| Revision as of 22:33, 20 February 2008 editXasha (talk | contribs)2,048 edits →Xasha's edits← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:34, 20 February 2008 edit undoXasha (talk | contribs)2,048 edits →Xasha's editsNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| :Actually, Misplaced Pages policy in this regard is a bit more complicated. Please take a look at ]. One aspect of this policy is that simply because something is sourced does not automatically qualify it to be included. It also has to reflect a neutral point of view attributing all disputed issues to a particular source, providing multiple sources for those issues, and not giving undue weight to one side. Furthermore, it is often better to add details to the relevant subarticle, for example that would be ] in this case. ] (]) 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | :Actually, Misplaced Pages policy in this regard is a bit more complicated. Please take a look at ]. One aspect of this policy is that simply because something is sourced does not automatically qualify it to be included. It also has to reflect a neutral point of view attributing all disputed issues to a particular source, providing multiple sources for those issues, and not giving undue weight to one side. Furthermore, it is often better to add details to the relevant subarticle, for example that would be ] in this case. ] (]) 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Who decides what's a NPOV? This is an article of a lecturer of the ], in a book edited by a reputable Romanian publisher and favourably reviewed by Romanian-American historian ], so you can't accuse it of Soviet propaganda or manipulative POV. I don't see anything in the Misplaced Pages article that disputes what that source says. If there are some Romanian nationalist who say otherwise, it's not my job to search their writings for their personal views. I find it stupid to prevent the publication of some information just because there may be some book in the world that may dispute it.] (]) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | ::Who decides what's a NPOV? This is an article of a lecturer of the ], in a book edited by a reputable Romanian publisher and favourably reviewed by Romanian-American historian ], so you can't accuse it of Soviet propaganda or manipulative POV. I don't see anything in the Misplaced Pages article that disputes what that source says. If there are some Romanian nationalist who say otherwise, it's not my job to search their writings for their personal views. I find it stupid to prevent the publication of some information just because there may be some book in the world that may dispute it.] (]) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| About the census in interwar Romania: we have proofs that a signifiant number of Ukrainians were counted as "Romanians who had forgotten their mother language", so it's no surprise there were no Moldovans in the census. (It's the only Bessarabian census with no Moldovans - Romanians, on the other hand, appear in every census since 1897). The policy in Romania nowadays is the same: if you say you're a Moldovan, Oltenian or Vlach, you're counted as Romanian.] (]) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:34, 20 February 2008
 | Eastern Europe (inactive) | |||
| ||||
 | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
moldovan flag
Does anyone know why the moldovan flag has the flag of the ottoman empire in it in the form of a bulls horn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.187.200 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Possible Moldova project
Anyone interested in a dedicated group, which is initially proposed to begin as a task force, dedicated to improving content relating to the nation of Moldova is more than welcome to indicate their interest at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Moldova work group. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Xasha's edits
Xasha, I reverted your additions, because I thought many things you added violated NPOV, and it would have been too much of a hassle to try to remove that content. I will try to go back and reintroduce the more uncontroversial edits you made. Some of the things that you added that I found objectionable are saying that the Council only voted for union with Romania because of the influence of the Romanian army, the statement that Romanians wanted Moldovans to view them as brothers, changing Romanian to Moldovan in the inter-war period, even though in the Romanian census the population was recorded as Romanian, and a few other things. Due to the controversial nature of this section, please describe some of the more extensive changes you wish to make on the talk page first so that other users can discuss them. TSO1D (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, after I reintroduced some your changes, it seems that the difference between your version and the current version isn't that great. I only omitted a few sentences and words. Please feel free to discuss those issues here. TSO1D (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
They were all from the book "Nation-building and Contested Identities", published in the same time at Iasi's Publirom and Budapest's Regio Book in 2001. The author is a lecturer at the University of Bucharest , so you can't say it's propaganda or lies. Here's a presentation of the book. You may not like it, because it doesn't fit the traditional nationalist history, but it is souced. From what I've read on policy pages, you must accept this text unless you can prove the source is biased. However, I'll let you think about it (or prove me wrong) before restoring the text. Xasha (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Misplaced Pages policy in this regard is a bit more complicated. Please take a look at WP:NPOV. One aspect of this policy is that simply because something is sourced does not automatically qualify it to be included. It also has to reflect a neutral point of view attributing all disputed issues to a particular source, providing multiple sources for those issues, and not giving undue weight to one side. Furthermore, it is often better to add details to the relevant subarticle, for example that would be History of Moldova in this case. TSO1D (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who decides what's a NPOV? This is an article of a lecturer of the University of Bucharest, in a book edited by a reputable Romanian publisher and favourably reviewed by Romanian-American historian Vladimir Tismăneanu, so you can't accuse it of Soviet propaganda or manipulative POV. I don't see anything in the Misplaced Pages article that disputes what that source says. If there are some Romanian nationalist who say otherwise, it's not my job to search their writings for their personal views. I find it stupid to prevent the publication of some information just because there may be some book in the world that may dispute it.Xasha (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
About the census in interwar Romania: we have proofs that a signifiant number of Ukrainians were counted as "Romanians who had forgotten their mother language", so it's no surprise there were no Moldovans in the census. (It's the only Bessarabian census with no Moldovans - Romanians, on the other hand, appear in every census since 1897). The policy in Romania nowadays is the same: if you say you're a Moldovan, Oltenian or Vlach, you're counted as Romanian.Xasha (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Categories: