Talk:Bukovina

text from "Bukovyna"

All text from entry Bukovyna has been added at the end of this entry. Editing is needed. Wetman 15:11, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Slavic

The article seems to be overwhelmingly written from a Romanian point of view. It's not even mentioned that the very word Bukovina is Slavic :-) Jakob Stevo 21:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is Slavic ? I thought it was adapted from an older German name: "Buchenland". "-ina" is a common sufix for both Romanian and Slavic languages. Bogdan | Talk 23:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, -ina may be common to Slavic and Romanian, but -ov- sounds rather Slavic to me. Besides, it resembles much more the Slavic word buka than the German Buche (which happen to mean the same: beech tree) - the "Lautverschiebung" had taken place long before any German entered the region.

OK. -ov- seems to indicate a Slavic origin, so at least the Romanian version is taken directly from the Slavs. I googled and found that the first reference to this name was in a treaty of 1412. [1] (That article also says that "Bukovina means "beechwood" in Romanian"  :)

Does it? I don't know much Romanian (although I was there last summer). But returning to German: although the Old High German version must have been something like buka, it changed tu Buche (buh-schwa-) as early as the tenth century, making it rather unlikely, imho, that the origin is German (unless it would be Low German)--Jakob Stevo 22:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Starting with the 11th century, Saxons (Saşi; also some Germans from as far as Flandre) were colonized in neighbouring Transylvania.

Besides, you do know that your first name's Slavic? Jakob Stevo 09:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. And my last name has a Slavic sufix. (-ushcă) ;-) Bogdan | Talk 18:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have a lot of Slavic words, right? I remember izvor, mucenik, proorok, da, and some Turkish like carapa, cizma, aide, ...--Jakob Stevo 22:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the Slavic had quite some influence on the Romanian vocabulary, mostly Old Church Slavonic/Bulgarian, since that was the liturgy's language. Bogdan | Talk 22:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Halych and Bukovina

There is any prove sustaining the following sentence: "In the 9th to early 14th centuries the province came under the control of Kievan Rus and later, its Ukrainian successor state of Halych-Volynia."? I think it's hardly speculative. --Vasile 06:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't see how any speculation was used to arrive at these facts. I do find that the Black Sea coast between the Danube and the Dnipro up into Ukrainian/Ruthenian (Rus') territory is incorporated into the realm of Kyivan Rus' tribes from the 10th-12th centuries, according to "A Thousand Years of Christianity in Ukraine: An Encyclopedic Chronology, (p26). I alos note that "Kievan Russia" (please excuse the imperialistic spelling) by George Vernadsky, calims that fisherman from Halychchyna came to dwell on the lower Danube river in the 1100s! (p 107.) Hope this helps! Genyo 23:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But a modern encyclopedia assertion is not a proof. That assertion should based on proofs. Could you produce any other proof that Halych controlled Bukovina and Bessarabia, other than the fishermen came to Danube?

Meanwhile I am gonna move here the assertion from the article.--Vasile 02:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another quote from Britannica "History > Western Ukraine under the Habsburg monarchy > Bukovina": : "A small territory between the middle Dniester River and the main range of the Carpathians, Bukovina had formed part of Kievan Rus and the Galician-Volhynian principality." The challenge by above user: "But a modern encyclopedia assertion is not a proof. That assertion should based on proofs. Could you produce any other proof.." makes little sense to me. I don't see how an assertion in a respected encyclopedia is not a proof. Well, it is not a proof that something indeed took place, but it is a proof that so considers the mainstream historical thought. Writers of encyclopedia can never claim with 100% accuracy that all the facts there are true. But respected encyclopedias do reflect the mainstream historic knowledge. And so should the Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to restore this in the article, except I don't think it is correct to call Halych-Volynia "a Ukrainian state" and this should not indeed go into the article. Just in case, I would like to request that people here conduct discussions civilly. "Transnistria" was enough. Thanks! --Irpen

The dog

For the dog breed, see Ciobãnesc de Bucovina.

Well, I don't think it's OK to put the name of the dog breed in front. You know, in the article on Australia, there is not in front a link to Australian Shepherd. We could however mention it somewhere inside the article. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The challenge is that the breed is sometimes called just the "Bukovina" or "Bucovina", whereas the Australian Shepherd is never just called the "Australian" or "Australia". It is sometimes called an Aussie, and that's a short article (at least at the moment) with the reference near the end, so someone looking for "Aussie" the dog will find the reference quickly. Someone looking for "Bucovina" the dog needs to be able to find it from here--one useful alternative would be to have Bukovina (disambiguation) and reference that at the top of this article, but the only purpose for that page would be to get to the dog page, so it seems not like the *best* alternative. It is common practice in wikipedia to put "for xxxx, see yyyy" at the top of articles in which a disambig page isn't warranted. Maybe we could do a See also section here with a reference to the dog, but I'm just concerned that people won't naturally scroll down to find it when they see right off the bat that the article is about a location. Elf | Talk 22:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which part of Bukovina became part of Odessa oblast

The part with "part of it became part of Odessa oblast" is wrong. It is impossible that it could be so, since bocovina has no boder with odessa oblast. The author probably ment that the northern part of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina became Chernivtsi oblast and southern part of Bessarabia became part of Odessa oblast. He mixed up Bassarabia with Bukovina.

Domnu Goie

NPOV (interwar Rumanization)

the policies of Rumanization were carried in the interwar period.

...and the article says nothing about the anti-Romanian policies the Soviets/Ukrainians, such as the massacres of Romanian civilians (during the war) and ethnic cleansing after the war (deportations to Siberia). Until those issues have been resolved, I don't believe it is NPOV. bogdan | ^Talk 20:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan, I see your point. I agree that any sourced info, if balanced and well written, about any atrocities against Romanians in Bukovina belongs to the article. However, the war period is a separate issue from the interwar period. Sourced info about crimes against Romanian civilians in Bukovina are not the only thing that happened at that time omitted from the article, as you know. You are welcome to add this but going into details of WW2 period would also require an elaboration about the crimes that happened under Romanian occupation during the WW2. Currently the article has just one sentence ("deportation of Jews") about the whole issue and it is easy to find plenty of info about mass killing of Jews conducted there by Romanian and German forces often with an eager help of the local Ukrainians. And there is nothing in the article about interaction of the Axis forces with Ukrainians at all. This is clearly insufficient and you are welcome to elaborate on pre- during or post-WW2 events. I might set aside some time to do that too, but that would require me to go through a lot of reading, which of course is a good thing.

As for the interwar period, take a look at this quote from Britannica. It had a chapter on this period in:

Ukraine→History→"Ukraine in the interwar period"→"Bukovina under Romanian rule":

In the formerly Austrian province of Bukovina, Ukrainians constituted two-fifths of the total population but two-thirds in the northern half (in 1931). Following the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy, northern Bukovina was briefly proclaimed part of the Western Ukrainian National Republic, before the entire province was occupied by the Romanian army in November 1918. Under a state of emergency that lasted from 1919 to 1928, Bukovina was subjected to strong assimilationist pressures. Provincial self-government was abolished and the Ukrainian language removed from administrative use. The extensive Ukrainian school system and the university chairs at Chernivtsi were liquidated, and the Ukrainian press and most organizations banned. A relaxation that began in 1928 led to the reemergence of organized life, but this was almost totally suppressed with the institution of the royal dictatorship in 1938.

Currently, the WP article summarizes this in two short sentences:

"With the collapse of Austri-Hungary in 1918 the province was occupied by Romania. Although local Ukrainians have unsuccesfully attempted to incorporate parts of northern Bukovina into the short living West Ukrainian National Republic, the Romanian control of the province was finally formalized in the Treaty of St. Germain in 1919 and the policies of Rumanization were carried in the interwar period."

I don't think this summary is tilted against the Romanians as compared to the respected source I used. The main shortcoming of this part is its brevity, since the WP has the means to go in a greater rather than a smaller details than EB.

So, I would like to suggest the following. We separate the interwar period from the period closer to the war years and will try to write a balanced account of what happened in late 30s - late 40s. Until nothing is written about this time (as it is now, except a single sentence I mentioned earlier), I see no basis for the POV dispute. Once the article will be describing those years it should get an NPOV tag, should anyone find it unbalanced. As for the interwar period account, there seem to be no dispute over the accuracy, at least in your post above.

In any case, you are welcome to improve what I wrote, add more about war and post war years and to keep the tag, if you see fit (I will not remove it now). But please do not delete the info about interwar Rumanization. Actually, I appreciate that you raised the dispute rather than delete the info while I disagree with having the NPOV tag over this issue. In any case, I would have responded with similar detail even if you just raised the objection without placing a tag on the whole article. Regards, --Irpen 23:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Could it be assumed that everyone is fine with my suggestion above and the tag can be removed? Or people are just to busy to respond? We really should not keep the tag if the discussion died out. I will wait some more for objections. If there is still a disagreement I have no intention to try to hide it and delete the tag of course. But let's try to deal with this rather than allow a tag to stay and do nothing. --Irpen 00:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

As per above, the tag removed only today. We really gave time for objections to be raised, but if some still remain and tag needs restored, we can start it all over with a new round. Regards, --Irpen 21:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

the neutrality of this page is disputed

The article on Bukovina (Bucovina, Bukowina) has been the subject and object of some bitter dispute. Not only Ukrainian and Romanian viewpoints are alternatively errased and replaced, but also neutral editings are deleted by more extreme wikis.

I therfore suggest that everyone who reads this agree on the following policy:

1. Let us with common sense edit some basic undisputed information and agree on the content list. I suggest that this part (the definition of the term Bukovina, the map and the first numbered item) be very short and state that there are opposing viewpoint on some issues, and that the users of Wikipaedia have agreed to present both (or more) viewpoints on this page without erasing information one does not agree with.
2. Each item that follows should contain 2 (or more if necessary) subitems - one stating Ukrainin viewpoint, and the other Romanian viewpoint. For example:

Etymology

Ukrainin viewpoint

Bukovina is a Ukrainian name and means the are no Romanians here

Romanian viewpoint

Bukovina is a Romanian name and means the are no Ukrainins here

1. +2 Incredibly much information would be common! That information would be very helpful for non-Ukrainians and non-Romanians. But it would obviously be presented in the context differently by the two parts. Understand me right, I do not claim that both parts are equally right or equally wrong, I claim that when both oppinions are presented, intelligent readers would easely understand which one is more truthful. If you support one viewpoint, feel free to edit your part, and edit it well, for the better you will, the sounder you viewpoint will be. But do not touch the other part. Feel free, though to critisize the other part whe you are writting your part. I believe that in the end both parts would reach a more or less neutral viewpoint with only 1-2 differences. The outside world is interested in the oppinions of both sides on these differences, not only in the one's which has edited the last.

On purpose, I have not edited any word, though I disagree with many, and can prove some information is obviously wrong. (The map of Bukovina in green is the most obvious example: one should not include Herta/Herza district, nor northern Bessarabia, nor Botosani county, not the Baia-Falticeni part of the Suceava county, those are not part of Bukovina. I suggest we replace it by the Austrian map found lower in the text.)

If you agree to my suggestion, leave a not on this Talk page. Let's say, when 5 supporting notes are there, the 5th person go ahead and edit the page as agrees. But do not erase enything, even something obviously wrong, just place it is the corresponding viepoint section.

There remains though one question - to decide on the list of contents. Please, leave your suggestions below. 193.226.4.163 15:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) D

Hi anonymous, please list specifically your objections to the neutrality of the article if you want to keep the tag. --Irpen 23:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

And what exactly are the Romanian and Ukrainian viewpoints on the matter? I for instance, am a Romanian. My viewpoint may not exactly coincide with another Romanian's viewpoint.

The thing with "there are no ucrainians here" may be something that is true for some Romanians but not me. Northern Bukovina is full of Ukrainians. One cannot deny that. Ucrainians represent 70-75% of the population. Ucrainians lived in northern Bukovina ever since 1775. In 1918 the Ucrainians and Romanians initially agreed to devide the region between north and south but then the west ucrainian republic got dissolved so Romania took everything. in 1940 the USSR said it "reclaimed the north" but they drew the border incorrectly and not according to ethnic lines.As a result, there are still 180.000 Romanians inside the Ucraine today. They are generally centered in the districts(rayons) around the district(rayon) of Herta.

I think we should keep the green zone on the map(maybe erase botosani judetz).Mihaitza 07:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, unless specific problems with neutrality are listed soon, I will remove the tag. Nothing would prevent the anon user, or anyone else from restoring it, if they come up with specific reasons. There are several discussions above with neutrality tag placed and removed when objections were addressed or not supported. --Irpen 07:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the last call for an anon editor to specifically list the neutrality problems. Otherwise, the POV tag will be removed. The protracted essay above is an interesting reading nut lacks specifics required to keep the tag --Irpen 02:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The map

I disagree with the map. The Botosani county was not considered a part of the region of Bukovina. Someone needs to remake that map. --Anittas 14:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Irpen contributions and Vasile's deletion

Definitely, you are not at your best writing on Bukowina and city of Cernauti, as you dislike the region. Please refrain on reverting without reading or thinking on others contribution. --Vasile 14:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, your accusations that I dislike something are just silly and baseless. I will edit articles with reading and thinking as I see fit and in accordance with Wiki-ethics and Wiki-policies. You deleted significant pieces from the aricle besides the name section without any explanation. This cannot be tolerated--Irpen 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

At least you don't pretend you have read my edits. Your guardian senses felt some motion and this, you said, can not be tolerated. You want to tell me that there is a special secret admin policy regarding some articles on Wikipedia? --Vasile 18:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I read your edits. As for the rest of your message above, I can't make any sense of it. Please rephrase what you want to say in a comprehensible way if you want a response.

In your edit [2] you deleted big chunks of information from the article without even attemting to raise whatever problems you had with the article at talk. This is on the borderline of vandalism and would have been reverted by someone else, if not by me, anyway. --Irpen 19:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What Vasile calls "personal comments about Romanian prioroties" and info on interwar Romanization may easily be found in Britannica articles such as Bukovina and History of Ukraine. --Irpen 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no need of rephrasing as you don't know the answer to the question anyway. Those "big chunks of information" were simply garbage. In fact, in your action of revert my vandalism, you erased the wiki-link to a poem dedicated to Bukovina ("La Bucovina", Mihai Eminescu). As you are good on regulations, I am sure you'll be able to fit your law-breaking. --Vasile 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, you should justify your deletions. --Anittas 19:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, I apologize if I accidentally deleted the link to a poem. You may restore it of course. I don't know what you mean by garbage. If you call any info, no matter how well supported, a garbage because it doesn't support your POV, I can't help it. Such a deletionist's approach is addresses in the Wikipedia guideline: Be_bold#...but_don.27t_be_reckless.21. --Irpen 19:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't cost me much to repair the accidentally deleted link, but if you really want me to believe the sincerity of your regrets, you might be so kind to repair yourself that link. It may appear futile, but the poem also reflects dozens of testimonies that could be found on the internet, regarding the impressive natural beauty of the region. --Vasile 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture." This phrase is used out of its context (probably 1918-1919). This kind of diplomatic reasoning was convincing at that time. --Vasile 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I remember that I wrote this sentense. I used Britannica as the source of the info. Right now, I cannot access an exact quote, but I will cite it here as soon as I can. --Irpen 20:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But I can. Here is the quote, from Britannica:

When Romania achieved independence in 1878, it sought unification with Bukovina. It did so because Bukovina was not only the historical cradle of the Moldavian principality but also the repository of the finest examples of Romanian art and architecture, having unique painted monastic churches of the 15th and 16th centuries. Romania occupied Bukovina when Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1918. Although local Ukrainians had tried to incorporate their districts in northern Bukovina into the Western Ukrainian National Republic, Romania gained control of the whole province (Treaty of Saint-Germain; 1919) and pursued a Rumanization policy there. In June 1940 the Soviet Union occupied the northern part of Bukovina, but Romania temporarily regained this territory as Germany's ally after the latter had invaded the U.S.S.R. in 1941. Soviet troops retook the northern districts in 1944. Northern Bukovina became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic under the peace treaty of 1947; the ancient Moldavian capital Suceava and the surrounding area, including the most famous of the monasteries, became part of the Romanian People's Republic.

This text is copyrighted and should not be used on Wiki. --Anittas 20:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is an exact quote and I remember it very well. I hope it addresses Vasile's deletion urge. --Irpen 20:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This text is including probably the Romanian diplomatic reasoning used into the negotiations of the treaty of Saint-Germain, in order to convince the Western world about the rights of Romania in the region. The expression "Rumanization policy" sounds (let aside the pejorative form) very heavy for the present time. Indeed especially the Germans were not able to accept the new situation in the former colony. The last sentence is simply erroneous, R.P.R. being proclaim after the signing of the peace treaty of 1947 and Suceava being already part of Romania since 1918. --Vasile 03:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if you want to say that the authors of Britannica, which is rather selective in picking its contributors, use the wrong terms, you either have to argue with them in scholarly literature first, to prove them wrong and yourself right, or find other respectable scholars that argued that for you thus claiming that Romanian policy towards the Ukrainian population was friendly and benevolent. I can certainly cite several books on Ukrainian history that support Britannica's version.

Also, as far as I know, the results of the 2001 Ukrainian census is the only veryfiable data available today for the linguistic [3] and ethnical [4] composition of Northern Bukovina. The results of census (unless we have any claims that it was rigged) simply reflect the answers people gave in the forms by checking the boxes "Ukrainian", "Romanian", "Moldavian" on the page. No one forced or discouraged anyone to select as they wished and, I repeat, the results represent not some official "registration" data or what's written as "nationality" in the passports but people's own selection.

It is not yours or anyone else's job to add up the number of Romanians and Moldavians as per census to make up some different numbers and interpret them. If you have any respectable text that explains why Ukrainian census should be discounted and which numbers are more correct, bring it to this talk page. --Irpen 05:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanization

The Ukrainian schools were closed for a few years after the revolt, but were shortly re-opened again. We need references for the closing of other cultural facilities and for forced Romanization. If not, this term shouldn't be applied to the article. --Anittas 05:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

SO, are you saying that Britannica isn't enough? I am surprized but I will provide more, if you insist. Please note, however, that rejecting the respected sources and demanding more may be pursued endlessly. Imagine someone starting the argument over single/separate identities of Moldovans/Romanians all over and simply rejecting all the sources the Romanians bring saying "bring more references". The respectable reference uses the term in an explicit form. As such, the burden of proof is rather on the side that wants to disprove Britannica and not vise versa. --Irpen 06:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes, Britannica is not enough. Want me to prove it to you? Britannica claims that Stefan cel Mare was victorious at the Battle of Vaslui and at the Battle of Valea Albă, but he wasn't victorious at Valea Alba. He actually lost control of Moldavia for a short period of time and had to rebuild his army in Poland. This message, however, was in reply to your claims that we closed theaters and other cultural institutions, and I would like to see references for this, because I don't think Britannica said this. As for Britannica, I had to email them several times and asked them to add new content that they didn't bother to add. They had nothing on George Palade, but they do now, so don't think they're so perfect. There are many different authors who write for Britannica and it is known that errors have been found in their content. --Anittas 06:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that EB is a bible. Any respectable source may include occasional errors. All I said, is that if the claim is made by a respectable source, it is the opposition's burden to prove it wrong and not the other way around. --Irpen 06:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You can try to "convert" a population without using offensive means, but simply with "culture". You said we closed theaters, etc. That would mean a forced Romanization of the population, but I'm not so sure we were that agressive. --Anittas 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can read in Ukrainian, take a look at the third from the bottom paragpraph of uk:Буковина article in Ukrainian wikipedia, a well referenced article BTW. If you insist I can provide the translation and get a hold on the article's sources that describe the Romanian state policies against the Ukrainian language, closure of cultural and educational institutions, newspapers and magasines, oppression of the Ukrainian church and change of the Ukrainian names for the Romanian ones. If this is not Romanization, I wonder what is then. After the Romanian occupation returned in 41, the Romanization policies were renewed and Ukrainian activist were sent to concentration camps. The article cites "The Handbook on the History of Ukraine", editor I. Pidkova and others. --Irpen 07:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I dare you that was not Romanization. I say that was a Romanian-Soviet cold war. These books of Ukrainian history were written without studying the Romanian politcs and Soviet-Romanian relations. This kind of history is partial and by that, it can't be considered anything else that simply unacceptable propaganda of a defunct system. --Vasile 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Ukranian and I was hoping you would give me a non-Ukrainian and non-Romanian source, to make sure they're objective. I also think we should cover the current Ukrainian policy that discriminate against ethnic Romanians that live on the land that was theirs for centuries. --Anittas 09:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To Vasile, these books of Ukrainian history I am referring to are the post-Soviet books written after Ukrainian independence. They have nothing to do with the cold war.

Anittas, your request for non-UA/non-RO sources is already satisfied since Britannica's ref is given. OTOH, I have no objection to include the referenced info on the anti-Romainian policies in the Soviet Union. Please note, however, that these policies were part of the wider Soviet policies, rather than having been particularly related to Bukovina. As such, they belong to more general articles, like perhaps Anti-Romanian discrimination, Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union#Transfers_of_ethnicities, etc, whith a simple mention here. OTOH, the anti-Ukrainian policies of the interwar Romania, are specifically Bukovina related. In any case, if you can bring such info in a referenced and encyclopedic form, we could discuss it. And I would be interested to learn myself about the "current Ukrainian policies that discriminate against ethnic Romanians". If you have any respectable sources that describe this, please bring them up. --Irpen 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica should be based on some reliable sources, like any other encyclopedia. Whether or not Britannica included non reliable information is not my business. They need to make a living too. The question here is if you able and kind to name any reliable non-Ukrainian sources about that Romanization process. That post-Soviet book of history is also most probably based on some research work made on the Soviet time. What you probably should know is the fact that the frictions between Romania and Ukraine didn't start in the same time with the new independent state.

There must be some historic works constituing base for that big post-Soviet history. That research is PARTIAL and thus is propaganda. You don't need to be very creative to do that. There is a lot work developed inside the Hungarian culture since 1918. The Romanian minority is discriminated not comparing just with the Ukrainian majority. It suffices to compare the rights of Hungarians in Ujgorod with those of Romanians in Cernauti or Odessa. --Vasile 21:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, if you want to argue with the authors of Britannica, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Write articles in historic journals. Wikipedia requires references, you've got the quote from one of the most respected reference books world-wide. You say, it is possible Britannica is wrong and you are right.

Actually, Britannica is not a valid reference for our purposes and many wikipedians reject sources such as general encyclopedias, so it would be better that we find some published books or articles. bogdan 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the more refs the better. However, discounting Britannica is plain ridiculous. "Many Wikipedians" as well reject sources that carry information not to their liking. How can we accomodate them all? In any case, we have the Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy page. Go to Village Pump to argue modifying the policy to make Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources policy section mention Britannica among the tabloids, personal sites and blogs. Additionally, I also cited books and can easily cite more. Vasile is requested to bring here some IMPARTIAL sources as per below. --Irpen 23:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well, the burden is now on Vasile to prove it. Bring some IMPARTIAL, as you like to say, sources that praise the benevolent treatment of minorities in the interwar România Mare as well as by the allied to Hitler government during the WW2 and we will discuss it. Since you were so persisting, I looked into "Orest Subtelny. Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 3rd edition (2000) ISBN 0-8020-8390-0." that you can get in any library. On page 447 ("Ukrainians under Romanian Rule" chapter) you will find that all Ukrainian schools were closed and Ukrainians were even refused the right to be called a separate nation, that Ukrainians were called the "citizens of Romanian origin that forgot their native language", that all autonomy was abolished and Bukovyna was turned to an ordinary Romanian province, you will read about brutal liquidation of Ukrainians' rights (that's for pre '27 time). Then the book speaks about relatively liberal 28-38 period when Ukrainian culture were given some limited means to redevelop. However, with arrival of '38 "cruel and almost totalitarian" dictatorship the Ukrainian political party, as well as many other Ukrainian organizations were banned. You can read more in the book.

Ah, so we wanted you to be Romanians. Is that so bad? It's not so bad to be Romanian. Besides, many Ukrainians have Romanian blood, so it wouldn't be totally untrue. ;) --Anittas 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's better to put that in perspective: in 1938, Carol II of Romania assumed dictatorial powers and banned all political parties of Romania, as well as many other non-political organizations, so it was not something against the Ukrainians. bogdan 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You cannot keep denying the references simply because you dislike information in them. The oppression of Romanians in modern-day Ukraine, whether it exists or not, is a separate issue. Bring in some refs and we will discuss them. --Irpen 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me remind you in case you don't know, that it is not your duty here to establish the roles, whose burden is which.

For that one small precious pre-war Bukowina related page of Ukranian history, there should be some references (a great amount of work, historian work) enumerated at the end of the book as a base for the author tough conclusions. :You can not count Romanian references in the books of Mr. Subtelny. No Ukrainian historian, excluding NKVD or KGB agents, ever made historical research in Romania. You can not consider Soviet intelligence impartial when it comes about Romania.

You can't link the actual inflamatory brutal sistematic "Rumanization" accusations to the subsequent Romanian crimes of WWII. Those war crimes could not create a presumption for the alleged precedent facts.

You don't have any credible evidence of sistematic process of "Rumanization" and no presumption of culpability . This is Ukrainian national propaganda.

It was not so complicated to repair your regrattable mistake. The fact you didn't take any action, it clearly shows your bad faith and the bias against Romanian culture. --Vasile 01:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not establishing whose burden is which. All I said, is that I brought up several verifiable sources that support the information I added to the article:

1. a book by a Ukrainian historian,
2. a book by a Canadian historian,
3. the most respected English language encyclopedia.

The most respected English encyclopedia is based on some other books, so this is not a source. The Canadian-Ukraininan books are not neutral. So I will erase the pejorative statement about "Rumanization". --Vasile 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thus, I met and exceeded the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requirement. The book by Subtelny you can buy at amazon or borrow from any library has 36 pages of Bibliography and references. You are welcome to study those particular ones that relate to the issue at hand and find your own references that disprove them all one by one. Prof. Subtelny (a Harvard Ph. D.) [5] is one of the most respected modern scholars in the field who, BTW, in addition to writing one of the most used Ukrainian history monographies, wrote the "Ukraine" article for Encarta and many other books. You are not in position to argue with him. Some other authors might, so cite them and we will continue. Similarly, the statement of Britannica that something happened has more clout than the statement by user:Vasile that it didn't happen.

Your calling the references that support information you simply dislike (including Britannica) a "Ukrainian national propaganda" is nothing but trolling. I could have easily brought up more references because this is not a little known or little studied topic, but what is already here is enough for anyone but user:Vasile and with your approach to call any source you dislike "propaganda", there is no way to make you happy.

Your baseless accusation of myself in the bad faith and the bias against the Romanian culture are not worth commenting. As such, until you can say something on the issue, I will not be responding to your rant. I have seen that from you in the past at Transnistria article. No way you can pull the same trick here again. --Irpen 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

When you admit a mistake you have to take measures to repair it or to pay the damage. You did neither so you are in a breach of good faith. I demand you to refrain in editing this article as your bias against Romanians is clear.

Thank you for the actual address of Mr. Subtelny. How do you know he will not answer my questions? --Vasile 02:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He may answer your questions. I meant that when it is just your word against the word of an accomplished scholar, I would rather accept what is said by the latter one. --Irpen 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Priorities

"Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture."

This is simply a speculation, based on nothing else than the Romanian diploamtic reasoning on Treaty of Saint-Germain. I suggeste its removal or better, to be placed in its context. --Vasile 04:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, I see that you resorted again to deletion of referenced passages not to your liking [6]. Please remember that unsubstatiated deletion of referenced info from the article is on the borderline of vandalism and is usually reverted on sight.

As for your proposal above, I object to the removal of any referenced information purely because user:Vasile doesn't want to see it here. The hypothesis on why the author of an EB article, most likely an accomplished historian, wrote what he wrote, is a pure speculation by Vasile and as such I see no reason to take it at face value.

Please refer the assertion. --Vasile 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Firmly rejecting Vasile's "demand" to refrain from this article, I OTOH, have no objections to see and discuss the proposal to place this in the broader context, but again, based on the referenced information, not some speculation by Wikipedia editors. --Irpen 05:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case please stop pursuing your careless actions against Romanian culture. --Vasile 13:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

EB

They found Britannica to average almost three errors per article. By comparison, Wikipedia contained close to four errors per article. [5]

See Encyclopedia Britannica

Please do not repeat the same arguments. Not only Britannica, but any history book can contain errors. Vasile or yourself are welcome to prove the referenced information wrong with your own references and we will change the article accordingly. I also cited other scholarly works above. You can't dismiss the respectable source simply claiming that "books also make mistakes" because we would end up with everyone simply rejecting any info one doesn't like. If you disagree with what Britannica says in Bukovina article, show how it erred specifically in the article in question, not by saying that it erred somewhere else. --Irpen

Actually, EB is not counted as a direct reference, but an indirect one. --Anittas 05:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

see this. --Irpen 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing Historiography

http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istorie1918-1940/1-2.htm No reaserch was made in Romania by Ukrianians historians as the the royal decrets and Romanian laws were ignored. --Vasile 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Declaration of Union

Here is the original declaration of union between Bukovina and Romania:

http://moldova.go.ro/pagini/istorie/unire.htm#bucovina

I thought this was known. I don't think it would be smart for someone to fake something that is so easy to verify. --Anittas 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Then please elaborate, at least at talk since I can't read in Romanian, what was that General Congress of Bukovina, who did it represent and how was it elected. Maybe you haven't heard but many Soviet expansionist moves were at the time presented as responses to the genuine requests of the local people voiced through some fastly concocted "representative body". However, the scholarly literature customary holds the move of Romania into the territories of collapsed Austro-Hungary as an occupation. References are already given above. --Irpen 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The General Congress of Bukovina, representing the supreme power of the country and being the only authority with law-giving rights, in the name of the national Sovereignty, We decide:

The non-conditional and eternal union of Bukovina within its old borders up to Ceremuş, Colacin and the Dniester, with the Kingdom of Romania.

So, no, it does not say how it was elected, but only that it has the authority. bogdan 00:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I don't object then if:

1. We make it clear that it represented only Romanian population with the will of non-Romanians (particularly Ukrainians) who were a significant part of the population, being ignored
2. We don't mask the widely used in literature term "occupation" with weasel "unification". While ethnic Romanians might have felt unified with their brethren, it was certainly not "unification" for a very significant portion of the population of the region who didn't have their national state at the time, unlike Romanians, to support their national aspirations. --Irpen 00:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Other nationalities were represented in the Congress. They were 74 representatives of the Romanian National Council, 7 of the German Council, 6 of the Polish Council, and 13 ruthenes. So saying that the Congress represented only the Romanian population of the province is not accurate --Anonimu 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If this was a representative body, how come it only included 13 ruthenes only out of 74 total. The article itself says that according to 1880 census the population was 41.5% Ukrainian and 33% Romanian and according to 1930 census it was 45% Romanian and 29.2 % Ukrainian. 13 out of 74 is much less than that. Was this an elected body? How was it elected? If we give its decision the clout of legitimacy, wee need to elaborate on that. --Irpen 22:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Just because the Romanians won the vote, doesn't mean the rest were not represented. This is the way it usually goes: the majority decides. This is what happened with Transylvania and this is what happened when half of Banat decided to unite with Romania, and the other half with Serbia. --Anittas 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Similar votes were in Transylvania and Bessarabia, too.

• In Transylvania, only Romanians and Germans representatives voted (I'm not sure whether the Hungarians refused or were not allowed to vote; the Romanians and Germans made up together about 75% of the population, so the Hungarians wouldn't have changed the result of the vote)
• In Bessarabia, the minorities were presented in "Sfatul Ţării" and they voted "for", "against" and "abstaining". Probably the major reason why many representatives of the minorities voted "for" was the of the civil war in the Soviet Union and the fear of chaos getting to Bessarabia, too. bogdan 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Transylvania analogy doesn't apply here. The Northern Bukovina, where Ukrainians were a majority, was also "united" with Romania, unlike the part of Transylvania with Serbian majority. Ukrainians were not given any say in this matter. They tried to organize the Western Ukrainian Republic but their attempt was suppressed by the emerging regional powers, Poland and Romania, who wanted the entire territory to themselves. --Irpen 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the territory belong to Moldavia? Weren't you sent there to colonize some of the cities by the Russians, just like they did to Basarabia? Basically, you're saying that we should have let the people who took what was ours, to decide our fate. --Anittas 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please choose your wording more carefully and don't assign the collective guilt. No one is trying to throw on you the matters that are unrelated to the discussion such as Iaşi pogrom or Bogdanovka. So keep in on topic. The reasoning why Romania wanted the whole territory is obvious and any power would have wanted to grab the territory likewise. Similarly obvious is that the will of much of the people was ignored and their national aspirations were brutally suppressed. And not only by Romania. Other big powers, like Poland and, later, the Soviets, acted similarly. The term occupation exactly applies. Please keep it cool and keep the discussion on the topic. --Irpen 01:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In the mind of the Romanians, the territory belonged to us. That was our reasoning. Others may live of the land, and they are welcome to, but they shouldn't decide the fate of our land. It would be wrong to say that we supressed. We did not supress when we wanted our territory back. We only supressed when we discriminated. --Anittas 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, yet again you are talking off-topic. Your presenting the general view that Romanians throughout the history were eternal do-gooders and all they did was resisting the oppression of the outside aggressors leads us off topic, whether such view is true or not (and it is never true for any nation, even for Romanians). This belongs to Usenet: soc.culture.romanian raher than to the specific Wikipedia talk pages that should concentrate on the articles' content. --Irpen 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not off-topic. I just don't agree with your reasoning when saying that we oppressed Ukrainians by uniting with Bukovina, without having your concent, because it had nothing to do with you. We just wanted our land back. --Anittas 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing sources

Britannica history (and any other ENCYCLOPEDIA) could not be considered a historiographic source. Please present a reference to the book, edition, author etc, including that statement. --Vasile 03:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Until you succeed in modifying the current WP:Verifiability policy to include "Britannica (and any other ENCYCLOPEDIA)" among the tabloids, personal sites and blogs in the Dubious sources list, your deletion of referenced to EB info is pure vandalism unless you can back it up with equally solid references. I am not going to discuss this issue with you any further. I already broke my pledge not to feed trolls. --Irpen 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Vasile. -- Bonaparte talk 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A quick look through academic literature produced the following quotes:

• "Having grabbed Bukovina, the Romanian occupiers instituted a savage regime of terror, economic and political oppression" (V. Kurylo et al. Pivnichna Bukovina, ii mynule i suchasne. uzhorod: Karpaty, 1969, p. 92).

• "Bessarabia's seizure by bourgeois Romania in 1918 is an indisuptable fact. This is the most shameful page in the history of royalist Romania". (Lazarev. Moldavskaya Sovetskaya Gosudarstvennost' i Bessarabskiy Vopros. Kishinev: Izdatelstvo kartya Moldovenyaske, 1974). --Ghirla | talk 12:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But Basarabia declared their reunion with Romania. Here is the photo of the declaration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unification_of_Romania_%26_Bessarabia.jpg

--Anittas 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica is far from perfect (or updated), but as Irpen points out, it is a source we often use here. WP:V clerly states that a reference like Britannica is better then none, but if you can get primary sources that contradict Britannica, then we have a problem - how to determine who is right? If you cannot reach a consensus and the academics are divided (i.e. we are not dealing with some obvious fringe conspiracy or denial theory), then the proper way to do is to write something along the lines 'X state that Y, but A state that B'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica should have some well-known references sources for that paragraph. Or maybe it is just a invention of its editor. This would not be history, but spreading rumours (propaganda). --Vasile 14:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, any History book may and does have errors. To say that books make mistakes is an empty statement and cannot be used here because any source can be dismissed by this logic. So far, we don't have a lack of consensus between academic sources because Vasile refuses to bring any that disagree with Britannica. Until he finds a statement in an equally respected book that would say that since its independence the Kingdom of Romania never entertained the idea to grab the whole Bukovina, the statement of Britannica is unopposed. However, I am sure that if we check any notes from the negotiations of the Treaty of St. Germain we will find the exact same reasoning by the Romanian delegation making a case for the allies to give them Bukovina. I did not check those notes and I am not bringing this to the article. I only brought here what I found in a respected book. Vasile is welcome to bring anything he finds to argue. His repeated deletion of referenced information just because he doesn't like it, is nothing but vandalism and will be treated as such. The paragraph is properly referenced as per WP:Verifiability policy and will be restored. --Irpen 22:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A non-referenced source is not better than any source. You are not able to bring references of the statement, that the reason I remove the statement. It is not enough to write a statement under a well-respected signature. You have to have nice, clean historical references. Your logic seems like it doesn't matter the way you obtain a testimony and the process of writing of the history of Ukranians is a rush matter like the war against terrorism. --Vasile 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica

I am pretty sure that Britannica would offer its public editorial references as it is not NKVD archive. --Vasile 02:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to be "pretty sure" or not so sure. Go check EB youself.

The reference is provided to you and your deletion is vandalism and the info will be restored. Just for you I compiled some very incomplete list of publications that represent the Romanian ideology of the time. You are welcome to got to your library and check the publications. First goes a historian professor Nistor, a chief idelogue of the "historical right" of Romania on Pokucie, Bessarabia and Bukovina:

• Nistor I. Die moldauische Anspriiche auf Pokutien.—Wien, 1910
• Nistor I. Romanii si rutenii in Bucovina: Studiu istoric si statistic.— Bucuresti, 1915
• Nistor I. Der nationale Kampf in der Bukowina: Mit besonderer Berucksictingung der Rumanen und Ruthenen historisch beleuchtet. — Bukarest, 1918
• quote: "the etnographic map attached to the German edition of the book was used in Paris and other talks as the base for negotiations and main source of the information to justify our rights on Bukovina". From "Grecu V. Ion I. Nistor ca istoric // Omagiu lui Ion I. Nistor: 1919—1937.—Р.30"
• Viata noua.—1918.—27 oct.: "Historically and geographically there is only one Bukovina. It's an absolutely Romanian territory not only from Suceava to Prut but from Vatra-Dornei to Dniester" (Surprized?)
• Here is another one: "Glasul Bucovinei.—1918.—25 oct.": "We do not recognize any right of Ukrainians for any piece of the Bukovinian land and call on all Romanians to resist to the partition of our ancient land
• Nistor himself in "Nistor I. Unirea Bucovinei: Studiu si documente.— P.169." admits that General congress was not a representative body and had no authority to decide the future of the Northern Bukovina.

I could add more but that's enough. I listed the article for RfC and I hope more editors will take a look at this dispute. --Irpen 02:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's nice you bring much more interest and care into this subject. Your entire list starts from 1910, the majority are from 1918. --Vasile 03:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of references is supposed to concern the ideology of the early twentieth century. True, works written at that time will not have the light of history shining upon them. Nonetheless, they are valuable sources and should be used. I concur with Irpen's edit. --Arviragus 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the dispute about?

Hi. I have looked on the talk page and in the article history, but I can't really seem to gauge what the dispute is all about. I think the best thing to do now would be to take every disputed statement to the talk page and explain why you think it's wrong (on one side) and why you think it's right (on the other), preferably using sources. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The truth of the statement could be discussed by serious historians. The King hasn't had a formal alliance with Austria? Does Bukowina was ever mentioned in discussions with Entente in 1916?

These are not relevant here because wikipedia doesn't seek the truth. But statement is not referenced by any historian work. --Vasile 02:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the most disputed things for now is the statement about Romania's wanting Bukovina since its independence. This statement is referenced to Britannica. I also added refs to I. Nistru, Romanian historian and a chief ideologue of the Greater Romania. While Nistru works are from 1910 and on, they are historic works and reflect on the past. In any case, EB should suffice as per WP:V unless Vasile backs up his disagreeing with some respected works too. He instead resorts to dismissing Britannica, which is totally ridiculous. Read above. --Irpen 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ion Nistor, if you care. And that statement is not referenced by any historian work. --Vasile 02:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that he was Ion. As for your deletion it will be restored until you find anything that proves Britannica wrong. I will try to get Nistru's book in the language I could comfortably read and I would welcome ISBN links. However, even without his specific quotes, the text is already referenced. Until you succeed in changing WP:V policy to include Britannica among dubious sources, the statement is properly referenced and its deletion is nothing but vandalism. --Irpen 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not surprise that in Kishinev, the books of Ion Nistor rise no interest. a list could be found here: http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/database.html --Vasile 02:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't ever make any assumptions about someone's origin and ethnicity and especially don't try make them sound offensive like some of your fellow compatriots do here. While I haven't even been in Chisinau, I do have friends both from Moldova and from Romania so you can't offend me by this. From what I can tell of my experience of dealing with your compatriots, the raving Romanian nationalism is rather rare and such a prominence of it in Wikipedia is very much an anomaly in my view. Your statement sounds offensive to anyone from Chisinau who might read it. As for your persistent deletions they will be treated as vandalism until you provide some sources that discredit the version by EB. Or, alternatively, you succeed changing the WP:V Policy to iclude your bizarre opinion that Britannica is not a respectable reference. --Irpen 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I did no assumption on anybody origin or travels. Those asumptions exist only in your savage imagination. Your experiences don't interest me as I don't recieve confessions for free.

You are not able or not willing to respect a reference (Ion Nistor) , buit still talking about "respect".

RfC

I see nothing wrong with using Encyclopedia Brittanica as a reference. This article is badly in need of references. If another editor disputes that source's accuracy, then the appropriate response is to provide a second citation that presents the other side. Durova 06:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. --Irpen 06:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What I respectfully request is the historian source of that Britannica statement. I don't deny historian sources, I request sources and much more care for the subject. If somebody would tell "Durova is a stupid person" is not for you to provide information for that you are not as asserted, but for that person to prove the eventual assertion. Thanks for your interest in the matter. --Vasile 17:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica is not somebody. I am reverting your vandalism. --Irpen 19:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica is not somebody, but another encyclopedia having its editors or sources. It is not something usual to borrow large passages from one encyclopedia to bring them into wikipedia. Did someone saw the entire artcile on Britannica? --Vasile 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I did as well as Anittas. The quote is above. You can also see it: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. You will need a supscription or take a free trial to read full article. Or you can do it through any library for free. Or you can go to any library and take EB from the shelf. Or you can buy a supscription. Or you can buy a CD. Possibilities are abundant if you want to read. --Irpen 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that is called "content dispute", not "vandalism". bogdan 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Content dispute is when people argue about the different versions of the events and bring up some arguments and references in support of their versions. Blanking the entire paragraph referenced to a respected source is vandalism. --Irpen

A different question. Historic literature call the interwar and war-time Romania as Rumania and the assimilationist policies as "Rumanization". That's why I used the term. Besides Romanization may be confusing because it means a totally different thing (see article). I am not aware that Rumania sounds offensive to modern-day Romanians and if so, please let me know and I will refrain from using it. But what term should be used then? I was thinking about staring a Rumanization article for which there is by far more academic references than for someone's pet article Antiromanianism but if "Rumanization" is indeed an offensive name, please say so and explain why. I will then think of some other name. --Irpen 19:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an article Romanianization, refering to the policy in Transylvania. bogdan 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but is the term "Romanianization" a widely used one or it was invented for Wikipedia like Antiromanianism? Also, please tell me whether Rumania is offensive because having seen that in so many history and WW2 books I hardly thought so. --Irpen 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not offensive, just non-standard. Both Român and Rumân are dialectal forms. Two-hundreds and so years ago, the form "Român" was chosen as standard by the Transylvanian "Latinists" (it's obvious why, it's closer to "Roman"), instead of Rumân. However, most countries continued to use the name derived from the other version "Rumân", that was more common in some regions inhabited by Romanians. bogdan 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Follow up I suggest you take this to mediation. It looks like this dispute is about something other than whether Britannica is an acceptable reference source. Durova 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgeting the native language

ethnic group being called "citizens of Romanian origin that forgot their native language".

Do you have a citation for that ? bogdan 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I do, see talk above "Orest Subtelny. Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 3rd edition (2000) ISBN 0-8020-8390-0.". --Irpen 19:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I meant "Who said that?". Was it integrated in Romanian laws or official documents or was it just an opinion of some nationalists? bogdan 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The education law explicitely said that citizend of Romanian origin who "forgot" their native language are required to send their children to public or private schools where teaching is conducted in Romanian. (Monitorul oficial.—1924.—26 iule.) --Irpen 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that. Here's a quote of the law: from Bucharest University:

Învăţământul primar în şcoalele statului se predă în limba română.

Elementary school teaching in the State Schools is done in Romanian language.

În comunele cu populaţie de altă limbă decât limba română, Ministerul Instrucţiunii Publice va înfiinţa şcoale primare cu limba de predare a populaţiei respective, în aceeaşi proporţie ca şi comunele româneşti. În aceste şcoale studiul limbii române va fi însă obligatoriu în numărul de ore stabilit prin regulament.

In the communes that have a population of other language than Romanian, the Ministry of Public Instruction would found Elementary Schools that teach in the language of that population, in the same proportion as in the Romanian communes. (i.e. does not favour Romanian-speaking communes in the number of school set up) In these schools, the study of Romanian language would be compulsory in the number of lessons as established through the regulations.

bogdan 20:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No historian from Ukraine ever did historian research in Romania. Let him write the article. --Vasile 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

1928-1938 warming period

That period is known for the Romanians attempts to warm its relation with Soviet Union. --Vasile 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Important priority and conspiracies

"Since Romania's gaining of independence in 1878, it became the country's important priority to incorporate an entire historic province which, as a core of Moldavian Principality, was of a great historic significance to Romanian history and containied many prominent monuments of the Romanian art and architecture."

This is a conjecture extracted from Britannica as Irpen says. The statement is about Romanian politics. So, it was found significant proves of some Romanian conspiracy against Austrian colonies. Therefore we are in a middle of a imperialistic dispute. I understand that an article of encyclopedia has to synthetize facts. But prior historian sources -if any- should demonstrate this Romanian conspiracy conjecture. Nobody produced any historical documents, opinions, sources that could subtantiate this Romanian so-called important priority since 1878. Once again, it is not for me to prove that the "demonstration" is incorrect and the statement is dubious. I understand that wiki-policies prevent me to remove the statement at this moment and I expect other wise opinion able to convince me that I am wrong. By the way, the wiki-policies allow such inclusions of a large part from another (copyrighted) encyclopedia? It will be better to follow Irpen advice to buy Britannica encyclopedia? --Vasile 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile, no part from another encyclopedia is "included" in the article directly. So, there are no any copyright or other policy violations you are alluding. The info from Britannica is used in an entirely proper way with not a single phrase directly pasted. In fact, it is used in the same way as any other source would be used. --Irpen 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is not a worse source than any other. The information may be correct or not. History books may contain incorrect data as well. If you disagree with the statement, the best way to deal with it seems adding at the beginning of it: “According to Britannica…” and then providing sources that disagree with the opinion. Or, if there are no such sources, then it may be written in the article that the information is not confirmed by historians in the main books about history of Bukovina.--SylwiaS | talk 00:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And to make a latter statement, the user has to be at least well familiar with the works of other historians. Since Vasile is obviousy fluent in Romanian, he could read the works of Ion Nistru cited above. I wonder whether he would still find the desire of Romania to get a hold of entire Bukovina from its inception "unconfirmed" after this reading. --Irpen 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's for Irpen either malice or stupity as he/she is insisting to name "Ion Nistru" the historian Ion Nistor. --Vasile 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article of Britannica is worse than any other source. As the statement discussed here pretended a large expertise on Romanian modern history, is was reported that the editors are missing the date of the proclamation of "Romanian Popular Republic".

The statement insinuates a imperialistic plot of Romania for the colonies of other empires. A book of history appeared in 1910 in country with high rate of iliteracy is the only evidence presented here for the imperialistic Romanian plot. Britannica article, in its careless and negligent manner, asserted a COMINTERN anti-Romanian thesis. For these reasons I consider that the statement should be discarded. --Vasile 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Poles in Bukovina

The Poles were deported as well.

Were the Poles from Northern Bukovina deported ? I know that this was not the case in Southern Bukovina, where we can still find a Polish minority, see: Polish minority in Romania. bogdan 10:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)