Talk:Greater Moldova

Moldovenism as a polemical term
I dont want to get too dragged down into this, but after reviewing literature I noted that the claim according to which "Moldovenism" is only used polemically, rather than descriptively, holds very little water. From my past encounter with the one editor who keeps claiming that, it seems that the one argument for it being loaded is that it has little traction within the groups qualified as Moldovenist -- yet none of those groups ever say they feel insulted by the term, and at least some have used the label to describe themselves. "Moldovenism" is widely used in academia (again: descriptively, and by analogy with "Romanianism"), and it is starting to look like every time we have an article saying the term is used polemically, and backing this with sources which simply use the term descriptively, we are editorializing to suit that one editor's POV. Thoughts? Dahn (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

March of Bessarabia
Hi, first of all many thanks for expanding this article, I gave it a read and it was very interesting. I've noticed you've added something about a "Vasile Alecsandri's March of Bessarabia". Could this be Drum bun? If so, it'd be nice to link the song into the article. By the way, as I had understood, Alecsandri only made the lyrics, and Ștefan Nosievici was the one that composed the melody. Super  Ψ   Dro  09:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks as well, I also enjoy working side by side with you! To your question: no, its a different song, probably one of several composed in that interval -- see a quote from it on page 79 here. Dahn (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for your clarification. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Podolia
Hi again, I'm aware that for most of history, "Transnistria" has been a fringe and rarely used term, only notable in WW2 and ever since the fall of the USSR (and shortly before). But I still wonder if sources actually use Podolia and Yedisan but not Transnistria. If so, I believe we would ideally use a Romanian geographical term in a Romanians-focused article and that it'd be better. Although I have no major issues with keeping Podolia.

And something more unrelated, I once thought of perhaps making a page for Moldavian (the principality I mean) lands left of the Dniester, although I never researched this topic in depth. I thought it could be an interesting topic to talk about somewhere. You've talked a bit about this in the article. From what you've seen so far in the sources you added, do you see this possible? Super  Ψ   Dro  22:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi again. It is a bit more complicated than that: they do consistently use Podolia or even Ukraine to name that region, particularly for older periods (see for instance usage of Podolia here); Yedisan is more rarely used, but the precise source which refers to it talks about the parts "under Turkish rule" (I quote from memory, but you can check the link for the exact quote). Transnistria is highly ambiguous, and can include just about anything all the way down to Odessa or west to the Dnieper. I dont presume that Romanian sources discriminate against the term Podolia, or against Yedisan, since they have no problem with using Pokuttia -- not to mention that they now consistently use Bessarabia, even in the most virulently nationalist sources, though Bessarbia was originally a completely misappropriated term invented by the Russians on a whim (if it existed at all before that, it was applied to the one part of the region which also has another name, as the Budjak, and both terms weirdly defined that area precisely as the least Moldavian part of Moldavia -- one as the "Wallachian" region, the other as the "Tatar" region).
 * As a rule of thumb, Im also not sure we should use Romanian terms just because this is a Romanian-themed article -- I dont think its an issue if we dont use them, where these dont help identify the area; we can for the very precise terms which are also used by Romanian sources, if more rarely. Dahn (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To your other question: the Moldavian lands east of the Dniester were only Moldavian in the sense that they were peopled by scattered Moldavians (some of them brought into Novorossiya as colonizers -- the article linked should cover that topic, if properly developed). The claim that they were ever Moldavian in a stately sense, however, is an absurd myth grasping at straws -- basing itself on the Greek prince Ducas, and apparently his son as well, claiming to be Hetmans of Right-Bank Ukraine; even if they ever really held any power there, it was as a personal attribute, they never suggested that they would annex anything to Moldavia. The myth was hyped up under Antonescu to move attention away from the otherwise glaring fact that our German allies had stripped us of half of Transylvania -- and this "Transnistria" was in fact to be colonized by Transylvanian refugees. Dahn (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess we won't be using Transnistria then. And yes, I agree that just because an article is related to the Romanians we shouldn't always use Romanian names and terms. Calling East Hungary "Western Crișana" as some try to would be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. But Transnistria is a more widespread name, that's why I was curious to know if sources mentioned it so we could use it. Many thanks again for your answers on my questions! Super   Ψ   Dro  14:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)