Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bogdangiusca (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 10 April 2006 (→Early history of Khotin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Feb 2005 talk

it has been in Turkish possession by the 17th century.

It was a Moldavian possession, while Moldavia was under the suzeranity of the Ottomans, so it had Moldavian administration, not Turkish.

Some 11000 cilvilians are estimated to have been killed during the massacre instigated by Romanian authorities.

I'd like a reference on this figure. Also, the article did not mentioned that this was staged by the Soviet Army... user:Bogdangiusca 21:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My source is the Great Russian Encyclopedia, as reproduced at http://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/119/731.htm Ghirlandajo 06:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My source is the book Bessarabia, by Charles Upson Clark, New York, 1927.

This last organization acted precipitately and without warning the Central Committee; after a distribution of manifestoes early in January 1919, armed bands were sent in from Podolia at midnight Jan. 10, O.S., and it took ten days' fighting and the death of Gen. Stan Poetash before the invaders were driven back and the local Bolshevist uprising quelled.

And I believe that is more accurate than a propaganda-filled Soviet encyclopedia. Bogdan | Talk 08:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union didn't exist in 1919;

Sorry, I meant the Bolsheviks, not the Soviets.

leave the Ukrainian history to the Ukes)

That is also Romanian history. Bogdan | Talk 08:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Leave Ukrainian history to Ukes?

HAHAHA! Hotin was a possetion of the Romanian principality of Moldova until the Austro-Hungarians took it, so I would very much say that Hotin is part of Romanian history, not Ukrainian! (unsigned by anon)

Battle of Chocim

Shouldn't this battle have its own article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting in Bukovina

On 28 November 1918, in Cernăuţi, the General Congress of Bukovina voted for the union of Bukovina with Romania.

I couln't find anywhere how representative was this body, but it did vote for the union. Anyway, I supposed that at least the Romanians, the Germans and part of the Jews (they were an important minority in Bukovina) would have voted for. bogdan 23:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I responded to this at Talk:Bukovina#Declaration_of_Union. --Irpen 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanian annexation of Khotin

Why did you revert the part where it said that the Romanians of Bukovina voted to reunite with Romania? That's not a POV, is it? It's a fact, correct? Why did you remove that part? --Anittas 11:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In mainstream history, this event is described as annexation. If you think there was some sort of plebiscite, you are free to provide your refs. --Ghirla | talk 11:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What mainstream history? The Soviet history that also said that we annexed Basarabia, where in fact they voted to reunite with Romania? Do not remove non-POVs again! It is a fact that the Romanians of Bukovina voted to reunite with Romania and we have the right to write that! --Anittas 11:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation of events is highly disputable. There is no need to dissimulate Romanian imperialism. You should provide valid English-language authorities if you want your allegations to be mentioned in the text. Take care, this is not a cheap Romanian prop booklet but an international encyclopedia. --Ghirla | talk 11:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You are insultive. Romanian Imperialism? Cheap Romanian prop booklet? Please remove yourself from this article. If you go against a fact that is not disputed, then you got issues. Allegations? What allegations? I make no allegations. --Anittas 11:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Provide references for your allegation and stop trolling, or you will be reported. --Ghirla | talk 11:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ghirlandajo! This is a content dispute, not vandalism or trolling. I'm not yet endorsing any point of view because I don't know enough about this issue (history tends to be double-sided, always), but saying things like "take care, this is not a cheap Romanian prop booklet" is insulting and not constructive at all. I don't think Anittas' edits have been aggressive or tendentious at this article. If anything, your attitude and edit summaries have been more aggressive and less civil then Anittas'. This is simply a (quite minor) content dispute from two sides, as tends to happen in cases like these. So please, treat each other nicely. Ronline ✉ 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ronline, I welcome the attention of more reasonable Romanian editors to this article. Please note, that my edit was reverted without any discussion and than rereverted 3 or 4 times. People do get annoyed in content disputes and sometimes this reaches talk but reverting the disliked edit without discussion and references or with bad-faith explanations (like "Britannica is not a valid reference") has become a custom in several article on contentious between UA/RO topics. Saying "your sources is propaganda" is mutual at least. For more, I invite you to read recent talk:Bukovina and comment on some editors' discussion style. If I know what trolling is, talk:Bukovina is a good example. More eyes to check these disputes are always welcome but calls in this form are unhelpful. --Irpen 02:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I didn't involve myself in the dispute - I was just making a point that Ghirla's attitudes did not conform to WP:CIVIL, referring only to this article, not Bukovina, but I will inform myself about the dispute over there as well. For Khotyn, I think what we need to is this: look at the two versions that are constantly being reverted back and forth, and pick out the particular sentences of contention, and then try to either 1) make them more neutral or 2) back them up with sources. I think the dispute is centred on:

• Was Khotyn annexed or did it vote for unification?
• Which of the below is correct:

In my opinion, the version to the left makes a lot of judgement calls. It claims that there was a Romanian oppression and that the uprising was brutally suprpressed. This is in not NPOV. On the other hand, the statement to the right talks about the defeat of the Bolsheviks (was this not a civil uprising?) and as simple insurrection against the Romanians, when it was an uprising. So, both forms are POV, even though the one to the right makes less judgements.

I propose saying either of the two below:

My first version is, I would say, more Ukrainian POV, the second one is move Romanian POV, however, both are broadly NPOV in their language, since they don't make any judgement calls.

Now, in comparison to disputes like Moldovan language, this is a very minor dispute, about two sentences are in dispute. So, it should be worked out quite easily. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I vote for the former version. Also, Ronline, since you recalled your admin duties here, please pay attention to the doings of your compatriots on the Romanian noticeboard, such as their regular postings in Romanian and persistent deletion of my admonitions to speak in English accompanied with a summary "we don't need it here". --Ghirla | talk 08:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirla, as you probably know, I am a free speech advocate. For that reason, I think it's that what Anittas did (posting on the RO notice board) is OK, but that you also have the right to make any comments. For that reason, I made sure your comments were included. Now, onto the actual content: so you support this version - "The Ukrainian population rebelled against the Romanian occupation of the city (see Khotyn uprising). The uprising was, however, defeated by the Romanian Army within a month." OK, I suppose it should be inserted in then. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have changed to:

The Ukrainian population rebelled against the Romanian annexation (this sounds most neutral) of the city (see Khotyn uprising). The uprising was, however, defeated by the Romanian Army within a month. This is still a preliminary version and one that is, IMO, still slightly biased towards a Ukrainian POV. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I have temporarily protected this page to deal with the mind-boggling edit warring that has been taking place here. Please discuss your changes on the talk pages rather than reverting; uncivil edit summaries aren't that productive either. I urge you to consider Mediation or another form of dispute resolution. If you have reached agreement or want the page unprotecting, please post a request on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection or ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Izehar 11:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page, since I think that the dispute wasn't significant enough to affect the article in a generalised way (I was surprised that the source of dispute was basically one statement). For this reason, if reverting goes on, 3RR should be applied (i.e. blocking) and not page protection. Ronline ✉ 08:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Early history of Khotin

Khotyn was founded as an ancient fortified settlement located on cliffs above the Dniester, and is said to have been named after Kotizon, a 3rd-century Dacian chieftain. By the 10th century, it had become a minor settlement of the Kievan Rus. It later became part of the Principality of Halych and its successor, Halych-Volhynia. The town became an important trading center due to its position as a river crossing and by the 13th century became the site of a Genoese trading colony. Khotyn's famous castle was built by the Genoese and expanded by subsequent rulers.

where does all this info come from. Khotin was first mentioned in that 14th century List of Russian cities as a romanian and bulgarian minor town. If you can't source the info about Kievan/Halychian/Genoese rule, please remove it. Also where the z from Kotizo dissapeared if it really was named after him. I think the theory that claims it was named after the 13th century Cuman chieftain Kuthen/Kothen is more logical. Anonimu 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's quite clear that Khotyn has absolutely nothing with Kotizo, it's just wishful thinking. If it were passed from Ancient times on to Romanian, it would have a peculiar form of "Cuţez" or something like that. :-) bogdan 14:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)