Talk:Bălți/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page was archived following the instructions at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Cut and paste procedure.

Clean up

moved from the page:

(...)

(add the photos of the city hall and the mayor offices building)

(mayor, the composition of the city council, its organization etc)

(...)

bogdan 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tatar invasion

a Crimean Tatar invasion led by the khan Meñli I Giray burned the place to the ground, before being defeated in a famous battle about 100 km north

So, what's the name of that battle? --Illythr 16:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Lipnic, 1469 (1470 in some cronics, which considered 1 September rather than 1 January as the new day of the year). This is a village near the present day town of Ocnita. :Dc76 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsar's son

In 1818 the Russian tsar visited his newly acquired province, and during his passing through Bălţi he had a son born. Not willing to have a son born in a fair he immediately granted to Bălţi the town (city) status.

Er, is there a source for that? On 1818, that was Alexander I of Russia, but only had two daughters. An illegitimate son, perhaps? --Illythr 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems he had a Polish mistress, Maria Naryshkina, who gave birth to a son in 1813. Probably that's the year, as in 1818, it was no longer a "new" province. (it was annexed in 1812) bogdan 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this is kinda wishy-washy. Ok, I'll change the year... --Illythr 18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not son — it was his nephew, future czar Alexander II (born on the 17th of April, 1818). But he wasn’t born in the town, of course. :-) It was just that Alexander I received the news of his nephew’s birth, while staying in Bălţi (20th of April).--Imrek 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! But "had a nephew born" won't look as good. Hm, I'll clarify it a bit... --Illythr 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Soviet history

28 June 1940 is the darkest day of the 20th century for Moldavians/Romanians, echoed in later deportations to labor camps in Siberia and Kazakhstan, in political persecutions, sadist tortures, or even outright killings (especially in 1940-1941 of many intellectuals and former administration officials who did not have time to or did not wish to flee to Romania), in the famine of 1946 - 1947, and in denationalization.

"darkest day", "sadist torures"? Aw, what kind of pathos is that? I'll try to rework the sentence, as it contains factual info and belongs into the article, but not in its current form. Most of the history stuff doesn't really belong here, but oh well. Suggestions welcome. --Illythr 18:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

KGB and NKVD has tortured hundreds and killed thousands of political prisoners in 1940-41 and 1945-51. The characterisation of 28 june 1940 is, in my view, correct. But I agree that a re-writting of the particular sentance in the particular article is better.:Dc76 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet occupation had resulted in deportations to labor camps in Siberia and Kazakhstan, political persecutions, tortures and even outright killings of many intellectuals and former administration officials who did not flee to Romania. - perhaps something like that? Not sure about 1946-1947 and beyond - that happened after the 1944 takeover. --Illythr 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC) - You edit is good, at least by me. You should add "denationalization", though. The worst perod was until 1956, especially till 1950. The worst of all was the famine, which took 3 times more lives than political and social-class assaciantions and deportations. :Dc76 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Illythr. Thank you for dropping a note to me. I would be interested to (eventually) participate in the editing of this article, but now I am very-very busy in real life. Not at least till after 15-20 January, even after I can only allot very little time. But I trust that you, Illythr, as a Moldovan (by native country, if not also by native language) will make good contributions, with dignity with respect to our (yours and mine) country. For the article that you asked me, my main source was the book that I cited there. Itself I think it simply reproduced data from thorough research. Anyway, there is a lot of research on that nowadays, we simply need to find the people doing it.

I don't have time to read all your edits for this article, but I have seen that you have done mostly minor changes, and I have always trusted you to do things in good faith. Just two comments: Beltsy is not the former name, but the Russian name (just as Russian scientists have names that one has to know how to write with Latin althabet, so did cities which once belonged to USSR). And I also think it was 1818, not 1813.

Unfortunately, I am not now in Moldova, and I don't have access to printed material that exists in Moldova. So, about helping adding sourses that are not just www-links, I am of little help for the time being. But if I stumble upon something, you'll be the first person to know it. Happy new year! :Dc76 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Well, I understand it was called "Beltsy" during Russian/Sovet rule and "Bălţi" afterwards. It may be clarified somehow...

2) Yes, the correct year is 1818, after all. Already fixed that.

3) The problem here is that the History section is too bloated, mostly repeats the stuff in History of Moldova -related articles, and is quite biased. I intend to remove all, but the most town-specific events with links to the main history articles. --Illythr 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1) No, "Beltsy" was the name only in Russian, and only during the Soviet rule. The town was founded 520 years before the advent of Soviet power, and Soviets did not name it.

3) As the second-town of right-bank Moldova after Chisinau, events of the country had direct and crucial influence on the development of the city. I believe that those must be mentioned, but that the efects on the city must be emphazised or at least clearly put in link to. An event that has no particular relevance to the city, it would of course be wiser to mention it somewhere else.

4) How about you bring in some additional info and new sourses - if you have them at your disposal, it would greatly improve and help. It is easy to say something is biased when simply there is no alternative. Maybe if one sentance is biased the rest of the text might be good. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it provokes people to bring in new information and sourses- Britanica and others would only be able to respond in such a way in a very time-delayed manner.:Dc76 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Can’t agree with you on this. In Russian it was called Beltsy not only in Soviet times — see, for example, the map of Бессарабская губерния from the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary: [1] . And, as far as I know, Beltsy was also the name used in English until Moldova’s independence. So, IMHO, the previous version (formerly known as Beltsy) was more correct than your new variant (sometimes spelt Beltsy during the Soviet era).--Imrek 17:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My argument was about formely known as Beltsy, which suggests that that was simply the name used before 1990. This is not true, since the fair/later city was known only as Bălţi from 1421-1812 and 1917-1940. During 1812-1917, and 1940-1990 both names were in circulation: Romanian-based maps show Bălţi, Russian-based maps show Beltsy with unusual form of the adjective: Beletskii, as the district was known from its renaiming in 1887 till the begining of 20th century. (Funny thing, even in 1960-70, there were Russians, decendants of those few that existed prior to 1917, that used Beletskii, not Beltskii.) So, by looking at a map that is neither Russian, nor Romanian, you will immediately see which sourses it used: mostly ones in Russian or mostly ones in Romanian.

Bălţi (sometimes spelt Beltsy during the Russian Empire and the Soviet era) would be a too long paranthesis from the very begining, so I have split it into 2 sentences, per your observation. :Dc76 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Military action in 1944 and the Bălţi POW Camp

Er, shouldn't most of the info be in an article like Red Army atrocities? The History section is currently bigger than the rest of the article... --Illythr 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The event has particular impact upon the city. It would be like not mentioning for Warsaw that during WWII there was a ghetto there. Red Army atrocities is in such a initial poor state that bringing this there now will automatically provike protests: this is by far not the worse atrocity the Red Army has commited. It can be added there in one sentance when that article would evolve. And also, while the treatment of POWs was an atrocity, the existance of the camp is not. It is simply a historical fact. One can logically ask: after a battle is over, where did those prisoners go? Here is one place they did. :Dc76 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Hijack

I'd REALLY like to know the source of the history section... --Illythr 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much of the history section is that of Bessarabia as a whole anyway, without any special emphasis on the city. But a lot of the information is not only misleading but wrong. There was quasi-unanimous feeling for union? Lol. TSO1D 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What "feeling for union" are you talking about? I can not find such a thing in this article. Are you sure you posted you message to the cerrect article? But I do agree that the link between an event and its direct influence on the city must be put into evidence, otherwise that info should be eventually moved somewhere else. Actually finding the correct place to move it is also a task that takes time, as I can see everyone (me including) tries to avoid such tasks.:Dc76 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You moved it to footnote #4, I think. Hmm, two of my fact tags (one on Soviet policy not to develop right bank railways, the other on Romanian troops not being supposed to advance beyond Dniester) were removed... --Illythr 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Here are a few exerpts:

• About the matter of the footnote #4:

With the arrival of the Roumanian Army and the assurance of order, all classes in Bessarabia except the Russian revolutionaries, breathed a sigh of relief. The murders of prominent Bessarabians during the previous few weeks-in the district of Orhei, MM. Cveatcovsky, Ducantoni, Mihalash, Marabute, Zenin-Creazcov, in Soroca, M. Butmi de Catzman, in Baltz, MM. Bantash, Roset, Anush, in Bender, M. Balutzel, in Kishineff, M. Mihai Razu, to name only persons well-known through the province-had united peasants and land-owners, business men and functionaries, in a willingness to risk annexation for the sake of security. This was soon evidenced by a Peasants' Congress, scheduled for Jan. 18, and heralded by the Russians as sure to undo the work of the Diet. Of the 384 delegates, only 118 assembled; their leaders protested against the Roumanian occupation, to be sure, but discovered they had only luke-warm support, and the Congress dissolved. [2]

"...We therefore beg, on the basis of what will be shown later, that our protest may seem justified, and that Roumania (with which country we, without any reservation, desire to be united) may give us speedily support, counsel, and moral and material assistance, to do away with a revolutionary status organized by a bogus administration and a bogus Diet."

This petition, of which we have translated the opening paragraphs, shows the state of mind of many of the important land-owners and former officials. Numerous other petitions came in; on March 3, the Zemstvo of Baltz voted in favor of union with Roumania, and on March 13, the same action was taken by a, convention in Soroca, composed of representatives of the Zemstvo, the city government, clergy, land-owners, teaching staff, etc.

The Diet was of course unfavorably affected by these and similar actions; and the members of the Russophile agrarian group fought all the more bitterly with the Moldavian representatives, who were gradually veering around toward union. This movement was powerfully aided by new activities of the Ukraine; their Premier, Golubovitch, sent delegates to Berlin to claim part of Bessarabia. [3]

note also that I have reformulated, eliminating the words "quasi-unanimity" etc, which most probably are correct, but just to avoid controversy

• On Romanian troops not being supposed to advance beyond Dniester.

Without this substituting a proof, I just want to mention this fact is tought in the history classes, and I would doubt they would claim such a specific thing if it were inexact.

Two preeminent political figures of the day, Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Brătianu declared that "the Romanian people will never consent to the continuation of the struggle beyond our national borders."[1] This is exerpt from Transnistria (World War II), which cites Charles King, The Moldovans (Hoover University Press, 2000).

Antonescu's order on 22 June 1940: OSTASI, Va ordon: Treceti Prutul! Zdrobiti vrajmasul din Rasarit si Miazanoapte! Dezrobiti din jugul rosu al bolsevismului pe fratii vostri cotropiti! Re impliniti in trupul Tarii glia strabuna a Basarabilor si codrii voievodali ai Bucovinei, ogoarele si plaiurile voastre...! says to take Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Un-slave from the red yoke of the bolshevism our brothers that were invaded. It is cristal clear to a Romanian who'd hear it at the time, as there are no brothers invaded on 28 June 1940 over the Dniester.

Then, he issued a second order on 27 July 1941, to cross the river, where he justifies his action of continuating the war. On the same day Hitler sent an offical letter to Antonescu, proposing him Transnistria, on which base Antonescu formulated his official answer of 17 august to start an administration in Transnistria. So, I guess Antonescu wanted to cross over, the evidence points to that. But he had to put it in a way that the population of Romania could accept it, so he talked about defeating the invader to the end, etc etc. The result was that while in June-July everyone was supportive of the troops and government, who finally is doing the right thing. After that everyone took astray, all politicians refused to collaborate.

Circumstantial: Britain did not declare war on Romania until after the reply of its 30 November 1941 request, showing that Romania was expected by the Allies to not participate further in the war.

I wonder if there are warplans or such, describing the actions of Romanian troops to halt and dig in at the Dniester? As for history schoolbooks, the more languages you know, the more versions of history you can read from them. :-) --Illythr 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately that's true about history book. One thing that transcents from wikipedia discussions is exactly this: incoherence between things tought in different nations, POV hijack as you put it, present in virtually all countries. In France, colonialism is half-negative, half-positive thing. In Algeria, you'd be in big trouble for only suggesting sothing similar. In Russia, conquetring neighboring coutries (from Finland to Baltics, to Poland, to Moldova, to Caucasus, to Central Asia, to Far East, to Manchuria) is portrayed as something different than classical colonialism of the Brittons and French. In southern Romania, union of 1918 is portrayed as the actions of Romanian army during WWI, as if Romania did not lose the war and the people of Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia are just trees and rivers one conquesrs. In USSR, the motive of all events in history were some class contradiction between some imaginative forces, as if the earth in inhabited by some particles called dialectic materialists and anti-particles called imperialist bugeois, not by normal people. It is very hard for many to admit that something they were tough was wrong.

For the question. I am not a war historic, so I don't know. I know that as soon as Romanian troops got to the bridges over Dniester, they were blocked. Romanians put posts on one side, and Germans on the other. There were many ordinary Bessarabians who because of the total mess during July happened to be on the left side on the day the Romanian troops arived. (There were people ordered by Soviet autorities to help evecuate and take stuff to nearby railway stations. There were others who were afraid to cross the bridges before the war did not pass them, b/c they knew the birdges are prime target for aviation and artilery.) These poeple had hard time crossing back over, they had to go the makeshift German posts in Ribnita, Dubasari, Tiraspol to get permission. Romanian autorities even made a draconic law: everyone found on 26 July on the east bank automatically looses Romanian citizenship. (The law has been since discarded, but not before serious trouble it provoked, as jandarms used it to blackmail some). By this, stupidest of laws, all deportees from 13 June were supposed to loose their citizenship!!! So the elite of the society were death enemies to Russians and traitors to Romanian autorities! Damn, if someone can sort this out. Military instalations were not necessary to build from zero, since they existed before 1940. Some Romanian troops crossed Dniester on 13 or 15 June near Moghiliv-Podolski, to attack the rear of the Russian troops they faced, and then returned back. But that's similar to Soviet cavalry (from Belov's cavkorpus) entering Husi or Falciu on 24 June and also on the south bank of Danube on 22 June, that was small scale 1-2 days stuff. The best eveidence I think is the story the Soviet historiographs tell about what was in July-August 1941 south of Iampol-Balta-Golta/Pervomaisk: there was nothing! It was panic, evacuation, and no enemy solder, but aviation. However, the swiftness with which Antonescu ordered the troops to cross the river (on the same day Hitler has requested it) shows they have thought about it before, only that for PR reaasons did not want to say so. No matter what historical reasons, what was east of Dniester was occupation. Those people did not elect democtratic representatives etc. to decide which country they want to be in. It was like Iraq now, you bring them democracy by force. Perhaps it was a much better alternative than what the Soviets/resp Saddam did to them, but both were occupation - Americans always used this word, they don't call it liberation of Iraq from Iraq. :Dc76 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Except it was Nazism, not democracy, that was brought by force back then. Actually, I think I heard the phrase "American liberation of Iraq from Hussein" spoken/written in a serious manner... Anyhow, as I said, the original order of Antonescu is enough for me, although I thing the whole sentence part can be safely dropped, as it's not really relevant to the city itself. --Illythr 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• about the electrification of the railroad. What proof can be given apart from the fact that there is not a single meter of electrified line on the right bank?, while the electric one starts at Tiraspol, Slobodka (Odessa region) and Jmerinka (Vinitsa region), both so close to Moldova. But to avoid this discussion, I have already reformulated that passage, so it does not claim any longer any policy that Soviets had in this regard.

I have removed the fact tags, b/c the respective sentences ceased to exist:Dc76 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to the policy of the Soviet administration, since the city is situated on the right-bank (of Dnister) part of Moldova... - that one sentence remains. I doubt that any proof of an actual intention of the Soviet administration to keep the right bank part of the MSSR as undeveloped as possible (or whatever is implied by the "Soviet policy") can ever be given. Suggest a change to a more neutral "Since the city is situated on the less-industrialized right-bank (of Dnister) part of Moldova...". The other sentence was only slightly reworded, too, although quoting Antonescu's order is good enough for me. --Illythr 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "Since the city was situated on the less-industrialized right-bank (of Dnister) part of Moldavian SSR (1940-1990)..." Of course rewording of sentances to avoid controversial discussion is fine with me. There was intent to develop the right back for agriculture and left bank for industry. They never said they want not to develop. Anyway, we definitevely can formulate in this article so as to avoid pointing the finger. Don't be afraid to do it. If I'll disagree with something, I will simply bring those sentances in discussion again, and we'll try to find alternative formulations.:Dc76 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good enough. Suggest dropping the dates and making the Moldavian SSR a wikilink. Or perhaps "Since the city is situated on the right-bank (of Dnister) part of Moldova, which was less industrialized in Soviet times..." --Illythr 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I suppose we can thank our friend 130.79.4.9... Khoikhoi 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh. So, what now? I'll try the following: Compare the stuff here with the stuff in Bessarabia and History of Moldova, drop redundant stuff here, move missing stuff there. Maybe even translate some stuff from the much nicer ru:Бельцы article. Eventually. --Illythr 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea, Illythr, you have: wikify the article with links to specific section/subsections of Bessarabia, History of Moldova, and many other pages. It will be obvious then what is redundant and what is missing, and edits will not provoke anyone else's doubts, but would be supported. In my oppinion, ru:Бельцы is only nice graphically, but informationally is poorer. Nevertheless, it's a good thing to bring stuff from ru:Бельцы to this article. I will do that as time permitting. If you have time, please also help. However, the golden word you said, and I perfectly agree, is "eventually" - unfortunately so true.:Dc76 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

...ordered Romans, from which the Romanians desend, to convert...

Mmm? --Illythr 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a reference to the name of the church. St Constantine and Elena is not a name that you will find for churches of other nations but Romania and Moldova. And that's the reason: like Vladimir I of Kiev. :Dc76 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I hear such a categoric statement. "Romanians descend from Romans". Period. Maybe "are believed to descend", or smth similar would be better? This article: Origin of Romanians is much less categoric about it. --Illythr 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Romanians preserved the language and some bits of culture from the ancient Romans. I don't think that there is any notable historian who claims that the Romanians have no direct links to the ancient Romans. The article about the origins and the debate is about the region where the Romanians lived in the early middle ages.

Also, the "are believed to descend" is not better, per WP:WEASEL. bogdan 23:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article Origin of the Romanians in the Russian wikipedia is more informative and neutral than the one in English! :Dc76 03:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bogdan, I think you'll agree that there is a fine difference between "...preserved the language and some bits of culture" and "...descended from". To me the latter sounds akin to the claim that East Germans descend from Russians (Unkrainians, Belorussians etc), because, after the Soviet army took Berlin, many German women were raped and a Soviet-style culture was imposed on the DDR for 44 years. The Origins of Romanians article argues on some points of the people's ancestry, but it never states that Romanians are, in fact, Romans. --Illythr 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly right, and here the point is descended from, not preserved some bits of culture. Did you read the article Origin of Romanians in Russian? It says very clearly and openly that the first theory is the one upheld by all Europian historians. The second theory is only supported by Hungarian and some Bulgarian ones. Even Soviet historians, "the biggest of all liars" (because they wrote what was ordered by communist ideology, not science), remained neutral - it was invented at a time when it had direct application: denial of the rights of Romanians for Transylvania. The Roman solders did not rape Dacian women. They have simply exterminated almost all Dacian men: in the wars of 101-106 in present day southern Transylvania and southern Romania; in the War of the Golden Mines (the most violent war of the 2nd century AD according to Roman writings) those from Northern Transylvania, and partly from northern Moldavia; in the wars against Costobocians, Bastarnians, and Carpians - those from present day Moldavia. There were over 200,000 Romans settled only during the reign of Traian alone, while the pre-war population was only 1,000,000. During Empereor Hadrians Legio 5 with all its exensive human basis (tens of thousands of peasants, auxiliaries, veterans, their families) was moved to Dacia (during Traian's reign it was the 13 who was moved). Plus elements of the 7th legion in Drobeta etc (the core of the legion itslef was in todays N Serbia). Dacia was one of if not the most Romanized provinces, not only by cultural assimilation as in Polrtugal or NE France, but really by physical one. In 270 only the active part of the legion + administration retreated. Their human bases (over tens of thousands of sq km was left behind). Just decades after, it was reconquered again. See the chronics from Emperors Constantine (4th century) and Justinian (6th century), where they speak of their administration, fortifications, legions to the north of Danube. Sometimes the emperor was every year in the region! The crush came in 565 and 567, it was a double deadly crush: 1) Avar invasion, followed by a slow migration of much more (than the Avars themselves) numerous Slav flow along the Dabube upstream, until they got to where Belgrad is today, and crossed it in 602. 2) Latin was replaced by Greek in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, no more Roman (as opposed to romoi i.e. greek) emperors, nor more Latin language, all Roman offcials dismissed. It was an internal ethnic strugle, that Romans from the Balkans lost and Greeks won. From 106 to 567 it's 450 years of extensive Romanization. Please, get me right: I am not claiming that Romanians have some noble blood. They descend from ordinary Roman peasants, those that filled the legions, not the senate, those that worked the fields and built the roads, not those that watched game in the forum and feasted or philosofied, those that were poor from birth to death, and army was for them a way out, not those that had the riches of the ancient world. Italians and partly French and Spanish decend nor only from ordinary Romans, but all the Romans nobility is their. In Romania were left the others, everyone who was up to something great left, only the poor and those who had no personal ambition remained. So the country (Roman Dacia) degraded and the Dark Ages began. We have no noble Roman blood, the only noble thing we have from ancient Romans through the blood is stoicism, one of the 4 philosofies of the ancient world, and not the one that the better to do "classes" prefered.:Dc76 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not an expert on Romanian origins, so I'll just leave it alone for others to judge. My concern was that out of all articles mentioning Romanian ancestry, this is the only one to mention this so directly. Add to this the fact that the info was added by an anonymous editor from a very "patriotic" source and you have my reasons for being suspicious. As for Italians and Greeks - I understand that they're not the descendants of the ancient Romans and Greeks, but of the tribes and nations that had conquered and reconquered the regions during the last two millennia (not exactly a popular view in those countries, I bet). Anyhow, my POV on such things is demonstrated by the quote "The only pure race in Europe are the St. Bernards." --Illythr 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Come on, we are all brothers. :-)

2) As far as I remember I have modified the sentance in question. Although I don't know what's wrong with patriotism as long as there is no heatred of anyone (I mean in general, not on wikipedia) Anyway, they point is to express the info in neutral tone, even sensible info. Means to say the truth, not to find the middle between truth and lie. But as an observer, not as a participant. Although quantum mechanics say that's impossible :-)

3) In 1941-44 there was no nazism. There was a regime that sent troops abroad and deported Jews from a large territory, but there was nothing similar to the the political activism imposed on the population that characterised Germany during Hitler or Soviet Union, especially during Stalin. And there was collaboration in military terms with a nazi country. The question of deporting Jews, as I've said several times, is a regretable tragedy, something that will never go away from memory, just like the trace of Russian boot will never go away from meomory. The problem is, the sadists that did it have survived the war without any problem and were later among Securitate dogs and the like. They switched sides as often as a baby dipers. Like most of the members of NSDAP, PCR or KPSS. Now their descendants pretend they did not collaborate... At least, that's my POV. As for Antonescu, you know the joke: an exhibition of human brains of famous people of different profession: scientist, musicians, military. the later has only one rid, the trace from the berrette Antonescu was even a little capable military. General Ciuperca, the commander of the 4th army that was dislocated in Bessarabia before 1940 was a total disaster. :Dc76 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Looking over the last edits of Moldopodo, I can not stop but notice nice dedication, and good, positive energy. This article would certainly profit a lot from such editors. All we need is a little bit of organization. In principle, Moldopodo has judiciously re-ordered some sections and subsections. There are 3 things I would like to add:

• I moved the section Religion to a subsection of Population. It seems more logical that way
• I commented out empty sections and subsections (e.g. Sport, Media). when we will have content for these, one can easily reactivate them.
• I don't think History of Bălţi and Memorials of Balti are worth separate articles. (I also mentioned this on Moldopodo's talk page). The reason is that, while Balti, certain important buildings, certain key historic events are notable and desearve articles of their own, I for once fail to see where History of Balti is notable as a unit per se. Memorials of Balti is even more non-notable. However, each of the three individual ones are notible! So, in the future, I will (or someone else can) create those articles (let's think about good names first, and let's look well inside wp about related stuff, so as to avoid content forking), and we can move the respective contents, leaving only links and max 1-2 sentences of description in the article. They would have to go to History section, as the title was also not good (I think actually, I am the author of that bad choice of title, so in a sense I also suggest to correct my own)

The rest seems ok to me.:Dc76\^talk 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

strada Independenţei

This is not a bouleavrd. Officially it is a street. However, due to its position it is rather an esplanade (it is at the same time a promenade, a large pedestrian zone, but is an esplanade because cars can also drive there occasionally) which allows a long walk crossing the Vasile Alecsandri Square. In Wikipedia we trust, Moldopodo User:Moldopodo\^talk

I think, up to the intersection with Puskin street (west of it) it is strada, after that (east of it), it is bulevard. If you look on a map, be sure to nitice whether the text is left or right of that intersection :) Anyway, it is a detail. If if you find a very good reason to believe it is otherwise, please do change it. I believe I am correct, but I am not God to never be wrong. :Dc76\^talk 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Characterizations of Dc76's actions by Moldopodo

Thank you for editing help. I have just seen this message (after the one I left on your discussion page). It's a good idea to hide those sections out temporarily, as I did not know how to do this.

I do appreciate your efforts in organizing the article.

However, like I said earlier, (in a rather vivid manner, being shocked by your edits in terms of contents as referred to Romania all the time for an unknown reason to me) I do not appreciate adding personal political opinions, which most of your edits are as far as thier contents is concerned. Language and politics are very sensitive issues and for me, they have no place at Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for expression of personal thoughts, regrets, etc. It's all about stating facts as they are, remaining completely neutral.

Sociology and history sections, for their ambiguous statements, do need exact references. For example your (Dc76) following edit: I would like to know the reference at a source that states that people from Soviet Union never felt in Bălţi as in their own home. Or another edit, where you (Dc76) keep adding to Moldavian (as referred to national of Moldova) Romanian. Did you see this on the Department of Statistics internet site?

Also, please state the sources for university demonstrations, who were they for? As for myself I remember demonstrations in favour of USSR and keeping the Lenin monument.

Why did you (Dc76) delete the reference that people from all over USSR and Eastern Europe came and built and rebuilt the city after the Second World War? Most of the city infrastructure, event its new districts, all of this exists thanks to all those skillful people who came from all over the USSR.

Also, references to work migration, mentality of apparatchiks ("directives from above" quote) appear quite strange or at least misplaced to me. For this you can edit Economy of Moldova (or write a separate article on Economy of Bălţi) or Demographics of Moldova articles on Wikipedia. It is true what you are saying (in this case), but either it has to be documented (like you very well did with reference to ziua.ro article) or deleted. Otherwise it looks like an expresion of your personal ideas and thoughts.

In Wikipedia we trust, Moldopodo 12:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo .:User:Moldopodo\^talk

You say, Language and politics are very sensitive issues and for me, they have no place at Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for expression of personal thoughts, regrets, etc. As I already replied you, I am sometimes quite expeditive, but I very much don't like mixing politics and ethnicity where it is not the case. If one has to, a simple, cool retail of facts are better. Specific edits are changible, as it is important what they say, not how they say. In fact, the cooler, the better.

If I refered to Romanian, meant obviously ethnic. If I refered to citizenship, obviously I said Moldovan (cmpare with Moldavian).

Also, references to work migration, mentality of apparatchiks ("directives from above" quote) appear quite strange or at least misplaced to me. For this you can edit Economy of Moldova (or write a separate article on Economy of Bălţi) or Demographics of Moldova articles on Wikipedia. It is true what you are saying (in this case), but either it has to be documented (like you very well did with reference to ziua.ro article) or deleted. Otherwise it looks like an expresion of your personal ideas and thoughts.

Agree with you. However, I do not see anything here that can misplace you. I hardly can believe you have mentality of apparatchiks. Let us not forget, that apparatchicks were several dosen people in each locality, supported with several hundred people that spit on their own mother, but 99% of the population (including the vast majority of the migrants during the Soviet era) were not. About rebuilding, I am absolutely for. Only it has to mention three esencial things, which if not mentioned give a wrong impression: 1) how did these distructions came to be in the first place (July 1941 scorched earth tactic of Stalin), 2) the city's population was severely persecuted after 1940, deported, impresoned, tortured, killed. It was not a end of the world place that did not have qualified people. It had, but they very many were killed and deported, because they were not Soviet 3) it was all the inhabitants of the city that built it, equaly - those that came from other regions of the USSR, and locals (not only Moldavians, but also ethnic Russians and Ukrainians that lived in the city in big numbers before 1940, which were equally severely persecuted by the Soviets). You see, it is a complex picture, and we have to write it all, which takes time. I am absolutely not against introducing it, but either all of it, or nothing. Or, at least, mention all aspects.

Your last paragraph is a very good starting point of a dialog. Just understand, that noone blames the apparatchik mentality based on ethnicity. At least a person who does that, I would turn my back to him/her. If you personally are/were apparatchik of the 1940s-1980s, if you personally were a member of NKVD/MGB and shot people, then yes, I have a problem with you. If you are son/doughter of an engeneer who arrived in the city during 1970s or 1980s, then believe me, you are the last of my worries. Have a nice day, :) :Dc76\^talk 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, before you edit next time, clearly specify and provide a link to a verifiable resource. Otherwise your edits will be deleted, as personal imagination/creation.

I guess you have forgotten to complete the list of controversial issues in your view (if you see any), as I see only numbers.

Thank you.

Moldopodo 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

You are lazy to list them. I am lazy to list them. We can do half/half. :Dc76\^talk 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Characterisation of Moldopodo's action by Dc76

Dear Moldoopdo, There were many bad-faith edits you did (politically motivated). I left the good and unquestionable ones. I am not opposing in principle other edits, but since it is clear they could be controversal, please list them here. We can discuss, and find a compromise. Just list the issues: 1,2,3, etc. If for some issue, it is too complicated to explain it in more than 2 sentences, in order not to waste our time, copy the current version of the sentence from the article, and the version you propose. Thank you,:Dc76\^talk 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S [4]

1. first issue
2. second issue
3. third issue

Write your issue-specific arguments for each issue. (please, be specific, short, to the subject) Write the conclusions here: e.g. accept items 4, 19, 23 in that verson, and 8, 17 in that one, discuss 24 separately to find a neutral formulation, etc.

Characterizations of Dc76's actions by Moldopodo

Detail of controversial edits by Dc76

Moldova is a new multinational country and is still looking for a true identity of its citizens.

Constitution of the Republic of Moldova Article 13. The National Language, Use of Other Languages
(1) The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet.
(2) The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country.
(3) The State will encourage and promote studies of foreign languages enjoying widespread international usage.
(4) The use of languages in the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be established by organic law.

Therefore, there are four official languages in Moldova:

1) Moldavian (wich is the same as Romanian, however no reference to Romanian exists in Moldovan legislation)

2) Russian (language of international communication (as stipulated by the Moldovan law)[5] (official language in Transnistria and Gagauzia)

This passage will be translated in English, (but again, the discussion on languages is rather for the article Demographics of Moldova than history of Bălţi. Your help with traslation is welcome.

В условиях существования единого государства – СССР, русский язык и общесоюзная культура были достоянием и необходимым средством общения всего советского народа. Это в значительной мере определяло этноязыковую ситуацию в республиках вне России – ныне новых независимых государствах, тем более, что во многих из них, помимо титульного населения, проживало и немало людей других национальностей. По данным переписи 1989 г. 1,5 млн. жителей Молдавии составляли не молдаване: русские, украинцы, болгары, гагаузы и другие. Их доля в населении Молдавии на тот период превышала 35% (украинцы – 13,8%, русские – 13%, гагаузы – 3,5%, болгары – 2,0%, евреи – 1,5%, другие национальности – 1,7%). Для 68,5% представителей этих национальностей русский язык был родным или вторым языком, которым они свободно владели.

Лишь 12,1% русского населения Молдавии свободно владело молдавским языком, в то время как среди молдаван степень такого же знания русского языка отмечало более половины (57,6%). Эти диспропорции были еще очевиднее в городах, где более 80% молдаван по данным переписи 1989 г. считало русский родным языком или свободно владело им как вторым. В Кишиневе в конце 1980-х годов знали молдавский язык 1,8% русских, в составе же молдаван русским языком свободно владели 85% .

Следует отметить, что процесс распространение русского языка, судя по данным переписей, охватывал все более широкие слои нерусского, в том числе молдавского населения. Так, например, в 1970-е годы свободно владели русским языком менее 50% молдаван. Среди же русских в 1970-1980-е годы произошло некоторое снижение (на 15% по сравнению с 1970-м г.) доли лиц, свободно владеющих молдавским языком. Из других союзных республик подобное явление было отмечено у русских в Казахстане и Киргизии, а в 1979-1989 гг. – также в Узбекистане, Армении и в меньшей степени в Белоруссии)[6].

3) Ukrainian which used to be legal language of the Modavian Principality. According to the last census, Moldavians with Ukrainian, as native language, represent 369 000 persons, or 8,5% of total population of the Republic of Moldova. Unkrainian linguistic environment exists in more than 300 localities in Moldavia[7]. Public poll in the north of Moldavia: 86% of Ukrainian Moldavians are ready to flee away from assimilation (into Romanian Moldavians). 54% of asked persons consider themselves as ethnic Ukrainian or Ukrainians as far as cultural background is concerned... 5 October 2005.[8]. Ukrainian is one of three official languages in the eastern cantons of Moldova. (official language in Transnistria)

4) Gagauz language, which is official in the southern autonomous region Gagauzia.

Hence I will delete any unverifiable and moreover extreme (politically) edits (like those who cosider themselves Romanians and those who consider themselves Russians, respectively those who consider Moldova to be part of Romania and those who consider Moldova to be part of Russia)

Edits expressing nationalism, political views, personal opinions or simpy false statements made by User:Dc76, namely:

• changing Moldavian language into Romanian language,
• changing Moldavian nationality into Romanian nationality and adding Moldavian and Romanian nationalities together,
• deleting phrase that Bălţi is located in the Bălţi steppe (it is a world known fact, registred by the Encyclopædia Britannica),
• deleting names of districts in Bălţi in Russian, whereas even Moldavian speakers use them,
• changing names of Bălţi suburbian villages and Bălţi districts into inexisting names,
• changing official English word chernozem into black earth,
• badly translating from Moldavian (deletion of Bălţi translation as a swamp, check any online dictionnary),
• writing imaginary history of Bălţi, adding completely unrelated passages on Romanian hostory (so why not to write about Napolenic wars in Bălţi history then?),
• providing "historic facts" without any link or possible verification,
• stating that schools and administration were in Russian during USSR, whereas both Russian and Moldavian were used officially everywhere in Moldavia, schools and universities including, official state acts, etc.;
• stating that Soviet people never felt connection to the city of Bălţi (what source supports this statement?),
• speaking of Bălţi as a quiet city, omitting to state the most important demonstrations that were against one official language, but not forgetting to mention some minor demonstrations organized by National Front (extreme right of Moldavians considering themselves as Romanians) with a couple of students from Bălţi State University,
• stating that Russian speaking politicans were always elected by Bălţi citizens because of their higher turnout rate (whatever that is supposed to mean), whereas Bălţi was always international city, and was always governed by Russian speaking persons simply because of their higher competence, acknowledged even by Moldavian speaking persons, who also vote for Russian, or Ukrainian speaking persons,
• adding phrases that opposition in Bălţi is pro-Western, whereas, the governing Communist party is clearly Western and has made the most since Moldavian independence for EU and NATO integration,
• specifically diminuishing the importance of the Ukrainian speaking community in Bălţi by adding phrases "speak some Ukrainian",
• deleting names of City Administration in Russian and adding those in Moldavian,
• stating that last local elections took place in 2003, whereas they ook place in 2007,
• providing data of Romanian censuses, with no possible verification,
• adding phrases like "immigration from USSR was a move to establish a Russian speaking majority" (another simple lie), whereas immigration was about sending competent specialists to rebuild a whole Republic of Moldova, all these communities spoke Russian amnog them, even if for themseves it was not their native language,
• adding phrases on economy of and demographics, as well as history of Moldova in general, whereas nothing pertinent to Bălţi proper,
• stating that "younger Moldavians might or might no know Russian", whereas in Bălţi Russian is spoken and understood by everyone, even the official site of the City Administration is bilingual and actually has more pagesin Russain than in Moldavian,
• adding phrases that Bălţi was and not is the industrial center in the north of Moldavia (so which city is then in the north of Moldavia?),
• adding personal opinions as an official reference like "It is debatable whether this was a policy of the Soviet administration or simply carelessness",
• adding an unknown amateur site hosted for free in the second line after the official site of the city in the External Links section, whereas the most important city portals and sites are left after,
• changing the name of the cetral street Independenţii into boulevard.

Thank you for contributing Wikipedia with encyclopedia information only.

Moldopodo 19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

The only answer that will be

I only have to add two things to this:

• The Moldovan legislation (1989 language law) says black on white that there is only one official language of the country. Gagauz and Russian are official only locally in one small region of the country. The language is called Romanian in the Declaration of Independence of Moldova. The language law calls the existence of a Moldo-Romanian linguisitic identity/unity, and uses the term "official lanaguage" ("limba de stat") in the rest of the text. (Moldopodo, both laws have never been abolished!!!)
• Ukarainian is not and never was official language in Moldova. Principality of Moldavia did not have an official language, everyone spoke one single language - Romanian. Texts were written in Old Slavonic till mid 1600s and in Romanian afterwords. There was noting in Ukrainian.

Appart from that, I do not intend to answer to agressive shameless blames, full of falsities.:Dc76\^talk 15:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - Dc76 this is a wrong answer, the question was about valid, actual, effectively entered into force legislation, and not about history of previous short-term laws that are no longer applied and are officially abolished, please. By the way, Dc76, you keep "forgetting" stating your sources and links. Moldopodo 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
• Disagree - another lie by Dc76. Please state your sources and links. Moldopodo 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
• Disagree - Dc76 this is a wrong answer, the question was about valid, actual, reality of linguistic situation in Bălţi, and in Moldova in general please. By the way, Dc76, you keep "forgetting" stating your sources and links. Moldopodo 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Disagree - Dc76 is clearly showing bad faith here. I answered all of the questioned points, as analysed by Dc76. I am expecting Dc76 do the same for the points I have indicated above. Moldopodo 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

  Erm, the 1989 language law[9] was not abolished, AFAIK, just amended a few times. Additionally, although Ukrainian is indeed an official language in Transnistria, it is not recognized as such by the central Moldovan government for obvious reasons. --Illythr 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with Illythr - Please try to avoid arguments as AFAIK, rather by providing an exact source or link, thank you in advance. The link you have provided to a Wikipedia article is a copy-paste of the above mentioned law, without any indication where it was taken from, what are the modifications or whether it was abolished at all. The Consitution of Moldova is clear and is the supreme law of the Republic of Moldova. No reference to anything Romanian can be found there. Moldopodo 11:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
• I have checked myself the law, as no reply from Illythr arrived. Indeed the law still exists, it was modified onn 29.05.2003 (wording concerning criminal persecution) and here is what it says[10]:

Закрепление Конститутцией (Основным Законом) Молдавской Советской Социалистической Республики статуса молдавского языка как государственного призвано способствовать достижению полноты суверенитета республики и созданию необходимых гарантий для его полноценной и всесторонней реализации во всех сферах политической, экономической, социальной и культурной жизни. Молдавская ССР поддерживает получение образования и удовлетворение своих культурных потребностей на родном языке молдаванами, проживающими за пределами республики, а с учетом реальности молдавско-румынской языковой идентичности - и румынами, проживающими на территории СССР. Придавая молдавскому языку статус государственного, Молдавская ССР обеспечивает защиту конституционных прав и свобод граждан любой национальности, проживающих на территории Молдавской ССР, независимо от используемого языка в условиях равенства всех граждан перед Законом. В целях государственной охраны и обеспечения развития гагаузского языка Молдавской ССР создает необходимые гарантии для последовательного расширения его социальных функций. Молдавская ССР обеспечивает на своей территории условия для использования и развития русского языка как языка межнационального общения в СССР, а также языков населения других национальностей, проживающего в республике.

This law, in its full (introduction) version, and not only one separated part, which was preseted by Dc76 about Romanian-Moldavian linguistic identity, as if there were no other sentences after, is fully compatible with Moldavian Constitution, art. 13. Therefore all the four languages (Moldavian, Russian Ukrainian, Gagauz) are protected as by the Constitution, as well as by simple laws, of which this one is another example. The law does refer to the identity of the Romanian and Moldavian language, however cal the State language as Modavian only, without adding Romanian. The law has also a very interesting provision, to my mind, regarding protection of stasfaction of cultural needs and educaton of Romanians on the territory of the USSR. I wonder how was that supposed to be done by Moldavian Government? Moldopodo 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

They could not have used "Romanian" back in 1989. Funny that it was never updated in that part. As for the languages - only Moldovan is official in the whole country. --Illythr 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with Illythr. It is really strange how you read the text. Constitution and the above cited law are both official documents first of all. Secondly, Moldavian and Russian explicitly appear both in Constitution, art. 13 and in the law. Gagauz appears directly in the law and indirectly in the Constitution, art. 13, Ukrainian appears indirectly both in Constitution, art. 13 and in the law indirectly, and it appears directly in the unrecognized laws of the unrecognized Transnistria and it appears in the law regarding the status of Eastern cantons of Moldova of 22.07.2005, art. 6 (2)[11]. Therefore, Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz are all four official languages in Moldova. Moldopodo 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Nice to know that you finally recognize the language law of Moldova as an official legislative document. But nope, the only state language of Moldova is Moldovan. Russian and Gagauz are also official in Gagauzia. This is the language in which all official documentation in Moldova *must* be done. The rest are just "protected". That is, nobody will imprison you if you do your paperwork ALSO in Russian, Gagauz etc. Just read the passage in Russian you cited above. The text you've bolded. --Illythr 19:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Now I am sure you understood the difference. All four languages are official, none of them is unofficial. However, there is one State language. I agree with this formulation. As for recognition of information, law in our case, I can do it only when it is properly referenced. Copy-paste outdated and unsourced version on Wikipedia (where everybody can write whatever comes on mind (on Dc76's mind in our case), just like in the present dispute) cannot be considered as a verifible source. However, official updated governmental legislation portal certainly can be and is. If you have noticed, that's what I refer to every time. Moldopodo 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Referring to the Illythr's argument that Russian and Gagauz are official, but region/canton limited in Moldova I respectfully disagree. All you have to do is to read the Constitution and the above cited passages of respective laws. No regional limitation is indicated there, even implicitely. To the contrary, it is explicitely said "on the territory of the Republic of Moldova". I think the sense is clear to anybody who understands English, or Russian or Moldavian (languages in which legal citations were copied on this talk page). There are four official languages on the whole territory of the Republic of Moldova: Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz.

  It states ...acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use... on the territory. That doesn't quite amount to enforcing its usage (in legislation, public sphere etc). I think I see the problem. Would you provide your definition of what an official language is?

Here are articles two and three of the language law:

Статья 2. В местностях проживания большинства населения гагаузской национальности языком официальных сфер жизни является государственный, гагаузский или русский языки. - That is, Gagauz and Russian are co-official in Gagauzia (there is a separate law stating that Ukrainian and Russian are also co-official in Transnistria).

Статья 3. Русский язык как язык межнационального общения в СССР используется на территории республики наряду с молдавским языком как язык межнационального общения, что обеспечивает осуществление реального национально-русского и русско-национального двуязычия. - This article doesn't explicitly state that Russian is an official language, but it de facto provides Russian with such a status. Hm, I wonder why were the references to the USSR not eliminated yet... --Illythr 13:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, because they steel hope the return to the USSR. :) In fact, what you see on the site is the editted version. Strictly speaking, legally one takes the original law and applies latter modifications from all laws. In this case, they aplied some. They did not apply the 23 June 1990 declaration of sovereignty that changed MSSR into SSRM, nor the 23 May 1991 law that changed SSRM into RM, not the Declaration of independence that said that Moldova is no longer par of USSR... In the Romanian version, one also has some more funny things, like ucraineană, rusă, bulgară, ivrit, idiş, ţigănească(art 4), when one should have sayd ucraineană, rusă, bulgară, ebraică, idiş, rromani. (I am one of those people who object to calling the ethnic group rromani, and prefer gypsy, but if they prefer calling the language rromani, I would have to respect that.) According to this text :) we still have KGB of the USSR (art 5) :) :) :) :Dc76\^talk 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• to Illythr - Thank you for your reply. I really like this kind of dialog, which could be an example for Dc76.

When the law refers to Russian as equivalent of Moldavian (which is mentioned as the State language), it means that the language is official, more than that, a link to other languages, along with Russian, is present in the Constitution, which makes all of them equally official as Russian and Moldavian.

Further, when Constitution and laws refer to protected rights, this explicitly means their enforcement, otherwise why would one need to stipulate a right's existence firstly, and the right's protection secondly? A difference between a right and a simple possibility to do something is that a right is legal norm, whose use is protected, this is exactly what both Constitution and the above cited laws do.

Further, referring to the Constitution and above cited laws, we are talking about official documents. I guess I see the problem here. You are looking for literal wording "official", which is not my approach. I do not think anybody would give in to an argument like "what is said in Consitution or a law is not official or semi-official". There is no mention in Moldavian legislation that Moldavian Constituion or Moldavian laws provide for such notions as "co-official". Where did you find this "co-official" term, Illythr? Moldopodo 09:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I just shortened the phrasing of article 2. The fuller wording is that there are three official languages in Gagauzia, the языком официальных сфер жизни является... part. --Illythr 14:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• To support my argument on equivalence and enforcement of all four languages, read please this citation from Constitution once more: защиту конституционных прав и свобод граждан любой национальности, проживающих на территории Молдавской ССР, независимо от используемого языка в условиях равенства всех граждан перед Законом (protection of Constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens of any nationality, living on the territory of the Moldavian SSR, independently from the used language, conditioned by equality of all citizens before the Law) and ...acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use... on the territory, do you mean that calling a language official/State means something else than acknowledgment, protection, development and usage? Moldopodo 09:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Here is a simple comparison - a similar law of the Russian Federation[12]. The law clearly states that there is only one state (official) language in Russia and that any federation subjects may give this status to other languages on their territory. The law also states that all languages spoken by the peoples of the Federation are protected by federal law and are equal in rights. Still, the only language official throughout all of Russia is Russian.

This is, however, mostly for the sake of argument. As Wikipedia is a "second hand" source of information, we are not allowed to freely interpret original sources (rewording is allowed, though). Therefore, in order to add information that Russian, Gagauz and Ukrainian are official on the entire territory of Moldova, you must provide a reliable, preferably official Moldovan source saying so.

Additionally, check out the article you referenced yourself: [13] it says that there was an attempt in 2001 to make Russian the second official language in Moldova, which failed. --Illythr 14:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism[14] by Dc76 on the Bălţi article of English Wikipdia (written by Moldopodo)

In order to explain yourself on these points, you may right your comments right below. If the point was already answered previously (in 27 points section), leave a reference (see point X in 27 points section).

Spam[15]

Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism.

Adding by Dc76 an unknown anonymous, amateur and almost not visited site hosted for free in the second line after the official site of the city in the External Links section, whereas the most important city portals and sites are left after. The site presents the history of Bălţi in Romanian (whereas the site is advertised as multilingual) in a avery similar wording as Dc76 puts on English Wikipedia, namely about history of Bălţi. Dc76 adertises this site on almost all languages of Wikipedia in article on Bălţi, in the External links section, often even omitting the official site. Yes, almost all of the most visited officially registered sites and portals about Bălţi, if not all of them, are in Russian, which is just another sign how "wide spread" Moldavian is in Bălţi. Even on the official site of Bălţi there are more pages in Russian than in Moldavian.

Sneaky Vandalism and Intentional Misinformation

Sneaky vandalism Vandalism that is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even use edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" to mask their changes.

Changing Street names

changing the name of the central street Independenţii into boulevard.

Covering of Historic prevalence of Russian language in Bălţi

stating that younger Moldavians might or might no know Russian, whereas in Bălţi Russian is spoken and understood by everyone, even the official site of the City Administration is bilingual and actually has more pages in Russain than in Moldavian,

Falsifying history of migrations inside the USSR

adding phrases like immigration from USSR was a move to establish a Russian speaking majority (another simple lie), whereas immigration was about sending competent specialists to rebuild a whole Republic of Moldova, all these communities spoke Russian amnog them, even if for themseves it was not their native language,

Deleting the date of Local public elections

stating that last elections of local public administration took place in 2003, whereas they took place in 2007

Deleting Names of City Administration in Russian and leaving Moldavian language names

deleting names of City Administration in Russian and adding those in Moldavian, whereas even signs on Republican Ministeries in the capital of Modlova are written both in Russian and Moldavian (like the Ministry of Internal Affairs for example)

Diminishing the importance of the Ukrainian community in Bălţi and in the North of Moldova generally

specifically diminuishing the importance of the Ukrainian speaking community in Bălţi by adding phrases speak some Ukrainian

Claiming an unexistent "pro-Western" opposition

adding phrases that opposition in Bălţi is pro-Western, whereas, the governing Communist party is clearly Western and has made the most since Moldavian independence for EU and NATO integration. Besides the AMN bloc (which is part of the so called "opposition") is openly linked with Russian politicians.

False presentaion of the Bălţi history

speaking of Bălţi as a quiet city, omitting to state the most important demonstrations that were against one official language, but not forgetting to mention some minor demonstrations organized by National Front (extreme right of Moldavians considering themselves as Romanians) with a couple of students from Bălţi State University, and calling these reform orientated,

False statements on Bălţiers

stating that Soviet people never felt connection to the city of Bălţi (what source supports this statement?), whereas most of them were born here.

False statements on languages used in the MSSR

stating that schools and administration were in Russian during USSR, whereas both Russian and Moldavian were used officially everywhere in Moldavia, schools and universities including, official state acts, etc.;

Deleting Russian names of district names of Bălţi

deleting names of districts in Bălţi in Russian, whereas even Moldavian speakers use them, and leaving only those in Moldavian;

False presentation of Moldavian ethnicity

• changing Moldavian nationality into Romanian nationality and adding Moldavian and Romanian nationalities together,

False presentation of Moldavian language

• changing Moldavian language into Romanian language,

Denying an obvious world known fact: Bălţi (Beltsy) Steppe

• deleting phrase that Bălţi is located in the Bălţi steppe (it is a world known fact, registred by the Encyclopædia Britannica),

Intentional Nonsense Edits

Personal undocumeted opinions

adding personal opinions as an official reference like

• The railroad lines are not electric, and contain only a single lane between stations./ref/It is debatable whether this was a policy of the Soviet administration or simply carelessness./ref/
• Bălţi was the industrial center in the north of Moldavia (so which city is then in the north of Moldavia?),

Misplaced statements relevant for other articles

• adding phrases on economy of and demographics, as well as history of Moldova in general, whereas nothing pertinent to Bălţi proper,

• writing imaginary history of Bălţi, adding completely unrelated passages on Romanian hostory (so why not to write about Napolenic wars in Bălţi history then?),

Unverifiable data

• providing data of Romanian censuses, with no possible verification. If it's statistical data, it is not part of general culture obviously known by everybody. A link and a source is necessary.

• providing "historic facts" without any link or possible verification,

Pure nonsense

• stating that Russian speaking politicans were always elected by Bălţi citizens because of their higher turnout rate (whatever that is supposed to mean), whereas Bălţi was always international city, and was always governed by Russian speaking persons simply because of their higher competence, acknowledged even by Moldavian speaking persons, who also vote for Russian, or Ukrainian speaking persons,

Lack of linguistic knowledge

• badly translating from Moldavian (deletion of Bălţi translation as a swamp, check any online dictionnary),

- additionally: I wonder, if Bălţi dates back to 1421, what was the language used then, may be Old Slavonic? In that case the word comes from Slavic "boloto", pronounced as "balota", which means swamp. The place was founded by Polish rulers (Slavic language), if I am not mistaking. Or may be Moldavian word 'baltă' has Russian origins? This way or the other, Moldavian baltă can be and is translated as swamp. Moldopodo 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• changing official English word chernozem into black earth,

• changing names of Bălţi suburbian villages and Bălţi districts into inexisting names,

Vandalism by Dc76 on the Bălţi talk page (written by Moldopodo)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

By piling up all my comments at one place, detaching from actual phrases and statements to which they refer exactly, Dc76 makes them pointless, hence compromising in a deliberate attempt the integrity of Wikipedia. This was made at least twice (re-editing by Dc76). Just have a look at the Bălţi talk page and its history. Moldopodo 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Moldopodo, you should know that personal attacks are forbiden in Wikipedia. There is a difference of opinion between you and DC76, but this is not allowing you to accuse DC76 of vandalism. He acted only to bring a version of article which, in his mind, is better.--MariusM 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with MariusM, firstly you may have started this article, but you don't own it. Secondly, it has explained to you several times about personally attacking other editors by calling them vandals.--Addhoc 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with Marius, controversial edits of Dc76 listed above are not intended to make someting better or worse. Dc76 is clealy trying to put through some Romanian propaganda here and diminishing the importance of USSR, Russains and Ukrainian in the development of Balti and Moldova generally. Wikipedia is not a place to express political opinions, but only state verifiable facts. Look, until today, Dc76 has not filled out any of requests to document his/her sources, to fill out citation requests. Nothing, there is no link or verifiable source whatsoever, moreover Dc76 categorically refuses any dialog, and by today none of my concerns was answered (see the empty list above),a t least plainly in unreferenced manner, as Dc76 always does anyway.

Unfortunately there is no difference of opinion here. We are dealing namely with deliberate additon, removal and change of content in order to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Moldopodo 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Disagree with Addhoc. I have not started the article, I came by through the English page recently and was simply shocked by Dc76 previous "contributions" and other edits. I edited then, Dc76 kept editing after (simply undoing edits) each time without properly saying what exactly and why was edited (undid). I remind you that I have not called Dc76 vandal directly (I probably should have), but I have qualified Dc76 acts in accordance with the strict definition given by Wikipedia itself on what vandalism is (Wikipedia vandalism namely). Moldopodo 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• By the way, in what quality do you participate in the discuassion (both Marius and Addhoc), how did you learn about Balti page problem?
  • I found the article from the medcab case page, and my comments are those of another Wikipedian. The above subject title "written by Moldopodo" implies you aren't familiar with WP:OWN and in addition, you clearly aren't assuming good faith in regard to DC76's edits. The view that describing the work of other editors as vandalism is uncivil is widely held in Wikipedia and is considered an indicator of tendentious editing. My advice is that you should focus on article content and avoid using the phrase 'vandalism' to describe other editors' contributions.--Addhoc 00:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I participate in this discussion in my quality of wikipedian. Just reading this page is showing that there are some problems. Those problems were advertised for me in the talk page of User:Illythr, one of my old friends from Wikipedia. Sometimes I enjoy reading his talk page.--MariusM 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your answers, Addhoc and Marius. Addhoc, I understand you are the mediator on this page, that's what I meant when asking "in what quality". It is clear to all that everybody elses quality is Wikipedian on Wikipedia anyway. Referring to your last post:

Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.[16]. This is exactly what did Dc76. Addhoc, please, just look a little higher on this talk page what think other users of Dc76' edits and how they qualify them (example. "jingoism", etc..) Besides, reading the above mentioned definiton I did not find anything referring to the definition of what is civilised, nor how the notion of civility is connected and applied to tendentious editing. May be you have another soutce for this conclusion?

Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act as if their mistakes were deliberate.[17]. You cannot call continuous intentional undoing of edits and instead deliberate stating of false information by Dc76 as a simple mistake with good intention. If there were any good intention from Dc76 part, why would Dc76, for example, violate NPA policy and insult me (see here and on my talk page), when I and other users indicate him/her that, the translation of balta from Romanian in English is swamp? So where is hidden the good intention of Dc76?

As for owning the article, this argument seems rather strange to me. Frst of all,it is obvious that nobody owns an article on Wikipedia, this goes without saying. Dc76 continuous editing and undoing of my edits could however be considered as owning the article, as he/she edited/wrote parts of the article well before my first edits. If Dc76 does not own the article, why would Dc76 keep undoing other edits? I just discovered about two months ago the Balti on English Wikipedia page.

As for inserting "written by Moldopodo", this is because Dc76 keeps changing even names of Sections written by me on Balti talk page, putting instead "characterisation of Dc76 actions by Moldopodo". I know that everybody can see who wrote which section by clicking on history. I have inserted "written by Moldopodo" only because in this way, I made sure Dc76 would not change my own posts on Balti talk page. Moldopodo 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I changed the name of the section, because it contained words directly offending me personally, like calling me vandal.

• It's a lie of yours, Dc76, and you may call it NPA, I have never called you vandal, but did qualify your edits as vandalism. Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

One way was to accuse you of personal attack and demand some administrator's intervention. The second way (which I chose) was to change the title to "characteristion ..." hoping you will understand the problem with the title of that section. You understood, and added "(written by Moldopodo)". So you spared me the need to go for another NPA.

About sourses, what statements exactly you want me to sourse? I don't see the need to waste time (I have very little, sorry) and bring sourses for sentences that are no longer in the text of the article. Look at the 27 issues, read my versions of them, and add a in the places you would prefer to have a citation.

• If you do not have time to source your edits, why do you edit? Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

About which language(s) is official. Illythr's explanation from 27 october is very exact and correct. The main difference between my explanations and his, is that you are reading his in rm shrift, and mine in bull-red one. :) Perhaps, also because he has a good adility to explain, which is very true.:Dc76\^talk 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz languages are official languages in Moldova, it is clearly said both in Consitution, art.13 and in the above cited laws, moreover it conforms to the definition of official languages given by Wikipedia. Please read carefully the explication given above. Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Moldopodo, Just for your notice, I consider that you have erased truthful information, and that you have added some false information, like you addition that there are 4 official languages in Moldova. So, please, don't assume right away what is right and what is wrong.

• It is not about what is right or wrong, what you like or what you don't, it is about reflecting what it is. Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Second, when did I personally attacked you? Lastly, on two occasions I demanded an answer from you and you still did not reply:

• You have insulted me on my personal talk page:

Also, don't dear accuse me of 'Lack of linguistic knowledge', you, who living there did not bother in 20+ years to learn the official language of the country you are citizen of. I asked you directly: do you speak the language or you don't? If you have anything to say about other people's knowledge of the language, first answer: do you speak it?

, and you have threatened to stop for a while on this this talk page, what you have acknowledged yourself, presenting excuses on the talk site of Persian Poet Gal[18] (as a true "man" to make sure she sees, and probably forgetting that there is also my talk page to present public excuses and accept your fault). So regarding you personally Dc76, I have only one question, are you a man or a woman? So that I know at least how to refer to you, because I write all the time her/him.

Moldopodo 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

You have also said the following:

- If you personally are/were apparatchik of the 1940s-1980s, if you personally were a member of NKVD/MGB and shot people, then yes, I have a problem with you. If you are son/doughter of an engeneer who arrived in the city during 1970s or 1980s, then believe me, you are the last of my worries. See this, smart man. Who deleted? YOU deleted. Do you even know how to edit wp without deleting other people's work? Please, no offence, but a child knows that... I am afraid that Moldopodo does not know well enouth the Romanian language and theirfore makes his confusion Moldopodo, this is ridiculous. Do you know Romanian? Tell honestly! If you don't know the language of your own country even at a very-very simple level, proved by the fact that even with a dictionary you make mistakes in a word that means the name of the city you live in, then please... give us a brake with your super-knowledge of the language you don't bother learn even at an elementary level. Alternatively, go to the library, pick up a dictionary, and make a small effort to learn a few words in the official language of your own country. It is a very simple language to learn, it is not Chinese or Hungarian to have to learn from zero. Foreigners come to Moldova and in 1 year speak the language. You live there for 20+ years and don't bother. Instead you blame people of nationalism. And what is your lack of knowledge of Romanian, not nationalism? Noone asks you to write literature, but 1,000-2,000 words anyone can learn. This is a sign of increased demands and increased agressiveness when there are contraditions. It is not something specific to Moldopodo only. It is the traditional Soviet way of negotiating: they tell you X. If you don't accept it, they demand X+Y. They add Y as a revenge that you deared contradict them. On the same tokken, I object to the increased demands, a policy of "revenge" used for agressive "negociations"."" This is another issue introduced as increased demaind, as revenge. Moldopodo has erased the names of the city neighborhods, because they are not of Russian origin. Only one name, BAM, which is on Russian origin was left. This is defined in dictionaries as shovinism.

Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• Do you speak Moldavian/Romanian? (This goes b/c you offer to translate the word balta and contradict what other speakers of Romanian are saying.)
• Do you have anything to do with the website of the commercial Internet Service Provider in the Bibliography, the link which you paciantly defended. This goes towards determining whether there is any conflict of interest ("commercial")?

It would be nice if you could answer them. I am not saying you are oblidged to. But then I would like it to go on the record that you deliberately chose not to answer them.:Dc76\^talk 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I guess you will need to look for answers above[19] in the spam section, which is still unanswered by you, as because of such requests to repeat an answer twice, this page wil be archived (whatever that means) pretty soon, as far as I understand. I have answered these quetions before, useless to ask them twice, see here and on my talk page, where I have explained all about www.beltsy.md site (historic first site on Balti, which as of today has no single information on Real-Progres itself). However, balti.atspace.com is not visited and inserted in all external links on pages on Balti on all Wikipedia languages. This site has only a more or less functioning version in Romanian, and nobody knows who is responsible for it. It is an ananymous, amateur, hosted for free somewhere site, with history of Balti strangily exact the same as Dc76 tried to put through on Wikipedia, and another surprise, with no source whatsoever indicated. Besides, look above, other users indicated you that you were wrong almost at all of your edits, including a banal translation from Romanian, which you couldn't do propelry. So one should rather ask, what is your knowledge of Romanian?

Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I think is Moldopodo is Mauco. --Moldorubo^talk 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all - very unlikely, b/c Mauco was clearly a native or near-native speaker of English, and because Mauco did not have the same "popular culture" knowledge and Soviet regime-glorifying mentality that Moldopodo shows (at least to my view). Second, whatever factual non-sense he might occasionally bring (e.g. 4 state languages; diminished importance, etc), he is entitled to good faith and civil language from other WPedians. He had already toned down some of his rethoric after talk with Illythr. I suggest everyone to concentrate on the edits to the article, issue by issue, as we might be able to eliminate a dosen of them in one go.:Dc76\^talk 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If he's not Mauco (though I doubt) he's Dikarka/MarkStreet et Co.--Moldorubo^talk 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He knows enough about Balti (from some details of his edits) to be clearly identifible as living in the city. (At least to my understanding.) Also, he clearly does not know a lot of WP rules: e.g. he used my name on his page, which is the definition of being on the verge of PA. So, when he says he first saw WP 2 months ago, I believe him. Then, why on the earth would Mauco or Mark Street care about Balti? I believe Smirnov is rich to sponsor PR image of Transnistria, but I don't think him be that rich to get to a God forgotten place (unfortunately, with heavy hard, it is still true) like Balti. I suspect (but this is just a supposition, I might be totally wrong), Moldopodo is related to www.beltsy.md. Whatever that be, I have no problem with him. Some of his edits are my problem. :Dc76\^talk 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think Wikipedia needs my comment on the paragraph above Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo