Talk:Bessarabia Governorate

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bessarabia in the Russian Empire → Bessarabia Governorate — All exising articles for the Governorates of the Russian Empire have titles indicating the name of the Gorverorate, regardless of the changes which occured after 1917. There is no reason to have a separate rule for the Bessarabia Governorate.Afil (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) —Afil (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose, most of the time (between 1812–1871), it was an oblast, not a governorate. This article is about both periods. bogdan (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bogdan and because the article is about more than just the governorate - for instance it deals with Southern Bessarabia when it was part of Romania. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, although some of the information (not pertaining to the Governorate) will need to be split into separate articles.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't a split be rather counterproductive? We have a fairly complete picture of the subject neatly presented - why not keep it that way instead of forking off little bits thereof? Biruitorul ^Talk 02:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There is nothing preventing us from creating separate, detailed articles, and keeping this one as a general overview.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Dear Biruitorul, I am sure you are aware that the article we are discussing is far from presenting a complete picture of the subject. It presents nothing about the administrative division of the Governorate, it completely ignores the various governors and their policies. It does not present the links between Bessarabia and Moldova, for instance the position of the Governor of Bessarabia during the 1821 revolution - which actually was completely different from the policy of Moscow. It says very little about the demografic changes which took place in that period and which were significant - the data of the 1897 census raise questions: who were the missing 14% of the population who are unaccounted for. What about the Turkish population of Bessarabia - how come they could justify an autonomous region in today's Republic of Moldova, if they never existed in the Governorate of Bessarabia? (This does not include the Turkish population of southern Bessarabia). It does not present any data on the economy of Bessarabia during the The lack of such information does not explain why, after 1940, the southern part of Bessarabia was not incorporated into the Soviet Republic of Moldova but into the Ucraine. The article indicates that until 1905 there was no Moldovan political party, which is correct. However, according to the statistics presented in the article, the Moldovans represented only about 50% of the population. Before that there were other political parties active in Bessarabia, in which both Moldovans and other nationalities participated, which are completely ignored. This distorts the reality, creating the impression that the Moldovans were politically inactive. The history is not presented correctly either. On December 28, 1917 Bessarabia declared its independence from Russia and the Moldovan Democratic Republic was created. On March 27, 1918 the parliament of the new republic voted the unification with Romania. This is not reflected in the article. If according to the article political life started in Moldova only in 1905, can you really claim that the article is neat. There are many more to be said about the contents of the article. However the issue I raised was exclusively the one ot the title of the article, not of the contents. Therefore the proposal of splitting the article would make sense.Afil (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

        Dear Afil, those are fair points. Ultimately the title is not as important as the content, and clearly there is much content still to be added. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While I believe the fact that the article is still lacking a lot of things, this has nothing to do with the article title.

About the missing 14%: those were Gagauz and Bulgarians, who moved from Bulgaria in 19th century. bogdan (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The question about the missing 14% was only rethorical, to indicate that the information in the article was not complete. You are right in your statement that the fact that the article is lacking a lot of things has nothing to do with the title. I was only responding to the statement that the article is fairly complete, which it is not. What I am worried about is that if we accept an article about Bessarabia in the Russian Empire, we could have another article about Bessarabia in Romania or Bessarabia under Romanian rule. Just to play the role of the Devil's advocate, somebody could easily state that Bessarabia - defined as the territory between the Prut and Dniester Rivers did not exist before 1812. Since 1812 it has been most of the time under Russian rule except for 26 years from 1918 to 1944 and even the name of the territory has been given by the Russians and has been contested by Romanian historians a being incorrect. Therefore, somebody could claim that an article about what happened in the province in this interval be called "Bessarabia under Romanian rule" or something similar. While the subject of what happened in Bessarabia from 1918 to 1944 could justify a separate article, I would definitely not like such a title. Therefore the title of Bessarabia in the Russian Empire should also be avoided in order to avoid a dangerous precedent.Afil (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nomination — this is standard format for Russian governorates, even if they have changed status or name during their history. for example the Lithuania-Grodno Governorate is included in the Grodno Governorate article, Reval Governorate in Governorate of Estonia, and Kiev Viceroyalty in Kiev Governorate, &c. Both the Romanian and Russian articles on this topic also use the format of "Bessarabia Governorate" so there doesn't appear a linguistic or national bias either. One of the other arguments against a move, that the article "deals with Southern Bessarabia when it was part of Romania," doesn't support "Bessarabia in the Russian Empire, the current title, either. — AjaxSmack 04:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support For the standardization of the presentation of Russian governorates and for arguments presented above.Afil (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - per Ezhiki. If there is information on other territories/periods, it should be split to other articles. You might want to think about article History of Besarabia (for the years it was within the Empire). Renata (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment I have difficulties in understanding the objections, when both in the Russian and the Romanian wikipedias the titles of the articles refer to the Governorate of Bessarabia. As far as Bogdangiusca's suggestion is concerned, I don't think that changing the title to Bessarabia Oblast makes much sense. Many Russian regions were first oblasts and then gubernii. However in many cases the head of the oblasts had the titles of governors - this is the case also for Bessarabia. The title " Bessarabia in the Russian Empire" does not make sense as when Bessarabia was part of the Russian Empire it was first an oblast and then a Governorate. There should be some consistency in Wikipedia. For instance, when Finland was part of the Russian Empire it was called the Grand Duchy of Finland - which is, correctly, the title of the article, not Finland in the Russian Empire. None of the discussions indicate why Bessarabia had to be treated differently from articles regarding other parts of the Russian Empire. Not liking the Russian occupation of Bessarabia is not an argument concerning the title of the article. Afil (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Judet-Tinut

1. Where does Judet come from? It's not in the statute...

1. "Judeţ" and "ţinut" are basically synonyms from a historical point-of-view. I think "judeţ" was more often used in Wallachia and "ţinut" in Moldavia. Another term often used was "ţară" (as in "ţara Vrancei"). bogdan (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

   [1] The part I copied from Russian (1818) uses both words tinut and judet. Dc76\^talk 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

   tara has a different meaning: in medieval Moldova it was "Tara Vrancei" but "Tinutul Putnei". So, it was officially Putna (from the name of the river), but traditionally (pre 15th century I suppose) Vrancea (from the mountains). This is why there are so many "tara" in Transylvania, and only "Tara Moldovei" and "Tara Sipenitului" east of Carpathians. So, indeed perhaps "tara" orginates from Transylvania, "tinut" from Moldavia and "judet" from Wallachia. But that's just my supposition. Dc76\^talk 01:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Like many things in two different countries, Moldavia's and Wallachia's districts had different names.In Wallachia they were called "judete". In Moldova they were called "tinuturi": in Transpruthan Moldavia until 1864 when the Wallachian system was imposed and the traditional Moldavian system eliminated (see here a confirmation), and in Cispruthan Moldavia (system extended by Russians in all of Bessarabia) until the Romanian annexation. And the 1818 Charter mentions no "judet", unless that's a way of transliterating "уезд" (???). And also, I could find no mention of "county" referring to Bessarabian districtsXasha (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While Xasha's choice of words may have been unhelpful, he is correct in that the 1818 document you're citing does not use the word "judet" (жудец) at all. If "tinut" is the correct local word to describe the districts, then why mention the Wallachian one? --Illythr (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

2. That's a bad idea. Now it looks like the districts are not named after their main towns, but some other ones. I don't think using contemporary names (used in 1800s) is a problem when the only difference is minor spelling or diacritics. Those where the difference is more pronounced can be mentioned in parentheses nearby (I really don't like slashes)

1. Now it looks like the districts are not named after their main towns -- Yes, it's a problem.

   using contemporary names (used in 1800s) - those names were in Russian as well as in Romanian, not only in Russian.

   What alternatives do we have to slashes, brackets? If brackets, I agree to use Russian name (Romanian name). Dc76\^talk 01:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

   According to WP:NCGN "If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context.". Britannica 1911 does seem to be a representative source for that specific context. So probably the names used by it should be present, with the name of the centre used by Moldovans presented in parentheses after the official name) Xasha (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, that's more or less the idea. After all, the local language was official in the region for a while... --Illythr (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

3. What's up with the number of the districts? Is it 9,8 or 6? --Illythr (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends when you count them. In 1814, after the Ottoman rajas and the Tatar Causeni khanate were dissolved they were 9, in 1817 8, in 1818 6, sometime after 1830 8 again, then in 1857 7, then 8 again in 1878.Xasha (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I guess the solution would be to specify the time frame of each one. Or where there several ones? --Illythr (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I propose to move Bessarabia Governorate to Governorate of Bessarabia. In Russian, and in Romanian (the official languages at the time), the name was Governorate of Bessarabia. The Russian name can be translated as "Governorate of Bessarabia", but equally as "Bessarabian Governorate", but never as the current title. It fits with other names of Russian Governorates in WP: "X Governorate" and "Governorate of X" are both used, depending on which better expresses the meaning in Russian. The same should be here. "X Governorate" is used mostly (almost exclusively) for the cases where X is a city, which is not the case here. Dc76\^talk 09:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bessarabia Governorate. 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/20080719202420/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Bessarabia to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Bessarabia

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)