Misplaced Pages

Talk:Moldovans

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xasha (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 17 February 2008 (→"related groups" info removed from infobox: Why?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:16, 17 February 2008 by Xasha (talk | contribs) (→"related groups" info removed from infobox: Why?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis 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:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Template:TrollWarning

Archives

Archive
Archives


Unclear phrase

"…the Romanian government as well as various other states do not recognize the existence of a Moldovan ethnic group." Romania does recognize certain ethnic groups officially, so I understand what that means and how to cite for it, but what other countries that specifically recognize ethnic groups, and where Moldovans would be relevant, are we talking about? - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've ended up rejuggling the wording, but the question still applies. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The US for instance in the list of ethnicities used for the census merge Moldovans, Bessarabians, Romanians, Vlachs, Transylavanians, etc. I am sure other countries proceed in a similar manner. TSO1D 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you are wrong about the U.S. Census (though what they distinguish as Moldavian, is presumably in terms of the old principality, not the present-day state). See http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/PUMS/C2SS/CodeList/Ancestry.htm, on their official site. There are separate codes for Romanian, Bessarabian, Moldavian, and Wallachian. How they distinguish a Bessarabian from a Moldavian is beyond me. But then they also "distinguish" Hungarian and Magyar. So I'm guessing that this is all simply to accommodate self-reporting, and they are making no judgement at all. - Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, note that they do not distinguish. The relevant entry there would be the "Bessarabian" category, which it also identifies as "Romanian" (besides the fact that, as you noted, they speak of "Moldavian", not "Moldovan"); the latter identification also points out to the fact that they do make a judgement. In fact, all subgroups are identified as "Romanian" - the detailing referes solely to where the people came from, not to their ethnicity ("Wallachians" is not an ethnicity, etc.). Note that all parallels in the quoted source address regional identities ("Pomeranian", "North Irish", "Hamburg", "Cyclades" etc.) and only through sheer coincidence of region and ethnoicity ("Channel Islander", "Corsican" etc.). Dahn 07:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It can't be simply about where they come from, or it would have to include Transylvanian. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then, please expalain why it makes a difference between "Romanian" and "Wallachian" (after all, the "predilect Romanians" in popular misconception are Wallachians). I myself am willing to believe that "Romanian" covers "Transylvanian" in this example. And remember: bureaucrats taking the poll don't have to be versed or even smart. Dahn 09:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying I know their intent. I'm only saying two things: (1) TSO1D's statement that they simply "merge" all of these appears not to be correct, or they wouldn't have codes for them. (2) they use Molodavian, but not Transylvanian, so clearly it is not simply place of ancestry. Do I understand what they are doing? No. - Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You have to read the table backwards. Codes are used for collecting the information and possibly for some internal studies, however the published material only contains what they call the description. After all, you don't think the census counts "Lubeckers" or "Berliners" as non-German even though they all have their own ethnic codes. Why they ommited Transylvanian, I have no idea, but they do have "Wallachians" and "Moldavians", but not "Moldovans", which is the only potential ethnic descriptor as opposed to the other ones which are regional categories. You can see the final product here: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP13&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U. TSO1D 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The way they set up the codes is actually kind of bizare. Some of the categories are self-evident such as "Magyars" and "Hungarians" both going under "Hungarians", but those who reported their ethnicity as "Montenegrin" are classified as "Macedonians" which I cannot understand at all. TSO1D 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Selfname

As a former citizen of Soviet Union I remember that moldavians called themselves as moldavians. This is my two cents. Of course I understand that propaganda in soviet times was a powerfull gun. So, I'd readed archives of this discusion and didn't find answer to such question: how called themselves people of Principality of Wallachia and how called themselves people of Principality of Moldavia before 1859?

People from Moldavia most likely refered to themselves in Romanian as "moldoveni" and Wallachians- "munteni". It is important to note that at that time the terms had more of a regional than an ethnic meaning. TSO1D 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
To complete TSOD's answer, I have to add that, for a huge time in its history, Moldavia coincided with the overwhelming irrelevancy of ethnic concepts in favour of "subject of..." concepts. It is accurate to say that "Romanian" carried no meaning to a regular person living in the 1500s, and possibly little meaning to many persons as late as the 1800s. At the same time, Moldavian intellectuals were among the first in present-day Romania to speak of Latin heritage and cultural links with Transylvania or Wallachia: these were not political programs, however, and their meaning was also irrelevant until ca.1820 (when these parts of Europe were introduced to nationalism). Ethno-nationalism actually followed nationalism, and not the other way around - for example, nationalist boyars of the 1830s in Moldavia invested more in an independent Moldavia than a Moldavia united with Wallachia. This led to the interesting situation where people from Bessarabia would define themselves as "Moldoveni", meaning either "Romanian" or "Moldavian", but virtually never "Moldovan" ("Bessarabian"). In fact, Russia itself unwittingly contributed to establishing links between Moldavia and Wallachia: first, by attempting to block the Moldavian-Bessarabian connection (which forced boyars to view themselves as more and more Moldavian); secondly, by giving Wallachia and Moldavia the first common institutions, and the common goal of tearing them down. All the avatars of Moldovenism, which are truly whimsical and induced by political choices made by Russia or the Soviet Union, followed in this pattern. I must caution people reading this against identifying Moldova with Moldavia: for very practical reasons, these terms and all identities created on the basis of them (Romanian, Moldavian, Moldovan) have remained separate and are to be treated as such (for example, no one can use anti-unionism in 1857 Moldavia as indicative of a Moldovan identity: the former never trully cared about the latter, and probably never cared about ethnical identity in general). Dahn 23:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
A very good pamphlet by Dahn. While very good in political history, I mostly see him as a good (anti-nationalistic) ideologist. Well, this is my subjective impression.
More objective remarks: Romanian, in the form "Rumân" did have a meaning in the 1500. Just that the meaning was not national. If I'm not very mistaken, it meant "dependent peasant", and there are some theories concerning the ethymology of it. Second, regardless of political problems, dialectal variation (which was far greater than today), a.s.o., a sense of linguistic identity existed. And I would say that not only the Russians contributed to the creation of the common identity, but also the Phanariotes. And the Phanariotes/Russians treating the two countries similarly is also a sign of their similarity. Dpotop 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I find this whole discussion pointless. It's like discussing who was first among the chicken and the egg. Dpotop 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It was the chicken, the amniotic egg evolved later (though the chicken was a reptile at that point). TSO1D 12:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

and/or in the language section

I don't want to revive an old dispute, but I believe the recent edit warring about this truly trivial matter to be pointless. Personally I favor the version with the slash instead of and/or as that is more neutral. The and/or statement implicitly implies a difference between the two languages, i.e. there are some Moldovans who speak both Moldovan and Romanian but some only speak Moldovan and not Romanian. By writing it Moldovan/Romanian, no such implication exists. TSO1D 18:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My four points:
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 40% of the population of Moldova said that they spoke Romanian, so that leaves around 36% of Moldova's population that say they speak Moldovan. This is not a "tiny minority". We must respect this regardless of the fact that Moldovan and Romanian are the same languages.
  • When someone goes to the Moldovan language article, they can see right away that it is the same as the Romanian language.
  • The Moldovan government still says that their official language is "Moldovan", not "Romanian". I think that is significant.
Oh, and point four:
I actually think that less than 40% declared Romanian to be their native tongue, more declared their native language as Moldovan. But that is not my argument. I am not advocating just having Romanian. I fully support including the word Moldovan, but having the and/or part directly implies that the two languages are separate. Having just Moldovan/Romanian, like it is done in the Moldova article is a better idea in my view. The Moldovan/Romanian version was used for most time of the article's existence until Node went on one of his little campaigns and this is just a remnant of his copious edits. TSO1D 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
After repeating "Moldovan and Romanian" and "Moldovan or Romanian" in my head, I see what you mean. I've reverted myself. La revedere... (how do you write it in Cyrillic?) —Khoikhoi 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. In Cyrillic la revedere would be ла реведере. TSO1D 03:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some issues

  • "People who appear as Moldovans" - Constanzeanu, what did you mean by that? People who wear cushmas? Or carry a sign "I'm Moldovan!" around? The sentence is good enough as is originally was.
  • Are there any other parties in Moldova except for the unionists who don't recognize the Moldovan identity?
  • The CIA factbook presents the principal nationality of Moldova as "Moldovan/Romanian", 'not' as Romanian. This doesn't mean that no distinction is made, but rather that the agency prefers to remain neutral on the issue (I didn't change anything in the article in this relation, but it does look kind of strange). --Illythr 18:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


I reworded that sentence, after I re-read it and realized that in fact it did sound really weird.
About the unionists, well for starters, right now PPCD betrayed the unionist cause, and in fact they no longer advocate for unification, even though they still identify themselves as Romanians. AMN identifies Moldovans as Romanians. The only unionist groups in Moldova right now, are the MURM, of which I donnot know much about since they are a new organization. So to sum it up, yes, other parties also recognize Moldovans to be nothing else but Romanians. Interestingly enough, the Transnistrian Government also agrees that people in Moldova are Romanians and belong to the Romanian cultural sphere. Just consult: pridnestrovie.net. It seems to me, and this is just a personal note, that the only people that keep on maintaining this outragious and Stalinist view are the communists and the Russians (who are scared that admiting that Moldovans are Romanians, will eventually lead to a UNION thus decreasing their political and economic influence). Of course, I am not denying the possibility that some ethnic-Russians might be non-hostile towards the idea of approachment with Romania, while some that are, might have been freaked out by the anti-Romanian propaganda during Soviet times and the post-2001 Communist regime.
Well, most non-resident Russians don't really care. The resident Russians were promised some nasty things during the whole 1989-1992 chain of events that freaked them out much more effectively than any propaganda, so they oppose the union, yes. However, most resident Russians (those I know, at least) are rather apathetic about the Moldovan ethicity question. So are many resident Moldovans, due to disillusionment with nationalism of the early '90s and careful public opinion shifts by the Moldovan government/presidents, who don't really want to become a regional ruling body again. I have actually met some young Moldovans, who said that they were proud of being Moldovan and that anyone claiming that they're in fact Romanians is going to have his face messed up. Such behavior confuses me, because I don't know what Moldovans might have against Romanians, and it's probably rare, but still, it's there. User:Serhio appears to hold a similar view, for example. Without the "face mess up" part, despite repeated attacks by Romanian trolls, I might add.
AMN? MURM? I don't remember seeing them in the election bill last time... Are they really separate political parties or just subcurrents of the PPCD? --Illythr 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
AMN? It's Alianţa Moldova Noastră, surely you must know them. MURM is a new grouping and is still kind of obscure, but not affiliated with the PPCD. TSO1D 01:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm rather apolitical. They weren't here, so I didn't remember. Now I recall them as the rag-tag alliance of parties banded together after a defeat in the last elections. All the current parties seem to be very careful in what they say about nationality. The current trends are "National unity" and "European intergration" worded in such a way as to attract as many different voters as possible. --Illythr 12:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
About your CIA point, I would not say that they are neutral, rather that they equate Moldovans with Romanians. If they would have been neutral they would have said Moldovans and Romanians 78.2%. Here they say Moldovans/Romanians thus implying that Moldovans -slash- Romanians (i.e. same thing) comprise 78.2% of the total population. Dapiks 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case it'd be simpler just to use "Romanians", or "Romanians(Moldovans)" on their page. Slash usually means "and/or", depending on the context. For example, the Russian-speaking minority of Moldova is sometimes (incorrectly) referred to as "Russian/Ukrainian". Then again, after reading through the section above, I think I'll just leave that part as it is until I get a hold of a CIA operative or someone like that. :-) --Illythr 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of a Moldovan ethnicity

Is any editor aware of a non-formerly-soviet state recognizing the Moldovan ethnicity? If not, why the complicated formulation:

"Although not all states recognize the existence of a Moldovan ethnicity, they are, due to the Soviet legacy, officially recognized by several states of the ex-Soviet Union as an ethnic group."

Why not:

"Due to the Soviet legacy, Moldovans are officially recognized as an ethnic group by several states of the ex-Soviet Union. All other countries for which official data is available don't recognize it (this includes the USA, Romania).

Dpotop 14:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"All" is a rather blanketing statement. Can you produce official data (from various countries) that states the the population of Moldova is 78% Romanian? You can replace "All" with "Most", but that would be too vague, you'll still need the official data. The sad truth is - most countries just don't care and will defer to the right of self-determination of Moldovans granted to them by their Constitution (at best) or to some external source such as the CIA factbook (at worst). --Illythr 22:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Besides, it is not state's business to recognize or not someone's ethnicity. BTW, you may want to check the Chernivtsi Oblast article in Britannica that lists Moldovans and Romanians separately. --Irpen 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but Britannica represents the view of an encyclopedia, not a state.Dapiks 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Britannica attempts to represent the mainstream view. In most cases it does not fail. --Irpen 01:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not supposed to have its own point of view. If it has one, then it fails its purpose as an encyclopedia. That's why we have all these NPOV drives and wars over here... :-) --Illythr 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Illythr, do you have official data for at least one country that is not ex-soviet, and which talks about Moldovan ethnicity? I presume no. Therefore, my statement is correct, and there's no original research. This is not about Britannica or something else. It's about wikipedia rules. The current formulation is needlessly vague. What *we* know is that outside the former USSR none of us could find an official recognition or record of Moldovan ethnicity different from Romanian. Dpotop 15:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Illythr and Irpen, I would not give up the crusade though. Look you can try to find out if the Dominion of Melchizedek or Sealand recognize the Moldovan ethnic group.Dapiks 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I intended to use this argument against your reasoning. Since DPotop is the one to write All other countries, would he be so kind and produce official data from Vanuatu,San Marino or Burkina Faso, stating that the current population of Moldova is ethnically Romanian? Is is it just Romania and USA (CIA) that have official data in the issue?
Thing is, Moldova recognizes it. Moldovans certainly didn't spring up from nowhere, they are obviously descendants of Romanians who lived here for ages. They have been forcibly separated from their host nation by Stalin, who induced a harsh denationalization policy, and then Khrushchev promoted the Moldovan nationality as part of the "Rastsvet Natsii"(Rise of the Nations) (no, not the game :-) ). Now, however, Moldovans are free to decide for themselves (supposedly), so it should be up to them to decide who they are, not foreign entities. And yes, Romania is now a foreign entity, too. As for crusade - I am not the one making changes now, you know.
Now, for something constructive. Here:
"The recognition of Moldovans as a separate ethnicity, distinct from Romanians, is a relatively new and controversial subject. Before the annexation of Bessarabia by the USSR in 1940, there was no such thing as a Moldovan ethnic group. Today, this group is recognized as a minority ethnic group by several CIS countries."
(My changes are italicized)
I dug this sentence out of an old version of this article, and it looks more or less neutral and objective to me. Why not use it instead of potentially POV blanket statements? --Illythr 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
It's OK for me. It's the factual truth, as we all know it (and therefore it's also NPOV). Dpotop 16:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Illythr. Dahn 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
the text is false in many parts in its simplicity and clumsiness. The notion of "ethnic group" is a "relatively new and controversial" sociological construct. Arguably there were "moldoveni" in ages ancient. They called themselves "moldovans" called their langauge "limba moldoveneasca" and land "tara moldoveneasca". Anyway, it is gone, no reason to rerun all arguments why it was killed. `'mikkanarxi 19:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The very notion that nationality carried a meaning anywhere in the area before 1800 is ridiculous. What goes for Romanians goes for "Moldovans". And I challenge anyone to come up with an explanation of how come the Moldovan identity survived only in what had been merely the backward corner of the Principality, incidentally under an encouraging Russian administration that Mikka seems determined to ignore (despite the fact that, the moment the latter was gone, the large majority of Bessarabians opted to join Romania - coincidentally, at a time when Romania had just been defeated in a World War).
Current identities, freely expressed and, yes, always subject to probable change, are beyond dispute. Any projection into the past is absurd and artificial. Let me add this: given the data subject to the analysis of all people who are able to read, the Moldovan identity appears to be the more artificial of the two; it makes little sense to question it today, but any idea supporting it as "traditional" deserves no real attention. Dahn 19:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Here you go, a standard Romanian disrespect towards moldovans: "backward corner of the Principality". This says it all. This has been seen throughout the history. This is reflected in Romanian humor, where Moldovans are depicted as rustic, stupid and clumsy. FUI, eg Ukraine has long been a "backward corner" of Russian Empire, but the ethnicity survived despite efforts of Russification, quite severe several times. `'mikkanarxi 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I urge you not to misinterpret me, not to select one word I have said out of the many, and not to jump to conclusions. For starters, my contributions and contacts with other Romanian users would at the very least not make my statements "standard Romanian whatever". Secondly, I have asked you a direct and simple question, one which you refuse to answer: how come the "Moldovan ethnicity" "survived" only in what was the least populous, least prosperous, least relevant corner of the Principality (look it up: no important cities or towns, no manufactures, and no roads until 1812; it was also largely ignored by Moldavian princes), and not in the place that housed Moldavia's capital (in fact, all of the capitals Moldavia ever had), with by far the bigger part of Moldavia's population, and with the most compact population (even from an ethnic perspective). Interestingly, traditional Moldavia voted to join Wallachia and form Romania (it may interest you to know that, initially, Wallachia voted against). In fact, with or without the discrepancies, Bessarabia (Bessarabia's Soviet!) also opted to join Romania in 1918.
In fact, it appears that people in Bukovina who declare themselves "Romanian" outnumber "Moldovans" by much... So, if one is to look for the "real Moldovan/Moldavian identity", he is to find that it is "preserved" not in Iaşi, not in Chernivtsi, but in Tighina and Criuleni, and ONLY there!... Dahn 20:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh: unless you aim to prove that the Ukrainian identity was once spread all the way to the Urals or something, and that it currently survives only in Ukraine, that argument about them has no relevancy in hell. Dahn 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot refer to "wikipedians" in wikipedia article. Believe me or not, but wikipeida is not a reliable source! :-) `'mikkanarxi 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole argument whether other countries recognize the Moldovan etnicity is an outright ridiculous. Countries official position have no business in this matter. We have reliably recorded results of people's self-identification. We also have scholarly sources (eg. Britannica) that confirm that such notion as Moldovans exists. This should settle the issue for the reasonable people. --Irpen 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that view, per the issues I have raised before and just above. Dahn 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
it seems to me that Dahn argues with just about anything that our "Slavic friends" have to say on the matter.
It seems to me that you cannot read. Dahn 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the anon meant "agrees", not "argues". ;-) --Illythr 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought so. In either case, Bonaparte cannot read long texts ;). Dahn 22:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Relatively new and controversial...

The national awakening began around 1800 in Moldavia and Wallachia (perhaphs a few decades earlier in Transylvania, but that's outside of our context). Talking before that about ethnicity is not relevant, because people thought they belonged to their local community more than to a statal or suprastatal entity.

People identified themselves by their region, as "Vrânceni", "Olteni", "Moroşeni", "Moldoveni", etc. "Moldavians" started as one of these regional names and spread farther than the others. (if anyone cares, the name is derived from the market town of "Târgul Moldovei", on the Moldova River)

However, none of these regional self-identifications overrode completely "Romanian/Rumanian". Even the medieval Moldavians chronicles of the 1600s said that "Rumanians" and "Rumanian language" were deemed synonyms of "Moldavians" and "Moldavian language". In fact, Miron Costin argued that the "Rumanian language" was more common than "Moldavian language".

bogdan 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dimitrie Cantemir (around the 1700s) also said that same thing in his History of Moldova.Dapiks 05:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Why is it that whenever someone tries to post something that Khoikhoi, Irpen and mikka do not agree with, they are automatically declared sockpuppets of Bonaparte by the very same people? I am not saying that Tunglestein is not Bonni but how can we be so sure about that? Dapiks 21
53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Because I am a rouge admin. Khoikhoi 21:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Bonaparte claims he was *not* Trudelstein and that there is an impostor who is using his modus operandi. :-) bogdan 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
He denies all the rest of them as well. :p Khoikhoi 05:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate to stir this again...

...but I believe the article needs to be clearer on:

  1. Distinguishing a Moldovan ethnic identity based on the present-day state of Moldova or its Soviet precursors from one based on the entire historic principality (including the portions now in Romania and Ukraine.
  2. Indicating the extent to which these two distinct constructions of Moldovan ethnic identity each have support (1) within the Republic of Moldova, (2) within Romania, (3) among Romanian-speakers (or, if you prefer, Moldovan-speakers) in Ukraine, (4) elsewhere in the CIS, and (5) elsewhere in the world.

I know that's a tall order, especially the latter, but if this is going to be a genuinely useful article, I believe all of that needs to be done. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I would only want to cite the work of Dimitrie Cantemir, one of the only Romanians who could be called a late Illuminist, "Descriptio Moldaviae", who ,while in exile..somewhere around Peter the Great's entourage..(so we're talking about the 1700) wrote that thelanguage of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia was in fact the same. I would also like to m,ention that Dimitrie Cantemir had been "Voievod" of Moldavia, and his origins Moldavian. In fact he also talked about the existence of the Romanian Dialects south of Danube, acknolidging them and their speakers, as Romanians...but that#s off topic now..


Dimitrie Cantemir

dimitrie Cantemir#s Descriptio moldaviae!!...Besides while writing in different languages (greek, turkish, Russian, LAtin) he never used "MOldavian" , but indeed he wrote some books; while using ROMANIAN

besides..no one in Austria thought about having an Austiran language! Even though the dialectal differences from "Hochdeutsch" are greater than those between Romanian and the Moldovan speech (grai) not dialect!.. because, as linguist say, the Romanian language north of the danube is a continous dialect, differences between regional speeches are smaller than those in German or Italian..Not to mention spanish, where the dialect-language line has been crossed to often. {{subst:unsigned|84.159.234.54|15 January 2007}

My changes

First of all, there are my addition of {{fact}} tags. This isn't something anyone should revert -- if you don't like it, add references (it is relatively unspecific and slightly dubious -- nobody believed in any sort of form of a Moldovan ethnicity at all before the USSR? really? it's a bit more ambiguous than that, I think)

Second of all, there is a minor syntactical fix I made so that a sentence sounds more natural "Today, outside of Moldova..." to "Outside of Moldova... currently".

Finally, I removed the word "officially" in the part about the census... it already says "according to the census". The census is official, that is already implied, we don't need to have that word in there.

...on a side note, I did a lengthy interview for a possible forthcoming documentary on Misplaced Pages, including a short part where I spoke in Moldovan (or did I use Romanian? I don't recall! ;-p). I hope they don't cut it, it would be fun if the world got to see that. You guys can laugh at either me or at yourselves, depending. --Node 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Moldovans

So I see there are 3.200.000 moldovans. Yes, there are realy 3,2 moldovans, but there are also 5,5 Transylvanians. So why there is no freak from Cluj or Sibiu or whatever that makes a site for the Translylvanian people? You know why? Because they are just de inhabitants of a region and ethnic romanians. That's also in RM. In Moldova there are around 2,8 milion moldovans. But what about the moldovans from Romania? In Romania you have about 5 milion Moldovans. Why does this fool, who made this site, not accumulate those 5 milion to the total of 3,2mil moldovans.

And another question. Some elder moldovans lived also in Greater Romania. What about them? Were they first romanians and became afterwards fellow moldovans??

Please, wikipedia, delete these anti-romania sites and be a serious and obiective encyclopdia.

Greets —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.95.65.76 (talk • contribs) 16 March 2007.

From the official site of the Ministry of Culture and Tourismof Moldova: Moldova is a European Country, which has a rich ethnic history. The majority of the population are Moldovans (Romanians), but the following national minorities live on this territory too: Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Gagauzians, Russians, Germans, Greeks, and others. See here the source: --Olahus 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition

A small dispute started between Russian leader and Dahn; the latter being very familiar with all kind of disputes and has the habbit to make changes without first discussing them. But that's a part of his nature and no natural force can change that, so let's get down to business. Is this article about the ethnical Moldovans (excluding the Slavic population) or is it about all citizens of Moldova? I would say that it is about the ethnical Moldovans, as the article also suggests:

The recognition of Moldovans as a separate ethnicity, distinct from Romanians, is a relatively new and controversial subject.

However, how do we know whether those Moldovans who live in Portugal, and which Russian leader added to the list, and who may be of Slavic origin, do not view themselves as Moldovans? Just like in the article on Romanians, those who report that they are Romanians (in the census) are counted as Romanians and as such, are included in the Wiki article as Romanians--even though they may have different origins. How do we know that this is not the case here, as well? --Thus Spake Anittas 09:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fallacy. The issue here is simple: we know that it did not count ethnic Moldovans, since that was not the criterion used; if they should all happen to be Moldovan ethnics, we still have no assurance that they are. So, until a source tells us that there are "x ethnic Moldovans" in Portugal, that material is irrelevant. As for the Romanians article and what it did, similar "sources" there are bound to be deleted, per the talk page there. Dahn 10:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, and since we're on the subject, if a non-Moldovan ethnic would report that he is Moldovan ethnic--like many Rromas in Bucharest, who report they are Romanian, do in the census, we would have to take that into consideration and count them as Moldovan ethnics. This is what you said to be on the Romanians talkpage:

"Anittas, everyone who declared himself/herself Romanian is included in the 19,409,400."

Can the same logic apply to Moldovans? As in anyone born in Moldova can declare himself Moldovan, regardless of his origin? (All except someone else on this Misplaced Pages who was not born in Moldova and who is not Moldovan and who doesn't speak Moldovan.) --Thus Spake Anittas 13:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, why are you persistently asking me to explain the obvious? The only way to determine ethnicity is self-definition. There is no criterion other than that - in the real world (were legislation is drawn on the basis of that) and on wikipedia (where speculations of any other nature are infringements of WP:OR). As far as perceivable reality goes (at least, in the modern world), there is no ethnicity other than self-declared ethnicity and there is no institution that would determine who is and who isn't an ethnic Romanian (thank God for that). Are we just about done moving around in circles here? And, just to clarify once and for all, the options are not the ones I or you can postulate/imagine, but the ones recorded in the census. If people are asked to provide their ethnicity and reply Moldovan, they are Moldovans; if they declare Romanians, they are Romanians; etc. Speculation about "what else they might consider themselves" does not belong in articles, but feel free to start a blog if you want to. Dahn 13:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but I'm not so sure about your idea that "the only way to determine ethnicity is self-definition." In Sweden, for example, one can become a Swedish citizen and define himself as Swedish, but SÄPO holds records of your origin and those foreigners who, for example marry a Swede and have children--their children will also be recorded as having partial foreign ethnicity. If that child will marry another Swede and their upcoming children will only marry with Swedes, then after 6 generations they will be counted as pure Swedes. That may sound a bit extreme, but your idea sounds even more extreme. You make it to sound as if one can determine what ethnicity he belongs just by wishing for it, without having any links to it. This topic doesn't interest me too much. I just wanted to be nice and give you two a chance to discuss the issue. You know what being nice means, right? Like being friendly, showing goodwill, being generous, carring, etc. Everything that you're not. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The SÄPO argument mixes apples and oranges: if true, it is still about people who received citizenship and their descendants, not about ethnicity in the absence of another citizenship. My solution is not extreme, it is simply unavoidable (it is not "going to be so if I have my way", it is so, and there is little you can do about it).
Thank you for the suggestions, but, for as long as wikipedia doesn't adopt the omertà, I will continue to feel bound by my conscience, not by unwritten "codes". Dahn 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say, but I don't think I suggested you anything, so I have no idea what you're talking about omelets and stuff. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Anittas, great material. You should have your own show or something. I can only hope this conversation is over, but if you want to squeeze in one more punchline, feel free to do so. Dahn 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I checked the site and they seem to be aware of the difference between ethnicity and citizenship.

Imigrantes de países latinos:

Roménia: 10.926 legais (2003)
Moldávia: 12.632 legais (2003)
And...

4.Diferenciação étnica. Actualmente (2004), em termos de grandes esteriótipos, tende a opôr-se os imigrantes "ucranianos" aos "romenos". Os primeiros representam a elite dos imigrantes do leste, os segundos são conotados negativamente, devido à sua identificação com os "ciganos romenos". Esta distinção traduz a existência de dois grandes grupos étnicos: os grupo dos eslavos (Ucranianos, Russos, Bulgaros) e o grupo dos latinos (romenos e moldavos).

--Thus Spake Anittas 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Anittas, what does "em termos de grandes esteriótipos" have to with the numbers, which, as you may clearly see ("Imigrantes de países latinos", not "Imigrantes latinos de..."), relies on citizenship. In fact, comment 4 itself is there because, if assessing ethnicity, people should not rely on citizenship (otherwise, it would make no sense). Dahn 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on Dahn, you know just as good as I that Moldovan ethnicity is based on really fague and irrantional arguments. They are just like Romanians from the same subgroup and were created by the soviets as a separate nation. We all know that they have almost everything in common with romanians, including the language, great parts of history and a lot of rites. If that isn't enough to be the same ethnic group, than it's clear to me that this ethnic-moldovans an moldovan language bullshit is all created by a communist regime. And if we accept those ideas, than we have indeed a new ethnic group. I find it a bit scarrying that we permit and accept so easy ideas of a romanofobe regime.

I think it's obvious that the Romanian living in the romanian region called Moldova and the people calling themselves Moldovans in the Republic of Moldova are the same group. In fact they claim the same people as their cultural heritage (Stefan cel Mare, Mihai Eminescu, etc..) and they inhabit the 2 roughly equal sides of the old Principality. The question is more "what is an etnic group ?". A western-moldovean will call himself "moldovean" too but he will aslo consider himself romanian by contrast to say a hungarian-speaking inhabitant of Transilvania. It is understood that there's some major groups of romanians: ardeleni, moldoveni, munteni, olteni, maramureseni, moldoveni and banateni. Are they enthnic groups ? Well if you want to argue on the basis of language, major cultural differences, genetic differences even, things like that it dosen't really hold. But if you want to argue on the basis of self-identification then the moldovan census says so. The big problem is that a romanian-side person will also call himself "moldovean" without meaning ethnicity but rather origin. Not to mention since the country is called "Republic of Moldova", "moldovan" also refers to nationality. --141.85.252.73 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 22:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Ethnic Moldovans or Moldovans (as a regional/ethnic/sub-ethnic group)

If this article is about the former, then it shouldn't even mention Moldovans from Romania, who by the way see themselves as ethnic-Romanians (as Dahn pointed out: The only way to determine ethnicity is self-definition). Well just as Moldovans from Moldova self-indentify themselves as ethnic Moldovans (according to the 2004 census) then so do Moldovans from Romania indentify themselves as ethnic Romanians in official Romanian censuses. If the article is about the latter (i.e. the term in general), then that box in the top-right corner should not be there since the article talks about the term "Moldovan", which depending on one's interpretation can mean a regional or ethnic identity. We don't have articles on Texans, Virginians, Ontarians, Bavarians with boxes in the top-right corner counting how many of them exist on planet Earth. Dapiks (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, those Virginians, Ontarians etc are not considered a distinct ethnic group anywhere in the world either, AFAIK. As for Romanian Moldovans, I'm not sure why Olahus brought them in, but I vaguely remember Voronin complaining about Romanian "suppression" of their self-identification, so it could be that they are considered an ethnic group by Moldovan leadership. Seeing as how the whole issue is pretty controversial and that the only real support for the "separate ethnic group" idea comes from current leadership of Moldova, I suppose the Romanian Moldovans can be included or at least mentioned somehow. --Illythr (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My last edit

One, that "declare themselves" sentence stresses that they declare themselves Romanians and not Moldovans. Which is kinda like soapboxing. A more neutral statement of the obvious, something along the paragraph above would be better, if at all necessary.
Two, Moldovenism as a Soviet policy was introduced in 1924 by Kotovskiy &Co, not after the 1940 annexation (at which point it was extended into Bessarabia). --Illythr (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here was my misunderstanding and by the weird statements in the lead: yes, it is true that people in Romanian Moldavia declare themselves Romanians, but why they should be included in this article at all is beyond me. The lead could perhaps be edited further to make this article simply about people who declare themselves Moldovan in Moldova, Ukraine etc.; opinions about how they are Romanian and about how people throughout Moldavia are Moldovan (the former being a traditional POV in Romania, the latter being the most extreme and counter-factual) should be weighed for relevancy, discussed in the text, and only summarized in the lead as to other interpretations of a fact. The fact here being that there are people who call themselves Moldovan. Dahn (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
See my response to Constantzeanu above, but I would use self-expression as the main inclusion criterion as well. --Illythr (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, to the measure where they are attested, all points of view merit mention. However, it's important to keep a balance: just as people who declare themselves Moldovan should not automatically be considered Romanian because such is what (many) Romanians claim and what they themselves may dismiss or be indifferent to, so should the supposed Moldovenist POV on the whole of Moldavia/on Romanian Moldavia not be taken as the basis for the article. Especially since the latter is ambiguously expressed: it would be very hard to argue that the Moldovan state officials, for example, have ever seriously and consistently claimed the Moldovan ethnicity is to be found on both sides of the Prut. And even if they were to, it would still be just the sound of one hand clapping.
In any case, it is obvious that this article is currently in a very poor state, and that every section of it needs a lot of work. Dahn (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

MOLDOVEÁN, -Ă, moldoveni, -e s.m. şi f., adj. 1. S.m. şi f. Persoană care face parte din populaţia de bază a Moldovei sau este originară de acolo; moldav. 2. Adj. Care aparţine Moldovei sau moldovenilor (1), privitor la Moldova sau la moldoveni, originar din Moldova; moldovenesc, moldav. – Moldova (n. pr.) + suf. -ean. The source.

Estimations are very well accepted in Misplaced Pages. See, for example, the article Roma people. --Olahus (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. This is about the definition of the word in English, not in Romanian - meaning that what you link to is a definition of "Moldavians"; 2. Even in Romanian, the ethnic and regional terms have become homonyms, but not synonyms; 3. Have a look through WP:OR. Dahn (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. . The word "Moldavians" is a synomim of the word "Moldovans"
    Oxford English Dictionary doesn't think that. According to OED, in current usage, Moldovan refers to the Republic of Moldova, while Moldavian refers to the whole Moldavia. It refers the usage of Moldovan as "someone from Moldavia" as "obsolete" (it has a citation from 1835). bogdan (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and how old is the term "Moldovan" ? --Olahus (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. . From the moldovenist POV, even the Moldovans from eastern Romania are ethnic Moldovans (as from the Romanian POV even the Moldovans from Bessarabia are an ethnic subgroup of Romanians).
    If at all present, that claim is marginal, and has nothing to do with the fact that people declare themselves Moldovan in censuses - in their case, just as little more can be claimed about them "not being" what they declare, so is it illegitimate to presume that they could claim this identity for someone who does not. Not to mention that no such option is listed among the census questions, so there is no way of telling if they would actually claim it for anybody else - as a rule, or at all. Welcome to the modern world. Dahn (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Estimations are very well accepted in Misplaced Pages. Just see the template on the article Roma people. --Olahus (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. . It's not an orginal research, as you can read in the sources i already presented. Your own POV is that what you are trying to say: the Moldovans from Romania and those from Moldova are 2 separate nations. This POV is claimed by nobody. Not in Romania and not in Moldova. --Olahus (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    Olahus, you sure are confused. First of all, do me the favor of not guessing about in respect to my POV. My POV is not that they are separate ethnicities - I presume that is what you wanted to say. I don't even care to express myself and my opinions in terms of nation, ethnicity, race, and I see little factual backing for each "concept". But, word of caution: I have informed myself on these issues, and I do not impose this view on anyone else. This is my POV, and it does not even come into play here.
    That the Moldovan and Romanian identity are different for all purposes of this article is a given. It is established by the fact that, when asked a question, some people answer "A" and not "B". You may hold the POV that A can also be B, and thus do away with centuries of tradition in the art of logic, but, as you know, ulterior interpretations are always based on sources that specifically state them, and only presented in the text as alternatives, if the opinion should prove at all relevant and if it is actually to be found in sources. This is not my POV, this is common sense and basic logic, and in strict conformity with what wikipedia requires of its editors.
    Your claim is that, to paraphrase, "Moldovans from Romania and those from Moldova are not 2 separate nations". Let's summarize the reasons why you're wrong, or perhaps the evidence that you're willingly twisting basic facts: 1) there are, to date, no Moldovans in Romania, recorded or otherwise (whatever can be imagined by that otherwise) - except, of course, the name "Moldovans" as used for "citizens of Moldova" for some expatriates who may or may not be among those who consider themselves ethnically Moldovan; 2) the Moldovan identity, like all others, relies on self-definition, and that self-definition is known to exist; 3) the POV that people in Romanian Moldavia are also Moldovan is marginal, hardly ever attested, and not in explicitly connected with the self-definition as evidenced by the census (obviously, since such an issue was never and could never have been subject to a census). Now, are we just about done? Dahn (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Moldova (the principality) is often called in the englisch language "Moldovan Principality". What are the inhabitants of this principality? The are Moldovans. The terms "Moldova" and "Moldavia", as well as the terms "Molovans" and "Moldavians" are synonyms. (a similar case in the german language "Moldau/Moldawien" and "Moldauer/Moldawier"). Ca sa-ti explic mai clar: atat oamenii de la est de Prut, cat si cei de la vest de Prut sunt moldoveni. Nici in Republica Moldova, nici in Romania nu se pune problema "unde traiesc moldovenii" ci "ce sunt moldovenii". Moldovenistii afirma ca moldovenii ar fi o etnie separata de cea romanii, pe cand in Romania (dar si partial in R. Moldova) ei sunt priviti ca fiind un subgrup etnic regional al poporului roman. Articolul de fata trebuie sa reflecte aceasta situatie. Ideea ca populatia dintre Prut si Carpati ar apartine altei etnii decat cea dintre Prut si Nistru nu este sustinuta nici in Romania, dar nici in Moldova, iar continutul articolului de fata nu poate fi considerat deloc neutru in forma actuala. Propunerea mea de interpretare este f. simpla, dar mai ales neutra: moldovenii sunt populatia de baza a fostului Principat Moldovenesc si numara aprox. 8-9 mil. persoane. In Romania ei sunt priviti d.p.v. oficial ca fiind o parte a poporului roman, iar in R.Moldova ca o etnie separata de cea romana, dar strans inrudita cu aceasta. Articolul de fata trebuie sa reflecte aceasta situatie, dar din pacate tu si Bogdan il infestati cu puncte de vedere care difera complet de cel oficial (romanesc si molodvenesc). Repet: in forma actuala, articolul NU este caracterizat de neutralitate. --Olahus (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Om bun, ţi-am răsouns deja la tot ce conta. Nu faci decât să-mi repeţi aceleaşi lucruri, care nu au nici o importanţă aici, şi să lansezi verdicte care nu se bazează pe nici un fel de argumente. Mi-e greu să cred că poţi confunda subiecte evident distincte în aşa hal, că nu poţi distinge între un etnonim prezent în ambele limbi şi un omonim prezent numai în română, sau măcar între o limbă şi alta. Te rog nu mă face să cred că o faci cu scopul de a da peste cap articolul ăsta printr-un experiment personal. Dacă totuşi asta urmăreşti, lasă-mă să te informez că, datorită unor reguli clare de pe wikipedia, singurul rezultat al unui asemenea experiment ar fi că vei irosi ceva din timpul fiecărui editor de bună credinţă. I answered in Romanian, though I discourage it, only because it is manifest that my past replies went past you, and because you have used it above. However, I wish to express my opinion that, just I do not go on the Kiswahili wikipedia to comment there in English, so should users who prefer Romanian at least give themselves a chance to polish up the English language they pretend to speak. Dahn (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you people restoring false and non-neutral information? Someone sent me an e-mail and told me that I can report people that restore false information more than 3 times, but I'm new here, and I don't know the procedures here. Xasha (talk)

Categories: