Talk:Budjak

Old talk

The data in the page comes from the 2001 All-Ukrainian Census.--Danutz

but how did u find out the national composition for each city and rayion? i couldnt find it on that census page.

Look more carefully. Just scroll down, and you'll find the nationala composition for each city and rayon. --Danutz 17:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right. My bad. But if you calculate the percentile of the Romanian population in Reni, you see that 19.900/39.900=49.9% = 50% not 49% like the census claims.

sorry again my bad its 19.900/40700 not 39900. I was looking at another raion.

Politically correct?

In what sense is Bessarabia "the politically correct term… for Bugeac" (as the article says)? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Shouldn't "rayon" here (a geographic unit) be "raion"? At least I believe that is the Romanian; is it spelled "rayon" in some other language? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In Russian/Ukrainian it's "район", which has more than one transliteration. It could be raion, rayon, rajon, etc. However, it appears that Wikipedia uses the "Raion" spelling. bogdan | ^Talk 05:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

racon kesmek is an expression they used quite often in the turkish mob tv-series kurtlar vadisi. I never got that. But seeing this. it must mean marking your territory, or showing the extent of or something similar.. it now makes so much sense :-) --Kahraman 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename this page

This page needs renaming to "Budjak", the English form of Bugeac. This English form is frequently used in historical and scholarly literature whereas the Romanian form rarely appears. Furthermore, since this territory is now Ukrainian, it is questionable whether the Romanian form is the most appropriate if a foreign language version is used.

LuiKhuntek 22:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think "Budjak" is in particularly common use. FWIW, there is also "Budzhak". This is one of those cases where several spellings seem to me to be equally common. All should be mentioned, but I don't see a strong case for moving the article to one of them more than another. You say "used in historical and scholarly literature". Can you give some examples? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to either "Budjak" or "Budzhak" but "Bugeac" is the "least good."

Budjak is a rarely-mentioned place in English, so it is hard to obtain a very large sample but below is a list of citations taken from Lexis Nexis, JSTOR, and a personal library visit among others. After culling irrelevant citations (Budjak, Budzhak, and Bujak are all surnames and there is an archeologial site called Keui Budjak) the following remain. As you can see, "Budjak" predominates but some of "Budzhak"'s cites carry more "weight" (e.g., historical atlas, gazetteer). Arguments could be made for either of the above but "Bugeac" only appears once (and once as "Bugeacul").

Budjak:

"Stalin legacy threatens all-out war in Moldova." Marc Champion. The Independent (London). 30 Mar 1992, p. 14.

"The Formal Closure of the Ottoman Frontier in Europe: 1699-1703." Rifaat A. Abou-el-Haj. Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 89, No. 3 (Jul 1969), pp. 467-475. (Also used Bujak in the same article)

"The Gypsies." Alexander Pushkin. trans. Walter W. Arndt. Slavic Review. Vol. 24, No. 2 (Jun 1965), pp. 273-290.

"Polish Theories of Art between 1830 and 1850." Stefan Morawski. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Vol. 16, No. 2 (Dec 1957), pp. 217-236.

Captive Romania. A Cretzianu, ed. 1956.

United Romania. C.U. Clark 1932. (Used Budjac)

"The Geographical Distribution of the Balkan Peoples." Jovan Cvijic. Geographical Review. Vol. 5, No. 5 (May 1918), pp. 345-361.

"Bessarabia." Encyclopædia Britannica. 1911.

"The Cossacks in the Early Seventeenth Century." H. Havelock. The English Historical Review. Vol. 13, No. 50 (Apr 1898), pp. 242-260.

Budzhak:

Historical Atlas of Central Europe. 2nd ed. Paul Robert Magocsi. 2002.

Columbia Gazetteer. 1998.

"Recent Achievements in Soviet Ethnomusicology, with Remarks on Russian Terminology." Barbara Krader. Yearbook for Traditional Music. Vol. 22 (1990), pp. 1-16.

Review of Iuzhnaia Ukraina v 1800-1825 GG. by E. I. Druzhinina. Allen McConnell. Slavic Review. Vol. 31, No. 4 (Dec 1972), pp. 889-890.

Bugeac:

"A Rumanian Priest in Colonial America." Demetrius Dvoichenko-Markov. American Slavic and East European Review. Vol. 14, No. 3 (Oct 1955), pp. 383-389.

Romania Testerday and To-day. W. Gordon. 1918. (Used Bugeacul -- form with definite article)

Finally, Morse's New Universal Gazetteer of 1821 has an entry for "Bessarabia or Budziac Tartary."

LuiKhuntek 03:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I did some search on google books

• 41 pages on bugeac (5 pages on bugeacul)
• 43 pages on budjak (1 pages on budjac)
• 25 pages on budzhak
• about 3 pages on bucak (Turkish spelling -- there are many hits with other meaning)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bogdangiusca (talk • contribs) 17 Nov 2005.

This seems to leave us pretty much where we were. None of these are clearly predominant. It's pretty artbitrary where we put the article. All should be mentioned, all should be at least redirects. Given that, I have no particular preference about where the article sits. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Case for "Budjak"

Checking the same google books link and typing in the three main spellings, I got results of:

• 29 pages on bugeac
• 41 pages on budjak
• 25 pages on budzhak

An important qualifier of these results is that the "Bugeac" form returned Romanian-language books which should not have bearing on the English Wikipedia form. Of course all forms should be mentioned and redirected to the same page just as "München" redirects to "Munich" or "Bucureşti" to "Bucharest" but the above numbers do little to recommend the Romanian "Bugeac" over the Slavic/exonymic "Budzhak" or exonymic "Budjak" forms for the entry name.

The case for the "Budjak" form is as follows. The region is a multiethnic one with a recent history of political control by several countries and the significant presence of other minorities as well (e.g. Bulgarians, Gagauzes). Use of an exonym that is different from all of the local forms helps maintain a NPOV (see Talk:Liancourt Rocks). This form is the also the most intuitive to pronounce for an English speaker. Neighboring regions such as Dobruja, Wallachia, and Bessarabia use exonyms and the German and Dutch entries for this region use their own exonyms (Budschak and Boedjak, respectively). (The French also use "Budjak" but there is no Wikipedia entry for it.)

The case for "Budzhak" is that a majority of the regions inhabitants use this Cyrillic version of this form (Ukrainians, Bulgarians, and Russians) and that it is the form of the current official language (Ukrainian). It is also reasonably intuitive to pronounce.

The "Bugeac" form is not that of a majority of inhabitants or of the official language and is not as intuitive to pronounce for someone unfamiliar with Romanian orthography (and might come out as "Boogie-ack"). It also differs from the other two forms more than the others do from each other.

In addition to the above cases, "Budjak" seems to have a clear plurality of citations followed by "Budzhak" and "Bugeac." Taken together, the case for the exonymic form "Budjak" seems stronger than that for either the Slavic/exonymic or Romanian forms.

LuiKhuntek 08:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Budjak makes the most sense to me as well. Olessi 19:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would venture to say that nl: Boedjak and de: Budschak are not at all "their own exonyms", but rather transcriptions (not transliterations, which seem to be Budžak) of the Ukrainian name following Dutch and German transcription rules for Ukrainian. – Wikipeditor 14:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

See talk above.

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. Olessi 18:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. (Comments above). LuiKhuntek 21:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipeditor 15:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Ethnic composition

if someone is interested, here is a ethnic map of Budjac in the 1980s

--Anonimu 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonimu după cum ţi-am mai scris şi pe pagina ta, the map is good for the purpose of having some kind of an idea of what we are working with here and I think you go down in history to be the first person to upload a detailed map of the ethnic composition of the region.

However, according to the Ukrainian census of 2001 and the Soviet census of 1989 the map is not correct all over the place. For example it shows a Moldovan/Romanian pocket in the south of Cetatea Alba. But there are almost no Romanians there. It also shows another Moldovan pocket in Cetatea Alba/Bilhorod Dnistrovsky raion, suggesting a Romanian village there but according to the census there are none. There is supposed to be a village right to the left of Sarata that is exclusively Romanian but on the map it is shown as Ukrainian. In between Ismail and Kilia, right on the southern shore of that lake that looks like an electric quitar( or the first lake out of the two lakes in between ismail and kilia), well over there there is a village Chishlitza, which is supposed to be exclusively Romanian. Also in Reni raion, all the rural areas in the south are supposed to appear as Romanian(not Ukrainian) except the area around the city itself which the map correctly points out that it is of mixed ethnic composition. This map is what I have come up with according to the latest census:

Constantzeanu 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Bessarabia and other names

Given that Ottoman Bessarabia redirects here, I would think that we need something in the article to the effect of "This area is sometimes referred to in historical contexts as as Ottoman Bessarabia, and the use of the name Bessarabia to refer to this territory predates the more modern use of that name." Am I correct in this understanding of that?

Also, the following sentence is confusing: "Although the area remains separated from the Republic of Moldova that occupies the remainder of Bessarabia, the term is rarely used, replaced normally with Southern Bessarabia." In its current context, it is very hard to tell what this means by "the term". Does it mean Budjak itself? It seems to me that (in its various forms) that name is reasonably common; does someone have evidence that Southern Bessarabia is more common? And if it is more common, then why is the article at Budjak rather than Southern Bessarabia? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from User talk:Jmabel ] Re: "'[Budjak] is rarely used, replaced normally with Southern Bessarabia.' ... does someone have evidence that Southern Bessarabia is more common? And if it is more common, then why is the article at Budjak rather than Southern Bessarabia?" -- Jmabel 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

When researching the various spellings of Budjak for Talk:Budjak#Rename_this_page, I found that in English-language sources, especially those dealing with wider subject areas (e.g., Romania, Ukraine), the term Southern Bessarabia was used when the area was mentioned in passing, particularly when referring to WWII territorial changes. However, the nature of these mentions was descriptive and does not reflect on studies more focused on the subject. (A crude comaprison would be the encyclodedic "flatulence" vs. the more common "fart.") The article should retain the title of Budjak because that name properly situates the topic in both time and space (cf. Gaul/France, Mesopotamia/Iraq). AjaxSmack 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[End copied material]

Cyrillic

Why were the Cyrillic spellings removed? - Jmabel | Talk 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from User talk:Jmabel ]

The lists like that are prone to mission creep and the Budjak cities already have 3 forms, adding two Cyrillic forms is straying toward them being more like entries in "Names of European cities in different languages." My thinking was that the list links to articles on the cities and these articles contain the Cyrillic forms. AjaxSmack 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[End copied material]

Very substantive edit without comment

Since "Kievan Rus' and Galicia-Volhynia" amount to something very different from "Golden Horde Tatars", this is a very substantive anonymous change without comment or citation. Since there was no citation for the previous version, either, and I don't know this history, I am not reverting. Someone should either cite for the present version or revert with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

in the 9th century Budjak was under magyar domination (it was the westernmost part of etelkoz). afterwards it was under kievan rule at least in the second part of the 10th century (svyatoslav moved his capital on the danube, and budjak is the linking territory between the centre of kievan rus' and the danube region), and probably in the first part of the 11th century too. Then it was a kind of no mans land, with pecheneg and later cumans roaming this land . From the 13th century to ca. 1369 it was under tatar rule. Anonimu 23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Census numbers

Are all of the census numbers 2001? Because the paragraph that begins "According to the the Ukrainian census, Budjak has a population of 617,200 people," goes through two more sentences before it says "The official data of the According to the the shows…" If the data in the first two sentences comes from that same census, then the paragraph should begin, "According to the 2001 Ukrainian Census…" If not, it should be clear what census it is referring to.

Also, why do we have approximate numbers for several ethnicities followed by a precise number for Romanians/Moldavians?

Also, is there any online source for this census data? And if not, can someone at least indicate a print source? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dnister and Danube Deltas

Budzhak cantains Dnister and Danube Deltas. This article has nothing about them, not even the location on the map of extensive natural parks, etc, but they play a crucial role for people of Budzak.

Spelling of geographic names

Spelling of different geographic names varied substancially through time, even in sourses such as British Encyclopedia. For example the term Moldova was never used in English before 1991, and has acquired preference in 1993 when BBC announced it would use it to distinguish from Moldavia, historical region of Romania. Again, this is just one of thousand of examples. Recent trends that are relevant to this article:

Romania in lieu of Rumania

Bassarabia in lieu of Bessarabia

Dnister in lieu of Dniestr

Bender in lieu of Bendery, which is an obsolete name, since officially it is now Tighina

This does not mean that the old terms are incorrect. It simply means that within 10-20 years they would no longer be in use. (Rumania in no longer used, except in old books, but it is not a formally incorrect form. It is incorrect in Romanian, not in English. It is old in English.)

The reasons usually given for a particular choice are, but not limmited to, 1) closeness to the name in the local official language (respecting the existing borders, even when the origin of the name is completely different), and 2) read in English it is minimally distorted. Therefore in the example above one prefers Bassarabia instead of Bessarabia (Russian, not Romanian) and instead of Basarabia (one s would become z, and the term is sufficiently often used to produce confusion). For Dnister 1) does not apply, since its an international river (passes through more than one country), so 2) is preferred, since Dniestr is Russian, and conflicts both with 1) and 2). Dniester conflicts with 1) (is neither Ukrainian, nor Romanian, nor Russian), and 2) (that's not the way it's pronounced in English). Tighina / Bender much less often used in English than the other 3 terms, so an English-speaker would not "know the way the name sounds in English". Therefore Tighina could not generate Taigaina when pronounced .

Census data and other stuff

Regarding this edit:

I will reply below within your comments point by point to make sure the context is clear. --Irpen

I have gathered my answers and your subsequent ones according to your orriginal questions. -Dc76

Since the purpose of this discussion is to find a good edit for the page, not to discuss the issue itself, I think we can agree on a reasonable edit. Your last responses are partially constructive, so I don't want to waste this oportunity. Just scoll down at the very end (5)

1) The English name of the river is Dniester River and not Dnister --Irpen

I heard on BBC that Dnister is correct in English, as it reflects better the English prononciation, since Dniester comes from Russian. Am I wrong? Ok, be it your way, as long as I don't have solid reference for this, but could you provide some reference to the correct spelling? -Dc76

See Dniester article in Wikipedia and Britannica. --Irpen

This is exactly what they were refering to on BBC, that the old usage, Dniester would be replaced with Dnister. Ok, be it your way, let's wait until the new English form becomes widely used. -Dc76

When the prevailing English usage changes, we will change it. --Irpen 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2) "Note, however, that two large nature reserve areas, inhabitted only be rare bird, are attributed to Ukrainians and Russians" is an unacceptable sarcasm and author's own editorializing

I did not mean it as a sarcasm, and it does not seem so at all. It is simply pointing out to the flaws in the map. Are you the author of the map? I agree to leave this sentance out, if the map is changed. Can this be done in a couple weeks? -Dc76

Who drew the map? --Irpen

I ask the same question. Let's find him and ask him/her to modify it. -Dc76

Agreed. --Irpen

3a) "Ukrainian citizens of the area self-identified as Moldovans and not "Romanians (Moldovans)" --Irpen

partially true:

all people, not only citizens, but also turists and people without citizenship, participate in the census-Dc76

People without citizenship, yes. Tourists, no. Only permanent residents. --Irpen

You mean the foregners who took the pains to register. Ok. -Dc76

I mean anyone regardless of citizenship who permanently resides there. Census authorities did not ask for any registration papers. Tourists who who would lie that they are residents whould get themselves counted. I don't think this took place at any significant scale. --Irpen

3b) not all identified themselves as Moldovans, since 750 identified themselves as Romanians-Dc76

I have not seen anywhere in Census data published for Odessa Oblast anything about people self-identifying there as Romanians. Here is census data. --Irpen

Here are some ad-hoc sources: [1] "In sudul Basarabiei satul pastreaza limba romana"

[2] They both simply refer to the official data. They show that is Odessa oblast live:

• 123,751 Moldavians(Moldovans)
• 724 Romanians
• 124,475 M+R

If you want more, I suggest we email the Ukrainian census or statistics office, and ask whether these figures are true. BTW, they correspond exactly to the idea of averaging to hundreds on their web site.-Dc76

I gather from your source: "In anul 2001, s-au declarat romani, 724 de persoane si aproape 124.000 moldoveni, ceea ce reprezinta 5 la suta din populatia regiunii Odessa, cu 14,5 la suta mai putin decit cei care se declarasera romani in 1989. " Please translate this exactly for me. --Irpen

3c)

"Census data is available online. "

absolutely true

"No serious allegation of census irregularities were reported."

since I have not heard otherwise, I assume it's true.

3d)

"Romanians (Moldavians)" category contradicts to the census data.-Irpen

is false. The category contains the number of people of delared M + nr declared R, in full accordance with census data. What is wrong with that?-Dc76

Wrong is your choosing to process the census data in accordance to your preferred theory of ethnicity. There are articles to discuss your point that Moldovans are Romanians. Those articles are Moldovans, Moldovanism. We have no place to have this issue spread all over Wikipedia. Census data should be cited exactly as it is. --Irpen

Exactly, you are spreading the issue. I suggest simply to mention both of them, not to forget completely about one of them. It is the minimum to ask.-Dc76

There is no prefered theory about ethnicity. All academia around the world agree that Romanians and Moldavians are the same ethnic group. This is not a subject for discussion, it is a known fact, like the fact that Russians and Ukrainians are Slavs. Its relevance to the article at hand is to mension both the number of declared M and R simultaneously. If you are not ethn0logist, a sociolog, etc, or a non-specialist but a member of the community in question, you should refrain from talking about things you don't know. I don't mean to critisize, consider it a cold request. Everyone should mind his/her own business.-Dc76

Two things, what matters is people's self-perception. If people thought of themselves as Romanians that would have said so in the census. They self-identified as Moldovans. Second, census data has to be presented as it is presented by census. Not processed through adding categories as we like. This is not the issue for the ethnologists to decide whether the Ukrainian Moldovans are Romanians. They were asked who they are. They gave their answers freely with no coersion. It is disservice to them to obscure their self-identification by lumping them together. --Irpen

4a) Table again creates an etnicity named "Moldovans (Romanians)" while in Ukrainian census on which the table is bases such etnicity is called Moldovans. No significant part of Odessa oblast residents self-identified as "Romanians" (some did in Chenivtsi Oblast). I restorted the table in accordance with census.[3]. I brought the table in strict accordance with census results yesterday and rechecked all numbers. I don't know where the user gets his data. He cites the census but census numbers are different from the numbers he presents. --Irpen 20:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The table does not create any ethnicity. A table can only reflect some data. The table clearly states that it is the sum of M + R. The difference is insignificant, about 1%. It's pointless to argue, but the table reflects the truth: the number of M (78 thousand and 700 hundreds) + the number or R (750 people).

See above. --Irpen

See above -Dc76

Table differs from the census data. This should be fixed. I did it the best I could. I do not know from the census data how the 724 Romanians are distributed among the Raions. We can mention after the table the fact that among others 724 are Romanians and their distribution among the Raions is not available at the time. --02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

4b) M and R are ethnically the same group, just as Lipovan Russian, are counted as Russians, and Rusyns are counted as Rusyns. This is based on academic truth.-DC76

People's etnicity is based not on some abstract "academic truth" but on their freely expressed self-identification. People in Odessa Oblast self-identified as Moldovans. Your theory that they are mistaken about themselves belongs to the talk pages at most. --Irpen

I told you, and please no offence, I mean none, if you don't know, mind your own business.-Dc76

Neither you or me are in position to decide who these people are. They expressed their ethnicity as they see it in the census. Our duty is to report it accurately. --Irpen

4c)Unlike other countries, people in Ukraine have to have official ethnicity, registered when they get their passports and identity cards.

Totally false. Ukrainian ID documents have no information about the etnicity. --Irpen

The data that they are required to fill and is then entered into the computer system, when getting IDs and passports, contains this info. If you want to change it, it is a process like changing your name.-Dc76

Not correct. There is no ethnicity question in any application for the document, passport, etc. Passports do not contain the ethnicity field either. --Irpen 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

4d)

Being official, one should apply in order to change it. Consequently, people who were forcibly registered during the Soviet era (sometimes as much as 60 years ago!) are "Moldovans" officially, although they consider themselves "Romanians" and consider the language they speak "Romanian". They consider themselves "Moldovans", too, since to them that means a regional, not ethnical designation. In the census, people were asked to declare their "official ethnicity", hence only very few were registered R. -Dc76

See above about "official etnicity". No such thing exists in Ukraine. Moreover, the "etnicity" question in the census is a write-in one. Respondents do not pick from pre-offered choices (such as Moldovans, Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, etc.) but answer as they like. I've seen the census questionary somewhere online. I can dig it out. --Irpen

See 4c)

Yes indeed, --Irpen

4e)

Saying that M and R are different ethnic groups is against the beliefs of M and R! Is it not true that if we simply add the numbers, then the issue is avoided altogether?-Dc 76

This is your own opinion, nothing more. --Irpen

Of course it is my opinion to avoid confrontation and to find a reasonable solution, to mention both M and R -Dc76

The reasonable solution is to respect people's choice and the documents based on that (official census results). -Irpen

4f)

Therefore, the table does NOT go into this whole argument. Only in one note, it is shortly given the reason. Perhaps we should add a link there to a page where this issue is explained?

Table with the data that refers to the census should reflect the census data as it is. --Irpen

It does -Dc76

Not with categories classified separately in the census lumped up together by Wikipedia editors. --Irpen

4g)

I have a suggestion, but I would like to listen to oppions of other people, too. Can we ask for some mediation? I suggest to leave the data with Moldavians (Moldovans?) only, and immediately after the table add a remark: -Dc76

Also, 724 people leaving in Budjak have identified themselves as Romanians, counted at "Others" in the above table. Moldovan / Romanian community from the region claims they are a single ethnicity.

(I wrote in the exact number)-Dc76

Please find the source for 750 people. You will also need a respectable source that would state "Moldavian / Romanian community from the region claims they are a single ethnicity." before adding it anywhere into the article. --Irpen 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 724, I found the exact number, not rounded -Dc76

I agree to state that there are 724 people who identified themselves as Romanains after the table. This, however, says nothing about what community says what about single ethnicity. --Irpen

I still think it is a serious wrong done to the people of the region to forcibly divide them, but if this helps finish the argument, I would agree to the above compromise.-Dc76

No one is "dividing" those people. People self-identified as they wished by their free choice. --Irpen 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is not about what the data are, but how to present it. When you present one but not the other, you DO DIVIDE. I only say to print ALL THE DATA, not just PART OF IT.-Dc76

Agreed, let's print all the data rather than obscure the details by lumping separate categories together. --Irpen

5. So, will you change it back, or should I do it?

-leave Dniester. In a year or two, you yourself will change it.

I will if I see the usage changed, it hasn't yet. And note that Dniester is not based on Russian. That would have been Dnestr. --Irpen

Agreed.

-modify the map to correspond more to the reality

Agreed. --Irpen

Agreed. If it is hard to find better sourse, one can use Google satelite maps. I don't know how to contact the author, can you?

I gather from your source: "In anul 2001, s-au declarat romani, 724 de persoane si aproape 124.000 moldoveni, ceea ce reprezinta 5 la suta din populatia regiunii Odessa, cu 14,5 la suta mai putin decit cei care se declarasera romani in 1989. " Please translate this exactly for me. --Irpen

In 20001, 724 people have declared themselves Romanians, and almost 124.000 - Moldavians, which represents 5 percent of the population of the Odessa oblast, 14,5 percent less than the number declaring themselves Romanians in 1989 If you want the word-by-word translation:

In year 2001, themselves declared romanians, 724 people and almost 124.000 moldavians, which represents 5 percent of the population of the Odessa region, by 14,5 percent less than those themselves declared romanians in 1989. The article also talks about the problem of people being considered by authorities as two different communities, when they are a single.

-either restore the table as it was, or add immediately after it the observation about Romanians and Moldavians.

Agree to add the info about 724 people but no speculations about who thinks what. --Irpen

Even the article above shows that these two groops form a single community.

It is a newspaper report about a meeting between the Romanian foreign minister Mihai Razvan Ungureanu, and his Ukrainian counterpart Boris Tarasiuk in Odessa, at which were present representatives of the Romanian (! this is the word used by the two foreign ministers) community in the Odessa oblast. The main concerns are about education in the Romanian language (again the term is used). They point out that there are only 9 elementary+secondary schools in romanian, 9 elementary+secondary mixed (two or more languages), and only one high school. They talk about opening teaching in romanian at Odessa and Ismail universities, about issues of church subordination (mitropolitanate of Bessarabia vs Patriarchy of Moscow), also aboutsome romanian (by language, they are locals as people) priests have been agressed by criminals and the authorities did not take proper action.

As you can see the foreign minister of Ukraine does not have any issues about Romanians/Moldavians, he considers it appropriate to regard them as one community, not as two, and use the term Romanian language. He addresses the issues concerned frankly and openly, and does not have adversity based on national identity. Whether most of these promisses ever materialize in practice, that's a different issue, that depends on many more local bosses, who are driven by national intolerance.

The origin of the issue is that people consider themselves simultaneously Moldavian and Romanian. They speak Romanian language, and therefore consider it's proper to say "I'm Romanian". They belong to the historical region Moldavia (refering to the Principality of Moldavia), so they consider equally correct "I'm Moldavian". Moldavians (Romanians) do not see a contradiction in this. It is when the word ethnicity is used by other people, that there can be a misunderstanding. Romanian means the language, Moldavian means the region. What does ethnic means? We might be better off if we point out as in other countries the mother tongue rather than the "ethnicity". The concept of "ethnicity" as is understood in Ukraine is from old Soviet time, and had a purpose: erase all nationalities, ethnicities, languages, build the Soviet man. Fortunately there are many sane people in Ukraine, and the number of those who are stubborn in this Soviet-induced belief is slowly but surely decreasing. Moldavians(Romanians) from Ukraine would like to be able to declare themselves as both M and R, they don't see a contradiction. Ask proper question: language, citizenship, and you will receive strict answer. Ask vague question, and you result in...

-if you have done other modifications, except those 4 you pointed above (posibly an empty set, you know better), I will change them back. If you think they are legitimate, please discuss them here. Check-spelling does not count.

I did not make any drastic changes, I don't think. --Irpen 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not make anything I would object to, except the issue with the table, and the usage "Moldavians (Romanians)" instead of just "Moldavains"

Ok, I'll make the modifications tonight or tomorrow night. I'll do my best to be neutral(Sorry i am more busy in real life). If you do modifications, please, also try to be neutral when talking about issues you don't know very much but have a predetermined point of view. I don't mean to blame you, it's just a recommendation. It's better to let people who know to do it, and point out to each sentance that does not sound ok. For example, it is widely believed among Romanians that Hutsul are Slavicized Romanians. But educated people regard this as an oppinion only, since there are only two things that can convince: 1) an explanation by a Hutsul, who studdied his/her group (I want to avoid the word ethnicity) 2) genetic studies, which are very hard to make and are pointless, because it counts what Hutsul people believe themselves.

Dc74, please translate this phrase from the link you added: "In anul 2001, s-au declarat romani, 724 de persoane si aproape 124.000 moldoveni, ceea ce reprezinta 5 la suta din populatia regiunii Odessa, cu 14,5 la suta mai putin decit cei care se declarasera romani in 1989."

Also, as I asked you, please do not spread the details of the R/M beinge single or not etnicity to every article where the world Moldovans is mentioned. At those links to minister's views to Moldovenism. I preserved a link to it in this article. --Irpen 00:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I did translate it for you before, I copy it from above now:

I gather from your source: "In anul 2001, s-au declarat romani, 724 de persoane si aproape 124.000 moldoveni, ceea ce reprezinta 5 la suta din populatia regiunii Odessa, cu 14,5 la suta mai putin decit cei care se declarasera romani in 1989. " Please translate this exactly for me. --Irpen

In 20001, 724 people have declared themselves Romanians, and almost 124.000 - Moldavians, which represents 5 percent of the population of the Odessa oblast, 14,5 percent less than the number declaring themselves Romanians in 1989 If you want the word-by-word translation:

In year 2001, themselves declared romanians, 724 people and almost 124.000 moldavians, which represents 5 percent of the population of the Odessa region, by 14,5 percent less than those themselves declared romanians in 1989. The article also talks about the problem of people being considered by authorities as two different communities, when they are a single.

about this article - Look, have it your way. I am tired of this! :Dc76 01:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Link names do not need translations

If a city or region name is linked (i.e., there is a Wikipedia article dealing with it), there is no need for multiple translations. If a reader is interested in alternate forms he or she can link to the respective article on the city or region. ("Foreign terms within the article body do not need native text if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles" from WP:BETTER.) An exception might be for Akkerman/Bilhorod-Dnistrovs'kyi/Cetatea Alba where the historical forms differ greatly and were used in English. —  AjaxSmack  04:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is one that tempts a violation of WP:POINT by adding Bulgarian, Gagauz, Greek, and other forms of toponyms in the article. Budjak is a genuinely multiethnic area and trying to represent every form of every name when there is ample room on the individual city pages for these names is frankly distracting clutter. —  AjaxSmack  18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Budjak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060414080203/http://www.bnrm.md:80/memoria/files/2/1/1932-6.pdf to http://www.bnrm.md/memoria/files/2/1/1932-6.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.divers.ro/cgi-bin/buletin_ro.py?id=265#4274

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Arrival and settlement of Ukrainians in Budjak

Hello,

The article doesn't explain at all, especially in the History section, when and how did the ethnic Ukrainians (not state citizens) arrived or settled in Budjak. Yet, the Ethnic groups and demographics section notes that they are 40%! How? Through which process/historical settlement, movement, migration etc? These two facts, need to be explained and put in concordance. For all the other ethnic groups (except with the political issue of lumping all Romanians as "Moldavians"), it is very clear from the History section, when each one of them arrived in or settled the area. Thanks --Codrin.B (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Budjak isn't only part of Ukraine (Odessa oblast) it is also partially in modern Republic of Moldova borders.

Budjak isn't only part of Ukraine (this is modern pro-Ukrainian fake-history idea). Budjak is historical region (XVI-XIX centuries) that now includes part of "Odessa oblast" (modern Ukraine region) and also part of modern Republic of Moldova (part of south districts of Republic of Moldova). Try to read normal (not Ukrainian fake) historical sources.