Talk:Romanians/Archive 7

Moldovans are Romanians
The fact that they call themselves "Moldovans" is not a proove that they don't consider themselves to be Romanians. In fact, Moldovans are an ethnic subgroups of the Romanians, and the OFFICIAL source quoted in the article prooves that. I presented you the an official point of view. Don't forget that most of the Moldovans live in Romania (4,5 Mill: the population of the counties Suceava, Botosani, Neamt, Iasi, Bacau, Vaslui, Vrancea and Galati), not in the Republic of Moldova (only 2,5 Mill). And the question on the census from Moldova was not about the ethnicity (etnie), but the nationality (naţionalitate). --Olahus (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? Because there were terrible many Ukrainians and Russians, did they all have citizenship of those countries? What about Gagauz, what natinality is that? What do you in fact understand by "nationality" Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about the Romanian ethnicity, not Romanian nationals. —PētersV (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that, what I was asking Olahus is if his argument is valid because it doesn't pass the common sense test, I was asking for clarification what "nationality" meant in the context of the census. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If they [Moldovans] don't call themselves "Romanians" why should we?
(edit conflict with above...) I've been watching this latest episode from the sidelines. If the article is about the ethnic group the Romanians, then it includes the Moldovans. If the article is about the geopolitical identity group Romanians, then it does not include the Moldovans. Since the article is about the former, "Romanians" includes "Moldovans." That Moldovans (inhabitants thereof) may or may not consider themselves Moldovan over Romanian, however they are interpreting those two states of identity and of being, is, at best, a footnote to this article. I find AdrianTM's latest edit commentary to be rather mean-spirited and in poor taste. Perhaps if the initial Romanian-Moldovan unity movement hadn't pressed quite so hard in its initial post-Soviet rapture and recognized the political aspect of the "Moldovan" identity as opposed to seeming to threaten to eliminate it through assimilation, there might be less "Moldovanism" today. The article should cover all ethnic Romanians, which at a minimum (core historical territory) means ethnic Romanians in Romania, Moldova, and beyond the Dniester into the Ukraine. "Moldovan" is not an ethnicity, it is a political identity. —PētersV (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. AdrianTM, you're obviously free to start another article over Romanian and Moldovan political identity, especially as most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over that issue has been in chauvinistic side squabbles like this rather than dealing with it as a topic worthy of its own discussion. But that is not this article. —PētersV (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My comment was partially a joke. But the point is that there are two criteria (ok maybe three) to be able to call somebody Romanian:


 * 1) is a Romanian citizen (most Moldovans are not)
 * 2) call themselves Romanians (most Moldovans are not and we have no way to measure if they consider "Moldovan" a subgroup of "Romanian" or just a competing one.)
 * 3) speak Romanian as first language (a bit contrived criterion) -- we can probably use this criterion too. What Moldovans speak is Romanian as all able minded linguist would agree, but since the official language is called Moldovan it show at least a desire of not being confused with Romanians. So what remains to be seen is what they declare to be, if they declare to be "Romanians" than that's what they are, if they declare "Moldovans" when they have the choice to choose "Romanians" then they are not Romanians. Period (the part about deserving to be called Romanians was mostly a jab at Tom Cruise video... just a joke... )  -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) *BTW, language is not a definitive criteria, not everybody who speaks English as first language is Englishman or Englishwoman -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Being that Romanian is not the lingua franca of the 21st century, I would venture there's a high correlation between ethnicity and language in the case of Romanian. Your argument is a bit specious.


 * No Adrian, it's also about the common history and ancestors, they are ethnicaly romanians and this article is about romanians as an ethnic group Adrianzax (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Common history? How do you judge that? Ancestors, how do you judge that too, DNA? Have you tested Moldovans? AdrianTM (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're getting a bit silly here. Not to mention your implication (which perhaps you didn't realize) that Romanians are somehow pure-bloods and Moldovans are some sort of mongrel. —PētersV (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No I never implied that, what I implied that's not a way to determine that, exactly because everybody is a "mongrel" there are no "pure blood" people and there's no way to define an ethnicity based on DNA as far as I know. -- AdrianTM (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (more edit conflict...) AdrianTM, if you are discussing ethnicity, which this article is, then
 * Romanian citizen = immaterial
 * calling themselves "Romanian"
 * if they call themselves "Ukrainian" that's one thing
 * if they are insulting* the Romanian ethnicity by invoking the "Moldovan" identity = immaterial, they are still Romanian
 * speaking Romanian as a first language
 * if Ukrainian or Russian or Urdu is their identified first language, that's one thing
 * if they are insulting* the Romanian language by referring to it as "Moldovan" = immaterial, it's still Romanian
 * *  from a Romanian chauvinist's viewpoint
 * It's really quite simple. Your primary premise, that is, that you can "choose" the blood in your veins, is untenable. I would suggest in all sincerity that there are bigger and more urgent fish to fry. —PētersV (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * are you kidding me? The language is definetly a criteria, in the case of english and other popular languages is not a criteria because they spread their language with the help of their COLONIES.. why do you think in South and North America it's spoken mainly spanish and portuguese, because there were Spanish and Portuguese colonies !!! but for Romania it's not the case, Romania didn't had colonies and neither Romanian is a popular language . Moldovans are also in Romania, actually there is a bigger part of Moldova and Moldovans in Romania then outside Romania, if Moldovans from romania are geneticaly, cultural and lingvistic Romananians why the Moldovans outside Romania would't be???? Wikipedia it's not a propaganda tool for one communist and Russian sympatizant leader like Voronin, do you want to post here Moldovan forums to see they are considering themselves romanians ? Adrianzax (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, if they consider themselves Romanians why haven't they declared themselves Romanians in the census not on forums (BTW, forums makes such good references...) and why Voronin who is a politician would push an unpopular crazy idea wouldn't that discredit him in the eyes of the Moldovans? Apparently they either agree with him or they don't care. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

@AdrianTM:
 * 1) In this case, the Hungarians from Romania and the Roma people from Romania should be regarded as Romanians too. But for this meaning we have already the article Demographics of Romania.
 * 2) Yes, Adrian, we (the users from Wikipedia) are have no way to measure if they consider "Moldovan" a subgroup of "Romanian" or just a competing one. That's why I quoted an official source. Without an official source, I would never dare to add this country Moldova in the paragraph.
 * 3) Well, for this we already have the article Romanian language. Additional informations should be added there.--Olahus (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To Adrianzax, I wasn't saying language is immaterial, I was saying that calling the language Moldovan instead of Romanian is immaterial. See edit in red. —PētersV (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you Pēters, I was talking with AdrianTM, i'm on your side ... Adrianzax (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me a bit odd to say that Moldovans were Romanians until 1945, and then their ethnicity changed. This seems to me to be a pretty classic formation of a sub-ethnic or sub-national identity (much as the distinction from roughly the same date of Palestinians from Arabs in general, which is generally excepted, except perhaps by the more extreme Zionists). Yes, Moldovan identity is a "legitimate" ethnic/national identity (and, given the nation-state model that prevails throughout the region, I don't think ethnic and national are easily extricated from one another), but from an anthropological point of view it seems silly to say that Moldovans aren't Romanians.

Really, all we can do is cite sources, not "find truth". And we should give proportionate weight to the scholarly points of view out there. It seems to me that the matter deserves to be handled more at the article on Moldovans than the one on Romanians, and that here all we really need is a paragraph or so noting that the controversy exists, citing a few sources for the presumably predominant view that Moldovans are Romanians and the single most respectable statement of the dissenting view that we can find, and annotate any statistics to make it clear where our numbers include self-identified Moldovans and how many.

Typical English-speakers coming to this article for information about Romanians—I think that characterizes the primary audience for the article—are not going to be nearly as interested in this distinction as are people who are embroiled in the politics of unification or non-unification of the two states. - Jmabel | Talk 18:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "It seems to me a bit odd to say that Moldovans were Romanians until 1945" that if we know that, but do we? If they declared themselves "Romanians" they might have meant "Romanian citizens". Prove with clear references that Moldovans were Romanians until 1945 and I'm fine with it. I'm not saying they weren't/aren't, I'm just being the devil's advocate to be able to clear this and move forward. I'm not the only one who reverted, I want to see Dahn's argument too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I already answered you, but I'll repeat. Moldovans are also in Romania, actually there is a bigger part of Moldova and Moldovans in Romania then outside Romania, if Moldovans from Romania are geneticaly, cultural and lingvistic Romananians why the Moldovans outside Romania would't be ?... why are the moldovans speaking romanian language? Don't forget that Romania as a state is only from 150 years, before that there were Tara Romaneasca, Moldova and Transilvania, and the Romanians from Transilvania (Ardelenii), Romanians from Oltenia, "Oltenii" and the Moldovans are all Romanians. What you're saying it's the same thing like saying sardinians and sicilians are not italians or bavarians are not germans, etc. Adrianzax (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How relevant is that? The didn't declare themselves Romanians when they had the chance. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adrian, you know very well that on the census in Moldova were questioned people were influenced by the questioners. You could read alot from the newspaper. And why should we believe that Moldovans aren't an ethnic subgroup of the Romanians? Give me a reason. The fact that they declared "Moldovans" on the census? Is this a proove that they ment with it: "we are not Romanians"? If you wold decalre on the census that you're a Oltenian, do you automatically mean "I'm not a Romanian"? If a part of the hungarian monority of Romanian declare themselves "Hungarians", and the other "Magyars", should we say now that the Hungarians aren't Magyars and viceversa? I broght an official source who confirmed the argument that the declaration "Moldovans" is the same with "Romanians".--Olahus (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "And why should we believe that Moldovans aren't an ethnic subgroup of the Romanians? Give me a reason." Well why should I bring a reason for that, I think you should bring a notable, credible reference that supports that idea, then I will be fine with the inclusion. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I updated the lead sentence indicating Romanians in Moldova identify themselves either as Romanians or Moldovans, with the same ethnic result. That should take care of the problem. —PētersV (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I updated the other "dispute" too. —PētersV (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is a simple one: in an official context, a human being is asked to answer what his ethnicity is. In this context, one of the options was "Romanian". As far as censuses allow us to deduce, and as legitimate the concerns are about the absolute credibility of such censuses, these people stated, simply, that their ethnicity is x, where x is "something other than Romanian". And, yes, gentlemen: ethnic identity is always a subjective thing, and that degree of subjectivity is a basic human right.

Dwelling on either geopolitics or language to deduce another ethnicity is not only an infringement of that right, it is also in manifest contrast to the standard as applied in the civilized world (in short, wherever the intellectual mind was able to move beyond romanticism). Based on the same shaky logic, one could easily conclude that Afrikaaners and Flemings are Dutch, that Walloons are French, that Macedoniams are Bulgarian, that Montenegrins are Serbs and (why not?) that Ukrainians and Belarusians are Russians, that all Latin American people are Spanish, etc.

Furthermore, it ridiculous that some one-time sentence posted on a ministry of tourism site is used in the process of "sourcing" this deduction - not only is this not something for it or any other institution to decide upon, but, as the person who added it very well knows, possibly all other Moldovan institutions make a special point of refuting this claim. For more, see WP:REDFLAG. Dahn (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Dahn said except for WP:REDFLAG, this is not such an exceptional claim. An exceptional claim is "extraterrestrials inhabit Mars", not that Moldovans are Romanians. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify my point about WP:REDFLAG. In the context where people identify themselves as non-Romanian, and where the stat in question recognizes their right to do so as a rule, citing a one-off claim that they are not, which cites no evidence and forms part of a colloquial context, when contradicted by what most other authorities say would indeed be an exceptional claim as exceptional claims go. I agree that one can elaborate on the whole controversy in the article, turning it into ample prose and linking to the related articles, but one can surely not impose a view on the matter. Especially not with arguments that, despite what people say, they are what an outside source says they are. Dahn (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dahn. I'm sorry, but if a leopard chooses to call itself something else, it cannot change its spots, it is still a leopard. Your stridency on this topic is misplaced, there is no academic source extant which I have found which says anything other than the historical inhabitants of the eastern-most territories of Romanian habitation, who today choose to call themselves Moldovan, are ethnic Romanians. It is a plain and simple fact. You don't create an ethnicity by renaming someone. You create an identity--which absolutely no one is disputing here. The census/survey you tout incorrectly identifies Moldovan and Romanian as ethnicities and then has people select one or the other identity. Well of course many will pick Moldovan. That doesn't make them not ethnic Romanian. Lastly, no one's right to their identity is being abrogated here, don't be preposterous. Rather, we're affirming that Moldovans have carved out their own unique identity. But that doesn't make them an ethnic group. Let's get real here. —PētersV (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no absolute objective, let alone scientific, way of defining an ethnicity, be it Moldavian or Romanian. Ethnicity is always based on the identity people attribute themselves, and all statements about "common traits" etc begin from that statement. This is the statement recorded in the census, for better or worse. All discussion surrounding the reliability of the census (a reliability which no serious source has ever completely dismissed) and all statements made surrounding how the Moldovan ethnicity came to be could be summarized somewhere in the body of the article. No absolute conclusion can be drawn as to what Moldovans "really" are - not only because that would be POV and OR, not only because wikipedia is not the product of 19th century anthropology where researchers can start to "assign" ethnicities based on some sort of measurement, but also because no ethnicity is "really" anything other than what people who identify with it say it is (this also concerns the Walloons, the Galician people, the Flemish people etc.). As for scientific arguments indicating, at the very least, the tradition of difference between self-identified Moldovans and Romanians, going beyond Soviet encouragements, you could consult this (pages 153-177) - a source written by a Romanian researcher and which, btw, I would recommend for use in a series of articles. Dahn (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not cite from a Hungarian website regarding romanian articles and let's not quote a controversial jew Marxist-Leninist sympathiser with activities inside the Union of Communist Youth. OK ? Adrianzax (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) that book is not Hungarian, not that it would matter; 2) that book is not Tismăneanu's, not that it would matter; 3) Tismăneanu is not a Marxist-Leninist sympathizer of any sort, and he is not even a Marxist; 4) the controversy about Tismăneanu is a soap bubble, most of which was contributed by sources who are themselves controversial to say the least; and 5) the source is academic, well-documented, and applicable in refuting a point that is not even essential in this conversation (given that the substance resides not on answers to absurd requests for proof that Moldovans are not Romanians, but on proof that, as long as they say they are not Romanians, they simply aren't Romanians). Dahn (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) that source is from a hungarian website, and yes it does matter, I don't see romanian sources in Hungary related articles 2)that book is written by hungarians ,and cites a romanian-jew, controversial and Marxist-Leninist sympathiser with activities inside the Union of Communist Youth Vladimir Tismaneanu 3) that book is a copyright of Teleki László Foundation from Hungary, let's just abtain ourserselves quoting this type of biased sources...does the fact that at the census from 2002 only 75.000 people "declared themselves romanians" but 100.000 went in the streets saying they are romanians Does the fact that the census was felsified matters to you?Adrianzax (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) that book is an academic publication published by a Hungarian and a Romanian publishing houses, and I have little patience sitting here discussing how "Hungarian sources" are biased against Romanians. 2) that book is written buy Romanian and Hungarians, and the study i cited is written by a Romanian. Tismăneanu, whose ethnic origins (!) are do not either qualify or disqualify him from academic discourse, regardless of what chauvinist message you're constructing here, is first and foremost an academic at a major university in the continental US. He had no part in authoring that book, and the fact that he is quoted in some parts of it (though not even, from what I could tell, in that part of the study) does not establish anything about authorship, unless you happen to have no awareness of how things work in academia and on wikipedia itself. 3) as per 1) and 2). As for your last argument: the [allegedly] 100,000 people (it would help your position if you learned about decimals in Anglo-Saxon usage...) you mention, if this is indeed what they stood for, may only speak for themselves. Dahn (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just don't give HUNGARIAN sources in ROMANIAN related articles, I don't see ALBANIAN sources in Serb related articles, I don't see Croatian sources in Serb related articles and I don't see Romanian sources in Hungarian related articles. What will happen if we'll all start givin their subjective chouvinist points of view from the sources of extremists or communists? Adrianzax (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I trust the readers are well-acquainted with our WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies. They do make it relevant, and at times imperative, for sources from all sides to be used in authoring an article (Albanian in Serb articles etc). Not that it would matter here, since no source of this obvious quality can be dismissed for being published in x other country, no matter what nationalist circus of arguments is brought up against them; and also because, for the third time, that academic source has both Romanian and Hungarian authors, and was published by a Romanian and a Hungarian publishing houses in partnership - both publishers have a first-rate standing. The work is written and edited by academics, both Hungarian and Romanian. All studies relating to Romania, including the one I referenced, are actually written by Romanian academics. The bewildering "extremists and communists" analogy (n.b.: an accusation brought forth by a man who just implied that Hungarians and Jews, as a rule, cannot be objective in respect to Romania) relies on the personal POV of one user, who manifestly does not understand what wikipedia is about. I rest my case, and am looking forward to comments from users who at least have a more respectable vision of human society and a minimal understanding of the issues at hand. Dahn (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, go arrest your case. And no.. Hungarian sources are not allowed in Romanian related articles since we all know the disputes and controversies between the 2 countries. Your attitude and by quoting hungarians and Marxist-Leninist sympathisers with activities inside the Union of Communist Youth relatively steps with the boots over one of main rules of Wikipedia, that of Neutrality Why don't you try putting some Albanian sources in Serb relating articles, if you'll succed you can came here and express your respectable vision of human society and we'll al live in pace and joy Adrianzax (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's "rest" your case, not "arrest" it. Your comments about Hungarians and the reliability of any and all sources written by Hungarians are despicable. K. Lásztocska talk 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And indeed Waloons are not french. Recent genetic studies in Wallonia have shown in Y-chromosomes that most Walloons share their genes with the Celts, like in the case of Romanians with Moldovans Adrianzax (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)/
 * I cannot begin to explain on how many levels that kind of reasoning is spurious (aside from being inconclusive). Suffices to say it is beside the point. Dahn (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot begin because you just can't beat the sciencific studies. Adrianzax (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see those "scien[t]ific studies" and what they establish; 2) supposed empiricism is of absolutely no relevancy here. Dahn (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this sciencific studies are rellevant in Germans article I think it has also relevancy over here Adrianzax (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So, this would be the point where Adrianzax has completely discredited himself. Dahn (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No mister, I think you mixed the persons, by quoting that source, you are the one that has completely discredited himself Adrianzax (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into personal discussions, nobody on Wikipedia is interested who discredited, to what degree, or when. Let me add one simple element, when a state wants to determine the ethnicity of its population they use a census, they don't take blood and test DNA, that should give you a clue what's relevant here. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If they [Moldovans] don't call themselves "Romanians" why should we? continued
(section was getting a bit long) First, my comment regarding uber-whatevers was not directed at Dahn. It was directed at the positions which have been stated here and elsewhere along the lines of (and I exagerate only slightly to make the point): Neither of those positions merit representation in an encyclopedia article. The current Moldovanism is not the first controversy. Indeed the story of the Romanians begins with the formation of the Daco-Roman continuity theory under which much later territorial actions were taken justified by "historical" precedent. And as far as territory is concerned, that which now forms Romania and Moldova, that has been overrun on a more regular basis by a more varied assembly of peoples and ruled or allied with more powers than nearly any other place in Europe. The latter of course belongs in a history of Romania/Moldova, the territory. The former is a gripping story of a people, which is what we should be relating in the article. The very last chapter of that story is the current Romanian/Moldovan schism. That schism does not change who "Moldovans" are or where they came from. To suggest otherwise results in pushing a political POV which has no place in a discussion of the history of an ethnic group (as defined by culture, traditions, customs, language). Whether the intent was to push a POV or not is immaterial, it is the result that counts. To write an article which denies the Romance(ethno-linguistic)/Romanian roots of the Moldovans, framing that denial in the form of "dispute," turns this into a pulpit for people to proselytize their personal views of post-Soviet developments, having nothing to do with telling the story of the Romanian people. I've already indicated the appropriate fashion for including the Romanian/Moldovan schism in the narrative. I'm sorry, Dahn, but I have to most vociferously disagree with your comment: this article should not decide for the reader that Moldovans are Romanians, as it currently does - due to Adrianzax, who is infringing on several wikipedia guidelines. There's no "decision" to be made here. In fact, the current article is currently going out of its way to say Moldovans aren't Romanians (Romanians primary inhabitants of Romania, minority everywhere else including Moldova, the "dispute", etc.). And I'm sorry, I have seen editors invoke "Wikipedia guidelines" to quash discussion more than once, in 99.999(repeating)% of cases to push their POV. Such contentions (or indicating discussion is ended) do not promote discourse. Every academic source shows Romanians at the turn of the 20th century being the inhabitants of the Romanian/Bessarabian territories. The subsequent censuses and who conducted them and when and who called themselves Romanian whether they were or not and Stalin/Moldova/Moldovan and less-than-successful post-Soviet reunification, ad nauseum are all geopolitical issues of the 20th century. I welcome discussing those in a section regarding "Modern identity" or "Schisms in modern identity" or even "Schisms in modern ethnic identity". But let's not invent what does not exist and let's not deny what does exist. That is adhering to "Wikipedia guidelines." —PētersV (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the Romanians are infested with communist vermin and I want nothing to do with them therefore I identify myself as a Moldovan; and at the other end,
 * the Moldovans can have their stinking identity, if they don't wish to be called Romanians they don't deserve to be called Romanians.

Moldova anthem was :" Deşteaptă-te, române! " (Awaken romanian) Until 1989
Moldova had the current anthem of Romania untill 1989 which is translating "Awaken romanian"

The Dna Halpogroups shows identic DNA structure of Moldovans and Romanians

The Biggest Moldovan poet Mihai Eminescu writes in his poems :


 * Doina


 * For the restoration of motherland’s boundaries and by grace of Lord we always stand.
 * From Tisa to the Nistru’s tide All Romanian’s cried
 * That they could no longer stir
 * For the rabbbled foreigner
 * From Hotin down to the sea
 * Rides the Muscal cavalry
 * From the sea back to Hotin
 * Nothing but their host is seen
 * While from Dorna to Boian
 * Seems the plagues has spread it’s ban
 * Leaving on our land a scar
 * That you scarcely know it more
 * Up the mountains down the dale
 * Hove our foes flunf far their way
 * From Sacele to Satmar
 * Only foreign lords there are
 * While Romanians one and all
 * Like the crab must backwards crawl
 * And reversed is everything
 * Spring for them is no more spring
 * Summer is no longer summer
 * They at home the foreign comer Adrianzax (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely irrelavnt arguments. One: the ethnicity indicated by the Moldovan census is certainly a last-moment occurrence at the scale of history, but it does occur and speculations surronding this aspect are irrelevant on wikipedia. Two: discussions about DNA are not only irrelevant in this respect, they are also racialist, and fail to note the fact that there is no "Romanian DNA". They also fail to address the point: ethnicity is subjective, with or without conclusions drawn about the DNA. Three: Eminescu was not living at a time when the Moldovan identity as such would have surfaced, and, incidentally, he was a native of Bukovina who did not, to my knowledge, spend any time in what is present-day Moldova.
 * One could theorize ad nauseam about how the Moldovan identity was largely fabricated by the Soviets, but that would carry no consequence when it comes to the fact that people don't view themselves as Romanians today, based on what is their right and ultimately their business. Dahn (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So sad that the discussion here is between two extremists: one extreme nationalist and the other extreme anti-nationalist. Dpotop (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adrian, why do you think that quoting patriotic poems can be an argument in a dispute? bogdan (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dahn. Maybe they are irrelevant from your point of view but let's not talk also for the others. We are talking about ethnicity of Moldovans which doesn't exist and not about citizens of Moldova.Moldova is also part of present day Romania with habitans which are regarding themselves as romanians. The discussions about DNA are very rellevant...as you can see there is a DNA structure homogenity specific to each country, which in the case of Romanians is identic with that of Moldovans . The DNA structure studies are this way a very accurate method to point a specific population ancestry .There is nothing racial in this study since this article is about romanians as an ethnic group and not about Demographics of Romania. The actual fact that Moldova and Moldovans had same anthem untill 1994 which is translating "Awaken Romanian"  only comes to streghten and manifest the historical, cultural, and genetical connections between Moldovans and Romanians, or better I should say Romanians and Romanians. Adrianzax (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adianzax, your arguments are irrelevant to this discussion (aside from being irrelevant to me). Like all that you repeat above, they are a long and quite boring ignoratio elenchi. Dahn (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bogdan, as you can see the poem is an argument and not the only argument Adrianzax (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dahn let's skip the irrevelent stage.. Why is the following phrase incorect, cand you please point me ? : (they are the majority inhabitants of Romania and Moldova (identifying themselves as either Romanians or Moldovans)[24], and an ethnic minority in several nearby countries.
 * Aren't the Moldovans Romanians? are they Slavs or Magyars ? Does the Szekelys regard themselves as Hungarians or as Szekelys? if they are regarding themselves as Szekelys why are they mentioned in the article Hungarians ? Adrianzax (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adrianzax, here's a link for you: WP:OR. Read through it and we'll talk some more. And since we're on it, have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Dahn (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't try and drag the Székelys into this, that's another issue entirely. (But fyi, all the Székelys I know consider themselves Hungarians, but many of them often specify Székely Hungarian. I have yet to meet a Székely who considers himself of a completely separate ethnicity, though I know there are some Székelys who think that way.) But it's a rather different situation, and in this discussion quite a red herring. K. Lásztocska talk 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are harrasing me, leave me alone I don't want to speak with you, thx, so Dahn can you please answer me? Adrianzax (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No dahn there is nothing like that in my statements, we speak only with refferences and arguments, I'm not a detective to make an original research, if from your points of view my affirmations are not rellevant why wouldn't your arguments be regarded also as WP:OR ?. Do they the Szekelys, have Hungarian citizenship? as far as I know in Hungary was made a poll in the year 2004 regarding the citizenship of Szekelys ( I will post link later). The hungarian citizenship towards szekelys was denied by hungarians. Why are they mentioned in the Hungarians article? Adrianzax (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adrianzax, I'm guessing you have not read any of the policies indicated - I suggest you follow my suggestion and do so. For the final part of your argument, which is in effect about Hungary, citizenship, and automatic granting of citizenship to citizens of other countries: a) it has no relevancy to this discussion; b) it indicates that you find it hard to distinguish between terms such as "citizenship" and "ethnicity", and that you seem to assume that, for some reason only only in Hungary's case, all nationals have the same ethnicity. Really now, unless you move beyond fallacies and patriotic chants (where "patriotic" is a euphemism), you're wasting everybody's time with what is starting to look like spam. Dahn (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * why do you bother to respond me if I'm wasting your time ? If the anthem of Moldova isn't a rellevant argument for you can you give me an example of how a rellevant argument would look from your point of view? Adrianzax (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry: I'll not be bothering any more, especially when confronted with "If the anthem of Moldova isn't a rellevant argument for you can you give me an example of how a rellevant argument would look from your point of view? [sic]" - not only a manifest break with logic, but also contradicting the very question at the start of your message. In fact, I tried to give it up back when you started with the trolling, but you seem determined on filling this page with nonsensical arguments that, for lack of careful verification and clear response, may even be taken for granted by innocent bystanders. Now, if anyone else has any questions? Dahn (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And besides, the citizenship referendum only failed because nobody bothered to vote. More an issue of democratic disillusionment and apathy than any ethnic question. K. Lásztocska talk 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think they changed the anthem exactly because of the "Awaken Romanian" part (look, I can even see in the future, I will predict somebody will say something like: "Yes, because of the Communists and Philorussians, blah blah blah ...") -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-attribution of ethnicity
Section was getting a bit long to edit... About the earlier "Ethnicity is always based on the identity people attribute themselves, and all statements about "common traits" etc begin from that statement." Well, of course, and of course not. Genetics plays a lesser role today because people marry further afield from home, but "ethnicity" is language, culture, and custom. It is not "I woke up and have decided to call myself something else today, even though I am still speaking the same language, hold dear the same traditions and symbols of the past, wear the same traditional garb on special occasions,...." Your [Dahn's] contention that people who carve out a separate geopolitical identity thereby also carve out a new heretofore non-existent ethnicity would appear to be exactly the WP:OR you rail against. —PētersV (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pēters, please don't depict your argument accepted science and mine as a personal viewpoint. I think we all know full well that there is no universal or objective way of defining an ethnicity, and that either all ethnic identity is subject to interpretation or none is. We also know that any such definition is ultimately political - and I don't mean to say that in a pejorative way. I don't mean to discuss the entire issue of ethnicities, because this is not what this page is for; it's enough to say that, in assessing the existence of a group, one always relies on what people say about themselves, and as long as they say that they are something, they are that something. The majority of people in Moldova are asked to define themselves ethnically, and define themselves as Moldovans - a recognition granted to them by the state they live in, who was the one to ask them this in the first place.
 * Now, this process could indeed have started when people "woke up" yesterday morning. If that were the case, it still would not matter: all peoples wake up one morning (the same is true for Romanians, the same is true for Latvians, the same is true for Hungarians). Assessments about "traditions, symbols etc." come in retrospect - otherwise, every time it is found that people of various ethnicities share a tradition, they would have to form ad-hoc ethnicities. As for your genetics argument, which presumably means that all of today's ethnicities emerge from distinct clusters, and for genetics in general when assessing ethnicity, allow me to say that it would be a discussion not worth having.
 * However, as I have indicated before, the process through which Moldovans came to view themselves as separate did not start this morning, and it did not even start in 1940. Its roots are to be found in the 19th century, if not earlier, and coincide with the murky period when the Romanian identity also began taking a definite shape.
 * I am not saying that Moldovans are right to make the choice they make, just as I am not saying that they are wrong. I am saying that, inside a system of identities where we having nothing other than subjective choices to make, it is their choice to make.
 * For the third and hopefully final time: this is a debate that spans not this discussion, but the world; the debate should be recorded as such in the article, and wikipedians should not allow themselves to pass verdicts on what Moldovans "actually" are in mainspace. Saying the opposite of that is what OR is, Pēters, just in case you didn't think I'd detect that attempt to switch focus. Dahn (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion reminded me of a story of my geography teacher (who was involved in organizing a census), he told us that he told enumerators to write down the ethnicity in pencil and if the person was "too dark" after they left the house they were to erase that and change it to "gypsy". I guess census are not such an "absolute truth" either... as long as we have good reference those could be used to complete the info provided by census to some limits. -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have said, I have no objection to a summary of the arguments brought up against the census' methodology or the census' conclusion, forming a part of a summary for the whole debate to be added somewhere in the article. [Note: the objections have to be from credible sources that are cited adequately, not from users with something of their own to say.] Neither do I actually object to mentioning some of this POV in the lead, if neutrally-worded and factually correct (by "factually correct" I mean "not editorializing").
 * And, btw, your geography teacher is an imbecile, and what he was trying to accomplish is simply disturbing. Dahn (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The "civil society" of Romania (that is, the foreign-paid guys that tell us what to think) are in deep shit here, AdrianTM:
 * On one side, they tell you that prectices such as the one you mention are bad, very bad. As Peters put it, people can choose a new ethnicity when they wake up in the morning.
 * On the other hand, the same civil society is convincing everybody that the census is not correct, because Gypsies are undercounted (yes, in Romania we say Gypsies, except for cases where political correctness is required/imposed).
 * I hate these guys. Dpotop (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To Peters: I'm afraid you do not understand how the Romanian "civil society" was organized. It was indeed the Soros foundation and some other foreign governments that heavily financed some guys and promoted for them an image of "not related to the former Communist regime". Unfortunately, the Romanian Communist Party, like all mass parties, did include all the intellighentsia of the country (4 million members over 22 million total population). The ones left aside were either too stupid or involved with crime or completely marginalized within the Romanian society, hence useless as agents. So, they did the following:
 * They hired whatever Communists were willing to become harsh anti-communists and advocates of democracy. In general, this meant that they were willing to publish any shit so that their past deeds are forgot.
 * In particular, the Humanitas Publishing House (one of the pillars of the "new order") was created from the former Political Publishing House of the Romanian Communist Party. :)
 * Political parties were created and supported with financial support from outside Romania, as well as media outlets, to promote foreign interests.
 * The last point was probably true in all post-communist countries. The problem is that the guys hired on points 1 and 2 were really not good. They were usually not so good professionally, and (like some Iron Guard adepts between the 2 WW) transformed their frustrations into "Reforming Romania" zeal and "Romania bashing". Not being talented, the only way for them to be noticed and earn money was by shocking the oppinion with "Romania is shit" oppinions. Dpotop (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, I'm sure everyone who has read more than one of your posts has already encountered this convoluted, contrived, boring, inflammatory and counterfactual conspiracy theory of yours, through which you have ambitiously set for yourself the target of intimating that virtually all academics in Romania are lackeys of some foreign imperialism. You have clarified to us what journals and authors you read to "inform" yourself on this conspiracy ("sources" which, dare I say it, make it quite surprising that you are the one to draw a comparison between the said conspiracy and the Iron Guard...), you have daubed in mud all editors who were willing to read your posts to the (unavoidable) point where they came to argue that they make no sense, and you are manifestly annoyed to discover that wikipedia is not here to popularize even further your take on the world (which, btw, also makes it ironic that you are the one talking about "frustrations").
 * Therefore, I recommend all users who actually take an interest in this article to ignore your off-topic comments and focus on something of some measurable relevancy. Dahn (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "virtually all academics in Romania" No. Indeed, just a few of them. I would mention here: Patapievici, Tismaneanu, Liiceanu, Mungiu (Alina), and a few close acquaintances. Indeed, just the "civil society". :)) Oh, and I forgot a pan of the press, specialized in Roma rights and Romania bashing, e.g. Evenimentul Zilei. Dpotop (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Too much time spent discussing your POV, Dpotop, too little substance in your allegations to even make me want to spend my time debating this with you. Dahn (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dahn again, this is what happens when you create political/territorial/identity questions and pose them with the label "ethnicity." When you say Moldovans (inhabitants) were asked to "define themselves ethnically", my whole point is that the question was really, "Do you consider yourself Moldovan or Romanian?" That question has nothing to do with ethnicity. The notion that the group one identifies themselves with makes them into a (new) ethnicity is not tenable. Ethnicity, by every characteristic which defines it, is apolitical. You then argue the corollary of your contention, that any definition of ethnicity is ultimately political. This is pure personal POV. You express alarm over alleged suppression of Moldovan freedom of association and identity in denying their "ethnicity." Rather, in the case of Moldovans/Romanians, you are taking a rich common culture and traditions and reducing them to a one-dimensional political choice. And the corollary of that reduction is that you take the diversity of cultures and traditions --especially rich across Eastern Europe--and reduce that all to that same one-dimensional political choice. Ethnicity (along with territorial and other considerations) gives rise to political identity--for good reasons, beyond the scope of the discussion here; political identity does not give rise to ethnicity. Moldovan is a label/identity for Romanians who have associated themselves with a historical area of settlement and may see their interests as Moldovans (inhabitants) differing from Romanians (inhabitants). It is not an ethnic group. —PētersV (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To, Dpotop, how a society organizes itself or who was a member of what or who stole what from whom does not impact ethnicity. All those factors only confirm that Moldovan is a political identity choice, not an ethnicitiy. —PētersV (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pēters, all of what you are saying above is a personal theory. It may be viewed as a plausible theory, and it probably is, but you and I both know that the very notion of ethnicity is the subject of much disagreement in the scientific community, and that all scientists will agree that, no matter what it is, ethnicity is also a political identity. Not to get deeper into the issue, we could note the quotes from Max Weber in the article Ethnic group. Now, when you attempt to convince me that "something more is needed", you are in effect attempting to persuade me that, among many, your vision is right, and that it can supersede the image these people have of themselves. Even the distinction that you place between ethnicity and "political identity other than ethnicity" is your personal contribution.
 * As far as wikipedia is concerned, Moldovans (by which I mean: people who declare themselves "Moldovan") were asked to define themselves ethnically, and they did. Deductions of whether they are right or wrong are secondary to that statement, and, when the issue discussed in the articles, it has to be based on reliable sources that actually deal with the issue. Dahn (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, not personal theory.
 * "As far as Wikipedia is concerned", the current self-identification of Moldovans is what it is. Likewise, the ethnic origin of Moldovans is what it is. The current wording in the article regarding "disputes" over whether Moldovans are Romanians reads as if there is a controversy that Moldovans might instead be Tivertsians or Pechenegs/Polovtsi. This is an entirely inaccurate portrayal of the facts and taking the self-identification of Moldovans someplace completely it does not belong. The appropriate encyclopedic narrative is that peoples of Romanian descent are also the majority inhabitants of Moldova, where many choose to identify themselves as Moldovan.
 * Anything else, such as indicating Romanians are a minority in adjoining countries which includes Moldova, whose peoples' ethnic origin is nearly two thirds Romanian, is simply not factual and is certainly going to be completely confusing and impenetrable to anyone who has not read at least ten books on central Eastern European history.
 * One's having to read outside sources to understand that what is meant by "dispute" is something  other than  a dispute over ethnic heritage rather indicates the current article is severely lacking. If we agree that we are here to write an encyclopedia article and not jump down the Romanian/Moldovan rabbit hole, then we have to portray the ethnic origin of Moldovans, whether they choose to identify themselves as Moldovan or Romanian, accurately. I am sure that upsets the uber-whatevers on both sides, but the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to keep extremists happy--nor is it to take current developments and apply them to inappropriately erase historical fact.
 * The Romance peoples (from an ethno-linguistic perspective) inhabiting the Hungarian/Romanian/Bessarabian territories at the prior turn of the century were all Romanians. (Vlachs, for example, inhabited pockets in Macedonia and down into Greece.) Any subsequent "division" of that Romanian identity should be noted as such, no less, but also no more. —PētersV (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pēters, we're wasting our time. You're waving a flag about "extremists", whereas I tell you that ethnicity simply is a subjective definition, as many, or perhaps most, experts will agree, and that all other discussions, if appropriate for an article, can only come as a consequence of the simple statement that Moldovans do not view themselves as ethnic Romanian, but as ethnic Moldovan. The end. Dahn (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but is it the end? In 1930, some 56.2% of Bessarabians declared as Romanians - and today's Moldova contains only a small fraction of the Jews yesteryear's Bessarabia did, and also doesn't contain many of the more heavily Slavic areas, given to the Ukrainian SSR in 1941/44. (The Russian census of 1897, by the way, found a figure of 56% Romanians, so we can't really fault the Romanian authorities for the 1930 figure.) So what happened to all those Romanians? Well, of course most of them are dead, but just as with other "ethnic" identities created for manifestly political purposes in recent memory (as opposed to, say, 500 years ago - the "new" people in this case would have only a vague recollection of its link with the "old"), we should remain mindful that these people's descendants are still, in a non-political sense, Romanian. Well, you say, ethnicity is entirely a political construct. But is it? I submit it includes language, music, dress, food, religion - an array of behavioural traits - as well as, to a certain extent, genetics. (Pluck a male and female newborn out of Moldova and deposit them in Korea - will their offspring, a couple decades hence, be "ethnic Korean"? Or even drop them in Ukraine - will the children be "ethnic Ukrainian"?) So I think Pēters raises some very valid points: there's far more to the "Moldovan ethnicity" debate than a single census conducted in 2004 by a Communist government.
 * Also: beyond the theorizing, what are/should be the practical implications of the debate for the article itself? In short, what are we fighting over? (Sometimes it's hard to tell!) Biruitorul (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will start by answering your last question: this article should not decide for the reader that Moldovans are Romanians, as it currently does - due to Adrianzax, who is infringing on several wikipedia guidelines.
 * For the other issues: the Moldovan in Korea example is extreme, and involves other issues - but, as unlikely as it may seem, it is not impossible. The process itself was more than possible in Romania, where, btw, ethnicity is also based on the census (carried out by governments, democratically elected or not - after all, I don't think anyone would be debating the results of censuses carried out in Communist Romania). It has worked for various members of Phanariote families, for Eminescu, for Bolliac, for Porumbescu, probably for Codreanu and (if he really ever cared about this aspect) for Caragiale, as well as for many other people. Incidentally, many of those people were not even Romanian citizens when they declared they were Romanians. If we switch to other countries, where the national state has traditionally displayed a less tribal attitude, we see this happening all the time.
 * The exterior traits you mention in support of ethnicity are forever fluid, "genetics" included. How many of the people who declare themselves Romanian dress in a distinct fashion, listen to folk music, and eat a particular food? Of the first people to speak of a Romanian ethnicity, how many were not Greek Catholic or even Roman Catholic? (And this is not the only argument that would make religion irrelevant in recording such developments in modern society.) On the other hand, how many people were not assimilated in one generation into what I suppose you too would call the Romanian ethnicity by adopting these patterns or simply by stating belonging?
 * As for the issues involving the Moldovan identity and the census record. For one, these people have made a choice, and that this choice, as questionable as you may find it, moves to the forefront of the debate, leaving all other considerations in the background. This aside, let's note three things. One is that, as I have previously said, the identity was largely, but by no means entirely, forged by the Soviets; as a side note, any ethnic identity has to have been forged at some point, and this is always spurred on by a political development (the Romanian ethnicity itself links this premise with the Gothic invasion, and became a relevant conclusion in debates only after a group of young men made it into their cause by 1848). Secondly: if the Moldovan census is questionable (and, I insist, it does not seem to have ever been questioned in toto by a reliable source), this could only serve to cast doubt on the number of people who view themselves as Moldovan, not on the fact that these people exist. And finally: if the Moldovan census is questionable, it is exactly as questionable as the interwar Romanian censuses, which, as we have found out before, occasionally ascribed ethnicities irrespective of the answers received. Dahn (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

DNA study
While the issue about Romanians = Moldovans is more an issue of NPOV and there is much debate, it's wrong to say that study claims the Romanians' Y chromosomes are identical to the ones of Moldovans.

It doesn't. It simply shows a pie-chart with the percentages of Romanian types of Y chromosomes over the map of Romania. It also happens that the pie chart is too big and it "overflows" in Moldova. It doesn't mean that the study has any data from Moldova.

Also, you shouldn't be using Y-Chromosome arguments in ethnical studies. There are plenty of articles which say it's not a valid argument. For instance, see:

''Rosser, Zoë H., et. al., Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67:1526–1543, 2000''

bogdan (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * DNA is a red herring, we shouldn't even discuss about it in this context. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A new text was introduced:

A number of recent genetic studies  show a diversity of Y-DNA haplogroups in the Romanian population, as follows (without any of them forming an absolute majority): haplogroup I 22.2% (it can be found in most present-day European populations, with greatest density in Scandinavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Sardinia), haplogroup R1a 20.4%, haplogroup R1b 13% , haplogroup E 7.4% , haplogroup J 5.6% and haplogroup G 5.6%. The results of these genetic studies show the same diversity in the Romanian population, as the culture of Romania and the history of Romania show.

This was not accepted by the user User:Rezistenta and led to a small edit war, see talk. —Preceding comment was added at 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Signed User:MariusPetruStanica

Added at: 13:39, 02 July 2008 (UTC) by: User:MariusPetruStanica After receiving no comments, no answers on the talks, no emails, unless very arrogant short statements, I see myself forced in changing the page. The answer from the User:Rezistenta is just silence and edit-war. I introduced a new text, without deleting what was previously written. This was immediately undone, with the explanation of Vandalism by User:Rezistenta.

''A modern tendency is to relate Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup and Mitochondrial DNA genetic studies with the ethnogenesis of peoples. However, just a small number of works exists today, especially for the area of Eastern Europe, so that one would be enabled to correlate them with the ethnogenesis of Romanians or of any other people, in a fully scientifical accepted way. Usually, such studies are performed using a reduced number of persons, as a sample size, thus presenting limited nation-wide generalized results.

Some results from recent genetic studies may be interpreted in the way that the ethnic contribution of the indigenous Thracian and Daco-Getic population have made a significant contribution to the genes of the modern Romanian population and to the contribution to other Balkan (Albanians, Bulgarians and Greeks) and Italian groups.

Other results may be interpreted as small genetic differences being found among Southeastern European populations and especially those of the Dniester–Carpathian region. The observed homogeneity suggests either a very recent common ancestry of all southeastern European populations or strong gene flow between them. The genetic affinities among Dniester–Carpathian and southeastern European populations do not reflect their linguistic relationships. The results indicate that the ethnic and genetic differentiations occurred in these regions to a considerable extent independently of each other.

Haplogroup J is mostly found in South-East Europe, especially in central and southern Italy, Greece and Romania. It is also common in France, and in the Middle East. It is related to the Ancient Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians (J2), as well as the Arabs and Jews (J1). Subclades J2a and J2a1b1 are found mostly in Greece, Anatolia and southern Italy, and are associated with the Ancient Greeks. Haplogroup I2 comprising 22.2% of the Romanian population, can be found in present-day European populations, with greatest density on the Balkans, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and also in Sardinia).

A possible conclusion of all these studies is that no Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup or Mitochondrial DNA is highly dominant among the sample numbers of Romanians, fact supported by the long and diverse history of Romania.''

Ethnicity: self-assumed vs. external view
Indeed, it seems that: My impression is that both directions are false because they are extreme and over-simplifying:
 * 1) Dahn & co say that "you choose your ethnicity, period".
 * 2) Some other guys would have it DNA-based, exclusively.
 * On one side, ethnicity is as much about self-identification as it is about the oppinion of the others. My preferred example is today's France, where ethnic groups (such as Maghrebins) are not recognized by the state, but are recognized by the population often based on the phenotype (and thus, on the DNA). The same in Germany, with the Turks (or the Jews, during WWII), in Romania with the Gypsies.
 * On the other, as Dahn points it (and I have already stated elsewhere the same), when self-identification and external identification agree, DNA-related stuff fades away. However, this criterion often applies to individuals, not populations, and is related with hard integration work, or a long time. For instance, the Phanariotes were more Greek than Romanian for centuries. It's their Romanian descendents, raised in Romanian culture, that are considered Romanian.

I feel that 3 aspects should be mentioned here, as in other articles: Of course, in Eastern Europe this last criterion is not so useful, because of the formidable mix of populations. More recent immigration waves, such as the Gypsies, may try it (though I presume there is considerable mix by now), but for separating Romanians and Moldovans (or even Hungarians, Bulgarians, Serbs) it's not so useful. Dpotop (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * self oppinion
 * external views
 * DNA stuff, if available
 * Actually it's very simple, this article stands under this form because of the subjective opinion of one user who thinks ethnicity can be self-assumed.
 * NO, ethnicity cannot be self-assumed. The evidences are all other articles about populations. Citizenship and nationality yes, but ETHNICITY is the one you inherited by your ancestors not the one you choose. Quote from English people article :''Some people see important ethnic differences between those with long-standing English ancestry and those whose ancestors arrived in England more recently: for example in Sarah Kane's play Blasted the character Ian boasts "I'm not an import", contrasting himself with the children of immigrants: "they have their kids, call them English, they're not English, born in England don't make you English".[11]

''
 * This article is about romanians as an ethnic group, and not about the self-identifycation of some individual or individuals who think ethnicity can be self-assumed. Why on Earth at the beginning of each article about populations you can find a dublink which clearly makes the distinction between ethnicity, citizenship and nationality, Example : Hungarians This article is about the Hungarian ethnic group. For a specific analysis of the population of Hungary, see Demographics of Hungary.
 * If me and my romanian wife we'll go to Hungary and have a child over there, that does not make my child ETHNIC hungarian . I don't see what's so hard to understand.
 * Ethnicity, Citizenship and Nationality are 3 parralel differit things : Citizenship is earned, Nationality you're born with, and the Ethnicity is what you have inherited from your ancestors  Adrianzax (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The message just above this one is manifest proof that the person who wrote it has not followed the conversation above. In all the posts above, the distinction is clear, and I think it stands as self-evident that this article deals with the Romanian ethnicity. If the user who signs the above comment was not willing to pick this up before, let me state my point again: Ethnicity itself is subjective, with or without the definition that he imposes on it, and all cases that he cites from other articles have no connection with that fact. Moreover, the quote that he provides from the article on the English people is a confirmation of that very notion (which is why it begins with "Some people...").
 * I'm posting this just in case anyone else is confused about the terms in use, so that we can hopefully be spared the effort of making various users learn how to use them. Dahn (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Go post same tags in English people article Adrianzax (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to, as I have just explained: the portion of text in the English people article is an attributed opinion, forming part of a neutrally-voiced summary of opinions about a subject, given due weight, and not presenting itself as an absolute truth. The "observation" above is also besides the point, since the reason for the tags is certainly not the fact that one confused user thinks that ethnicity is an objective matter (and that we were discussing anything other than ethnicity, which is the very subject of this article). Not only that, but the tags do address very significant points: in the last edits on this page, a couple of users added not only questionable info from sources they took the liberty of interpreting (spuriously so), but also yet more non sequiturs written in such a manner that they coach the reader. Dahn (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No you won’t have to add the the tags because of that attributed opinion, forming part of a neutrally-voiced summary of opinions about a subject, given due weight, and not presenting itself as an absolute truth, but you will have to put the tags because the English people article is following the same example as Romanians article, it’s addressing to the English people as an ethnic group, since you consider this is a subjective matter I’m afraid you will need to give the same example of impartiality in all similar articles. Regarding the last edits of the page there were already 2 tags (sufficient). Adding another 2 tags regarding the same aspect will not make your tags any more justifiable. You should also post here the links which you consider that are not backed up by the sources, let's not generalise, it's better to show specisely for what are we keeping 4 tags.
 * Give example of impartiality and do the same with all identic articles Adrianzax (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Population
Someone keeps on reverting the population of romanians from 21.5-24.8 to 19.5-22.8 million. without relevant sources to back up your claim, the numbers you provide are your original work, which cant be used sorry. Please stop from vandalising the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.45.44.160 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's try visual aids
Re: Dahn's since the reason for the tags is certainly not the fact that one confused user thinks that ethnicity is an objective matter (and that we were discussing anything other than ethnicity, which is the very subject of this article)-I'll be so bold as to interpret that as my confusion. I am not confused at all, I am merely attempting to present facts correctly. Since words have failed, as Dahn has come to the good-faith conclusion I am confused (again, apologies if he meant someone else), I ask the other editors to indulge my use of visual aids in an attempt to clarify:

THE ROMANIAN ETHNIC WORLD ACCORDING TO DAHN as interpreted by Pēters per article content which other editors have inserted and Dahn has reverted/deleted

THE ROMANIAN ETHNIC WORLD ACCORDING TO PĒTERS

This is an encyclopedia article about the ethnic group the Romanians, that is, the collective progeny of Romanian heritage, regardless of nom de jour. It is not a soapbox to debate over whose politicians and leaders are more vile, about botched unification, about Romanian supremicists, about Moldovan nationalists, and most especially not about which polar opposite of "I'm Romanian, not Moldovan" and "I'm Moldovan, not Romanian" is currently doing a better job of disowning the other. Partisan politics does not belong in, nor should it ever be used to define, ethnic heritage. How quickly we forget how badly things go when that path is taken. &mdash;PētersV (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that it's had a week to sit for folks to digest perhaps we can agree that in this one little Wiki-corner we will collaborate without politics, without polemics, without punditry--and work together to craft this into a thorough and informative article which achieves "good article" status.


 * P.S. "But Pēters, you're not Romanian, why do you care?"
 * In my active Wiki-travels, which started in earnest with Transnistria, I've slogged through more central eastern European history than most do in their lifetime--real books by acknowledged experts, not the overly opinionated and largely unoriginal and mostly uninformed dreck one finds online. There are more than enough places to debate politics and what's "real" or not when it comes to Romania, Moldova, and Transnistria and the other frozen-zone conflicts. This is not one of those places.
 * I have come to learn the value of ethnic identity--it's not political diatribe about what one is (and others are not ). It's about one's culture, heritage, traditions and a deep desire to share that richness, that uniqueness, with others for them to learn, to appreciate, and to be enriched themselves as they share in the cultures of others. Nowhere more than here have I seen the need to set the divisiveness of politics aside and to simply demonstrate appreciation for one's heritage through sharing it, and its history, with others. —PētersV (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pēters I appreciate your interest and your research, but this doesn't address the basic issue: if somebody declares their ethnicity then that's is their ethnicity, there is no cultural/DNA/historical/musical/dress code/etc or even linguistic test that can determine ethnicity. The only issue here is if people who declared themselves Moldovan considered that as something mutual exclusive with Romanian or just meant it as a country identity, not an ethnic one "I'm from Moldova, therefore I declare myself Moldovan, even if Moldovans are Romanians too, if I was living in Romania I would have declared myself Romanian", also people in Romania who don't consider Moldovans a separate identity from Romanian might say "he's a Moldovan" meaning "he's comes from Republic of Moldova" however all these are speculations and original research. Sure, common sense says that people who speak the same language and shared common country in the history share the same ethnicity, unfortunately Wikipedia is not about common sense it's about references, and what better reference do you have than self-identification -- if they don't identify themselves as Romanians, they are not, if they want to be considered Romanians they need to declare themselves "Romanian", simple as that. Maybe they hate to be considered Romanians, who knows, naming the language in a different way and declaring themselves Moldovans would come to support this theory. I'm not sure, if a French speaking person from Belgium declares himself Belgian can we call him French claiming that we know better? Or German speaking person from Austria, is he German or Austrian? AdrianTM (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If this article were only about "Developments in ethnic self-perception in Romania and Moldova" then I would agree with you. What you describe as the "basic issue" is exactly those recent developments. But that's not this article.
 * Firstly, I have seen this so many times, particularly in pushing viewpoints--that is, only the latest report matters, that's what defines Wiki-"correctness". Everything else is obsolete and "wrong." This is not defending verifiability or accuracy. Any kind of statement regarding any conclusion regarding any current event (in this case, stating that self-identification as a Moldovan in fact creates the Moldovan ethnicity) is original research, no more, no less. If a Moldovan "hates" to be considered "Romanian", to one of your examples, it does not change the history of his ethnic heritage.
 * More importantly, having also done a fair amount of reading on how to write about history, the goal in such writing is to create a narrative which reflects multiple accounts of (past) events in a structured, methodical, and understandable manner, and which does not depend on or change with the latest headline or poll. The  history  of the Romanian ethnic heritage is immutable regardless of current self-perceptions of Romanian versus Moldovan. Those perceptions are modern/current developments--which can and must be reflected in the article as part of recent developments in that history, just as past differences in self-perceptions should be included, for example, Wallachia versus Moldavia. But recent developments do not define history and do not define the article.
 * Any reputable text on central Europe shows, at the opening of the 20th century, nothing by Romanians (majority) inhabiting the territory currently spanning Romania, Moldava and including the Transnistrian Dniester left bank. (And pockets of Vlachs into Macedonia, Greece,....) Polls don't change that. Anyone who contends that polls do change that is here simply pushing a POV (knowingly or not), not writing a history article. —PētersV (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify this issue to me first: a German speaking person from Austria, who calls himself "Austrian" is he German or Austrian? Then, using the same standard we could continue to discuss about Moldovans as Romanians or not. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is: it's a red herring. The ethnic history of the Germans encompasses those individuals who are ethno-linguistically/culturally German and choose to identify themselves as "Austrian." —PētersV (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are so dismissive about this example, it's very similar to Romanians situation and if you look at Germans article you'll see Austrians listed there, but with a "if Austrians are regarded as Germans" explanation, I think this is a way to treat the issue that we can use in this article too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent...) AdrianTM, I'm not at all being dismissive. But the issue you bring up and how it is handled elsewhere on Wikipedia (or here) is the attempt to frame historical ethnicity in politicized self-identification. Let's see, why would Moldovans not want to be Romanians? There's always botched reunification to point to. Let's see, why would Austrians not want to be Germans? There's always Nazi subjugation. Neither changes that Moldovans are Romanian and that Austrians are German--if one is constructing an article on ethnic heritage and history. The real issue is that editors here and elsewhere should be working to construct reputable articles on ethnic heritage--a proper encyclopedic narrative includes all history and current developments in the context of that history. But instead, editors are seeking to build platforms from which to proselytize their viewpoints-- none of which affect the narrative of the ethnic heritage and history of the Romanians/Moldovans (or the Germans/Austrians). To write an article on ethnic heritage and history based on nom de jour is a complete and unsustainable contradiction, which is why the "conversation" here keeps degenerating into who said what yesterday. Voronin railing about 650 years of history or that the Moldovans will keep their identity sacrosanct from Romanian pollution for another 6,500 makes for good press but changes ethnic heritage and history not one iota. That's just another part of the article under "Current developments." So, my question is, are we here to write about history or are we here to debate identity? —PētersV (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Enriched?
"The Turkish occupation enriched the language with a picturesque Turkic vocabulary" -- that sounds weird to me, and defintely POV. I will re-write it shortly. Entbark (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably translated directly from Romanian wooden language. Just say something along the lines of "a number of Turkish words entered the language during the Turkish occupation". -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that even this NPOV-ed version is not OK. If you mention Turkish you also have to mention Greek, German, Hungarian, because the influence is of the same level. Dpotop (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman empire
About... Adrianzax's (1) Romanian countries were never part of Ottoman Empire, they were only tributary states...... Wallachia, Moldavia, along with Silistre and the Crimean Khanate were part of the Ottoman Empire by 1606, with a large chunk of Ukraine added by 1683. (There was a major military campaign straight through the heart of Moldavia in 1538.) Yes, Wallachia and Moldavia were vassal states, but you can't really argue they weren't part of the empire. —PētersV (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a clear difference between vassal states and provinces. Even if at some point Ottomans were de facto rulers of Romanian lands the situation was different from that of Ottoman provinces. For example I think that Muslims were forbidden to own land in Wallachia/Moldavia, AFAIK no mosque was build in Wallachia/Moldavia (I don't know if this was true for all the times but this comes to show that Wallachia and Moldavia even though they had no independence they didn't have the same statute as regular Ottoman provinces) -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is in Romanian basically those texts confirm what I've said, no Muslim was allowed to own land and business in Wallachia and Moldova, they were not allowed to build mosques, Muslims were not even allowed to enter the territories without special approval. Don't know if that changed afterwords, but even later on at the maximum of Turkish influence when Turks appointed foreign rules they appointed Greeks from Fanar because they were Christians, this doesn't sounds like "part of Ottoman Empire" AdrianTM (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if that source is reliable, but anyway a discussion about this issue on Islam_in_Romania article. AdrianTM (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, a most interesting article! —PētersV (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy Tag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. * it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

This tag doesn't belong in this article Rezistenta (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Above, Adrianzax or whatever you like to be called, there are several sections where the numbers as used in the article are placed under doubt, and no one has yet brought more reliable data. There are concerns about the text itself, which is still riddled with nonsense - but, were it just for the atrocious over-counting and mixing of apples and oranges in collecting data for the infobox, the tag would still need to be there. Dahn (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cite me the numbers which are placed underdoubt, and cite exactly what parts of the text are not sustained by refferences and links, i'm afraid this tag has no foundament to be here Rezistenta (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to do that again: you can find all of this detailed in the above sections, and on the archived pages. At the moment, many of the numbers and countries cited do not even belong there, since they do not list ethnic Romanians, but people coming from Romania. Furthermore, the numbers for Italy and other countries, as I and others have stressed several times by now, are added from sources discussing the numbers of temporary residents who: a) do not count as diaspora; b) are not counted by ethnicity; c) are already counted at home. Dahn (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How would it work for you if, instead of the tag which is the subject of this dispute, the "factual" one - "fact" templates were put in those places where they are absolutely necessary? I'm sure it would make things easier to clear out. Allow me to revert this edit and please, consider it. Regards. Wpedzich (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll consider it. Dahn (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The number of ethnic Romanians are according to 2004 Romanian official census, you have the link over there. Do you expect to leave this tags without some foudament and evidences ? Rezistenta (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pal, which is the part that did not make sense to you? The Romanian census does not count people living abroad or Romanian ethnics in other countries, does it? Now look over my previous post again, then over any of the gazillion times this was discussed on this talk page, and see why your "answer" above does not make any sense. Dahn (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Pal" which part of this tag you don't understand ? If the romanian diaspora is wrong as you are just saying please add "citation needed" above them or correct it instead.

* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. * it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

do you find that your claims are backed up by the rules of this tag ? use the "citation needed" if you feel some numbers are in doubtRezistenta (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can actually find two reasons for the tag in precisely the rationale you provide so generously: the inaccurate list criterion, and creation of that section of the article by a user who was since permablocked for doing such things (it is bewildering that the info he manipulated survived him for so long). But never mind: there, for your pleasure, are the more specific tags. Dahn (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No you actually can't .The tags because they are specisely saying lound and clear what's their purpuse and your claims are way far away from them. What creation of the section was created by a an user which aws permablocked for doing such things? please specify don't throw words and accusations in vain and since his edits were according to the vast majority this means the blocks towards him are unfounded and abusively . And what makes you think you're disruption history is any different then this guy's ?

Here's 1 sample of your disruptive behaviour towards extremely many users Rezistenta (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SYNTH. None of the sources you editorialized from confirmed what you made them state. As for the accusations you launch my way, allow me to laugh. I wouldn't even take into consideration if it came from an editor whose contributions I could respect. Dahn (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it seems to you that I care about your respect? That's your history of disruption, that's reality. Rezistenta (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dahn, Could you, please explain, what do you see as original research here? Do you say the source is bogus? Do you say it is irrelevant to the article? You say it fails to stress the point, but honestly, I can not understand what point is the source supposed to stress. To me, it simply looks as a source saying how many ethnic Romanians were in the Moldavian SSR. And I think the source stresses this point pretty clear. Hence, I get you mean some other point. Which one? Thanks, :Dc76\talk 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Dc76, there is nothing in those sources explicitly backing the notion that "people who declare themselves Moldovan want to say 'Romanian' ". One of the two sources, which dates back to the Soviet data for 1989! simply uses "Romanian" for the majority of inhabitants in the Moldavian SSR, without even indicating what rationale it has adopted in the process, and without even mentioning the word "Moldovan" as an ethnonym. It makes no indication of what view one should take of ethnic Moldovans, or even if it acknowledges them - right or wrong, the source is misused. The other source, which claims to represent an official Moldovan position, is ambiguous (it could just as well mean the opposite of what it is quoted to say!), marginal, and its use is in violation of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". I have already linked to WP:SYNTH - do have a read from it.
 * And let me stress this again: the main point here is that, before or after 1991, "Moldovan" has become an ethnonym. The fact at the core of this notion is that some people have used it as such - I personally think that there is no way of telling them they are right, just as there is no way of telling them they are wrong. This article focuses on that aspect, and, like in all articles, all sorts of views referring to that fact should be listed - but the fact will still be a fact. This, in itself, should mean that there is yet no "source" that could even hope to tell us what "Moldovan really is" in relation to Romanian - there is the fact that they have become different notions, even you happen to think that they have not come to stand for different peoples. Presently, the Romanian identity or the Moldovan one can only be applied to people who explicitly apply them to themselves, and there is no in-between. Cite sources that doubt Romanian and Moldovan are different things, if you will (while I presume someone will add sources saying that they are), but the fact still remains that these notions are not synonymous, no matter how many wikipedians creatively interpret sources.
 * Also, if you read through past versions, you will see that I tried to mend this notion and introduce an intellectually honest rendition of the points of contention, that would not misquote the sources. Adrianzax/Rezistenta reverted to his cherished version, and, let me add, it is not the first instance where he added false or distorted material to articles. Dahn (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That fact of the matter is not that Moldovan and Romanian are the same of different notions. The fact of the matter is much-much less: there are people saying that they are the same notion, and there are people saying that they are different notions. We, at WP, can say only that much. Drawing the conclusion that they are the sam/different notion is OR, and the example in WP:SYNTH is very eloquent (thanks for the link). Now, a notion can be used in a lot of context. For example, if Moldovan/Romanian refers to citizenship, I believe noone sane doubts they mean different things. If Moldovan/Romanian refers to some 14th-19th century detail, on the contrary, noone sane doubts they are the same thing. The problem arises mainly when it refers to ethnicity in the background of nation state phenomenon. And here are 2 opinions. Even if one of them would be clearly right and the other clearly wrong, we at WP can still do only one thing: say they both exist, say who supports what. We can not infer that something has been established or not as long as there is scholarly and political debate going on. We ought to say both things. As you can notice, my take on this is a lot similar to yours.
 * To specifics, let's dissect things (about the first source only):


 * You say "One of the two sources, which dates back to the Soviet data for 1989! simply uses "Romanian" for the majority of inhabitants in the Moldavian SSR," Does that mean that the source counted Moldovans as Romanians in that instance? Yes, obviously. Does the source claim that the Moldovans should always be considered Romanians in all contexts? Obviously, not.
 * You continue "without even indicating what rationale it has adopted in the process, and without even mentioning the word "Moldovan" as an ethnonym." Was the source under some to mention a rationale under each piece of data? Obviously, not. Does the source deny (or accept) the ethnonym Moldova? Again, obviously, not. The source, by avoiding the direct reference to the M/R debate, tells that these people are Romanians without telling that these people are not Moldovan. You say "It makes no indication of what view one should take of ethnic Moldovans, or even if it acknowledges them" Precisely, the source does not tell us what view to take! The source was under no obligation to tell us such a thing. The source does not explicitly acknowledge Moldovans, nor does it explicitly dis-acknowledge. It only said that in 1989 it was all right to count those as Romanians, without disallowing to count them also as Chinese, if it's the case.
 * You say "right or wrong, the source is misused." I guess you mean to say "right or wrong, I don't like the source". Am I saying that the source can be quoted saying those people can be counted as Romanians? Yes. Am I saying you should like the source? Obviously, not! :Dc76\talk 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that the first source is ok? Yes. Does it mean that Adrianzax/Rezistenta is, was and will be always right? Onviously, not.:Dc76\talk 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dc76, let's put it in simple terms: you have a source that, referring to data from 1989 that it is free to interpret, may conflate Romanians and Moldovans. That is not, and could not be, a source for what Moldovans consider themselves in relation to Romanians - at most, it says that it considers the two notions to be synonymous, which would be just one side of the story, and which would not touch the main and basic issue of how more recent censuses explicitly indicate those people who declare themselves Moldovan view themselves ("my ethnicity is Moldovan" as opposed to "my ethnicity is Romanian"). If this is the case, it would be one of the sources to reference who and why places doubt on the two identities being anything other than synonyms. But, as we stand, not even this is the case: the point about how the two identities are in reference to one another is not explicitly made in that particular source. Therefore, it could only serve to inform the reader in what concerns the overall irrelevant point that a relevant source did not count any Moldovans in 1989 - for reasons that it does not even make clear to the reader.
 * Before you carry on with baseless speculation about how I like or don't like the source (without bothering to read what i actually say in my posts here, and without bothering to note that I have never removed it, just rephrased the info to a version that does not editorialize from it), at least read the link to WP:SYNTH. You will perhaps note that not only is the reference misused because wikipedia does not allow such editorializing, but also that the conclusions you draw in your reply above are also that kind of original research. Dahn (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * my yes/no's:
 * [we] have a source that, referring to data from 1989 that it is free to interpret, may conflate Romanians and Moldovans.
 * not exactly. it conflates them for that year and that point in space. :Dc76\talk 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not, and could not be, a source for what Moldovans consider themselves in relation to Romanians
 * absolutely. the source states nothing about what Moldovans consider/may consider. That would not be a statistical issue, but a social one, if you want.:Dc76\talk 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * at most, it says that it considers the two notions to be synonymous, which would be just one side of the story,
 * I never claimed we should ignore the "other side" :Dc76\talk 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * and which would not touch the main and basic issue of how more recent censuses
 * No, it doesn't. Other data from other sources is equally all right.:Dc76\talk 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * explicitly indicate those people who declare themselves Moldovan view themselves ("my ethnicity is Moldovan" as opposed to "my ethnicity is Romanian").
 * That's not true. They indicated themselves Moldovan. But they did not indicate "as opposed to Romanian".:Dc76\talk 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the point about how the two identities are in reference to one another is not explicitly made in that particular source.
 * And it shouldn't be. That is a much-much larger question. The source only says that in 1989 it was ok to count Moldavians as Romanians, not forbidding to count them other things as well.:Dc76\talk 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Before you carry on with baseless speculation about how I like or don't like the source (without bothering to read what i actually say in my posts here, and without bothering to note that I have never removed it, just rephrased the info to a version that does not editorialize from it),
 * Ok, Sorry about that. Do you now like the sourse? :-) You did not remove it b/c you are a civilized user, not a vandal. Whatever my disagreements with you, I'd vouch for that.
 * at least read the link to WP:SYNTH. You will perhaps note that not only is the reference misused because wikipedia does not allow such editorializing, but also that the conclusions you draw in your reply above are also that kind of original research.
 * I am only saying to use the reference to allow both numbers be present (with and without Moldovans). It's a source saying "with" is ok. Other sources say/can be interpreted to say "without" is also ok.
 * The point you are making is (in my understanding): let's answer first, are Moldovans different from Romanians or not (and your answer is they are different b/c of the latest stats), and then edit the article. My point is: as long as there is no clear answer to this question (in the sources/scholarly works/etc), both interpretations should be used to edit the article, and it should be clearly stated if a number counts or does not count Moldovans. :Dc76\talk 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dc, let's not wonder any further into the territory of speculation. That source is currently used for the following statements (and copied twice in the text, which is a breach of the Manual of Style but never mind that). What are the two notions? 1. "[Romanians] are the majority inhabitants of Romania and Moldova (identifying themselves as either Romanians or Moldovans)"; 2. "With respect to geopolitical identity, many individuals of Romanian ethnicity in Moldova prefer to identify themselves as Moldovans."

Neither of these statements traces back to the source - they both belong to the editor who added them. There is no indication there that people who say Moldovans are in fact/mean to say they are in fact Romanian - at most, and only if the text is read in one way, it is an indication that, back in 1989, one source decided to conflate the two identities. May I remind you that, in Soviet censuses, no Romanian identity was ever recorded, meaning that all numbers of Romanians are speculative when it comes to an issue like this, and that all people likely to declare themselves Romanian were considered Moldovan?

May I also remind you that, ever since that census, there was another one which recorded both identities? Now, you claim (even though we've been through this already) that people who declare themselves Moldovan do not say "as opposed to Romanian". That is absurd: they were asked to state their ethnic belonging, and, as far as that goes and we can tell, they made a conscious choice. Either that or they didn't realize what the question was about, and then they are all imbeciles - a possibility I find highly unlikely.

Let me also point out the following. Sources that contest this issue will say that the census under-counted Romanians and officials may have discouraged many people from declaring themselves Romanian. That is a reasonable point, and it is a perspective worth noting somewhere (though not necessarily in this article). The only logical conclusion of such a point is certainly not that "all Molodvans are Romanian", but that "a number of the Moldovans may in fact be Romanian" (i.e.: would actually say that they are, but were prevented from). I don't know how much of the census results are placed in doubt by such an objection, but I can certainly say that, at this point in time (not in 1989, and, let's say, probably not tomorrow), people who declare themselves ethnic Moldovan do exist, and that this article is not/should not be about them (as wrong as you may think they are, and as irrelevant as right and wrong may be in such issues for me). At most, the objections raised may allow one to speculate (not in the article, mind you) that it is Moldovans who are the minority in Moldova - but those people who are a minority would still not be Romanian as far as common sense goes.

I even find this consistent with Romania's official view, as expressed by Foreign Minister Ungureanu when he was still in office. In this interview, he simply says that there may be "much more Romanians" than the census indicates, based on the number of Moldovan citizens who apply for Romanian citizenship. Also note that the interview refers to Ungureanu's earlier statement, in which he refers to the Foreign Ministry supporting only those who "have not abdicated their Romanian identity" - meaning that, while Romania frowns on this process, it does not claim people are Romanian when they no longer say they are. Dahn (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually all Soviet censuses in Moldova counted Romanians. Of course, their number has always been under 3,000. Also, you may be interested to know that a survey about ethnic affiliation made by an American political scientist in Moldova in 1992 showed 87% of the interviewed chose Moldovan over Romanian as their identity.Xasha (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That may well be - I found one source saying that this was the case (a BBC report in Romanian), but I don't speak any Russian to verify it from a primary source. If anything, this could only serve to establish that, back in 1989, the Library of Congress summary made a choice of not listing the two recorded identities as separate - which, as I have said, is at best a commentary on a fact. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
What is so dubious about sourced numbers? -- Cat chi? 11:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

dahn why are necessary needed 3 tags on top of the page?
explain please. 14:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have explained in at least five sections above. You and an associate of your who has already received a block for such behavior keep returning to this page and removing them, even though, as you will note, at least five users on this page agree that the numbers are misquoted and grossly exaggerated (they are for Romanian citizens on temporary leave abroad, not for ethnic Romanians counted once in their place of residence, so they are cited against themselves). Many of the estimates, including ones that have a citation number, actually cite no source (the citation number leads to a comment made by one user or another, not to an outside source). The one source used consistently has no evident reliability, and appears to be just an internet forum.


 * For the other sources and how you blatantly misquoted them, I left hidden comments in the text. To a user reading them, it will instantly become obvious that the text contradicts reality. And I'm not even going into the long bits of text where editorializing was and is the apparent norm.


 * Unless you have any other concern, this discussion ends here. And do stop asking me to explain the very same rationale every week or so. This is not a forum, and your intention to irritate me by pretending not to see my posts may only result in a block coming your way. Dahn (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha you're hillarious, you're expecting to make such dramatical edits and no one will request an explination for this? You know you have a history of disruption on this article, you know you've been blocked for edit warring on this article and your edits were removed by the admins, you know that you've been figthing with many editors about your "edits ". Like I said before there is already 1 tag on the top of the page for your suppositions and speculations, why are needed 3 tags for the same thing? please explain....

The numbers are cited by sources, if you feel those numbers are not real why not modify them instead of adding tags everywhere ? If you can justify their presence, specify why are so many tags needed in this article Rezistenta (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever there was to explain, I have explained a long time ago - here, and with hidden comments in the text. As for blocking and good intentions, I have said I will address this to the administrators if you continue, and I'll let them decide about what your behavior warrants. As I have said, I'm done talking with you, but feel free to request a third opinion. Have a good day. Dahn (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not explained a long time ago, for those explanations your tags were removed, this 2 tags were added recently by you.. Rezistenta (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the tags where removed by you and by another disruptive user. Nothing in the disputed info was changed since, but you removed the tags from all places - even those that I was asked to place by other users. There were generic tags, there were specific tags, and generic tags again: you are removing them over and over, without explanation, without providing sources, without comments other than those harassing other users. Dahn (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Muhaha, again hillarius. No, those tags were removed by at least 10 editors, many of them being administrators. I've explained you, this page is overloaded by tags, all the tags were added by you . At least 10 editors consider this tags are not justified, I didn't removed all the tags, altought the majority of them are not justtified, I let you do your thing, but this is already going to far. I will remind you that this wikipedia is not your personal toy, this is not a encyclopedia where biased edits are allowed. This aspect is being even more stressed more by the fact that the author of this disruptive edits is an user which has a strong Trotzkist POV that he freely admits, which gives him prejudice against ethnic groups.
 * Once again, if i'm searching in your history I will find that many of the editors wich you fought with had exactly the same kind of conflicts with you, I even tried to speak nicely with you but with no results becaue of your arrogance and disrespect for others. I ask you one last time, stop disrupting this article, leave this article alone Rezistenta (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

DNA and genetics
There is much need for genetic research and DNA studies to support any old claims for the Romanian identity. There is no mention of this within this article.

Other ethnic groups such as the Basques and the Kelts have provided such DNA proof which in itself has now proven that the Basque and the Kelts although speaking different language type are actually gentically the same and have the same male anchestor. Something like this would be much needed on this article for it to stand up as fact in modern standards.


 * 1) Please sign your posts.
 * 2) DNA is irrelevant because Romanians are not a "race" and/or are not a small isolated group like Basques.
 * 3) In my opinion there's too much DNA info not too little on this page (see my point above) -- man with one red shoe (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Megleno-Romanians and Aromanians
In the text  It is believed that they diverged from the Romanians in the 7th to 9th century, ie suggesting that all Balkan Romance-speaking people have a common origin. OK, point stated. But we should also state the other (and I dare say more realistic) theory that Balkan Romance peoples aree not homgenous and only share the commonality of speaking a latin -derived language. The Vlachs of Macedonia could well represent groups autochthonous to Macedonia and Thessaly that continued to speak vulgar latin after the arrival of the Slavs and Byzantine empror Justinian's reforms. Hxseek (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexandru Ioan Cuza????
Why is he the only Voivode being shown or rather why not stick with culture people. If any Voivode is to be shown at all it should be either Stefan the Great who is far more popular and beloved in Romania, or Vlad Tepes a.k.a. Dracula who is more well-known in the anglophone world. I wish to remind you that some of Alexandru Ioan Cuza's actions are contested as he aligned himself first with the "Red" (socialist or radical) liberals and then became pretty much a dictator and even the radicals abandoned him. Of course he is a SYMBOL of the unity of Romania, but then King Ferdinand is much more a symbol of the unity of Romania than Cuza, though... Ferdinand wasn't exactly a Romanian. And the conservatives of Cuza's times, the boyars the onservatives of the following years are not the only ones that contest Cuza. Some of his measures had negative influences over the Greek minority in Romania and the showing of him might be seen as an aggresive stance. Also the communist regime used the image of Cuza very much in their propaganda and thus the numerous anticommunists in Romania (myself included) have come to dislike the use of his IMAGE as a symbol of Romania and while not contesting his positive actions, he was just a human being with good and bad parts: in one word: he's controversial. Why not use a generally accepted figure like Stefan the Great who would create no disputes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.151.89 (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Romanians related to Italians
I support the related ethnic group boxes, because natrually, there are populations in the vincinity that are related to each other. I am wondering in the most curious and non-sarcastic sense; How are the Romanians and Italian people related. I guess what they may have in common is language, that both were occupied by Roman (Italic) peoples, and both recieved some Celtic migration. But Romania seems to be a little isolated. Can someone please explain? Galati (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Galati
 * Related from linguistic and historical POV. What do you mean that population in vicinity are related to each other? Do you mean genetically (like DNA?), because from the point of view of languages they can be very unrelated: see Hungary and all their neighbors and Romania and all the neighbor (except Moldova), ethnic I think means mainly language, and from that POV Romanian is closest to Italian than any other language (except for Armanian if you you consider it a separate language and not a dialect of Romanian) -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am talking in an ethnic sense. Because I noticed Italian people in the related ethnic group box along with surrounding population such as Moldovans, Istro-Romanians, Vlachs and Aromenians. I can understand why those would be in the "related ethnic group" box but why are the Italians? I have read studies where they mention that Italians share similarities with ethnic French, and Spaniards. So as I mentioned earlier, Romania was settled by the Romans, but to what extent?24.150.154.247 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Galati
 * Ethnicaly, Romanians(Vlachs) descend mainly from Romanised Dacians, Goths, Thracians, Illyrians the indigenous populations of the Balkans and Roman colonists, Italians ethnicaly descend from Lombards, Goths, Normans and Romans... so beside the language, yes they are ethnicaly related. Adrianzax (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody knows what's the percentage of Roman blood in Romanian one, there's Genographic project that uses DNA to show how people emigrated, but ethnicity is not determined by DNA alone since we are not a tribal society anymore (even tribes in antic period were not DNA homogeneous) -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are reffering to DNA structure, romanians are most similar to greeks. Link. Adrianzax (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting map, thanks. Interesting that Bulgarians come in between, this comes to prove what I've said that vicinity is not always relevant. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) Adrianzax (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody should actually use it as a reference.Nergaal (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed this rather dubious and unreferenced addition. Romanians speak a Romance language, that doesn't make them ethnically similar to Italian people no more than it does to other Romance speakers. This is a highly contentious addition and since there is absoutely no sources in regards to similar DNA between Romanians and Italians it needs removing. Additionally, socially Romanians are simply viewed as "gypsies" by most in Italy, even when they're not. So its not like Italians view them as a "related", nor are they in DNA. - Victory&#39;s Spear (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)