Talk:Budjak

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)

—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)[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 ~~~~

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

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:

Constantzeanu 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[End copied material]

Cyrillic

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

[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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

The English name of the river is Dniester River and not Dnister
"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
"Romanians (Moldavians)" category contradicts to the census data. Ukrainian citizens of the area self-identified as Moldovans and not "Romanians (Moldovans)". Census data is available online. No serious allegation of census irregularities were reported.
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.[1]. 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)[reply]

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

partially true:

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

2) not all identified themselves as Moldovans, since 750 identified themselves as Romanians

"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.

But:

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

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

4. "Table again creates an etnicity named "Moldovans (Romanians)" while in Ukrainian census on which the table is bases such etnicity is called Moldovans. "

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).

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

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?

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?

There is one more problem with Moldovan/Moldavian, because the first means citizen of Moldova, while the second means person of Romanian ethnicity from the teritorry of the (Principality of) Moldavia. The problem is only in English, other languages have only one term. Usinm "M(M)+R", it would avoid this issue, and all the "problems" associated with using one word separately as an ethnic designation.

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:

"Also, 750 people leaving in Budjak have identified themselves as Romanians, counted at "Others" in the above table. Moldavian / Romanian community from the region claims they are a single ethnicity."

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.