Talk:Romanians in Ukraine

Other than?
"The process of Russification and colonization of this territory started to be carried out by representatives of other ethnic groups of the Russian Empire." Very confusing. "Other than" what? Other than Russians? - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"subdued to propaganda"
"kulak elements subdued to Romanian propaganda" makes no sense. "Subdued" means either quieted or made subservient. Neither makes sense here. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Moldavian / Moldovan
The article refers to theories of both a "Moldovan language" and a "Moldavian language". Are these supposed to be distinct? If not, let's be consistent on saying "Moldovan". - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Focus
Some of this seems unfocused: there is a lot of history here that isn't particularly history of the Romanians, and is presumably well handled elsewhere (or should be) and would be better handled with a summary here, plus or. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bolohoveni and Brodniki
Bolohovtsi and Brodnicks were Slavs. ,, , ,. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.9.0.30 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

The map itself is very dubious.

Current map of areas inhabited by Vlachs & Romanians
I assume the prior comment is with reference to the ethnicity map. It doesn't use my first choice of terminology, but that's secondary. Is the map supposed to be current or at some particular point in time? PētersV 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually is just a dream of some romanians right-wingers (the author isn't guilty, since he just took the data from another internet site... not very professional, but it was made when wiki was still a quite small project). The image also has an important disclaimer: "Please note that not in all the regions highlighted, Romanian language is used by the majority of speakers. In some regions it only notes presence of a minoritary Romanian-speaking community." however it doesn't define minority, and some regions have <1% vlachophones, if any.Anonimu 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It could be a dream for leftwingers, as well. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cannibalism, famine, Ukrainian and Russian settlers recruitement
Nothing common with neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.9.0.30 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Today
Everything is said allegedly. Please clarify and give details. Nothing about the quantity of Romanians in the Ukrane now. Nothing about famous Romanians and Moldovans in modern Ukraine and its history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.9.0.30 (talk • contribs).


 * Section updated and cited, refs added. Removed the tag on this section. Addressed the recent warring over "occupation" with cited (and one of the most highly regarded on the topic) reference. Added link to "Romanian Minority in Ukraine"--excellent detail.
 * Hopefully this will stabilize the article and provide some material which can be used to expand information on the state of the Romanian diaspora in Ukraine. PētersV 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise
How hard could it be to compromise about this? Both versions are in their own right, correct. Just say that Romania agreed to evacuate the territories after the Soviet Ultimatum; then mention the details, such as the Soviets entering the lands before the deadline and that Romania never agreed to cede the territories per se (if Dpotop is correct). Finally, say that Romania and other powers counted the Soviet action as an agression towards Romania and as a result, a occupation of its core territories. That would settle it all and make it right. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's just stick to facts. Romania ceded the territory being threatened by the Soviet ultimatum. "Forced to cede" is what it was. Who counted what are opinions, not facts. --Irpen 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We are sticking to facts, but facts don't involve only what happened, but also how the other side viewed things. We are here to report all sides of the story. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All sides of story are to be covered in a dedicated article about ultimatum which should be wlinked. You cannot and should not attempt to retell the complicated story in one sentence (which is impossible to do properly, btw) in every Romania-related article. --Irpen 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in one sentence, but you can do so concisely in four sentences. Those who disprove such a compromise may have to defend their version on ANI. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bring it to ANI if you want. The fact is that we need a neutral article about the event, with the legal aspects and political opinions presented fairly. The current article clearly fails to do that, being currently a soapbox and a disgrace for wikipedia. You were present when i tried to fix that article, but my sourced contributions and my demand for citation of extremely povish phrases were deleted.Anonimu 17:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with a compromise covering the events with the Romanian reaction to the ultimatum? It seems to me that you want facts, but you also want to choose what facts should be included. Is that neutral coverage? --Thus Spake Anittas 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The official position of the Romanian gvt in 1940 didn' mention any occupation. What they considered when they helped Hitler invade the Soviet Union is irrelevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpotop said that Ro agreed to evacuate the territory, not to cede it. Do you think that holds any importance? From a legal perspective, that is. I say this because countries have agreed to neutralize a military zone, but in no way cede the territory. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The territory was ceded in the moment the Romanian ambassador assured the Soviets Romanian choose to accept the demands of the first ultimatum. If you read the 2nd ultimatum, you'll notice that it presented only the conditions for the evacuation, cause, according to them and the Romanian ambassador, Bessarabia was already ceded.17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs)
 * Point blank: the international reaction should be covered. If countries saw this as a Soviet occupation of the land, then that should be mentioned. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote in History of Moldova, "occupation" is reputably sourced based on the best reference on Moldavia / Bessarabia / Moldova. Holding a gun to someone's head and then taking their land does not a non-occupation make. If you believe I'm misrepresenting that source, please feel free to inform me as to how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) 23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As Anittas has been blocked indefinitely, no response expected.
 * As noted elsewhere above, "occupation" issue in article is now appropriately addressed. Also, I did find it necessary to moderate some of the equating of (oppressive) Ukrainianization and Russification based on the Romanian-Ukrainian treaty and reports on the Romanian diaspora in Ukraine (published in Romania, so can't be accused of pro-Ukraine bias). PētersV 16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Perhaps a bit more context? Thinking...


 * Romanian and Moldavian administrative control to the east has historically ended at the right bank of the Dniester River. Romanians, however, settled along the Dniester's left bank (today's Transnistria) and beyond to the Bug River as part of the native population of modern-day Ukraine. This article is about the history of Romanians in Ukraine, primarily Ukrainian (not Bessarabian) Odessa and southernmost Vinnytsia.


 * For Romanians of Northern Bukovina or Bessarabia, areas that were part of Romania between the World Wars, see those articles, also: History of Romania, History of Moldavia, and History of Moldova. For the history of the whole modern Ukrainian state, see History of Ukraine.

Thoughts? PētersV 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic edit
I believe this edit is problematic for two reasons:
 * it reverts an edit (by me) which IMHO was nothing more or less than a reformulation for more clarity
 * the edit has an inflammatory comment: rv edit with false summary and dubious modifications: placing Romanians in antiquity, deletion of every mention of Holocaust and other clearly POV matters.
 * I haven't "placed" any Romanians in antiquity. That part is about Romans, not Romanians, and I restored a paragraph that User:Anonimu deleted without explanation, but I did not do a plain revert, instead I attempted to make that paragraph shorter an clearer. Anonimu could have either further edit that paragraph, or present in the talk page a reason why it should be deleted, but he instead chose to rv everything and comment ostentatively.
 * How does modifying "During this period the Romanian government exterminated around 300,000 Jews and Roma in the region." into "During this period the Romanian and German authorities and units deported to this region 147,000 Bessarabian and Bukovinian Jews, 30,000 Romanian Roma, and exterminated the largest part of the local Jewish population of this region." constitutes a deletion of every mention of Holocaust? This is simply ridiculous. My edit explained that 300,000 victims are composed of 147,000 Bessarabian and Bukovinian Jews, 30,000 Roma (28,500 to be precise), and the rest (ca. 130,000) Transistrian Jews. I consider this a false accusation of anti-Semitism by Anonimu. Any reasonable person who reads the history of the article and sees a comment like "deletion of every mention of Holocaust" would justly think that the previous editor is anti-Semitic. And look what in reality I did. I am afraid this is part of a larger tactic by User:Anonimu to falsely accuse the editors he personally dislikes of anti-Semitism.
 * also, false summary, dubious modifications, POV matters are very strong words, and at minimum would require an explanation in the talk page.

On the basis of the above, I kindly ask Anonimu to revert his last edit, and comment in the talk page what he doesn't like, and how he sees to improve the article. If he has something constructive to add to the article (new info, new sources), I would whole-heartedly welcome that. But I would like to respectfully ask this user to refrain from reverts and edits that simply modify the meaning of sentences. I am not saying that the article is in good state, but instead of trying to provoke an edit war, IMHO, this user should better try to contribute content-wise, not only to modify articles impression-wise. Dc76\talk 17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't revert (I'm not allowed more than one rv per day). There's no reason to talk about Antiquity when talking about "Romanians in Ukraine". First, because the Romans, and even Dacians barely ruled over this area, leaving almost no significant trace. Second, because, even not considering the dispute about the origin of Romanians, implying a 2000 year continuity in a region under constant attack from all the tribes of Asia is too much even for protochronists.
 * The Holocaust part is my bad. I missed it due to misalignment in the diff window. Thanks for assuming bad faith about me, again.
 * May be strong, but they are factual. You restored a whole paragraph which was removed with a valid explanation in the summary. This is not "edits for more clarity, and some corrections". Moreover you removed a POV tag, you removed info about the mainly Ruthenian character of the Cossack troops (implying a Romanian majority). There are also POV problems with your emphasis on certain elements of WW2 "beyond Romania's pre-war boundaries, also beyond historical boundaries of Romanian and Moldavian sovereignty, invading Ukraine beyond the Dniester", or "territories taken by the Soviets under the ultimatum" "originally ceded under duress by Romania.". As for your accusation that I make edits "that simply modify the meaning of sentences", this is not the case here.
 * I'm urging you again to discuss the content, and not the editors.Anonimu (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can revert yourself a thousand times per day, without penalty. But if you choose to hide under such an argument (1RR), I leave it on your conscience. Please, kindly note that it is me that is asking you time and again to concentrate on the content. I am not discussing you as a person, but I wrote about one (this one) problematic edit by you. Has I not been as kind as possible in my comment above? Why do you reload the words in a "cannon" and throw them at me?...
 * If you consider the POV tag in place even after my edits, be my guest and add it.
 * I did not "remove[d] info about the mainly Ruthenian character of the Cossack troops (implying a Romanian majority)" as you write. On the contrary, my edits contained "While the Ruthenian ethnic element is fundamental for Cossacks, the[re] was also a considerable number of Romanians among the hetmans of the Cossacks..." If you believe this is not strong enough, be my guest, and emphasize it. Instead you reverted and now it reads "Hetmans of the Cossacks:..." followed by a list of Romanian names. You did the very thing you accuse me of ! Note also the para before that which talks about 10th century. I changed the order from Vlachs, Slavic, Turcik to the more correct Slavic, Vlach, Turcik. You then reverted me back and claim I somehow favor Romanian (Vlach). Very-very strange... I believe you did not even read carefully my edit. I guess you assumed that if my edit comes after one of yours, it is bound to do some harm to yours, and just pushed the revert button.
 * I removed "beyond Romania's pre-war boundaries, also beyond historical boundaries of Romanian and Moldavian sovereignty, invading Ukraine beyond the Dniester", "territories taken by the Soviets under the ultimatum", and "originally ceded under duress by Romania" because this is already explained. If the way I re-phrased seems insuficiently clear to you, nobody prevented you from making it more clear by re-phrasing further. But you just reverted.
 * The paragraph about antiquity is only for the sake of completeness. I never said that Romanians were continuous in that area for 2,000 years. Continuity is certain (from the mainstream historiography POV) only about near-mountain regions, which is in modern Romania, not in southern Ukriane. Why are you accusing me of protochronism? Do you like putting labels on me? Wasn't it possible for you to state you thoughts without accusations towards me?
 * If you accept you were wrong about my edits regarding Holocaust, then why don't you indeed revert yourself. But here is the real problem: you make a revert, take hours of people's time to explain to you why your revert was bad, and in the end when you bothered to actually read the edits made by others, when every word of that edit was re- and re-re-explained to you, you only admit you misunderstood certain points, but won't frankly accept you made a mistake and revert yourself. The problem is not about content, I am afraid. I am afraid you simply fish for edits of me reverting you. Dc76\talk 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK man, sorry. Except the part about antiquity, the rest of your edit was reasonable. If you had explained clearly from the first time instead of discussing my supposed opinions and goals, we could have ended it hours ago.Anonimu (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If I would have explained... Why didn't you simply read my edit, as opposed to my name. Now, imagine that instead of me, here was Dahn. Do you think he would have had so much patience with you your revert happy action? Anyway, apology accepted. Have a nice day. Dc76\talk 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)