Talk:Chernivtsi Oblast

Romanian name

I don't feel passionate about presence or absence of the Romanian name in the beginning of the article and I will not revert. In fact, I admit I was wrong to remove it but for the reasons different from Talk:Harghita/Vote. I should have given the article some editing if I was conserned enough to play with names as per my proposal at Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board. BTW, I invite everyone to take a look at the board and add it to your watchlists. So, anyway, I will try to contribute to this article, which doesn't seem neutral to me now, some time soon and, once I will get a better handle of the topic, I will be more prepared to decide what and how to list names. Anyone interested, please also check a recent edit history and talk at Kamianets-Podilskyi. I think there is an optimal solution there, with names in a separate paragraph about their etymology. Regards, --Irpen 21:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Is the Romanian name used to describe to the modern Chernivtsi Oblast by the local population or is it a name of a historic administrative region that existed there?

The modern region. Prior to WWII, it was "Judeţul Cernăuţi". bogdan | ^Talk 09:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

protected

Protected against editing by unregistered users, against the revert war by multipleanon accounts. mikka (t) 00:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian census

Sources for my revert:

[1] , [2], [3], [4], [5].

Constantzeanu 06:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please translate the points from there you are referring to. Re your comment that Hutsuls and Rusyns were not included as separate ethnic groups is notable too, but doesn't belong to this article. Note, however, that Romanians were offered as a free choice and some people chose Moldavians. I simply want the article to be clear that census results does not represent coercion or counting fraud, unless you have the opposite claims. I will not revert for now, but the section, without explanation that the census respondents were free to respond as they wished is not neutral. You may try to rewrite it yourself with taking into account my points but I will tag the section POV for now. --Irpen 06:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

moved from user talk:Irpen

Irpen, I thought me and you had a certain kind of understanding so please don't accuse me of making my own numbers. These numbers have been shown before:

[6] , [7], [8], [9], [10].

One of those sources is a dialogue with a Dr. so a scholar so please do not try to downplay it. It's enough that I did not say anything when you wrote that "Romanians 12.4 and Moldovans 7.5"; I hope you did not think that you can push me insofar as to not even allow for other points of views other then the sole Ukrainian census.Constantzeanu 06:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I have no problem if you insist on raising the MD/RO identity issue in every article where the word Moldova appears, although I said that these should be better left to their narrow articles.

If you insist to include that the POV about separate identities is controvercial, please note that I included that in my version. However, the point the census respondents gave their answers freely should be there too, unless you can provide any claims that the they were pressured or that the counting was falsified, as we discussed earlier. Better yet, please continue this at the article's talk, because others might be intersted too. --Irpen 06:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do I have to prove that respondents were not free to state their ethnicity. I think that you must prove that they were, since Ukraine is known to be a country where democracy is not deep rooted nor respected (especially during Kuchma's presidency when the census took place).

And yes a couple of those sources I provided do dispute exactly that. I hope you won't refute them just because they are in Romanian.Constantzeanu 06:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, fraud allegations have to be raised by someone more reputable than us two in order to be included in Wikipedia. If there were any, I am sure Romanian communities would have cried wolfe. I've seen complaints about the forms themselves (presence of Moldavian as a separate choice, absense of Rusyns and the sleaky "native language" formulation). My text said that there were no complaints about how census itself was taken. That is, no reports of pressure or miscount. The lack of complaints is a fact. The rest is hypothesising. Please continue at article's talk. Not just you and I are interested in this. --Irpen 06:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are saying that complaints were about the "exaclty that". I won't dispute them just because they were in Romanian. I just request that you summarize complaints at talk so that I can know what the complaints were. And, if we use them, we say that complaints were raised in Romanian press, rather than simple "were raised", because the latter usually implies the international observers' press-releases. --Irpen 06:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

end of moved text. please continue here. --Irpen 06:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My sources which I have provided do dispute this as well. I think I made that point on your personal talk-page as well.

Now you admit that Hutsuls, Rusyns and Ruthenians were not included as separate ethnic groups and that this fact "is notable". Then you must also admit that the Ukrainian government did not offer the choices of Hutsul, Rusyn and Ruthen but instead offered the choice Moldovan, Romanian. This point alone is not fair and shows discrimination and fraud because a person who might have chosen Hutsul or Ruthenian could not do so and had to pick the next-best thing or in this case "Ukrainain" but a confused Romanian villager "under pressure" could have been "pursuaded" to write "Moldovan" or perhaps Ukrainain officials could have much easier written him off as "Moldovan" even though the guy could have written "Romanian" (which is what the sourses that I brought up suggest).

This is also a point for other Ukrainian nationals who think it is perfectly OK to use the Romanian/Moldovan artificial divide. Imagine someone comes into your country and annexes Galicia, North Bukovina and Subcarpathia and creates a state - let's call it Ruthenia and forces people to declare themselves as Ruthens, and starts teaching little children in school that they are "Ruthens" ,not Ukranians and they they speak "Ruthenian", not Ukranian and in the census they give the following options "Ruthen", "Russyn", "Ukranian", "Hutsul". Don't you think that is cheep manipulation? Don't you think that would divide your Ukrainain community of 75% or so which is what it is now in Bukovina? I think it will. So please show some understanding and leave the article as it is.

PS: A summary will come shortly.Constantzeanu 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "now you admit"? Look, I always said earlier that there were complaints about how forms were compiled. The complaints I remember were that Rusyns were listed as sub-group of Ukrainians only and not as a separate groups and that the language composition was derived from the question "What is your native language?" rather than "What language do you mostly use at home?". I can see how the presence of Moldavian as a possible answer to the ethnicity and language question may be perceived controvercial from the Romania's side too and my version said just that.

Buit note, that the option "Romanian" was present too to those who wanted to select it. That is until you come up with respectable reports about the counting fraud allegations. --Irpen 08:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --Ghirla | talk 08:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

But both of you are going around the question. By giving the choice of Moldovan and Romanian and treating them as separate ethnic groups and by not doing the same with Hutsul, Ruthenian, Rusyn and Ukrainian, that itself is a proof of fraud. Hutsul, Ruthenian, Rusyn and Ukranian were all treated to be the same thing and were added to the 75% Ukrainian majority. In the case of Hutsul and Ruthenian, those choices were not even present at the census. This makes the Ukrainian population to seem like it is an absolute majority in Bukovina. The Romanian and Moldovan ethnic groups are treated as two different groups.

Once again I repeat myself. It is not up to me to have to provide ample examples of proofs that show that the census was a fraud. Ukraine was very undemocratic (especially in those years) so its rather you who have to prove that the census was correctly conducted. But in any case like I have said before, the sources I have provided dispute the census already. I will make a summary very shortly about what they mean. Constantzeanu 13:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, you surprise me. Especially because you are in humanities. BTW, by what criteria you judge that Hutsuls, Rusyns and Ruthenians are not Ukrainians? And what is the difference between them, for example? And one more point. Please post here some link that would prove any pressure on "etnicity desision" by our "nondemocratic" country. Other than Russian-Ukrainian dusputes.--Bryndza 14:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is because this is exactly the kind of reaction I was hoping I would get. The way you feel outraged that I am calling Hutsults, Ruthenians, Lippovans, Russyns, Ukranians different people, I feel the same way about you trying to immpose data that divides Romanians from Moldovans. Personally I think there is no difference between Ukrainians and the other groups, but those who make statements that Romanians are not the same as Moldovans have to also admit that Hutsuls, Lipovans, Russyns, Ruthenians, Ukrainians are different too.

If we pay close attention to the map from 1910 in Bukovina, there is no refference to Ukrainians there. So according to what some might call NPOV, we have to report that I guess. All I see is that according to the authorities at the time "Ruthenians" lived only in the very north, "Hutsuls" in the very west, "Lippovans" were scattered everywhere. I don't see any Ukrainians living anywhere. Now don't you feel that is a little harsh and unfair? Well I guess you do so that is why we report all those aforementioned groups as Ukranians because that is what they are. Why can't you report Romanians and Moldovans the same?

Notice how I put my political agendas aside and I reported that Ukranians outnumbered Romanians from 1880 onwwards. Official data would have said however that Romanians were the largest group and that Ruthenians, Hutsuls came in second because of the obvious divide.

Likewise, the Romanian authorities reported that there were no Ukrainians in Bukovina and that in fact the population was largely Romanian, while 29% or so were "ethnic-Romanians who forgot their language".

If you want to provide censuses the way they were conducted (albeit sometimes they are confusing), then be my guest.But do you know what such a table of demographics will look like?

• 1785: Romanians 86%.
• 1910: Romanians 33%, Moldovans: 0%, Ukrainians 0%, Ruthenians 22%, Hutsuls 10%, Lippovans 5%, Romanians who forgot their language 0%, etc.etc.
• 1930: Romanians 45%, Moldovans 0%, Ukranians 0%, Ruthenians 9%, Hutsuls 0%, Lippovans 5%, Romanians who forgot their language: 29%, etc. etc.
• 2001: Romanians 12.5%, Moldovans 7.3%, Ukrainians 75%, Ruthenians 0%, Hutsuls 0%, Lippovans 0%, Romanians who forgot their language: 0%, etc. etc.

• Now tell me if that is not confusing? I guess it is eh? Notice how Moldovans do not exist until incorporation into USSR and notice how ethnic groups like Ruthenians, Hutsuls and Lippovans all dissapear but by some kind of a miracle a new group: Ukranians appear. And they appear around the same time that USSR takes the region over. And notice how Romanians who forgot their language dissapear too once they are likewise incorporated into the USSR. Hmm...well what conclusions should we draw from that, I wonder. Better yet, what conclusions do you want a reader(who knows nothing or almost nothing about the region) to get from this?

Well this reader will look at the so-called "NPOV" (I wonder if you would call it still "NPOV" if Romania would make a census and would divide the Ukrainian community of 60.000 or so there into 4-5 different groups) data and she will say:

"Ok so in this region there lived Romanians in the 18th century, and in the 19th century mostly Romanians and all these bunch of funny people like Russyns, Ruthenians and Hutsuls that dont exist anymore today(for some strange reason). And look in 1930 there were 45% Romanians and 29% Romanians who forgot Romanian so that makes it 74% Romanians. Wow that is confusing already. So are Hutsuls and Ruthenians people who are ethnic-Romanians that don't speak Romanian? Boy I am confused. Anyways, look today these new people live there and they are called Ukrainains and... oh... wait look... what's up with these guys: "Moldovans". Hmm that sounds strange, they never appeared there before."

Do you know how confusing this is going to get? Why should we do that and confuse the reader when we could just present things as they are and show a continuum when there is one?

• My opinion is that we should respect reality on the ground. If you want to report that Ukranians existed as a majority there since 1880, then leave the Romanian minority to 20% in 2001. If you wanna pretend that you "want to respect official census", then go ahead but then we are going to respect all official census and report ethnic groups for 1910 the way they appear in the 1910 map. In my opinion that is much more complicated then sticking to the first option because every side will go ahead to prove how actually Ukranians are Ruthenians and Moldovans are Roanians.

• About the sources, I have provided them already and I will provide more.

Constantzeanu 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good trick. Just one remark - Lipovans are really separate guys. They are Russians as they came directly from Russia after some cruel reform in Russian church in 16 century (if I'm correct) that they did not agree with and settled in Dunarea delta and area. Ther quite a lot of them now in Moldova nad Romania.

I think those numbers should be cyted the way they were written. Ruthenians=Rusyns are those "missing" Ukrainians as this is regular latin-derived name we were referred to some time in 15-18 centuries. There is plenty of old maps with "Ruthenia" on them. As for Hutsuls - they are ethnical group as well as Boyko, Lemko. All this folk is what you call muntenii (if I'm correct) as they inhabit different regions of Karpaty. Uff... good that they did not count outside Bukovina, othervise we would have morey "non-Ukrainians" on the list like Polishchuky, Podoliany, and may be some descendants of specific Slavic tribes :).

So again, I suggest not to touch original data. But add ^{± § *} with interpretaions (linguistic group, modern classification etc.) under the table/text.--Bryndza 20:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a trick and even without Lippovans, we still have Ruthenian(no, not all Ruthenians are automantically Russyns), Hutsul, Ukranian and Boyko and Lemko(although the last two I am not sure if they are really living in Bukovina or not). In any case, under Lemko it says that they are decendents of Romanians and I know many Romanians consider Hutsuls to be Romanians too. Imagine the kind of complications we are going to get into when we are going to put all the ^{± § *} you wanted to put. For example what are we going to put for Hutsuls? ^{± § *} Ukranians because that is what Ukranians consider them to be? or ^{± § *} Romanians because that is what Romanians consider them to be and this is probably the ethnic group which in the 1930 census is called: "Romanians who lost their language". I don't know about you but I think the reader (who knows nothing about the subject) is going to have a hard time following all of this official census and "official names" which serve no point if all they do is confuse.

I think if you would have just stuck with Ukrainians and Romanians and just made a point that throughout history Ukranians were called by different names such as "Ruthens", "Hutsuls", etc. etc. and Romanians by "Moldovans" etc. etc. would have been much more simpler.

Constantzeanu 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we overlap in our definition of some ethnic goroups? [Hutsuli] from Romania. Where would you count them to? --Bryndza 23:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that what defines a person's ethnic identity (especially in Europe) is language because without language you have no communication and communication is the first pillar in a community. I personally would place the Hutzuls as a subgroup or regional group of the Ukrainian ethnic group just like Moldovans are a regional group of Romanian ethnicity who also speak Romanian like Romanians from Romania. If Hutzuls speak Ukrainian then they are by all means of the Ukrainian ethnic group. But that is just me. Other people might have different opinions. And if we will drag this thing much longer, these opinions will make themselves heard on this forum sooner or later and will transform what could have been a minor difference into a huge debate, revert wars, etc. etc.

Once again, I think that we should stick to Ukrainian and Romanian. Going into Moldovans, Hutsuls, Ruthenians, Russyns, Boyko and Lemko will complicate the matter.Constantzeanu 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As to me - let it be so.--Bryndza 03:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so we agree. I have already made the last changes as per discussed here. Constantzeanu 03:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with your version and not wanting to edit war I restored a neutrality tag for now. There is a difference between Hutsul/Rusyn/Ukrainian issue and Moldovan/Romanian issue, as far as the census is concerned, precisely because the former were not given a chance to self-identify (that is if they wanted which we just don't know for now) but the latter were given an opportunity to check Romanian or Moldovan and the fact is that many chose Moldovan. We may say that the number of Ukrainians is inflated and go to the debate on whether Rusyns are Ukrainians (it is better left to other pages but fine, if you insist...). We could take scientific and ethnographic works, we can look at independent surveys to try to second guess how people self-identify and whether Rusyns are Ukrainians and whether Rusyn language is a dilaect of Ukrainian.

However, as far as R/M issue is conserned, people self-identified themselves clearly and the census data shows it. (On a side note, I find it amusing that editors from Romania in en-wiki are so persistent about telling for others how those others should self-identify, while tose others seem not so enthusiastic, as the sociological data from Ukraine and Moldova shows). I still would like to see the promissed allegations about the counting fraud and people being pressured. If such allegations exist, what is the estimated scale of their effect. Without it, second-guessing of census numbers is original resreach.

As I said earlier, presenting census numbers we should mention that some consider the R/M division controvercial. We may add about the lack of Ukrainians/Rusyns division too if others insist, while I suggest a separate article about the Ukrainian census. But saying that the people who answered "Moldavians" are in fact "Romanians" implying that we know better then them makes no sense. Give numbers, describe controversies, provide the allegations about the counting fraud and coercion (if any) and the possible scale (if available). Then, I will not object. --Irpen 04:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am not "outraged" by the question on whether Rusyns are Ukrainians. Personally, think that they are rather not, but what I think doesn't matter. There are scholary works that present them as separate ethnicity, but, again, there is a question of who to consider Rusyn. I am 100% fluent in Ukrainian and reading the Rusyn sites and media I have no doubt that this is not Ukrainian. The last thing I would want it to be telling Rusyns how they should self-identify. --Irpen 04:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In that case I am sorry but then we also don't know about the 75% Ukrainians since there was no option not only for Russyn and Hutsul but no option for Ruthenian, Lippovan, Boyko and Lemko either.

Also we should bring into attention (in the spirit of "NPOV" of course) that there were no "Ukranians" living in Bukovina until 1940 since before that time only "Romanians who forgot their language" lived there (according to the 1930 census) and before them according to the Austrian census "Ruthenians", "Hutsuls" and "Lippovans" lived in Bukovina but again no "Ukrainians".

Like I said and I will say it again, this will only make things more problematic since for every single one of these ethnic groups (and I see more on your side then on ours), we will have to provide the reader (in the spirit of "NPOV" of course) with 2 varriations of what each single one of these ethnic groups could mean, and in some cases even three (see Hutsuls who depending on who you ask they are either Ukrainians, Romanians or neither). Pretty confusing if you ask me and subjectively it will make Bukovina look a lot less Ukrainian (historically and demographically) with Ukrainians looking like they are divided into 7 different ethnic-groups but hey...I tried...Constantzeanu 04:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am just trying to show that giving people an extra choice is less controversial than giving them too few choices. With the "Moldavian" box present on the sheet of paper, the "Romanian" box is still there. With the lack of Rusyn as a separate ethnicity it is totally a different controversy. Whoever considered himself Romanian had an option to do so in the census. You are adding those who considered themselves Moldavian making their choice for them. I can't tell for every Ukrainian editor, but myself, as an editor, would never add Rusyns and Ukrainians to produce some number to make a point. I argued in Boiko against that (you can see history) against a Ukrainian nationalist editor but chose not to persist because it was too time consuming. Calling them all Slavs, OTOH, would make some sense but even that was purged by some of your fellows from Transnistria, where the article initially said that unlike the rest of Moldova it had a Slavic majority. You want to know what editors purged it from there? If so, let me know and I will tell you. BTW, he because he is still around. --Irpen 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just recently seen the hot discussion about romanians and moldovans in Ukraine on this page. I am an ethnic "romanian" from Australia, and i tend to agree with irpen on this discussion constantzeanu. If a person responds as moldovan, then he is moldovan, and if he responds as romanian, then he is romanian. Perhaps that some people who responded as moldovan can also be ukrainians, russians who lived in Moldova before living in Ukraine. Bryndza, thanks for the link that u provided about Ukrainians in romania in 1992. However i believe that 200,000 number is a very high end-number, and was probably stated by a ukranian nationalist. There has been another source that i have found that states that there are 240,000 ukrainians in romania in 1990, this one was reported by the ukrainian government (they recived a letter in 1990 from the ukrainian minority in romania of which in the letter it was reported that there are 240,000 Ukrainians in romania. These numbers however do not add up, because the 1992 romanian census states that only 66,000 ukrainians were registerd in the census, and in 2002 only 61,000 were registered. These are all high estimations by Ukrainian organisations, same as romanian organisations which say that there are upto 800,000 romanian in Ukraine. Both the ukrainian and romanian estimations sound highly overestimated to me. I think that there are max: 100,000 ukrainians in romania(1992). and max 500,000 romanians(1989), this 500,000 number for romanians is ofcourse if people count moldovans the same as romanians. Does anyone think differently to these estimations that i have made concerning the numbers of romanians and ukrainians. (BaNaTeaN 12:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

I think your estimations are just about right. I too would put the maximum number of Ukranians at a figure lower then 100.000 and the Romanians at a figure lower then 500.000.

About the Moldovan-Romanian thing, I understand what you are trying to say but I think both of your arguments overlook a very important thing.

To Irpen, I think that offering less choice is equally controversial. A Hutsul perhaps would state that he is Hutsul if he had the choice but because he does not, he must go for the next-best thing. In any case, if we will proceed with offering data of the 2001 census the way it is then, that's fine as long as we will clearly state that before 1940 there were no "Ukranians" in Bukovina (just non-Romanian speaking Romanians) and that during the 1910 census there were Romanians, Ruthenians, Hutsuls, Jews, Germans, Poles, Szeckelers, Lippovans but then again no "Ukrainians" then either. If we will be "NPOV" about one census, then let's be "NPOV" about all of them :) Also in the spirit of "NPOV" we will also have to explain this fact that choices about Moldovan and Romanian were offered but no Hutsul, Ruthenian, etc. etc. were offered. This is regardless if some find it less controversial then others. It's a fact, right?

About giving the choice "Moldovan" while leaving Romanian still there, I find that extreemly devious since the "Romanian-speaking" population in Ukraine (by that I mean both Romanians and Moldovans) is rural. In other words these people are not that educated nor are they very preoccupied with national self-determination, national identity, etc. etc. Their socio-economic situation does not permit for that. Many of them do not care what they call themselves and many of them do not even make a difference between the two terms. Just like I am sure that many Hutsuls, Ruthenians and Boyko probably do not differentiate between those identities and the Ukrainian identity. However what I find quite outragous is that the Ukranian government decides to in fact make a difference, treat them as two sepparate groups (without actually asking them if that's ok with them) and thus downplay the importance of this Romanian-speaking minority which is the third in the country besides Ukranians and Russians. So Banatzean, I would disagree with you. These people say they are Moldovans but many of them just understand a subgroup of Romanian, just like I am a Dobrogean, you are a Banatian, A Transylvanian is a Transylvanian, a Ukrainian from Vlohinia oblast, is a Volhinian, etc. etc. Constantzeanu 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If we talk about Ukrainians/Romanians that recognise themselves as such, then the numbers seem OK to me. But I'm afraid this is all "original research" and since we write in encyclopedia, we should use the numbers shown by censuses despite our personal disagreement/believes/feelings. Same for Bucovina and similar articles.--Bryndza 05:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess we also don't know how many Ruthenians in 1910 thought of themselves as Ukrainians or how many "Romanians who did not know their language" in 1930 thought of themselves as Ukranians either :) Constantzeanu 15:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. But this is not the reason to change those data the way we think they should be. This is why there are articles Ruthenians and Hutsuls and there ia method of putting ^{ǂ *} with explanations below. Those explanations would include only remark about actual (contemporary) scholarly classification of named ethnic groups.

Ok well then we can put ^{ǂ *} for Moldovans too because contemporary scholars consider Moldovans to be Romanians too. :) Constantzeanu 16:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I never was against this. In fact, I propose to start making such table (see below).--Bryndza 21:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, I woild like to provide an explanation why I reverted your edit because your was not a vandalism but a content dispute. First of all, please take a look at WP:Point policy page. I have no objections if you insist on replacing Ukrainians by Ruthenians and/or Little Russians or even "Romanians that forgot their native language" provided that you provide within this article and explanations that this terms refer to what the ethnographist agree is the same thing as the modern word "Ukrainians". That is of course, putting the Rusyns question aside, because there is an agreement too, although less a certain one and rejected by UA gov, that Rusyns are indeed a separate ethnos. Please note that I included the criticism of MO/RO division within the article text.

Well I don't see anything about that in WP:Point. In any case if you would like explinations, then feel free to add them yourself like Bryndza has suggested. You don't have to erase everything I wrote.

If you want to take it upon yourself to elaborate on the evolution of terminology that was applied to Ukrainian ethnos, you are welcome to do that. You can use the Little Russia article I wrote earlier as well as Ruthenians and sources outside Wikipedia. Further, if you want to include the "Romanians who forgot their native language" thingy, make sure you elaborate on the interwar Rumanization policy, or better yet start the Rumanization article yourslef. I was thinking about writing a stub, at least, but haven't got to that yet. The RO/MO issue is both presented and adequately described including Romanians' complaints about it (btw do Moldavians complain, sociological data about how citizens of Moldova feel about the prospects of "reunification" is something I very much want to see). If you want to use different terms for Ukrainians, explain them within this article. Finally, lack of challenges to the Ukrainian census is not a personal opinion. It is a fact until you follow on your promise and bring some refs about the counting fraud. --Irpen 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For now, here is a very interesting site [11] and here is something very funny [12]. This case-study (written by a person from the admin. of the Ukrainian president) claims that Romanians are 135,000 people but that Romanian pupils are 25,000. Now how can this be? How can a population of a certain minority have a number of pupils that is 1/5th of the total population. Man, Romanians must make a lotta kids cause otherwise how can we explain things. But wait, no they don't. Look, Romanians only grew from 19.6% in 1970, to 19.7% in 1989 to 19.8% in 2001. So no, they don't make a lot of kids either. Oh and wait, look according to the Ukrainian government, Romanians are represented in the Cernovitsy Oblast in a proportion of 18%(WOW just like if you would add Romanians and Moldovans together). Man is that coincidence or what? And look in Novasulitza district, 63% of the representatives to the local councils are Romanians too. WOW, what another coincidence because according to the same census, this represents the exact percentile of "Moldovans" there. I think this is a pretty hilarious case of the Ukrainian government trying to copy the old Stalinist divide of Mol-Romanian but doing it so sloppy that they make it pretty clear as to what the real ethnic divisions are. Need I say anymore? Constantzeanu 01:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

While the Ukrainian government is keeping in census the option Romanian/Moldovan, they appear to have a common language (Romanian) in Chernivtzi oblast. They are 135,000 Romanians, although the "Moldovan" students are counted as Romanian students. The document also stated that there is only one department (Romanian philology) in Romanian at University. Situation of schools was negotiated by the treaty of 1997. (May be you'll be so kind to provide a link to that treaty). --Vasile 02:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, I have read those articles and now just wonder how did Romanians survive at all. Everybody is so cruel with you almost in every country in responce to your hispitability to all those nations in minority in Romania. I must stop because I'm crying. I do want to shortcirquit my computer... What do you think on the info yourself? Does it look like similar documents from other countries, including Ukraine?--Bryndza 02:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanule, I just want to add that I'm not too ironical. I do think that this kind of documents is important. Is proves that there something not healthy in those minority localities. But I would apply a coefficient of at least 1/2 to all kind of such writing (not excluding Ukraine).--Bryndza 02:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian population in Bukovina by year

	Total number of Ukrainians and Romanians
Year	1848	1900
Ukrainians	108 907	297 798
Romanians	209 293	229 018

Ukrainian population in Romania by year

Populatia regiunii Cernăuti în perioada sovietică: 1940-1941, 1944-1959 Populatia Romaniei Mari

	Total number of Ukrainians and % of total population
Year	1919	1930	1992	2002
	763,750 4,7%	576,828 3,2%	65,764 0.3%	61,353 0.3%

Chernivtsi Oblast censuses table

Census form from 2001 northern Bukovina 1900 1926 Ukraine 1930 N. Bukovina 1959/1989 W. Ukraine

Chernivtsi Oblast	Total number and % of total population
Year	1930	1959	1989	2001
Ukrainians1	419,025 52,0%	518,189 66,94%	666,095 70,8%	689,100 75,0%
Romanians	200,8293 24,9%	79,790 10,31%	100,317 10,7%	114,600 12,5%
Moldavians2		71,645 9,26%	84,519 9,0%	67,200 7,3%
Russians	41.566 5,2%	51,268 6,62%	63,066 6,7%	37,900 4,1%
Poles	23.027 2,9%	6007 0.78%	4700 0.5%	3,300 0.4%
Jews	75.410 9,4%	42140 5.44%	16469 1.75%	1,400 0.2%
Germans	43.582 5,4%	%	%	%
Others	%	%	%	%

¹The census did not count Rusyns as a separate ethnical group but rather as a sub-group of Ukrainians

²According to most etnographists, Moldavians (Moldovans) are ethnic Romanians.

³The census din not count Moldavians as a separate group.

If anybody posts links to other censuses here (incl Bukovina and other regions) I will make according tables. After that we can try to combine them in one big.--Bryndza 22:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a change in your table to account for another controvercial issue, lack of recognition of Rusyns. --Irpen

Good. Everybody is welcome to edit it.--Bryndza 23:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure but I think those numbers you posted there should be under the 2001 census, not 1989 census. Also I think that if we are going to put the census data from past census, we should also include census data from all periods of the past.

I also think that the sentence ":¹The census did not count Rusyns as a separate ethnical group but rather as a sub-group of Ukrainians" should not only include Rusyns but other groups as well and should be reworded to ":¹The census did not count Rusyns, Hutsuls, Ruthenians, Lipovans, Boyko and Lemko as separate ethnic groups but rather as sub-groups of Ukrainians"

Constantzeanu 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point with 1989/2001 numbers. I have changed. And YES, I was asking for links to all previous censuses (from BC also if awailable) also from Romania to include in table. I just have no links to data. I have no idea where you get these numbers from. Or please make your table or smth. Your link to the document from our government just proves that Moldovans and Romanians are officialy recognized to speak one language. And I remind you again. Lipovans are Russians. Rusyns with approximation may be considered as separate nationality (in Slovakia especially), but others are not recognized officialy. But they WILL be in the tables (and there will be NO Ukrainians) as soon as somebody gives me numbers for all censuses. Constantzeanu, it seems to me like you feel that we want to impose some discrimination on you, data on Romanians etc. Please relax and let's make those damn tables with data.--Bryndza 02:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, the point is that Hutsuls, Boykos and Lemkos are never considered separate ethnicities. They are often considered part of the Rusyn ethnos rather than the Ukrainian one, and, personally, I think this is correct. OTOH, the UA gov considers them as well as all Rusyns as a whole as part of Ukrainian ethnos. As such, if we make a footnote about the census drawback, you should just mention Rusyns only as being not included. If you mention Rusyns, fine with me. If you mention Lemkos and Boykos, you have to come up with refs where they are considered neither Rusyns nor Ukrainians but a third nation. I haven't seen Lemkos and Boykos treated as the nations on their own in any literature. --Irpen 06:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Lippovas in Ukraine live mostly in Odessa Oblast and are considered Russians, which they are, rather than Ukrainians. --Irpen 06:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in Ukrainian, you guys understand all these groups as part of Russyns but in English, obviously it seems that these groups are diffrent. Look at the Lemko article and you will see that they are apparently partly Romanian. All I see on that 1910 Bukovina map is that Ruthenians are considered sepparate from Hutsuls. And our friends, the Poles seem to agree with this. Check this site out [13]  :)

Lippovans live in Odessa Olbast, it is true but they also live in Bukovina as well. Constantzeanu 06:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets just check the academic works than "our friende: here or there. Magocsi's History of Ukraine, one of the most respected books in the field talks about the Rusyn singlw ethnical group rather 4-5 separate ethnoses.

When you deleted the data and replaced it with the strange 74%, I wonder where this data is from. Is this for an entire Bukovina or the Northern Bukovina only? Please cite your ref. Also, you removed the entire paragraph. I did not return it to the article itself but I returned it in the commneted out form. Finally, you insisted on using the ridiculous official data to make a WP:Point and called for explanations. I hope you don't mind that I added the explanations you asked for youself. --Irpen 07:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a site [14] which explains through the eyes of a Romanian official living in Cernauti Region that the authorities forced the population to declare itself Moldovan in the villages around Chernovtsi. If you do not believe me, please ask anyone else who knows Romanian so they can translate for you. Constantzeanu 09:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you except that I'm wondering how authorities can force somebody to tick wrong box at his own home. Isn't it that census forms were delivered to homes? Like in case with Census id Romania (see talk of User:Dpotop - I translated there article from Ukrainian).--Bryndza 19:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Its really not that hard. You go to the guy, you ask him what he is? He says Romanian. You write down Moldovan. Or when the papers get processed, the authorities, just change Romanian, to Moldovan. Constantzeanu 19:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

i expanded the table with 1959 and 1989 data from [15], and 1930 from [16]. On [17] there are data for others years too, but they are divided acording to the administrative divisions of the time when the censuses were made. In their data about northern part of Austrian Bukowina, they have only an "ukrainian language" category, that i suppose includes ruthenians and hutsul. Anonimu 22:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza, i have recently seen the tranlstion of the ukrainian text into english on dpops talk page. There may have well been an undercounting of the ukrainian population, but not the extent that the article claims. there is no way that there can be 250,000 ukrainians in romania. It seems very odd to me that the census undercounted Ukrainians, but by no way were they undercounted by 200,000 people. There probably are however 100-120,000 ukrainians in romania, but anyhting higher than that is probably nationalistic figures from ukrainians in romania trying to make there numbers look bigger than they really are. What do you think about the numbers? how many ukrainians do you think live in romania? (BaNaTeaN 04:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

BaNaTeaN, I have seen even claims that there are 600.000 Ukr. in Rom. Where from these figures are derived (as well as 250.000) I have no idea. Also I have no idea what is the approximate number. I have not seen any info if undercounting during census was systematic or not. So whatever I (we) think, feel, approximate - this all will be rather "original guess". My point is to mention in WP that there are reports that some numbers could be undercounted (miscounted) and present links to articles/documents where this is reported. Nothing more (estimation, interpretation etc.) should be done in WP articles as this is encyclopedia - a collection of facts. Do you have other opinion? If you want to count, then what numbers would you use as basis?--Bryndza 14:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen== What have Rusyns to do with Chernivtsi Oblast? ==

There are a few Rusyn organizations in Transkarpatia, but I never heard that there are ones in Chernivtsi Oblast. Please provide a reference, or remove this info as irrelevant. When Hutsuls were counted separate from Ukrainians?--AndriyK 19:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you see, your buddies here want Romanians and Moldovans to be counted differently. Then I think its is fair for Hutsuls and Ruthenians to be counted differently in the 1910 census as well. A refference would be that very famous 1910 map from the Austrian census.

I honestly think that we are complicating ourselves like carzy here. We could have solved this problem much more humanly if our Ukranian friends were not so keen to stress Stalinistic, Communist-era as well as Kuchmaist views such as "Moldovans are not Romanians". I still think that matters have gotten out of hand because of this desire to downplay the size of the Romanian minority in Bukovina.

Allow me to make one last suggestion, in the spirit of collegiality. Instead of talking about Ukranians, Hutsuls, Ruthenians, Romanians, Moldovans, Boiko, etc. etc. Let's just say Ukranian-speakers, Romanian-speakers. Even the Ukrainian government admits that Moldovans are Romanian speakers. So in order to make everyone happy I propose that we do that. That way Ukranian will appear everywhere, and no mentions of Hutsuls, Ruthenian, etc. etc. will appear(which might make the Ukranian majority there look like a minority) and also no mentioning of Moldovan will appear either. Constantzeanu 21:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Constantzeanu, I am completely new to this page, but you call me "buddy" in you first sentence. I propose you to switch to a civil discussion.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to tell you that i hate Communism, Stalinism and Kuchmism alltogether.

I do not want Romanians and Moldovans to be counted separately, but I do not want them to be counted together either. This is not my job to decide how they should be counted. It is not a job of WP community to decide it either. The purpose of WP to describe the things, people, phenomena what they are, not to decide what the should be.

This is a fact that there is a significant group of people identifying themselves Moldovans rather than Romanians. Some of them live in Chernivtsi Oblast. This fact does not depend of what I or you wish. There are sources confirming it. So we have to describe this fact in the article.

If you find any source that there is a significant group of Hutsuls considering themselves as not Ukrainian, this fact should be also in the article. But I do not see any sources at present. So this not a fact so far.

Let's follow the WP policy and stick on facts.--AndriyK 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Constantzeanu. The truth is that we have ON PROBLEMS listing all thos Hutsuls, Rusyns and Ruthenians as they were counted as such. The truth is that YOU HAVE PROBLEM listing those Moldovans separately from Romanians. This is all the problem at this point. And we do not agree on interpreting official census data the way you suggest then WHAT WILL HAPPEN?--Bryndza 23:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i really did not understand what you just said. I was talking about using the word speakers and use the same ukrainian census data but for language only and not use the words romanians, ukrainains, russians, etc. I don't think you understood what I ment.Constantzeanu 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I understood. But I consider this as our wulnerable "interpretation" of real census data. But if others agree on this solution - I find it not too bad solution.--Bryndza 00:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I would say it is not vulnerable "interpretation"(since we still cite the ukranian census) but rather a reconciliatory solution. As shown above the Ucrainian government itself admits that there is no such thing as a Moldovan language. I think therefore that by making refferences to language rather then racial division is better since we do not have to get into the Romanian/Moldovan or Ukranian/Hutsul/Boiyko/Ruthenian divides and arguments). I hope others see the reasonable approach that this solution offers. Constantzeanu 00:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a solution, because it is in contradiction with NPOV Policy. You try to hide the facts you do not like.--AndriyK 13:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK then Hutsuls, Ruthenians, Boyko, Lemko etc.etc.etc. it is for the 1910 census and "Romanians who forgot their language" for 1930. Obviously no mentioning of Ukranians will be made cuz that is NPOV - after all those censuses did not speak of Ukrainians back then :) Constantzeanu 01:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If 1910 census listed Hutsuls separetelly, it can be mentioned in the article, provided the reference is given. Ruthenians is just the old name for Ukrainians. Biykos and Lemkos are irrelevant to this article. If 1930 used a term "Romanians who forgot their language", it can be also mentioned. I do not see any problem, if one sticks on facts. We should however decide wether all pre 1940 stuff belongs to the article "Chernivtsi Oblast". This is an article about a Oblast that was formed in 1940. All other stuff is the history of Nothern Bukovyna.--AndriyK 08:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For now, I don't mind your version with "Romanians who forgot their native language" as long as my explanation about the nature of Romanian policies towards minorities and the extreme nationalism being the ideology of the Greater Romania in the interbellum remain in the article in the same paragraph where your favorite term is used. This is totally necessary because otherwise the convoluted term is confusing. If you like it that way, very well, so be it. I liked the older version better but I don't object your WP:Point for now. If you want to replace the strange results which necessiated my explanation in the text with an older version, we could do that too. --Irpen 05:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Duca is back mofows. Guess what none of you stalinist ukrainian-fascists are gonna put the word Moldovan in there. GO BACK TO MATHAF-RUSSIA and leave us alone. All of fucking Bucovina was ours before your fucking monkey faces showed up in there and killed us by the thousands. Why doesn't someone tell those animals the truth to their faces? We are the fist ones there. Bucovina is ours. You came there. You are foreigners in Cernauti. Look how nice it sounds in Romanian---Cernauti. And look how ugly it sounds in your ugly slavic half-monkey language Chernivivivitskkkii. HAHAHA! Ukrainain shovinists we had enough! Duca 16:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I did not miss Duca, now that he is back, it is important to keep the evidence of what kind of editor he is. Please do not delete the entry above until the fellow is blocked. Also, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Duca_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29. --Irpen 19:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What a friggen racist you are Irpen, you Stalinist communist nazi! This is a load of crap!Duca 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a chill pill for a sec. Bine Duca? You can't be both a nazi and a commie. And even if they go to Russia, they can still edit the article so that won't solve anything :) I say we get back to the article and make the changes we talked about. I think we somehow have to mention that Moldovans are considered Romanians by most people. It would be unfair if we just put census data. Moreover I think in his last visit to Romania, prezident of Ukraine, Yushchenko (regardless if you like him or not) mentioned that in essence Romanians and Moldovans are the same people. Constantzeanu 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How about you go take a chill pill Constantza. You're a pussy and a traitor so piss off. This article is a bunch of Ukranian propaganda bullshit and I am not gonna stay around and do nothing like other peopl. Duca 18:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Duca, whether you are a sockpuppet of Bonaparte or not, your rudenelss may get you blocked on your own merit. --Irpen 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For the first time I agree with Irpen. Your right-wing rethoric has no place here. Your comments are very offensive and if you don't stop, I will personally bring this up with the proper admin.Constantzeanu 14:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Romanian name in the article about modern Ukrainian administrative subdivision

Several people said ay talk:Bukovina that Chernivtsi Oblast is not the same thing as Northern Bukovina. I can't but agree. In view of this, I will remove the Romanian name from the Oblast article. That article is about the modern Ukrainian subdivision which has nothing to do with Romania. While the Romanian name certainly belongs to the first line of the Chernivtsi, Hertsa and Bukovina articles which are articles on the old historic topics, it does not belong to the article about the modern Ukrainian administrative subdivision, especially since our Romanian colleagues seem to agree that Chernivtsi Oblast and Bukovina are different things. I hope our friends will be as tolerant as our Polish friends. Similarly, to this one, the Polish name is present in Lviv article but not in Lviv Oblast one. --Irpen 01:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Last paragraph

Last paragraph not wholly reflects condition a census and is weakly related with article "Chernivtsi Oblast". According to data census 2001 some people of the Ukraine has named itself Rusins. (In Zakarpattya [18]). Thereby was a full liberty of the choice ethnic accesories. --Yakudza 09:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanians and Moldavans reloaded

I would like to see the table split between Romanians and Moldavans. I know it is a controversial subject, but sure there is a census which distinguished between the two.. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: As I can see, the original census distinguishes indeed between these two. Adding figures to create new columns in such a controversial field. It even borders on WP:NOR. Please split these two back. What would you say if someone merged Ukrainians and Russians in a column "Slavs"?? --Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved the table here. It cannot be used in the current form as it lumps up ethnic groups arbitrary contrary to the census data. The author, please correct the table and cite sources if you want it back. --Irpen 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans and Romanians is the same thing as Zaporozhians and Ukrainians, or Ruthenians and Ukrainians. Ukrainians and Russians are like Romanians and Italians. The table is properly referenced. There were not "Moldovans" in 1930. The table relates the truth, i.e. all numbers are correct. If you disagree with the truth, it's nothing we can help we with. I expect you to restore it.-Dc76

1. Romanian census did not distinguish between Moldovans and Romanians, and the results of the census should be reported as such. Contrary to that, Soviet census did distinguish between Moldovans and Romanians, and these results should be reported as such as well.
2. In the last Ukrainian census (2001) people were free to claim any nationality. Some claimed themselves Moldovans, and the other Romanians. Wikipedia is merely a rejections of facts, not someone’s speculations.
3. The Chernivtsi Oblast was formed in 1940. Thus, Bukovina article is the most appropriate place to keep 1930 census data, not this article.

---

Evolution of the population and the ethnic composition of Chernivtsi oblast, 1930-2001[19]

census	Ukrainians	Romanians and Moldovans 1	Russians	Jews	Germans, Poles, etc	total
1930 (last Romanian census)	383.028	227.187	46.946	88.772	59.709	805.642
	47,6%	28,2%	5,8%	11,0%	7,4%
1959 (first Soviet census)	518.189	151.435	51.268	42.140	11.089	774.121
	66,94%	19,56%	6,62%	5,44%	1,43%
1989 (last Soviet census)	666.095	184.836	63.066	16.469	10.334	940.801
	70,8%	19,65%	6,7%	1,8%	1,1%
2001 (first Ukrainian census)	689.056	181.780	37.881	1.443	8.868	919.028
	75,0%	19,8%	4,1%	0,2%	0,965%
1930 - 1959 difference	+135.161	-75.752	+4.322	-46.632	-48.620	-31.521
	+35,29%	-33,34%	+9,21%	-52,53%	-81,43%	-3,91%
1959 - 1989 difference	+147.906	+33.401	+11.798	-25.671	-755	+166.680
	+28,54%	+22,06%	+23,01%	-60,92%	-6,8%	+21,53%
1930 - 1989 difference	+283.067	-42.351	+16.120	-72.303	-49.375	+135.159
	+73,9%	-18,64%	+31,44%	-81,45%	-82,7%	+16,78%
1989 - 2001 difference	+22.961	-3.056	-25.185	-15.026	-1.466	-21.773
	+3,45%	-1,65%	-39,9%	-91,24%	-14,2%	-2,3%
1930 - 2001 difference	+306.038	-45.407	-9.065	-87.329	-50.841	+113.386
	+79,9%	-19,99%	-19,31%	-98,4%	-85,15%	+14,07%

¹ To avoid the Moldovan(Moldavian) / Romanian controversy (people tend to change their "declared ethicity" between M and R from census to census), and in order to allow comparison with the 1930 census, when the term Moldovan was a regional rather than ethnic designation, column 3 contains the sum of the number of people reported in the censa, when appliable, as Moldovan, and as Romanian.

---

Any type of comparison would be pointless, if we sepparate those two groups. Besides that if I am not mistaken, the post-Yushchenko Ukrainian government did state that Romanians and Moldovans are the same thing (correct me if i am wrong).Dapiks 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken and more than once. There is no such a thing as post-Yushchenko gov because Yushchenko as of Oct. 06 remains a president and he is not the head of the government which he was in 2001 as a prime-minister. After Yushchenko's becoming a president, Ukraine had Tymoshenko government, Yekhanurov government and, currently, Yanukovych government.

All census data available for the time of existence of the CO (since 1940) presented Moldovans as a separate ethnic group, the same way as Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Roma people, Poles, etc. The issue on the R/M controversies is rightfully discussed at Moldovans and Moldovenism articles. You can't resurrect him in every article where the world Moldovans is mentioned. A link to a relevant article is there.

Finally, all pre-1940 demographics does not belong to the Oblast article as the Oblast did not exist at the time. Keep relevant info in relevant articles. --Irpen 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, the pre-1940 demographics was made based on the 1930 census and the data there in the future oblast. I believe that to not include the pre-1940 data would be detrimental to the article. How else is a reader supposed to evaluate the degree of demographic changes that occurred after the 1940 anexation of the territory? Dapiks 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How else? From Bukovina article. Also, there is a new article called Romanians in Chernivtsi Oblast where the pre-1940s situation could be mentioned for the comparison purposes. This article is about the entity that started its existence in 1940. There is a lot more about CO than the Romanians and the approach you suggest give an undue weight to one issue out of many. Please review WP:TE. --Irpen 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Irpen your assumption that I am for keeping the 1930 census results only for the sake of talking about the Romanians of Bukovina could not be more wrong. What about the Germans, the Jews, the Poles? The article hardly deals with them and giving the data prior to the 1940 period (which coincidently happens to use the 1930 Romanian census for a lack of a better source) deals with that. I still think that getting rid of that part would really not help the article at all. Dapiks 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanian map

The ethnic map currently in the article shows both Romanians and Moldovans as Romanians, ignoring the self identification of 70,000 people who consider themselves Moldovans. According to the creator, the map is based on the 1910 census, completely irrelevant for present day situation, and "latest 2001 ukranian census", which is very strange, since the Ukrainian census (i suppose that's "ukranian") respects the self identification of Moldovans.Anonimu 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note:For original message, prior to the modifications by user:Eurocopter tigre, see [20].Anonimu 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the map seems to be based on 2001 census. Just look at the census data raion by raion and compare with the map. In 1910 there were also Germans, Jews and Polish - a lot of them in the region. The map is obviously not for 1910. :Dc76 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the raion by raion data? Because what i see now is a map that doesn't include almost 70,000 locals.Anonimu 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On the website of the statistics bureau of Ukraine. Some user helped me once to find it there. It would take me some time, which I do not have tonight, but you can do it. You can find exactly all raion by raion ethnic group by ethnic group there. And yes, my understanding is that the map shows those declared Moldo(a)v(i)ans and Romanians by the same color, b/c it is not a map of the declaration, but based on the declaration (In every village there were people declaring both Ukrainian and Romanian, and you can not show house by house) and on the fact accepted by the Ukrainian government that they be treated as a unique minority group. For example, their schools are in Romanian, their organizations are called Romanian, not Moldovan/Moldavian + public declaration of the Ukrainian foreign minister Tarasyuk that they are the same group, and so on. And if you want more, please do go visit. Try not to create the impression of some ethnic tention where there is none, please. Thank you.:Dc76 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no such data on the site of the Ukrainian census. A government can't override the self identification of 70,000 people . And you have to bring proofs of such an action by the Ukrainian gvt.Anonimu 09:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't care about self-identification after some 67 years of Stalinist brainwashing. They are Romanians, regardless of what those poor souls may call themselves, and it is difficult to see how one is not party to continuing attempts at genocide against the Romanian people when one seeks to deny that fact. Besides, even if we do accept such an absurd hypothesis, how did so many Moldovans appear in Bucovina? Biruitorul 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

100 years ago, before any soviets, most romance speakers in the eastern half of the present Chernivtsi oblast identified themselves as Moldvovans. But hey, your nationalist stance is well known, and you even seem to be proud of it (as one of your userboxes implies).Anonimu 09:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I and other people from Bessarabia have had this discussion with some other Romanians who never been to the region. The locals consider Romanian language to be their native language. The locals consider themselves to be Moldavians and Romanians simultaneously. They understand by Moldavians a subgroup of Romanians, just like Transylvanians part of Romanians or Bavarians part of Germans. It is very strange for the locals when outsiders ask them to choose between "Romanian" and "Moldavian", and they normally reply "Are we asking you to choose between Romanians and Bucharestians? No. Then, please, don't ask us. We are Moldavians and Romanians simultaneously, because Moldavians is just a subgrops of Romanians. Call yourslef as you wish, but let us call ourselves as we wish". But some WP users only see nationalist vs communist in this, they forget that it is about people, not numbers.

For the numbers raion by raion, I think it was Irpen who kindly gave me the link (I had hard time finding it, b/c I do not know Ukrainian). I think that particular type of data does not exist in English or Russian, only in Ukrainian. :Dc76\^talk 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't edit articles based on things that "we know", but on thing that we can source. I had this talk with some school mates (i had 2 from Bessarabia). While one of them considered Romanian to be his mother language, both considered theselves Moldovans. So you see, there's people and people... and 70,000 people from Chernivtsi chose to consider themselves Moldovans and the present map ignores their will. And that map is unsourceable.Anonimu 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But you ignored the sense of what I sayd: they consider themselves Moldavians as subgroup of Romanians. (Moldovans stands in English for citizenship. Ethnic Russians are also Moldovans if they have citizenship, but not Moldavians.) :Dc76\^talk 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they consider themselves ethnic Moldovans and nothing more.Anonimu 18:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem: you want your oppinion or your understanding of something. Consider the possibility that your understanding might be erroneous. Don't judge cheese with the same measure you judge milk.:Dc76\^talk 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a census with write in ethnicity field to support my opinion. What do you have? Something that you know?Anonimu 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask the person who created the image to justify every dot of color. I am not the creator of the image. I can say that the image corresponds with the reading that I did last fall of the ethnicity data of the census. You,I guess, have exactly the same data, but you say it does not correspond, based on your erroneous interpretation of Moldavians. You simply try to promote Moldovenism theory. Imagine I would try to promote a theory saying that the inhabitants of Constanta descend from dolphins. I would suggest to mind your own business.:Dc76\^talk 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Cvethnic1980.png

The map is just a mod of a map i've uploaded to wiki (see on the left; also look at the dates), mainly the abusive transformation of Moldovans in Romanians. The original map respected the self identification of the people in the Chernivtsi oblast. Sorry, your word is not enough. You have to give a reference for your claim. No, i only promote self identification of everywhere. I'm not a Nazi to search info about your grandparents and then impose an ethnicity on you. Being uncivil won't make your argument stronger.Anonimu 19:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's uncivil here? Don't use the words "abusive" and "fascist" unless you realy mean them. I can also call you using the same words, but I don't.

You are. Those words mean exactly what they're supposed to mean.Anonimu 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I never asked you to take my word. Read the articles Moldovenism, Moldovan language, Moldovans. About the map, ask the person who uploaded the image to give data and to "correct" if necessary, b/c that person seems to have had data commune by commune, which we don't. Just as a side note, people in Bukovina and Hertsa always call themselvs Romanians, only those in Bessarabia call themselves both Moldavians and Romanians. In the edit you did to the map, you have showed all Bukovinian villages in Noua Sulita raion as Moldavians, and even a couple on the right bank of Prut!

Who wrote those articles? How many Moldavian citizens worked on them? Every article expresses the POV of the author, and just look at the history of those article: It is only by chance that most fo them are Romanians? Seems? Based on what. The Ukrainian census showed a Moldovan majority in Novoselitsa rayon. Where did they go? Another info you know? And as I said, mine was the original map, the current one is just a lame plagiarism (not legally, since i agreed to release it under a free license) used to support a nationalist POV.Anonimu 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

so, 1) Only if you have data locality by locality 2) only if use a different shade of the same color, say light blue. Green is unacceptable. And including Bukovinian villages is contradictory to the census data.:Dc76\^talk 20:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing indicates that the current one is based on such data, thus is original research. We need different colours so that people with disabilities can distinguish the two.Anonimu 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't ever call people who perseive colors differently disabled. They simply perseive colors differently, it is a problem of naming colors, not of perseiving them. A small number of those that you label in a big group, 1% of total population, do have minor disabilities (having 1 or 2 intead of 3 receptors). The result is they have problems with seeing green/red/yellow, they see the world in the shares of blue, since missing the blue receptor is somthing like 1 is 1,000,000 cases. And in case of emergency, everyone, even you, only sees black and white. Read more stuff before calling people disabled, please.:Dc76\^talk 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To Anonimu: evidence? And in any case, Moldovan then had different implications than it does now. That userbox is somewhat satirical.

Evidence? See the last Russian Imperial census and the ethnic map of bessarabia made by L.S. Berg based on 1907 data. You try to impose your opinion, I come with a fact: those people identified themselves as moldovans both 100 years ago and 5 years ago. Anonimu 07:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To Dc76: what I meant is that ethnically they are still Romanian (like Transylvanian, Oltenian, etc) and should be labelled as such on a map. To be sure, they are also Moldovan/Moldavian (by the way, is that moldovean or basarabean?), but that is a subgroup and we normally don't label those on maps. Moreover, in the context of Ukrainian-Romanian relations, the term "Moldovan" takes on added Soviet imperialist connotations, so we should be underlining the Romanian-ness of the inhabitants of Cernăuţi, Storojineţ and Hotin counties. At least as long as we don't stray to far into OR. Biruitorul 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see this as original research. Etnically, they are and see themselves as Romanian. A solution could be to add a remark: "Some Romanians from the Bessarabian part of the Noua Sulita raion identify themselves as both Moldavian and Romanian".

The reply to the rest is in your talk page, as it is not directly related to the article.:Dc76\^talk 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, please note these changes. We are making steps to accomodate you, although you can see in this talk page you are the only one supporting your POV. Don't treat small steps as no steps. Cling to discission, not to edit warring, please. :Dc76\^talk 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you are making further steps to impose your Romanian nationalist POV. There's a difference: i have an official census with a write in ethnicity field, you have only knowledge. 18:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just like you, i have access to the same census data. Do you have more links? Could you please show me. And just as a matter ot tone of difcussion, either you stop calling the other editor "Romanian nationalist POV" or I am no longer talking with you. I am not calling you "anti-Romanian communist POV", although in my oppinion (amybe also in yours) you are. Can you, please, stop calling names. :Dc76\^talk 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your data seems to miss about 70,000 people. Your Romanian nationalist POV is factual, while my POV is neither anti-Romanian, nor communist (the only connection with Communism would be Lenin's proclamation on the rights of the nationalities)Anonimu 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)