Talk:Moldovans/Archive 1

Moldovans
How can one write an article about Moldovans and not write about the Moldovans of Romania? Tsk, tsk.

BTW, it's interesting that: bogdan | Talk 21:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * the heart of the Principality of Moldova was in what is now Suceava County, Romania
 * the name itself stems from the river of Moldova in Romania...
 * ...along which Aurochs roamed, now depicted on the Coat of Arms of Moldova
 * its greatest ruler was Ştefan cel Mare, born in Bacău County, Romania. ;-)


 * From a Moldovenist view of history, the modern Republic of Moldova is a direct continuation of the principality of Moldavia, and those parts of the principality now lying in Romania were "stolen" or "occupied" by Romanians. I think that both views (Moldovenist and Romanianist) are really daft, and that historical facts should be taken at face value -- Rep. Moldova used to be part of a united territory with the rest of "Moldavia" for a really long time, now part belongs to the modern country called "Romania", and part belongs to teh country called "Moldova".


 * Thus, Moldovenists consider Stefan cel Mare to be born in "Moldova"-- just like Romanian irredentists consider all of Rep. Moldova to rightfully belong to Romania, Moldovenist irredentists consider all of "Moldavia" currently part of Romania to rightfully belong to Rep Moldova.


 * I think there's a good deal of logic in the consideration of these people (Shtefan Vody, Mihai Eminescu, etc.) as "Moldovans" -- after all, they were born before the advent of the Romanian nation, and the nation they were born to was called in their native language "Moldova".


 * Not entirely correct. The "Romanian nation" already had its goals for unity long before Eminescu's birth. Remember that Eminescu was only nine when the union of Moldavia with Wallachia was accomplished. The ideas of unity began to be considered in the 18th century in Transylvania and by the beginning of the 19th century, the cultural elite of Iaşi and Bucharest already had it as a goal.
 * And let me remind you that the Moldavians had a more important role in making union than the Wallachians, especially through great personalities like Vasile Alecsandri and Mihail Kogălniceanu.
 * The "moldoveni" of Bessarabia were not inspired by the Iaşi cultural life, as Bessarabia lost its links due to the Russian occupation. There was little Romanian-language cultural elite in Chişinău, but it is clear that this elite was completely pro-Romanian.
 * I've done a search in the articles written by Eminescu: he always used "moldovean" either in historical contexts (refering to the Principality of Moldavia), either to the region from which a person came (usually in the same context with "munteni" and "ardeleni"). For the ethnicity, he always used "români". bogdan 22:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Eminescu died "a Romanian", and certainly he suported pan-romanianism, but he was born a Moldavian, which any Romanian will tell you is just another way of saying "Moldovan". --Node 06:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Using the same logic we could say Eminescu was half-Austrian, because his father was born to Austria, not Moldova. Anonimu 18:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, we could. --Node 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And this is misleading and inaccurate.-- Bonaparte  talk  12:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. --Node 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite writing that short article about the Moldavians a decade ago, and my continued interest since then, I do not consider myself an expert on that subject by any means. But I quoted experts.

Yours

Attla Demko

1% of population from Ukraine are romanians
There are about 1% of Ukraine. This includes all (so called moldovans), being the third largest minority group in Ukraine.


 * in Ukraine: []  The former Soviet regime still uses, unfortunately, the artificial division created before 1990, that accredited the idea that in Ukraine exist two different nations: the Romanian and the “Moldavians”. Nowadays, the official statistics shows that in Ukraine exist 324.500 “Moldavians” and 134.800 Romanians. Adding this two officials data, results that the Romanian community represents the third minority group from Ukraine, after Ukrainians and Russians. On the other hand, the Romanian cultural organizations from Ukraine are estimating up to 800.000 the number of the Romanian community.

So please correct the data. Bonaparte  talk  08:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The data used here are from the Official Ukrainian Census Website.

Very interesting article
I wonder who came up with the wonderful idea for this topic. Nevertheless, if you want to propagate this bizare theory at least proceed thus in a logical manner. Why would the ethnic boundary of the "Moldovan people" be at the Prut? Is the river such an important ethnic barrier. At least if you want to talk about the Moldovan people inlcude those currently living in Romania, as they also consider themeseleves to be "moldoveni" although they do not view this as an ethnic distinction but rather as a subdivision of the Romanian ethnicity. TSO1D 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tso1d, umm, hello... did you consider that the history of RM/Basarabia/whatever you want to call it has been separate since the early 1800s? Such a long time (nearly 2 centuries now) of political and historical separation creates some ethnic differences. Also check that this is a "disambiguation pagE". It includes definition of "Moldovan" as someone from Moldova, and also as someone from Moldavia (or as racist Romanians would say, Basarabia and Moldova). --Node 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "historical separation creates some ethnic differences"??? With all my respect for you, I sincerly doubt the validity of this statement. The minute differences that exist among the inhabitants of the two sides of the Prut do not constitute different ethnicities, by any reasonable standards. BTW, Nonde, may I ask where your interest in Romanian topics stems from?TSO1D 23:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok
I agree with User:Node ue's version because it sort of puts you in the mind of someone other than a Romanian. The other version just shows how Romanians see who Moldovans are. Wikipedia has Neutral Point of View policy and articles cannnot be slanted towards one side or the other. --Khoikhoi 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a Moldovan, I don't see how Node_ue's version is NPOV, by posing Romanians as occupants. --Just a tag 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that? --Khoikhoi 21:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Moldovans are not of Romanian ethnicity, then were during the period of Greater Romania under the occupation of the Romanians. bogdan 21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
Khoikhoi, the version you are supporting is full of weasel words. Please make a version without such expression:


 * are considered by some Pan-Romanianists...
 * they allege that such a classification...
 * they allege a new identity...

Thank you, bogdan 21:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll try, how would I be able to change the weasel words? Do you have any suggestions? --Khoikhoi 21:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See that link, Avoid weasel words, for some explanations. bogdan 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, are considered by some advocates of Greater Romania is just as weaselish as the other expression.bogdan 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This article in its current form is really dubious. Besides the controversies and weasel words, there are also extreemly dubious statements like the comparison with the Azeris. I would like to see a scholarly article on that. Otherwise, that little section has to go. Personal research is not accepted by Wikipedia. Constantzeanu 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Official censuses data

 * Moldovans comprise 76.1 % in Republic of Moldova
 * Moldovans comprise 258,619 out of 48,457,000 = 0.53 % in Ukraine
 * Moldovans comprise 67,225 out of 922,800 = 7.28 % in Chernivtsi Oblast
 * Moldovans comprise 123,751 out of 2,469,000 = 5.01 % in Odessa Oblast

This information is taken from the official censuses held in Moldova in 2004 and in Ukraine in 2001. Other numbers shouldn't be invented. --Zserghei 18:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And where are the romanians? Moldovans are romanians don't invent your own sovietic theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chisinau (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic group? See the definition of "ethnic group".
1. The term "Moldovans" is another name of Romanians. Ethnicaly, "Moldovans" are Romanians.

2. There is a second meaning of this term. It means "citizens of the Republic of Moldova" (regardless of their ethnicity). Which is: Russians, Ukrainians, Gagauzs etc. who live in Republic of Moldova are also Moldovans, as they are all citizens of the Republic of Moldova ).

P.S. This article creates a big confusion (between citizenship and ethnicity), coused by a logic error. Please, use your logic, when writing on Wikipedia. Don't make fools of yourselves. :) --82.170.2.111 20:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Since many moldovans consider themselves romanians, I am going to change the phrase "Moldovans are an ethnic group" to "Moldovans are a sub-ethnic group of romanians", one of the reasons for that, is that a very large part of moldovans live in Romania (the historical region of Moldova), and many more in the Rep. of Moldova consider themselves romanians(according to the 2004 census), if anyone has any objections feel free to make any changes and discuss with me if possible.

68.32.214.27 06:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Many, yes. But not all Moldovans consider themselves Romanians, so it would be POV to label them as a sub-group of Romanians. &mdash;Khoikhoi 06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All Moldovans from Romania consider themselves Romanians. Now, maybe not all Moldovans from Moldova consider Romanians but most of them admit that they speak romanian language.

--Andrei George 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
Since we (the editors) have not been able to reach consensus I have added a NPOV tag to this article. I hope everybody agrees that we have rather divergent personal views, and we cannot use Wikipedia for such disputes. Sufitul 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A consensus on what? The dispute was months ago. &mdash;Khoikhoi 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know either. I will remove the tag until a specific neutrality dispute will be presented. TSO1D 03:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanian census

 * in Romania, despite its proximity to Moldova, no Moldovan ethnicity has been reported in the 2002 census

I am questioning the validity of this sentence. Given the controversy of the issue, I would like to know exactly:
 * Whether the census format provided the possibility to declare oneself as "Moldovan"/"Moldavian", whatever.
 * If the prev. question was a "yes", then it is quite possible the a handful of self-declared "moldovans" could have been lumped into the "Other" record. Therefore I would like to know if there is a complete table that lists all responses and whether there are any "moldovans" in it. `'mikka (t) 19:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the census had no preset choices. People had a free choice in declaring themselves. However, if someone said that they were "moldovean", they were obviously placed in the Romanian category. I suppose this was the case for other regions too, if someone stated that they were "ardelean", or "oltean", or other numerous subgroupings they were probably all marked as Romanians as all of these denominations are subgroupings of the Romanian ethnos. TSO1D 20:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that this merging happened for people who declared themselves "Russians" and "Lipovans". bogdan 20:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Mikka. I have heard of no claim to Moldovan ethnicity in Romania. The claim I have indeed heard quite often is that Moldovans have contributed and renounced more than the Wallachians did to allow the creation of Romania (and that the main leaders of the period were Moldavian).
 * The correct statement should be "Romanian/Moldovan speakers of Romanian Moldova consider themselves, and are considered by others as ethnic Romanians. No cultural or political rights movement claims the contrary." To clarify the situation, a statement should be put somewhere saying that "The Moldovan ethnicity was created by the Soviet authorities by promoting a regional denomination (such as "Californian") to the status of ethnic name." Dpotop 12:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I presume no "Siberian" ethnicity exists in Russia.
 * Badly mistaken. There are quite a few indigenous siberian ethnicities in russia. BUt I understand what you mean. Still, there does exist a regional term "Siberians" (siberian russians). `'mikka (t) 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Eminescu
I have a question for the guys here that believe Moldovan!=Romanian. Is the claim of Moldovenists that Eminescu is Moldovan correct? If yes, why? Eminescu never lived in a unified Moldova, and was only 9 years old when Romania was formed. Moreover, he was a Romanian nationalist. :) The same for Creanga. Dpotop 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

POV in article
This is POV - Most Romanians, as well as a large part of the Moldovan populace, claim that external interference led to Moldova's increasingly separate identity rather than any actual differences [citation needed]. Where reference for that? Also the no.4 reference at the bottom of page isn't a ref at all. Cheers --  max rspct  leave a message  19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you would like, the word most can be replaced with numerous. However, I don't believe that any sources will be found to back the statement as it appears obvious to anyone familiar with the situation. The idea of conducting a study to determine the views of Romanian citizens subject is anologous to having asked West Germans whether a German from East Berlin was German during the Cold War. TSO1D 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Table
Article is better with this table and I do not see a good reason that somebody should remove it. Moldovans are one of the large European nations and they deserve good article about them (including table). PANONIAN  (talk)  14:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since they are romanians there is a contradiction of terms. It's redundant to have your table. It's also incorrect since there are more romanians than 3 millions...--147.102.222.220 14:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this table is an adequate representation of the situation. The status of Moldovans as a separate ethnos is controversial at best and the table not only oversimplifies the situation but also provides misleading information. If one were to assume that Moldovans are an ethnicity different from other Romanian subgroups, then the Moldovans from Romania should also be counted, as well as those of "Moldovan" origin who are counted as Romainian in other region. I doubt that this data can be found though, and without it the table can never present the full picture. I don't believe that this table is well-suited to the present situation and shoul be discarded. TSO1D 16:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How they can be Romanians if they did not declared themselves as such? On the last census in Moldova there were 76.1% Moldovans and 2.1% Romanians. They are clearly listed as separate nations in census results, so your claim that Moldovans are Romanians is only your opinion that cannot be proven by official statistics. Furthermore, the status of Moldovans as a separate ethnos is controversial only among Romanian nationalists who want to assimilate Moldovans and to "unite" Moldova with Romania. Such opinion can be clearly labeled as irredentist one and I do not think that it should be a base for one scientific article. PANONIAN  (talk)  20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From your comments I can understand that you are not fully familiar with the problem at hand. Technically you are right, the last census indicates that many citizens of Moldova declared themselves as Moldovan rather than Romanian. However, that does not actually mean that the two groups are distinct. The Principality of Moldavia (where the autochtonous population was by all means homogeneous) existed as an entity for several centuries until Bessarabia was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1812. Moldavia then united with Wallachia to form Romania and the predominant group of people living in the two regions was called Romanian (based on the common language). Bessarabia was not part of the initial union, it only joined Romania in 1917. Nevertheless, one cannot seriously claim that an ethnic break occured between the two populations in that brief period. After the USSR forcefully re-annexed Bessarabia, the intense policy of de-Ruminifaction and Moldovanization tried to instill the people of Bessarabia a distinct identity. Nevertheless, the shared language and culture have not changed greatly in that period.
 * As for your comments calling me a nationalistic irredentist, I do not appreciate such rhetoric. TSO1D 21:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is the problem: it is not about history but about official state recognition. Since both, Moldovans and Romanians are listed separatelly in the census results, it is clear that state of Moldova recognized them as two separate nations. If the state recognized them as one single nation it then would listed them under only one name (whether this name is Moldovan or Romanian). But, since they are listed separately, it is clear that they are recognized as separate groups by the state of Moldova. Also, I did not said that you are a nationalist, but that opinion that Moldovans are not Moldovans but Romanians come from nationalistic sources, it is not same thing. PANONIAN  (talk)  21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And now about distinction between Moldovans and Romanians, I do not claim that culture and language of these two peoples are distinct but national consciousness. The difference between Moldovans and Romanians is same as difference betwen Serbs and Montenegrins. There are Montenegrins who consider that they are Serbs, but there are those who do not. So, can you prove that ALL Moldovans consider that they are also Romanians or you cannot? It is all about what they consider. If some Moldovans think that they are only Moldovans and not Romanians then they are not Romanians. It is simple as that. It is all about their human right to be what they want. So, I understand this issue very well, and it is not about what was in 1917, but what is now in 2006. PANONIAN  (talk)  21:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there is the matter of self-identification, however look at the Austrian example. Some Austrians prefer to view themselves as Austrian, others as German, but this is a matter of small nuances no one truly maintains that Austrians are not German-speakers and thus constitute a separate ethnos. For this reason the Austrians ethnic group page does not include a table similar to the one that currently exists on this page. They also had a long discussion regarding what to include in the table and finally came to the conclusion that is served no constructive goal. That is the maximum extent of my argument, I am against the table not the idea of some Moldovans declaring themselves as such in terms of their nationality. TSO1D 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Montenegrins article have a table, and, as I said, the example is similar. Some Montenegrins consider that they are also Serbs, but some consider that they are not, and table is there because of that Montenegrins that do not consider themselves as Serbs. If some Serb who do not recognize Montenegrin nation (same as some Romanian that does not recognize Moldovans) would want to remove table from Montenegrins article, I would object to that too. Also, the Szekely article also have table, and most of the Szekely declare themselves as Hungarians. Of course, there are those who declare themselves as Szekely, and it was me who posted that table there anyway. The point is, even if one ethnic ethnic group is part of another larger group there is no reason not to have table in its Wikipedia article. Every article about ethnic groups is better with table (by my opinion only, but there are people who would agree with me here). Why you do not improve this table if you think that something should be changed in it instead simply to remove it? Of course, if you want, we can start voting whether to include table into article or not. PANONIAN  (talk)  00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I myself am from Moldova (Bessarabia) and am part of the population discussed (I am as Moldovan as you can get), I am not a Romanian citizen who wants to infiltrate nationalistic propaganda here. I also want to add that it will be very difficult to assess the actual number of "Moldovans" as several countries do not count Moldovan as a separate ethnicity (ex. Romania) whereas in other places people are encouraged to declare themselves as Moldovans (in Moldova). This of course just proves the absurdity of creating this artificial difference, but that's another topic. I am not fully familiar with the Montengrian situation, but the inclusion of a table in that category might be just as bad an idea as it is here. I only gave the Austrian example to show that after a long discussion editors concluded that the table does more harm than good and only brings more problems than solutions. It is the same here. I am not questioning the logic of having a "Moldovan ethnos" (at least not in relation to this table), I just don't believe that the table will help anyone. The article presents the information in a superior manner. 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) TSO1D 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) One more thing, Austrians is an disambiguation kind of article. Even if one want to post table there, he would not know about what that table should be. On the contrary, the "Moldovans" article clearly say that it is about Moldovan ethnic group, while for other uses we have Moldovans (disambiguation). PANONIAN  (talk)  00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really, the Austrian disambig site is Austrian

TSO1D 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardles the controversial status, they are officially counted and the table represents official data. You have no right do delete it. You have right to comment it, providing reputable references. `'mikka (t) 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not base my argument on the status of the ethnos. At least read the discussion. I simply stated that the data will be a mass of non-sense outside of the context provided in the text and the box will bring more conusion than clarity. TSO1D 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You based your arguments on history, which have nothing to do with the present situation. Your argument is that if Moldovans were Romanians 100 years ago that they should be Romanians today too, but is that mean that if humans lived in caves 30,000 years ago that they should live in caves today too? As for Austrians article, I did not said that it is disambiguatian, but "kind of it", here is a quote from Austrians article:

Austrians is used in reference to:
 * the citizens of the Republic of Austria
 * people of Austrian descent or origin

Historically also:
 * native German speakers of the multiethnic state of Austria-Hungary, the population of Inner Austria or First Austrian Republic
 * old Austrians are citizens of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy, who lived outside the territory of Inner Austria and did not speak German

So, if somebody want to post table there, about which of these four meaning that table should be? We do not have this problem in the article about Moldovans. PANONIAN  (talk)  10:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep it simple
I reverted edits of PANONIAN since his edits are missleading. The best example is given by TSO1D when he said he is a Moldovan and also a Romanian. --147.102.222.220 11:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should to learn that there is a whole World outside of Romania. I wonder whose sockpupet you are... PANONIAN  (talk)  11:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Table
Pannonian, I don't think you saw my comments above, I added some below each of your paragraphs. I am not basing my argument on the historical link between Bessarabia and the Principality of Moldavia and Romania. I am simply stating that the table will present misleading factual information. Outside of the context provided in the article the numbers don't really make any sense. Again I am not challanging the basis of the Moldovan ethnicity in regards to the table, I just don't think that the table will aid anyone in this case. And about the Austrian page, it has some disambig info at the top however the main disambiguation page is Austrian. TSO1D 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, I told you, if some data in the table is wrong, then why you do not correct that data instead to delete the table? I do not object that we can include in the number of Moldovans those who live in Romania and who consider themselves Romanians but also Moldovans. Tell me how many Moldovans live in Romania and we can include that too. PANONIAN   (talk)  15:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * PANONIAN what you're proposing doesn't sound like a POV? You're pushing a POV here I would say. To answer you: there are 7-8 millions romanians that live in Romanian Moldova and there are other 3 millions romanians that live in Republic of Moldova. --Andrei George 16:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my point though, it will be impossible to find a correct number to describe the situation. The official Romanian census does not count Moldovans as forming a distinct ethnos. In Moldova, on the other hand, people were encouraged to declare themselves as Moldovans. Then one has to decide which Moldovans to count. Should all Moldovans on both sides of the Prut be counted (as the Moldovanist theory dictates), or should just those who declared themselves Moldovan be counted, etc. Choosing a certain figure cannot make much sense so I see no use for the table. TSO1D 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We can put in table exactly what you said: we can write that there are 3 million Moldovans who declare themselves as such and 8 miliion who declare themselves as Romanians. So, what is wrong with that? PANONIAN  (talk)  17:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that in the introduction the article states that the term Moldovan here is used to denote a separate ethnos that mainly resides in the Republic of Moldova. Yet most Moldovans on the other side of the Prut do not declare themselves as Moldovan and do not believe in the existenence of a separate ethnos, therefore why should they be included in the table. The trick would be to see if there are actually Moldovans in Romanian Moldova who declared their ethnicity as such. But I see no way to determine that. TSO1D 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second:
 * 1. First you said that table should not be included because the current table counted only Moldovans who declared themselves as such, and did not counted those who live in Romania and who declared themselves as Romanians,
 * 2. Then, when I proposed that we correct the table and to count both, Moldovans who declare themselves as Moldovans and Moldovans who declare themselves as Romanians, you said that would be wrong because this article is only about Moldovans who declare themselves as such.

So, do you see that your secong argument confront with your first argument? What is the REAL reason why you do not want table here anyway? PANONIAN  (talk)  22:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am not contradicting myself. I am stating that there might be people in Romania who declared their ethnicity as Moldovan, and these should be included in the main count. However, this data cannot easily be found as that category was not accepted in the Romanian census. This is precisely what my argument is. No number can come even close to providing a logical estimate for the numer of Moldovans because of the varying definitions. By the way your second argument was to "3 million Moldovans who declare themselves as such and 8 miliion who declare themselves as Romanians" not to count the Moldovans who declared themselves as Romanians (by this I assume you mean Moldovan nationals who declared themselves as Romanians). Nevertheless, this does not make sense as the whole point of this article is to discuss the possibility of a Moldovan ethnos which would be based on the self-identification of the people. What would be the point in counting people who declared themselves as Romanian as Moldovan?

Btw, sorry if my answer sounds consusing, but I don't know how to make it more lucid. However, this just illustrates my point that a table cannot provide a decent amount of clarity to readers. TSO1D 23:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

question
Is this article referring to what TSO1D had just said in his edit summary: Moldovan ethnos developed by Soviet propaganda? --Andrei George 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Andrei, if you read the rest of the article you will see that it discusses the existence of a separate Moldovan ethnic group dinstinct from the Romanian one. As a result it would not be right to state that Moldovans are a sub-group of the Romanian ethnic group in the introduction. Although this is true, the article discusses the existence of a independent Moldovan ethnic group. TSO1D 16:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it should be maybe an article Moldovans (ethnos developed by Soviet propaganda)? Of course not, TSO1D. This article is good when we say that moldovans are a sub-ethnic group of romanians. Because they really are.

--Andrei George 16:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You can include a sentence later in the article that explains this fact. Nevertheless, the article mainly deals with the existence of a separate ethnos. The article includes a significant portion that explains the flaws of this theory. Nevertheless, its goal is to provide an explanaiton for the appearance of the ethnic categroy Moldovan in some censuses. TSO1D 16:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Again about the table
As I understand, the main objection to the table was that it does not show correct number of Moldovans. So, here is a little improved table, and I want to know is something wrong with it. PANONIAN  (talk)  17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And just to explain why table is important: The table provide some basic information about certain ethnic group, thus the Wikipedia readers who search only for one specific information about ethnic group (such is the language they speak or location) do not have to read entire article to find that, but only to see the table. So, I propose fair voting whether to include table into article or not. If majority of voters vote not to include table I will not insist on it any more. PANONIAN  (talk)  17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly the notion of Moldovan ethnicity is controversial. And clearly Moldovans are Daco-Romanians, even if they claim a distinct ethnicity from Romanians. The table should indicate this, not just jump to "other Latin peoples". I'm not sure exactly how this should all be handled, but if this article is going to exist as an article about an ethnicity, then it should have the table. Otherwise, it should be re-cast as a article about a word, as we do with Negro. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In my view, this page already does not treat the concept of Moldovans as a clear separate ethnos. The page only has a few senteces declaring the idea of a distinct Moldovan ethnic group, whereas the greater part of the article dwells on the political aspects of the issue. TSO1D 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I support that table shown above should be included into article

 * 1) PANONIAN   (talk)  17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) `'mikka (t) 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Zserghei 20:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Jmabel | Talk 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5)  max rspct   leave a message  01:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --Irpen 04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) This should be reworded, however. According to Moldovan officials, more than a million Moldovans work in Russia. Many others live by money which they send from Russia back home. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Because I am an IRREDENTIST and CHAUVINIST Communist ANTI-ROMANIAN plus ANTI-SEMIT VANDAL!!!!! Plain and simple. &mdash;Khoikhoi 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose that table shown above should be included into article

 * 1) Oppose. Dpotop 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Andrei George 19:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (Blocked as a sock of Bonaparte as established by CheckUser. &mdash;Khoikhoi 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC))
 * 1) Oppose --Candide, or Optimism 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  TSO1D 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose  Anonimu 11:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose It's so funny that this table is mostly supported by Russians or Ukrainians (ex-USSR citizens, the very people that support the notion of a spparate ethnic Moldovan identity in the first place and the very people that occupied this Romanian territory (and of course their buddies on wikipedia) --> just because Russians and Ukranians outnumber Romanians 10:1 DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT!! Constantzeanu 17:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * Also to say that this is not supposed to be final look of the table. The voting is only about whether to include table into article or not, but if anybody think that table could be improved or changed he is welcome to do that. PANONIAN   (talk)  17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This table is missleading, wrong and false, for example it doesn't say anything about Moldovans from Romania, I mean the romanians who are living in the former region of Moldova who are Moldovans. Actually there isn't any contradiction of terms when you say moldoveni(Moldovans), ardeleni(Transylvannians), munteni(Wallachians) you mean Romanians automatically.--Andrei George 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Moldovans from Romania have nothing to do with this article, which is specifically for the officially defined ethnicity called "moldovans". Someone even added a text that Romanian census says there are no "moldovan ethnicity" in Romania. What is your problem? `'mikka (t) 19:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you have also Hungarians and Germans living in Transylvania, so when you say Transylvanians that can refer to Romanians, Hungarians, Germans and other peoples who live there. Another meaning of the term Moldovans could also to refer to Russians, Ukrainians or Gagauz who live in Moldova. However, since this article is about ethnic Moldovans, seems that you missed the subject. PANONIAN   (talk)  20:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If this article is going to follow the standards for an article about an ethnic group (see WikiProject Ethnic Groups then there is no question that it should have this table. I am not supporting or opposing the specific content of the table: just the presence of such a table. If there is controversy over whether Romanian-speakers from the portions of the former Principality of Moldova that is now part of Romania belong in this article, then that should be discussed. And if it is not about an ethnic group (or putative ethnic group), then what precisely is it supposed to be about? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the problem though. The page does not follow the standard for an article for an ethnic group because this situation is abnormal. Whereas for groups such as the Germans, Russians, etc., you can have ordinary pages, when it comes to subgroups of a certain ethnos the situation becomes more complicated. For instance, the Austrian page mainly talks about the political implication in the varying identification of the people but does not suggest that the Austrians constitute a distinct population. As a result the page does not follow standard wiki ethnic group format and lacks a table such as this. My point is that the Moldovan page should be treated in an identical manner. TSO1D 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct population:
 * Republic of Moldova 2564849 (2004),
 * Ukraine 258619 (2001),
 * Russian Federation 172330 (2002),
 * Belorussia ~4300 (1999),
 * Tadjikistan 300 (2000),
 * Kyrgyzstan 778 (1999), --Zserghei 20:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the numbers, Zserghei, do you perhaps know total number of Moldovans? According to my sources it is 3,600,000, but I do not know is this number correct. PANONIAN  (talk)  20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There were 31,9% of Moldovans in Transnistria in 2004 : i.e. 31,9% of 555500 = 177204. About 33,000 moldovans were declared in Kazahstan in 1989 . Results for the census of 1999 in Kazahstan were published only for the most numerous nationalities and moldovans were not mentioned. So, the total number is: 3211380. It is possible to write 'approx. 3,2 million'. --Zserghei 07:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In Kazakhstan, in 1999 they are 19,458 "Moldovans" according to this pdf --Anonimu 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe my source is outdated and full results were published later. Thanks for the better link. --Zserghei 14:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, we should not include the table, because many of those Moldavians/Moldovans that were exiled to Kazakstan were taken from Romania proper, and consider themselves as nothing else but Romanian. Even the Moldovans from what is now Republic of Moldova, who have been moved to other parts of the-then Soviet Union, consider themselves Romanians, because they were never exposed to the kind of propaganda the Moldovans had to endure. I don't know why you created this table, or why Mikka and Jmabel voted in its favour. Another thing is that the census is stupid. If you would ask me if I am Moldavian/Moldovan, I would answer yes. If you were to ask me if I am Romanian, I would also answer yes. So just because those people said they are Moldovan, doesn't mean they don't view themselves as Romanians. --Candide, or Optimism 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes exactly my opinion earlier presented, when you say Moldovan you automatically say Romanian. Why is this table needed? To make things much more confuse?--Andrei George 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Table is needed because certainly there are people who when they said that they are Moldovans they think that they are only Moldovans but not Romanians. It is because of them. Second thing, both, Moldovans and Romanians are officialy recognized as separate ethnic groups by the state of Moldova. If that is not the case, they would not be listed separatelly in the census results, but they would be listed together under one single name whether that name is Romanians or Moldovans. Since they are listed separatelly in the census results, the official point of view of the Moldovan state is that they are separate ethnic groups. The opposite opinion is only unofficial one. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the case only for Republic of Moldova, not Kazakstand and other regions of former Soviet Union. --Candide, or Optimism 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Other regions do not have official policy, but if you go to the site of the Ukrainian parliament, you can find information on minority populations and their cultures, and they have separate ones for Moldovans and Romanians. --Node 08:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Image
For TSO1D: if you place image where it is now, then it push table to the right and create large empty space between the text and the table. It looks ugly. We should find better place for image. PANONIAN  (talk)  01:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see that problem with the current layout. I tried looking at the page with IE and Firefox and it looked fine. What browser are you using? I wonder if other users are experiencing the problem described by you, for me it's just the opposite. One of the previous versions created a huge gap in the middle of the article when viewed with IE. TSO1D 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I use Opera, and it look very bad on this browser. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)