| Revision as of 02:02, 2 April 2009 editRussBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,405,761 edits Robot: creating talk page for disambiguation page← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 8 April 2009 edit undoDahn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers147,797 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{DisambigProject}} | {{DisambigProject}} | ||
| ==Olahus...== | |||
| The amalgamation of "Moldavians" as the native population of the entire Moldavia and "Moldovans" as an ethnonym (a stupid ethnonym, if you will, but an ethnonym nonetheless) is evidence of ]. If it's meant to be crafty, it's not. In fact, if you stop and think about it, the only effect of such a reasoning would be to unwittingly ''validate'' the claim according to which Moldavia and Moldova ''both'' have a majority non-Romanian ("Moldovan") population, exactly the contrary of what your "crafty" POV pushing is trying to do. Furthermore, adding the "Soviet" issue in the mix is nonsensical (it is also the sound of a falling tree, since neither the positive or the negative were ever proven by the Romanian/Moldovan users who claim it or its opposite); it is nonsensical because the question is begged: "what else did you expect?" It is also nonsensical because it ignores the plain fact that, right or wrong, recorded data from those countries shows that some people (the majority until proven contrary) have defined it and adopted it as a ethnonym. I know the article in question was hijacked by the nationalist Romanian POV and turned into something exactly as dubious as a Moldovenist article (only backwards), but its existence is no proof of anything. | |||
| The notion about the term being rendered as "Moldavians" and the statement about this being done "rarely" are neither POV nor OR. They simply acknowledge the simple fact that English sources may use both variants for ''that'' term, with roughly the same frequency they may refer to Moldova as Moldavia. | |||
| Please, no more sophistry: equivocation serves no purpose, and it damages even your POV. ] (]) 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:17, 8 April 2009
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Olahus...
The amalgamation of "Moldavians" as the native population of the entire Moldavia and "Moldovans" as an ethnonym (a stupid ethnonym, if you will, but an ethnonym nonetheless) is evidence of WP:SYNTH. If it's meant to be crafty, it's not. In fact, if you stop and think about it, the only effect of such a reasoning would be to unwittingly validate the claim according to which Moldavia and Moldova both have a majority non-Romanian ("Moldovan") population, exactly the contrary of what your "crafty" POV pushing is trying to do. Furthermore, adding the "Soviet" issue in the mix is nonsensical (it is also the sound of a falling tree, since neither the positive or the negative were ever proven by the Romanian/Moldovan users who claim it or its opposite); it is nonsensical because the question is begged: "what else did you expect?" It is also nonsensical because it ignores the plain fact that, right or wrong, recorded data from those countries shows that some people (the majority until proven contrary) have defined it and adopted it as a ethnonym. I know the article in question was hijacked by the nationalist Romanian POV and turned into something exactly as dubious as a Moldovenist article (only backwards), but its existence is no proof of anything.
The notion about the term being rendered as "Moldavians" and the statement about this being done "rarely" are neither POV nor OR. They simply acknowledge the simple fact that English sources may use both variants for that term, with roughly the same frequency they may refer to Moldova as Moldavia.
Please, no more sophistry: equivocation serves no purpose, and it damages even your POV. Dahn (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Category: