Talk:History of the Romanians in Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 {{main}} or {{see}}. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

  • Iorga N. Ucraina moldovenească. Iaşi, 1913
  • Iorga N. Românii de peste Nistru. Iaşi, 1918
  • Draghiccsco D. et Murgoci. Les Roumains d'Ukraine. Paris 1919

-- Some references from the Ukrainian wiki, in case anyone is interested. bogdan 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolohoveni and Brodniki

Bolohovtsi and Brodnicks were Slavs. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.9.0.30 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

The map itself is very dubious.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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) 18 December 2006.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)