Lipovans[edit]

There is nothing about Old-Russian settlement in Bukovina. Could somebody write more about that? Luka Jačov 11:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lipovan and Rusyn are homonyms for Ukrainians, Russian speakers and (Ruthenian) speakers. Athanasius V (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is wrong[edit]

The flag is all wrong: first of all, the blue-red colours were disposed vertically! You'll have to rotate the picture to the right, I guess. And the flag also had the coat of arms af Bukovina disposed in the center (see it here: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine:Bukovina_1910_%28Wappen%29.jpg.). At least the colours must be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.107.121.199 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bukovina Germans' role; Roman Dacia[edit]

I read the mindless drivel and stupid nationalist arguing on the other talk page. You guys are all nuts. It was the Bukovina Germans who civilized all you lot, gave you the first decent government you had (Maria Theresa and Joseph, 1775-1790) and freed you from the Ottoman yoke. Fortunately, most of them were intelligent enough to get out of there and come to decent countries like the US and Canada. I note that in the current article there is only one sentence dedicated to them, though they built everything that is still standing from the 1775-1918 period, and they made up some 25% of the population for a century and a half.

And if we want to argue about who treated the Jews worse, the Romanians and Ukrainians are right up there with the Germans in the great historical guilt sweepstakes. So get over all these ancient grudges and behave like adults.

Oh, by the way, no Romans ever came anywhere near Bukovina. Roman Dacia was an obscure minor province, barely settled, basically a military buffer zone, and its boundaries stopped a couple of hundred kilometres south of Bukovina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.1.119 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this last part to be quite bizarre. To say that Roman Dacia was "obscure", "minor", "barely settled" is unrealistic. Roman documents and archaeological fids show the extensive Roman settlement in Dacia, the establishment of Roman cities, the thriving economic life, reason for which it became known as "Dacia Felix", therefore not a just a "military buffer zone". It is known that what was designed in 1775 to be "Bukowina" was not part of Roman Dacia. And, yes there should be more in the article regarding the German contribution to Bukovina`s cultural and economic life, but I reject altogheter this kind of atitude: "the Bukovina Germans who civilized all you lot", which is simply insulting to everything there was before 1775, and to the other ethnic groups in Bukovina.(Daniel1918 (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Romanians have built over there (before the arrival of the "civilized" germans) some things which are nowadays part of the UNESCO patrimony. On the contrary there are not a single one built by the the germans. Also.. keep your ignorance for yourself (your boorishness is only your problem) even you've been trying to spread it around with some political correctness false spices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabricioRB (talk • contribs) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


@the OP--You are half correct with your mention of Roman Dacia, as it's core consisted of Transylvania proper, Banat (including Serbian Banat) and Lesser Wallachia, and briefly including the rest of Wallachia, southernmost Moldavia and Southern Bessarabia (South of Upper Trajan's Wall), though for the most part, the overwhelming majority of Moldavia was un-effected by Roman rule. It seems that both sides rely too much on Dacia--one disregarding it entirely, the other making it their cornerpiece while the truth most likely lies in the middle--with equal emphasis on the Romanized inhabitants of Bulgaria north of the Balkan Mountains, northeast Serbia (excluding Vojvodina) and the Dobruja who would have fled north (and a smaller number south to the Pindus region) after the Bulgarian invasion and settlement of those regions and adjunct regions to the south and southwest.
As for the rest of your post, it is garbage. The Romanians established a state on their own by in the region the mid 14th century and those of Moldavia had no contact with any Germans, only those of Transylvania and Wallachia did so via the Transylvanian Saxons who were an isolated outgroup. Regarding the Bukovina Germans, they were simply sent into the region to populate it, in the same sense as the Danube Swabians were sent into Hungary to repopulate it because of the devastation of the Turkic wars. The policy of populating Bukovina proved fortunate in the short run but disastrous in the long run (just as with the repopulation of Hungary) as large numbers of Ukrainians, along with smaller numbers of Jews and Poles were moved in from neighboring Galicia, reducing the previously homogenous Romanian population to a minority, concentrated around the southeastern third of North Bukovina.
This minority status thus allowed Soviet Russia to act on it's 'Drang nach Westen' policy of gorging itself on foreign lands and deporting the inhabitants in violation of everything civilized, just, honorable and human, lowering it's already near bottom standards to that of Nazi racial policies and greater states, something that the USSR's successor states have yet to raise themselves above, with Belarus still celebrating September 17th--the 'official' day of the 4th partition of Poland. Instead of annexing what was simply Ukrainian and Belorussian--about 2/3 of North Bukovina, the northernmost parts of Bessarabia around Khotin, and just over half of Poland 'east of the Curzon Line'--everything was taken. What happened to North Bukovina--where a third of the native Romanian population was murdered or deported between 1940-1959, much like what was done in Eastern Poland (and to a lesser extent Bessarabia, though brainwashing replaced deportation for the most part following WWII, just like with the Bulgarians in Vardar Macedonia), despite the Polish majority in the Wilno region (the western 3/4 of Wilno, northwest 3/5 of Nowogrodek and eastern Bialystok) and the mixed Polish and Pro Polish population of northeastern Galicia (eastern Lwow and all of Tarnopol), the whole region was swallowed by the USSR and purged of it's 3,500,000 Poles, along with the additional 1,200,000 in the USSR and 150,000 in the Baltic States...however by 1950 only 2/7 of the 4,850,000 Eastern Poles remained in their homelands. Likewise, the southwestern most portion of Bessarabia which had a Romanian majority (up to the Tasbunar River) which was likewise eliminated. Prussia1231 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Fantana Alba[edit]

I noted with surprise that the Fântâna Albă massacre in Bucovina (see wikipedia English and Romanian) has not been mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo Mauri (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bukovinan or Bukovinian[edit]

Which is the correct attributive (or adjectival) form of the place name? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ow2do?[edit]

|flag_p1=Flag_of_Moldavia.svg |s1 = Kingdom of Romania |flag_s1= Flag of Romania.svg |flag_s2= Flag of Ukraine.svg last1misin--i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!!>contactme thruMSNpl[sven70=alias (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsions[edit]

After the war the Soviet government deported or killed about 41,000 Romanians.

Presumably, the Soviets also expelled or killed the ethnic German residents, as they did elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Sca (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans of North Bukovina were re-settled by Nazi authorities between 1940-41 much as their counterparts in Eastern Poland, the Baltics and Bessarabia were. Prussia1231 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Breakdown according to the 1930 Romanian census:[edit]

Bukovina:

The above numbers were derived from combining the statistics of the inter-war Romanian counties of Câmpulung, Cernăuți, Rădăuți, Storojineț and Suceava. The Ukrainian total includes 12,437 of the Hutsul regional Ukrainian subgroup, who on their own account for 1.46% of the region's population. Prussia1231 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Bukovina Map from US State Department[edit]

It would appear that this map holds merit to the division of Bukovina in 1940 (and again 1947), both in the ethno-linguistic situation of the time and in what, at least then, the US State Department thought the borders should be, though I'd like to see what others have to say about it. While on the subject of Romania and the border changes of 1940-1947, there is a similar map of Bessarabia.

Source Prussia1231 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bukovina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Bukovina within Ukraine[edit]

the map of Northern Bukovina within Ukraine in teh SU section is pretty useless for people who dont read cyrillic, and after all this is enWP. neither Ukrainian can someone please change the map/ the words in cyrillic letters  ?

Also, its legend is sloppy, like no explanation whhat the yellow shaded part is.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bukovina. 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:

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bukovina. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Name Is WRONG! Please Change The Title![edit]

The name Bukovina is wrong. The right one is Bucovina.I am Romanian and I know this. Please, may you change the title as it may annoy some people. Serbt001.310 (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, plecase note that this Wikipedia written in English, and consequently uses the name most common in English language sources. The Wikipedia written in Romanian indeed uses the name you mention, therefore I see no problem.Anonimu (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality concerns[edit]

Original heading: "Some edits" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haldir Marchwarden, I gave a more careful look at your edits and they have many issues. Maybe the article wasn't neutral before, but it for sure isn't now. I am going to list the issues:

"Then, in the 14th century, Bukovina passed to Hungary. King Louis I of Hungary appointed Dragoș, Voivode of Moldavia as his deputy, facilitating the migration of the Romanians from Maramureș and Transylvania in the territory. Thereafter, Ukrainians and Moldavians cohabited Bukovina, fighting together against invaders and oppressors." First of all, not only Bukovina was under Hungarian control, but also the whole future principality of Moldavia or at least Western Moldavia, which I feel should be mentioned. Also, this part of the text portrays Romanians as late migrants in the region who didn't exist before the 14th century. As I mentioned, this only goes with one of the two main theories of the origin of the Romanians, the other being that of the Daco-Roman continuity (according to which Romanians would also be natives in Bukovina). There's no need to completely change the text but I'd appreciate it if we fixed this issue. Also, after that quote goes the Duchy of Bukovina, completely ignoring Moldavian rule over Bukovina, which I don't see correct.

"the Shypyntsi land" this name uses a transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the region. There's however also a Romanian name. Do we know which one is more common. What name do English sources give to this land?

"Eventually, this state collapsed, and Bukovina passed to Hungary. King Louis I appointed Dragoș, Voivode of Moldavia as his deputy, facilitating the migration of the Romanians from Maramureș and Transylvania." same as in the first point.

"Pokuttia was likewise inhabited by Ruthenians (the predecessors of modern Ukrainians together with the Rus', and of the Rusyns). Further there were the Hutsuls, who also resided in western Bukovina." there also were Romanians. I can give sources if you wish.

"Rumanization" keep in mind the term is Romanianization. Also, the term is mentioned 15 times in the article. Don't you think this is excessive? Why is "Ukrainization" not even mentioned once?

"In the 16th and 17th centuries, Ukrainian warriors (Cossacks) were involved in many conflicts against the Turkish and Tatar invaders of the Moldovian territory. Notably, Ivan Pidkova, best known as the subject of Ukraine's bard Taras Shevchenko's Ivan Pidkova (1840), led military campaigns in the 1570s. Many Bukovinians joined the Cossacks during the Khmelnytsky Uprising. As part of the peasant armies, they formed their own regiment, which participated to the 1648 Siege of Lviv. Ukrainian Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky himself led a campaign in Moldavia, whose result was an alliance between Khmelnytsky and its hospodar Vasile Lupu. Other prominent Ukrainian leaders fighting against the Turks in Moldovia were Severyn Nalyvaiko and Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny." I don't really like this paragraph. It is overly Ukrainian-focused when we are talking about Moldavia. What were the Romanians of Bukovina doing then?

"From the 16th to the 18th centuries, "Bukovina maintained cultural ties with other Ukrainian lands. Moldovian hospodars founded a number of churches in Ukraine, and many natives of Bukovyna studied in Kyiv and Lviv." same here.

The section of "Late 19th to early 20th centuries" (which I renamed to "Rise of nationalism") is quite biased. Specially "The region is quite important to the history of Ukraine. It was occupied early on by Ruthenians; was part of Kievan Rus..."

"Ukrainian national movement" why do we have a section for this, but not for the Romanian national movement...? I also find worrying the lack of even a mention for Josephine colonization, which in my opinion only shows the article has been given an Ukrainian POV.

"In the beginning, Bukovina joined the fledging West Ukrainian National Republic" it was only the north... I am starting to be seriously worried for your edits.

"After passing to Hungary in the 14th century, the Hungarian king appointed Dragoș as his deputy and facilitated the migration of Romanians from Maramureș and Transylvania into Bukovina. Then, a process of Romanianization was carried out in the area." already stated.

"In spite of this, the north of Bukovina managed to remain "solidly Ukrainian." While there exist different views on the ethnic composition of the south, it is accepted that the north of Bukovina remained largely, if not wholly, Ukrainian." yeah...

"The southern, or Romanian Bukovina reportedly has a significant Romanian majority (94.8%) according to Romanian sources" of course...

"However, Ukrainians claim that the number is actually 250,000–300,000, that is four times the number stated by Romanian authorities." I am sorry but this is obviously false. How can half of the population of Suceava County be Ukrainian?

"Romanianization, with the closure of schools and suppression of the language, happened in all areas in present-day Romania where the Ukrainians live or lived. The very term "Ukrainians" was prohibited from the official usage and some Romanians of disputable Ukrainian ethnicity were rather called the "citizens of Romania who forgot their native language" and were forced to change their last names to Romanian-sounding ones." you do a reminder of the interwar policies of the Kingdom of Romania but you didn't do the same with the Soviet oppression of Romanians in the Ukrainian SSR. Why is the closure of Romanian schools in Bukovina and Bessarabia not mentioned anywhere?

This is way worse than I had expected before reading the article. As it stands now, it is unacceptable. I ask for comprehension from your side. What if similar edits had been done in this article, giving huge weight to the Romanians in the region and largely ignoring the Ukrainians? I highly doubt you will attempt to fix this as the problem is really big and would take many hours to fix, so the neutrality issues are either fixed by most likely the removal of content or I'll revert the page to the latest version before you edited. I can wait for days or weeks if you are willing to fix the issues I gave. Super Ψ Dro 10:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super, I don't feel the need to discuss the history of Romanians here as you are doing. If a piece of information has sources and pertains to the article (in this case Bukovina) it goes in it, if it doesn't it doesn't. The article lacked sources. I expanded it citing sources, and marked the unsourced and/or dubious material. Anyway,

a) Here we go, that is what the source(s) say.

b) that's what the source(s) say. c) ditto; d) same (and yes, do it, that's the point).

e) (Rumanization) the article was written from a pro-Romanian stance, (and it still is in those parts). Since I don't believe in deletion (at least not before discussion and voting), I countered the pro-Romanian stance, not with lies, but by emphasising facts.

f) I like it, it has sources and pertains to the article. The fact it was included in the UK Encyclopedia's entry of Bukovina speaks for itself. "What were the Romanians of Bukovina doing then?" Then add it. If it pertains to Bukovina, and you have sources where it is mentioned in the context of Bukovina's history, by all means add it.

g) That is what the source(s) say.

h) what reported in the article, which is what the source(s) say, is probably biased if you are looking at it as a Romanian, from a Romania point of view. The article was written from a pro-Romanian stance. Because, like I said, I don't believe in deleting, instead of removing the pro-Romanian formulae I juxtaposed it to what non-Romanian sources say. I am not Ukrainian, I am not Romanian; I am not Slav, I am not Vlach. And I know for a fact you are Romanian. That says it all. Can you see that maybe you are not the best editor for deciding what is biased and what isn't in this article?

"The region is quite important to the history of Ukraine. It was occupied early on by Ruthenians; was part of Kievan Rus..."; all true, and added to, e.g., in response to The 1871 and 1904 jubilees held at Putna Monastery, near the tomb of Stephen the Great, have constituted tremendous moments for Romanian national identity, without even sources.

i)I am starting to be seriously worried for your edits. I refrained from commenting your editing, even if really liked to; you should've done the same. Also, that is what source(s) say.

l) when? how? in the lead?

m) "In spite of this, the north of Bukovina managed to remain "solidly Ukrainian." While there exist different views on the ethnic composition of the south, it is accepted that the north of Bukovina remained largely, if not wholly, Ukrainian." yeah... , is this irony? That is what the source (Britannica) says. Again, can you see for yourself ifyou are the best editor to decide what's biased and what isn't on this particular topic?

n) exactly

o) I am sorry but this is obviously false, then provide source. Is it false like Siret's demographics (and I barely looked through you guys' edits)?

p) you do a reminder of the interwar policies of the Kingdom of Romania but you didn't do the same with the Soviet oppression of Romanians in the Ukrainian SSR. Why is the closure of Romanian schools in Bukovina and Bessarabia not mentioned anywhere?, I didn't because my purpose here is to undo the pro-Romanian stance of the article. Future editors will read the history of Bukovina from all sources provided and external sources, and then compare the article as it was to as it is. I don't have mentioned those because there was (and is) enough pro-Romanianism. My purpose here was giving a voice to the Ukrainians who seem not to be very active on Wikipedia, or, rather, whose voice was suppressed.

q)What if similar edits had been done in this article, giving huge weight to the Romanians in the region and largely ignoring the Ukrainians this is the kind of hypocrisy that really tingles me. The article was pro-Romanian nationalist garbage. so the neutrality issues are either fixed by most likely the removal of content or I'll revert the page to the latest version before you edited. that would be considered suppression, censorship, Super. Which is definitely not acceptable in wp:en and in the free world. You have doubts? Use templates and do not delete material with sources. Why do you want to suppress the Ukrainians? Why do you want to tell the story only form one side? Why do you want to delete history? Why don't you want to write from a neutral point of view? Why can't you see that you should not decree what's neutral and what's not in this article? I can wait for years to decades to revert your attempt at suppression. I still believe the article is not written from a neutral pov, it being pro-Romanian, so I agree with the template you added.

I believe in fair editing, in a neutral point of view. I look forward to you correcting the pro-Romanian formulae as well as unsourced/dubious material. All that includes, but is not limited to:

"Based on the above anthroponimical estimate for 1774 as well as subsequent official censuses, the ethnic composition of Bukovina changed in the years after 1775 when the Austrian Empire occupied the region.[citation needed][dubious – discuss] "

"Whether the region would have been included in the Moldavian SSR, if the commission presiding over the division had been led by someone other than the Ukrainian communist leader Nikita Khrushchev, remains a matter of debate among scholars.[citation needed]"

" As a result of killings and mass deportations, entire villages, mostly inhabited by Romanians,[citation needed] were abandoned"

". According to official data from those two censuses, the Romanian population had decreased by 75,752 people, and the Jewish population by 46,632, while the Ukrainian and Russian populations increased by 135,161 and 4,322 people, respectively.[citation needed]"

"As reported by Nistor, in 1781 the Austrian authorities had reported that Bukovina's rural population was composed mostly of immigrants, with only about 6,000 of the 23,000 recorded families being "truly Moldavian".[citation needed] " (either removed or Nistor's bias reported)

"The Romanians mostly inhabit the southern part of the Chernivtsi region, having been the majority in former Hertsa Raion and forming a plurality together with Moldovans in former Hlyboka Raion.[citation needed] Self-declared Moldovans were the majority in Novoselytsia Raion. In the other eight districts and the city of Chernivtsi, Ukrainians were the majority.[citation needed] However, after the 2020 administrative reform in Ukraine, all these districts were abolished, and most of the areas merged into Chernivtsi Raion, where Romanians are not in majority anymore.[citation needed]"

This is nothing compared to how the article used to be; to how the how the mention of Ukrainians had been completely neglected, without, just for a stupid example, a single image testifying to their presence; a single image about Ukraine's Bukovina. How the article started (In 1940, the northern half of Bukovina was annexed by the Soviet Union in violation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and currently is part of Ukraine) was even scary, and dangerous to tell the truth; as are many of your edits and articles you created.

You are welcome to edit what you perceive as biased, by providing reliable sources (though I reiterate that I do not think you are the best option for this article); I will counter-edit if it's the case. Just don't remove material anymore, just like I always did--use templates instead! I will now undo your last edit to this page, because you deleted parts of the article. Let's hope for collaboration from some other editors--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry... are you telling me after this huge focus on the Ukrainians you have given the article, constantly reminding of Romanian assimilatory policies and criticizing the censuses the country does, that the article still is pro-Romanian!?
"a) Here we go, that is what the source(s) say." you cannot just add a viewpoint of something controversial when there are more.
"b) that's what the source(s) say." yes, the Historical Dictionary of Ukraine and the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine.
And it simply is pointless to discuss more. You cannot just rewrite an article based entirely on a few Ukrainian sources and change its whole POV. Your actions are highly damaging and I see no immediate possible solution but administrative action. By the way, that I am a Romanian does not affect my participation at articles related to Romania in any way. And I did not "remove sourced content". Super Ψ Dro 12:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haldir Marchwarden, by the way, I invite you to tell me what's so wrong with my edits and the articles I have created. Super Ψ Dro 13:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus You:constantly reminding of Romanian assimilatory policies. The article did and does make such claims:

"Some friction appeared in time between the church hierarchy and the Romanians, complaining that Old Church Slavonic was favored to Romanian, and that family names were being slavicized.[citation needed] "

You: criticizing the censuses the country does; the article did, and does, make such claims:

"The fact that Romanians and Moldovans, a self-declared majority in some regions, were presented as separate categories in the census results, has been criticized by the Romanian Community of Ukraine – Interregional Union, which complains that this old Soviet-era practice, results in the Romanian population being undercounted, as being divided between Romanians and Moldovans."

All with no sources whatsoever, in contrast to my edits. Can you see the hypocrisy of this whole argument? Is it "controversial"? Have you sources for this claim? If so, are there more point of views? Yes? Then, instead of vandalizing pages by removing material, add those other points of view! This has not been done with Ukrainians, the article completing neglecting them, to the point of being ridiculously one-sided, and so pro-Romanian as to even endanger the state of peace. You: "The Historical Dictionary of Ukraine and the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine..." What do you mean by it? Please, be clear when you speak. I remind you that you also scorned Britannica, and I point out that the difference is that the Romanian sources in the article are books by Romanian authors, published by Romanian publishing houses. That, on the other hand, is an entry in a nation's encyclopedia. If we start to question those it's the end.
I don't like to discuss the matter here with you, but what is wrong with your editing is that it's biased and dangerously pro-Romanian. As for the articles you created, for example there was a list of surnames of living Croatian people in the article Ćići, sorted by the place they live (20 to 100 inhabitants' villages), implying they were of Romanian ethnicity. Refrain from removing sourced material, like I did, are you might get be reported.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article mentions Romanians suffered assimilation policies, just like the Ukrainians. I am not opposed to the mention of that, but I repeat: "Rumanization" is mentioned 13 times (+1 Romanianization), Ukrainization is mentioned exactly 0 times. Such a pro-Romanian article. Also, there is a difference between a Romanian minority organization opposing the division of Romanians into Romanians and Moldovans and "Concerns have been raised about the way census are handled in Romania." Such a claim is not present in any source, it comes from you. By the way, I referenced your second quote and added the number the Romanian minority of Ukraine claims to have, without criticizing "the way census are handled in Ukraine". And stop accusing me of "removing content", I haven't done such a thing. "the article completing neglecting them" false. Prior to any of your edits, the article mentioned words starting with "ukrain" 87 times. "What do you mean by it?" that an Ukrainian encyclopedia is not going to show a viewpoint that affects Ukraine or Ukrainians. That doesn't mean there are not more viewpoints. You won't find many Romanian encyclopedias saying Romanians are migrants in... anywhere. Why ignore them and only stick to Ukrainian sources? Why do you expect someone else to do the work you left incomplete?
I don't understand what are you talking about with the article Ćići. The people with those surnames were not said to be Romanians in the article, and I only did one edit there, which is this one [1]. The surnames were there since the article was created in 2014 (I wasn't even an editor then). Super Ψ Dro 17:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your comment at ToBeFree's talk page:
"but you criticized the way I edit, and accused me" I did so after you reverted my wording change and addition of NPOV templates for being "possible vandalism" and because I "removed sourced material". I don't think a friendly answer would be expected to come after such claims. And with demonization of the Romanians I refer again to the repeated mention of Romanianization policies and the lack of mentions to Ukrainianization ones. "What I did was expanding the article on Bukovina, which I perceived as markedly pro-Romanian, completely neglecting the history of Ukrainians in Bukovina (not true) and even making dangerous claims such as that "[Northern Bukovina] currently is part of Ukraine."" I understand this. I agree the article might have been too Romanian-focused, and I 100% agree such was the case in Pokuttia. I don't have complains with your edits there. But what you did here was switch the focus from Romanians to Ukrainians. Why just change the issue when you could have solved it? "I also invite you to expand the article with the Romanians' history, if you think it's being neglected." I'd be doing that already, but realize how many Bukovina-related pages you have edited in the last days. That's just demoralizing. I didn't even see what did you do in the other articles. I don't really feel like spending horus searching for sources just so Romanians and Ukrainians are given the same weight in one article and then go to another. This could be solved by just removing a few parts of this article excessively focusing on the Ukrainians (and they don't have to be completely deleted from Wikipedia, they can be added somewhere else in a more Ukraine-focused page) and changing the wording to be truly neutral. This is what I had expected to achieve when I made my first comment here listing the issues I perceived but I didn't get a reply from you with the intention of doing this. Super Ψ Dro 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus Do you have sources for "Ukrainization" in the region? Most importantly, do you have sources for such a term, "Ukrainization"? So the sources I provided don't mention Ukrainization and it is my fault? But Moldavians do define themselves as such or not? "Concerns have been raised about the way census are handled in Romania." Such a claim is not present in any source, it comes from you. First, you are saying that you searched and read all sources? And second, this is yet another accusation from you, and I perceive it as a breach of Wikipedia's principle of assuming good faith. I haven't done such a thing. "the article completing neglecting them" false, this is a lie, and by saying this you admit that you knew the way the article used to be. The work I left incomplete?? Man, what the heck are you talking about? Why just change the issue when you could have solved it?, because, again, I don't believe in deleting, and if I had done it, you would have undone it. That's just demoralizing. No, sadly it isn't; it's trying to make artices that weren't neutral neutral, and if you can't see this it means you should really refrain from editing such articles. For example, you quickly undone my edit at Petro Mukha's without apparently even consulting the sources. You reiterated your accusation of demonizing Romanians, so I am going to tell you again to please stop making such accusation. You doubted me, Britannica and a nation's encyclopedia. Meanwhile the article lacks sources, and the few it has are from Romanian authors, but not encyclopedic ones. And yet in all this, I keep telling you that whatever you wish to add is fine as long as it has sources, and I invite you again to help improve the article.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here you have a few sources about modern and Soviet-era Ukrainization of Romanians in Ukraine [2] [3] [4] [5]. I don't need a source for the term itself, there's a page about it. "So the sources I provided don't mention Ukrainization and it is my fault?" no, but I repeat, Romanianization is mentioned 14 times, Ukrainization is 0 times, and you claim this article to still be pro-Romanian. "First, you are saying that you searched and read all sources?" no, I checked the next cited source after that statement, which is the Romanian census results. "by saying this you admit that you knew the way the article used to be" I literally just went to this diff and searched how many times was "ukrain" mentioned in the article. "it's trying to make artices that weren't neutral neutral" but it isn't. Undue weight is given to Ukrainians. "You reiterated your accusation of demonizing Romanians" I didn't. I explained the only one I did. Don't point out this much these accussations when you've called my edits "possible vandalism" and "removal of unsourced content". Both of us are guilty here. And I didn't talk about Britannica at any moment. I don't understand why it has to be someone else the one having to fix the issues that your edits may provoke. I'd be willing to do rerewrite this article to fix all the issues I perceive if I counted with your help to leave the article without a single problem but I don't think you'll do this. Super Ψ Dro 19:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and you claim this article to still be pro-Romanian, yes and no: I said that this article has a pro-Romanian "matrix", and that I did not remove the pro-Romanianisms with no sources (except for the dangerous "North Bukovina currently is part of Ukraine) so yeah, in a way; instead, I expanded the article telling the history of Ukrainians in the region; which hadn't been done in this article. Yes, you did, but now you say you didn't. You: "[citing text and adjective from Britannica] In spite of this, the north of Bukovina managed to remain "solidly Ukrainian." While there exist different views on the ethnic composition of the south, it is accepted that the north of Bukovina remained largely, if not wholly, Ukrainian." yeah... . I consider removal of unsourced content with no reason vandalism; however, I already admitted that it was a mistake, as I did here. I admit my own mistakes, and I usually don't get into disputes regarding something I'm bond to because I know I'd be crooked when discussing it. . I don't understand why it has to be someone else the one having to fix the issues that your edits may provoke; again, what the heck are you talking about man? I'd be willing to do rerewrite this article to fix all the issues I perceive if I counted with your help to leave the article without a single problem but I don't think you'll do this. That is not the best solution. I do take pride in having contributed to this article, I like the way it looks, and I didn't think it should be written by Ukrainians or Romanians in the first place. Look, I will reiterate what I already said: instead of doing all this mess, you are free to expand the article by further expanding on the Romanians' history in the region; you are free to contest my additions when they don't have sources, the sources are not reliable or whatever other reason it may be, just use templates. I didn't delete, or rewrite, the work done by yourself and other editors, which, just like you do, I perceived as markedly pro-Romanian, so why do you want do delete or rewrite my work?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, this land was inhabited before this conquest and you are now making the correct historical references. Please add the ramanians and dacians into this as the continuing land inhabitants that they are. This is not a company and you only speak of the last owner. It's a country with rich history that academia is trying to ignore. Truth always comes on top. Do the right thing! 65.94.232.137 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Europe defined[edit]

If it's west of the Bug or the Dniestr, it cannot be in Eastern Europe, which begins with the Urals and the Volga. The Iron Curtain split Central Europe it did not redefine its history or geography. Athanasius V (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? Traditionally, eastern Europe meant Poland, Czech/Slovakia, Hungary, the Balkans, the Baltic states and Ukraine-Russia .... 50.111.39.61 (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories