'll revert the page to the latest version before you edited. I can wait for days or weeks if you are willing to fix the issues I gave. Super Ψ Dro 10:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Super, I don't feel the need to discuss the history of Romanians here as you are doing. If a piece of information has sources and pertains to the article (in this case Bukovina) it goes in it, if it doesn't it doesn't. The article lacked sources. I expanded it citing sources, and marked the unsourced and/or dubious material. Anyway,

a) Here we go, that is what the source(s) say.

b) that's what the source(s) say. c) ditto; d) same (and yes, do it, that's the point).

e) (Rumanization) the article was written from a pro-Romanian stance, (and it still is in those parts). Since I don't believe in deletion (at least not before discussion and voting), I countered the pro-Romanian stance, not with lies, but by emphasising facts.

f) I like it, it has sources and pertains to the article. The fact it was included in the UK Encyclopedia's entry of Bukovina speaks for itself. "What were the Romanians of Bukovina doing then?" Then add it. If it pertains to Bukovina, and you have sources where it is mentioned in the context of Bukovina's history, by all means add it.

g) That is what the source(s) say.

h) what reported in the article, which is what the source(s) say, is probably biased if you are looking at it as a Romanian, from a Romania point of view. The article was written from a pro-Romanian stance. Because, like I said, I don't believe in deleting, instead of removing the pro-Romanian formulae I juxtaposed it to what non-Romanian sources say. I am not Ukrainian, I am not Romanian; I am not Slav, I am not Vlach. And I know for a fact you are Romanian. That says it all. Can you see that maybe you are not the best editor for deciding what is biased and what isn't in this article?

"The region is quite important to the history of Ukraine. It was occupied early on by Ruthenians; was part of Kievan Rus..."; all true, and added to, e.g., in response to The 1871 and 1904 jubilees held at Putna Monastery, near the tomb of Stephen the Great, have constituted tremendous moments for Romanian national identity, without even sources.

i)I am starting to be seriously worried for your edits. I refrained from commenting your editing, even if really liked to; you should've done the same. Also, that is what source(s) say.

l) when? how? in the lead?

m) "In spite of this, the north of Bukovina managed to remain "solidly Ukrainian." While there exist different views on the ethnic composition of the south, it is accepted that the north of Bukovina remained largely, if not wholly, Ukrainian." yeah... , is this irony? That is what the source (Britannica) says. Again, can you see for yourself ifyou are the best editor to decide what's biased and what isn't on this particular topic?

n) exactly

o) I am sorry but this is obviously false, then provide source. Is it false like Siret's demographics (and I barely looked through you guys' edits)?

p) you do a reminder of the interwar policies of the Kingdom of Romania but you didn't do the same with the Soviet oppression of Romanians in the Ukrainian SSR. Why is the closure of Romanian schools in Bukovina and Bessarabia not mentioned anywhere?, I didn't because my purpose here is to undo the pro-Romanian stance of the article. Future editors will read the history of Bukovina from all sources provided and external sources, and then compare the article as it was to as it is. I don't have mentioned those because there was (and is) enough pro-Romanianism. My purpose here was giving a voice to the Ukrainians who seem not to be very active on Misplaced Pages, or, rather, whose voice was suppressed.

q)What if similar edits had been done in this article, giving huge weight to the Romanians in the region and largely ignoring the Ukrainians this is the kind of hypocrisy that really tingles me. The article was pro-Romanian nationalist garbage. so the neutrality issues are either fixed by most likely the removal of content or I'll revert the page to the latest version before you edited. that would be considered suppression, censorship, Super. Which is definitely not acceptable in wp:en and in the free world. You have doubts? Use templates and do not delete material with sources. Why do you want to suppress the Ukrainians? Why do you want to tell the story only form one side? Why do you want to delete history? Why don't you want to write from a neutral point of view? Why can't you see that you should not decree what's neutral and what's not in this article? I can wait for years to decades to revert your attempt at suppression. I still believe the article is not written from a neutral pov, it being pro-Romanian, so I agree with the template you added.

I believe in fair editing, in a neutral point of view. I look forward to you correcting the pro-Romanian formulae as well as unsourced/dubious material. All that includes, but is not limited to:

"Based on the above anthroponimical estimate for 1774 as well as subsequent official censuses, the ethnic composition of Bukovina changed in the years after 1775 when the Austrian Empire occupied the region. "

"Whether the region would have been included in the Moldavian SSR, if the commission presiding over the division had been led by someone other than the Ukrainian communist leader Nikita Khrushchev, remains a matter of debate among scholars."

" As a result of killings and mass deportations, entire villages, mostly inhabited by Romanians, were abandoned"

". According to official data from those two censuses, the Romanian population had decreased by 75,752 people, and the Jewish population by 46,632, while the Ukrainian and Russian populations increased by 135,161 and 4,322 people, respectively."

"As reported by Nistor, in 1781 the Austrian authorities had reported that Bukovina's rural population was composed mostly of immigrants, with only about 6,000 of the 23,000 recorded families being "truly Moldavian". " (either removed or Nistor's bias reported)

"The Romanians mostly inhabit the southern part of the Chernivtsi region, having been the majority in former Hertsa Raion and forming a plurality together with Moldovans in former Hlyboka Raion. Self-declared Moldovans were the majority in Novoselytsia Raion. In the other eight districts and the city of Chernivtsi, Ukrainians were the majority. However, after the 2020 administrative reform in Ukraine, all these districts were abolished, and most of the areas merged into Chernivtsi Raion, where Romanians are not in majority anymore."

This is nothing compared to how the article used to be; to how the how the mention of Ukrainians had been completely neglected, without, just for a stupid example, a single image testifying to their presence; a single image about Ukraine's Bukovina. How the article started (In 1940, the northern half of Bukovina was annexed by the Soviet Union in violation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and currently is part of Ukraine) was even scary, and dangerous to tell the truth; as are many of your edits and articles you created.

You are welcome to edit what you perceive as biased, by providing reliable sources (though I reiterate that I do not think you are the best option for this article); I will counter-edit if it's the case. Just don't remove material anymore, just like I always did--use templates instead! I will now undo your last edit to this page, because you deleted parts of the article. Let's hope for collaboration from some other editors--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry... are you telling me after this huge focus on the Ukrainians you have given the article, constantly reminding of Romanian assimilatory policies and criticizing the censuses the country does, that the article still is pro-Romanian!?

"a) Here we go, that is what the source(s) say." you cannot just add a viewpoint of something controversial when there are more.

"b) that's what the source(s) say." yes, the Historical Dictionary of Ukraine and the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine.

And it simply is pointless to discuss more. You cannot just rewrite an article based entirely on a few Ukrainian sources and change its whole POV. Your actions are highly damaging and I see no immediate possible solution but administrative action. By the way, that I am a Romanian does not affect my participation at articles related to Romania in any way. And I did not "remove sourced content". Super Ψ Dro 12:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Haldir Marchwarden, by the way, I invite you to tell me what's so wrong with my edits and the articles I have created. Super Ψ Dro 13:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus You:constantly reminding of Romanian assimilatory policies. The article did and does make such claims:

"Some friction appeared in time between the church hierarchy and the Romanians, complaining that Old Church Slavonic was favored to Romanian, and that family names were being slavicized. "

You: criticizing the censuses the country does; the article did, and does, make such claims:

"The fact that Romanians and Moldovans, a self-declared majority in some regions, were presented as separate categories in the census results, has been criticized by the Romanian Community of Ukraine – Interregional Union, which complains that this old Soviet-era practice, results in the Romanian population being undercounted, as being divided between Romanians and Moldovans."

All with no sources whatsoever, in contrast to my edits. Can you see the hypocrisy of this whole argument? Is it "controversial"? Have you sources for this claim? If so, are there more point of views? Yes? Then, instead of vandalizing pages by removing material, add those other points of view! This has not been done with Ukrainians, the article completing neglecting them, to the point of being ridiculously one-sided, and so pro-Romanian as to even endanger the state of peace. You: "The Historical Dictionary of Ukraine and the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine..." What do you mean by it? Please, be clear when you speak. I remind you that you also scorned Britannica, and I point out that the difference is that the Romanian sources in the article are books by Romanian authors, published by Romanian publishing houses. That, on the other hand, is an entry in a nation's encyclopedia. If we start to question those it's the end.

I don't like to discuss the matter here with you, but what is wrong with your editing is that it's biased and dangerously pro-Romanian. As for the articles you created, for example there was a list of surnames of living Croatian people in the article Ćići, sorted by the place they live (20 to 100 inhabitants' villages), implying they were of Romanian ethnicity. Refrain from removing sourced material, like I did, are you might get be reported.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the article mentions Romanians suffered assimilation policies, just like the Ukrainians. I am not opposed to the mention of that, but I repeat: "Rumanization" is mentioned 13 times (+1 Romanianization), Ukrainization is mentioned exactly 0 times. Such a pro-Romanian article. Also, there is a difference between a Romanian minority organization opposing the division of Romanians into Romanians and Moldovans and "Concerns have been raised about the way census are handled in Romania." Such a claim is not present in any source, it comes from you. By the way, I referenced your second quote and added the number the Romanian minority of Ukraine claims to have, without criticizing "the way census are handled in Ukraine". And stop accusing me of "removing content", I haven't done such a thing. "the article completing neglecting them" false. Prior to any of your edits, the article mentioned words starting with "ukrain" 87 times. "What do you mean by it?" that an Ukrainian encyclopedia is not going to show a viewpoint that affects Ukraine or Ukrainians. That doesn't mean there are not more viewpoints. You won't find many Romanian encyclopedias saying Romanians are migrants in... anywhere. Why ignore them and only stick to Ukrainian sources? Why do you expect someone else to do the work you left incomplete?

I don't understand what are you talking about with the article Ćići. The people with those surnames were not said to be Romanians in the article, and I only did one edit there, which is this one . The surnames were there since the article was created in 2014 (I wasn't even an editor then). Super Ψ Dro 17:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Replying to your comment at ToBeFree's talk page:

"but you criticized the way I edit, and accused me" I did so after you reverted my wording change and addition of NPOV templates for being "possible vandalism" and because I "removed sourced material". I don't think a friendly answer would be expected to come after such claims. And with demonization of the Romanians I refer again to the repeated mention of Romanianization policies and the lack of mentions to Ukrainianization ones. "What I did was expanding the article on Bukovina, which I perceived as markedly pro-Romanian, completely neglecting the history of Ukrainians in Bukovina (not true) and even making dangerous claims such as that " currently is part of Ukraine."" I understand this. I agree the article might have been too Romanian-focused, and I 100% agree such was the case in Pokuttia. I don't have complains with your edits there. But what you did here was switch the focus from Romanians to Ukrainians. Why just change the issue when you could have solved it? "I also invite you to expand the article with the Romanians' history, if you think it's being neglected." I'd be doing that already, but realize how many Bukovina-related pages you have edited in the last days. That's just demoralizing. I didn't even see what did you do in the other articles. I don't really feel like spending horus searching for sources just so Romanians and Ukrainians are given the same weight in one article and then go to another. This could be solved by just removing a few parts of this article excessively focusing on the Ukrainians (and they don't have to be completely deleted from Misplaced Pages, they can be added somewhere else in a more Ukraine-focused page) and changing the wording to be truly neutral. This is what I had expected to achieve when I made my first comment here listing the issues I perceived but I didn't get a reply from you with the intention of doing this. Super Ψ Dro 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus Do you have sources for "Ukrainization" in the region? Most importantly, do you have sources for such a term, "Ukrainization"? So the sources I provided don't mention Ukrainization and it is my fault? But Moldavians do define themselves as such or not? "Concerns have been raised about the way census are handled in Romania." Such a claim is not present in any source, it comes from you. First, you are saying that you searched and read all sources? And second, this is yet another accusation from you, and I perceive it as a breach of Misplaced Pages's principle of assuming good faith. I haven't done such a thing. "the article completing neglecting them" false, this is a lie, and by saying this you admit that you knew the way the article used to be. The work I left incomplete?? Man, what the heck are you talking about? Why just change the issue when you could have solved it?, because, again, I don't believe in deleting, and if I had done it, you would have undone it. That's just demoralizing. No, sadly it isn't; it's trying to make artices that weren't neutral neutral, and if you can't see this it means you should really refrain from editing such articles. For example, you quickly undone my edit at Petro Mukha's without apparently even consulting the sources. You reiterated your accusation of demonizing Romanians, so I am going to tell you again to please stop making such accusation. You doubted me, Britannica and a nation's encyclopedia. Meanwhile the article lacks sources, and the few it has are from Romanian authors, but not encyclopedic ones. And yet in all this, I keep telling you that whatever you wish to add is fine as long as it has sources, and I invite you again to help improve the article.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Here you have a few sources about modern and Soviet-era Ukrainization of Romanians in Ukraine . I don't need a source for the term itself, there's a page about it. "So the sources I provided don't mention Ukrainization and it is my fault?" no, but I repeat, Romanianization is mentioned 14 times, Ukrainization is 0 times, and you claim this article to still be pro-Romanian. "First, you are saying that you searched and read all sources?" no, I checked the next cited source after that statement, which is the Romanian census results. "by saying this you admit that you knew the way the article used to be" I literally just went to this diff and searched how many times was "ukrain" mentioned in the article. "it's trying to make artices that weren't neutral neutral" but it isn't. Undue weight is given to Ukrainians. "You reiterated your accusation of demonizing Romanians" I didn't. I explained the only one I did. Don't point out this much these accussations when you've called my edits "possible vandalism" and "removal of unsourced content". Both of us are guilty here. And I didn't talk about Britannica at any moment. I don't understand why it has to be someone else the one having to fix the issues that your edits may provoke. I'd be willing to do rerewrite this article to fix all the issues I perceive if I counted with your help to leave the article without a single problem but I don't think you'll do this. Super Ψ Dro 19:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

and you claim this article to still be pro-Romanian, yes and no: I said that this article has a pro-Romanian "matrix", and that I did not remove the pro-Romanianisms with no sources (except for the dangerous "North Bukovina currently is part of Ukraine) so yeah, in a way; instead, I expanded the article telling the history of Ukrainians in the region; which hadn't been done in this article. Yes, you did, but now you say you didn't. You: " In spite of this, the north of Bukovina managed to remain "solidly Ukrainian." While there exist different views on the ethnic composition of the south, it is accepted that the north of Bukovina remained largely, if not wholly, Ukrainian." yeah... . I consider removal of unsourced content with no reason vandalism; however, I already admitted that it was a mistake, as I did here. I admit my own mistakes, and I usually don't get into disputes regarding something I'm bond to because I know I'd be crooked when discussing it. . I don't understand why it has to be someone else the one having to fix the issues that your edits may provoke; again, what the heck are you talking about man? I'd be willing to do rerewrite this article to fix all the issues I perceive if I counted with your help to leave the article without a single problem but I don't think you'll do this. That is not the best solution. I do take pride in having contributed to this article, I like the way it looks, and I didn't think it should be written by Ukrainians or Romanians in the first place. Look, I will reiterate what I already said: instead of doing all this mess, you are free to expand the article by further expanding on the Romanians' history in the region; you are free to contest my additions when they don't have sources, the sources are not reliable or whatever other reason it may be, just use templates. I didn't delete, or rewrite, the work done by yourself and other editors, which, just like you do, I perceived as markedly pro-Romanian, so why do you want do delete or rewrite my work?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, this land was inhabited before this conquest and you are now making the correct historical references. Please add the ramanians and dacians into this as the continuing land inhabitants that they are. This is not a company and you only speak of the last owner. It's a country with rich history that academia is trying to ignore. Truth always comes on top. Do the right thing! 65.94.232.137 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Slavic peoples 6th century historical map.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Europe defined

If it's west of the Bug or the Dniestr, it cannot be in Eastern Europe, which begins with the Urals and the Volga. The Iron Curtain split Central Europe it did not redefine its history or geography. Athanasius V (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

According to whom? Traditionally, eastern Europe meant Poland, Czech/Slovakia, Hungary, the Balkans, the Baltic states and Ukraine-Russia .... 50.111.39.61 (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories: