Talk:Republic of Moldova/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Older comments

Moldovan Language ? There is no such thing as it's identically Romanian language, not even a difference.

Until 1940, when the Russians occupied it because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact here was spoken Romanian. There's no way to change the language of 4 millions people in 60 years.

The differences between English and "American" are much greater than between Romanian and "Moldovan".

Last time I read a book in Moldovan language, I noticed it wasn't written in Romanian only after I checked the publishing house that was located in Moldova. :-)


HI! The above statements are certainly true! Bessarabia, now known as the "Republic of Moldova" actually represents almost half of the real Moldova. Moldova, Transylvania and Wallachia are the 3 ancestral Romanian provinces, which form the state of Romania. "Bessarabia" is the eastern half of the historical province of Moldova: Romanian land. Along the course of a cruel history, Russia has managed to snatch several times the eastern half of Moldova ("Bessarabia") from Romania, transforming it into the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova, which has been in fact populated by Romanians, for the last 2000 years!!! My point is there is no "Moldovan" language, as there is no "TRansylvanian" or "Wallachian" language: there is only Romanian. The republic of Moldova carries the Romanian National Flag colours: Red, Yellow and Blue, and its population speaks Romanian, because they are Romanian :-) Have a nice day


The so called Moldavian Language is just an invetion of the USSR in its desperate try to kill off any reminiscence of the romanian culture. They changed the latin script with the cyrilic one, wanting that, in a couple of years the language to be totally change from romanian to russian. This is a question of patriotism... the moldovans haven't rennounced at their language, though in all the speres of communication the russian language was the ruling one. So, as a fact: there is no MOLDAVIAN LANGUAGE. This is just a dialect of the Romanian language.

Quote from history section:

"Moldova has suffered from several invasions, including the Kievan Rus and the Mongols. "

The Kievan Rus had it's border on the Nistru/Dnister (that's the reason why Transnistria was colonized with Russians, to defend the western Russian border), so Moldova wasn't actually invaded by the Kievan Rus. Bogdan 08:34, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with this? This article gives 9 subdivisions, but in the last few years the government has split the country into 32 Rayons again - the map and info is out of date - anyone care to help? Thanks ! The Trolls of Navarone 16:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems that the Moldovan government's sites are often self-contradictory. :) Anyway, I found that they switched from the Romanian-style of "judete" to Russian-style of "raioane" in February 2003. [1]
I did a google search, but I couldn't find a map with the new 32 "raioane", but only an older map with 40 "raioane" [2]. Bogdan | Talk 19:35, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)~
Hmm. The 40 one is the old Soviet, I think, the govt changed to 12 on independence, and then changed again a couple of years back to 32. I have a new paper copy, but it may not be frequent on the internet. Let's have a search... ;) The Trolls of Navarone 06:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to moldova.md, and to the constitution the official site of the republic, the solo official language is moldovan language (romanian), and the russian's language use is granted. You can say something about that in =Demographics=. --Danutz

I'm pretty sure that, while not an official language in the whole country, in the Semi-autonomous regions Russian and Gagauz are official languages - it will probably be in some presidential decree or act of parliament, or perhaps in an act passed by the semi autonomous region, which might explain why it is not on the main MD page. I see your point, but how do you suggest that we convey that Russian is officially used by a significant minority of govt officials, not to mention people? The Trolls of Navarone 15:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
How about stating that Russian and G are officially used in some parts? The Trolls of Navarone 15:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So, I'll write this, after the template of Italy:

Moldovan (Romanian)
(+ Russian in Transnistria and Gagauzia, Ukrainian in Transnistria and Gagauz in Gagauzia)

--Danutz

I used the <br> tab just for everybody to see clearly that romanian is no local official language, just that it is the same as Moldovan.

People, the Official Therm cannot be used for Transnistria, because is a seraratst region. So, i will remove it from the page...

Shouldnt this page be merged with Moldavia ? --Piotrus 14:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. Moldova is the former MSSR, now an independent country; Moldavia is the adjacent Romanian province. Both names go back to the same historic name for the region. -- Jmabel 15:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Landlocked

"Landlocked"---at the present moment, because those who drew borders made sure to landlock it. Alexander 007 09:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True enough. Do you think that should somehow go in the article, or are you just remarking? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:10, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
If there are references out there that discuss how the border was drawn so that it conveniently ended up a landlocked country, it should be discussed in the article. If it is not already. Alexander 007 19:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moldova got a border settlement with Ukraine in the 1990s, through which she received access to the Danube area for a couple of meters, and indirect access to the Black Sea. Does this add to the matter?Dahn 22:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Deportation

"Under Stalin, ethnic Russians were brought into the new country, especially into urbanized areas, while many ethnic Romanians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan."

The first is true, but I am not sure where the second is coming from. Surely, many Romanian soldiers were deported, but during my 5 years in Moldova I have not heard of any significant deportations of the population. (User:Gaidash 8 May 2005)

  • I didn't write the passage; it's not cited; and I don't know for sure, but… I have heard that there are a good number of Romanian speakers remarkably far east in Russia and formerly Soviet Central Asia, and this seems to me like the most likely explanation. But does someone have something solid on this either way? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't write that either, however I was taught in my Soviet History course that the USSR deported many thousands of Romanians and Germans from Bukovina, Bessarabia and Ukrainian Galicia to Siberia and Kazakhstan. vkxmai 16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Victims of Stalinist persecution demand Russia pay damages

AP WorldStream Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:55:00 PM Copyright 2001 The Associated Press

   CHISINAU, Moldova (AP) -- Hundreds of survivors of Stalinist-era repression demanded Wednesday that Russia return assets confiscated 60 years ago when the former Soviet Union annexed Moldova. 
   The demand came as survivors gathered to commemorate the anniversary of their deportation from Moldova to camps in Siberia and other desolate areas of the former Soviet Union. 
   Ion Buga, who heads the National Romanian Party, called on Russia to take responsibility for the crimes, "as the formal successor of the Soviet Union." 
   "Russia has to follow the example of Germany ... and pay damages to the victims and their successors," he said. 
   Russia invaded Moldova, which was then part of Romania, on June 28, 1940 following a pact between Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. 
   The Baltic states, including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, were also invaded under the same deal. A year later, Stalin decided to crush dissent and force communism on the new territories using terror. 
   During the night of June 12-13, 1941, more than 22,000 people were deported to Siberia and remote areas of the Soviet Union. 
   Two other massive deportations took place in 1949 and 1951. The total number of Moldovans who were killed, imprisoned, or deported during that period is estimated at 885,000. 
   The victims called on parliament to declare June 28, the day when the Soviet Union invaded Moldova, to be called a "day of commemorating victims of communism." 
   Moldova gained independence in 1991 after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

GDP

Could someone come up with good, cited statistics on GDP? Especially because for a country in this region there are really two important numbers, GDP by exchange rate and GDP by purchasing parity, and they will differ by at least a factor of four. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Here you have one:
It says: purchasing power parity - $1,900 (2004 est.)

 Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Population

Similarly, a recent anonymous edit completely changed the statistics on population makeup, also without citation. Can we please have some cited numbers? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

They were taken from the census results. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 06:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Bogdan, I've now added that as a reference, on your say-so, but I myself cannot access the link. Are you sure the link is correct? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I can access it, although it seems that their server is pretty slow. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, today I seem to be able to access it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Moldova?

Recently added to lead: "sometimes called Eastern Moldova". Rarely. Less than 600 Google hits for "Eastern Moldova" and, is you'd imagine, a lot of them refer to the eastern part of the Republic of Moldova. I suspect (though I do not know offhand) that this usage reflects some specific politics, possibly Romanian irredentism. Does someone know what is going on here? -- Jmabel | Talk June 28, 2005 05:26 (UTC)

"Eastern Moldova" is usually known as Bessarabia. I think it should redirect there, not here. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 28 June 2005 06:49 (UTC)
I think "Moldova" and "Eastern Moldova" shoudn't merge because Moldova is an independent country and the term "Eastern Moldova" would mean east of the country Moldova.
  • Seems like we agree. What about we turn Eastern Moldova into a disambiguation page (or possibly something slightly richer—if there really are people who call the Republic itself "Eastern Moldova", there are probably some interesting politics to be discussed—but get this out of the lead of this article, and (if there is much to be said) just have a "see also" here, because calling the entire country by this name is, at best, a rather obscure usage. -- Jmabel | Talk June 30, 2005 00:31 (UTC)
i don't think people will search for "eastern moldova" on wikipedia. they wil search for "moldavia, moldova or basarabia/bessarabia". no need for an "eastern moldova" redirect or disambig, and this goes for "Northern Dobruja" as well -- Criztu 30 June 2005 11:28 (UTC)
Both phrases occur just enough on the web that I can imagine someone turning to Wikipedia for clarification; and if we aren't careful, they'll get obfuscation, instead. -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Why don't we just let it be for a while and see what's going to happen with it before we jump to conclusions. I, for one, have heard this term before, several times and I don't think that nobody will use it. And, no, I would not say it's Romanian irridentism. It's just a geographical term.

PS: I also searched Eastern Moldova on google and you would be surprised how many sites make refferenfes to it. Go see all those sourses I listed under the article "Eastern Moldova"

Duca 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

  • As discussed at Talk:Eastern Moldova, not even one of the citations provided so far bears out the content at Eastern Moldova. Most use lower-case-"e" "eastern Moldova" to refer to Bessarabia in 1940 or earlier; some refer to the eastern part of the present-day republic. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 17:57 (UTC)

No, there are a lot of sourses there and serious ones too like BBC and encarta and some use capital E. In any case we can switch to "eastern Moldova" if you really insist and redirect the article here. I still think it is a valid term to be mentioned.

On top of that Eastern Moldova and Bessarabia within its borders from 1812 and 1918 are slightly different things.

Duca 2 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)

  • Please let's have this conversation in one place. I've answered your citations one-by-one at Talk:Eastern Moldova, I don't intend to one-by-one here, as well. I would welcome the participation of others in the discussion on that admittedly obscure talk page; readers and contributors of this page are more than welcome to join the discussion there. -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 03:17 (UTC)
    • There has now been much discussion of this at Talk:Eastern Moldova, and I've done a significant rewrite of Eastern Moldova that seems uncontroversial. On the basis of what is there, I feel that the mention of "Eastern Moldova" in this article should be demoted to a "see also": as a way of referring to the Republic, it seems to be a rather obscure usage, on the basis of the evidence so far presented. I see nothing to bear out notability at a level that belongs mentioned in a lead paragraph. If anything, there was less than I expected to find. Rather than duplicate that discussion here, I urge others to take a look there. At this point, I think I've stated my opinion clearly, and unless this comes to a poll, or if new citations are produced, I don't have enything else to add. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Phone directory

Why are we linking to the Kishinev phone directory? I'm unaware of any other country article that links to its capital city's phone directory. -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 16:56 (UTC)

I left it in the Chişinău article and deleted it from all the others (Moldavia, History of Moldova, Bessarabia). bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 3 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

The Future

Moldova is such a paradox. It is true, it is not the same place as Bassarabia once was, geographically speaking. It is true, the Soviets scrambled it's borders and first created the idea that the Moldovan language was not a dialect of Romanian but it's own tongue. It is true also that Moldova has been a political football, thrown about between Romania and Russia with little regard for the feelings of the people who actually live there. However, Moldova must come to grips with it's rpesent, and more importantly, it's future. Will Moldova remain independent? Will the Transdnitria break away into some new European microstate, like San Marino or the Vatican? Will it stay a part of Moldova? Will the Russian army leave? If so, what will happen to the Russian speaking minority that lives there? Will Ukraine, herself a nation that has been substantially altered by the Soviets, ever be convinced to restore Moldova's seaport, even though it was not the Ukrainian people who took it from them, and thus not the Ukrainian people who are liable for the loss of it? We can write volumes on the history of Moldova/Bassarabia. And it is all very interesting. But the thing that is truly fascinating about Moldova is not it's past. It's all the possible futures that could take place here. What will happen in 2007 when Romania enters the EU? What if Ukriane enters the EU as well? What course will Moldova take? In many ways, it appears that the fate of the world will depend on what this tiny state decides to do.Dave 03:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You got it wrong. Bessarabia has never been thrown by Romania. And certainly not "with little regard for the feelings of the people who actually live there". I'm Romanian and I have relatives there. The history goes like this:
   1812   - After yet another russian-ottoman war, Bessarabia is "given away" by the Ottoman Empirethough the Treaty of Bucharest.
          I am not sure that was legal, even though the principality of Moldavia was a vassal. Moldavia becomes landlocked.
   1856   - After the Crimean war, through the Treaty of Paris, Moldova gets back the southern part of Bessarabia. Moldavia 
            gets back access to the sea.
   1859   - Moldova and Wallachia unite. No change in fronteers.
   1878   - Independence of Romania, after a war between the russians, the romanians, and the ottomans. 
            Southern Bessarabia is annexed by the Russians, 
            in spite of the pre-war treaty between Russia and Romania (when the treaty has been shown at the peace conference in Berlin, the russians 
            were really embarassed). Nevertheless, due to international pressure Romania did not cease to exist, despite russian attempts to 
            take full control of it. It's this event that triggered the "russo-phobia" of romanians (phobia should be taken here in its first sense,
            which is fear, and not hate).
   1917/18- The russian revolution. The different provinces (including Bessarabia) declare their independence. Bessarabia then decides to unite with
            the Romanian kingdom.
   1918   - The Austrian Empire disappears. Romanians from Transylvania, Banat, and Bukovine choose to unite with Romania.
   1940   - After securing the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, Soviet Russia issues an ultimatum and then re-occupies Bessarabia. It also seizes the 
            northern half of Bukovine. Quite shamefully, romanians did not fight back (this is often blamed on Carol II, the illegal king of
            Romania. However the question is: given the russian might, what could romanians do).
   1941   - Romania enters war against Russia and recovers the lost territory.
   1944/45- Even more territory is lost after the war. Southern Bessarabia and Northern Bukovine are given by the soviet ruler to Ukraine.
            Soviet Moldavia is created by adding to the remainder a small territory beyond the Dniestr (Transnistria).
   1990's - With russian military help, Transnistria becomes de-facto independent.

As you can see, at no moment Romania willingly said "you can have it" (of course, if you exclude the communist governments from immediately after the war, but even they were kind of bullied into it). For the future, I hope that Romania enters the EU and that it is able to create economic links stronger than the russian influence. I believe that actual unification is not what counts most today. Concerning Ukraine, I presume it will never enter the EU (not in the foreseable future, and not if the UK fails in pushing the EU into becoming yet another free-trade zone). Ukraine is a huge country, and already the EU seems to have problems even with Romania and Bulgaria (as well with the previously-integrated countries). User:Dpotop

Recent problematic addition

I copy edited a recent addition, and hope I had correctly undestood it (e.g. I'm pretty sure "polis" meant "police", because "polis" made no sense in the context, stuff like that. However, it's still a bit obscure, probably a bit POV, and uncited:

In 1992, Moldova was involved in a short-term war with Russia and Russian armed power. The local population from the eastern region of Moldova was not involved in the war. People from Russia called kozaks (in fact, Russian mercenaries) fought, supported by the Russian army. The war started with an attack of Russian mercenaries on the Moldavian town of Dubosari, situated on the eastern bank of Dniestr, but unloyal to the separatist regime. Since 1992, Russia has maintained a military occupation of the eastern regions of the neutral state Republic of Moldova. The puppet pro-Russian Transnistrian Moldavian Republic separatist regime established in the occupied territory is undemocratic, and since 1992 no rotations in the political power have taken place in this area. The Transnistrian regime has enforced Russification, the denationalization of ethnic Ukrainians and the discrimination against Moldavians (the attacks of Transdnestrian police against the Moldavian schools from Tiraspol, Bender and Ribnita in 2004).
  1. How long did the war last?
  2. What is the Cyrillic word transliterated here as kozaks?
  3. Is the claim that they were "mercenaries" rather than simply "soldiers" justified?
  4. "Attack on the... town": invasion, bombardment? What actually happenned? Were there casualties?
  5. Is the town Dubosari or Duboşari?
  6. I would guess that "separatist regime" means the Chişinau regime, separatist from Russia, but this could be clearer.
  7. The Republic of Moldova is "neutral" in what sense? Neutral between what powers?
  8. "Puppet" is a strong word. Do we have someone to cite for this?
  9. "Denationalization" usually means a government selling off a business. I would guess that here it is intended to mean revocation of citizenship; in any case, I added the word "ethnic", since I presume that was what was meant here, not Ukrainian citizens.
  10. Similarly: does "discrimination against Moldavians" mean against ethnic Moldovians (ethic Romanians) or against people from the Republic of Moldova? I'd guess the former, but shouldn't have to guess.
  11. The parenthesized phrase refers to unspecified "attacks", with no citation. Also, I would guess that Tiraspol should be Tiraşpol, and am almost certain that Ribnita is Ribniţa.
  12. Where is this cited from?

This has so many problems that I am almost inclined to cut it, but it seems like it could be turned into something decent, so I'm trying to work with others to improve it. Answers to any of the questions above would be helpful. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone who actually knows much about Moldova working on this article? No one is answering any of this.

Also, do we really need "sometimes called eastern Moldova" in the lead sentence? At Eastern Moldova we could not find a single citation for someone using "eastern Moldova" as an alternate name for the Republic. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody calls it "eastern Moldova". In Romania, most often it is called either "Republica Moldova" or "Basarabia". (rarely "Moldova" because it would create confusion with the Romanian part of Moldova). bogdan | Talk 21:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The phrase, which I consider misleading (and Bogdan is apparently with me on this) seems to be here at User:Duca's and User:Domnu Goie's insistence. You might want to look at Talk:Eastern Moldova. Since Domnu Goie has already (in that talk page) suggested that I am somehow biased on this matter (I'm not sure why), I'm not going to be the one to remove this, but I think it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

--216.137.66.205 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's TIRASPOL and DUBĂSARI
"Kozaks" are cossaks
The "separatist" regime means, only logically, the government of the PMR claiming independence from RM--216.137.66.205 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving to Republic of Moldova

Background

Currently, Moldova is the article on the independent state and Moldavia is about the historical region, which includes parts of Romania, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.

The main problem with current status is that outside Wikipedia there is no consensus on this usage and the current status quo is rather arbitrary, and therefore confusing. Here are some facts:

  • Moldova is the Romanian name for the historical region and sometimes used in English to refer to the Romanian partion as well.
  • Moldavia is the Russian name for the whole region and was borrowed in English. Most English language historical text use Moldavia for the historical region, but the same name is often used for the Soviet Republic which is now the Republic of Moldova and sometimes used to refer "Republic of Moldova" as well.
  • In Romania, while "Moldova" refers to the Romanian part of the historical region, "Republica Moldova" refers to the "Republic of Moldova"
  • The official name of the "Republic of Moldova" is "Republica Moldova", and the Constitution always uses this term. [3]

Similar situations

Proposal

Moldova should discuss only about the whole region, Republic of Moldova about the country and Moldova (Romanian region) about the Romanian partion of Moldova.

Comments

(Please add your suggestions here)

I'm not very concerned about the naming, but we should have three articles, one on the historic region, one on the present-day republic, and one on the present-day region of Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Votes

(Please add your votes here)

Nota Bene

The following exchange was inappropriately at the top of the talk page, I've moved it down here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Romanians and Moldavians nationalityes are consideried different people. Let's respect this national position in wikipedia.

serhio

hey serhiodudnic/serhio, where have you been for the past 60 years? Moldovans and Romanians are one and the same thing. Even the maps you have so kindly provided ( one of which comes from the texas university maps and I think is copy-righted) say so too. Read bellow if you do not think so?

What are you? Some kind of communist, Russian-Moldovan from Tiraspol?

Pashli na hui pidaras!!! Duca 05:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The census is the result of declaration of Moldavian people, everybody has declared the nationality how it fell themselves. This thing can't be decided by somebody, you, for example. Thank you for your comprehension.

serhio 06:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Stalin-erhio! Why don't you go to the Russian version of the wikipedia and post your crap over there. Everyone knows that the census was suspicious and that the communists over there mislead everyone. Go read the reports of the observers that were there. And learn how to speak proper English: it's result, themselves not selutat or thimself and its not "MOLDAVIAN" but moldovan when you reffer to all the citizens of the RM. What's the matter? They don't teach you English in Tiraspol? Only Russian and "MALDABIAN"? Please come with sourses for all your maps and changes. Otherwise go take Duca's advice.Mihaitza 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

End moved text

Mihăiţă, Duca, please, stop acting childish. This is not the way to solve a dispute on Wikipedia. bogdan | Talk 16:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 :/ ye. The internal disputes are internal, and is no good to manifest it here, in this encyclopedia. serhio

I that serhio is dead wrong here, but I also think that Duca's and Mihaitza's ad hominem attacks are way out of line. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mihaitza for your the remarks. I recognize - I am not a very powerful in English, I will try do not commit mistakes. Asha ca mai bine trec in Romana. In primul rand, nu e cazul sa ofensezi pe nimeni. Intr-al doilea rand, sa fi fost eu in Tiraspol, atunci aveam sa fiu shi mai increzut, ca Reunificarea Moldovei nu imi va aduce nimic bun. Din cauza la asha vorbe, Moldova pan acu sta in bull shit shi nu se mishka din loc cu reintegrarea. In ceea ce priveshte incalcarile la recensamant, da-mi shi mie nishte linkuri sa le pot citi.

Stiu ca Moldovenii is foarte deshtepti, de aceea suntem pana acum cea mai saraca tzara din Europa.

In loc sa-shi dezvolte economia, "elita nostra intelectuala" tzipa de se rupe cine in ce limba vorbeshte shi de ce nationalitate este. Iar pan atunci rushii deschid intreprinderi, stabilesc relatii economice, politice etc.

De unde suntetzi, dragilor? Nu cumva de pe fostele "Fronturi Populare", care pentru un loc de vice-speacker si-au vandut ideile shi alegatorii? Sau poate suntetzi din caharta Lucinski (Shurik)?

Nu ash vrea sa insult pe cineva, dar, va rog, comportatziva civilizat, ca de altfel ma faceti sa cred ca faceti parte din aceeashi Mulidoveni, de care pomeniti inseva... serhio

Doing my best here to translate the above from florid and sometimes strangely spelled Romanian (or, if you prefer, very strangely spelled Moldovan). Feel free to edit to correct me (just edit in the text below). I usually feel I can read Romanian pretty well, but I found this passage very difficult. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
So it will be better to cross over into Romanian
In the first place, it is not the case that I intended to offend anyone. In the second place, if I had been in Tiraspol, then I would have been even more confident that Moldovan reunification would not bring about anything good. Because of such speech, Moldova until now remains in bull shit and does not move toward reintegration. Insofar as what you say encroaches upon the census, give me also some links that that I can read.
I know that Moldavians are very clever, from there until now it remains the poorest country in Europe.
[I'm sure I don't understand the following paragraph correctly, can someone clear it up? JM] In place of economic development, "our intellectual elite" shouts that they will break who in what language speaks also of what nationality they are. But until then they undertake open shame, stabilize economic relations, political relations, etc.
Where are you from, dear ones? Not such as were the past "Popular Front", that for a position as vice-speaker would have sold (out) ideas and voters? Or perhaps you are from the caharta (cohort?) Lucinski (Shurik)?
I didn't want to insult anyone, but, please, comport yourself in a civilized manner, which on the other hand will let me believe that you make part of (?) those Moldovans, of which you speak...
end (semi-)translated passage

"Moldova (Republic of)"

I would say Republic of Moldova is a more appropriate name than the current and more according to the standards of Wikipedia (Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of China etc.) bogdan | Talk 19:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the article about the republic should be under Moldova entry because it is the most likely article that the user who enters "Moldova" string is looking for. On the top, we would add "otheruses" template that would redirect automatically to Moldova (disambiguation). The current Moldova entry which is a disambiguation should be moved to Moldova (disambiguation). Why not submit these two proposals to WP:RM? On the side note, the incivility of some users here is truly disgusting. --Irpen 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
We have the following articles:
  • Moldova, the Republic
  • Moldova, the historical region
  • Moldova, the medieval principality
  • Moldova, the Romanian region
  • Moldova, the disambigation.
Now all we have to do is find a suitable title for each :-) bogdan | Talk 18:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, I reverted Moldova because it was moved by copy&paste to Moldova (historical region). bogdan | Talk 18:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

To Bogdan's list of articles, this is how I view the solution:

  • Article about the modern republic should be under Moldova entry, since a most likely aim of whoever enters "Moldova" in the search string. Republic of Molvoda should redirect there. The article should start with otheruses template, which automatically links to Moldova (disambiguation). The first words of the article would still be: "The Republic of Moldova is..."
  • Historical Region and Principality articles should be merged and left under the name Moldavia. This is what Britannica does. This is what WP does in cases of, for example, Galicia and Bukovina. SHould still link to Moldova (disambiguation) on top;
  • Moldova (Romanian region) as is now;
  • Moldova river, as is now
  • dab should be under Moldova (disambiguation).

This is my proposal for the solution. --Irpen 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I Agree serhio talk 17:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Using census numbers

Listen, observers complained that the census had irregularities and that there were many occasions were censors wrote all the information using pencils. After they were finished taking all the information down, they used to erase “Romanian” and replace it with “Moldovan”. Also, on many occasions censors urged people to declare themselves as “Moldovans” and not “Romanians”. Hence we do not know exactly how many people declared themselves as “Moldovans” and how many as “Romanians”. It is quite known that when it came to language, about 66% of the population declared “Romanian”, not “Moldovan-language” as mother language. So please put your political motivations aside. This is a Wikipedia where we value NPOV so stop changing the article. Thank you.

PS: BTW, the whole notion of a "moldovan" ethnic group different then the Romanian one is quite dubious. Most serious sourses will mention that Moldovans are Romanians.

Duca 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Duca, if the source is dubious, you can make a note about it in the article. However, the math you do on your own, and make it based on allegedly dubious source, produces even less encyclopedic numbers. You either find something more reliable than the official census or leave it alone. If you can support your complaints with some respectable references, no one will revert any reasonably sourced allegations about the census you might add. But you cannot just add your own analysis o the census data. Also, do not make inflamatory section titles or edit summaries. --Irpen 07:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Introductory section

There seems to be an edit war regarding the lead paragraph. I think it is important to state that Moldova was part of Romania for most of history because Moldova still maintains cultural links with Romania - the majority of its residents are ethnic Romanian (even if they're called Moldovans in the census). I'm definitely not a Moldovan unionist - in fact, I think there are differences between Moldovans and Romanians that make union near-impossible. However, fundametally, Moldovan and Romanian culture is similar and Moldovan culture has been far more influenced by Romanian culture than Russian. In short, Moldova is a Romanian nation influenced in 50 years by Russian culture that now makes it unique from both Romania and Russia, but the role of Romania is very significant, more significant that Russia's. Just saying that Moldova was a USSR republic and then became independent misses this fact. If we're going to state that Moldova was part of the USSR, then we should also state what it was before that, if only in a few words. Stop arguing that it makes the lead section long because it doesn't. The lead section is too short anyway. Adding a few extra words saying "Historically part of Romania" doesn't make the lead section more cluttered or short. Ronline 06:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Official language

Under "official language" we currently have "Moldovan (Romanian)
(+ Gagauz and Russian in the Gagauz Autonomy, Ukrainian and Russian in Transnistria not recognized internationally". This really doesn't parse. What is not recognized internationally? Foreign countries don't get to recognize an official language or not. Could someone explain what this means to say? I realize that the de facto government of Transnistria is not internationally recognized (nor, I believe, is it properly recognized by the central government of Moldova), but this is a section on official languages, not on the status of governments. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This is still (or again) in the article, and makes no more sense than it did before. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Rampant, sadly

I've edited the section "Relations with Romania and the European Union". One sentence strikes me as rather POV, but I've left it alone, because I think it is well put and on the mark; it would be good, though, to replace it with a cited quotation, since it is an expression of opinion: "At present, Moldova remains the poorest country in Europe, with rampant corruption and a sadly booming trade in people."

Also in that section: "under the clause of 'anti-nationalism'". Does this refer to a particular clause in a particular law, or should it just be "under the rubric of 'anti-nationalism'"? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with these edits

Since these recent edits are by an anonymous editor who is accusing me of bias over Romania (which I presume would extend to bias over Moldova) I do not feel free to revert. However, I think these should be reverted. It is tedious to do things this way. I would really appreciate that if I'm going to be accused of bias, please file an RfC, so that I have an appropriate place to respond and try to clear myself of the charge.

I'll take up the anon's changes one by one; bold indicates his/her additions, strikethrough indicates deletions:

  • "The Moldovan flag is similar to the flag of Romania, with the same color, but with the addition of a coat of arms, expressing the link between the same nation." This is bad English usage (you can't have a link "between" one thing). Also, while I don't doubt that Moldova chose this flag to represent common history and nationhood, I would have let the similarlity speak for itself, instead of claiming without citaiton to know the intent expressed. In any case, can someone please at least fix the English usage.
  • "Ştefan cel Mare ("Stephen the Great"), a prince of Moldavia, is considered a national hero in both Romania and Moldova, being a symbol link between them." Again, bad English usage. I'm guessing that "a symbol link" means to say "a symbolic link". And, again, I'd let the matter speak for itself: I don't think the two countries chose to consider Ştefan a hero in order to symbolize their oneness.
  • "IfWhen Romania joins the EU, and Moldova were later to will unify with Romania…". I don't mind rewording "if" to "when" for the first clause—Romania's joining the EU is pretty much a foregone conclusion—but saying that Moldova will unify with Romania, instead of "if Moldova were to unify with Romania" is absolutely out of line: the countries seem unlikely to unify in the near future, if ever.
  • "Moldova remains the one of the poorest country in Europe": again, bad grammar. I think this means to say "Moldova remains one of the poorest countries in Europe". I believe, though I am not certain, that "the poorest" is true; it is poorer than Albania, the only other contender I can imagine. Would someone at least fix the grammar? And I think that unless a poorer country can be cited, "the poorest" should be restored.

Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

His edits have continued, with the new section "Turism" (sic). "This piece of land boasts a rich history, abundant in dramatic and agitated events." This from the person who accuses me of not being neutral. Is there no one but me who thinks this is taking the article the wrong direction? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Serhiodudnic has now reverted all of these edits and more. I mostly agree with what he did, though it may have been overkill in the other direction. In any event, in the process he undid several edits of mine that I think should be uncontroversial. I have restored those without discussion because I think they were just caught in the crossfire. If he or someone else has a problem with this, please let's discuss it rather than have an edit war. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • And I see that downstream of Serhiodudnic's edits most (maybe all) of this has now been restored. Frankly, I'm too busy to fight this out. I stand by all of the remarks I made above, and I think that editorialization like "expressing the link between the same nation" is an embarrassment to an encyclopedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is a Moldovan?

About the Category:Moldovan people and List of Moldovans, who should be a "Moldovan"? People that have the the Moldovan citizenship, are Moldovans by at least one definition of the term, but what about people that lived in today's territory of the Republic of Moldova before this citizenship was created ? bogdan | Talk 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What does mean "moldovan"? In which language is that word? Romanian census from 2002 showed that are 0 Moldavians and all Moldavians from Carpathians to Prut River consider themselves Romanians.

Political editing

It seems to me that a lot of the recent editing in this article has been detrimental. All of the following occurred in the last 36 hours. I think they were all changes for the worse, and they seem to have resulted from sort of political struggle that I am not really interested in deciphering. I certainly think they all should at least require explanation as to why they were done. For the moment, I am not going to try to fix any of this, but I believe someone should.

  1. "The western part of Moldavia remained an autonomous principality and united with Wallachia to form the Old Kingdom of Romania in 1859" became "The western part of Moldavia remained an autonomous principality and united with Wallachia to form the Romania in 1859". I have literally never heard the usage "the Romania". I also think that "Old Kingdom of Romania" conveyed useful information, the distinction from Greater Romania after 1918.
  2. "Initially, there was a movement to reunite with Romania, but a March 1994 referendum saw an overwhelming majority": Well, I wasn't there and wasn't paying close attention to Moldova in those days, but from what I remember reading at that time, the removed phrase is accurate. Probably could use a citation, though.
    Actually, there was some enthusiasm at the time: "podul de flori", Moldova sets the new official language Romanian (later changed to Moldovan), the flag the Romanian tricolour, the new anthem "Deşteaptă-te, române" (later changed to "Limba noastră"), etc. bogdan | Talk 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, the part of the phrase that I show as struck is still (or again) missing from the article. I think it should be restored. Bogdan's remark confirms what I thought. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. (Section: Migration) "Estimates say that between 600,000 and a million Moldovans are currently out of the country seeking work (migratie.md), while one third of those who remain state that they would leave if they had a chance. They usually provide manual labour on Romanian farms and work in construction in Russia. Another serious issue is prostitution and trafficking of women, being estimated that more than 10,000 Moldovan women seek jobs as prostitutes. Turkey alone deports annually approximately 2,500 Moldovan women for prostitution. (state.gov)." This was removed. As far as I can tell, the linked articles bear out what is written here (although of course fuller citations would be an improvement. It seems relevant to the topic. Why was it removed?

Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Compromise attempt on introductory section

I think that to call R.M. "Historically a part of Romania" is too much. Romania exists since 1862, and the current territory of R.M. has only been part of Romania for 22 years (1918-1940); that's hardly "historically" in my view.

However, we must also acknowledge the fact that the current R.M. territory didn't emerge from nowhere in 1945 to become the Moldavian SSR. Some time ago I rephrased that sentence as: "Historically part of the Principality of Moldavia, the current territory of the R.M. became part of the USSR in 1945 as the Moldavian SSR [...]". However this seems to have been lost in the edit war currently in progress.

I'm bringing it up again, and am asking all parties to comment. Thanks, IulianU 16:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think, you are right. I Agree. serhio talk 17:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

MoldovanPage on WikiNews

I invite all Moldova editors in Wikipedia, to join also the WikiNews Project.
I have created Moldovan Page at this address: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:Moldova serhio talk 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Users blocked

202.69.200.15 and 195.175.37.38 blocked for 24 hours. If they will not learn how to cooperate in wikipedia, they will be blocked permanently. In particular, they must understand that a topic is divided into several articles. To avoid duplications and contradictions, usually the detailed information is contained only in one article, most relevant to the subject. Other articles contain either summaries or only directly relevant information. Putting the whole history of Romania into the article Moldovan language or into Moldova is absolutely out of question.

See also Talk:Moldovan language#195.175.37.38 blocked. mikka (t) 19:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing anything that connects to the ROMANIA is strange and somehow dangerous

There are a lot of attempts made by the anti-romanians Node ue, Serhiodudnic and others to eliminate everything that has a relation to Romania, this is such a stupid thing since it does not have any connection to reality, read some books first, in Moldova was applied a russification process since 1812, but still the romanian elements are the majority after so many years. It is too much politics here and in reality.

Adding disputed content and flagging it as "Minor changes" [4] is bad manners, no matter what side of the dispute you are on.
Otherwise, as I explained before, calling R. Moldova "a historic part of Romania" seems like an exaggeration. Unless you have some reasonable argument against this, please refrain from adding that phrase back. IulianU 19:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I corrected this in this way: The Republic of Moldova (conventional long form, conventional short form: Moldova, local official long form: Republica Moldova) is a landlocked country in eastern Europe, located between Romania to the west and Ukraine to the east. Its border with Romania follows the Prut and lower Danube rivers. Historically part of Romania it was united with Romania in 1918, then it was annexed by the Soviet Union in 1945 after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as the Moldavian SSR. It declared its independence from the USSR on 27 August 1991.

In this way is the one who will read will be better informed about the history of Romanian provinces. Moldova was first united with the other romanian parts in 1600 by Michael the Brave.

May be he was Brave, but it was not Romania. Also, Moldavia was even before. So please stop this super-romanism. mikka (t) 16:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Being so anti-romanian and anti-semit is not good for your helth Mikkalai mikka. Good to see your picture mikka you are now in the database of the activists of the anti-romanian order. You will pay for all.
The wording that seems to me to split the difference is "Historically a part of the Principality of Moldavia and then (from 1918) the Kingdom of Romania…." Given how prominently this fact played in the politics of the early 1990s, and continues to play to some extent today, it seems to me to be highly relevant, and belongs in the introductory paragraph of an article for an English-speaking audience, who are mostly going to be unfamiliar with the history of this area. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the user Jmabel, we have to mention that Moldova was a Romanian part for many centuries. Jmabel is right, we let the page like he made, I will do so.
False. It was fully joined to Kingdom of Romania in 1918. The history was a bit complicate to squeeze in into the intro. There is the whole section and the whole article. Saying that it was part of Romania "for centuries" is plain false. mikka (t) 20:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

ANTI

Gentilmans, I am not anti-Romanian. I am Moldovan. I don't go to the "Romania" page, and I not vandalize it. Please, lat Moldovan Page alone. serhio talk

Serhio you are romanian , moldovans are romanians, unless you are a russian or ukrainean.

The first paragraph should state the fact that is about Romanian territory

In the first lines should be stated that Moldova is a Romanian territory. --24.7.210.91 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldova is not a Romanian territory. Moldova is a sovereign state. This status of Moldova is internationally recognized.
Moldova was split in two parts. Moldova was a romanian territory and remains a territory populated by romanian people. People of Moldova speaks romanian. Two states and one people. --24.7.210.91 21:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Moldova was a Romanian territory. As of today, Moldova is a sovereign country, populated by many nations, including Moldovans (as they call themselves), Romanians, Russians, Ukrainians, Gagauzians, ant other.

Language - Comparison with Romanian

The following text is given for comparison in so called Moldovan and in Romanian, with an English translation. The English translation is only provided as a guide to the meaning, with an attempt to keep the word order as close to the original as possible.

so called Moldovan Romanian English
Vocala este un sunet din vorbirea omului, făcut cu trecerea sonoră, liberă şi fără piedică, a vântului prin canalul sonor (compus din coardele vocale şi întreaga gură) sau un semn grafic care reprezintă un atare sunet. Vocala este un sunet din vorbirea omului, făcut cu trecerea sonoră, liberă şi fără piedică, a vântului prin canalul sonor (compus din coardele vocale şi întreaga gură) sau un semn grafic care reprezintă un atare sunet. The vowel is a sound in human speech, made by the sonorous, free and unhindered passing of the air through the sound channel (composed of the vocal chords and the whole mouth) or a graphic symbol corresponding to that sound.
Aşa bunăoară, avem şase vocale ce se fac cu vântul ce trece prin gură, unde limba poate să se afle într-un loc sau altul şi buzele pot să stea deschise un soi sau altul. Aşa bunăoară, avem şase vocale ce se fac cu vântul ce trece prin gură, unde limba poate să se afle într-un loc sau altul şi buzele pot să stea deschise un soi sau altul. This way, we have six vowels that are produced by the air passing through the mouth, where the tongue can be in one place or another and the lips can be opened in one way or another.
Vocalele pot să fie pronunţate singure sau împreună cu semivocale sau consoane. Vocalele pot să fie pronunţate singure sau împreună cu semivocale sau consoane. The vowels can be pronounced alone or together with semivowels or consonants.

As was presented above both "languages" are identical. It was proved that there is only one language: romanian. 21.55,4.Nov.2005

Your conclusion is wrong. This example is only an illustration that Moldavian and Romanian languages are close. Similarly, Ukrainian and Russian are close, Portuguese and Spanish are close, etc, etc.

what is EMO?

CIS Elections Monitoring Organization (CIS-EMO)

Soon after the CIS monitors declared the Kyrgyz vote was "free and transparent," large-scale and often violent demonstrations broke out throughout the country protesting what the opposition called a rigged parliamentary election. These protests culminated on 24 March when Kyrgyz President Askar Akaev fled the country and a new government was formed.

Is The CIS-EMO An NGO?

In December 2003, a group calling itself the CIS Elections Monitoring Organization (CIS-EMO) was registered in Nizhnii Novgorod, Russia, as a nongovernmental organization; a spokesman for the group said it has no ties to the official CIS monitors.

The reasons for the founding of this group are unclear. One possible explanation is that after so many discrepancies between CIS monitors' conclusions and those arrived at by OSCE election observers, a "neutral" NGO was needed to lend legitimacy to the official CIS reports and to thereby reinforce Russian policy goals.

A certain amount of confusion resulted from the fact that this NGO had a very similar name to the official CIS monitors, and that its reports were almost carbon copies of those filed by the official CIS monitors.

The CIS-EMO played a minor role as an observer in the Ukrainian elections in 2004. CIS-EMO leader Aleksei Kochetkov complained that he had been beaten by people wearing orange armbands, a complaint that was dismissed as a ploy by many people.

In the February Moldovan parliamentary elections, a trainload of CIS-EMO observers were not allowed into the country -- being turned back at the Ukrainian-Moldovan border. Earlier, Moldova had also rejected the presence of official CIS monitors.

see CIS: Monitoring The Election Monitors

EvilAlex 11:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

let's not be biased

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/md.html

the CIA world factbook ( a very reliable sourse recongnized by most people by the way) seems to think that when speaking of ethnicity Romanians and Moldovans are reported jointly in the 2004 census. I propose we do the same and we make a note on the bottom explaining the official results and consequent objections. I do not think the CIA would have any reason to be biased in the matter.

Also the map provided, talks about Romanians(Moldovans) not "Moldovans". Until a map would be produced which will show romanians as sepparate areas from the Moldovans I think we should keep the two toghether for simplicity's sake.

Constantzeanu 18:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. But it seems that BIAS editor like Mikka, Mikkalai, he makes even here controversial edits not only on the page of Moldovan language. He blocked the page only to edit himself in an old, Soviet based theories, biased edits against the majority of other users.
No, I'm afraid that Mikkalai made a fair point that the official data from the country in cause should prevail over whatever estimate (or "opinion") some external entities provide. The CIA World Factbook is a fine source, but is certainly not infallible. If 76.1% of the people from the Republic of Moldova want to be counted as Moldovans, we should respect that fact, no matter what opinions we may have on how the Moldovan national identity came to be. Iulian U. 19:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that international obeservers made a very good point too when they showed that there were problems with the census and the censors would put pressure on the respondents to say that they are "Moldovans", not "Romanians".

All this stuff about "let's let Moldovans decide for themselves" is a great idea except that they were not allowed to choose for themselves. The Communist government under V. Voronin chose for them. Constantzeanu 20:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

<My sarcastic remark removed> Democracy begins from respect to other's choice. A disrespect to other's opinion will bring you trouble in wikipedia. mikka (t) 02:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Stop it! Before it's too late. Mikka you have to withdraw your sarcastic political remarks and please Constantzeanu admit that they called himself only officially even if 2/3 of the people consider themselves romanians that speak romanian. I think a good compromise is Moldovans(Romanians) and the language Moldavian(Romanian). Bonaparte  talk & contribs

OK. consider sarcasm removed. What I really meant that the commented phrase amounts in a disrespect to the democratic desicion of the country. I have absolutely no idea about political situation on Moldova, but obviously the previous government screwed something up very seriously so that these beaten and slandered and cursed to death communists gained power. mikka (t) 21:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice of you to withdraw your sarcastic remarks. Anyway the debate about moldovan/romanian will still continue in Moldova. The census results were censored, people were forced to say that are "Moldovans", not "Romanians". Even so, 2/3 people admitted that they are romanians and they spoke romanian. My advice is when someone has "absolutely no idea about political situation on Moldova" is to keep quiet and try not to put fan on flames. I'm afraid you just did that... Bonaparte  talk & contribs
Now you can revert your edits and of Mark.
PS. After the orange revolution in Ukraine this government of communists had reoriented the foreign policy of Moldova towards EU and the West, despite the relations with Russia. President Voronin textually said "we will froze (without russian gas), but won't give up" [[5]] & [[6]]

Officially Moldovan is not de facto identic as Romanian?

User:Mikkalai reverted without any explanation the phrase: "Officially Moldovan, de facto identic as Romanian ". I think this is another bias edit of User:Mikkalai which proved so far that his only contributions are to revert anything that relates to romanian language. His history profile on the page of Moldovan language is allready well known.

Anyway he reverted to a version that is inacceptable and does not meet the consensus. I am not going to revert one more time, I hope somebody else will do this.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

This was an official country infobox. No meddling. There are articles for various explanations and opinions. mikka (t) 21:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, five years was good that note, why suddenly now is not good anymore?  Bonaparte  talk & contribs
I suggest to put it back.
That's how wikipedia works. Nothing is ideal from the very beginning. Once again: infobox is a summary table (like in "table of contents"), not a place for various notes and comments. mikka (t) 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The reason this clarification is needed is that a typical English-speaker (our audience) would simply call this language "Romanian". On the other hand, the Moldovan government chooses to call it "Moldovan". We need to both acknowledge the official name and communicate useful information to the reader. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I think most English speakers would call the official language of Moldova Moldovan. Given that I've heard people refer to nonexistant languages like "Belgian", "Swiss", "Indian", "African", etc, I think it's more likely that the average English speaker would find it much more logical that the language spoken in a country shares its name with the country itself. --Node 23:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You're wrong. I have given example and proofs that this so called moldovan language is just a russian invention. Even after so many years and attempts to make it sound different from romanian is still identical. They are identical. -- Bonaparte talk 09:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say that the average English speaker is knowledgable on the topic, and would have an opinion; while I try to assume good faith, it is really hard for me to believe that you honestly thought that is what I meant, and I think you are probably deliberately being difficult by pretending to misunderstand me. I am saying that a typical English-speaker who has any familiarity at all with the language would know of it as "Romanian:, not as "Moldovan". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Population

I suspect this anonymous change without citation is wrong: it would show an increase in estimated population of over a million people in a single year, without a census. I am reverting it pending citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It is only 3,386,000 people without Transnistria and Tighina according to the official site (http://www.statistica.md/statistics/dat/596/ro/Nr_pop_la1ian_2005.doc). By the way also at this site one can choose the language of the page between (ROM-RU-EN). So nobody says MD. This is another official institution that recognize the fact that they speak romanian.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs
But if you count with the population of Transnistria then is is true (4,5 millions). Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Official Statement of President Basescu concerning the same romanian people from Moldova and Romania

Link: *http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2005-11-28&id=12172

"Moldovenii si romanii sunt, in esenta, un singur popor" declared romanian President T. Băsescu.
"Moldovans and romanian are in essence, the same people" (President of Romania T. Băsescu). I found this very interesting and deserve to be added in the text.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs
Yes, it is interesting. How one country strives to swallow another one. I have learned that there is no such thing as a goodwill in politics. mikka (t) 08:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

President Voronin of R. of Moldova said: „Rusia doreste sa recolonizeze Republica Moldova". -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Which, for those who do not read Romanian, is "Russia wants to recolonize the Republic of Moldova." -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of official remarks by the new administration. Last April the Romanian Ambassador to the United States, Sorin Ducaru, visited Cleveland, Ohio to give a talk. There was a Q&A session afterwards, during which I asked him, quite directly the following question. "Will Moldovans be required to pay for a visa for travel to Romania, in light of the two countries' prior travel arrangements as well as their shared linguistic and cultural history?" His response was as follows: "I understand now that Moldovans need visas to travel into Romania and that situation will not change for the forseeable future." It was of course completely false and it drew a few snorts of disdain from other Moldovans in the audience, as well as a few chuckles. I am only adding this anecdote because for me it further highlights the problems facing Moldova, if even the Romanian Ambassador to the US didn't readily know the facts on it. Granted, he might not have had to ever deal with such a question. Also of note, during his brief powerpoint presentation, he quickly skipped over a few slides on Transnistria and Moldova.vkxmai 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. He made a mistake. Maybe he was thinking about passports. Moldovans in the present time they don't need visa to enter in Romania. But they need a valid passport. Some years ago this was not neccessarly. They could have enter only with a valid ID card. The agreements with EU is that Romania can choose a country with which it may have special relationship. So even when Romania will join EU in 2007 the agreements with Moldova will be in such a manner that they will not need visa. E.g. Ukraine, Russia, Serbia, Turkey they need visa for Romania now. Bonaparte talk 17:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying to solve this language thing

Right now, you could easily read this article and think no one in Moldova would understand a word of Romanian unless they learned it as a foreign language. That is clearly misleading.

Mikkalai: you keep removing from the infobox the all mention that Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian. Which of the following is going on:

  1. You think that linguists generally consider Moldovan and Romanian to be different languages.
  2. You think that linguists disagree on this, and there is doubt as to whether Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian.
  3. You think that there is currently a dispute on this matter in Wikipedia, and that this shouldn't be mentioned on the article page until that dispute is resolved (in which case please indicate who is disputing that Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian; as far as I can tell, the most extreme view on this is from Node ue, who—again, as far as I can tell—does not seem to be saying that the differences are large.
  4. You think that linguists all, or virtually all, agree that Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian, but you don't think our article should mention that (in which case please explain why not).
  5. You think that linguists all, or virtually all, agree that Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian, and you think our article should mention that, but you don't want it in the Infobox.
    This variant would be ideal IMO. mikka (t) 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd greatly appreciate if no one else interject in this section until Mikkalai has a chance to respond. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I have already answered that. It is very bad idea to allow creeping all kinds of comments into infoboxes. They are already large by themselves. Why is it so difficult to realize that once you start allowing this, pretty soon these infoboxen will be a field of POV wars and "explanations"? Exactly the same reason was given me a year ago when I tried to mention in Russia infobox that former currency symbol was RUR, which was IMO a very small but useful addition, since it still may be found all over the web, not to mention paper-printed texts. mikka (t) 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, if some people think it is important to mention that the languages are the same, and I am pretty much sure that there will be a growing number of people to say that they are "identical", not to a lesser degree it would be important not to leave people wondering why these <plural offensive word> have two names for the same language. (And btw so far no one explained me this, despite my numrous inquiries at the talk page: what was the reason that Moldovan parliament rejected renaming; the only explanation was a conspiracy-type opinion "Russian blackmail") mikka (t) 07:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And yes, our good friend Bonaparte tried to push his motto "identical", while in the quiz above you are using a more cautious phrasing, which is exactly my position: there are no two "identical" things in the real world. This is a matter of convention and official recognition. When Moldovan parliament says they are identical, they will be identical. But for some reason (and I don't really care by which, just normal (or patholoical) wikipedian's curiosity) they seem don't have a consensus yet. Surely their opinion outweigs user:Bonaparte's. mikka (t) 07:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like we are not too far apart, then. I, for one, could care less whether this is in the infobox or elsewhere in the article, and I suspect that a lot of this argument has been a misunderstanding.
I will add a section on language to the article; it seems to me that we can deal with the Moldovan/Romanian issue there rather than the Infobox. Probably what I will write will be only a first approximation to what it should say, but I assume that we can edit in the usual manner from there. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Inglobation"

BTW, right now I noticed a curious word in the infobox, not found in my dictionary "inglobation" and with very curious occurrence in the internet. I guess it is a false friend for Romanian speakers, like, "o inglobate in istituti europei" I'd suggest to find something less italian. mikka (t) 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Inglobation" certainly does not exist in English. May I assume that in this context it means the date when the entity came into existence with more or less it's current borders? If so, we could say "Borders established" and be clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Lots of activity on this page, but still no answer to my question after 11 days. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ştefan cel Mare

What is with "Ştefan cel Mare şi Sfânt"? I've always heard him referred to as Ştefan cel Mare; our article on him does not mention this longer expression, nor does the Romanian Wikipedia. Google shows it with 20,000 hits, not paltry, but nothing next to 398,000 for "Ştefan cel Mare". I am removing this usage from this article, where the main purpose should be identification. It is probably worth a mention in the article about the man himself, both here and on the Romanian Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don’t know much but look what it said in Ştefan cel Mare article:
Stephen was seen as holy by many Christians, although it is said that he fathered more than 20 illegitimate children. He has been canonized by the Romanian Orthodox Church under the name "The Right-believing Voivod Stephen the Great and the Saint".If they think that he was saint, well that will be enough for me.
EvilAlex 12:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Ştefan cel Mare received also from Pope an act as "saviour of the cristianity". Superman
Yes, but remember some popes had some illegitimate children too. :P (see List of sexually active popes bogdan 22:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, no problem, and all of that belongs in the article on him but he is far more commonly referred to as Ştefan cel Mare, not Ştefan cel Mare şi Sfânt, so that is what this article should call him. Or Stephen III of Moldavia, but I think that is less recognized, even though it follows Wikipedia conventions. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Lately I can assure you is more used like this "Ştefan cel Mare şi Sfânt". One justification may be because it was time also for Romania to have a Saint.-- Bonaparte talk 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
If it is used more, why is the other 20 times more common on the Internet? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Because that is the common perception on international media (I mean the impact, effect). But in Romania is the other perception as I told you before. -- Bonaparte talk 06:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This page isn't about Romania. Romanian perceptions of Shtiefan shel Mari are entirely irrelevant here. On a side note, Moldovans also call him sometimes affectionately "Shtefan Vody" (=Ştefan Vodă) though I don't know about Romania. --Node 09:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree; so remove Eminescu, because Eminescu was Romanian.

"Shtiefan shel Mari"

What is this? What kind of spelling is this? Moldavians pronounce Ştefan as it sounds. In this case, the "e" is not replaced with "i". What the hell is shel? Yes, mari is the popular pronouncation. --Anittas 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldavians perhaps. But we're talking about Moldovans. Moldovans pronounce "c" as "sh". So "ce faci" becomes "shi fashi". No, the "e" is not replaced with "i". That's why it's "shtiefan" and not "shtifan". "ie" is a sound sort of like "ye" in English "yet". I think this pronunciation is influenced by Slavic languages, so I don't know if you use it in Iasi, but it's certainly how they say it in Chisinau. And I don't know if you protested Vodă -> Vody. If you do too bad because in Chisinau "ă" at the end of a word is pronounced as "î" aka "y". --Node 04:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks more like English translit of Romanian words. They don’t speak that in Chisinau.
EvilAlex 12:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I said nothing about ce faci being pronounced as shi faci. Some pronounce it as shi faci, some pronounce it as ci faci. I was talking about Stefan. It's impossible for Moldovans to pronounce Stefan as Shtiefan. --Anittas 09:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (personal attack removed Node 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

Huh. So is the city of Ştefan Vodă (on which we need an article) named after him? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
<removed personal attack from Anittas --Node 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)>
Yes, I'm pretty sure it is. Also, I know there's at least one street in Chisinau called "stefan cel mare", and I imagine there are similar streets elsewhere in Rep Moldova. --Node 04:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

<removed personal attack Node 04:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)> Stefan was declared Saint by the Romanian Orthodox Church. Did Moldova do the same? --Anittas 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

<removed personal attack from bonaparte Node 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)>

Eminescu

Eminescu was a Romanian, born in Romanian Moldavia. He sometimes wrote patriotic Romanian poems. He wanted all Romanian people to live in one nation under sun. Why are you having him here? Yes, he was Moldavian, but he was Romanian. He was a patriot. --Anittas 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Because we want all Romanian and Moldavian people to live in one nation under the sun.

“Din sfera mea venii cu greu
Ca sã-ti urmez chemarea,
Iar cerul este tatãl meu
Si muma-mea e marea.”

Dear Anitta I understand that you are angry but nobody is taking him from you. Before there was only one Moldova not two like today-(Romanian Moldova, Moldavian Moldova).
Hi is Moldavian too.
EvilAlex 23:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, both countries claim him as their national poet. If you have a grievance about that, you'd have to take it up with the Romanian government, not with Wikipedia for reporting it. Here's a pretty solid citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Both countries also claim Dracula as a national hero, and Dracula was Wallachian. My point is that if you exclude certain Romanian elements, exclude everything. Your buddy, Node, said that the Romanian perceptions of Stefan cel Mare, or as he spells it "Shtiefan shel Mari", is irrelevant. Okay, so remove all Romanian relevant elements, then. Remove Eminescu. Don't call Stefan a saint, because he is recognized as a saint in Romania only; plus that we spell it with â, not î. You know, different languages and all, right, Node? --Anittas 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Anittas, Moldova claims Eminescu. Whether or not it's legitimate claim I don't know. --Node
Anittas, Eminescu is our national poet, we will not remove him. I learned about him in school, I love his poems.There have been made changes already, it says: national poet of Romania and Moldova. What more do you what?
EvilAlex 12:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I want reunion. What national poet? Did he have Moldovan citizenship? Was he born in Basarabia? No, he was born in my county. Did he say he was Basaranian? No, he said he was Romanian. He wrote extensively on Romanian history, and that includes Wallachian history. He united our people and made them feel proud of their past. You Moldovans (not you personally) do the opposite. You spit on your people across the Prut and you kiss Russian ass. If you're loyal to Romania, Alex, then I got no problems with you. You can claim any Romanian that you like, but Moldovans, who call Romanians for expansionists and who lie about history, have no right to claim Romanian patriots! And one question: if you consider Eminescu a national poet, do you consider, say, Henri Coanda, a national scientist? They were both Romanians: one was Moldavian and the other Wallachian. If you only want to claim Moldavians and not the rest of the Romanians, then you should claim none at all. You can claim your Russians. HAHA! Again, nothing personal against you. --Anittas 12:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
You are mad, did somebody bitt you? There is no and never was such country as Bessarabia. More... there haven’t been a country called Romania!!! Romania was divided on Moldova Transylvania and Wallachia. So if we cannot clime him, then neither do you! I don’t clime any Romanians writers or scientists. I never even heard of them but Eminescu is complete different story. Eminescu is a Moldovan who dreamed of reunion as many others Moldavians.
EvilAlex 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not mad. Node tried to bite me, but I told him that I'm into chicks and stuff. I say Basarabia in order to distinguish the true Moldova from the other Moldova, that is now independent. Your Moldova has no continuity to the Principality of Moldova. Our Moldova does have this continuity, thus, our Moldova is the true Moldova; and our Moldova created Romania. Romania was not divided. Romania wanted to retrieve the Moldovan territory which belonged to the original Moldova, and it went to hell. Eminescu was Romanian. If you want to claim Eminescu, you must admit being Romanian. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? If you claim to be Romanian (Moldovean), then it's cool, but start convincing your people about them, too, being Romanian. --Anittas 13:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I was forced to change the description of Eminescu to "Romanian national poet". This is because he was not a Moldovan national poet. Your country was not even independent back then and he not only was a strong supported of the Romanian union, but he simply was Romanian, serving the Romanian people. Sorry, but this is the fact. --Anittas 16:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

dont do it again.. Grow up Anitta..
EvilAlex 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

International rankings

I've added this. Would it be someone so kind to help us to reveal the real numbers? Thank you. -- Bonaparte talk 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I'm working on updating them now. I deleted some of the entries since they didn't include Moldova in their studies (the Competitiveness Yearbook, the AT Kearney report, etc, which only included larger countries). Ronline ✉ 04:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Ronline. We need people like Ronline. Bonaparte talk 18:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The dispute about Eminescu - Part II

For those interested in this dispute, first read the dispute about Eminescu above.

Eminescu was Romanian. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. He had Romanian citizenship, he was ethnically Romanian, and he identified himself as such; plus that he was a patriot. Is there anyone who disagrees with this? If you then choose to have Eminescu on your page, can we write that Eminescu was Romanian? What is the reason for not having this fact included? --Anittas 21:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a fact – more like fabrications…
He didn’t have any Romanian citizenship - there haven’t been a country called Romania!!! Romania was divided on Moldova Transylvania and Wallachia. Eminescu was born in Moldova and then part of Moldova reunited with Romania and other part didn’t. He was born in Moldova hence he is a Moldavian. Romania didn’t exist at that point!!!
You contradict yourself look what you said before: “Yes, he was Moldavian…” --Anittas 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
If you are so eager want to make changes, then let change it to “Moldavian national poet” otherwise live how it is now:” Mihai Eminescu, national poet of Romania and Moldova”
EvilAlex 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? First of all, I thought that you identified yourself as a Romanian. Aren't you? You seem to agree to a re-union. Secondly, Eminescu was born in 1850, in what is now Romanian Moldova. He died in 1889. In 1859, the two principalities united and in 1862, their political union and the name of Rumania was recognized by the European powers; thus, Eminescu became a citizen of the new-found state of Romania. He then started to promote the idea of unity for all Romanians. He is more Romanian than most Romanians today. Eminescu was not born in your Moldova. Your Moldova was incorporated into the Russian Empire. It is a fact that Eminescu was a Romanian citizen! --Anittas 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
EvilAlex claims to be from Tighina with his native language as Russian. --Node 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, fine, so is he Romanian or not? Because he said he wants a reunion. He can be Russian; if he wants reunion, I'm cool with that. But he likes Eminescu, so how can he be Russian? Maybe partially Russian. Look, I don't care. Just be cool! And still, Eminescu was Romanian. --Anittas 01:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
1. There main point is that there wasn’t a country with the name “Romania”. Romania cannot clime Eminescu as a Romanian because Romania didn’t exist at that point of time.
2. The Treaty of Berlin in 1878 recognised the complete independence of the principalities Moldavia and Walachia. Maybe they did mention ward Romania but it is already too late. In return for ceding to Russia the two southern districts of Bessarabia- 10 years before Eminescu death.
3. Eminescu was a Moldovan he was born in Moldavian family in principality of Moldova and he died like Moldovan.
4. Moldova was divided on two between occupied powers but it doesn’t mean that Moldovan on there left side of there river prut will call themselves Russians and Moldovan from right side will call themselves Romans. No they are still Moldova’s and Eminescu was a Moldovan.
5.”eminescu was born in Romanian Moldova” there haven’t been a Romanian Moldova –Romania didn’t exist it was a “personal union" of two vassal principalities Moldavia and Walachia and Eminescu was born in Moldavian principality he is a Moldovan. People from Moldavian principality called themselves Moldova’s not Romans. Maybe now they call themselves Roman but before they where Moldovan.
6. you seems to ignore what you said before:” “Yes, he was Moldavian…” --Anittas 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)”
EvilAlex 13:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, EvilAlex, you really made me laugh, thanks. You seem to ignore Eminescu's own opinion: "Suntem români şi punctum", so stop thinking FOR Eminescu, he had his own choice. Just a tag

Eminescu was a Moldovan who dreamed of union as many others Moldavians.
EvilAlex 18:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, then you disagree with Eminescu :) Just a tag
"Suntem români şi punctum" it is the same as to say: “I am American”. It doesn’t meant that you going to throw away your roots your nationality. If you are German it mean that you will always be German, and in relation to this phrase it will sound something like: American German, or American Pole, or French American. You are not loosing your nationality. That is why many Moldavians from Romania still call themselves Moldavians. Eminescu is a Poet - It is more like reading a bible it have many meanings. Eminescu talked about union not about assimilation.
EvilAlex 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you read? Eminescu died in 1889, thus, he lived to see Romania and became a Romanian citizen. Also, you shouldn't claim the Moldovans who claimed to be Romanians until you yourself say you are Romanian. And learn some history. Cantemir said it quite clearly that Moldovans call their language for Romanian and that before Dragos settled in Moldova, they called themselves Ruman, just like the Wallachians. This is not about what the country was called. This is about what the people called themselves. The Wallachians used to call themselves Ruman centuries before Romania was founded. If you don't let me write that Eminescu was a Romanian, which he was, both officially and in mind, I will take this with higher authorities. --Anittas 18:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
No he lived to see independence of the principalities of Moldavia and Walachia.Maybe Walachians call themselves Ruman, but Moldavians call themselves Moldavian.

“you shouldn't claim the Moldovans who claimed to be Romanians until you yourself say you are Romanian”
O I know history: Russian tried to make Moldovan into Russians and now Romanians try to make Moldavians in to Romanians. That is a real history.

“The Wallachians used to call themselves Ruman centuries before Romania was founded.”
Probably it was centuries before the birth of Christ.
EvilAlex 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Dude, Eminescu lived to see Wallachia uniting with Moldavia and forming Romania! --Anittas 01:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Too late already, 10 years before his death. But it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a Moldovan. He was born in Principality of Moldova; there hasn’t been any Romanian state at that time. He was born in Moldavian family, Moldovans call themselves Moldovans.
EvilAlex 12:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually the union was initiated in 1859 when the Wallachians chose the Moldavian prince (Alexandru Ioan Cuza) as ruler and completed in 1862, initially being named "Principatele Unite". bogdan 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The Principality of Moldavia has nothing to do with you, half-Russified people! Eminescu died in 1889 and Romania was created in 1862. He lived to witness 27 years of his country, and he called himself Romanian! Someone even gave you a quote. I will revert for the last time. If you revert my revert, I make a RfC on you. --Anittas 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

For God sake! Will you stop both of you from this? I don't like the way it will evolve if you can't find a compromise. Bonaparte talk 19:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You see, to say: "Suntem români şi punctum" it is not the same as to say: "Nu suntem Moldoveni şi punctum". Did you get me? He did not say that he is not a Moldovan. “Principality of Moldova has much to do with my country.” Before it was one country and it have much to do with our common history and culture. Moldovans on the right site of the river Prut are the same as Moldovans on the left side.
If you will call Eminescu only a Romanian Poet – for Moldavia it meant that you will erased the fact that he was a Moldovan.
He was born in 1850 at that time Moldavia still was under occupation; there haven’t even been any unions with Walachia. He was born in Moldavian family. Moldovans called themselves Moldovans, Romania didn’t existed at that point.
The compromise will be to write:” Mihai Eminescu,national poet of both Romania and Moldova”. But not the way how you do, you are already angry but you will be mad if I will write:” Mihai Eminescu,national poet of Moldova also recognized in Romania”
“Romania was created in 1862.”- You cannot change the nation from Moldavian to Romanians in few years. You need centuries. And I was talked about official recognition of two joint principalities Moldavia and Walachia in 1878 under the Treaty of Berlin.
EvilAlex 20:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I am Moldovean, too, but I'm Romanian; because Moldavians are Romanians. Those Moldovan on the wrong side of the Prut betrayed their herritage. Why? Look at the Romanians in Transylvania - they were under centuries ruled by others, but they never gave in. They stayed loyal to their identity and did everything possible to unite with their brothers. Bonaparte is from Transylvania and you see how hardheaded he is. How could anyone try to rule over someone like that? You can't. Too bad you're not like the Romanians from Transylvania. In just some century, you submitted yourself to the Russians. You think it's cool to speak Russian slang. How shameful. What are you doing here? Go out in the streets of Chisinau and start a revolution!

And yes, Eminescu was Moldovean, but Moldavians from the RIGHT side of the Prut consider themselves Romanians; he was also of Romanian nationality - as in holding Romanian citizenship. The name "Ruman/Roman" is not artificially created, as you like to imply. The name has been attached to us for a very long time. Moldavians used it less, but it was there. --Anittas 21:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What revolutions? Russians already left. Many of Moldavian Russians who settled in Moldova already speak Romanian as their second language. Now Moldavia is moving in right direction. Moldova has changed orientation to a pro western a long time ago... The problem is Transnistria, Revolution needs to be in Transnistria- Transnistria is a Russian enclave , they still have 14th Russian army there, repression, pro-Russian propaganda- don’t you remember life under Ceauşescu people simple cant resist. Revolution happened when expectation and level of well being are raised.
In Chisinau, Beliti people in street freely speak Romanian. In Transnistria they still speak Russian.
EvilAlex 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Revolution to re-unite with Ro. --Anittas 23:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It is 50%- 50% some people want some people don’t... Country just regained independence. People need some time
EvilAlex 23:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. It would take some time before the Moldovans would get a better world view and understand where are they and what are their perspectives. Don't forget that the Romanians were also a bit confused in the 1990s, the biggest mistake being voting for Ion Iliescu... :-(
BTW, this is interesting article, especially the "Cum a refuzat Iliescu Unirea" part. bogdan 00:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, very interesting; and this supports my argument: Bucharest is a filthy city that betrayed our entire country. I can't believe that scumbag of a city can be our capital. Iasi should be our capital! Bucharest can burn! And Iliescu should meet the same fate as Ceausescu, that filthy traitor! --Anittas 20:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me remind you that in the early 1990s, the largest percentage of people that voted against Iliescu was in Bucharest, while in Moldavia people voted for him. Also, large protests against Iliescu were in Bucharest (the Golaniad), not elsewhere. bogdan 21:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry people, history will take its course, the two countries will have some sort of economical union eventually, and then a bit later maybe a political one, if not, we'll be one nation anyway in our hearts and nobody can take this from us :) 212.0.211.204 19:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I think all of you just stop. You're making things even worst. Hey! there is no competition here. Bonaparte talk 19:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

2004 census

According to the 2004 census 76.1 % of people in Moldova identify themselves as Moldovans. Even if Moldovans and Romanians compose one ethnicity, you can't say that 76.1 % of citizens claimed that they are Romanians, because they didn't. --Zserghei 22:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

2/3 of the people recognize that they are romanian and their langauge as romanian one. So, what's your problem? Bonaparte talk 10:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It is specified in the paragraph about the census what people were encouraged to say. And in the census there is no mentioning of that fact. This ignorance is wrong. What is said here doesn't correspond to the census. Its results are arbitrary altered. --Zserghei 10:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because you are a russian minority from Moldova doesn't mean that you don't speak romanian as yourself had said before in your history. You know very well that are romanians. Good bye russian.
It is just a matter of correct citing of official data. According to The National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova (only in romanian) moldavans make 76.1% and romanians 2.1%. Every other statement is only a personal opinion. I suggest Wikipedia should keep this information. --Zserghei 14:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What a pity

This page could have been a pretty decent page were it not for bad English and what seems to be almost constant references to Romania. Granted, Moldovans speak Romanian (even if they call it Moldovan), but just as how Austrians speak German and maybe ethnically German, there seems to me to be no reason for this article and its associated discussion to be involved in some kind of dispute over the identity and language of the people in the area called Moldova. If Moldovans were really intent on reunification there was ample time (nearly 14 years) in which to do so. And even if the government was promoting "Moldovan" over "Romanian", the mere fact that the majority of Moldovans have not voted for the only party advocating unification with Romania and that the majority of Moldovans have not brought down their government with protests and insisted on unification demonstrates that reunification is not a pressing issue. Also, why all this bickering over "Moldovan" language and "Romanian" language? In the United States the language is called English or American English, but we don't see any bickering or edit wars over this. In Belgium the languages are either "French and Dutch" or "Walloon and Flemish" but are tempers raging and people being verbally attacked over on any of those pages? You should all get some administrators in here to lock the page and put up warning signs until things can be worked out peaceably.anon user

Speaking of which, linking for the official language like this
  • [[Romanian language|Moldovan]]
… is inappropriate, given that we have an article Moldovan language. We can argue till hell freezes over as to whether Moldovan is a language, a dialect, a variety, or just another name for Romanian (FWIW, from everything I've seen, I'd say "just another name" is closest to the truth, with "a variety" being arguable, and claims of a distinct "dialect" or even "language" being pretty much polemical), but our article Moldovan language is largely about these questions, and about the question of official language in Moldova. Bypassing that by piping a link is basically an Easter Egg link, specifically advised against at Wikipedia:Piped link. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Basescu

I think you noticed that I did not say "the Moldovan people" but "the people of Moldova"-Basescu [[7]]


http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/nitransit/2003/moldova2003.pdf

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/nitransit/2004/moldova2004.pdf

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/nitransit/2005/moldova2005.pdf

-- Bonaparte talk 15:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Romanian"'s comportment

The Romanians comportment is insupportable for this article. They vandalize Republic page with articles about Romania, stupid comparations of languages (because is certain that Romanian and Moldovan is two different names for the same language), Romanian flags etc.

This is revolting... :( serhio

I am from Moldova and I am Romanian. What is your problem? Moldovans are Romanians. I live now in Australia because of people like you. --203.188.144.62 10:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Sergio, I don't see how the page is vandalized with "articles" about Romania given the fact they are our neighbours, we share the same language and same culture (just as you could say that ministry of education is vandalizing education by having "History of Romanians", "Romanian language", "Geography" (which of course includes Romania as well). And comparing the flags is certainly important, because the Moldovan flag is derived from the Romanian one. I have to agree though that comparing languages is not required in this article, it should be enough to say that the language is essentially Romanian and that's it. --Just a tag 11:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The reason it's bad is because this is the article about Moldova. Not Romania. Bonaparte, Anittas, Tag, and their little unionist buddies constantly vandalise this article by adding in totally irrelevant material trying to emphasise ties to Romania. --Node 23:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
User User:Node_ue, if you believe I'm vandalizing this article then start an RfC on me, otherwise I suggest you not to bring these kind of allegations in the first place. Oh, and happy new year everyone ;) --Just a tag 00:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I should say the same to you. --Node 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
So what? Moldova will unite with Romania either you like it or not. You can't stop this process do you? Little are you, with your 16 years. Newbie node your edits are totally irrelevant here.--203.188.144.61 23:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
An anon calling me a newbie... now there's a first. --Node 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Guys, please do one thing this new year: consider that union with Moldova is not given! I know a lot of Romanians and Moldovans want union, but I think in both countries more people don't want union - in Romania for economic reasons, in Moldova for political reasons. Also, where did this statement that Moldova with join the EU in 2010 come from!? It isn't even a candidate country yet. Ronline ✉ 14:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
In Romania for economical reasons :) In Moldova for political :)))))) You are right, only in one problem: in both countries more people don't want union this is right. But, anyway, take a look in Moldova page. This is Romanians who edit the page in this "style". I ask me WHY??? I think, because they loves very much RM! serhio talk 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Serhio, would you support a reunion, or oppose it? --Anittas 12:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
For us "unification" is undesirable, moreover - is historically shameful! And besides we have no experience of joint residing except for 2-3 ten years of "Great Union"... serhio talk 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Serhio, you are a Slav. Otherwise, there would be nothing shameful to reunite with your own people. What is shameful is your colonization of the land of other people. And to spit on their ancestors. --Anittas 16:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am citizen of Republic of Moldova! :( I speak Romanian. I am Moldavian. Let us alone! serhio talk 16:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I am also a citizen of Republic of Moldova. So please, serhio ,speak for yourself and not for "us". --Just a tag 16:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's true that most people don't want union in both countries. In Romania, this is for economic reasons, as much as the Moldovans will deny this. It is simply a burden for Romania to support a country that is four times poorer per capita than it. For Moldova, it is for political reasons - there is still a strong Moldovenist movement, and many people want self-determination. The case is very similar to Austria - Austria would not want to unite with Germany, even if they are the same people. Ronline ✉ 04:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, many Wallachians and other traitors don't want reunion, but what about the Moldavians? Austria has a tradition of being an independent state, but after WW1, they had to sign on an agreement to not unite with Germany. Before WW1, Austria and Germany were politically united. There's a difference. --Anittas 04:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, there are people who don't want reunion both for rational and ideological reasons in Moldova. Some Moldovans believe that union with Romania would deny them self-determination - the ability of Moldovans to make policies for Moldovans - even if did bring about greater economic prosperity. Ideologically, many believe in an independent Moldova that should be independent of Wallachia and Transylvania (while recognising that they're the same people), while others also believe in Soviet-era theories of Moldovan independence (that they're a separate people). In Romania, the situation is much less controversial simply because Moldovan union is quite a minor issue in Romania. Due to this, a lot of people support it, but not particularly vocally. In Transylvania, there is quite a lot of support for union, since the idea of Greater Romania is quite popular here. In Romanian Moldova, also, due to cultural closeness. In Wallachia, however, the idea is almost a non-issue outside of PRM-ist (and Noua-Dreaptist) circles. A lot of people fail to see the economic and political problems that Moldovan union would bring about (harmonisation of laws, dealing with Gagauzia and Transnistria, a large Russian minority, implementation of European directives, the upgrading of infrastructure, etc). I suppose it could work if in the next ten years Moldova grows fast economically (currently it is growing fast) and adopts a program of "Romanianisation" (which it is doing to an extent). But even then, union remains controversial if only because Europe sees any attempt to change territorial boundaries with a lot of cynicism, after the horrors of WWII, the Cold War and the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Ronline ✉ 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who do not support a reunion are traitors. --Anittas 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Traitors of what? Traitors of "Great Romania"? :) The current version of the article on Moldova is really a big shame for Wiki. We should not let nationalistic groups (in this case, romanian nationalists) to take control over Wiki.
Yes this is true. I invite request unprotection for Moldova. Current normalized (from my point of view) version for Moldova SEE HERE. I invite all constructive people to collaborate. serhio talk 08:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose we use this:

best possible version.

Thoughts? --Node 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You are trolling. Bonaparte talk 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I'm surprised you don't like it. I thought you, of all people...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.68.75 (talk • contribs) 1 January 2006

You are the man ;) respect nigga! What this stupid Moldavians (from RM) search for? Their place is near tzigani in the "Great Mamma" serhio talk 16:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Stii sergiu, am invatat cu tine in aceeasi clasa (pe urma paremise te-ai mutat la liceul vasile alecsandri, nici nu incerca sa intrebi cine sunt ca nu iti voi raspunde), tot timpul aveam o parere buna despre tine, imi pare rau ca ma faci sa mi-o schimb.... --Just a tag 16:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
For Serhio: Vasile Alecsandri --Anittas 16:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Which is an article for clean-up. :-( bogdan 19:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

EU integration

...hopes to join EU in 2010.

Do we have any references on this hope ? It seems very unlikely, Croatia also hopes 2010 and Albania, which is ahead economically, hopes for 2015. IIRC, some EU officials named 2015 as the earliest date. bogdan 14:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of this number before, maybe it's from here http://www.e-democracy.md/en/e-journal/20030507/:
The conclusion is that Moldova should apply for associate status with the EU, and if it does not meet the necessary requirements, it could become associate member by 2007. Another possibility would be to sign a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU, given that the next enlargement could take this very path. In both cases, a serious analysis of the situation and of the motivation for the chosen variant is needed. If Moldova properly applies the provisions of the Association Agreement or those of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, it could join the EU by 2010-2014. There's a good review of the situation here: http://econwpa.wustl.edu:8089/eps/mac/papers/0411/0411001.pdf . I highly doubt though that it's possible for us to join EU in 2010-2014 :( --Just a tag 15:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Usually it's every 9 years. If you take for example Spain,..1986 then Austria, Sweden, Finnland in 1995, then the 10 countries in 2004, then Moldova should in 2013 join EU. Bonaparte talk 15:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that numerous Romanians will be very disappointed if there are no accessions in 2007. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it won't happen for sure...I talked with them...and EU need Romania almost the same or more then even Romania I can assure you. Look at the latest aquisition in Romania BCR for 3,7 Billion €, Vodafone-Connex 2,5 Billion €, Petrom 1,5 Billion € ...They need the largest market in the area :) Romania has a strategical location, that's why Americans wants to have military bases there. Don't forget EU can't develope without expanding, they need other markets and Romania will be the 7th largest country in EU. Bonaparte talk 06:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As much as I would like Moldova to join in the EU, it is impossible to achieve this by 2010. Before applying for membership, the SAA must be completed, which would be possible around 2007 at the earliest. After that, if Moldova applies for membership in 2008, they will probably get official candidate status in 2010 and start negotiation talks in 2011. This is a very optimistic scenario. Talks would take about three years at best, so they could be finished by 2014. So, accession could take place as early as 2016 provided Moldova starts measures to join the EU immediately and the Transnistria conflict is resolved. But I think 2020 is a more plausible date considering that the Western Balkans, which are more advanced, will join in around 2012-2014, and even Croatia can't possibly join before 2010. Ronline ✉ 05:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Tourism Section

The tourism section appears to be out of place and contains very little information. The section resembles the introductory paragraph to a brochure about the country but has very little relevant information. It contains no facts nor any statements that cannot be found in other parts of the article. Furthermore, no other wiki article about a country contains such an ubiquitous section. I propose removing it completly. TSO1D 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Census

Maybe this is not the best place to bring this up, but does anyone know if the recent census data in both RM and PMR have released their final versions. I noticed in the Tiraspol article and Tighina article that the population is reported to be 266.000 and 157.000 resp. which results in more then 400.000 people out of a 555.000 total for all of PMR. This seems to me a little off. Does anyone have a ref. for this data?Constantzeanu 06:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)