Talk:Moldovan (disambiguation)

redundant page it's a carbon copy of page Moldovans

Show me where!
Show me where it says that. I only see the word "historical" written in paranthes. That's not enough. I am talking about the present Moldavians. Where are they listed? Show me. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The third and fourth entries. Dahn 23:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The third is about the historical Moldavian--where the Moldovans are included and the fourth of the dialect--which doesn't include the people. Where are the people mentioned? --Thus Spake Anittas 23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right there, as "related to", "speakers of" etc. Because anything more specific is either Romanians or your very active imagination. In short: subtracting speakers of the Moldavian dialect and people of no particular ethnic affiliation in medieval Moldavia leaves us with nothing else to define. Wikipedia does not invent concepts, Anittas, it records them. Dahn 23:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you insane? Are you saying that the Romanian Moldavians, who are over 4 million in numbers, should not be included in that list, when the name Moldavian is to specifically refer to them? --Thus Spake Anittas 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am saying that Moldavians are, in any definition, either Romanian or Moldovan. There is no concept of "Romanian Moldavian" that would be separate from either one or the other. Claro? And stop trolling. Dahn 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no Moldovans in Romania, Anittas. Could you spare us the WP:OR? Dahn 23:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If Moldovan is a seperate unity from Moldavian, then why does Moldavian redirect to Moldovan? --Thus Spake Anittas 23:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your question does not make any sense. Dahn 00:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If Moldavian and Moldovan were the same thing, then there would be Moldovans in Romania, because there surely are Moldavians in Romania. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When did I say that they were the same thing, Anittas? Dahn 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So then I ask you why the Romanians who also refer to themselves as Moldavians (Moldoveni) are not allowed to be listed? Who decided this? You? Who are you to decide such a thing? You don't get to decide everything here. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already answered: if they declare themselves Romanians, they are covered by Romanians; if they are speakers of the dialect or inhabitants of the region, they are covered by the mentions here. Any other self-definition is your own theory, backed by no scholarship. Why is this so hard to comprehend, Anittas? Dahn 00:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, just a minute. I recall having a debate on the status of Radu Sîrbu, for whom the absurd description "Moldovan-Romanian" was retained, against consensus. So is he not a "Moldovan in Romania"? Biruitorul 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.I took no part in authoring that article. 2.The article is a mess. 3.Ethnicity should not be mentioned in leads. He should be mentioned as "Moldovan-Romanian" or "Moldovan and Romania", with the links pointing to Moldova and Romania respectively. As you will note, his case has nothing to with the issue at hand (especially since what Anittas had done was to speculate that Moldovans are an ethnic group "associated with Romania" ). Dahn 00:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I take no issue with points 1, 2 and 3. "Moldovan and Romania" sounds slightly more reasonable, though I prefer "a Romanian singer, originally from Moldova". I do think it's relevant, since you said "As far as I know, there are no Moldovans in Romania", and he would seem to be a counterexample. Finally, I'd say that Moldovans are associated with Romania: for example, before "Moldovans" (Bessarabians) were invented, they were Romanians (and still are, according to my irredentist POV). On the other hand, it's not crucial that that fact be mentioned, as readers can find that out in the article itself. Biruitorul 01:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in the definition of the term, ethnic Moldovans are not associated with Romania (I am not saying that the definition is right, just that we have to deal with it, especially on disambig pages). My main point about Sîrbu was that, since he is a Moldovan citizen, and Moldovan-Romanian through this, there is no reason to wonder whether he is also a Moldovan by ethnicity; the only exception would be if Sîrbu is also, according to his own definition, an ethnic Moldovan - but this would still not matter for the main topic. The real question is "Are there any Moldovan ethnics who are Romanian citizens without being (or having been) Moldovan citizens?". The answer, as of yet, is "No", as we can all agree. Dahn 01:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The 2002 census did yield 13,653 "others", and 5,935 "undeclared", so maybe, and maybe some wrote down moldovean or basarabean and were recorded as români. However, by the standard you set down, and setting speculation aside, no. But let me ask, what about someone like Paul Goma (I know he doesn't live in Romania anymore, but there are some who do) - someone born in Bessarabia, Kingdom of Romania? Would they be "Moldovan ethnics who are Romanian citizens without having been Moldovan citizens"? Or are we assuming they all identify as Romanians? Biruitorul 01:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know about assuming. Let me clarify what I mean. Let us leave aside the matter of Goma's citizenship status as it has been since the 1970s, and spare ourselves the secondary complications. Let's assume that we can safely define him as a Romanian based on his former citizenship. Now, when we get to discuss his ethnicity, we would have to rely on a source that would indicate it, and, if need be, make the mention further down in the text ("born to ethnic Romanian parents", "the scion of an ethnic Romanian family" et al). An ethnic Moldovan is therefore a person who says he or she is an ethnic Moldovan, an ethnic Romanian is a person who says he or she is an Romanian; where they don't say anything, we simply mention citizenship and speculate on nothing. This goes for say, many people in the 1700s, just as it goes for the undeclared of today. In Goma's case, both his [former] Romanian citizenship and ethnicity are beyond doubt (not because I say so, but because he says so). If there are any "Moldovan ethnics who are Romanian citizens without having been Moldovan citizens", they would have to be recorded as such, or we would have to have a case to discuss (i.e.: a person who is notable for something else, who argues that he is Moldovan ethnic, and was recorded as "others" in the census because they simply did not list every particular answer). Dahn 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does "with a Romanian consciousness" stand for? And how does someone "identify himself" as both a Moldavian and a Romanian with out meaning that he is an inhabitant of the region or the former principality of Moldavia, that which is already clarified on the very same page?! Just what kind of original research is this, and what claim to common sense does such a broad statement have? Dahn 01:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One can be an inhabitant of the region and speaking the dialect without being a Moldavian. He could be Roma, for example. Just as there are Ardeleni, there are Moldoveni. Moldavians in Romania continue to refer to themselves as Moldavians (moldoveni). It's that simple. --Thus Spake Anittas 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then, Anittas, allow me to clarify the obvious for you. You see, if a Moldavian is Romanian, then he is Romanian and Romanian just as one is French and Parisian, Romanian and Transylvanian, Greek and Cretan, American and a Southerner. In the case of an ethnic Hungarian Romanian citizen from Moldavia, he is like a Maghrebian French from Rhone-Alpes. There is simply no other case. The mention of "Romanian consciousness" is thus either superfluous (for one, because a reference to the inhabitants of the region is already made just above) or, not to say worse, nonsensical. This is something I have tried to get through to you from the beginning. Dahn 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. How should we word it, then? I want to explain that these Romanians call themselves Moldavian (outside the census). The Greek Macedonians have the right to call themselves Macedonians, do they not? Even though they are Greek and even though the Slavic Macedonians have a nation of their own. Even if those Moldovans are not linked to Romania in that page, the Moldavians should have links to Romania. Otherwise, there will be a problem when, for example, the nationality of Stephen the Great leads to Moldavian and where there are only Moldovan links with only a few Romanian language links. I, as a Romanian of the Moldavian branch, have the right to be listed in that list. It is a humanright. --Thus Spake Anittas 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is how smart people solve the conflict. Everything is included--nothing is excluded and justive prevails. --Thus Spake Anittas 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anittas, what you are asking is for us to record the tree falling in the forest. I trust I make myself clear. Dahn 01:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)