Talk:Moldovans/Archive 3

Original research?
I am confused, where does the Original Research tag apply. POV is one thing, and you can argue exactly where you believe the infringemnet took place, but the original research header seems unwarranted. If anything this article has too many sources as some editors questioned every other sentence here. TSO1D 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with TSO1D on this point. Where are those "unreferenced claims"? I would also very much like to know who placed that tag in the first place, and why (s)he was not questioned by now. Dahn 21:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Constantzeanu put up the tag a few minutes ago, and we are discussing the move right now. TSO1D 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I placed the tag. Sorry but to state that Moldovans are an officially recognized group seems to me like original research and the same goes for stating that "Moldovans are a group living primarily in the Republic of Moldova" Dapiks 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But the fact is that they are officially recognized as a separate ethnic group. Personally I believe that this distinction is misleading and merely political, however that doesn't change the fact that the Moldovan government recognizes Moldovans as a separate ethnic group. That is not original research but common knowledge. TSO1D 21:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And Constantzeanu's second objection is just paradoxical. Sure "primarily in the Republic of Moldova" is an educated guess rather than direct statement, but lemme know if you would back the option that they actually live as a distinct group inside Romania (perhaps even "primarily in Romania"). Dahn 21:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Constanteanu, the Moldovans are indeed an officially-recognized ethnic group in the ex-Soviet space. This is how our problems came to existence, due to this recognition. The real problem and the ambiguity of the definition is what this term covers: the Daco-Romanians from the ex-Soviet Union that (came to) believe they are not Romanians? the descendants of the inhabitants of the principality of Moldova (including Romanian "Moldovans")? the descendendants of Bessarabians? Dpotop 07:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This ambiguity exists not only in the Romanian discourse (both "Dahn-like" and Greater Romanian), but also on the Russian side, and the West imported this problem along with the word "Moldovan" whose meaning is not as clear as it seems. Dpotop 07:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If Moldovans are an ethnic group only officially recognized in the ex-USSR, then the article should say exactly that (and explain why) and certainly this should not be a in the leading sentence. The fact of the matter is that in most countries Moldovans are not recognized as a sepperate ethnic group. See CIA World Factbook USA. Dapiks 12:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The exact sentence reads: "They are officially recognized by several states as an ethnic group..." That is certainly true. TSO1D 13:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro definition
I am in doubt that when someone says "Molodvans" he most probably refers to inhabitants of Principality of Moldova. I think in 90% of case he speaks about population of Moldova. And this should be the topic of this article. Historical Moldovans, if someone dares to write something meaningless (for a change from political bickering), is a matter of a seoparate article. This is how wikipedia works: dominant usage matters, even if 90% of people are wrong, it is not wikipedia's job to "correct" people's habits. `'mikka (t) 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, here's my doubt, Mikka: while I believe that in 99% of the cases "Moldovans" refers to the inhabitants of Moldova in English, I am yet to be pointed out why the scandal arose in Bukovina and the Bujak about people being referred to as "Moldovans" instead of whatever, and I have not yet found if the on-and-off claim by the Moldovan gvt. that Moldova reflects the heritage of Moldavia was ever voiced in a rational manner. For example, is "ethnic group inside the Ukraine" mean to say "a diaspora from Moldova", or "a section of the more traditional population of Bukovina"? As it is, this article fluctuates between two very different views with very different consequences. Also note that "a word used for inhabitants of Moldova" does not mean "a word for an ethnic group" (as much as I personally consider any definition of an "ethnic group" to be fallacious, this, I presume, defines an ethnic group as an anthropologist would), and that Belgians redirects to Belgium. Dahn 19:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me make my point even clearer: are Moldovans in Ukraine the same as inhabitants of Moldova? Dahn 20:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to some extent, however if the term Moldovan would simply refer to the population of Moldova, then it would not have an ethnic connotation but would rather refer to all the inhabitants of the state. If on the other hand you want to use the term to describe the ethnic Moldovan group, then it wouldn't make sense to confine the article to the political borders of Moldova. This would actually be misleading as a reader unfamiliar with the situation would conclude that Moldovans only live in Moldvoa and Ukraine, whereas in reality Romania has just as a large a Moldovan population. Once again, regardless of whether you view Moldovans as distinct from Romanians or not, all are part of the same ethnic group, this is a fact accepted by all sides and if you have an article describing the group you have to take all into account. And I don't understand your argument about "historical Moldovans." Even today millions of people in Romania would describe themselves as Moldovans (only as a subgroup of the Romanian ethnos). TSO1D 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The today millions of people in Romania that would describe themselves as Moldovans are very Romanians. In fact they are more nationalist as other Romanians. --Brasoveanul 08:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Moldovans" is a valid encyclopedia topic only insofar as refers to something like an ethnicity (which we can presumably all agree is a subgroup of Daco-Romanians, the controversy is only over whether it is a subgroup of Romanians) rather than place of residence. Otherwise, we've already got Demographics of Moldova and Demographics of Romania. - Jmabel | Talk 20:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Recognized as a minority
Are Moldovans recognized as a minority outside the former Soviet Union? Dpotop 19:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the ambiguity is "carried" over there. See my questions for Moldovans in Brazil (above). That may be just because of the lack of stress placed on self-definition in other countries as compared to Romania and Moldova. Dahn 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My question is simple, not complicated: Are there countries, outside the ex-USSR, that have, in their censuses, persons recorded as Moldovans? Dpotop 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Brazil does. I also suppose the United States does etc. I believe it is rightfull proceedure everywhere (including in Romania), to be counted as what you declare yourself. Dahn 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question. The fact that people can declare Moldovan does not mean they declare Moldovan. Dpotop 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose they do declare themselves Moldovan, otherwise the Brazil topic would not have been present. Dahn 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your guess/supposition about the US is wrong. I did the research you would "guess". And I found that no such thing as "Moldovan" is recorded by the US Census Bureau. You han find here the list of detailed ancenstry codes. People can report themselves Moldavian, Wallachian, Bessarabian, or Romanian, and all these are counted as Romanian. No Moldovan. And recall that it is you that argued that Moldova!=Moldavia, so don't come telling me that Moldovans=Moldavians. Dpotop 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guessed: I do not know the census proceeding in the US. However, note the topic about Brazil above, and tell me what you make of it. I had begum my repies on this topic by stating that the ambiguity is carried in other countries, since Moldovans (whatever they may be) are likely to emigrate. If people can record themselves as Moldovans in Romania and be counted as Romanians, then Romania sure has a problem with the interpretation of civil rights. But that is a different topic altogether.
 * I still wouldn't think that this, unlike other points made (including others of your own), adds anything to the "Moldovans as Moldavians" debate. After all, if this is an artificial identity, rest assured that those advocating it use it to delimit it from an identity which may be claimed by Romanians - which what the actual paradox is. Whether this people go into other countries and claim the same is of no relevance: what is of relevance is that people advocating the identity have a problem establishing their link with Moldavian legacy. Which is why I find it hard to accept that "Moldovans" can be casually argued to be both residents of Moldova and, say, Bukovineans or Bujakians. Dahn 21:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Romanian census, on its official page, it is stated that "În formularul de recensământ, pentru fiecare persoană, s-a înscris etnia pe baza propriei declaraţii. La prelucrarea şi prezentarea rezultatelor recensământului au fost realizate următoarele grupări: la etnia română s-au inclus şi persoanele care s-au declarat aromâni şi macedoromâni" Thus obviously the usage of moldovean, oltean, etc., was translated into Romanian. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with you Dahn if you claim that this represents a breach of civil rights. Almost all states use a similar methodology in performing their censuses as there are a certain number of recognized ethnicities and it is logical to group people within them, otherwise the information will become unintelligible or misleading.
 * While the ethnicity question census is wherever an idiotic matter (especially in a state that pretends to be following the French model, be it France if it applies in France as well), I want to point out that, if a state pretends to actully care about what citizens declare themselves, then it should not mess with the results in any way (unless it believes that its citizens are four-year-olds). This is especially grotesque when the census records Aromanians as Romanians - I couldn't care either way, but this is a contested matter and a measure of the Romanian gvt. to pass and regulate its own definition of ethnocentrism (I just noted recently that deputy Canacheu, an Aromanian, has rejected the belief that Aromanians=Romanians as "cultural imperialism"). I cannot endorse this system, just as much as I could not endorse the system where people would go to the polls and authorities would "correct" votes for them "to make clear who they meant to vote for originally". Sorry, I cannot be persuaded that Romania is right in doing this: this is why I chose not to declare any ethnicity in the census (with the risk of the census-taker recording me as an "ethnic Romanian", because "that is obviously what I meant"). Dahn 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As for your comment regarding Bukovineans et al, I don't understand the basis your doubts. The two regions you mentioned were part of the principate and were part of the same specific linguistic union- the Moldovan grai. Thus they can all be called Moldovans. This fact is not dependent on the veracity of the Moldovenist theory. On the other hand if the term Moldovan is used to denote the population of Moldovan, then the term is void of any ethnic meaning and simply relates to all of the inhabitants of the political entity, which is the reason I do not want this definition to be used in this article. TSO1D 22:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me stress this again: my point was a questioning of Moldovenist theories. If I have to imbibe that Moldovans is both "an ethnic group" and "a generic name for the inhabitants of the Republic of Moldova", I have to question if the census in Ukraine counts them as "inhabitants of the Republic of Moldova" as well. It is this ambiguity of terms which bothers me most. I understand your perspective, but it is irrelevant as an answer to this topic: the Moldovan ethnicity as claimed by its advocates switches from the claim that they are a traditional ethnic group of the former principality (with the added claim that Romanians=Wallachians, or perhaps Romanians=Wallachians and Transylvanians) to arguing that Moldovans are deeply associated with the present-day Republic and not really present in Romania (but, even more paradoxically, present in Bukovina and the Bujak!). Please go over my replies again. Dahn 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You brought in a good point and I would like some clarification on that as well. Dapiks 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Moldovenist theory was that even though it was developed artificially, its development was not a smooth process directed from the top. The pseudo-scientific theory progressed in conjuction with the political atmosphere of the times, at different periods taking diverging paths. For example, initially when the MASSR was created, the intentions of the Central goverment was simply to re-annex Bessarabia (at that point including the Budjac and Bukovina regions), thus the early Moldovenist theory was exclusively regionalistic emphasizing the distinctiveness of the people of the former Russian province and Transnistria. Later during two periods (from '24 to '28 and later from '33 to '37) Soviet authorities considered absorbing Romania entirely and as a result the Romanisators where supported and the Romanian identity of all Moldovans was emphasized. After '37 the regional Moldovenist theory was used again. Later, however, other "experts" such as Lazarev expanded on the Moldovenist theory explaining that all Moldovans, including those in Romania were part of the same ethnic group opposed to Romanians and thus expressing the need for a Pan-Moldovan republic, although his "discoveries" did not have any serious political ramifications. After the all of the USSR a state of chaos ensued and it really is impossible to determine the views of the Moldovenist leaders. Most rely on the ignorance of the masses and simply do not explain their position, they simply repeat "we are not Romanians, remember Ştefan Vodă" and combine various aspects of the theory from various periods of its development causing the present paradox. The theory is clearly absurd and self-contradictory which is partially why I was opposed to the article. It is truly difficult to explain a theory that was never meant to seek a rational explanation to the situation. Do not try to make sense of the Moldovenist ideology because there is no logic in it. TSO1D 01:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So if I understand this correctly, the notion of "who is a Moldovan" has changed over time. Is that correct? I have read the exact same thing in Giurescu as well as in Hitchins and in "History of the Romanians" by Dennis Deletant and Hitchins(again).
 * In essence, I think it is safe to say that we can distinguish a number of periods here when "to be a Moldovan" ment a) a native of the territory between Pruth and Dniester(old Bessarabia), b) a native of the former principality of Moldavia, c) a member of the greater Romanian ethnic group.
 * I think that this article should adress this because the notion of "Moldovan" is closely tied to the notion of Moldovenism so these facts, I think, belong in this article as well. Dapiks 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Something should be clear by now: the traditional "Moldovan" (which should actually be rendered as "Moldavian" for what concerns the historical term and the Romanian region), was by no means an ethnical definition, in the same way "Belgian" is not an ethnical definition. Because: 1. it defined merely the inhabitant of a region; 2. no matter what the Bonapartist orchestra might yet again start playing, ethnicity was not relevant in the Middle Ages (even if assertions in the Renaissance tended to have zero consequences). However, the modern variant claims that "Moldovan" is an ethnical definition (hence its paradoxes). In this context, implying that Moldovans and Moldavians are the same from a Romanian perspective takes a lot of sophistry as well. The problem with Moldovan nationalism is that it wants to be everything it can be without being Romanian (it's like a pickpocket, in the sense that it will only do certain things when it is sure not everybody is paying attention). Now, I consider ethnic identity in general to be the product of 19th century propaganda among the lumpenproletarians, and in all cases including a lot of unreasonable mythology (yes, I include Romanianness in my assessement); the main issue here, however, is that the Moldovan identity uses several devices meant for vey different purposes. I have no problem with people considering themselves Moldovan, and presumably or for sure indicating that they take this to mean "not Romanian" (since they are not retarded, as Dpotop and Dapiks would have us believe); I have a problem with theorists of Moldovenism who are never held accountable for their paralogisms which may or may not be endorsed by other Moldovans, which have no consequence on Moldova's independence, which add nothing to the debate, but which certainly implicate things Moldovans do not have a monoply on. Dahn 03:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That I am actually not quite sure about. The term "moldovean" did mainly define the population of Moldavia, however only its indigenous part. For example if you consult older sources, people that currently are differentiated by ethnicities were also identified in a similar manner then. For example a Pole living there would have been called a Pole (or leah) and a Jew would have been called a Jew rather than a Moldovan. At that point the current national groupings did not exist and thus a Moldovan would not have identified himself as a Romanian but would have viewed himself as a Moldovan not only in geographic terms but also in describing his kin. TSO1D 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. The relevant criteria then were "being a subject of" (for the Moldavians and Poles - as they remained subjects wherever they were) and religion (for the Jews). When the proto-nationalism of the Reneissance came about, Moldavians started toying with the concept of "being Romanian", in the same and largely inconsequential way everybody had started doing it: with the emphasis on a noble origin (the Romans), with interest in the vernacular, never with the added claim that there should be a new state, but not really intersted in whether being Moldavian or Romanian set you apart from others (as in "all others" - in this case, "all other Christian Orthodox", and perhaps all other "Christians"). Ethnicity is attributed in retrospect, and it is done so on a whim. The fact is that such arguments didn't carry weight until Herder and Fichte, who invented the claim that there is a Volkgeist, largely due to the fact that the extention of modern citizenship during the French Revolution (as the catalysis of the original "national community") could in no way have been applied to their desired Germany (which did not exist at the time). Volkgeist came to be the basis for defining Romanianness in the following period, but I agree with you that, as a political idea, nationalism could have become two or three different ones instead of the single Romanian one. But, you see, any reference to Volkgeist-like ideas before that (for "being Moldovan" of for "being Romanian" alike) is completely misplaced: people simply did not comply either way with modern requirements, especially since citizenship was not a medieval reality, and especially still because the concept of citizenship came here even later than in other parts of Europe (which accounts for the tribalist character of Romanian nationalism, as well as, in reaction, for that of Moldovanianist advocates today). Hope my text is not too dense - I have rushed in with a reply as comprehensive as I could make it in one go. Dahn 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for that response, I see what you mean. TSO1D 02:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Recognized as a minority, reloaded
I see that my simple question sparked an interesting discussion, but my intent is far simpler: If only ex-USSR states recognize the Moldovan minority (not the Moldavian one, which is a Romanian denomination), then the article should state it. I have been challenged over the US and Brazil censuses. For the US, I brought proof. For Brazil, I reject the comparison for 2 reasons:
 * 1) As Dahn pointed out earlier, it's English that distinguishes Moldovan from Moldavian (and not Romanian/Moldovan). Then, if Romanian is not meaningful for English, a Portuguese-language source is not meaningful for English.
 * 2) The Brazil link talks about people originating in Moldova/Moldavia (maybe including Russians, it's not clear), whereas we are talking here about an ethnic group. Dpotop 06:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, if we have to bring this up again, I wish to point out that you are either missing the implications or pretending to do so. Sure, English does distinguish between Moldavians and Moldovans, but that is roughly analogous to the distinction between Romanians and Moldovans present in every language (not saying that it is a proper distinction or whatever, I'm just saying that it is out there). You may read my post on the Brazil issue again, and see that we agree on its ambiguity; BUT, if we are to be proven that in Brazil or country x the term "Moldovan" exists because those people were asked and they answered, then we ought to assume that the meaning is most likely ethnical (note my choice of wording), especially since they would have had the choice to declare themselves Romanian. Let me also note that you are misusing the term "recognized minority", which per se means minority that has reached a significant number to achieve this and that right. Whether censuses record "Moldovans" could be a possibility, but whether they do or do not is ultimately of little relevance - since I think they nowhere exceed hundreds of people. Dahn 07:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dahn, please answer my concerns, do not avoid it by enlarging the discussion. My purpose, and my question, are simple. Dpotop 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even noticed you were going through all of this because you had been reverted in the text. I support your version; I had originally thought that you were using the ouside to prove that other countries do not make the distinction (which is not true), not that other countries simply don't deal with the issue (which is true). Dahn 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And since you go back to Brazil: Some days ago you supported the link Moldova->Republic of Moldova by saying that in English Moldova<>Moldavia, and that their identity in Romanian means nothing since we talk about English words, not their Romanian counterparts. Following this logic of yours, what may or may not happen in Portuguese has zero influence on en.wiki. So, following your logic, the entire discussion about Brazil is meaningless here. Dpotop 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While bearing in mind what I have just answered, let me note that you are focusing on a non-sequitur: it does not matter whether the distinction is made between Moldovans and Moldavians, but whether it is made between Moldovans and Romanians. All the assumptions that a person does not know his own criteria for differentiating between Moldovans and Romanians rely on the assumption that the said person is a moron - if you are asked your ethnicity, in both Ro and Md, it should be common sense that you have answered to that question, and not some other. Dahn 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, my position is simpler: Moldovan=Moldavian, Moldova=Moldavia, because they translate the same Romanian/Moldovan word. Disambiguation pages need to be written for both, stating the perceived biases implied by the use of one or the other (e.g. Moldovan is probably used by a moldovanist or a person from the ex-USSR, whereas Moldavian is the traditional version of the term. Similarly, people say Moldova to discriminate from Moldavia, but still are ambiguous, or simply because they don't know English). Dpotop 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. That may well even be true, but we will argue about whether it is until Kingdom Come, and I beg of you not to base your tactics on wearing your opponents out. Dahn 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I, too, believe that we fundamentally agree on what an ethnic group is (and is not), etc. We probably agree, also, on what we think Moldovans and the Moldovan language are. But you are trying here to be more catholic than the Pope, in the hope that somehow you would reach an agreement with Node_ue and Mikka. You remind me of Titulescu (he tried that, too, but it ultimately did not work, because the Soviet part was just toying with him). And I can see the shortcomings of Titulescu in many of the "illuminated youth" of Romania. There is, at some point, a, mesianic willingness to impose the personal POV to the other, without trying to understand him first, and without taking into consideration his/her fears (that may be justified by experience). Dpotop 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ...er...yeah... Meanwhile, I have aided more in exposing whimsical contributions coming from the other side in the last two days than you in the last months. I did not even try to reach a compromise with them, I have asked them things which they can't seem to be able to answer, but which render their main points void of all content. Dahn 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, when I started to edit the first time here, I have had the same impression. But then, after 3 days or a week, some editor comes and reverts everything, and the discussion starts again whereit was one month before. Don't overestimate reason - it can do nothing when the arguments of the other side are irrational. Other users, too, have had the same impression before me and you. Dpotop 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For the present time I have nothing to say except that I will read about it and I will try to contribute in the future. Thanks again for invitation Dahn. --Brasoveanul 11:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pridnestrovian propadanga
I have to show you these  exquisite piece of Pridnestrovian propaganda. I'm citing: I also suggest this page, and especially the questions "Are you communists?" and "Is Moldova communist?". Dpotop 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pridnestrovie was once part of the Russian empire, and before that part of Poland and Lithuania. Moldova was in the Ottoman Empire, and later Romania. Pridnestrovie, on the other hand, was never under Muslim rule; never a part of neither the Ottoman Empire nor of Romania. 
 *  While the right bank of the Dniester (Moldova) has strong cultural links with Romania, and used to be part of Romania, the left bank has more historical connections with Russia and with Western Europe. 
 * Yes, this site caught my eye a few months ago as well, it's ridiculous what arguments they make here. But what does it have to do with Moldovans? Bring the subject up on Transnistria, a few weeks ago a user decided to include the source as representing a neutral collection of news stories with little bias. TSO1D 13:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But it is important as an oppinion on what Moldovans are, and on their identity. It seems to me that these guys say exactly what Anittas is saying. Dpotop 13:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, THIS is certainly intriguing: "Pridnestrovie is a multi-ethnic country, but predominantly Slav. Moldova is predominantly Moldavian (ethnic Romanian, not slav). As you cross the bridge on the river Dniester, the character traits and physical difference between the inhabitants of either side are obvious." It seems that we're behind on news. Btw, this should also lead observers to note that the Moldovan identity is not backed by Russia. Dahn 13:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: they are definately jerking off when they say that Transnistria was never under Muslim rule (in fact, it has been the center of Muslim rule for quite a while). At the risk of disappointing Romanian hot-heads like Bonny, I have to stress that they are definately right when they say that it has not been part of Moldavia. Dahn 13:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never met Romanians hot-heads that would claim Transnistria on a historical basis. And I believe all those who have relatives in Moldova know the real cause of the conflict: Most of RSSM's industry was built in Transnistria. Guess why? Dpotop 14:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You have never met Antonescu, then. I am perfectly aware of the implications of the Dnestrian issue, as well as their causes: they both add little to the topic. Dahn 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * &lt;frivolous remark&gt; Dead for a while, isn't he? Anyway, he'd have gladly claimed Calcutta as Romanian, given half a chance. &lt;/frivolous remark&gt; - Jmabel | Talk 20:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OTOH, I would not jump to conclusions and say that "Moldovan identity is not backed by Russia". It would not be the first case of great power supporting two opposing sides to gain influence. Dpotop 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of that speculation as well. However, I stand by the evidence that Russia is backing the Dnestrians over Moldova, and that the issue of Romanian unionism is never as problematic to Russia as the fact that Moldova wants Transnistria back (especially since Romanian unonism is largely daydreaming). This would also be consistent with similar approaches Russia has towards Russian-inhabited enclaves in no man's land everywhere else - frankly, that is a nasty present that Stalin left for them as well (since his ultimate goal was to make it highly problematic for everyone if the USSR were to cease existing, and just look what he did to Russian nationalists like Kirov). This is how I read Putin's declaration that the end of the Soviet Union was a major tragedy (aside from the fact that it truly was a major tragedy in most regions, and aside from the fact that nationalism had nothing to do with it anywhere but in the Baltic Republics, it was also a major blow to an alternative Russian model) Dahn 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, when you say "nasty present that Stalin left for them", you are probably talking for a minority of Russians. I have met many of them, and the notion of nationality and nationalism is very vague. And I presume it's not just Stalin, but the culture of empire that dates from long before that. My impression is that Russians, just like Americans, constructed themselves in a very universalist ideology that can easily stretch over the imperial body. Dpotop 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet you are contradicted by two very important facts:
 * the USSR crumbled because of Russia's will to crush it (Which tends to confirm Stalin's suspicions word by word: it is my understanding that the main reason for the anathema placed on Kirov was Kirov's will to create a Russian Party inside the Soviet Party, and its very creation was ultimately the catalysis for the anti-USSR sentiment)
 * Russian policies have been centered on both preserving Russia (Chechnya) and establishing links with the Russian communities on the outside; other projects, such as Lukashenka's "refounded USSR", don't seem to have any palpable result other than smiles and kodak moments. Dahn 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a specialist in Russian policy. However, I have actually had some actual Russian friends. So, while I cannot theorize about Kirov, I can tell you that for my friends (intellectuals, one of them studying political science) the idea of "nationality" was somewhat unusual. One of my friends explained to me that it is not even clear what "Russian" means in the ethnic sense. Are Siberians Russians (or the Chukchis, that Russians make fun of)? Have you heard of the Are the russified minorities of the new Central Asian republics Russian? My impression is that the Russian public is just discovering this notion, and its implications. Whether they are going to integrate it, or not, remains to be seen. Dpotop 17:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, a big part of Russia's actions are focused on preserving the current Russian state and aiding Russian communities elsewhere, however Russia's foreign policy can also be viewed as an extension of the imperialist mindset and the continuation of their self-image as a superpower. The breakdown of the USSR was seen as a great catastrophe by many Russians because of territorial loss more than anything else. Russia's continuing support of the separatists in Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia, etc., are meant to support the local Russian population as much as a means to further their influence over those regions by impeding a solution to the disputes and maintaining a long-term "peacekeeping force". Russia believes that it alone has the right to intervene in conflicts taking place in the Post-Sovietic realm and ardently fights against any influence of the OSCE and especially NATO. TSO1D 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then, why did Russia brake up the Union? Note that I am not rejecting the fact that Russian politicians may be expansionistic, but I have to wonder why they intended to start from scratch. Note that the expansionism actually concentrates on "where Russians are present", which is a claim of equal (nay, logically superior) value to that of Romanian unionists, and not comparable to the Imperial one of "I'm gonna be an emir in Bukhara and a colonist in Alaska, where no Russian has ever set foot". Dahn 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not as if the breakup of the Soviet Union was an organized process directed by the Russians. Gorbachev's policies led to the democratization of the country at the local level and various local leaders saw in this a way to gain more power. The Baltic states were the first to slowly assume more power and then declare independence, followed by the other republics. Of course the central Soviet authorities could have tried to use force to restrict the movements but at that point it was too late. After the failed putch Yeltsin quickly grew in popularity and facilitated the separation of the Russian republic and ending the union. Now you have to realize that numerous Soviet leaders, including Gorbachev were horrified at Russia's loss of territory and power, and viewed Yeltsin in an extremely negative light. When Putin came to power, he sought to revive Russia's declining political influence and his administration has continually revived the old imperialist dreams and policies. TSO1D 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe they broke it because they were not able any more to support all the institutions of the state. They left only troops in certain areas, also relying on local conflicts to maintain a presence. A policy akin to medieval organization. Dpotop 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A second point. I am not sure what you mean by "daydreaming". :) Can you detail, maybe on my talk page? Dpotop 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can detail it right here: it is never going to happen. And, in the surreal probability that it will be polled in Romania, I will vote against it. Dahn 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that in today's climate the chance for such a union is slim to none, however I am curious as to why you would oppose it. TSO1D 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the losses outweigh the benefits, especially if you are to consider the implications for border changes inside the ex-Soviet space (it will create a precedent). I also believe that, as it is, we are poor enough. Let me also note that I would not be driven by anything to expect it (duty towards my kin or other such fallacies), unlike other Romanians who would "provided that...". So, even if Moldova wanted to join us and that would prove not to be disastruous, I would still have no reason to join it. Dahn 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If the citizens of the EU were polled for the integration of Romania, they would vote against. Does that mean Romania will not integrate the EU? Neither Romania, nor the EU are direct democracies, and the representatives can do things that the citizens won't accept. :) Dpotop 16:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The key word was "surreal". Dahn 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but polls in Romania actually do indicate that more people favor re-unfication than oppose it. In 2006 44% said they would vote in favor of it, whereas only 28% said no, another 28% being undecided. Thus the majority of those who gave an answer supported the union. The source. TSO1D 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source. I was sure few romanians are actually so individualistic as to reject the union. The problem, however, with Romanians, is that they still regard Moldova as some sort of sub-country. In fact, I would favor a unification where Moldova preserves some autonomy, to prevent things like those happening between the two world wars. Dpotop 17:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

United States recognizes Moldovans as an ethnic group
See Emigration/Romanian Ancestry:

The 2001 Statistical Yearbook mentions that 13039 Moldovans and 75832 Romanians received asylum green cards between 1946-2001, that 218 Moldovans and 2818 Romanians entered the US in 2001 on study visas, that 105 Moldovans and 1457 Romanians resided in the US in 2001 on H-1B visas.

''According to the "Legal Immigration To California" reports: 989 Romanians and 261 Moldovans emigrated in FFY96 to California according to FFY96 report which draws the data out of INS public use tape FFY96. Also, 828 and 824 Romanians, 308 and 107 Moldovans emigrated to California in 1997 and 1998 respectively according to FFY97/98 report.''

2001: 781 Romanian and 47 Moldovan kids were adopted by US citizens (according to the 2001 Statistical Yearbook, table 15)

To say that they're recognized only in the former USSR would be misleading. &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are mixing up citizenship and ethnicity. As immigrants, those people are what their documents say they are, and their documents do not indicate ethnicity. Dahn 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think the Moldovans the source is referring to includes Russians and Ukranians, the website seems to be about people of Romanian ancestry, and that would include Romanian Moldovans, but not Slavic Moldovans (or Turkic). &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link itself indicates that it does not consider Moldovans an ethnic group, but citizens of Moldova. They are all considered "of Romanian ancestry", and divided into "MD-born immigrants" and "RO-born immigrants". Where does this site indicate that it considers Moldovans anyhting but citizens of Moldova? Dahn 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

False, the link you give contains non-official data. I provided the official data from census.org earlier in this page. Dpotop 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All the headers within the official government file are similar to this one "TABLE 3. IMMIGRANTS ADMITTED BY REGION AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH FISCAL YEARS 1992-2002—Continued" They all simply include country of birth and not ethnicity. Regarding Moldovans as Romanians has been the official policy of the US for a long period. TSO1D 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad. Is there a source for Brazil? &mdash; Khoikhoi 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Brazil is not an english-speaking country. Therefore, the english minority name "Moldovan" cannot exist in Brazil. See the discussion upper this page. (recall that this argument has been used when deciding that Moldova is different from Moldavia, the fact that only English use is meaningful on en.wiki). Dpotop 21:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this argument. The Republic of Moldova is not an English-speaking country either, yet a Moldovan ethnonym does exist, namely "Moldovean". Look at the equivalent of this article in Portuguese here. TSO1D 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So would "Moldávios" be on the Brazilian census? Also, I hope the new images aren't seen as an attempt to separate Moldovans from Romanians (making it seem like they have a completely different history). I'm afraid I'm going to be accused of being a Stalinist again... &mdash; Khoikhoi 22:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually have no idea about that. Some states like Romania and the US automatically include Moldovans under the Romanian category. Other states, such as Russia and the Ukraine separate the two. I do not know what Brazil's policy on the matter is. TSO1D 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had addressed this in my reply to the initial post about Brazil, Khoikhoi. The text is ambiguous and even anachronistic. If this is the way Moldovans are defined in Brazil (if the Brazil gvt. does indeed bother), it is of little relevance. Dahn 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any way we could see the official census data, however? &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All I could find was this:
 * "Record de Legalizações. Ao longo do ano 2001 legalizaram-se em Portugal, ao abrigo do novo Decreto Lei de Imigração (4/2001 de 10 de janeiro), com “Autorização de permanência”, perto de 130.000 imigrantes. A saber, citando apenas as comunidades com mais de 1.000 imigrantes regularizados: 42.252 ucranianos, 22.426 brasileiros, 8.404 moldavos, 6.926 romenos, 5.174 cabo-verdianos, 4.777 russos, 4.723 angolanos, 3.203 chineses, 3.082 guineenses (Bissau), 2.784 paquistaneses, 2.670 indianos, 1.506 são tomenses, 1.465 búlgaros, 1.178 guinenses (Conacri). Juntando este número aos 22.456 cidadãos estrangeiros legalizados em Portugal até 31.12.2000, pode-se dizer que a população legal residente no país poderá atingir o meio milhão, nos próximos dois anos."

It refers to people who were allowed to settle (imigrantes regularizados) in Brasil, but have remined citizens of other countries. The lead here is obviously citzenship, and there is no indication of what they decalre themselves. All other variants of the word Moldovan in Portuguese, coupled with "Brasil" and "censo", do not show any results.|The official site of the 2000 census does not seem to have any data on ethnicities - if there are, I could not find any. Dahn 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the same source and I couldn't find any data either. I looked at the official form, seems they do not ask that information for some reason. TSO1D 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
This is really getting ridiculous. So now we have pictures eh? Well sorry to distrub the Neo-Stalinist Commie camp but first of all this article is about a debate on the Moldovan ethnicity and if there is one, not an ethnic group per se. Notice how we say that they are recognized in some countries (mostly all ex-USSR) and not in others (mostly democratic countries like USA and Romania) --> therefore the issue is still up in the air. Second of all even if Moldovans were an ethnic group, Stephan the Great is not an ethnic Moldovan since he lived in a time way before nationalism came about. Cebotari considered herself a Romanian and so did Mihai Eminescu (after all it is he who wrote "Noi suntem Romani si Punctum!/We are Romanians, period!" and "Ce-ti doresc eu tie Dulce Romanie, Tara mea de glorii, tara mea de dor/What I wish you thy Romania, my sweet country, blah blah". It is bad enough when some try to make this article seem to suggest that fore sure there are Moldovans and they are nothing like Romanians, but its getting over the top when you take the national heroes of one country and you present them as being the heroes of another country, which the same people claim that have nothing to do with Romania in the first place. Which one is it commarades? You can't have it both ways.Dapiks 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While I believe the above point could discard its personal attacks, I agree with its conclusions: Stephen the Great, Eminescu, and Cebotari could only through accute sophistry be described as "Moldovan". Dahn 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a bit skeptical about the pictures, but my initial reactin wasn't quite as negative. I am not using the Moldovenist theory, but simply using the Romanian definition of the word. Ştefan was certainly considered to be a Moldovan during his time, though of course as Constantzeanu pointed out the current nationalistic divisions were not formalized at that point. Eminescu was a Romanian activist, nevertheless, he never would have denied that he was also Moldovan (though of course as a part of the Romanian ehtnos). I do not really know Cebotari's biography and genealogy well enough, but I assume she is from a Moldovan Romanian family. I guess my point is that you might be overreacting by using the politicized definition of the word instead of simply looking at what means. TSO1D 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agin with the ambiguities? If this about an ethnic group, I certainly do not see how a reasonable person would have indicated that (s)he has two ethnicities. Where appliable, these people considered themselves "Moldavians" (inhabitants of Moldavia, not an ethnic group), not the neologist "Moldovans". Dahn 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dahn, I am as confused as most here. I myself find it extremely hard to understand what this article is or should be about. If you go by the definition in the intro: "the native population of the lands that corresond to the former Principality of Moldavia," then the aforementioned people fit the category. I was against classifying this article one that describes an ethnic group for numerous reasons, but others insisted that several states do recognize Moldovans as such, which is also true. I believe that the main definition expressed in the first paragraph should be used, regardless of the distinctiveness of Moldovans which is elaborated upon in later sections. This way for example you can state that Eminescu was a Moldovan while ignoring whether he was or wasn't also a Romanian (which he obviously was). TSO1D 00:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about Sofia Rotaru? She's not Slavic, but of Romanian ancestry, and she identifies as a Moldovan! Haha! &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that hurt! --Telex 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * She was also from Bukovina (not in Moldova, but in Moldavia). I have been exploring this issue to death above on this page: if the claim is that "Moldovans" is an ethnic group distinct from Romanians and connected to the territory of Moldova, then Moldovans in Bukovina are left unaccounted for (Bukovina has no logical connection to Bessarabia); if the claim is that "Moldovans" are the same as Moldavians, then they are not an ethnic group. See my point? If not, please don't make me repeat myself and read my previous replies starting with the questions I had addressed to Mikkalai (Archive 2, beginning under the header Pen names; I also suggest you read the section Stupid argument). If She's not Slavic, but of Romanian ancestry but she identifies as a Moldovan, then MOLDOVANS ARE NOT REALLY AN ETHNIC GROUP. Telex, please stop your claims that I would be supporting a Greater Romania - it is character assassination. Dahn 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. I'll try to find someone else. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was incorrect about the "Romanian ancestry" part. I meant to say that she was a non-Slavic non-Turkic Moldovan. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you playing mindgames now, Khoikhoi? As I have pointed out, she was not born in Moldova (the Republic), but in Bukovina (Ukraine), so she does not fall into the predilect category for defining Moldovans, and she is not a non-Slavic, non-Turkic Moldovan - she is a person who declares herself Moldovan while presenting us with all the ambiguities of the definition, since she was not born in Moldova. Dahn 00:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when does place of birth define an ethnicity? Octavian Goga was born in (what then was) (Austria-) Hungary - that doesn't prevent him from being Romanian. It's how the person sees himself/herself that is the definitive factor. --Telex 00:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have stated until my fingers bled, I certainly agree that self-definition should be the criterion, and that ethnicity is everything between subjective and irrelevant. However, the claim here is that "Moldovan" is an ethnic group which, although I simply find its very definition irrelevant, is supposed to be a little more than that. Its definition as an ethnicity clashes with several issues, and fails to explain certain obvious things (such as what is the Moldovans' relation to 1859 or 1918). People believing that they are Moldovan is to be referenced exactly as "people who believe that they are Moldovan" (as Belgians or, indeed, Britons do not get separate articles, no matter how many of them ignore all other possible identities they could have); the definition of Moldovan would revolve around their claims, not on whether Moldovans are an ethnicity. Again, not my POV: the definitions. Dahn 01:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I am not playing mind games, lol. I understand now that it does not fit in the definitions. Jesus Christ. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out whether one can rely on the right to self-determination to determine of what ethnicity they are, or how the (already existing ethnicity) should be governed. On other articles I'm used to editing regarding communist invented ethnicities (Montenegrins vs Serbs / Macedonians vs Bulgarians), where pointing that fact out is deemed to be denying the said ethnicities like the hyper-nationalist I am, the test for determining whether an ethnic group exists, comes down to what the purported members of the ethnic group in question themselves say. In other words, in order to determine whether a Moldovan ethnicity and language exist, you ask the purported "Moldovans". To find out how to determine Rotar, you should fist find out how she determines herself! If she says she's ethnically Moldovan, then she's ethnically Moldovan, period. On the other hand, if Eminescu said he's Romanian, then he's Romanian - also, period. Nationalists on either side of the Romania - Rep. Moldova border do not get to decide on the ethnic identity of purported Romanians-Moldovans, that's for the people themselves to determine. --Telex 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Rotaru and Maria Bieshu are clearly acceptable. They bost self-identify in interviews as ethnic Moldavians even if according to some here such group "doesn't exist". Anyway, their self-identification is sufficient while the issue whether this is a separate ethnicity or not is a separate one and unconnected. Their images are also rather well-known and are associated with Moldova, no doubt. I will write a Bieshu stub. --Irpen 00:46, 14 June 2006
 * Why don't you go and write an article on Belgians, because I can assure there are people who decalre themselves that over Walloon and Flemish. Do that for Swiss people as well. Do we have the same understanding of what an ethnic group is? I do not believe that any ethnic claim is objective, but you seem to: according to the definition of an Ethnic group, the self-definition criterion was not enough to generate articles on the Swiss and Belgians (yes, the links turn blue: do click on them and see where they lead). Dahn 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Or for British people, as English people, Scottish people and Welsh people are inadequate. --Telex 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ups, found the article already exists under Maria Bieşu. So, no need to write it. Other Moldovan stars usable for images would be Nadezhda Chepraga and Svetlana Toma. Sorry if again messed up the transliteration from cyrillic. --Irpen 01:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the ethnicity mosaic, I used only people from the modern day Rep. Moldova to avoid ambiguity. These people are Moldovans in every definition, while Rotaru, for example, is not. --Node 22:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

History of Moldovan people
Can anyone write a historical article about the population of "Tara Moldoveneasca"? `'mikka (t) 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What the hell kind of joke is that? Dahn 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Ţara Moldovenească" sounds like asking for trouble. --Telex 00:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL!!! --Brasoveanul 06:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, did you mean Ţara Românească, and in that case are you asking whether it's possible to write an article about the population or are you actually asking one to write such an article? In any case, I don't really know how much one could write about that topic (which is probably why you brought this up in the first place). But creating this article was not my idea and as I stated before confining it to RM would be ridiculous while ignoring the other Moldovans (except for some in Budjak and Bukovina and Kazakhstan). TSO1D 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it could contain information about the Soviet policies in Moldova, that might be interesting. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean "tara moldoveneasca" I dn't have diacritics on my computer. Are you guys romanians or what? the requested article is about the native poplation of Moldovan land, which is traditionally called moldovans/moldavians/moldoveni/whatever. I want it started from letopisetul tarii moldovei or even earlier. I am surprized you wrote three archives of this talk pages and nothing about the (quoting the intro:) "native population of the lands that corresond to the former Principality of Moldavia". `'mikka (t) 04:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There exists a History of Moldova, which is trouble in itself, because the article treats the unification of 1859 and the soviet republic in the same article, and suggesting some form of continuity. How could you continue from the Unification win Romania to today's Rep. of Moldova? Dpotop 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, that term was extremely rarely if ever used to denote Moldavia, it's not like Wallachia was called Ţara Românească. Secondly all the information regarding this group could be found in the Romanians article. This actually shows the relative homogeneity of the Romanian ethnos. Now I see that you want to prove something here, probably that the definition should only only refer to the Republic of Moldova, however wouldn't that ignore all the other Moldovans? Please just explain what exactly it is you want. TSO1D 14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And might I add that, next to the article on Romanians, there is that on the Principality of Moldavia. Dahn 14:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about political entity. I am not talking about Romanian ethnos. I am talking about Moldoveni. Let me give you an example which is IMO somewhat similar, but sufficiently remote topic to avoid political overtones. There is an exticnt ethnos of Prussians. We know very little about them. Yet we have separate articles about Notangians, Scalvians, etc., although we only know about them that they lived in Natangia, Scalovia, etc. Notice the similarity: like Moldovans they are named after the geographical locations. All of them are Prussians, but they have separate articles. IMO Moldovans (historical) deserve a summary article. Your objection is that everything is already written elsewhere. But how an ignorant person can fish out all this information from a dozen of places? there should be a central article that points to these places. `'mikka (t) 17:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it does not deserve anything. First of all: It is against wiki policies to create articles for topics which could be included in in articles already existing. Second of all: as I have said already, Moldavians (as in inhabitants of the Moldavian Principality), is not an ethnonym - it implies people who were subjects of the Moldavian Crown, and only that. In fact, let me post it again, since you had trouble finding it at the top of this page:
 * The relevant criteria then were "being a subject of" (for the Moldavians and Poles - as they remained subjects wherever they were) and religion (for the Jews). When the proto-nationalism of the Renaissance came about, Moldavians started toying with the concept of "being Romanian", in the same and largely inconsequential way everybody had started doing it: with the emphasis on a noble origin (the Romans), with interest in the vernacular, never with the added claim that there should be a new state, but not really intersted in whether being Moldavian or Romanian set you apart from others (as in "all others" - in this case, "all other Christian Orthodox", and perhaps all other "Christians"). Ethnicity is attributed in retrospect, and it is done so on a whim. The fact is that such arguments didn't carry weight until Herder and Fichte, who invented the claim that there is a Volkgeist, largely due to the fact that the extention of modern citizenship during the French Revolution (as the catalysis of the original "national community") could in no way have been applied to their desired Germany (which did not exist at the time). Volkgeist came to be the basis for defining Romanianness in the following period, but I agree with you that, as a political idea, nationalism could have become two or three different ones instead of the single Romanian one. But, you see, any reference to Volkgeist-like ideas before that (for "being Moldovan" of for "being Romanian" alike) is completely misplaced: people simply did not comply either way with modern requirements, especially since citizenship was not a medieval reality, and especially still because the concept of citizenship came here even later than in other parts of Europe (which accounts for the tribalist character of Romanian nationalism, as well as, in reaction, for that of Moldovanianist advocates today).
 * Third of all: allow me to note, for the goddamn 14th time, that an article for the Belgians does not exist (yes, it turns blue: click on it to see why). Mikkalai, I am slowly being confirmed that you have much less awareness of the problems involved with the topic than you would like to think. On the last archived page, you will be able to find the discussion I had with Node on this very topic, and may read again the questions I had addressed to you. If, when reading them, you should find that events and actions described are unfamiliar to you, I strongly suggest you do a little reading about them. If you do not wish to do so, then please don't pretend that your recommendations are NPOV, and rather accept that they are parallel to the debate. Dahn 17:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, I have a limited awareness about some of the problems (as millions of other people). Moldova/Romania are not the center of the Earth for me and I will not die or kill for it. So be patient when talking. If it was already discussed "14 times", just point to the place of discussion and done with it, without much emotions. As for Belgians, I did click on the link and learned nothing useful in the context of the current discussion besides the fact that Belgians are lazy to write about themselves. And your extensive quote might have been an interesting piece of the article you so vehemently denying the existence of. `'mikka (t) 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, you do not have just limited awareness of this topic, you seem to have limited awareness of the concepts you are manupaliting. I insist on stressing the obvious: Belgians leads to Belgium because there is nothing that could be added about "Belgians" that is not comprised in Belgium, Demographics of Belgium, Walloons and Flemish people. To be Belgian, just like to be an inhabitant of Moldavia, implies a relation between subjects and state, not an ethnicity. That is why suggesting such articles is absurd. As to an article about the "Moldavian Land", juridical presence and succession are made clear by the all articles comprised in disambig Moldavia. And for your sophistical claim about Belgians being "lazy" for not creating an article on a vague, absurd, and irrelevant notion, do take a look at Americans and perhaps see why your "points" are dismissable. My extensive quote should not be part of a new article: it reflects common sense of why not have an article on such an illogical notion. Again, if you admit you do not have knowledge, do try to gain some before having me explain Europe to you. Dahn 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me also stress two other things.
 * If you believe that the "Moldavian Land" (a notion which you came up with just now) should be a new article, instead of taking the trouble to note that Principality of Moldavia covers exactly that, then we should also have, say, four different articles for what Mexico is: it could have just as well, according to your criteria, been a different Mexico before the war with the US, a different one before WW1 etc. - all of those are covered by History of Mexico. I have also suggested that Moldova (Romanian region) be turned into Moldavia, and blend the Principality into the new article: since, in 1859, the country itself became a region of Romania (and having been halved by Russian conquest is of no relevance, as Moldavia was still in existence).
 * You have completely misunderstood the articles you have provided as reference. The ethnonyms refer to groups are tribes which gave their names to regions they no longer inhabited in the Middle Ages. This also works for Lombardy, which is not the same as Lombards; if, as proposed by the 1848 generation, Romania's name would have been "Dacia", an article on the source for inspiration (Dacia) would have been necessary, as well an article on Dacians. Dahn 20:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an article Latino which does not redirect to Latin America. We have a fundamental disagreement as to what can and what cannot be a separate article. I stand that as long as there is a meanigful content possible, the article has a right to exist. And all your efforts to prove that I am stupid will not change this. Especially when you contradict yourself (Dacia and Dacians who by definition, The Dacians (Lat. Daci, Gr. Dákai) were the ancient inhabitants of Dacia). What is wrong with the article that defines The Moldovans are/were the inhabitants of Moldova/Moldavia/whatever. and proceeds with their history, how they realized that they are in fact Romanians and then how Soviets tried to screw the  things up?  `'mikka (t) 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Or to put it in the way you Romanian colleagues would love. Yes I am a moron an ignorant in Romanian/Moldavian issues. Where is the article which explains who are Moldavians? Hell, I even don't have a possibility to know that thehy are Romanians. All I (as moron I am) see is that they are inhabitants of Prin of Mol. Albanians assimilated by Bulgars? Baptized Turks? WHO ARE THEY? Teach me, smart guy. `'mikka (t) 21:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For Chrissake, "Moldavians" was never used as an ethnonym! And you have zero knowledge of pre-modern affiliations if you still claim that. Inhabitants of Moldavia, just like everyone else in Europe at the time, were first and foremost defined by being subjects of the Moldavian princes, not by having a cultural identity as Latinos are claimed to have. There is an article on Novgorod, but there is none on "Novgorodians", even if Novgorod has been an independent state for a long while. There is no article for "Swedish-Norwegians", even if Sweden and Norway have been united for centuries. There is no article on "Americans", even if the United Staes have been independent for centuries. There is no article on "United Kingdom of Nederlandese", even if that polity has existed for decades. In all these cases, it is because it is superflous to produce such an article: a polity is not necessarily the source or the basis for an ethnicity. Those majority Moldavians who have claimed Romanian ethnicity in 1859 and 1918 are well-covered by the Romanians article - because, given the official relation between ethnicity and state in the model adopted by Romania (the same as the one adopted in Greece, but not the same as the one adopted in Belgium or the US, that meant being ethnically Romanian, and those voting had perfect knowledge of that). The rest, and their various claims, are covered here. Dahn 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is not teaching enough, I don't know what is. There are no Moldavians but the inhabitants of Moldavia. There are no Moldovans but those who claim that identity in Moldova and, for some reason, possibly in Ukraine as well. It is not my special duty to imform people with no knowledge of the subject on the obvious: that Moldavia was not a nation-state, and that a "Moldavian", unlike "Moldovan" identity, was never argued. It is especially not my duty to do so when that person attcks me as being part of a cabal (aside from the character assassination you attempted, I have to point out that you were not even paying attention to the fact that I resent all attempts to imply that Moldovans are necessarily Romanian, that I oppose the union, that I have questioned Romanian nationalist cliches on countless occassions, and that I believe ethnicity is always subjective - which should not prevent me from santioning the claims some have of it being "objective" in the case of Moldovans). Dahn 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For the same Chrissake, why do you think I want an article about a new ethnonym? Your example with "Novgorodians" is OK. But I have a conter-example Poleszuk, about population of Polesie. See also Moravians article. I would also to point you out that I absolutely don't keep track of who is in which cabal. When discussing articles, I am discussing article topics and not people. While it is not your duty to "inform people bal-bla" (we all are volunters here and the duties are what we choose), it does not mean that someone else will find a duty for him  "to imform people with no knowledge of the subject", as it was done, eg in Moravians article. You wrote: There is no article on "United Kingdom of Nederlandese", even if that polity has existed for decades. If it is true, ie if the policy did exist, then the absence of the article is a clear oversight. We have articles about states that existed 9 days.  (and I guess you meant United Kingdom of Netherlands (1815-1839); See? I am not so stupid: I even know how to use google to check facts)`'mikka (t) 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And again you argue backwards. An article on Poleszuk, like an article on Lombards, is there because Polesia and Lombardy have meaning extended beyond the original inhabitants (i.e.: it is the Lombards that are named after Lombardy, it is Lombardy that is named after Lombards, it is not Scalvians that are named after Scalovia, it is Scalovia that is named after the Scalvians, it is not Dacians that are named after Dacia, it is Dacia that is named after the Dacians etc.). The question of Moravians and the Poleszuk, as you will note from actually reading the articles, is the same as the question of Moldovans - i.e., not the same as the question of Moldavians; it is modern people who view themselves as Moravian, not an assesment of whether people inhabiting Moravia were an ethnicity. In pure terms, what you ask is the same as advocating separate articles for Paris and Parisians.
 * "There is no article on "United Kingdom of Nederlandese", even if that polity has existed for decades. If it is true, ie if the policy did exist, then the absence of the article is a clear oversight. We have articles about states that existed 9 days. (and I guess you meant United Kingdom of Netherlands (1815-1839); See? I am not so stupid: I even know how to use google to check facts)''" - this is a clear proof of the fact that you rush in without noting the point. I hadn't asked you if there is an article about the Kingdom, but about the inhabitans (hence: "Nederlandese"), as opposed to articles for Dutch and Walloons and Flemish. Just like Novgorodians. Dahn 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My sentence about it not being my duty to inform and explain myself in fron of people with no knowledge of the subject was aimed at you, Mikkalai. You are asking me to explain the obvous, and you are mixing up terms on all possible occasions you get. As I have said, if you consider my explanations confusing, by all means go and read something on the issue. It is common curtesy for the person who does not understand terms, relations, and successions of events (that others do understand) not to assume that the one using them is biased, but to inform himself on what reference is being made to. I do not go and ask for articles on chemistry the basis that my input would be necassary as a neutral voice if I believe that no knowledge of the internal processes analysed by chemistry is ever required. Dahn 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dahn, I am not sure why you continue to bring up the Moldovan/Moldavian distinction. Yes, the two regions have different names in English and it is possible to use the two names to differentiate the people living in Moldavia and the Republic of Moldodova (which would be strictly geographically, not ethnically). But, up to this day, a Moldovan ethnic (or rather sub-ethnic) identity does exist although you argue against it. I can accept the argument that a few centuries ago the term generally refered to the region one was a subject to, but that is not relevant today, although the term continues to be used in Romania. Many (actually most) natives of Romania, in addition to viewing themselves as Romanians, also view themselves as belonging to a sugroup of that ethnos. A person can still answer that they are a muntean, or moldovean, or ardelean, etc., which would have an ethnical rather than a geographical connotation (i.e. a person from Iaşi who moves to Cluj might still view himself as a moldovean). I agree that these distinctions are extremely subjective and declining in use, however many people still use them. TSO1D 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)]
 * Look, the distinction establishes a working basis. As a word, "Moldovan" made its way into English to define thoose people in the Republic of Moldova (and Ukraine) who use the term with an ethnic meaning (note that I would not ever restrict their right to do so). The term "Moldavian" in English is partly competed today by the term "Moldovan" (when referring to inhabitants of Moldavia in general, just as the term "Moldavian" may be used to refer to Moldovans), but all early references indicate that Moldovans was not being used at all in English. The inhabitants of Moldavia (the principality and the Romanian region alike- since the latter is the successor of the former), have been referred to as Moldavians, with no implications that this was an ethnonym. In other words, for clarity's sake, the self-reference a Romanian "moldovean" makes should be translated as "Moldavian" (precisely because it is not an ethnonym). Dahn 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that though is that the English differentiation of the words belies the Romanian usage of the word by most. For example, as I stated before, "classical" Moldovenist theory emphasizes the distinctness of all Moldovans/Moldavians from the Romanians, and the term moldovean was used as an ethnonym by them, leading to the Greater Moldova theories. The argument was not made that only people from Bessarabia were Moldovan. Today, many Moldovan politicians continue to make the claim that all Moldovans are distinct from Romanians (even the ones from Romania), albeit usually implicitly. Thus the usage of the ethnonym "moldovean" as used by some authorities would not be confined to the people of RM and Ukraine but would also include those in Eastern Romania. Similarly the other usage of the world (the Romanian self-reference as you called it) also encompasses all Moldavians (though of course not as a separate ethnic group, but as a sub-group of Romanians). TSO1D 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As you yourself have mentioned, the person attributing himself an ethnicity does not make the claim for others, (s)he only makes it for himself/herself (if I say that we are both Papuan, you do not have to agree with that). Thus, the relevance of what the names implicate is not relevant (for both Moldovans and Moldavians). Also, it would be pointless to start blurring lines: as this article makes clear in the form that I advocate, Moldoveni is the same in both languages (and, furthern down, it could expand on the possibility that people are declaring themselves Moldovan in Moldova to indicate a regional, not an ethnic reality; in Romania, this would be a non-sequitur - since, unlike in Moldova, there was never the implication that the word in Romanian might have an ethnic connotation); for the inhabitants of 13th-19th century Moldavia, the term "Moldavians" is traditional, and it is by no means confoundable with the neologism - since it is not an ethnonym, and since Moldavia was clearly succeded by Romania in 1859, the regionalist meaning in today's Romania should be translated as such. Dahn 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that in both Romania and Moldova when people use the word moldovean in its non-geographic sense, the same group of people is refered to. I mean a native of Chişinău would not deny that a native of Iaşi is a moldovean or vice versa. Whether these moldoveni are Romanians is a separate matter, however virtually no one disputes that the moldoveni on the two sides of the Pruth are of the same ethnic group. Thus any article that discusses this group should take the entire population into account, not just the part in Moldova, Ukraine, or Romania. You also have to take into account that before independence (of RM that is), the autochtonous population of of the republic was called "Moldavian" in English, and a quick web-search will show that on most instances when the word is used, it is used as an ethnonym. The neulogism Moldovan appeared after '91 and was first used to denote the entire population of the land, and that is still its main meaning, it was only used as an ethnonym later and relatively rarely. Thus should the article be moved to "Moldavians" where the regionalistic meaning on the word could be explored with a section focusing on the theories of a separate Moldavian ethnos? TSO1D 01:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note the essence: while "Moldavians" has several and ambivalent uses, and different meanings in different contexts, "Moldovans" only has one (which has been since extended to cover references to Moldavians as an ethnicity - in fact, I think that is the very purpose behind the neologism). Again, if you are to ask me, all articles for Moldavia that are not about Moldova should be merged, and any possible ambivalence about ethnicity would thus be cleaned out. As I have said already: a Moldovan citizen who states that both he and a guy in Suceava are Moldoveni is either one of those refusing the cllaim that Moldovans are an ethnic group or, like some Moldovenists (because it is never clear how many claim this and when), that people on both sides of the Pruth are the same ethnicity, and that that ethnicity is not Romanian (thus identifying Romanians with Wallachians or Wallachians-Transylvanians). If we talk about the prototype-claim (although, as you have aknowledged yourself, this tends to be combined with the other Moldovanist vision even in the same text, as part of a festival of sophistry), then "Moldovan" should stand for any meaning that indicates ethnicity, and for no other. Dahn 02:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the word Moldavian would refer to all descendants of the indigenous population of the Principality of Moldova, connected by the Moldovian grai, whereas Moldovans would be a separate ethnic group that lives in Moldova and Ukraine. Then would Moldovans also be Moldavian? TSO1D 02:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Because, as I have mentioned, the word "Moldovan" should refer to any claim about their existence as an ethnicity, and to the consequences - as well as, of course, mere citizens of the Republic of Moldova (the same way "Romanian" also applies to an ethnic Hungarian Romanian). The only sense in which they could be argued to be Moldavian is that were they are said to live in regions that were originally part of the principality - but note that these regions have tradition as particular topics under the headers Bessarabia, Bukovina, etc. This latter example ultimately affects neither Moldavians (who prefer to be called Romanians) nor Moldovans (who - with the exception of those who are Moldovan only through citizenship - have not established a clear link to the Moldavian past or the Moldavian region, and certainly do not want to be called Romanian). Dahn 02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok this is geting stranger now. I do not accept that RM is the only legitimate successor to the Principate of Moldavia as some Moldovan politicians claim, Romania clearly is after the union. Nevertheless, claiming that Moldova's population has no connection to the Principate of Moldavia seems absurd. The Principate was homogenous culturally, and the Pruth in no way presented a cultural barrier. The Russian Empire annexed the region, however the population mainly stayed the same before 1918. This actually made the region more distinct from the rest of Moldavia now in Romania as Bessarabia was isolated from the nationalistic movement that swept Romania. Russification during the Soviet occupation further changed the identity of the people, however not to an extreme degree. I am not sure how they can establish a clearer connection to the Moldavian past, unless you claim that a huge migration took place that replaced the Romanian Moldavians with the current Moldovans. TSO1D 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see myself forced to repeat the same things over and over. This is not about whether the two territories have a cultural connection or whatever. It is about the fact that those people who claim to be Moldovan and imply this as having an ethnic meaning do not want to be connected to Romanians. I do not know how many of these are around, and I do not know whether all to people who answered "Moldovan" in the census meant to indicate that they were ethnically different. The people in government and culture etc. who consider themselves Moldovan draw on that interpretation - an article on Moldovans would analyse their claims, present the paradoxes, reference why this is ambiguous etc. This is mainly because the definition of Moldavians is not ethnical, or almost never; the reference to Moldovans is always ethnical (I'm not implying that it is an actual ethnos, but that the use of the word argues that it is an ethnos). What I have meant about the "unclear connection to the past" is that IT IS NOT CLEAR UP TO NOW IF THEORISTS OF MOLDOVAN IDENTITIES ARGUE THAT THEY ORIGINATE WITH THE PRINCIPALITY (the vision where Moldovan=Moldavians and Romanians=Wallachians) OR IF IT IS A POPULATION ONLY MARGINALLY CONNECTED TO THE PRINCIPALITY (if they view themselves as Moldovan, and do not claim that Moldavia is Moldovan, but that Moldova is Moldovan). Dahn 04:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To make this even more clear: the reasons for stating an ethnicity are always a matter of subjectivity. That x number of people declare themselves y when they know that y refers to ethnicity is a a reality - the reality that says "those people are y because they believe that they are y". That is objective (a certain number of people doing that exists). What is not objective is a futher claim of those people that they speak a different language (Moldovan instead of Romanian), since the language can and is analysed with linguistic instruments that would prove the claim to be bogus. What is not objective is claiming that the identity has existed before the first person recorded to have stated it (in this case, before 1918 or so). Dahn 04:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am sorry I did not understand what you meant the first time. Yes, I have to agree, it is difficult to understand what the claims of the Moldovenists are and how they view their connection to the old Principality. Sometimes references are made to Stephen et al, but that's about it. It appears the argument now is that there is actually an ethnic barrier at the Pruth River and the Moldovans only exist in Moldova, Ukraine, and others. What is strange though is that Romanians are still equated with Wallachians + Transylvanians + Oltenians, etc., except for Moldavians. Thus Eminescu is still claimed to have been a Moldovan. But then others don't really acknowledge that Romanians on the right bank of the Pruth are Moldovans, but only Romanians, as though the Moldovans left and now only exist in Moldova and the Romanians invaded that region. In any case, your argument makes sense and as we cannot decipher their theories and as the matter is extremely subjective, it is best not to make the Moldovans are part of Moldavians claim.TSO1D 13:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To make it even MORE clear: a number of people in the world may start declaring that they are "fish", and thus indicate that they are nothing other than "fish". The existence of that claim would become objective. The claim that they would have that they can live and breathe under water would not be objective, unless they can back it with evidence (i.e.: actually plunge their heads into water and breathe down there). Dahn 05:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On a different note: please, stop using Principate instead of Principality, especially if you plan on using it in articles. Dahn 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, sorry about that I mostly read information about this topic in Romanian and rarely used the word in English. TSO1D 13:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with this whole Moldo topic is that everyone is eager to spit their own convictions rather than refer to some reputable sources that discuss an issue. When I ask a question or bring out a suggestion, it is interpreted as my policitical conviction and I am hit with a heavy hammer. I can understand the heat in Israel-Palestinian, Turkish-Armenian or Serb-Croat articles: lots of blood is there. But such passions around Moldova? Beyond my understanding. `'mikka (t) 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you will do me the honour of seeing that I do not combat with the idea of "Moldavianness", but with lack of information on basic facts. Dahn 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Antiquated"
The alphabet is still in use in transnistria and in wikipedia. Check your facts before reverting, please. It is far from being antiquated. You are probably confusing it with Romanian Cyrillic alphabet. `'mikka (t) 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No it's not. It's very used in schools latin alphabet. Only the Cyrillic alphabet in Russian language is used. --Brasoveanul 05:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mikka. You cannot call "antiquated" an alphabet that was created in the 1940's by the Soviet Union. :) It's quite recent. Dpotop 08:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that I am "playing games", Mikkalai, have the curtesy on informing yourself on what this is about. It matters SHIT that it is used in Transnistria, since it was proven just above that Transnistria has no claim to Moldovan ancestry, in the very words of Transnistia - getting it in the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet in there is thus equivalent to getting it in French or Armenian or Korean. Do not mock my goodwill by saying I am playing games, especially since the Cyrillic reference is actually the result of such a game: if you believe that it is essential to the text, why the hell wasn't it in there before? (It's kinda like that "multi-cultural nation" thing on Moldova.) And if you believe that its use is that relevant, why don't you go to articles on all Moldovan concepts and add the Cyrillic and unofficial version?! I'm going to add back "antiquated", for reasons which should be clear to anyone by now. Dahn 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again: you are applying the adjective "antiquated" to alphabet, which is false. From your passionate defense I understand that your intention was to apply the ajd ective to the spelling of the ethnicity term. If it is so, I see your reason, and I agree that the name in old alphabet is out of place here. Note however that in wikipedia there is a convention of writing the historical names of geographicsl places in various languages and spellings, for easy reference, e.g, in old texts. But I do see that there is no such convintion for names of ethnicities. So I would rather agree to deletion of the Cyrillic spelling altogether. `'mikka (t) 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for seeing my point. Let me note that, if you advocate using versions in Moldovan Cyrillic for towns in Moldova, when that use is not in fact Ukrainian Cyrillic or Russian Cyrillic, my point still stands about it being out of use. After all, it would be moronic for me start adding Romanian Cyrillic alternative spellings to Romanian towns on English articles, just as moronic as it would be for me to go on the London article and add the name it possibly has in Inuit language. Dahn 15:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Inuit: clarification: only spellings officially used in the location in question are listed. London was never under the rule of Inuit or Inuit-writing government. Besides, this rule is only used for smaller locations when is it is difficult to track its name in documents, ad in cases of significantly prolonged usage (clearly, no one is going to add German names to all Ukrainian towns just because they were officially used during Nazi occupation). In other words, it is a matter of common sense. `'mikka (t) 16:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So then we agree: the Cyrillic spelling should never be used for Moldovan articles unless it reflects the Ukrainian- or Russian-language version, and where that version is relevant to the context. Nothing should be referenced as "Moldavian Cyrillic", lest perhaps an alternative given in the first line of the article for the Moldovan language. Dahn 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With the exception, like I menitoned, of geographical names. Like it or not, the fact is Moldova is on periphery of worlds' interests, its names may be trasliterated into English in various ways, and these spellings are clearly encyclopedic information. However there is another tradition: since putting many different names into the first sentence unnecessarily clutters the intro, in many cases it is common to use a separate section to discuss various names of the place throughout its history. `'mikka (t) 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did I stutter? Read it again, to see what I was talking about. Dahn 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Read it again, to see what I was talking about and explain what exactly made you think that I misunderstood you (if it was the meaning of your utterance), if you want me to understand you rather than to demonstrate that I am a moron. `'mikka (t) 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Was I not talking about geographical locations? If you want to reference the names in an alphabet that is no longer used by the language itself, then you should note the original reference to the Romanian Slavonic alphabet, and perhaps, just perhaps, consider why the names for Chinese cities, rivers, etc. are not given in all variant of ideograms from 1,000 years ago, but in Pinying (with Waden-Giles as the second reference) and modern, simplified Chinese script. Plus, if you want the variant of name in another, no longer used, version of the same word to be referenced in the first line, then you ought to consider this list and ponder about its uses: List of European regions with alternative names. If you do not suggest adding it in the first line, and only if and where it is relevant to the context of the page, then do read me what I had said you were wrong (and please don't lecture me on wikipedia guidelines, they are familiar to me and I have never suggested breaking them, but quite the contrary). Dahn 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You said "only in Slavic and only in context" . I wrote that I disagree: multiple spelling have right to be listed. I do agree: only in proper context. See Gdańsk, Minsk. Brest, Belarus. You want more examples? Go tell them this Pinying smartie. And unlike you, I see no harm in Romanian Slavonic spelling. What is your problem of being so nervous? `'mikka (t) 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you do not suggest adding it in the first line, and only if and where it is relevant to the context of the page, then do read me what I had said you were wrong (and please don't lecture me on wikipedia guidelines, they are familiar to me and I have never suggested breaking them, but quite the contrary) I myself see no trouble with having a Romanian Cyrillic spelling, but not if it is being interpreted or interpretable that the name is in use today. For example, the pardox there would be an attempt to transliterate a name like Питeшть as Piteshti, when the modern-day alphabet is both the official modern Romanian and the accepted transliteration for Romanian Cyrillic (and, in fact, not a different word - unlike Kashubian versions of Gdansk etc. No Hungarian names are given in Hungarian runes, unless the context calls for it. Both an old Romanian and Moldavian script belong indeed on a section of name history, and not in the opening lines, unless the context calls for it (i.e.: they are slightly different in the way they are pronounced, their use was generilized (and not ambiguous as the multiple spelling versions of the same name in the same alphabet for several Romanian towns, and they don't fall into anomalies such as Кишинъу not being used for Кишинёв or Кишинъу, although the Moldovan/Romanian pronounciation would never be Kishinev or Kishineu - to refernce a Russian version as both a Russian name and a Moldovan Cyrillic version would thus be idiotic in this case). Dahn 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is how it works best: when in disagreement it is quite posiible that disagreement is a misunderstanding. When you detailed your position deeply enough instead of grumbling, I see that we don't have disagreement at all. Once again, if you look into your initial phrasing, it was formulated as a complete rejection of different spellings. For example, first you wrote: "it would be moronic for me start adding Romanian Cyrillic alternative spellings to Romanian towns on English articles", which is an absolute rejection. Now you write " I myself see no trouble with having a Romanian Cyrillic spelling, but not if it is being interpreted or interpretable that the name is in use today." I am not accusing you that you twisted your position 180 degrees. I undserstand that when writing the former sentence you implicitely had in mind a narrower context, e.g., : "...adding Rom Cyr into first sentences" or sometnig like this. `'mikka (t) 22:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the very this talk page a little bit above gives a perfect example: Maria Bieshu: Who the heck is she? Google gives 2,050 hits. Must be a notable person. Wait... It is Maria Bie...shoot, I don't have this stupid romanian letter on my keyboard... here you are,.... cut and paste:... Maria Bieşu... only 79 google hits in English language pages (AND NO ONE BOTHERED TO MAKE A REDIRECT!). Like it or not, quite a few Moldonan names came known in English from Soviet Union and all these multiple spellings have their use. `'mikka (t) 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you tried "Maria Biesu"? A lot of Romanian/Moldovan (and foreign) sources fail to include diacritics. I have, and got plenty of results. In fact, now, while looking over your message, am I to understand that you consider we should write her name as "Maria Biesu" just beacuse most sources credit her like that out of ignorance and indiferrence? Also note that a search for Maria Biesu will also include plenty of results for Maria Bieşu (since all "ş"s on those pages are rendered as "s"s). The Ş is the official Moldovan spelling, not the Romanian variant - as such, this not equivelant to "Brancusi". Dahn 23:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean the ş is the Moldovan spelling, not the Romanian. I just don't understand. The usage of ş does not differ between the two modern versions of Romanian orthography (the earlier being now used in Moldova). TSO1D
 * In the sense that a version with ş is not legitimate over a version with sh because that's the way Romanians spell it, but because it is the way Moldovans spell it (or, if you think this is better, the way Moldovans spell it as well). Just so that it is not considered that the issue of transliteration from the Cyrillic variant is in any way connected to Romanian nationalism: since Moldovans use this version of the alphabet as well, and since it is only natural that such a reform should be also considered the code for transliteration from Cyrillic (as it is with Romanian words when considering the use of Romanian Cyrillic), a claim that sh and ts have any status because they are common English transliterations of Slavonic would be abhorrent; I also wanted to state clearly that ş over sh is not in any way connected to the Moldovan-Romanian issue. Dahn 02:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dahn, you appear a bit paranoid about the Moldovan-Romanian issue as you call it. Whenever a topic remotely touches the subject you seem more intent on proving that your response is in now way shaped by nationalism before answering it. In this case for instance it's obvious that that could not have been an issue as the name is written Biaşu on the majority of sources, be they what it may as that is the correct spelling of the name in the latin script. Even if it were a Romanian-Moldovan language issue, I don't think anyone still disputes the fact that the formal languages are identical. TSO1D 02:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I had just been indicated that the Cyrillic version of Mioldovan could find a cosy place on articles although it is no longer in use, and although its application was chaotic (note that the official spellings for Chişinău in "Moldovan" were equivalent to Kishinev and, probably, Kishineu), with the implication that it might hold some status (Mikka's intervention into the article's text was what prompted this). I had replied that it may find a place on just some pages (as Romanian Cyrillic versions may, and with the same status). Also, if you read Mikka's message ("Like it or not, quite a few Moldovan names came known in English from Soviet Union and all these multiple spellings have their use.") you are to understand that he is indicating that the Latin alphabet for Moldovan is not also the official and universally-accepted rendition of the previously-used Cyrillic script (as the Romanian latin alphabet is for Romanian Cyrillic), but that it would be somehow justified to add "sh" instead of "ş" somewhere in the article - as what? replacing IPA? If he does suggest that "English sources may credit her as Bieshu" pass into the text, I see no problem; but if he indicates that "sh" is acceptable over "ş" as the rendition of Moldavian Cyrillic, then all articles with diacritics would eventually fall into that chasm (see Talk:List of Polish monarchs). Dahn 02:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, nice talk. When you reach an agreement, would you mind explaining to me the sense of the cryptical self-naming in Moldovan and name in Romanian? Do you imply that somehow the Moldovans should call themselves Bessarabians? Dpotop 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * huh? the word "self-naming" simply means that people call themselves so. If you think that the word is unnecessary here, no big deal. `'mikka (t) 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikka blocked Constantzeanu
This issue is meaningful here because User:Constantzeanu has been banned for editing here. Given my experience on wikipedia, his edits do not justify a block.

Mikka, according to Blocking policy, you should be willing to discuss the motives of you blocking User:Constantzeanu. So, I will ask you to explain why you did it, and how your reasons fit into the accepted reasons for blocking, listed at Blocking policy. Dpotop 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He also blocked User:Nixer just because he cannot accept the fact that Nixer has other opinions then himself.--Brasoveanul 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACKS FROM MIKKALAI ADRESSED TO BRASOVEANUL And user:Brasoveanul is about to be blocked as a sockpuppet. `'mikka (t) 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh really you make now personal attacks? I will remove any threats, personal attacks and other forms of your harassment! --Brasoveanul 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone else has noticed. --Vlachos 15:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Constantzeanu is blocked for repeated insults of the opponents. It was not just a slip of tongue (like, a person may emotionally say "it is shit", as we see it in the previous section) it was an intentional well-thought and lovely phrased long-lasting insult. It is not an expression of an opposing view on the text of the article. It is an inflammatory expression. Such behavior is certainly disruptive and is never tolerated in wikipedia. You may take this case to arbitration and see what happens. `'mikka (t) 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean it was a personal attack, after having been blocked for it before? --Vlachos 15:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A spaniards view
In spain the idea of National identity is quite troublesome and it led to the introduction of a semi federal system whereby central power has been asymetrically devolved to regions. Recent polls ask people if they consider themselves Spainis, Catalan, Vasque, Galician, Valencian, etc, first or second. Hence in Catalonia, for example, some define themselves as Catalonians alone, others as first Catalonians and second Spanish, others as Spanish and second Catalonians and others as only Spanish.

I like this approach as it shows that identities are not mutually exclusive and it respect the right of indivituals to self determination. It also respects that identity is not a question of Black and White, but rather it is within an infinite shades of grey. Furthermore clear references are available as these polls are carried out by respectable agencies.

The approach to regionalism is prossibly the biggest divide between Spain's majority parties PP and PSOE, with PP often argueing that Spain is under risk of breaking up. This approach grants them the support of a considerable part of the population, but it has not proven suficient to hold the offices of government in the last elections, and they have lost much of the remaining strength they held in regional governments, in particular Galicia, where they have been ousted after 20 years by a coalition between PSOE and regional party BNG, and Catalonia, where a similar Coalition between PSOE and Regionalists have ousted the PP-CiU coalition. Furthermore they lost in Madrid, though PSOE did not hold its small majority as a couple of elected representatives moved to PP and gave it a slight voting majority which has proven stable.

The point is that regionalism, ethnicity and language has been devated in Spain for hundreds of years and is still a crucial part of spanish politics. We in turn have tried to provide diferent solutions to the problem, with a unique political system of Autonomous regions (asymetrical devolution)within a democratic liberal system that allows regional attitudes to be expressed and exert power at the local, regional and national level.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 03:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight. However, it is a template for a political solution, and none of us are governing Moldova. As it is, different criteria are in use, partly because of situations Spain has never had to deal with. Dahn 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * &lt;frivolous remark&gt;Unless, of course, Vasile Tarlev is editing anonymously. Or maybe Voronin.&lt;/frivolous remark&gt; - Jmabel | Talk
 * Don't you know I am a secret KGB internet officer of the Kishinev bureau? You're the only one who hasn't figured it out. In essence, I am in charge of Moldova. Mwaahahahahahahaha! --Node 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I give them credit for higher standards. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch! --Node 17:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To Write or Not To Write
I am thoroughly baffled with an enormous amount of effort put into attemts to prove that a certain article should not be written accompanied with hints that I am an ignoramus, cannto think logically, got it all wrong and hence somehow not entitled to discuss certain issues. Let me say that my boss and my wife do not think that I am a complete lost person. Therefore with a minimal application of logical thinking I believe preserved im my brain I can conclude that a couple million  of people on the Earth have the same absence of understanding of the topic. WRITE the goddamn article, then!!!! This is what encyclopedia for: to teach ignoramuses. Half of discussion on this page is a very good material for the article. I don't do it myself (and fighting a windmill instead) precisely because I do agree with my opponent: I don't have enough knowledge and reference material to do this. But with the remaining piece of my senile brain I do see that there is enough content to be written about. `'mikka (t) 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if an article on the Moldavian Land (whatever that means) or on Moldavians (as opposed to Moldovans) is required by Mikkalai simply because Mikkalai is not aware of their perennial lack of logical structure, the fact that the topics itself would not have legitimacy and, at best, would repeat info adequately presented in Romanians, Origin of Romanians, Principality of Moldavia, Bukovina, Bessarabia, Hertza region, and History of Romania, I urge people to start work on a more comprehensive article, entitled What Mikkalai does not know about Moldavia. Let us all contribute to improving the plight of the indifferent, and let us also begin work on articles written in Thai and Haitian Creole as part of the English-language wikipedia, because Thai or Haitian people using it may want catering in accordance with their criteria, and not the ones implied by the sheer use of English words. Dahn 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha very funny. Only wekipedia does have a tool to avoid repetition of info "adequately presented elsewhere". Usually you see something like this: Main article: Article Title, followed by a summary sufficient for the current context. How the hell I would know to read Hertza region article in search of information about Moldavians? I need it spelled coherently in one place. Yes, I know how to click on blue links, but, again, I - want - it - in - one - place. I am so stupid and lazy, you know. If you don't want to, by all means, be my guest. But don't insist that this is totally forbidden and useless. `'mikka (t) 19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you see the categories on the Hertza page? Did you click on them? Did you see where they lead? Plus: putting it all in one place is what I have been suggesting all along - uniting Principality of Moldavia with Moldova (historical region) and Moldova (Romanian region) (the latter two articles are factually incorrect), and renaming it Moldavia. In my view, all those articles are in no way complete as it is (reason why you don't see things "clarified" - if you do not, however, see a, say, "Main article Bukovina" on one of the pages, but you do see a link to Bukovina in the text, perhaps clicking on it would clarify some stuff). I will see who supports the changes, and deal with the avalanche of inane attacks on either side, only when agreement on issues such as those raised on this page are reached. Meanwhile, the page that covers most (and mentions both Bessarabia and Bukovina, as well as their relations to Moldavia) is Principality of Moldavia - it does not deal with "Moldavians" in detail because, as it should be obvious, that would not be different in any way from articles on Romanians. As it is, Moldavians redirects here; I would support changing that to a disambig page that would read:
 * Moldavians is a word used for the subjects of the Principality of Moldavia. In rare instances, it may refer to the controversial ethnic group Moldovans or to citizens of Moldova regardless of ethnicity.
 * Either that or have Moldavians redirect to the Moldavia (the new article for both the Principality and the Romanian region - because, again, they are actually the same thing), and have a caption at the top saying:
 * "Moldavians" redirects here. For the seldom used version for the ethnic group or the citizens of Moldova, see Moldovans.
 * But, you see, these are all things we get do when I am done explaining the obvious to people who want to make wikipedia answer to their precise questions in the way they formulate them (because, as we know, wikipedia is a supercomputer designed by Martians). Dahn 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillic usage
I'm going to pretend I didn't read all of the various personal attacks and trolling aimed at me a page or two ago, and try to remain blissfully ignorant of the current conflict here, in the interest of solving a problem not previously mentioned.

Whose idea is it that Cyrillic is only used in Transnistria? Who's to say it isn't used by Moldovans in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia?

In many similar situations, I have seen anti-Cyrillic POV injected by various people -- "If people have a choice, they won't use Cyrillic". However, there is no logic behind that.

Most people don't hold consider the alphabet they use to write their language a big deal. When it comes down to it, it depends on which script society has told them to use.

In Modern Moldova, it is Latin for Moldovan and Cyrillic for Russian. In Transnistria, it is Cyrillic for Moldovan and Russian. I am guessing that in Belarus, Russia, the Ukraine, etc., it varies from family to family, depending on education and politics.

To insist that nobody writes the Moldovan language in Cyrillic outside of Transnistria is a farce. --Node 05:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't get it this time around as well, Node. This is about official usage - as in "what a recognized state does". Everything else counts as transliteration. After all, what is to say that the English in Belarus don't use Cyrillic? What is to say that the Koreans in Kazakhstan don't use Cyrillic?
 * You yourself have noted the relevance of that: When it comes down to it, it depends on which script society has told them to use. If that is true, and there is nothing regulating indeed, and we should not take current official use as the norm (while mentioning an anomaly), then by all means let's indicate how "Moldoveni" is spelled in Arabic, Chinese ideograms, and in Phagspa - since Moldovans might want or have to write stuff in all those scripts.
 * As for the rest, when you come up with answer to the questions posed, you will actually be indicating to me why we should take your beliefs into consideration. Dahn 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is, English in Belarus don't use Cyrillic, Koreans in Kazakhstan don't use Cyrillic, and Moldovans don't use Arabic, Chinese ideograms, or Phagspa. And cease your personal attacks or I will start an RFA. --Node 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you are making my point. Dahn 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Turkmen_people features both Cyrillic and Latin, despite the fact that Latin is the sole official script used to write the Turkmen language in any recognised state. --Node 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This article too features Cyrillic, with a definition that establishes its limited use. What you are telling me here, Node, is not what the Turkmen people article does, but what it doesn't - which would imply people getting out there and fixing it. Dahn 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As for my "personal attacks": up to now Node, you have implied that Romania is a tyranny, you have debated at length about events you were not even superfically familiar with, and you have implied that all Romanians are wrong on principle. If you take as a personal attack my belief that, no matter how intelligent and cultured a person you are, you don't have an adequate knowledge of the topic at hand, and you support all minority views and original researches to the point of contradicting yourself (Moldovans and Transnistria? Kinda contradictory!), and you insult any Romanian contribution as imperialism and whatnot - without having the curtesy of informing yourself on its academic background (or denying its merit willy-nilly, for the sake of a bunch of brochures), then you have not explored the meaning of "personal attacks". Dahn 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

IN FACT, I now note that no infobox anywhere features the local name. I'll rephrase accordingly. Dahn 13:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an outright lie. --Node 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell me, when you took Turkmen people out of your pocket, did you bother to look at its infobox? Dahn 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell me, when you took your h. out of your a., did you bother to remember not to put it back in? --Node 07:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all that is an evident personal attack and I urge you to retract it. Secondly, you are mistaken here, that article does not have the names in the local language in the infobox. TSO1D 14:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What's a personal attack? Discussion of removing a Hellenic person from Albania is in no way a personal attack. Secondly, when did I say it did? Huh? Huh? HUH?!?!?!? Never! --Node 13:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not all, but most do. See Germans, Swedes, Spaniards, Italians, Danes, etc. Some, like Russians, Greeks, etc do have two names but I believe that the latter group is in the minority.
 * Does that mean we can't have ut here?? :'( I am very sad. --Node 07:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

...by the way, you and your friends don't seem to remember the fact that Transnistria is recognised by Nagorno-Karabakh, which is in turn recognised by Armenia, which is in turn recognized by every single nation of the world. This gives Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria (as well as Abkhazia) the status of "sovreign nations" under the Montevideo Convention of 1933 which states: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states". Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, and Abkhazia all recognise one another's sovreignity, and Nagorno-Karabakh is in turn recognised by Armenia. --Node 09:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But no recognized state in turn recgonizes Transnistria. I am afraid the transitive property cannot be applied to the recognition of a state. TSO1D 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, by Node's crtieria, if Armenia recognizes Karabakh, and Romania recognizes Armenia, it must mean that Romania recognizes Transnistria... Great pieces of sophistry. Dahn 14:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What's even more comical is that "The sovereign status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not recognized by any state, including Armenia," as the Nagorno-Karabakh article makes clear. TSO1D 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * --MarioF 03:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG see haha I have references HAHAAHAHAHAHA --Node 07:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Node if you have no knowledge about a subject don't cite that as an example to prove a point. As for this, that idiotic guidebook analysis doesn't present anything resembling a credible source. Look at the BBC: "Karabakh declared itself an independent republic. That de facto status remains unrecognised elsewhere." Or even the Armenian defense minister: "The defense minister presented the fact that Armenia has not to date recognized Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence as a third concession made to Azerbaijan," from Eurasia Net. Point is if you are going to waste other people's time at least do some research beforehand. TSO1D 13:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Proof that one is more right than the other? No! Ouch! --Node 13:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean proof that the Armenian foreign minister might not know whether his state recognized Nagorno-Karabakh, while the author some random book review on the web would? ... TSO1D 03:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that he said that last year, yes. --Node 22:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Node_ue entered his summer vacations. Ouch!
Given the amount of activity on Moldovan-related pages, it seems that Node_ue has much more time than usual. Maybe summer vacations started. Dpotop 09:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do s. o/l. The only reason I'm more active is because I decided that I didn't want to let the a-holes get me down anymore, and thanks to some friendly encouragement from Irpen to that effect, I decided to return. So it doesn't really matter -- besides, how is it relevant? HMM? --Node 13:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ^Hey. Mikka. Rm personal attack. Now. Dahn 14:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the PA? --Tēlex 14:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The a-holes. Just checking to see if Mikka puts his glasses on for Node. Dahn 14:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did use the term "a-holes", but I didn't direct it at anyone in particular. Besides, what's wrong with Armenian caves? --Node 03:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He will now ;-) --Tēlex 14:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

All or part of
Let me expain the obvious to you, Node, before you continue removing that and move closer to getting banned (I jnoticed you received a stiff warning for "according to one wikipedian's opinon"). If you would have done us the favor of reading what has by now been archived, you would perhaps have some sense of why that is in there. Hell, read the article itself... Can you read in the article where it says "The document states that Moldovans and Romanians are two distinct peoples and speak two different languages, Romanians form an ethnic minority in Moldova, and that the Republic of Moldova is the legitimate successor to the Principality of Moldavia"? It would do you some good to follow my advice and stop embarassing yourself by not having basic informations on obvious facts. Because, you see, if Moldova is successor to Moldavia, then it must mean that the idea of Moldovans not being Romanians could also implicate people from inside Romania - which is where the bulk of Moldavia is. Do you understand this? "According to interpretation" means that those who claim Moldovans are an ethnicity have not implied what they mean by Moldovans, not that I don't (or whomever that "one wikipedian" is does not) agree. Dahn 04:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't be embarassed by your poor English. "According to interpretation" is meaningless newspeak in this context. What you meant to say was clearly "depending upon one's interpretation". --Node 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here I actually agree with you Node. TSO1D 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture
I cannot recognize all the people in the recently added picture. Can someon (maybe the author) explain who they are. TSO1D 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, I thought you would know! &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So did I. But I still cannot name all of them. TSO1D 00:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you know any of them? And btw, I don't think you can label a collage of images PD when some of them are probably copyrighted. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never ever seen those people. Who are they? Dahn 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I cannot name a single one, though some of the faces look a bit familiar (which might as well be a coincidence). And I have great doubts as to the copyright status of the collage. TSO1D 00:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

These people are all famous, but none on a "superstar" level. The first is Radu Marian, a famous opera singer. His image is definitely PD because I touched up an old print and colorized it and as far as I know, with that heavy of a modification it is considered one's own. The woman is a (young) Maria Biesu, again, I touched up the image and colourised it. The man in the orange jacket is a sculptor whose name I do not recall, and the other man is, I believe, a scientist. The last two may have to be changed/replaced because they are possibly not compatible with GFDL. --Node 02:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't you know the name of the last two? I mean how did you come across their pictures if you don't know them? TSO1D 02:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not of the scientist. The artist's name just slipped my mind, I remembered tonight it is Mircea Puscas (I thought it was Cuscas, but Google kindly corrected me). I do know that the scientist is from the Soviet era though. --Node 06:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop 05:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically what Dpotop said, between his personal attacks and name-calling, was that he thinks I got all of the famous Moldovans off a website. Well, that website lists Radu Marian and Maria Biesu, but it does not list Mircea Puscas. Please remember -- Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Node 06:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was wondering how Node_ue managed to choose the photos, and I did a google search on "famous moldovans", and here they are:. This guy, node_ue really knows nothing about it, but is willing to copy from any source just to prove Stalin was right. Note that he did not want to start with O-zone, because there was a risk of you people knowing it. :):):) Dpotop 05:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, explain to me then where I found Puscas? And Doga? --Node 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, what Stalin had to do with all this? Those people are indeed famous Moldovans. I think the last one is Evgenii Doga . --Illythr 12:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You can see my previous post as a joke coming from someone who is a bit tired. Actually, I'm a big fan of Doga. What I was trying to say is that:
 * Maybe the most famous Moldovans (acknowledged as so in the Republic of Moldova) are Eminescu and Creanga.
 * If the criterion is popularity of "more contemporary" personalities, then Zdob si Zdub are certainly well known, whereas no editor here knows exactly who the last two photos belong to. You finished by finding Doga, but one remains unknown.
 * This makes me think that the criterion used to choose these personalities was not the Moldovanian-ness, but the fact that they have nothing to do with Romania. :) Dpotop 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * None remains unknown. Didn't you see my post identifying Puscas? --Node 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as they are famous... BTW, I personally find it kind of sad that Moldova is known for its pop bands and not for its composers, artists and scientists. Just an archaic POV of mine. ;) --Illythr 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be sad, look at Ireland. Everybody knows about U2, but few would say some scientist was Irish. Dpotop 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When I look at Ireland I think about the Brennans (Enya) and Leprechauns... :D What, Westlife? No, no Westlife, not ever! X-[ Now, Bram Stoker, on the other hand... --Illythr 19:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "Fenian". And James Joyce. And Sinéad. Dahn 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You see, the thing they do really well is pop music. Each of us chose one band. :) 87.88.55.85 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW - do you know where I could get copies of "Tabor ukhodit v nebo" and "Maria Mirabela"? Do you have them in Moldova? And since I'm at soviet cinema, do you know whether Moldovan translations exist for of "Railstation for two" and "Operation ы" (don't know how to write them in Russian)? Dpotop 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. --Illythr 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Aww, guys, stop that! This is probably as silly a reason to start a revert war as it can get. Although I'm not sure about the third guy myself (maybe we can replace him with a Zdob şi Zdub band member, or something), the rest deserve to stay up there. --Illythr 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said: we replace the 4th, and we're ok. How about Ion Creanga? 87.88.55.85 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And just HOW was Creangă "Moldovan"?? Dahn 20:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous post was mine. Dpotop 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. You are right. It appers that Creanga is no more accepted, officially . Given the number of streets and institutions named "Ion Creanga", I just thought he's also in the reading lists in the "Moldovan language" classes. Dpotop 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exit Creanga. You've got a list of accepted writers in the link. Dpotop 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that including Vieru and Stere would be irreverentious to their activities. Let's keep this gravitating around people who have accepted being defined as Moldovans. Dahn 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that not many "Moldovans" active in the cultural field chose to describe themselves as anything but Romanians after indpendence. Maybe Druţă, but he's not worty of being blaced in a list of the best Moldovans. TSO1D
 * Well then, Zdub and Zdub it is. Dahn 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL TSO1D 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not Rotaru? She is a clear example that people do indeed identify as "ethnic Moldovans" beyond the border of Moldova. She's pretty, too -- along with Radu Marian, a prime example of true Moldovan beauty. And as far as gender equality goes, it's better to have two women and two men, given that they make up similar portions of the Moldovan population. And I think we should get rid of Puscas, not Doga, because Puscas is a hint ugly and he is also less notable than Doga. --Node 22:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, Puscas reminds me of my friend Ionut from primary school. (this was 9 years ago, I believe), his family had come from Bucharest just the previous year. --Node 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sofia Rotaru, ok for me. Some of her songs are quite nice (only a bit dusty). As much as I like them, Zdob si Zdub do have a big problem: their main singer (Yagupov) is, from what I've heard, ethnic Russian, so you cannot count him if you interpret "Moldovan" ethnically. This is why I first proposed O-Zone (Arsenium). But there's always time to give up Moldovanism and interpret "Moldovean" on a territorial basis, which makes possible the inclusion of Yagupov. :) Dpotop 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the second picture of the collage. The face occupies too much of the square and its quality is strange. Couldn't a simple picture of her be cropped a bit less to make the picture more like the others. TSO1D 13:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They all look like tacky wedding photos to me, but when in Rome... Dahn 13:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please list the portrayed people in the page Image:Moldovans.png, just like it is done in Image:Rmn2.JPG used in Romanians article. `'mikka (t) 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh, deleted? *Sniff*... :( --Illythr 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess there must have been some copyright problems. TSO1D 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually the practice in these cases is to inform those involved. Hmm. --Node 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You as the submitter were not notified that it would be removed? Strange. TSO1D 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)