Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:13, 24 November 2006

Ethnic groups A‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups A This article has been rated as A-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Archives

• /Archive I (Dec04-Aug05)—1911 Britannica–Pop. stats–R. in Ukraine–Racist term–Orthodoxism–Suffixed names–Russia,Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan–Origins–Ribbentrop-Molotov pact
  
• /Archive II (Sep05-Nov05)—Several discussions on the number of Romanians, and of people of other ethnicities in Romania
• /Archive III (Nov05 - 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC))
• /Archive IV (21 March 2006 - 22 July 2006)

Vlad Ţepeş

Sometime in the last few weeks, "the historic Transylvanian figure of Vlad Ţepeş" became "the historic Wallachian figure of Vlad Ţepeş". Given that he was born in Sighişoara, I would have expected that the former is more correct, though I realize that he ruled for a time in Wallachia. Comments? - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

In fact he is a Rumanian figure. He was born in Sighişoara, but giving the fact that all his purpose in life was to reign over Wallachia, you could say that he was a historic Wallachian figure. And considering his family background …
There are a lot of Rumanian books on him, but I’m afraid that your language skills must develop before you can get a first raw biographic material. If you have questions about historic Rumanian figures, I’m open to answer. Koga, 10 August 2006.

I have no problem with characterizing him as "Romanian", but "Wallachian" is a rather narrower designation, at least in English (even if it is etymologically related to "Vlach", equivalent to Romanian. And what precisely do you find inadequate about my "language skills"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Since he ruled Wallachia....I think he was Wallachian rather than Rumanian (or had Wallachian origins). And I would like to point out that the concept of Rumania didn`t exist at his time yet. Obviously Wallachians were ancesters of Rumanian people. He was born in Sighişoara in 1480 which back then was part of the Hungarian Kingdom. It is hard to know his nationality based on his birthplace, since back then the Rumanian population was scarce compared to the Hungarian/German population in transilvania. csabap=username 11:46 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us first secure some linguistic and historical facts:

"Wallachian" was a foreign-designation (exonym) of "Romanian"

"Romanian" is a self-designation, an endonyme: Romanians never having called themselves other than..."Romanians" (români/rumâni)

In the time of Vlad the Impaler, Romanians living in what was the Principality of Wallachia, called themselves Romanians. Moreover, the name they gave to their own country was "Ţara Româneascǎ" - "Romanian Land".

Thus, both ethno-linguistically and politically, the name "Romanian" was long well-established in the time of Vlad the Impaler.

Calling people and countries according to their own name (endonyme) is usual and appropriate.

Hence, designating Vlad the Impaler as a Romanian Prince isn't but legitimate.

--Vintila Barbu 08:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with u! People back then didn't think in nationalities. The most important was the person in charge and religion. Obviously Wallachia and Moldovians had the same religion. I agree with the language too. But politically back then they were definitly separate untill Michel the Brave was elected by the congregates of the two part. Really Wallachians are ancestors of Romanians! is User:csabap 3:22 7 September 2006 (UTC)

States and ethnicities

From the article:

The Romanians were part of different statal entities: with the Moldavians and the Wallachians being split off and having shaped separate political identities, possessing states of their own, and with the rest of Romanians being part of other states. However, they all retained their Romanian cultural and ethnic identity.

In this period, would Eastern Romance speakers south of the Danube (Aromanians, for example) have shared this ethnic identity or not? I'm just wondering if, in leaving them out, we are writing history backwards, working backwards from modern states that are based on Daco-Romanian national identity. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue of what "Romanian" meant prior to 1877 is very blurry: if we would take "Romanian" to mean a speaker of Romanian (which, according to Britannica, is divided into four dialects: Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian) than yes, they could also be counted as Romanians. Furthermore, even common self-designation "rumân", and the common exonym "vlach" supports this approach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.155.244 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006.

Ridiculous Numbers

As of right now, the article states that the total number of Romanians in the world is 21 mil. + est.(something that sounds ridiculous because most other nationalities on Misplaced Pages do not have this “+est.” added to their total number, even though most of them are estimates anyways). However if you look closely at the Romanians in each country and you add them up, you get something close to 21.5 mil. (the only estimated number is the one for Brazil: 33.000).

Another issue is the Moldovans and the question over their inclusion in the total number of Romanians. As of right now, the article is POV since it leads the reader to believe that “Moldovans are 100% not Romanians”. This is done under the disgusting cloak that “official census data is the only data to be used” and certain pov anti-Romanian editors go as far as to block the article from being edited if someone tries to include the Moldovans. Perhaps those people have forgotten that this is an encyclopedia and that a respectable encyclopedia includes ALL points of view, even if they do not agree with them. Since a great deal of people DO include Moldovans as part of the Romanian ethos, I propose that the article be unblocked and that the total number for Moldova be given in brackets, right beside the “official data” and that the total number of Romanians be changed to correspond with the numbers in each country.Dapiks 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is only semi-protected. Established users can edit it as it stands. Regards, E Asterion 18:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that Asterion, but if someone will try to make any of the changes I mentioned above (which in my opinion are not pov at all, if anything they are trying to correct the article and make it more NPOV), they will get reverted by a minority of users who do not allow for any other opinion on wikipedia other then their own on.Dapiks 23:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You should consider placing a Request for Comments, so other uninvolved editors can voice ther opinion on this. Regards, E Asterion 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. Before we were getting absurdly high numbers (like 35 million!). Now we're getting absurdly low ones.

The notion that somehow "Romanians" (as an ethnicity) end at the river Prut seems pretty silly to me. It's like saying that a Jew in Vancouver, BC has a different ethnicity than a 300 km away Jew in Seattle, because one is an "American Jew" and the other is a "Canadian Jew".

Can't we just make it clear that in terms of numbers we are talking about a reasonably broad ethnic classification of, basically, Daco-Romanians, which includes Moldovans (but not, for example, Aromanians)? It's not like there are any magic, well-defined categories, and these matters will always require that articles discuss the penumbra of a classification. - Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I compleetely agree. Numbers should not be exagerated or distorted in order to achieve a political gain. This sort of stuff is disgusting and has no place on wikipedia.Jeorjika 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Moldovans be included in the figure?

It is clear that there are two contradictory POVs about the Moldovans, on whether they are or not Romanians. Current version, just changed by User:Jeorjika, includes again just the POV that the Moldovans are Romanians.

I propose listing both POVs:

Total population: 21-24 million¹

Moldova: 75,000-2,638,000¹

Any comments? bogdan 09:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be very curious to know how do the people that have the "POV" that Moldovans are 100% not Romanians, would back up their statement (other then by going on about the "2004 Census" which had so many irregularities that no organization or encyclopedia in the world takes them seriously). Jeorjika 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The POV that Moldovans ≠ Romanians is the POV of the government of the Rep. of Moldova and of various other former Soviet countries (e.g. the Ukraine). I think Bogdan's proposal is fair enough. --Telex 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But if you find Bogdan's proposal fair, then why did you revert it to the previous equally POV version with "21+est"?? Dapiks 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Shoo, shoo! —Khoikhoi 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't talk like that. It's not nice. How would you like it if someone told you "shoo, shoo"? I don't see you telling Irpen "shoo, shoo" even though he is disruptive. Is it perhaps because you have a bias? Jeorjika 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, much better. ;-) —Khoikhoi 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposal as to how to handle this, but first I'll make it clear where I'm coming from.

I doubt the intellectual honesty of the claim that there is a change of ethnicity at the River Prut. I can see the case that says that all Moldavians are ethnically distinct from Wallachians, but the one that says that Romanians in Transylvania, plus Wallachians, plus those Moldavians who live in Romania are of one ethnicity—Romanians—and those Moldavians who live across the border are of a different ethnicity strikes me as mere sophistry. Now, it happens that the Moldovan government engages in this sophistry, so it is notable sophistry, but (like any other minority view) it should be noted and moved past.

Here's how I would handle it:

1. In the section Subgroups and related ethnic groups we should have exactly one paragraph mentioning this controversy, indicating the Moldovan government's position on the matter, and indicating that virtually no anthropologist or demographer outside of Moldova agrees with the Moldovan government's position on the matter.
2. In the places on this page where we give a count of Romanians in Moldova or total number of Romanians in the world, we give a number in the body of the article that includes Moldovans, but we link the number to a note that explains that the Moldovan government describes the numbers differently, counting Moldovans as a distinct ethnicity. We also mention in the note that demographers in other countries do not make that distinction, and that numbers for other countries include an indeterminate number of Moldovans, but we don't link this note from every statistic that we mention for other countries.
3. In the Subgroups and related ethnic groups section and in the note, we say See Moldovans for further discussion.

Note that this is not an attempt to say that all articles should handle the matter this way. In particular, the articles on Moldovans and Moldova should take this up at greater length, expanding on the controversy itself, and discussing both the theory and the politics of the matter. But this article should not. It should be here to inform a reader about the Romanians, in the sense that a typical anthropologist or demographer today would use that term, which includes Moldovans. It should also discuss that in dealing with older history, this ethnic group may be defined to include Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, and Istro-Romanians, but that in dealing with matters since roughly the mid-19th century, these are generally considered related ethnic groups rather than part of the same ethnic group as Daco-Romanians. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There are Moldovans that live in Romania (Moldavia) and Moldovans that live in Rep. Moldova. Both are 100% Romanian, there's no doubt in my mind. Believe me I know many Moldovans from the Republic and all of them consider themselves Romanian. Saying Moldovans aren't Romanians only plays in the hands of the communist regime in Chisinau that still stands by the history written by soviet 'scholars'. Giuseppe86 10:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Self identification issue

This below is written in response to the post above by Jmabel.

Jmabel, personally, I take no position on whether Moldovans and Romanians are the same ethnicity or not, while I agree that the division is caused purely by political developments at some point of time. Nevertheless, what you suggest discounts the ethnical self-identification, an important factor. The census results in Moldova (and in Ukraine) are available. People answered who they are as they chose and these numbers should be the basis from which we proceed. If we have significant and referenced allegations of census fraud, coersion and counting falcification, we should add them as well. If those allegations would have warranted the reputable observers to call an entire census so unreliable that its numbers are totally meaningles and useless (a stament I have yet to see), we would say so, of course, and use other sources as the primary ones. If we have only occasional and isolated complaints, we can add them too, but as occasional and isolated and those won't affect the census as a whole. The only source cited for now on census criticism, putting aside any issues with this source, does not make a sweeping statement on the census numbers being totally unreliable. Note the statement "The expert group has not yet completed its work on the assessment of the census as a whole." Whatever that group is, even they made no statements recommending to disqalify in their entirety the census results, particularly on the nationalities issue.

As such, I beleive, the main number should be census based. Now, if other respectable sources state numbers that are different from census, fine, we cite those numbers too, referenced of course. But those alternative numbers have to be referenced to a respectable source that cites them as the numbers of Romanians. Wer can't have in an article a number based on the mathematical exercise of one or the other Misplaced Pages editor, who from time to time pops up in the article to demonstrate he can add numbers. Especially nonsensial is that those fellows add the numbers taken from the very census they claim compromised, add them and produce in their view "true results" based on a "compromised census".

For the language questions self-identification is of course less important. Linguists are qualified to judge whether two languages are in fact two names of one and the same language. But substituting people's self-identification by the opinion of antropologists is highly controversial to say the list. --Irpen 08:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, I would conjecture that most people who identify as Moldovans consider that to mean a subset of Romanians, or consider both to be a subset of Daco-Romanians. This whole thing seems such a tempest in a teapot.

I rarely say "let's look at how Britannica handles this", but… has someone got a Britannica? How do they handle it? - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some relevant quotes:

From Romanian language article:

"Romanian language: Romance language spoken primarily in Romania and Moldova. There are about 23,680,000 speakers of Romanian, of whom about 20,500,000 live in Romania, 2,700,000 in Moldova, some 350,000 in Ukraine, and about 40,000 in Yugoslavia and 10,000 in Hungary. "

From Moldova:

"The Moldovans, who ethnically are kindred to the Romanians, are the indigenous people of the republic..."

"...thereupon began a heated debate over whether the language should be called Romanian or Moldovan."

From Vlach (they lumped together the article about Romanians with the one on the Southern Vlachs):

"Vlach, also called Romanian, or Ruman, member of a European people constituting the major element in the populations of Romania and Moldova, as well as smaller groups located throughout the Balkan Peninsula"

bogdan 09:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the language issue with the national identity. Austrians and Germans speak German. Here is another quote from EB:

's complex political history has led to a very mixed population, including Russians, Poles, Jews, Hungarians, Romanians, and Moldavians, although Ukrainians form about three-quarters of the total.

--Irpen 09:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So, in short, I gather that Britannica splits the difference: one language, two ethnicities. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans(Moldavians) consider themselves a separate ethnic group within Romanians. A minority (75,000) consider themselves directly Romanians, without considering Moldavians specific, the majority (2,700,000 in Moldova + 200,000 in Ukraine) consider themselves also specifically Moldavians. In any census you can answer only one way. Answering Moldavians does not excludes Romanians, answering Romanian excludes Moldavian.

Now, this is what I know that the people in the country think. Of course I am only one of them, so yes, theoretically I can answer only for me. But as you can see, this is what all the political parties say. Does Britanica have authority over the country? Just asking in general. In this case, Britanica says exactly what I and 3 million others know to be the truth.

A little history: if you go back to before 1988, just calling yourself Romanian was forbidden, you could get arrested for "nationalism" for that. (Not that you would be punished much, but spending 15 days in prison when the authorities threaten to move you in cell with common criminals, is sufficient to keep your mounth shut for a while.) There are 3 major political forces in Moldova (although names have changed, aliences broken and remade during the last 16 year), people are generally supportive of a specific one (the swing vote is under 20-30% max). One of the three supported adopting "Romanian" right away in 1989, since then it moderated a bit, accepting that "Moldavians" is a legitimate designation within "Romanians". The second rejected the term "Romanian" up until 1996, and accepted it openly since 1998, emphazising that being Romanians does not mean that the country should loose its independence. The third, having about 47% support at the last ellections, and including most of the minority vote (around 20-30% is the minority vote, depending on the show-up) was against the term up until 2003. Then from 2004, it again supports the same thing: "Moldavian/Moldovan" means either citizen of Moldova, or a member of the ethnic group; "Romanian" means either citizen of Romania (only a small portion of population has double citizenship), or the larger ethnic group, containing "Moldavians", and based on a common culture, traditions, etc, but primarity based on the common language. In view of the population, the reason for considering ourselves also Romanians is linguistic. However everyone agrees that this implies nothing about politics. Now, noone can say that in 100 year borders would be the same, but for now everyone accepts that the language issue solely can not be used as a political agrument, and at least so far only a minority wants to see Moldova within Romania. :Dc76 21:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Times

 I think there is no proof of the people called Dacians(correct me if I`m wrong...) (the romans called
people from Dancia province Dacians, regardless of their nationality) being the ancestors af modern
Romanians. After the Roman rule there were a lot of Romans that remained there, but after there was a
few hundred years that we do not know anything. There were Slavic, Germanic(Gepid,Goths,), Avars,
Scythians and Sarmatans. The presence of these people is proved both by references and archeology. If 
there is archeological proof for eg. of the Carpi...could u. help me out...I`m really interested in 
this complicated and fascinating time of history :)....Thanks!!! Csabap 4:00 9 Sept
2006 (UTC)

Well, what we know about the pre-Roman ancestors of modern Romanians is about a couple hundreds words, most of them with cognates in Albanian. (for example, Romanian "moş"=old man, cognate with Albanian "moshë"=age) We also know from the phonetic evolution that Albanian and the Romanian substrate were distinct, but closely related dialects in Ancient times.

The three important languages in the region were Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian, each with their dialects. Illyrian is almost ruled out because it seems it was a centum language, not satem. There is little evidence for choosing Dacian over Thracian, but it seems that more Dacian toponyms can be explained with Old Albanian.

We know very few ancient Dacian or Thracian words and there is one known correspondence between an ancient Dacian word ("manteia", blackberry) and a modern Albanian ("man", mulberry).

So, no, there is no actual proof of the Dacian origin, but it's just a "very likely" hypothesis.

But Dacian tribes also lived outside what is now Romania, so, it is possible that the Romanians originally lived in the area of the city of Naissus (now Niš, Serbia) before the Hunnish invasion (5th century). bogdan 05:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Intresting! So is it possible that Romanians are of partly of slavic origins? Ty!
Csabap 05:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Romanians in contemporary Bulgaria

According to the last official census in 2001 (concrete results could be seen here):

1. Vlachs 10 566

2. Romanians 1 088 - Jackanapes 14:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible alternate image

Anittas (who is currently banned, for reasons that do not bear on his trustworthiness) sent me the image I have now uploaded as Image:Four Romanians.JPG, and suggests that it might make a better choice for the Infobox here. From left to right, Stephen III of Moldavia (Ştefan Cel Mare); composer George Enescu; scientist Victor Babeş; and jet aircraft pioneer Henri Coandă. All images should be public domain. And of course we could mix and match. Just passing it along. - Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am certain that Anittas is not happy with the current image because it has no Moldavians, but it has three Wallachians. :-) bogdan 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That I remember... —Khoikhoi 20:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is just a POV-push over Stephen "as Romanian". I myself think that the idea of having any pictures, in any infobox, is sheer stupidity (as it forces people to agree on whan particular chart). If I have to chose, I say: drop all pictures of people living before 1829, not because Romanianness is necessarily flawed before that date, but because it is problematic. Dahn 21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Master Yoda: "Unlearn what you have learned, drop all pictures of people living before 1829, and you will find peace". :) Dpotop 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While the proposed image is better than the current one, I think there are still two personalities not included: Constantin Brâncuşi and Mihai Eminescu. Brâncuşi is arguably the most prominent Romanian of the 20th century in the non-political sphere (aside from Comăneci, another possible candidate). Even though I'm not a particular fan of him at all, Eminescu is widely-acclaimed within Romania, and in the cultural world he is probably seen as the greatest single figure and contributor to Romanianism. So, I suggest replacing Stephen the Great with any of these two. Ronline ✉ 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no "Romanians list" without Eminescu. Dpotop 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Anittas wanted to include Brâncuşi, but couldn't find a PD or free-use image. And there is really not much argument for fair use in something like this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He also remarked on wanting to include a woman, but couldn't think of anyone appropriate for whom a free-use image would be available. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind again about this issue: I don't think the existing 4 people make a faithful example of Romanians. Above there is a suggestion by someone: Stephen III of Moldavia (Ştefan Cel Mare); composer George Enescu; scientist Victor Babeş; and jet aircraft pioneer Henri Coandă. First I have a question, do there have to be exactly 4? can there be 8 or 10? If 4, then I support this new list. If 8-10, then I suggest to add a few more names, such as biologists Nicolae Paulescu and George Emil Paladi, poet Mihai Eminescu, politicians Avraam Iancu, Mihail Kogalniceanu and Iuliu Maniu. I would rather see scientists at least at 1/2, so 2 of the 3 politicians would have to go unless we add other scientists. The problem is, we want to add only top-top scientists, and only dead ones, so 6 might be too much. As for the regions, I don't care, and noone should care - they made contributions much beyond their region. Assigning numbers to regions is the most stupid form of "positive discrimination" I can think of. Comaneci is a good candidate, but the non-scientists non-politicians are 1/4, and she cann't come close to Enescu or Eminescu. Also we might want to include people who are in the 28 million but not in the 24 million, such as Hermann Oberth. Even in USA he still considered himself proud to be Romanian (he did not see it to be an exclusive term - he was also Saxon, German and American, and somehow he produced much more for the mankind than all people arguing on wikipedia about that all together.).:Dc76 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No rule on the number of images. For what it's worth, I'd venture to say that Nadia Comaneci would, in fact, be the first person many English-speakers would name if they were asked to name a Romanian. - Jmabel | Talk 20:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to venture to say that, I have experienced it first-hand at least a dosen times. :) The reason is simple, Enescu and Eminescu are dead, you don't hear about them in the press. I don't have anything against including living people in the pictures, except the fact that it gets very tricky with living scientists (I don't mean here, I mean in general.) Specificaly, I suggest to replace the existing picture with yours. Then, if someone would compile one with these 4 + others, we will discuss again. I only want to support the idea that approx. 1/2 should be scientists, inventors, technicians, etc, approx 1/4 politicians, approx 1/4 others. Of course, approximately.:Dc76 20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Page protected. Again. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly is there an edit war over this article? If we add up all of the current figures, we get slightly over 21 million, so I suppose "21 million +" is correct. However, wasn't there consensus that a second figure would be added, including Moldovans. I think this would not only settle the revert problem but also present multiple points of view, which is the essence of NPOV. Ronline ✉ 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Dapiks 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To Ronline: I cannot begin to fathom how that would be "NPOV". I too hold the view that the Moldovan ethnicity is invented, but we. have. the. fact. that. those. people. do. not. describe. themselves. as. Romanians. For God's sake: I do not have the right to tell them what they are, and this article should only refer to people that invest in the fact that they are Romanians! I mean, we don't go counting people whom we, or I, or whomever believes are Romanians, but those who declare themselves Romanians. Dahn 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is useful to read the talk pages as this was explained a couple of sections above at #Self identification issue. --Irpen 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the talk page, but for the amount of edit-warring going on, it seems there hasn't been much discussion. I'm personally disinterested in this whole issue of the number of Romanians around the world, since I don't believe it's particularly better for there to be more Romanians (if anything, it is arguably worse, since a large diaspora indicates internal problems). Ronline ✉ 06:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

But whether there are a lot of romanians or a few romanians outside romania is not something you or Dahn or Ipren can control. I would also just love it if there were few Romanians outside the country but unfortunately for me and you things are not this way. We cannot just manipulate facts and data in order to please us or our views. To return to the question of "who is Romanian" first of all let me point out some facts

• Dahn says that "these people do not consider themselves Romanians but Moldovans" That is very, very superficial. In fact due to the manner in which the census in 2004 was conducted (and please note that international observers pointed out major irregularities when it came to the lang/eth questions) and due the fact that not all Moldovans view their "Moldovan Identity" as "100% non-Romanian": one cannot say beyond any reasonable doubt that "in Moldova there are 75.000 Romanians only". That is why, the suggestion that we put a range of 75.000 - 2.8 mil. seems to me like the best way to reconcile both points of view, which is after all what Misplaced Pages is supposed to do. Dapiks 00:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Dapiks, nobody has been pointing out "how many would have declared themselves Romanian but couldn't", and nobody could. We have official data, even if that data is partly questionable (I use Occam's razor against the view that "all of it questionable"), over Constantzeanu's data (whereby every person in the world who did not send him a letter saying "I'm not Romanian" is in fact Romanian). Dahn 10:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, first of all, please choose which of the two accounts Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Constantzeanu you choose to use and stick to it from now on. We can return to the issue then. --Irpen 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever buddy. When you and your buddies have nothing to say, you turn to cheep comments like that. It's really getting disgusting. Dapiks 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

"In addition to these colours, each historical province of Romania has its own characteristic animal   
symbol:
   * Oltenia: Lion
   * Dobrogea: Dolphin
   * Moldavia: Aurochs/Wisent
   * Transylvania: Black eagle
   * Wallachia: Eagle
The Coat of Arms of Romania combines these together."

There is an ommision here: "* Oltenia: Lion" . Although the characteristic animal of Oltenia IS a lion, the lion is also the ch. animal of Banat. As described on the presidentil web-site the lion on the coat-of arms represents both Oltenia and Banat http://www.presidency.ro/?_RID=htm&id=3&lang=en Please make the necessary changes. Thank you

Actually, that very section is redundant, simplistic, and ill-defined (symbols of Romania=symbols of the Romanians...). Plus, most articles on national symbols in Romania need to be copyedited. The section is also without parallel, and disregards the fact that symbols such as Transylvania's have never stood for "Romanians". Dahn 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Outragious

Why is that we are not allowed to put an estimate for the number of Romanians. The article on Greeks and Roma people give official data as well as estimates. In our case, we are compelled to give just the official data for Romanians in Moldova and Ukraine. Why is it that the page is being blocked right now? And why can't we give estimates as well, besides the so called "official data" which some pro-Stalinist editors love so much? Jeorjika 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of standards on other pages

While you are right about the Greek page, the lies and nationalist propaganda on it are a disgrace: they insist on counting as Greek the 700.000 immigrants in Greece, for example. Is it such a problem that the Romanians and Romanian pages are kept to a higher standard of integrity than the Greek ones. Ir shows that Romania has a better claim than some other countries to be in the EU, when a sense of self-discipline is visible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.147.55 (talk • contribs) 28 September 2006.

I really do not see what the EU-membership and Misplaced Pages content and/or editors have to do with this dispute. First of all, even if we consider the current numbers (i.e. Moldova with 75.000 Romanians), the number should read 21.5 million, not 21 million. Just do the math! Another point I want to bring fourth is that, not everyone agrees with offical censa, so in the spirit of NPOV and respecting wikipedia rules and norms, this article should reflect that. As mentioned above, not only Roma and Greeks have estimates but Georgians do as well.Dapiks 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Population overestimates

They've been rampant on wikipedia: Poles, Croats, Irish people. It's not unlikely that "foreign" embassy statistics drive their numbers as high as possible. There are several reasons for this. One, most such sources tend to put emphasis on "Romanian nationals abroad" rather than Romanian ethnics. Two, they further tend to include any foreigner who can lay trace to some Romanian blood in their heritage, long after that emigre has died. So the Romanian diaspora will probably include someone who has a Romanian grandmother, perhaps even great-grandmother. If we did that for all ethnicities, we'd probably double the world's population.

Go and change the articles on Greeks, Roma people, Hungarians and Croats first and then come here and change these numbers.

Secondly, there are sources which point to a much much lower number. Joshua Project for one which stauncly includes only the most ethnic of Romanians estimates the population to be around 19 million: http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctry.php?rop3=108398&rog3=RO

This Joshua Project seems to me a little bit of a joke. Its numbers are nothing like the numbers from official censa. On what base, do they make their approximations?

We're giving the benefit of the doubt by simply totalling up as many census numbers as we can. Most such articles on wikipedia do the same. I see no reason to overestimate using possibly biased estimations. Horvat Den 06:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody sees any reason to overestimate but nobody wants to underestimate either. What is your base for the 21.5 million people? Do you have a reliable source? Usually official censa is taken into account (NOT SOME WEIRD JOSHUA ESTIMATE thats based on pure fantesy). Even if we take the official censa, then the numbers add up to 23 million, not 21. However the issue of the Moldovans is a very touchy one, hence it has to be mentioned in brackets, just like other articles on wikipedia do it.

Furthermore, you might be thinking that this number should be higher because we should include Moldovans. I definitely agree with you there. I think this whole ethnogenesis bit is a little too POV for wikipedia. There's little we can do to change that unless there's some type of mass movement to remove the population statistics on Moldovans. Otherwise, we're just repeating numbers. Horvat Den 06:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Issue at Moldovans is explained very well. That article deals with the notion of moldvoans and what that term means in a number of cases, not with an ethnicity per se (note that the article is almost exclusively talking about the controversy on the identity in itself).Dapiks 08:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What seems to be based on pure fantasy is the notion that the ethnic Romanian population nearly tripled over less than a century. I hope everyone here realizes that "Romanians abroad" simply refers to Romanians who are currently living/working in another country. Many of these Romanians are not citizens of those countries, and are included in the 19 million ethnic Romanian census of Romania. By including these are extra Romanians, you are counting each person twice in the census, which is hysterical to say the least. The censuses of each independent country is the only source reliable enough to come to a total ethnic Romanian population abroad. Several of the sources used for the "28 million" estimate aren't even referring to ethnic Romanians (such as the million estimate in the US). Pay attention to exactly what the sources say and don't guess. The number of 21-22 million was pretty stable until now, what sparked this huge addition of 6 million Romanians? Horvat Den 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Romedia includes non-ethnic Romanians into their numbers. This is a page for ETHNIC Romanians. We shouldn't make any mention of "400,000" Romanians in Canada or "1,000,000" in the US because this page runs on the idea that a Romanian is an ethnic Romanian. Horvat Den 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

to horvat den, the 6 million figure is derived from the source evenimentul zilei, which estimates the number of romanians in different countries. For example, they estimate that their were 600,000 romanians working abroad before the 2002 census.

And have these people been subtracted from Romania's population? Have they? Because that is where they legally reside, and that is where they are counted. Aren't you counting them twice? Dahn 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, we dont know if this so called 600,000 illegal romanians were in romania in 2002, so their is no way of knowing if we are counting them twice or not. However, i would assume that not all of them would have been in romania during the census, maybe not even half of them. My fellow friends, i believe we should place the old figure back of 21 million, as that is derived from censuses. We can not give a proper estimation for the number of romanians, as a large number of them left illegaly during and after communism. (BaNaTeaN 07:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Allow me to shed some light. The 28 mil people figure was not made based upon a total of the 1.1 mil in USA and the 400.000 in Canada,which I totally agree with you that it should be taken out and replaced with the census figure. The total of 28 mil. was given based on a number of sources(check them out -> there are quite a lot of them), mostly the Romanian presidency (which by the way is the ultimate source of Romanian foreign policy) and just like a census (which is government sponsored and by no means perfect), the President of Romania as the supreme source of foreign policy, has made it clear that Romania as a state considers 8 mil ethnic-Romanians to live outside its borders. I find it sort of silly to revert to the 22 mil people. Based on what sources will you do that? Can you find a reliable source that says, "In the world Today there are 22 mil ethnic-Romanians and not a single mil over that number". If you do, by all means make the change. Ethnologue is the only one that comes close but even Ethnologue states that there are 23.5 mil. Romanian native speakers in the world. Dapiks 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dapiks, The Romanian article should include only primary information (eg: census), and not what the president of romania believes the figure is. BaNaTeaN

To answer both of you (while welcoming and endorsing BaNaTeaN's non-speculative approach): in 2002, you were required by law to say if you had relatives who were citizens but lived abroad. Even if many people were not aware of this, that count was the basis for all estimates of Romanian citizens (citizens, nota bene) living abroad. So: no speculation regarding workers abroad is allowed. Dahn 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn:Wait a little Dahn, of what you explained, that you were obligated by law in the 2002 census to say if oyu have relatives abroad, that means there about 19.4 millions Romanians in the whole world??? No offence, but this is absolutely out of discussion. When I had the 2002 census, there was no place in the questionary for that.

Again you mix terms, Arthur, in an issue that is relatively simple. The census says there are 21 million and something citizens of Romania (throughout the world). Inside Romania, there are 19 million ethnic Romanians of the total population. The latter number includes, per what I've just told you, those who are out of Romania on business or whatever (but are still Romanian citizens); various systems were used to count them and compare data - if your entire family was not at home when the census-taker came to visit you, you had, to the best of your knowledge, to provide the data for the rest of your family (that is what I did). All those present abroad of the 19-21 million are thought to have been counted, and, rest assured, we don't all have to go to Bethlem for that.

What you have to add to that is the number of ethic Romanians that are citizens of other countries (and are not also citizens of Romania), and list only those places where this applies. Please, see my point.

Welcome back, btw, and please stand by the pledge on your talk page. Dahn 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Banatean: although your explication makes no sense, let's see. You say that we should include only primary source information that means censuses. Come on, take a look at Poles, Italians or other large diasporas. At Poles by exemple, only USA, Canada and Poland are using census official infos. All others are unofficial sources, but they're however put there. Even for USA, when at the 2000 USA census, they were 8 997 000 Poles declared, they decided to add the unofficial larger figure of 9 300 000. Why this doesn't apply here??????? If you all sustain this stupid explanations, then answer my question: WHY AT ROMANIANS ARTICLE WE DON'T LIKE OTHERS, InCLUDE ALL KIND OF DATA?????????????? Come on guys, what is your proof for sustaining that?

Arthur 28 October 2006

We cannot include self-contradicting data, Norbert. Estimates, perhaps - only if they are attested by sources. Adding hundreds of thousands of people twice is unacceptable. Dahn 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, I really don't understand what you mean by saying that the people are counted twice. I agree that the 1.5 million Romanian workers in Spain and Italy we ca't really count them as residents of these countries. That's ok. After my opinion, the 321 000 for Spain and 300 000 for Italy are ok and we don't need to touch at that. What me I propose, and I'm asking all of you to express your opinion, against of for. I would like that we find for the estimations, after the official dates, the so-wanted reliable, attested and exactly figures on websites for each country and we decide here if the wbesite is ok or no. I waiting your propositions and arguments.

Arthur 28 October 2006

Arthur, again: if those people are not citizens of Spain or Italy, they were already counted in Romania. Secondly, as a rule, we are not counting and adding people ourselves. Dahn 20:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well the 1.5 million Romanian workers in Italy and Spain is most certainly an exagerated number given by newspapers such as Evenimentul Zilei and we all know that newspapers have an affinity for the dramatic (i.e. articles that stand out). So we can't really take these sort of data seriously.
• What we have is the official data: 321.000 in Spain in 2006 and 297,500 in Italy at the beggining of 2006. It is not likely that these numbers would be actually higher since there is no reason for Romanians to work iligally ihose two countries (Romanians can go there without much trouble ever since 2002). In other words these numbers probably represent the true figures as far as Romanians working abroad are concerned. What Dahn is saying is that even these numbers might actually count Romanians twice since many of them came during the 2002 - 2006 period. It would be great to get official data about the numbers of Romanians in Italy and Spain prior to 2002 (the year of the Romanian census as well as the year when mass-emigration to Italy and Spain started).Dapiks 20:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying beyond that is that those people (migrant workers et al) were already counted at home, and they would have to be deducted from the number of people in Romania, not added to it. This in itself is not a welcome gesture, IMO, since migrant workers are not really residents of another country, anfd since (nota bene), the figures for migrant workers et al are based on citizenship, not ethnicity (so we don't know if they should be deducted from 19 million or from 21 million). Dahn 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. Subtracting them form the 21.7 mil would do us no good since it would not help us determine the total number of ethnic-Romanians, which is what this article is about. Well I managed to determine that the number of Romanians residing in Italy prior to the 2002 Romanian census was 70,000. The source is here: just press forward to get all the regions of Italy: . So I guess we could state that 397,500 - 70,000 Romanians (already there) = 327,500 Romanians that are counted twice. But then again, like you pointed out, these might not really be all ethnic-Romanians since we must subtract them from the 21,7 mil number. I haven't gotten the number for Romanians in Spain in 2001 or 2002 yet. So if anyone can help, that would be great. Dapiks 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Romania's specific standards in doing its censuses, but international standards are well summarized in a UN document called Principles and recommendations for populations and housing censuses. It's a PDF, and unfortunately Google doesn't offer an HTML version.

It's actually a pretty interesting read, discussing a lot of the difficulties in getting anything like accurate (and internationally comparable) numbers. There is a lot of discussion of "place of enumeration". It discusses how a census may be based either on where a person is on one particular day or on their usual place of residence, and recommends that if a country is trying to count both, they should keep the concepts distinct and produce two sets of numbers (p.52). Hence (p.63), "the total may comprise either all usual residents of the country or all persons present in the country at the time of the census."

There are a large number of issues identified where countries may have different policies, and each should document their policies. Page 63 has an interesting listing of many classifications of people that may present difficulties with these numbers, and says that each country should be clear how they address each of 14 categories, getting down to things as subtle as "Transients on ships in harbour at the time of the census." My guess is that, with some research, one could get good information on how each relevant country handles these cases in their censuses. I bet that someone could get some good information out of this, and probably a few things worth writing about in articles about censuses. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

May I bring to your attention that all these tallies are original research? There should be an authoritative Romanian body that counts/estimates total Romanians, accounting for all these problems mentioned by jmabel, reports somewhere in a reputable publication, and then wikipedia reports these numbers (possibly various estimates from various sources)? `'mikkanarxi 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the moldoban/romanian issue must be clearly divided: you may present the total daco-romanian count, but mention that of these so many millions are reported themselves as Moldovans, whatever this may mean. `'mikkanarxi 02:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Map Proposal

There is currently a map for Romanian grais but none for ethnic Romanians. Here is a map inhabited by Romanians, in case someone feels that it should be placed in the article. Dapiks 01:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Caption should probably be "Territories inhabited by ethnic Romanians in the 21st century"; what are the sources that are the basis for the map? (It looks basically right, but it is still making substantive claims, so it should cite sources.) Assuming it can be decently cited for, I'd be all for adding it to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The map should read something like "territories inhabited majoritarily by Romanians". In many of the areas highlighted yellow, there are also several other ethnic groups living, some of which form sizeable minorities. More importantly, in some of the areas which are not shown as being inhabited by ethnic Romanians, there are still ethnic Romanian minorities (e.g. the Szekely Land). Ronline ✉ 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And,at the risk of sounding monotonous, might we remember something called "Moldovans"? I'm not going to repeat my arguments (they seem to be ignored by each and all), I'm just going to say that that is reason enough for that map not to be in this or any other article. One more time (and not for the Bonaparte socks who are about to insult me over what I have just said): it. does. not. matter. what. you. or. I. think., it. matters. what. people. in. the. Moldovan. census. think. Dahn 04:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Romanians (and Moldovans)"? Biruitorul 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But the said census still makes a distinction. Since that distinction is, in all likelyhood, also grounds for a map, we'll just be moving the problem around. And, if the connection is intended as neutral, why not also make a map for, say, "Territories inhabited by Romanians, Serbs, and Eskimos"? Dahn 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Then again, the censuses themselves may not be neutral either; a whole lot of Moldovans materialized between 1930 and later decades. The point, though, is that both Romanians and Moldovans make clear that the identity of the Moldovans as a separate ethnic group is controversial, and the map aims to present both together because there is a general consensus that the two ethnic groups are in fact the same, and that those who think otherwise do so for primarily political reasons, etc. I've fought this battle too many times, though; tragedy has become farce by now. Biruitorul 05:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, it is universally known that the Moldovan identity was created artificially (I should say "more artificially than others"). That,however,does not concern this map. What concerns this map is the fact that many citizens of Moldova consider themselves "Moldovan" in the ethnical sense - when taking the census, they were presented with a simple question, to which they gave a direct answer. Of course, the result is questioned - it is not, however, questioned in toto; it is not, however, questionable in toto (it takes quite a stretch to say that the number of Romanians is ten times or so what the results say it is). According to that definition, people want to be seen as different from Romanians: that definition is not subject to academic arguments (because it is an ever-subjective notion, whatever the reason behind it may be); at the same time, it certainly does not become the subject of decisions taken by outsiders on the basis of empiricist approaches. Of course someone profits from the results (as if someone else wouldn't profit from the opposite results...), but that is not to say that: a. that someone has interfered in recent times - that remains to be proven; b. most Moldovans are brainwashed, most Romanians are rational; c. political motivation is a bad thing in defining one's ethnicity (I can prove that it is the motivator behind virtually every case imaginable). I personally don't feel that ethnicity is ever an objective and/or necessary criterion. While I do believe that "Moldovan" is in fact Romanian, while I do understand and evidence all the criminality involved in getting that country where it is today, I cannot either believe that I should tell others that I know better than them what they are, I cannot tell them that any ethnicity is ever objective or even relevant, and I cannot turn back the time to reflect choices they would have made "were it not for". Dahn 05:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To turn the tables a bit: what would your ideal map look like – which areas would you shade? Or would you not include one at all? Biruitorul 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't include one, I suppose. Dahn 05:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I, for one, like the current map, provided accurate labelling is given. But let's wait for some consensus to develop. Biruitorul 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And what about Timok Vlach.. do we have a consensus? ~~

Oh, I see, it wasn't surreal enough without the Vlachs... Dahn 14:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems that this map will cause yet again another row of arguments over who is a Romanian. Irony has it that the Moldovenists theory is now being advokated by our very own people (as if the Russians and their buddies were not enough). I thought it would have been better for the article to have the map there but I see that it will only bring more controversy so I am going to erase the map. What does bother me is that user Mikka and Khoikhoi follow edits related to Romanians almost as if they are set to disprove what Mikka calls "Imperialist expantionist and irredentist Romanian propaganda". I guess everyone else here thinks that is a perfectly normal thing to do.Dapiks 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Irony has it that Constantzeanu/Dapiks, Bonaparte, and Mikkalai use the same Leninist reasoning of "who is not with us is against us". I'm genuinely sorry that you view my actions as "advocacy of this or that theory". Although I've had months to do it, it is still hard getting across a message about what an encyclopedia is and what it is not. In the words of Jmabel: "if this is a pissing contest beteween x and y, there are those of us whiping off the piss and making this an ancyclopedia". Being "my very own people" should not prevent me from seeing the puddle and from whiping it out. Dahn 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Right.... Dapiks 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Dahn 14:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My oppinion: A map of majority Romanian inhabitation exists and is long accepted, under Daco-Romanian. From here, everything goes astray:

1. Old stalinist theories are enforced by some Russians and Sovietophiles
2. Some "positive action" Romanians want to achieve consensus at any price and therefore reuse dusty ethnic constructions, such as "Daco-romanian" just to avoid saying "Romanian" (even though the actual sense of these constructions is not the wikipedian one).

Still, I have to acknowledge that the last solution seems the only one on wikipedia (which is why I edit less and less here). What we write here resembles more a armistice convention than an encyclopedia. Dpotop 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On much of this, I agree with Dpotop that "Daco-Romanian" is more to the point, and elides present-day nationalist arguments. As for wording discussed above ("territories inhabited majoritarily by Romanians"): "majoritarily" is one of those things that's just barely an English word; more natural English would be "territories with a Romanian majority" or, if Dpotop's suggestion is adopted, as I think it should be, "territories with a Daco-Romanian majority". It's also sometimes useful on these things rather than just a majority/minority approach to code in successive color bands, e.g. <5%, 5-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%. But I don't know if there is decent data to do such a thing. - Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a quite chiselled map: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/legbelso.php3?nev=17 unfortunately copyrighted --fz22 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. You daydream. :) As User:Biruitorul already noted below, this map is from 1910. Dpotop 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The information can't be copyrighted, only the presentation. So it would be possible for someone who is good at maps to make something similar, starting from the usual basic GFDL or PD maps. - Jmabel | Talk 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But aren't the data on that map from 1910? How relevant would they be for today? Biruitorul 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

21.5 Million???

Who said that there are 21.5 Million Romanians in the world? And where is a source for that? I ask that an admin add the {fact} tag until a source can be provided. 24.200.37.102 03:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

New picture

I have changed the picture: the new picture was introduced by Jmabel on the talk page, and was discussed. Hopefully, the discussion about the pucture would stop the stupid edit war about the numbers. Before you edit, please, read the Talk page, try to discuss, don't just revert. Other people, unlike you, have disscussed issues and have arrived civilizedly to solutions. If you can not behave civilizedly, please do something else, give us a break from you.:Dc76 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what has been proposed is (and I quote) "to include both POVs", at a time when the debate was aboout Moldovans and Romanians. Other issues since have involved overcounting and educated guesses. No number was produced to reflect an adequate minimum.

I have been present on the talk page with these exact issues. What I received instead was a call for help for "more sources" on what the number apparently should be. I do not see them here. Therefore, I would say that 21-21.5 is a working number for a minimum, as Romanians authorities do not bother to indicate what the hell they are talking about.

Back when this was happening, NorbetArthur, who had promised not to engage in such sycophantic name-calling any more, was, presumably, paying attention. Since the whole topic revolves around someone having to explain where they came with such numbers, calling for a source for the minimum is a farse - let them produce a relvant, well-documented, authoritive, and non-repetitive estimate of ethnic Romanians living inside and outside Romania. Until then, we could all do without the lectures. Dahn 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, how about the picture, do you agree that the new picture is better? Noone so far has raised any objections (in the talk page, since it has been proposed a long time ago)about the new pictute, and noone has even tried to defend the old one. Agree to change?
• Second, data in proemenent places in an article (especialy in the very-very top), must be soursed, just adding them is original research. That is wikipedia's policy. So, the request for sourse is absolutely legitimate. On the same token, a user using very rude words is absolutely intollerable. But let's not confuse the lack of tact of some users with the issue. I will obviously support you if you are being named as you've been, but I will also support the request for sourse, because otherwise it is original research.
• Third, there is a better way around this problem: do not indicate any number, but write "see the article about the discussion for the number of Romanians". At the very begining of the article, we can then discuss this issue: "If the term Romanians is inclusive, then there are x million Romanians. If the term is exclusive, i.e. if y,z,t,v are excluded, then there are w millions". How about that?
• Finally, please, don't take the following personally, I only object about the issue:

I object against not counting Moldovans within Romanians, and I will give you the most simple and direct of the reasons: I am Moldovan, and I consider myself Moldovan and Romanian simmultaneously. The same do my family, my friends, my neighbors, etc. Noone sees in this a contradiction. Yes, it was a discussion before, but after 2003, noone objects to this. Everyone in Moldova (politicians of all three major idiologies, teachers, linguists, and all people of all ethnicities) agree that Moldovan is a political name, and Romanian is a linguistical name. Even the people who prior to 2003 advocated against Romanian language, now agree that it's a nonsense, they agree that everyone speeks Romanian, and there is no language Moldovan. And they see no contradiction between having the same language and living in two differnt countries. Now, when you and others, who I suppose have never been in Moldova, don't speak the dialect, don't understand the culture, politics of a small country, try to dictate us what to say and what to do, I see this attitude as rude, very rude. I am not teaching you and others in what language you speak and who you are, why do you teach us? Just because you come from a bigger country, this does not give you the right to behave rude and agressive, and hate poeple from small countries! :Dc76 22:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I answer you pointwise::Dc76 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually do. You have split my point. Dahn 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Do you see a better way of organizing? :Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that you can speak for the people registered as "Moldovans" in the poll, no matter what your background is - unless you are an official taking an alternative poll.

I can not speak for any users registered somewhere in some poll I don't even know, I only claimed I can speak as a Moldovan, as the majority of those that think they are big specialists in the issue can not! By the way, what poll are you talking about?:Dc76 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the official census. And what are you on about with "speaking as a Moldovan"? Everyone who can speak Romanian can do that: you just have to add the accent. And, again, the issue of language is irrelevant in attesting identity. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In oredr to "speak as a Moldovan", first, you'll have to be registered ethnically as a Moldovan in an official census. The issue of language is not relevant for being Austrian, Walloon, Flemish or Moldovan, because there are no such languages, but it is relevant for being German, French, Datch or Romanian. The notion is inclusive, not exclusive, the sum will obvioulsy add up to more than the population of the earth. Like for example a person is Russyn or Hutsul, and simmultaneously Ukrainian. Just try saying to a Russyn he's not Ukrainian! :Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Er... What? Where did you come up with that theory? Again, speaking the supposed klanguage or not speaking it adds no relevancy to ethnicity - people who answer "Moldovan" in the census do not have to speak a different language. They just have to believe that they are not Romanians - and they apparently do. Once and for all: you are using a false premise.Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My whole point here is: What appears to you is not true in reality. Is it so difficult to understand that they believe they are Romanians and Moldavians? If they would have specified in the census only "Romanian", that would not necessary mean also "Moldavian". Every child in Moldova understand this! :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the issue of the language would be as "connected" to the issue as it is for Walloons and French people or Germans and Austrians.

I agree with you 100% here.

Er... I'm assuming you believe that I think Walloons and French people are the same. Please try and see my point. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Waloons would be counted for the number of French worldwide, but you can surely add "if Waloons, and Swiss French are not counted, then the number of French worldwide is ...". I see your point as "such a sentance should be present". I have nothing against including it or smth similar. :Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is not about what you would do to the worldwide French census, it's about the definition of ethnicity (whereby speaker of x language =/= member of x ethnicity). And I don't knoew what "point" you are referring to. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Who has the right to define what an ethnicity is? Shurely not you and me. Most of the countries don't have "ethnicity" in hte census, only "language", and there where this is not yet illegal to ask (as in USA, etc) relegion.

By "your point" I mean your objection: you want something like "If the term Romanians is inclusive, then there are x million Romanians. If the term is exclusive, i.e. if y,z,t,v are excluded, then there are w millions". in the text. Otherwise, you don't agree to simply write "x million Romanians". Do I understand you correctly? :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not addressing the issue of what people have apparently decided to declare themselves - and, instead, make the same disortion wherby you are somehow able to speak for them. Since this is about the 30th time I am explaining these obvious facts, I am stating for the record than any future response from me on this page and others will be presuming that everybody is aware of my position, the reason for it, and the factual background I am addessing.

Sorry, I am not your secretary. I have no intention of reading all you wrote on wikipedia, and have no way of guessing what "factual background" you have in mind.

I damn well exopect you to read what I have written on this very page, just above where you started theoretizing aboout what reasons other have in opposing the version you endorse. It is common curtesy. And the factual background is people who answered the census-takers. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you don't want me to to hold you responsible for "hell" and "damn", as you hold NorbertArthur. It is common curtezy not to use such words.

Do point out why I wouldn't be allowed to use the words, and do tell me why this is equivalent to NorbertArthur calling users "motherfuckers". Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Because such words are rude and offensive. I don't use them, please don't use them when talking to me! You are free, by mutual deed, if you wish to call names with other people, if that is the vocabilary or level of education at which you two want to speak. (It was much simplier to simply point out to NorbertArthur he is rude, without being explicit - that would have shown you are educated. But apparently you don't like that path.) I will however kindly ask you again, to stop using them, even indirectly, when talking to others.:Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you wrote on this page, but you wrote about your relation with NorbertArthur (which I was not interested in), and where you made your point, I told you why you have to give a sourse (original research) if you want a statement up front in the article.

I am part of that factual background.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No true Scotsman... Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I only claim what I know, and what I know from my countrymen, I don't claim to speak in their name. You however, pretend to speak in their name, mine including, by denying us the right to be countied as Romanians as well. You are here the person who introduce the "true", for you Moldovans are not "true Romanians", right? If yes - then, with all due respect, you are racist! :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There are only two issues here: the picture and the inclusion of Moldovans in the number of Romanians. More than that, we only have to discuss specific suggestions, as the one I made above:

Third, there is a better way around this problem: do not indicate any number, but write "see the article about the discussion for the number of Romanians". At the very begining of the article, we can then discuss this issue: "If the term Romanians is inclusive, then there are x million Romanians. If the term is exclusive, i.e. if y,z,t,v are excluded, then there are w millions". How about that?

You want to talk about specific issue/propostion - fine, you want me to read everything you write during a year - help yourself, i have something better to do.:Dc76 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to bother answering to those concerns, since they are largely based on a fallacy: for one, the term is defined as exclusive by the Ro authorities, who count the total number of citizens and then deduct ethnic RomaniansDahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Provide a sourse that says this (do you actually have a sourse, or it's just what you heard?), and I would believe you for the number of Romanians in Romania (which I do anyway). As for the number of Romanians outside Romania, Romanian authorities have no legal right over them.:

...so, you do not believe that Romanian census-takers are asking people to provide their ethnicity? And you do not believe that "ethnic Romanians" =/= "Romanian speakers" =/= "Romanian citizens"? And I need to provide a source for that?

As for the number of Romanians outside Romania: several numbers regaring them provided in sources on this page are provided by Romanian officials (plus: there is an entire ministry directorate dealing woith Romanians abroad...). Of course you are right about "what Romania cannot do": that is why all these sources, in contradiction to the census, count citizens, ethnics, and, if need be, descendants, together. Do go and ask them to account for the dichotomy before you expose me to your intricate theory on inclusive ethnicity. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You say the Ro authorities, who count the total number of citizens and then deduct ethnic Romanians I for once don't even understnad the meaning, what should one deduct from the number of Ro citizens? A sourse would definitevely help.

So unless, there is a universal definition of ethnicity we should not use the word ethnicity and count any ethnicities? And one should not be allowed to teach in school quantum mechanics and theory of relativity, because when you go deeper they partially contradict each other? Of course the term can be only inclusive! If you agree that this is our only point of difference, we should simply try to ask more people from other nations, how do they count when writting on wikipedia, and that would settle the problem. Agree? :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

- but, of course, the theory of inclusiveness persisently surfaces with every frustration people have about the Moldovan census; Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

speak about yourself as being "frustrated". don't generalize to others unless they told you they are:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You could at least do me the favour of not splitting a phrase into two. " don't generalize to others unless they told you they are" - 1) I did not generalize - use when applicable; 2) thank you for yet another theory on what I should and shouldn't do; 3) I don't care. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you are, I grant you this "favour"! :) :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

even if the term would be inclusive, it still wouldn't actually include Moldovans, because those who answered "I'm Moldovan" excluded themselves! What you want to keep your perspective focused on is the probability that these people were coherced en masse to do so,Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

in some localities, due to lack of funds, there was no census, or only part of the locality. The officials filled the data according to the best sourse they found (id cards declarations, previous census), but there was no masse cohersion as such.

Appeal to probability. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This was an info, I did not comment here. Where do you see appeal to probability when only the premise is present? Where did you learn logic? You can say that a syllogism is false, you can not say that a premise is false!!! :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

not that they meant something else Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

They ment they are Moldovans, and that's not exclusive of being Romanian:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to probability. Well, if they wanted to say "both" an "either/or" choice, but could not, they are for sure something: they are morons. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Before you call Moldovans "stupid", now you call them "morons", just below you call "they're cretins, all 3 million of them.":Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dahn,

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)

Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

but had all waken up stupid the day the census came to see them! Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't call 3 million people stupid, be civilized! If you have some hatred towards people different from you, try at least to keep it inside.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a certain aptness to twisting points. I'll say it again: if they could noyt understand the choice, if this is the reason why this happened, then they're cretins, all 3 million of them. Of course, that eventuality is unlikely. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you agree that that is unlikely (although even doubting it sound as discrimination), then in the same degree your argument about Moldavians not having the right to be Romanians is unlikely. I don't twist anything, I only tell what I know from living there. If you see this as a twist, consider the possiblity that your original view might be twisted.:Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, the lower estimate, unlike the higher, would have to exclude Moldovans.

By the way, I would not object to that solution, if it is said clearly at the top of the article that they are excluded. But I object to exclude and hide this fact in 100kb of text.:Dc76 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure. We should also say, in clear lettering at the top of the top of the article that the article does not deal with and the numbers do not include Samoans, Khoisan, Lao people, Norwegians, and Númenoreans. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because Samoans, Khoisan, Lao people, Norwegians, and Númenoreans do not speak Romanian as mother tongue. But for all ethnicities that do speak Romanians as native language, if you don't include them, you should write.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again with this nonsense? Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That Samoans, Khoisan, Lao people, Norwegians, and Númenoreans do not speak Romanian as mother tongue is a nonsense to you?:Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I dislike profoundly when I have to disculpate myself in front of strawmanship, but here goes. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about with "hate", "rudeness" and "teaching others". The "bigger country" I come from is Romania - if you had that in mind when you were posting, I have to admit that you are original

I had in mind all people that deny Moldovans the rights that are granted for everyone else. Romania is a much bigger country by Moldova, and I am by far not original in saying this.

Er... Interesting spin. But I'll avoid the Noid. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no spin - That is the truth, you have some hatred towards Moldovans, and you are not the only Romanian as that. Many Russians also do, but the majority of Russians are neutral towards Moldovans, they don't hate or dispise them as you (the user), I see (from our discussion), do:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again with this nonsense? Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That you are not the only Romanian that profoundly dislikes Moldovans is a non-sense? That the majority of Russians are neutral towards Moldovans is a non-sense? That the majority does not hate or dispises as you do is a non-sense?:Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

(no one has ever implied that it's Romanians who deny Moldovans the right to be Moldovans).

You do deny to Moldovans the right to consider themselves simultaneously Moldovans and Romanians:Dc76 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny them anything, pal. I deny the asumption that they did that. Especially since its POV can be smelled from a distance. Dahn 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the past, when there was Soviet Union, the mojority did not consider themselves Romanians, after the taw of 1988-89 that started changing. The process took 15 years. From 2003, the last of the left-wing political parties which held that Moldovans are not Romanians droped that (some did in 1998). The general population accepted this gradally - from pre-1988 till 2003. I would not vouch for 100%, because there are always exceptions, but please do ask and see that 99% of Moldovans consider themselves Moldovans (ethnically) and Romanians (that being the language they speak). Your impression might be correct if you speak about prior to 1998 or/and if you heard the oppinion of a selected group. I am glad my POV is clear from a distance: I am proud to be a Moldovan and a Romanian, as my compatriots are. We are not frustrated. It is you who might be frustrated because you did not get to have your old province back, but sorry - with all due respect, don't confuse your problem with ours.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I have no interest in obtaining your province, and I have even less interest in your assumptions. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a country, not a province. Since all the world recongnizes it, please abide to this rule. If you wish, at least as long as it is a country.

You have interest in denying Moldovans rights that they have, that all the world recongnizes! Please, stop your discriminatory attitude. :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but I don't really believe you are from Moldova - I may be prepared to believe that you are from Moldavia (which, even by your standards, would add nothing to the debate).

I am from the north of the Republic of Moldova:Dc76 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. Dahn 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As you will note, I fully support the idea that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language. But that, as noted, has no connection to ethnicity. If I generally think that all ethnicity is subjective and ultimately whimsical, I also think that a certain (high?) number of Moldovans may have meant to indicate they were Romanians, and that the Moldovan identity is, almost exclusively, the result of a Soviet tactic. But that, as noted, has no relevancy here in front of the data that we do have.

Moldovans consider themselves Romanians, because they speak Romanian, and inside that category they consider themselves Moldovans, which is an ethnical designation within a larger group. They do not see that as a contradiction, which some people who have heard at some point something about Moldovans from gossips think. Sorry, you are not Moldovan; if you have some Soviet-era information, consider the fact that it might be outdated and wrong! :Dc76 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking the census, and neither are you. For the rest, you are projecting stuff from your mind, and I have no intention of recording them. Dahn 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We have no right to conduct private censa and pretend they be considered "official". Respect what people from Moldova believe, and don't hate them because they consider themselves ethnically Moldovan. As for my mind, yes I am thinking with my mind when I talk to you, I don't take stuff from thin air, from false impressions you get when you read oppionionated and frustrated press, from outdated info, or from your emotions. Unlike you, I speak calmly, because I speak the truth, as I know it, and 3 million other people know it. :Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again with this nonsense? The Moldovan state has conducted the census, not we. The rest is justt another ad hominem. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The census results are correct, those poeple are Moldovans, an ethnic group within Romanians. If they would have declared themselves Romanians, they wouldn't be Moldovans. :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, we could all do without the lectures. Dahn 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So, just asnwer my two propositions:Dc76 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. Dahn 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, so

1. We are in agreement to change the picture, aren't we?
2. We are in agreement to write "see the article about the discussion for the number of Romanians" and "If the term Romanians is inclusive, then there are 28 million Romanians. If the term is exclusive, i.e. if Moldovans,y,z,t,v are excluded, then there are 21.5 millions." ?

Can we agree on the last two, at least, if we don't seem to agree on anything else? If we find common ground on these two issues, then even the discussion above was not in vain - it helped each of us to see and learn the oppionions of other people who disagree with us, and learn not to hate them.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I made two very constructive propositions. 1) You rebuffed the picture without any argument, although other users as you see from the talk page, support it. 2) You did not give any counter-proposition, so as to try reaching a consensus for the article. Please choose:

• you want to reach a consensus for the number of Romanians, and would bring a counter-proposition
• you either are not interested in this article any longer, or are interested but do not wish to reach a consensus

Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you want to carry this discussion further, I suggest you open a sandbox and do it there, by yourself, as I have better things to do than to answer to wave after wave of cheap sophistry. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said: enough word-twisting. Start a sandbox, I may even read it when I feel like it. Dahn 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fully Protected

The page has been fully protected until all namecalling has ceased and disputes have been resolved. Thank you. Nishkid64 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I, and other users, have never called anyone any names! If someone is rude and un-educated, this should be dealt on a case by case personal basis. The fact that some user who does not know how to talk normally happens to support the same POV, that does not mean every person supporting that POV is rude or calls names. I strongly object against categorifying users in rude and not rude according to POV. The truth of the matter here is that the other POV is ill-intended, is artificially invented here, and consequently some less educated users feel "free" to use uncivilized words. But the fact that someone does not abstain, does not mean that the vast majority does not. This strategy happens to be employed on a regular basis in several articles: bring in some non-sense, wait for an edit-war, be agreesive to provoke someone uncivilized to use a name in order to categorify everyone with logical POV rude. The vast majority is civilized and disagrees with the ill-intended POV without ever calling anyone any names. Please, deal case by case, don't categorify everyone! Thank you.:Dc76 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Total number of Romanians at 21.5 ?

How can there be a minimum based on the sum of the minimum numbers of all countries listed, when the countries listed are not the only ones where Romanians live. The min is small and has no source, therefore an admin should add a {fact} tag to that number.Dapiks 05:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To address one point: the article should explicitly mention the view that Moldovans are a distinct ethnicity from Romanians: I find it ridiculous, but as long as it is held by the government of a sovereign state, we can't just walk away from it. We should give distinct total numbers, with and without those who are identified as "Moldovans" rather than "Romanians". Similarly for Aromanians (who are considerably more distinct than Moldovans); there really aren't enough Megleno-Romanians or Istro-Romanians to affect the worldwide total within the accuracy to which it can even imaginably be measured, but they also should be mentioned in this respect.

Constantzeanu/Dapiks: are there any specific countries that are missing from the count that you believe have even 100,000 ethnic Romanians? If so, then, yes, the number would be significantly off. Barring that, doing simple arithmetic is not objectionable original research. - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ooo yeah??? so then when we gave our official data from the Romanian goverment you all rejected it! WHY???????? If we can't walk away from official govermental datas, why did refused that??????? Arthur 23 Nov 2006

• A-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles