Talk:Moldova/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Moldovan interwiki

We must keep in mind that although Moldovan = the Romanian language, the Moldovan Wikipedia still exists (it was never deleted). Removing interwikis is generally not a good idea. —Khoikhoi 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

...but in some cases it might be a great idea, for example in this case. Look what http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page says. That is an aborted project that doesn't follow official writing system of Moldova. Keep in mind that mo.wikipedia.org is not "Wikipedia in Moldovan language" because Moldovan language doesn't use Cyrillic alphabet anymore. I'm sure we can have Wikipedia in bork bork bork language, but just because we can it doesn't mean we should. -- AdrianTM 01:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Moldovan Wikipedia was truely aborted, we wouldn't see new edits there all the time. Also, Moldovan Cyrillic is still used in Transnistria, so that is somewhere. —Khoikhoi 01:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria is not a recognized country, I could declare a country in my home and start to write English with Cyrillic alphabet, that doens't allow me to have a separate Wikipedia, does it? Whenever if ever is recognized, it would be OK to have its own Wikipedia in Transnistrian or whatever language they desire. -- AdrianTM 01:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever say it was a recognized country? Also, the criteria to have Wikipedias in certain languages is not "if a certain country exists". We have the Tatar Wikipedia, for example. Again Adrian, there was never any consensus to close the Moldovan Wikipedia on meta. It was not locked, people still edit it dispute what it says on the main page. Therefore, it exists, whether you disagree with that or not, interwikis to valid articles should never be removed. —Khoikhoi 01:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My problem is not that such page or wiki exist, my problem is that this page masquerade as "Moldovan" when the official language in Moldova is not written with Cyrillic characters. By only it's existence with "mo" in the header it constitutes as a strong POV kind of thing that shouldn't be accepted. I will not accept this masquerade on this site, if you have other standards than it's your problem. I don't know much about "Täwge_Bit" but I assume it is not just a masquerade of another language (if it is it should not be allowed either). -- AdrianTM 02:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the Moldovan Wikipedia exists, and that it's not locked. Do you agree? —Khoikhoi 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

On the main page of mo.wikipedia.org says "editing of pages in this Wikipedia is interrupted till its future will be decided, please visit ro.wikipedia.org" that doesn't sound like a living project. The presence of the link to mo.wikipedia.org on this site tantamounts to a POV as I already argued. -- AdrianTM 02:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The main page is inaccurate however, the Moldovan Wikipedia is not locked, you can see for yourself from the Recent Changes page. As for your second point, that would be a reason to delete the Moldovan Wikipedia, something that hasn't succeeded thus far. —Khoikhoi 02:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's inaccurate why don't you correct it? To me it looks like editing has to stop till a decision is taken. As for deletion I'm sure it's probably harder to obtain, but since I can prove it's POV (it's called "mo" and "Молдовеняскэ" which is incorrect because the language uses different alphabet) therefore it doesn't have a place in this page. Do you have arguments that's not POV pushing? (actually the argument that you present that is used in the separatist region comes as a confirmation that's POV, we should use the official language not some artificial and not recognized constructs that try to push POV). -- AdrianTM 03:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, it's rather pointless to discuss right now whether mo.wiki should be deleted or not. The issue is if we should add interwikis to another language Wikipedia. Since it exists, and is also slighly active, we should include the interwiki. I've seen Wikipedias that less active than the Moldovan Wikipedia. Anyways, if you can get mo.wiki deleted, you can remove the interwiki. Since it hasn't been deleted yet, it should stay. —Khoikhoi 05:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if mo.wikipedia was not deleted yet, I fail to find any arguments in your posts that this is not POV pushing. There is no "mo:Молдовеняскэ" language written with Cyrillic characters, the official language uses Latin characters, that's only used in a separatist region, adopting the position of a separatist region over the official position about the usage of a language is clear POV pushing. -- AdrianTM 06:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're basically telling me that we should remove an interwiki because you don't like it. Suppose I don't like the Cherokee article about Moldova—should I remove that too? Does the Moldovan Wikipedia exist? Yes? Is it active? Yes. Is mo:Република Молдова about Moldova? Yes! These are the only questions that need to be answered. Any other arguments regarding mo.wiki iself can be directed towards meta. —Khoikhoi 06:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You still didn't explain me why that text on the first page of http://mo.wikipedia.org that's one thing, the second thing is that I don't control other pages and I don't write policy, but I provided arguments why this link is POV and you and nobody else provided any contra-argument (except that the page exists -- that's not a valid argument that that link isn't POV pushing) so please provide arguments not links to Cherokee pages, from what I know there's no Cherokee separatism in Moldova. And please don't tell me that official usage of language in Moldova is POV pushing... or "my" opinion. It's the official use vs. some marginal separatist POV pushing. -- AdrianTM 06:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's your explanation: the Romanian Wikipedians voted at mo.wiki to lock it, and then they went to meta to get the final decision. However, there was no consensus there, which is why it's still editable. Again, you're making arguments about the Moldovan Wikipedia in general, not this specific link. For crying out loud, we even have a Klingon Wikipedia! However, we link to that Wikipedia as well. Do you have any arguments why we shouldn't link to an existant Wikipedia? —Khoikhoi 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not aware of any Klingon secessionists in Moldova. -- AdrianTM 17:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I know at least one. ;-) —Khoikhoi 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL -- AdrianTM 17:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I lol'd. --Node 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

But seriously folks -- the result pretty much from the only truly international vote on the matter yielded absolutely no consensus. All it really showed is that most of Russia believes it should be kept, most of Romania believes it shouldn't, and most of Moldova is either too busy working for pennies a day or too busy reading Russian-language websites to weigh in at all. The main page is in its current state because the admin at that Wikipedia, due to a flashmob RFA by Romanians, is a Romanian in Bucharest. And Khoikhoi, it may be worth noting that Bonaparte, who has found that mo.wp is the only Wiki where he isn't yet blocked, not only continues to vandalise, but has accused various users of being you. I think that's pretty cool. You should be proud -- if he hates you that much, you must be pretty good at NPOV. He once said to some user "vandalul coicoiana cine esti?" ("who are you the Khoikhoian vandal?") --Node 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting situation, the decision is locked because of POV of Russians and Romanians, wouldn't be nice if we'd just follow the official position of Moldova? That's what we do in this page regarding many things... Interesting to know how does Wikipedia treat American English vs. British English for example, does it follow the official policies? -- AdrianTM 15:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As previously noted, Adrian, no one language belongs to any single country. In the most recent censuses, many thousands of people in Ukraine and Belarus and Russia claimed to have Moldovan as their native language. Also, when it comes to real life, what is official is often irrelevant. Is Tatar written officially in Latin script at national level in Russia? No, but in Tatarstan Latin script is used, and thus the Tatar WP is in Latin. Likewise, it is the opinion of PMH that what RM calls "Moldovan" is merely Romanian, and that real Moldovan is written in Cyrillic. In all practicality, this makes a lot of sense -- if we were to write Moldovan in Latin, there would be much less need for a separate Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.68.181 (talk • contribs)

Tatarstan is a republic, "PMH" is a separatist region there's were the difference lies. I understand having Wikipedia sections for republics and official entities that have different national languages and writing systems, I fail to see why we should have sections for separatist regions. Moreover the problem is exactly because "the opinion of PMH that what RM calls "Moldovan" is merely Romanian, and that real Moldovan is written in Cyrillic" that is a clear POV, Wikipedia should just use the official definition of "Moldovan" not the definition promoted by separatists. -- AdrianTM 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As noted previously, Wikipedia has no sections for countries or regions or other political entities. Wikipedia versions are for languages only. Governments may be able to regulate language usage within their borders, but they have no power to dictate anything about the language beyond that. Languages are entities in and of themselves. What's relevant here is that a substantial number of people use Cyrillic to write this language, not what any particular government may declare about the language. "Moldovan" is also, according to census results, spoken in Ukraine, Russian, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, and in all of these locations (with the possible exception of Kazakhstan and of some border regions in Ukraine), the majority of ethnic Moldovans in former USSR countries besides Moldova, still use Cyrillic to write their language. Also, in PMH, there are newspapers published in Cyrillic. Do some people claim to write "Moldovan" in Latin letters? Yes, certainly. However, as of yet, none of these people have shown up demanding space at Wikipedia, they seem to have chosen instead to use the Romanian Wikipedia. If such a request were to be made, the current situation would have to be re"evaluated.

Also, your charge that "that is a clear POV" is clearly flawed. Yes, the view of the government is PMH government is certainly POV, but your statement implies that the laws and views of RM are somehow neutral, which is certainly not the case. Both are non-neutral parties. --Node

It's not POV, it's official usage of the language. Not respecting the official use of the language and claiming that the language should be written one way or another is POV. From what I understand the official form has priority in Wikipedia (otherwise we'd call the language spoken in Moldova "Romanian" disregarding the official name). What's even worse is that the alternative non-official way of writing hijacks the name of the language. How would someone feel if when they click on "English" link they would get the Wikipedia page written in English with Cyrillic characters? (of course it would be even worse if there were some separatists in UK or USA who use that kind of writing). -- AdrianTM 02:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow!!!

That's almost funny, alomost 100 pages of sockpuppets

• Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Bonaparte
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonaparte

-- AdrianTM 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why he ain't comin' back. :-) Khoikhoi 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish there were other people with that much desire to edit Wikipedia -- AdrianTM 04:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean edit in a positive, constructive way with respect towards differing opinions, then I can only agree. Otherwise, we also have that X on Wheels guy, Rovoam etc ad nauseam... --Illythr 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(please enable irony detector ;-) -- AdrianTM 15:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fully functional. It's the emitter part, that is a bit out of phase... ;-) --Illythr 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that it is an affront to God Himself that he is actually appealing while vandalizing. Dahn 04:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

100 pages of sockpuppets would be 100 sockpuppets * 200 sockpuppets/page = 20,000 sockpuppets. He's not quite there yet. Biruitorul 06:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, those sockpuppets will be read as the greatest novel ever written. Dahn 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You can add User:Eliade. Nevermind.   /FunkyFly.talk_  06:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Adrian has likely meant ~100 user pages...--Illythr 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always been curious: how do you decide an IP is somebody's sockpuppet? And who decides someone is a suspected sock? Can I do it? Dpotop 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Behavior patterns. Bonaparte, for example, always does the same things. Over and over and over... --Illythr 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I guees there might be some errors in the process, but hey, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... -- AdrianTM 15:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's sometimes done using CheckUser – for 24-48 hours after a logged-in user edits a page, a subset of admins can check the IP they used. Compare that against the not-logged-in edits, and you get compelling evidence. You can go further by investigating whether those are fixed IPs, or how many ISP users share them, for example, and where they physically are, and draw your conclusions. Anyway, as for "can I do it" – probably not, but you can request help in serious cases, and the appropriate admins may help you (if they feel like it...) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, is it possible that Bonaparte uses some kind of vandalbot to do his thing? He must be mental to do all this by hand every time... Seriously mental. --Illythr 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He has at least one devoted fan.[1] Maybe it is time for him to start a fanclub... Alex Bakharev had to lock the page[2], due to the actions of this overly enthusiastic Bonaparte-follower.[3] - Mauco 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well, I guess Bonaparte really does go the extra mile without being asked... :-) --Illythr 10:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte had greatly contributed to Wikipedia. He has a significant edit history. What is the story, why he was banned? EvilAlex 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumably he had enemies in high places.--Tekleni 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well... Khoikhoi 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

May I ask if this is the talk page of the article "Moldova" or the talk page of the article "Bonaparte"? Probabily we should create an article in Wikipedia about Bonaparte, in the category "Famous Wikipedians" and, of course, a disambiguisation page, to avoid confusion with the less known Corsican Bonaparte.--MariusM 23:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather deny that. ;-) Khoikhoi 01:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Basescu's plan to unite Moldova with Romania

Basescu Plan: Actions supporting unification with Romania held in Chisinau Read it in Russian On October 29, Moldovan citizens gathered in Chisinau to support the initiative by Romania’s President Traian Basescu, according to which the Republic of Moldova would join the European Union on January 1, 2007 together with Romania. As a REGNUM correspondent reports, the action was initiated by Moldova’s Unionist Movement. According to the organizers, the action is aimed at showing that Romanians of the Republic of Moldova support the initiative by the Romanian president. Participants of the action spoke against “refusal of Moldova’s President Vladimir Voronin to adopt the proposal by the Romanian president to unify the two Romanian countries and joint entering the European Union.” The action started with singing “Awaken Thee, Romanian!” anthem. Overall, about 1,000 people participated in the action. The initiators threatened that if Moldovan authorities would not lend an ear to their voices, on December 3, 2006, a more scaled action will be staged, after which claims for resignation of the parliament, the government and President Voronin will continue non-stop. As REGNUM informed earlier, on July 1, at an official palace Kotrochen, Romanian president proposed to Moldavia reunification of the two countries in the framework of the EU. “Romania has proposed to Republic of Moldova, the head of Moldavian state, an option to join the EU together with us. However, the decision is to be taken by the Chisinau authorities and the people of the Republic of Moldova,” President Traian Basescu said. “Romania still remains divided in two countries; however, the Romanian-Moldavian unification will take place within the European Union and in no other way.” Also, the head of Romanian state stressed that Romania is “the only country, the only people, which remained divided after reunification of Germany.” http://www.regnum.ru/english/730646.html

Which would be news to the Koreans and Cypriots. - Jmabel | Talk 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel is right since the Korean people are divided into North and South, and the Greek people still remain divided in two countries (Greece and Cyprus), also the Chinese are divided with Taiwan. There seem to be some similarities with Cyprus and Moldova, since both are/were prevented to unite with their mother countries, because of their respective minorities (Turks and Russians).--Waterfall999 12:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And the British of course. Sadly, the British Isles are still divided since the 1920s! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.186.214 (talk • contribs) November 25, 2006.

Not to mention Gondwanaland, which has been divided even longer, but what is your point? I don't think anyone—even at the height of the British Empire—considered the British Isles a single nation. It was "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", not exactly a name suggestive of a single nation state. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

В Кишиневе прошло собрание граждан в поддержку "плана Бэсеску" о воссоединении Румынии с Молдавией Read in English 29 октября в молдавской столице прошло собрание граждан Молдавии в поддержку инициативы президента Румынии Траяна Бэсеску о вступлении Республики Молдова вместе с Румынией 1 января 2007 года в Евросоюз. Как передает корреспондент ИА REGNUM, акция была организована Унионистским движением Молдовы. По словам организаторов, мероприятие было призвано показать, что румыны Республики Молдова поддерживают инициативу президента Румынии. Собравшиеся выступили против "отказа президента Молдавии Владимира Воронина принять предложение президента Бэсеску об объединении двух румынских государств и совместном вступлении в ЕС". Само собрание началось исполнением гимна "Вставай, румын!" Всего в акции приняли участие около 1000 человек. Организаторы пригрозили, что, если молдавские власти не прислушаются к их голосу, 3 декабря 2006 г. будет организована более масштабная акция, после чего протесты с требованиями отставки в полном составе парламента, правительства и президента Воронина продолжатся в режиме "нон-стоп". Как уже сообщало ИА REGNUM, 1 июля на приеме в президентском Дворце Котрочень президент Румынии предложил Молдавии воссоединение двух государств в рамках ЕС. "Румыния предложила Республике Молдова, главе молдавского государства, вариант войти вместе с нами в ЕС. Однако, что будет сделано - зависит от кишиневских властей и народа Республики Молдова, - сказал Траян Бэсеску. - Румыния все еще остается разделенной на две страны, однако румыно-молдавское объединение будет иметь место внутри Европейского союза и никак не иначе". Глава румынского государства также отметил, что Румыния - "единственная страна, единственный народ, оставшийся разделенным после воссоединения Германии". http://www.regnum.ru/english/730646.html

Some issues with the article

In 1970s and 1980s Moldova received substantial investment from the budget of the USSR to develop industrial and scientific facilities

Actually, most of the investments were in Transnistria. AFAIK, the right-bank Moldavian RSS had little industry, its economy being based on agriculture: fruits, wine, tabacco, etc.

picture of the Moldavian Orthodox church.

this is a picture of a church made by the Russians in traditional Russian style. Can't we find one in Moldavian style ? :-)

bogdan 14:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the sentence means to say that, whatever industry Moldova does have, it is the Soviets' contributions - the fact that they prioritized left-bank Moldova is not really relevant for this topic. It's a correct sentence.

I think the church is characteristic and nice-looking (I also think that Moldova generally lacks important landmarks that would predate 1812). I've seen it featured in several travel guides. It should not matter who build it: if we were to select pictures of landmarks in Transylvania according to style... Dahn 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm... I think you're right about the absence of older landmarks. It seems that the churches were small and not looking very different from (larger) regular houses: [4] [5] [6]

bogdan 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

TO: KHOIKHOI FROM: Constantin Popa (CPopa) RE: I SAY REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA, YOU SAY MOLDOVA

Dear administrator:

Just as the historical region of Kurdistan happens nowadays to be divided politically into several nation-states, so the historical region of Moldova happens to belong politically to two nation-states -- Romania and the Republic of Moldova (RM). It is for this reason that I advise Wkipedia administrators to start using the official name of the nation-state of Moldova, RM, rather than a historical name when refering to RM. Such a distinction may be of great educational benefit to the wider public, which public may not always care, after all, about that distinction. However, to a smaller part of that global public/readership the Wikipedia enterprise ostensibly addresses to, discounting/discarding that distinction may cause discomfort and vexation. The fact that your site hosts a huge page on the Moldovan question may point to a host of sensitivities that this question may touch, although, as I indicated, we are talking about a smaller portion of Wikipedia's global community. It is up to the administrators of this cultural enterprise to be either politically correct or "go with the mainstream" and use interchangeably (thus, for that portion of the public, negligently) the terms "Moldova" and "RM". A few years ago, in an episode of the "Whoopi" TV show (a show named after and created by the American comedienne) there was a moment when her employee (a character played by a well-known, in the UK, Iranian-British actor) had tried to make her understand his rage/unhappiness with American public's cultural insensitivity (and general ignorance) when somebody (from that public) called him an "Arab", instead of "Iranian". "For God's sake, I'm Iranian, not Arab!", pleads he with his employer. To which Goldberg's character (a small hotel owner in NYC) retorts sarcastically and madly: "Listen up, wacko, no one [in this country: my addition, CP] cares where you are from, ok?". Then the pre-recorded audience's histerical laughter is overheard. My educated guess is that Wikipedia strives to cover not just everything but also every detail as much as it is possible and possibly objective. People in the RM call themselves Moldovans, whereas people in Romania's Moldova( = a big chunk of today's nation-state of Romania) call themselves Moldovans, then Romanians. Then, most of the people in Romania call RM, in defiance, not "Moldova" but something else ("Basarabia"; Eng. transliteration, Bessarabia, which was part of Greater Romania blah-blah-blah), and are prone to name Moldova exclusively the Moldovan area of Romania. Indeed, this may look confusing to that part of the English-speaking world that would not care much about distinguishing between an Arab, an Iranian or a Sikh (there were a few post-9/11 casualties in the US, due to this attitude) or between, say, Slovenia and Slovakia (I could not find a single American capable to make the distinction between the two, although some of them have heard of both). Although babbling about Moldova, RM, and Romania may seem like glossing about issues relegated to a small regional area of the globe, I think the business of bothering with specifics when it comes to naming countries and historical regions should be taken rather seriously -- especially when those issues happen to storm out of that relegation into a wider arena. Sadly, it took a civil war to make the wider world community find out that there are 2 Albanias -- one in Albania and another in the former Yugoslavia. It may be up to an institution like Wikipedia to make the wider world aware of the existence of many Moldovas and those varying perceptions that created them. Constantin Popa, USA.

In proper English, the region the above text makes reference to is called "Moldavia". Dahn 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's true, with a slide of pen Republic of Moldova stole the name of "Moldova", the good part of it is that they can't claim to be a continuation of historical Moldavia since as we all know it's a big difference between the names of "Moldova" and "Moldavia" and of course the terms cannot be use interchangeable in English, because as we all know English is a very precise language and uses always the most appropriate words, in this instance it's genial how English makes a difference (or so it seems) between two names that are pronounced the same in Romanian and Moldovan, but since English (and American) people are very smart and know that Romanian and Moldovan are two separate languages they translate the Romanian "Moldova" as "Moldavia" and the Moldovan "Moldova" as "Moldova" -- and thus we have a proof that Romanian and Moldovan are separate languages and of course people because even if they use the same words they mean totally different things in English! This is a very confusing issue to me, especially that the same people in Moldova were called "Moldavians" till very recently, suddenly English people changed their mind (probably with the help of some idiots in Moldova) about transliterating the name of the country. -- AdrianTM 05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether the Republic and its derivatives wre ever called Moldavia et al, but about whether the region was ever called Moldova. It generally was not. In fact, the name as it is in English was coined for the region,with or without the [Republic of] Moldova. I'm getting quite tired of being called to explain the simplest truths every time the page gets archived. Dahn 05:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't contradicting you, as far as I know that's true, the region wasn't called "Moldova", I just expressed my displeasure with the irritating inconsistency of English. I wonder how "Republic of Moldova" or "Moldova" have become such a standard when most of dictionaries even the new ones don't even recognize "Moldovan" as a valid term. I think at least people should admit that "Moldova" and "Moldavia" are actually the same words, one "translated" and one presented how it's written in the original language, I think that's common sense, otherwise it's silly to make a differnce between a two forms of a word, e.g. "Roumania" and "Romania", it would be funny if Romania would say "We didn't participate in a war, it was 'Roumania' " we didn't sign that treaty, it was "Rumania", and so on... -- AdrianTM 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That is why we have disambiguation pages. That is why we give native names in parantheses. Believe you me, I would have no special inclination for one designation or the other, except that we are both working with the same English language, as consistent and inconsistent as it may be (btw, I think you may actually want to blame the Moldovan government for the more recent of ambiguities - paradoxically, this may be the doing of unionists, in a poorly-guided attempt to evidence precisely the links usually brought up, and amusingly losing track of what English actually does). Dahn 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

edit war

Hey guys you cannot revert withour explination here first. Transnistria represents a major part of Moldova, its not right to sweep it away. Lets agree what is an accurate description and move on. Westerners are keen to know about it Mark us street 14:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Lloyd George spent his entire life searching for an answer to the Irish question, but, whenever he got close, the Irish secretly changed the question." Dahn 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, please look in the history section, the Transnistrian conflict is covered there already. I am not saying that another section is not warranted, simply that it shouldn't repeat the information already found there. And please post a proposed version on the talk page first. TSO1D 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are the guy who deletes links agreed and voted on. How can I take you seriously? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark us street (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

You'd do better not to slander, Mark us Street. Whatever you say was "agreed" was not actually agreed on anywhere here; if you are talking about other pages and agreements there, they have nothing to do with this page, for obvious reasons. "Lloyd George spent his entire life searching for an answer to the Irish question, but, whenever he got close, the Irish secretly changed the question." Dahn 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you buy Lloyd Geroge's biography or join a circus Mark us street 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am actually quoting 1066 and all that. It is not a reference to what the man actually did or had done to him, it is a reference to what you are pulling here, by switching a pardigm as you go (it is only later that I noticed you say you're Irish - I assure you the connection is purely incidental). None of your arguments here make sense, and you are merely POV-pushing for undue weight and weasel-wordism. Anything you reproach to others above and below this reply adds nothing to your point. As for the "join a circus" remark: it is as classy as your main arguments will ever allow. Dahn 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, what links are you talking about? TSO1D 14:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken you deleted the links to tiraspoltimes on the Transnistria page. Mark us street 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually never did that intentionally. Maybe I accidently included that in a revert by I never went out of my way to remove the link. TSO1D 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, TSO1D, and like I said below (at 15:44, to Mark Street), there was no need for him to answer you with that kind of tone. - Mauco 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, there was no need to answer Mark Street like that. Stay focused on the edit. Mark Street, there is no need to answer TSO1D like that. We can have our differences, but we assume good faith. Besides, answer him on the edit and not on unrelated issues (such as links in other articles). - Mauco 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the edit itself, Transnistria needs a separate section somewhere in the page and not just a mention deep in the History section. It is up to you guys how to work it out, but do not let the section differ substantially from the fairly neutral tone of the Transnistria page. - Mauco 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK to have a section about Transnistria as long as it doesn't push POV that's a country juggling with words like "de facto" and "de jure", that's all -- AdrianTM 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uff. I see another edit war brewing. This can easily become a repeat of the different interpretations by Chisinau and Tiraspol, respectively. Let us try to keep a cool head, all. Can we agree on the following -

1. That Transnistria is de jure a part of the Republic of Moldova?

2. That Transnistria is de facto independent?

3. That Transnistria is an unrecognized country? (this is probably the most controversial of the three)

I would yes to all three, but it is important that we have consensus so whoever is against it must argue for these are "no" and explain the position. - Mauco 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, but let me summarize it: it's a "separatist region" -- AdrianTM 16:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria declared independence from the MSSR. It never declared independence from the Republic of Moldova, which is the subject of this article. Transnistria declared independence one year before the Republic of Moldova even existed. If it is separatist, then it is separatist from the MSSR, but hardly from Republic of Moldova. And if it is separatist, then so is the Republic of Moldova since it - the Republic of Moldova - ALSO declared independence from the MSSR, just like Transnistria did (but in 1991, one year later). Remember that we have to use our words with care, and not just throw loaded POV words like "separatist" around unless they are accurate. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. - Mauco 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I avoid getting involved in such a debate, but allow me to note that it takes a helluvalot of sophistry to say that Moldova "declared independence from the MSSR". Moldova IS the MSSR, it IS its sole legal successor, and all reasonably cultured people can have access to this information. Dahn 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Moldova is recognized by UN and all the countries (I'm not 100% sure about Russia) within it's actual borders, including Transnistria, that makes Transnistria a separatist region, I don't care when and from whom they declare independency. "Separatist" is not a loaded word, it's an accurate word, the only innacurate word that was used in that paragraph was "country". Transnistria is not a country as long as it's not recognized by UN -- till then it remains a separatist region. -- AdrianTM 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the Moldovan view. But there are two sides to every story. Transnistria differs, and, apparently, so does international law. It is of course a heated issue so I do not expect that everyone will agree with this interpretation. The two sides even fought a war over it, and more than a thousand people died. - Mauco 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this fantasy before, and it was proven a fallacy within seconds. There is no state recognizing Transnistria, or even recognizing some region recognizing Transnistria. P-lease. Dahn 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria believes that their lack of recognition is not because they do not meet the requirements for statehood, but rather due to subjective political factors. Like I said, this is a heated issue. I do not expect you to agree, but will merely point out that there are two sides to every story. On the other side of the coin, some will say that it is a fantasy for Moldova to think that it can impose its will on the people of Transnistria, against the wish of the majority of its inhabitants. - Mauco 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your convenient relativism, appeal to emotion, and answer to an imaginary point certainly don't make the case for engaging in any sort of discussion. Dahn 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Transnistria believes" -- great example of POV -- AdrianTM 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually I was trying to be fair and accurately represent the other side of the coin. I was not taking sides, but merely explaining that this is how Transnistria sees things (which we can then agree or disagree with). I realize that a page about Moldova, edited by partisans of Moldova's POV, is not the right place to press the case for any alternative viewpoints of this highly emotional issue. - Mauco 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria is run by the same cabal, supported by (now former) Soviet OMON, from day one. There is a "side of the coin" you are avoiding here. Please limit your "fair and accurate" portrayals to the Transnistrian page. This is, after all, an article about Moldova. — —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

________

William, I cannot approve of a separate section for the purpose of having a separate section. There is no separate section for Bavaria in the article for Germany, there is no separate section for Nagorno-Karabagh in the Azerbaijan article, there is no separate section for Quebec in the Canada article. I dislike such experimentation and ad hoc invention of rules, especially when invoking the idea that "the info is deep (!) in the History section" - what are we doing now, catering to people with ADD? This, especially since we have a linked word leading to an ample and detailed article, and especially since the utterly superfluous "summary" could not possibly avoid splitting the point and taking sides (which is precisely why it had been introduced). Honestly, it's getting quite annoying to see that people who have had by now months and even years to object to the text of this article still come up with theories on what "essential parts" are "missing" or are "not prominent enough". I thought I could perhaps be spared from explaining the obvious at least this time around, and that is why I had chosen to simply tell Mark why I will not take his tactics seriously. Dahn 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with this point: "This, especially since we have a linked word leading to an ample and detailed article, and especially since the utterly superfluous "summary" could not possibly avoid splitting the point and taking sides" -- AdrianTM 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The comparison with Quebec and Canada is not the same, nor Bavaria and Germany. Both are under the rule of the metropolitan state, which is not the case with Transnistria vis-a-vis Moldova. The comparison to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan is accurate, however. On this point, we can decide to not keep a section for Transnistria. This is probably how the Transnistrians would prefer it, too. They go to great lengths to make sure that the world knows that they do not consider their slice of land to be part of Moldova. - Mauco 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My original point about Canada had more to with format as it seems to be accepted by wikipedia without exceptions (presumably, because wikipedia aims to minimize the number of subjective assessments made per article). Apparently, we came to agree that the rule should apply to all cases, and I'm glad we did. Dahn 19:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was never a big deal for me, anyway. However let us see what other editors say before we declare consensus. - Mauco 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why not wait for other users to tell us how to make an exception in the case of Moldova just because more basic conventions need to be stepped over on the basis of some POV not being prominent enough? Yes, let's. That could only bring quality to this article. Dahn 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your view, Dahn, and you are certainly entitled to it. But lay off on the sarcasm, please. In my experience of editing, the best result comes when attempt to reach consensus. Sometimes that involves waiting for others to chip in, and then listening to what they have to say. - Mauco 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As above: Your convenient relativism, appeal to emotion, and answer to an imaginary point certainly don't make the case for engaging in any sort of discussion. Dahn 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then don't, but then also don't claim consensus before the original editor of the proposed inclusion gets a chance to login and speak his piece. - Mauco 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the original editor as long as he is shown to edit against a consensus that has lasted for years now, as well as against all formats and conventions used on wikipedia, as well as against the sheer logic of not repeating information several times in the text for the sake of those who allegedly cannot read another section in full, as well as against NPOV rules (specifically those referring to weasel words and undue weight). The very fact that I would have to explain as obvious things and am answered with theories about Transnistria's status (with the manifest assumption that they are somehow relevant) is SURREAL. I'm afraid I cannot make it any clearer. Dahn 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Extreme security risk, high political risk

Would it be relevant to include the following in the article -

"According to an analysis in RiskMap 2007, Moldova presents an extremely high security risk as well as a high political risk, and does not provide a stable environment for companies to operate in.[7]"

...or does anyone object to it? If so, why? - Mauco 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - You have a wrong link check it out: [8] Moldova is not included in Countries list with areas at EXTREME security risk:
[* indicates entire country rated at extreme]:
Afghanistan; Burundi; Congo (DRC); Côte d’Ivoire; Iraq; Pakistan; Somalia; Sri Lanka EvilAlex 23:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the report? I have read the following source here which supports the statement that Moldova has an extremely high security risk and a high political risk. In this case, when two sources conflict, the thing to do is to refer to the original report which is written by http://www.control-risks.com/ - Mauco 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So you saying to me that you read the report - then you should have a copy of it? Yes? Can you share it with us? upload it to rapidshare and give as a link. So we can read it and you will prove you point. EvilAlex 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I said. You have a link, I have another one. They conflict. In cases like that, the thing to do is to consult the actual report. You may do that, or if not, I will do so, and any other editor can of course also request it and find out which of these two links is the correct one. This is basic fact-running and reference checking. I do it all the time. There is no need to get into a big fit and become all polemic over it. - Mauco 00:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The following information is NOT from the report itself, but from a link which conflicts with information in another link:

Re:"You have a link, I have another one. " LOL You didn read it :)) EvilAlex 00:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:"Moldova has a high political risk" :
Countries with areas at HIGH political risk Afghanistan, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Guinea (Conakry), Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Nepal, North Korea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

Countries with areas at MEDIUM political risk Albania ,Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Congo (DRC), Djibouti, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Rwanda, São Tomé & Príncipe, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zambia.

It seams to me that you wrong again :(( - Moldova has a MEDIUM political risk. [9] EvilAlex 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not necessarily what the report says. You do not have the report, but a link to a source which conflicts with other available information on the web. Please read what I said. You have a link, I have another one. They conflict. In cases like that, the thing to do is to consult the actual report. You may do that, or if not, I will do so, and any other editor can of course also request it and find out which of these two links is the correct one. This is basic fact-running and reference checking. I do it all the time. There is no need to get into a big fit and become all polemic over it. AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO NEED TO CLAIM THAT I AM WRONG, since you don't have the report and don't know who is right or wrong here... - Mauco 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

William, don't you think you could prove your point by actually referencing the report and establishing its relevancy compared to other sources? You're doing precisely what you claim Alex is doing. Dahn 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. You have again provided a misleading information: I have just looked through the report myself, and it says MEDIUM. Look it up. This is basic fact-running and reference checking. I do it all the time. Dahn 00:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at 2005 the report on [10] and it states that the security/political risk is Moldova: M; H in Transdniestr/M; H in Transdniestr. So it was medium in both categories for Moldova but high in both respects in the Transnistrian part. Now as seen here, the political risk is still medium, but the security risk is high (although the page doesn't have an asterisk suggesting that the problem is mostly in some regions that are not labeled individually as in '05). TSO1D 14:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I know Muuco from the Transnistrian page, he is Russian, I think. Moldova is safe just like Transnistria is safe and even a little more. Please Mauco do not say we are unsafe, It is not true, I will also say Transnistria is safe , I go there with my jfathers job. Esgert 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Esgert, thanks for letting us know. However, I am not Russian and I try not to say rude things about any place, be it Moldova or Transnistria. To get back to this issue, however: As TSO1D determined, it seems that the correct rating for Moldova is actually medium for political risk and high for security risk. So the proposed sentence would be: "According to an analysis in RiskMap 2007, Moldova presents a high security risk and does not provide a stable environment for companies to operate in.[11]" (I do not think that a medium political risk even merits a mention. Nothing to be worried about). - Mauco 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The security risk is high although the page doesn't have an asterisk suggesting that the problem is mostly in some regions(Transnistrian region?!). Then we should place this warning on Transnistrian talk page :) EvilAlex 14:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The situation is that as long as Moldova declares Transnistria to be a region within its borders , and there has to be a travel warning highlighted on the Transnistrian page, it follows that the same warning must also be posted on the Moldovan page I don't agree with this but can accept it as a fair point. Travel warnings are not appropriate in areas where conflicts are over or are not in immeadiate danger of igniting. I propose the the travel warnings be erased from both the Transnistrian and Moldovan page or a second option included on both pages. Truli 12:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No need for travel warnings, just use the violent incidents in Transnistrian region of Moldova and let people decide for themselves, I have made this adjustment,hope it keeps all peoples happy, But warnings are not on Truli 12:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Moldovan editors are insistant on the travel warnings on the Transnistria page and given that Transnistria is part of Moldova it is essential legally that the warning be also on the main Moldovan page, I am however opposed to these types of warnings but we have to have uniformity on wiki, Truli 14:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Moldova and Republic of Moldova

I am very curious, it seems there are two governments in control in Moldova, a distinction should be made. In the internationally recognised territory there are two governments, TheTransnistrian Government and Republic of Moldova government. Yet this page is dominated by the Republic of Moldova. The same problem was on the Palestine / State of Palestine page. This current page should be under the heading Republic of Moldova and not simply Moldova or the Transnistrian side be given their equal space proportion. Truli 12:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but what are you talking about? First of all Moldova is not geographic region but a political entity being the short form for "Republic of Moldova," so the two governments per region argument doesn't really apply here. And then on the internationally recognized territory of Moldova there is only one internationally recognized state. All the info about the PMR can be found on the Transnistria page. TSO1D 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Best to make things clear here. Why should Transnistria not be on this page, people are very interested Are you ashamed of Transnistria being part of Moldova ? Thats not an excuse. We should include their links too.. Truli 13:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is, but I had the impression that Transnistria wants out of Moldova, why this sudden love for being included in Moldova article? Read the policy about links on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. -- AdrianTM 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree but Wikipedia requires uniformity, If Moldovan editors insist on putting the Moldovan links on the Transnistria page claiming that Moldova and Transnistria are one country.. Clearly the Transnistrians have to right to be part of the Moldovan page as they are a legal part of Moldova. Truli 13:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

That is not really a logical argument. Things don't work through "reciprocity"; the juridical claim to legitimacy for "Transnistria as another Moldova" you mention is not only bogus, it was just made up by you; there is the issue of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight; the links you push clearly do not belong here. Now, I've said what I have to say; perhaps I shouldn't have bothered replying to a non sequitur to begin with, but I assure you I will not in the future - I consider this matter solved by the present post. Dahn 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You speak as if you represent a higher authority, thankfully you don't, from here onward we will agree to include Transnistrians as Moldovans with equal treatment Truli 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is not about how I speak, but about what I speak. This article is not subject to whims. Dahn 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You complain about how Dahn speaks, but you are worse: "from here onward we will agree".... do I detect that you speak in my name without my permission? -- AdrianTM 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Without speaking to the particular links, there is only one government that claims to rule the Republic of Moldova, and it is internationally recognized as the government of that country. It does not, however, exercise effective rule in Transnistria, where it has informally accepted the de facto hegemony of the internationally unrecognized Transnistrian government.

Clearly, the Transnistrian government makes no claim to govern the rest of Moldova; does the Moldovan government have a de jure local government in place for Transnistria? (I honestly don't know. If it does, our Transnistria article should mention it; on a quick read, it does not say anything of the sort. Really, even if it doesn't, our article should probably say that.)

In short, there is, indeed, dispute over whether Transnistria constitutes a sovereign state or a part of Moldova, but there is no dispute over who governs the country known as Moldova. - Jmabel | Talk 08:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I’m pretty much sure that there is no local Moldovan government for Transnistria. AFAIK, officialy there’s no such administrative region in Rep. of Moldova.--Imrek 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, formally there is an autonomous territorial unit for Transnistria, although of course real power is in the hands of the PMR. TSO1D 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this law: [12]?--Imrek 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, exactly. TSO1D 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you see, if I understand it correctly, this law does not actually establish the autonomous terrritorial unit; it only contains some basic provisions for the law that can possibly be adopted in the future, if certain conditions are fulfilled:

Art. 2 (2): După îndeplinirea condiţiilor privind demilitarizarea, stipulate în Hotărîrea Parlamentului nr. 117-XVI din 10 iunie 2005, în special a celor referitoare la onorarea de către Federaţia Rusă a obligaţiilor asumate la Summitul OSCE de la Istanbul (1999) privind evacuarea integrală, urgentă şi transparentă a trupelor şi armamentului de pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova, şi după formarea, în Transnistria, a unui sistem al puterii alese în mod democratic, procesul de negocieri se desfăşoară pentru elaborarea în comun şi adoptarea Legii organice a Republicii Moldova cu privire la statutul juridic special al Transnistriei.

So, judging from this, the law on the status of Transnistria will be adopted only in the future, which leads me to a logical conclusion that currently there is now such territorial unit. Or am I wrong?--Imrek 18:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Moldova. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we move hese articles here,

Crime

Smuggling

Transnistria has a reputation of being a haven for smuggling weapons, women, as well and as smuggling various products into the Republic of Moldova or to eastern states through the Ukrainian border. This view is supported by the Moldovan government, the EU and various NGOs. In 2002, the European Parliament's delegation to Moldova named Transnistria "a black hole in which illegal trade in arms, the trafficking in human beings and the laundering of criminal finance was carried on".^[1] In 2005, The Wall Street Journal called Transnistria "a major haven for smuggling weapons and women".^[2] However, OSCE and European Union diplomats cited by Radio Free Europe called the smuggling claims "wildly exaggerated".^[3]

The Transnistrian government also denies any such allegations and has instead claimed that the Moldovan police is involved in drug smuggling. In May 2006 a Moldovan police officer was arrested in Transnistria for his role in a drug operation.^[4][5]

The government of Ukraine, which had long been seen as assisting in this illegal trade, has recently taken steps to prevent smuggling along its border by opening new customs posts and by stipulating that the goods passing from Transnistria through Ukraine must first obtain clearance from Moldovan authorities.^[6]

Weapons trade

Analysts and media outlets have expressed concern regarding potential threats posed by Transnistria's large deposits of weapons, and the potential of their unauthorized sale. Nevertheless, this view has been challanged in/from what year (so that one can see from what year things started to change) by other experts and organizations, as well as by the government of the PMR. Oxford scholar Mark Almond stated that accusations of state-sponsored weapons smuggling in the PMR appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts.^[7] Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations say that the historically low levels of transparency, and the continued denial of full investigation to international monitors has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transnistrian regime,^[8] although recent good levels of cooperation on the part of Transnitrian authorities in some areas may reflect a shift in the attitude of PMR.^[9]

A 2004 newspaper article claimed that a cache of surface-to-air missile launchers as well as other weapons may have disappeared from a former Soviet stockpile and that officials were at the time unable to account for their whereabouts.^[10] The OSCE and European Union officials state that there is no evidence that Transnistria has ever, at any time in the past, trafficked arms or nuclear material, although they pointed out that a lack of evidence does not mean that dangerous activities are not taking place. Lawlessness in Transdniester alone constitutes a threat to stability.^[11] The latest research published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) states that Transnistria is highly militarised, noting that the number of illicit weapons in the region is unknown.^[12] The United Nations says that the evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transnistria has in the past been exaggerated, and affirms that although there is a likelihood that trafficking of light weapons could have occurred before 2001, there is no reliable evidence that this still occurs. It also states that the same holds true for the production of such weapons, which is likely to have been carried out in the 1990s primarily to equip the local forces but which are no longer produced. These findings echo previous declarations by Transnistria that it is not involved in the manufacture or export of weapons.^[13]

Violent incidents

Over the past few years, there have been isolated violent incidents in Transnistria. Two of these incidents have been described as a terrorism by Transnistrian government officials including head of Transnistrian MGB Vladimir Antyufeyev^[14][15] but motives behind the incidents are still unclear^[16]

• 14-15 April 2001 the Synagogue of Tiraspol suffered a pipe bomb attack. The building was damaged, but the guard was not hurt.^[17]
• 13-30 March 2004 over 70 tombstones in the Jewish cemetery of Tiraspol were vandalized^[18]Local community leaders said the authorities refused to help clean up the anti-Semitic graffiti painted over the tombstones^[19]
• in May 2004, there was an attempt by a Russian neo-Nazi organization to set on fire a synagogue in Tiraspol, using a Molotov Cocktail and a flammable liquid near a gas pipe.^[20]The attack failed when passers-by extinguished the fire.^[21]
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus.^[22]
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolleybus killed two and injured ten.^[23]

Travel warnings

U.S.A Embassy reaction:

Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:

Check this out: Crime in Moldova. I think that it would be unfair to give Transnistria so much notice in an article that is about Moldova in general. I believe that a small subsection describing the current situation with the region should be created, perhaps in the "Politics" section. --Illythr 17:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Dahn 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugly article

This article needs a lot of work to be in accordance with a minimal standard.--Diana Teodorescu 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree more. Not a single section conforms to Wikipedia guidelines and the quality of the text is ... let's just say not of the highest caliber. TSO1D 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Moldovian" Language?

This is such a stupid concept! Maybe Moldavian accent etc, but not language. I have here for instance an Encyclopaedic Dictionary issued in Chişinău, and it is actually a Romanian encyclopaedic dictionary and I didn`t noticed this until a year after I bought and used it.

English guys, it is the same as USA would claim that its national language is American, not English.

The concept of "Moldavian" language is the result of some political POV, not scientific, liguistic etc. Since Wikipedia is a scientific encyclopaedic online dictionary, I feel compelled, in the name of science and neutralism, to delete the Moldavian thing.

Btw, I feel that the controversy about this term is however explained in the main article, so we don`t need to use this ultra-nationalistic term as being the Moldova`s language of state.

Moldovan = Romanian in Cyrillic script, Stalin-era version (as opposed to the Romanian in Cyrillic used prior to the Latinization of Romanian script) = used only in Pridnestrovie. It is certainly not (!) the language of Moldova.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is (with Latin script), per our Constitution. --Illythr 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are better ways to express a centuries-old bond with the land (including expressing "we're Moldova, not Romania") than to name a perfectly good language something else. Alas, at least it's "Moldovan" in territory only and not the abomination across the Dniester which pridnestrovie.net tries to pass off as Romanian returning it to its proper Cyrillic roots before being rudely abducted and violated by Francophiles.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding. However, I'm not sure of that, so I'll just point you to the fact that the switch to Latin script did not start under the influence of France. It started in Transylvania (not Moldova, Wallachia, or Romania) in a context marked by the Enlightenment, nascent Romanian nationalism, influence of the Catholic church, etc. Only later will Wallachia and Moldavia follow, again in the context of the Romanian national awakening, but this time marked by the masonic influence, and by the relations with Transylvanian Romanians. The switch process was a long one, accepted in the society. That much for the "abduction" from its "cyrillic roots". And, frankly, such a remark seems weird, coming from you. :) Dpotop 12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DPotop, didn't you notice the "...which pridnestrovie.net tries to pass off as..." part? :) --Illythr 12:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what I was about to post myself, when I got an edit conflict: "And about now now should be the moment when you actually read Pēters' post...". Damn, Illythr, you jumped ahead of me :). Dahn 12:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Bogdan had once noted - great minds get edit conflicts. :-) --Illythr 13:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a comment for the Moldovan Parliament, not this article, I'm afraid. If you want to write a petition to them, [{petitiononline} this is the place to do so]. As for the actual "language" - it is but a tool. Understand that there is nothing inherently evil in a, say, gas chamber or a torture device. It is the twisted mind that created it, that may be called such.

Yes, Illythr is right here. The Moldovan parliament decided to make "Moldovan" the national language in article 13 of the constitution. Dpotop 09:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you here, though. --Illythr 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed "Romanian" from the brackets (yeah, I know - there's a warning) because the controversy is already mentioned in the footnote. --PaxEquilibrium 21:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we are looking to inform the average reader, it's probably better left that both "Moldovan" and "(Romanian)" appear. It's what it's "called" and what it "is". Most readers tend to skip footnotes, whose assumed purpose is to sequester painful levels of detail. In this case, the Romanian reference is something significant which is more than a mere amplification of or reference for something stated in the main body. (Remember, we're talking about the average reader, not the community of editors who know all this--for whom this is part of our collective assumed knowledge).

  In looking back at the Moldovan langauge article, there also seems to be some lack of crispness there in the summary regarding Moldova's Moldovan and the PMR's Moldovan. But I need to go back and read through in more detail.

   Those who contend that PMR (Soviet) Moldovan is the real thing [thoroughly debunked] aside, I think there's largely consensus here. That official Moldova refers to "Moldovan" reflecting a regional affinity (the same as an identity of "Moldovan" instead of "Romanian") that dates back centuries is a non-issue as long as it's not equated with PMR's Moldovan or advertised as a linguistically separate language--which I don't believe is anyone's intent here. PētersV 21:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the redundant part of the footnote can be eliminated.

Official Moldova refers to something called "Moldovan language". This has nothing to do with "regional affinity", as the standard language is pretty much identical to Romanian. The real reasons were that it was not possible to call the language "Romanian" in 1989, and after 1994 the name difference was used to avoid joining Romania. (Nobody bothered to amend the law in between, I suppose). --Illythr 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize I wasn't quite clear (big surprise!) By reflecting regional affinity I really meant "expressing" regional affinity by calling themselves Moldovans and calling their language Moldovan. We are actually agreed. PētersV 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree regarding noticing - people all the time notice footnotes on tables (e.g. Serbia, Vojvodina and Kosovo, where they are necessary). And as for 2nd point - I think the table should stick to that which it is official language, no matter how nonexistent it may be and how many controversies lie there. --PaxEquilibrium 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I am not intruding into your discussion. I have noticed that you discuss a topic that is currently part of a dispute resolution/amplification [:) - just an inocent joke] at Talk:Bălţi, where I'd like to kindly invite all of your to join in the disussion of the issues you understand/care (there are 27 of them, but most go around the same single thing, and only 4-5 are real issues, the others are blown up out of those, and would dissipate at once after the core 3-5). About the name of the language, I'd like to cite myself, if I may:

This is a politically motivated scandal that goes on for years. Its trace on wikipedia is in fact smaller that the real scandal, which is very ugly. In short, the Moldavian law uses three terms for the language:

• Moldavian, with the existence of a Moldo-Romanian identity/unity (Language Law of 1989)
• Romanian (1991 declaration of independence)
• Moldavian (1994 constitution)

All 3 laws are binding, and noone has ever modfied any of them in reference to this issue.

Answering to Illythr, I also said, about the language laws, they actually do not contradict themselves at all. :) They all say the same thing, that Moldavian/Romanian is the state (official) language. They disagree on how that language is called, which I don't see why laws should determine. (it would be like laws to tell when to write "a spune" and when to write "a zice")[two ways of saying "to say" in Romanian]

I'd like to add one more detail also: there is no regional difference in words. The words are identical both in Bucharest, and in the country Moldova and the region Moldavia, the latter together speak the same dialect. It is the pronounciation of some letters that differ. For example "e" become close to an "i", "ci" close to a "şi", "p" close to a "c". But it is not real "i", nor real "şi", nor real "c" - it is something middle. In fact, when people from Bucharest try to speak with Moldavian accent, they replace like this, and betray themselves immediately, prvoking a total laughter. For example "ci" is said with a small mouth, while "şi" with a wide. What is done in Moldavian dialect is a fast transition from "ci" to "şi" said with a close mouth. Moreover, it is not necesary to be done so. I'd speak like that with my grandmother if she'd be alive, half-half with my parents, and never do these transitions on tv or in public discurse. it's all instinctive, it requires zero effort. What I have to do in bucharest if i want to sound like a local is to talk like in public discurse.

There is a problem for some people that they have a small vocabulary. But that's a matter of education, not of language. The language has cca 77,000 words, and a well-educated person currently uses cca 10-15,000, while understanding cca 40,000. But, even with a 3,000 vocabulary you have absolutely no problem, as 50% Moldovans have a smaller speaking vocabulary. The difference is that in Romania, vocabulary is very emphazised in the school, while in Moldova depends what teacher you get, and an average person perhaps curently uses 5,000 words, which can sometimes be contrasted with an average Moldavian. But then, if you reach 10,000 (for daily usage, not just understanding) - bye bye, you become top 2% in Bucharest.:Dc76\^talk 14:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm applying here the same standards as with the Montenegro article. --PaxEquilibrium 17:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(reindented) My dear PaxEquilibrium, no one geopolitical situation is ever just like another one, so I must confess that I believe your applying the same "standards as with the Montenegro article" is a WP:SYNTH representation that the language situations are identical between Montenegro and Moldova, which they are not. Citing convention in one article as a "standard" and then enforcing it to the informative detriment of another article does not improve that article. Moldovan really is Romanian, now that the fake Cyrillic Moldovan has been officially done away with. Please do not revert other editors' inclusion of Romanian as the language of Moldova. PētersV 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I still don't understand - the official Moldovan websites say "Moldovan language" and it's also official in the Constitution. I failed to see Romanian anywhere in there... Also what do you mean by really is Romanian? --PaxEquilibrium 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's simple: in Moldova Romanian is called "Moldovan", but for all intents and purposes it's still Romanian, you don't need to learn another language if you learned Romanian, you don't need to search for "Moldovan courses" if you want to learn the language of the place, you don't need to take an interpreter with you if you already learned Romanian, if you have Moldovan and Romanian guests you don't need to hire separate interpreter for them and so on. So it really has to be said that the official language in Moldova is: Moldovan/Romanian or Moldovan (Romanian), on the other hand I just took a look at moldova.md site and I suddenly realized that I speak now 4 languages instead of 3.... nice... -- AdrianTM 13:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I recall that somewhere (maybe the declaration of the republic?) it's said that Romanian is the language, so it really is completely interchangeable and it really is the same language. Not to be confused with the "Moldovan" perpetrated in the PMR. PētersV 14:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

Past Leaders

I've put down a list of heads of state on the president of transnistria page. Would you say its accurate? im not sure of the early constitution and im getting conflicting reports over who lead the supreme soviet.. how does this sound? i think there is an error:

1 Different sources list him as "Provisional" Chairman of Supreme Soviet and Igor Smirnov as Chairman at same time. 2 Was imprisioned from August 29, 1991 until October 1, 1991. Andrey Panteleyevich Manoylov was acting Chairman of Supreme Soviet.

Vital Component 3/16/07

La Francophonie

The page is included into the category:La Francophonie. I didn't find anything in wikipedia but membership info. Please update the Francophonie article about Moldova and possibly write an article about Francophone culture or heritage of Moldova. `'mikka 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points. After some trouble, I found one link clearly indicating that the country is part of the Haut Conseil de la Francophonie, at the Universite Laval [13]. Does anyone have more? Dahn 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Green/Emerald Egg of Moldava

Has anyone ever heard of this? And if so please tell me about it.