Talk:Moldovenism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there any special reason why this isn't spelled "Moldovanism" (which would be the more expected English spelling)? AnonMoos 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

See [1]. Some of the results are in English, as you can see.

This article has major shortcomings. First of all, Originalists and Romanianists appeared in the 1920s not 1900s or 1800s. The origins of Moldovenism like in Soviet and Stalinists policies to create an artificial "new moldovan identity". As it stands right now, the article is not worthy of a wikipedia entry. Someone should check it out. Constantzeanu 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm, hello, the 1920s are *part of* the 1900s. If you mean 1900s as a decade, of course, no, but in English when people say "1900s", "1800s", with no more specific context, it usually means a century, not a decade. Moldovenism's *ultimate* origins are in Originalism, and in earlier Moldovan patriotism (when Moldova was a principality), as opposed to pan-Romanianism. Yes, the Soviets promoted it, and re-engineered it to fit their motives, but they didn't have the original idea. --Node 10:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still unclear what's with 1800s and why do you put an equality sign between patriotism and "moldovenism". --Just a tag

Patriotism from pre-union times. 1800s are the origins of the nationalist movement of all of Europe, not really Bessarabia. --Node 14:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Patriotism" from pre-union times was pro-union. bogdan 11:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, I thought before that you were relatively objective, but now it seems clear you are not. Obviously, some patriotism from pre-union times was pro-union. But it is outrageous to say that there was nobody who was proud of being Wallachian or Moldavian, who cherished a national identity of that type. Did you ever notice that not every single intellectual favoured union? Did you notice that the vote in the Bessarabian parliament wasn't unanimous? Just as a Canadian can be an American patriot or a Canadian patriot or even a Chadian patriot, any person can be a patriot of any country or national ideal. --Node 11:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Node, there was a reason why I asked you for references. Overwhelmingly, the intellectuals were pro-union. Those against were mostly boyars, who thought that a union would decrease their political powers. (this actually came out as true, as the union adopted a 'modern' constitution) There were, albeit few intellectuals agains the union, the reasons they gave were mostly economical: Iaşi would become a small and insignifiant province town. (they weren't quite right: Iaşi is today smaller than Bucharest, but it still remains the country's second city by population). bogdan

Contents 1 Romanticist nationalist movement 2 More 3 Rewritten 4 References 5 HAh. 6 Early history

[edit] Romanticist nationalist movement

The origins of Moldovenism ultimately lie in the Romanticist nationalist movement that swept Europe in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

This is false. Give me a reference. bogdan 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Same as the reference for Romanianists and Originalists. Originalists = Moldovenists. And besides, that warrants a {{fact}}, not a {{totallydisputed}} -- unless you have more to dispute, I'm going to remove the template. --Node 10:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK here are some more affirmations I dispute and ask for a reference:

At the time, Bessarabia (roughly corresponding to the modern Rep. Moldova in territory) was one of the poorest areas of Europe

Says who ?

In the early days of the Soviet Union, originalism was surpressed (sometimes violently), and Romanianism promoted in the hope that the Moldavian SSR would someday unite with Romania.

Again, misunderstanding of the historical context. Soviet Union wanted Romania to become part of the Soviet Union, not Moldavian SSR to unite with Romania...

Which would have united Romania with the MSSR. Not as an independent state, but they would've been united nonetheless. --Node 11:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's misleading. bogdan 11:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Says you. Perhaps it's better to reverse it so it's that ROmania would someday unite with MSSR. In English people usually say "unite with" rather than "unite to" so which is first or second doesn't have much semantic difference. China unites with Mars, Mars unites with China, both are joings where either could be dominant. --Node 11:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

However, after World War 2, in which the Romanians and the Soviets were enemies

During the last part of WW2 and after the war, they were not enemies. They were allies. See the Warsaw Pact.

Happy now ? bogdan 10:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

Moldovenism is both a political ideology and an interpretation of historical events relating to the the interpretation of historical events ? Could you expound on that ?

was only part of that for a little over 20 years - when you know the exact numbers, put them.

Compared to the hundreds of years spent as part of Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the principality of Moldavia. - I think putting exact numbers (if you know them) here would do no harm.

BTW, neither Moldavia nor Wallachia nor Transylvania were ever part of the Ottoman Empire. They were suzerain states, i.e. the Ottomans controlled the foreign policy, but not the internal administration, which had to pay an anual tribute to the Ottomans. Only two Romanian territories were part of the Ottoman Empire: Dobruja, which was part of the Silistra pashalik and the Banat, part of the Buda pashalik. bogdan 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Many Moldovenists also believe that the Republic of Moldova, rather than Romania, is the modern heir to the historical Principality of Moldavia. - Sources ? Do you have the names of the people who call or called themselves "moldovenists" ?

Some Moldovenists also entertain irredentist ideologies, believing that the modern Romanian region of Moldavia rightfully belongs to the Republic of Moldova - Sources ?

After several Romanian political problems and scandals in the 1990s, could you please expand on that too ?

[edit] Rewritten

The article stayed without references for a few weeks, so I re-wrote it completely, this time having references. If anyone wants to add information (yes, Node, I mean you :-), then he should provide a source, otherwise, the changes would be reverted as original research. bogdan 13:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You're a liar. You didn't give references. You gave a reference. And you didn't reference each statement, and your rewrite was misleading, and you deleted information, and the list goes on. Did I re-write Anti-Romanianism? No; parst of the original article are still intact, it has been reformatted, fiery rhetoric toned down, questionable statements either referenced or removed, and although it is still not as good as it probably should be, it is considerably better now than it was at the beginning. Please see wiki. You, Constantzeanu, Bonaparte, Anittas, and many other people seem to have the idea that Wiki is about replacing one version with another. You guys like to revert rather than make changes. You like to delete all existing text and start over. That's not what Wiki is about. When you see that somebody has added information to a page which you dispute, you shouldn't revert them, but instead go and fix the errors as if no previous version existed. Guidelines on reversion suggest that it should only be used for vandalism or disputed changes which are really extremely major, such as what you did here (replacing the entire content of the page rather than adding and removing statements and sources). Particularly telling is that 90% of your rewrite of the page was included in the original. You may as well have provided sources for those statements which are reinforced by your source from the rewrite, and added {{fact}} after those statements which you disputed or which you did not dispute but for which there remained no source. --Node 11:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we are all very evil! I think we should all be shot! SHOT! Actually, the whole Romanian conspiracy of liars and revertists should be identified by a "special Moldovenist commission" and then tortured. Confessions should be extracted and only then shot. I nominate Node ue as head of this "special commission". Constantzeanu 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I suppose you think wiki is only about screaming "YOU'RE A LIAR!!" in talk pages and complaining when your unsourced and false information is removed. bogdan 06:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Actually, there are some interesting papers on moldovenism. I think you could add a few links, at least.

Yet, I think you sould mention that moldovenism is a xenofobic and racist ideology. In the opinion of some observers, Moldovenism, like fascism, tends to be a totalitarian doctrine, as it breeds hatred and the notion of superiority of the “Moldovans” over the Romanians. The mass media supporting the so-called "Moldovenism ideology" (particularly "Moldova suverana" [Sovereign Moldova] and “Nezavisimaya Moldova” [Independent Moldova]) have published denigrating articles against Romanians in general, and entire Romania as a neighbouring country. They also disseminated libellous statements about those members of the RM society who identify themselves as Romanians.--Eirin 03:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Memorandum of the PEN Club of the Republic of Moldova, Contrafort, No. 1-2 (111-112), January-February 2004, http://www.contrafort.md/2004/111-112/661.html [accessed October 2004] or, Resolution of the Conference of Intelligentsia Representatives..., p. 103
• 2. Octavian Sofransky, The ruling Communist Party in Moldova is trying to rewrite the country's history again. - "Transiton On Line", 31 august 2001.
• 3. Carauş, T., A new minority for interethnic harmony?, Moldova.today, 4 August 2003 http://www1.azi.md/comment?ID=25166
• 4. Catană, V., Distorted identities in Republic Moldova, - "Accente" (Abutment) Magazine, no. 12 (110), December 2003.
• 5. Cimpoi, M., The National State Policy: conception and anti-conception, - "Limba Română" ("Romanian Language") Magazine, no 6-10, 2003, Chisinau, p.63.
• 6. The Policy of Moldavian process in Moldavian ASSR.Collection of documents and materials. Gribincea, A., Gribinccea, M., Şişcanu, I., Chisinau, Civitas, 2004.
• 7. Marian Enache, Dorin Cimpoesu, Misiune diplomatica in Moldova 1993-1997 Ed. Polirom, 2000.
• 8. Gribincea, A., Gribincea, M., Siscanu, I. Politica de moldovenizare in R.A.S.S. Moldoveneasca (Policy of Moldovanization in Moldavian ASSR), Chisinau, 2004. Civitas.
• 9. Constantin Tănase, Statul şi motivaţia lui spirituală (Argumente pentru o ideologie statală a unităţii de neam).- FLUX/Ediţia de vineri, 11 decembbrie 1998
• 10. E.Postică, Rezistenţa antisovietică în Başarabia, 1944-1950, Ed. Ştiinţa, Chişinău, 1997
• 11. Mihai Gribincea, Basarabia în primii ani de ocupaţie sovietică, 1940-1950, Cluj-Napoca, 1995;
• 12. Ion Ţurcanu, Elena Postică, Veronica Boldişor, Lupta antisovietică şi anticomunistă a grupului lui Filmoin Bodiu, "Literatura şi arta", 1995, 6 iulie.
• 13. Ştefan Tudor, Organizaţia Naţională din Başarabia ”Arcasii lui Ştefan”, Basarabia, 1992
• 14. În ţara asta sunt prea mulţi români, interviu cu Victor Stepaniuk, Comunistul, nr 36 2003, http://comunist.pcrm.md/2003archives/36_2003/142206/ [accesat ultima dată în octombrie 2004] For the Russian version see: http://comunist.pcrm.md/2003archives/36_2003/142206/

• About the linguistic cleansing in Transnistria : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3631436.stm

• http://www.timpul.md/Rubric.asp?idIssue=43&idRubric=786

• http://www.timpul.mdl.net/Article.asp?idIssue=43&idRubric=786&idArticle=1965

• http://www.timpul.md/Article.asp?idIssue=12&idRubric=206&idArticle=368

• (Document din cartea „Politica de moldovenizare în RASS Moldovenească”) http://www.timpul.md/Rubric.asp?idIssue=43&idRubric=787 (with Russian script)

• http://allmoldova.com/index.php?action=newsblock&id=1093619734&lang=eng

• http://www.studiidesecuritate.ro/pdf/Grecu,%20Taranu%20-%20Epurare%20lingvistica%20in%20Transnistria,pdf.pdf

• http://www.ziua.ro/archive/2003/02/11/docs/2856.html

• http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:wLHxlN4uf_QJ:www.contrafort.md/2003/108-109/617_22.html+moldovenism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9

• http://www.lumeam.ro/119965.html

• http://www.ipp.md/comentarii1.php?l=en&id=38

• http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Oftx0oR-ThIJ:www.usm.md/presadinbasarabia/cap/capIII.htm+moldovenizare&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10

• http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Kpk_lb0Vn8kJ:www.geopolitica.ro/revista/5/rev_06_005.pdf+moldovenizare&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19

• http://www.contrafort.md/2003/108-109/617.html

• The opnion of Eugeniu Coseriu (Eugenio Coseriu) on this issue : http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugeniu_Co%C5%9Feriu

--85.186.241.200 16:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Argos

[edit] HAh.

Take that, unionist losers. The article now pretty much says the same thing as when I penned it in the first place. I win! --Node 06:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that childish statements like this only work to discredit you? Vox Populi (TSO) 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's true. --Node 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the current version is the one written by me. :-) bogdan 21:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how you changed your mind in the end to agree with me... --Node 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't vandalise this article. The correct title of thjis work is: Argentina Gribincea, Mihai Grecu Moldova: Situation analysis and trend assessment commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, October 2004 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovenism". You don't have the write to change the original title.

[edit] Early history

I inserted 4 "dubious" marks in the "early history" section:

1. Dubious statement 1: After the union of the Romanian Principalities in 1859 and the creation of Romania, the term Moldovan as an ethnic descriptor gradually fell out of use in Romania. First of all, this statement contradicts the previous 2 statements, which say that the term Moldovan was based on geography, and not on ethnicity. Second, there's no source on that.

   The emphasis, though, is on ethnic descriptor. After the union, it was used almost exclusively as a regional term rather than having an ethnic meaning. TSO1D 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   As a matter of fact, I agree with the text saying the people of Bessarabia, similarly to the other Moldavians across the Prut River, continued to view themselves as Moldovans, which had a geographical rather than an ethnic meaning. I see no proof of the fact that Moldavians saw themselves as an ethnic group/nation at the time. As for the Moldovans/Moldavians distinction, it did not exist at the time. Would you be so kind to give me some sources supporting the statement I challenge? Dpotop 08:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Dubious statement 2: After the union of the Romanian Principalities in 1859 and the creation of Romania, the term Moldovan as an ethnic descriptor ... was preserved in Bessarabia. this statement contradicts the previous 2 statements, which say that the term Moldovan was based on geography, and not on ethnicity (actually, it is still based on geography in today's Romania). Second, there's no source on that.

   Same as before, in the rest of Romania, it acquired a solely regional meaning, but in Bessarabia it retained the quasi ethnic meaning. TSO1D 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   Same as before. The Romanian awakening happened later. To be more specific, I think this is original research that tries to interpolate a "most probable logical scenario". But there's no source to support it, so you cannot write it here. Dpotop 08:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Dubious statement 3: This doctrine was reinforced in the 1920s in the Moldavian ASSR by a group of political and cultural activists who sought the support of Stalin. This statement is highly POV. I would argue that the Soviet Union has actually created the Moldavian ASSR based on a doctrine aimed at re-occupying Bessarabia. To support this, I'll start by noting that the Moldavian ASSR has been created on territories that never belong to Moldova.

   I don't understand. I agree that the purpose of the MASSR was to permit the reoccupation of Bessarabia, but I don't see how the sentence you cited contradicts that. TSO1D 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   You revert causality, and talk about "reinforcement". I'd say the doctrine was "created" by the Soviet government, and then served as basis for the creation of the MASSR. Of course, neither this statement, nor the current one are sourced, so they should not figure in the article. Dpotop 08:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Dubious statement 4: The evolution of the Moldovenist ideology in part revolved around the development of the Moldovan language. Again, highly POV. To my knowledge, the entire creation of a Moldovan language was due to an ideology aiming at recovering Bessarabia. To support this, I'll start by noting that the Russians/Soviets never had the idea of creating a Moldovan ethnicity before Bessarabia went to Romania (in 1918). Dpotop 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   And again, I agree with you, the development of the Moldovan ethnicity was linked with the territorial aspirations of the USSR. But nevertheless, the language was the central theme of the Moldovenists, that is why they tried to artificially make it more distinct from Romanian. TSO1D 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, but I'd say the "language" was a byproduct of Soviet ideology. As I see the phrasing, the language development seems to be the central issue. Which is POV. We should not take sides. Dpotop 08:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)