Jump to content

Talk:Budjak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jmabel (talk | contribs) at 08:39, 10 January 2006 (→‎Ethnic composition: pseudo sig). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdangiusca (talk • contribs) 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Requested move

See talk above.

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

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)[reply]


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:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantzeanu (talk • contribs) 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Budjak&oldid=34597088"