Talk:Bălți/Archive 3

Twin cities

Try to ignore that the town is seriously overloaded with twin cities causing confusion in maintaining this list! The final inclusion is Milet, Greece. I cannot find a modern city in Greece named Milet. It redirects to Miletus in ancient Greece which lacks a current administration and is, worse luck, no longer Greek but Turkish. There is something wrong here. Can anyone help? Student7 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Impressive

Lot of good information here. My one observation is that there are too many sections. Some need consolidation. I've overstructured culture/architecture. That needs correction, but I couldn't figure out how right off. Also that the forked "main articles" really do contain the info below and that too much isn't left in the lead article. Someone could make a Good Article out of this IMO.Student7 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Census

Biru, here's that link: 2004 Moldovan Census. --Illythr (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposals of changes to be made to the article

General reasons

Moldopodo, please, list non-speling changes here before attempting changes in the article. If other people would support them, I would conceed. Even it is clear to a child we hate each other's guts, we still can ask outsiders' oppinions when it comes to editing the article. Dc76\^talk 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dc76, please, check the archive logs for previous discussions. This was already discussed. Also, please stop deleting citation tag requests and stop engaging another edit war. This may be also qualified as vandalism or disruptive editing. I do not know what hate are you talking about, it's so strange. Please refer to the sources, that is all I and other users ask you.--Moldopodo (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you reverted a version that was stable for months. I only ask that you list those changes. Do them in the article one by one (a few you already did one by one), and place a link here to each (just a link), so that people could comment on each change. By talking about the whole thing at once we will get nowhere. By listing them one by one, others will comment and will say yes/no. We can then reduce the dispute to 2-3 isolated issues. I am asking for courtesy, and patience. Yes, it is some work, but this way we will be advancing, as some issues will be settled once and for all. For example, you mix small changes that are ok by me with controversial edits. If you could, pls, separate them. Dc76\^talk 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to seem to be sorry. You have reverted being fully aware of what you were doing, just like previously renaming Balti Steppe into Balti Plain (and before Balti Depression) and Ribnita to Rabnita. You have added absolutely irrelevant parts on history of Moldova generally to the history of Balti, you have added unverfifed statements with exact numbers (also in geography section), so please provide a source where these exact citations come from, etc...--Moldopodo (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, what citations? The only thing I am sorry is that I got into a dispute with a person who has zero tolerance. Dc76\^talk 12:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

English translation of the name of the city

Bălţi in Moldovan/Romanian is the plural form of the word baltă.

• According to DEX, the Moldovan/Romanian counterpart of French Larousse or English Websters. According to it [1], the description is that of English puddles. As a tertiary meaning there is also that of mlaştină (swamp).
• currently, in the article there is also this online dictionary, which is ok by me, but bears no academic weight IMHO. Moreover, the translation is not from Romanian to English, but opposite from English to Romanian. According to this dictionary, swamp is translated as mlaştină (obvious to anyone who speaks the two languages), but also as baltă, and smârc [2]. Swamps are formed when poodles dry (under certain conditions), hence if you explain the word swamp to a non-English speaking Romanian it is alright to say mlaştină, baltă, smârc, the last one being an archaism. But one can not conclude from this that the literary translation of the Moldovan/Romanian word baltă is swamp. This dictionary in fact is so poor, it does not even know how to translate baltă or balta [3]. So, I would suggest to be reluctunt in using it as a source in such a strange manner: justifying R-E translation by a second meaning in E-R one.

Consequently, I propose this version [4]. Obviously, I am not rigid, and slight edits are ok by me. Any opinions? Dc76\^talk 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There were about four or five online dictionnaries cited by me earlier (in the archives) proving that the translation of balti is swamp. Moreover, other Moldavian speaking users approved. Moreover, this is about tranlsation and not etymology. Moreover, if you want to insit on etymology, why do you give in an etymological reference in Moldavian language on English wikipedia? - a non-sense to me. Moreover, this very same Moldavian language etymolgical reference refers to Slavic languages as the primary origin of the word "balta". Moreover, this was already discussed (see archives). Period.--Moldopodo (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan and Romanian ethnicities in reference to the 2004 census

I propose this [5]. I undid myself [6] to allow for discussion to take place, and only if it is concludent I would insist to make the change. Dc76\^talk 10:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you exactly want to have the discussion about? How you invent new ethnicities and how you modify official statistics data? Or may be how you add irrelevant info the Balti article? --Moldopodo (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yours and my take on the issue are absolutely clear. I am asking for others, esp. outsiders to comment. If it turns out we have an overwhelming majority, one of us two will have to concede. Dc76\^talk 11:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If by clear you mean: my approach - verifiable sources, your approach - POV and original research, then I agree with you. Speaking of sources, the official site of the Balti City Hall cites for 2005 На территории муниципия проживает 45,5% молдован; 25,8% украинцев; 24,1% русских; 4,4% других национальностей. In English: 45.5% Moldovans, 25.8% Ukrainians, 24.1% Russians, 4.4% Other nationalities in Balti.[[7]]--Moldopodo (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The site is neither in English, not in the official language of the country, but in a foreign language. There is no citation for this information on the cite. City Hall can not decree on the website how many people are allowed to live in the city of what ethnic group. Official country census is a different thing. The only thing to discuss (the only thing that we disagree) is this [8]. I am not asking you to comment on this proposed change, I know very well your opinion. Just as I do not elaborate on mine, well-known to you. I ask outsiders to comment on this proposed change. It would be nice if you could give similar links to your proposed changes. Dc76\^talk 11:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have always given more than one source for my changes and edits. However this is not your case. For example, only on this article, when you put a little star and join Romanian and Moldavian ethnicities (just as languages), you have never provided a source to official data where it is presented this way. When you speak of "unfinished kayak park project" and not like I wrote (and as it is) kayak channel (finished already without any park nor other projects), have you ever provided a source for this statement, etc. etc. etc...? When I deleted irrelevant info in history section, it simply because it is completely irrelevant to the history of Balti proper. By the way, to improve the history section, check this very extensive history of Beltsy version in Russian, copied on my user page for further edits User:Moldopodo/Reserve copy of official Balti history and most importantly User:Moldopodo/Official History of Balti --Moldopodo (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Dc76, here you go again in good shape and lying blatantly again. The link I have provided[[9]] on the official site of the Balti City Hall provides for the exact citation I have provided on the very same page of the official Balti City Hall site in Russian language, one of the four official languages in the Republic of Moldova according to art. 13 of Constitution and 1989 Languages' Law. According to this data, there are more Ukrainian and Russian speakers in Balti than Moldavian, which by the way perfectly provides for Russian and Ukrainian as official languages of the city in accordance witht the above mentioned law.--Moldopodo (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz are not official languages in Moldova. Gagauz is co-official in Gagauzia. Don't spread misinformation please.Dc76\^talk 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dc76, the citation on current proportion of ethnicities as of 2005 is on the official web site of the Balti City Hall. You lied when you said it is not there. Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz are official as long as their usage falls under Republic of Moldova PARLIAMENT LAW No 3465 dated 01.09.1989 Functioning of Languages on the Territory of the Moldavian SSR[10] and article 13 of the Constitution fo the Republic of Moldova adopted on July 29, 1994[11]. Period.--Moldopodo (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Dc76 meant to say that the ethnic composition information is not sourced on that site (to an official survey or somesuch). As for official languages, you seem to be the sole holder of that opinion so far. --Illythr (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The ethnic composition is not sourced on the staistica.md site either. These are governmental sites and they are the original source by themseleves. The info on statistica as far as Beltsy is concerned is for 2004, it is for 2005 on the official site of the Beltsy Mayoralty. As for languages, just read the laws, it is not the matter of mine or someone else's opinion, it is what the law says.--Moldopodo (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That it, he didn't lie. Otherwise, I'd say a governmental site doesn't have to present a source for its own governmental information. I don't intend to start a pointless debate over the languages again. Secure a secondary source supporting your interpretation of the laws, then we can talk. --Illythr (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he did lie. Read attentively, the site explicitly gives the numbers for ethnicities in Beltsy as of 2005 and he said it does not. I appreciate your readiness not to engage into another pointless debate when you can read very well in English and see what the law says. There is no need to talk. The law is what it is and it does not matter whether we have a talk about it or not, its contents won't change.--Moldopodo (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to City Hall can not decree on the website how many people are allowed to live in the city of what ethnic group, this is indeed a rather weird statement but it talks about something different. I don't understand what Dc76 wanted to say with it, but blatantly denying what was written in the post directly above wasn't it.

City Hall can not decree on the website how many people are allowed to live in the city of what ethnic group - I do not know where this phrase comes from, but it is definitely not what is written on the official site of the Beltsy City Hall. Hence, if the City Hall gives its estimation of ethnicities for 2005, I do not see why would Dc76 interpret it as a decree (another lie, as no mention of decree was there), nor why would one speak of "allow how many people may live" (another lie, as it is about statistics and not imposing a limitation of any kind). Therefore, the numbers are well there, are official and give the true picture if ethnicities' number as of 2005 in Beltsy; and Dc76 lied.--Moldopodo (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather go with misguided instead of lied. --Illythr (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Langages

Secondary sources are needed for precisely that - avoid users' own interpretation of primary sources. As of right now, you failed to present even a single source that agrees with your interpretation of the primary source. You actually provided one that directly contradicted what you claim. --Illythr (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid Illythr, you are engaging into another pointless debate, in spite of your good will not to engage into one. The law and the Constitution are well there and do not need secondary or third or fourth sources. There is no debate about interpretation, there is only reading of the law as it is. However, if you insist on some kind of interpretation, out of total interest, what is your "interpretation" of the law?--Moldopodo (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I am. Still, I think it is educating to examine the reasoning of a person who staunchly defends his position alone against the whole world.

Me, I take a look at any article about Moldova out there, and there it is - one official language. For a quick reality check, I also recall that an attempt to make Russian the second official language by the Communist party in 2002 failed amidst nationalist protests. I am curious, how that corresponds with your view? --Illythr (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Me, I take a look at the laws and Constitution of Moldova, and there are four official languages in Moldova. The 2002 story does not have anything to do with my views, moreover I do not have any. I just read the law as it is today. Should it be changed tomorrow, I'll read it differently.--Moldopodo (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean, what did the Communists trying to do and the nationalists protested against if Russian already was official? --Illythr (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, read the law as it stands today.--Moldopodo (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, don't avoid the question! :-) The big point of using secondary sources is to ensure that Wikipedia states not what you or I read in the law, but how most of the world does (at least, the part that cares). And at this you are at odds with the rest of the world. --Illythr (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't avoid the reading of the law ;-). There is no need to interpret, to look for some hidden sense, supplementary explications. It's all there, explicit and clear black on white. On Wikisource you may find it in English, as well as in Russian and Moldavian. It's as simple as this. The day it will be modified, abolished, I would totally agree with you and start looking for additional sources, some kind of interpretation or whatever else to enforce this or that POV. However, as of now, it's not a POV, nor an interpretation, it's a banal reading of what there is in Moldavian legislation.--Moldopodo (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

We've already been through disseminating what the law says: Moldovan - official, Russian is strictly secondary - to be used in "official spheres" as required, Gagauz - official in Gagauzia, Ukrainian - merely mentioned along with a bunch of other languages, for which "freedom of usage" is guaranteed. This is,however, beside the point. I am more interested in your reaction to events that refute your take on the law in the most obvious manner, like the aforementioned 2002 attempt to make Russian official, or this thingy. --Illythr (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite astonishing, how you try to counter the legal argument with any other arguments, without even quoting the law itself. Let's concentrate on the law. The text of the law has no other stories in it and is rather clear. Moldavian and Russian have equivalent status. However it may be always speculated that one or the other prevails. Nonetheless, the law says it clearly. Moldavian citizen has a free choice of languages, and, by the way, the law itself is called "Functioning of LanguageS", which should at least give a tiny little hint that there are more than one that are official. Ukrainian and Gagauz get automatic official status in all localities where Gagauz or Ukrainian speaking Moldavians are majority. This is certainly a a rather quick analysis, but it is to the point for one time. Anything else on the law, Illythr?--Moldopodo (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for once, Russian is strictly secondary to Moldovan within the framework of the law, and at no point is it stated that Gagauz, Ukrainian, Bulgarian etc are official in all of Moldova (although this, too, depends on one's POV: one can say that Russian is the official language of Russia, or that there are 28 official languages in that country). That's for the more obvious errors of your interpretation. But yes, nothing else on the law, let's finally move to the questions I asked above. If you honestly believe in what you claim, then you must have explained these inconsistencies, at least to yourself. I'm curious as to how.

PS: If you are thinking about adding the law to this talk page (in whole or part), please, don't. There's been enough of that. --Illythr (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, read the law and talk about the law. Unfortunately, here again, you start off with the expression of your personal opinion. Arguments about Russia are simply dismissed as not relevant to the issue. Either we have Moldavian law or don't - and we have. I do not see any inconsistency in the law. Should you see one, let me know, would be interesting to know. But then again, it would engage only you, eventually some scholarly review you'd "get your inspiration from". Other than that, for the sake of this talk page, please refrain from irrelevant discussion concerning your interpretation or your personal view. One more time, please, refer to the law. For example, you say "Russian is strictly secondary within the framework of the law". My question: which article says this in the law?--Moldopodo (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The matter is simple: Russian is de jure official only in Transnistria and Gagauzia, and de facto official in most other parts of Moldova.Xasha (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read the 32 articles of the 1989 law "on Functioning of Languages on the Territory of the Moldavian SSR"[12] again and still have not found anything making Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz unofficial languages in Moldova. By the way, what about the situation with languages in Switzerland, who come we consider Romansh as one of the four official languages in Switzerland? Seems to me exact same pattern as in Moldova. Also, Xasha, for Transnistria there is the 2005 law regarding basic provisions for special legal status of localities situated on the left bank of Dniestr (Transnistria)[13] --Moldopodo (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The inconsistency is not within the law, but between your interpretation of it and reality. In other words, do you refuse to adress the question as to why an attempt was made to make Russian official if, acording to you, it already was such?

Strictly secondary - If you read the law, you can notice that Moldovan is generally placed first, with translation into Russian performed "when necessary", or "consecutively" (Art.9,p.2, Art.10, Art.12,p.1, Art.23,24 etc).

One other curious moment - you claim that there are 4 official languages, with Ukrainian among them. But whenever Ukrainian is mentioned, it is always accompanied by a list of other languages, usually Bulgarian and Yiddish. So, why do you insist that there are four official languages and not five or six (or eight, if we count all mentioned languages in)? --Illythr (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally we are getting to the point and discussing the law and not some other irrelevant stories, not found in the text of the law. I skip your first sentence on "inconsistency" as it pertains to anything else but not the text of the law. as for Gagauz language: Article 2 stipulates: "In localities where the majority of population is of Gagauz nationality, the language of official spheres is: state, Gagauz or Russian languages.". Furtehr, for Russian, Article 3 prpvides for the following: "Russian laanguage, as a language of international (interethnic) communication in USSR, is used on the territory along with Moldavian language as a language of international (interethnic) communciation, which provides for fulfillment of real nationl-Russian and Russian-national bilingualism.". Further, more: CHAPTER II. RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES FOR THE CITIZEN TO CHOOSE A LANGUAGE Article 6: "Regarding institutions of state power, state administration and public organisations, as well as companies, other instituions and organisations located on the territory of the Moldavian SSR, the language of oral and written communication - Moldavian or Russian - is chosen by the citizen. Te citizen's right to use Gagauz language in the aforementioned conditions is guaranteed in localities with population of Gagauz nationality. In localities, where the majority of population is composed of Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian nationalities, the native or other convenient language is used.". Articles 7 provides for obligation for cadres employed in state sphere to know Moldavian and Russian (without any further condition). CHAPTER III. LANGUAGE IN THE INSTITUTIONS OF STATE POWER, STATE ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC ORGANISATIONS, COMPANIES, INSTITUTIONS, ORGANISATIONS, Article 9 says: "The working language in the institutions of state power, state management and public organisations is the gradually introduced state language. The translation in Russian language is guaranteed." Article 1o imposes an obligation of translation into Russian of all acts of state administration, plus provides for their initial adoption in Russian, Ukrainian or Gagauz in localities with the given majority of native speakers. Sorry, I'll have to copy here the whole article 11: "When institutions of state power, state management and public organisations address the citizen in written, Moldavian or Russian language is used, in localities with Gagauz nationality population - Moldavian, Gagauz and Russian. When documents are delivered to the citizen, in accordance with the choice of the citizen, either Moldavian or Russian or Moldavian and Russian, in localities with Gagauz nationality population - Moldavian, Gagauz or Russian or Moldavian, Gagauz and Russian languages. Institutions of state power, state management, public organisations, companies, institutions and organisations accept and work on documents, presented by citizens, in Moldavian or Russian languages, in the localities with Gagauz nationality population - in the state language, Gagauz language or Russian language. Documents presented in other languages, should be translated in Moldavian or Russian languages." Art. 12, p.2 provides for the following "Taking in consideration the demographic situation, procedural necessity, the record keeping in companies, institutions and organisations listed as established by the Council of Ministers of Moldavian SSR, in accordance with the proposals of cantonal and city Councils of people's representatives, may also be carried out in Russian or another convenient language.". Article 23, to which you also refer, clearly provides for an obligation of translation in Russian. Article 24 provides for obligation of writing street names in the language of the majority of residing inhabitants.--Moldopodo (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the number of languages, it goes from reading this law and the 2005 law on Transnistria, namely its article 6.

From the references given above, I found none that would make Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz not official in Moldova.--Moldopodo (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I could not find anything that makes Hindi not official in Moldova either. You usually discover positive evidence of something, or lack thereof.

Say how did you manage to miss the following: article 9 "translated ...when necessary." part; the place where Art.12 illustrates the difference between "must" and "may"; According to article 23 you can't hold an important scientific conference (etc) in Russian, only translate to it from the state language; the part from 24 - "...на государственном языке без перевода..."? Also, explain to me, why Ukrainian is official, but Bulgarian isn't? They always come together in the law... --Illythr (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, nothing is missing. The first and third para of art. 9 impose an obligation of translation in Russian (third para even for record keeping). Article 12 does indeed stipulate in the first para that record keeping is carried out in the state language. However, it does not say anywhere that Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz are unofficial in Moldova, more than that, the second para stipulates that taking in consideration demographic situation and procedural necessities record keeping activity may be done in Russian or any other convenient language, as proposed by cantonal authorities. Knowing Moldavian ethnic composition, I doubt they would propose Hindi. The third para explicitely says that the correspondence is carried out either in state language or in the language of record keeping. Reading the whole article in its context, it's clearly impossible to speculate on the prevalence of this or that language. Further as you see, article 8 explicitely stipulates taht at held in Moldova meetings, sessions, plena, conferences, gatherings, manifestations and other events, the choice of langauge by participants is not limited. And yes, article 23 makes it obligatory to provide a translation in Russian for any local scientific conference, however it makes Russian mandatory for any other conference of international importance held in Moldova, without even specifying any obligation to tranlsate in any other language, including Moldavian. Article 24 clearly says: the names of streets, city districts are established and written in the language of the majority of speakers. Indeed, should there be Russian, Gagauz or Ukrainian majority, no legal obligation exists to translate these names in Moldavian. --Moldopodo (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Bulgarian? It is mentioned together with Ukrainian throughout the text, but you don't seem to consider it official, as opposed to Ukrainian...? --Illythr (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring

These two edits are a wholesale reversion of a lot of work, paying no attention to various fixes, style edits or, yes, even introduction of online sources that occurred in between. Thus they classify as "blind." I may not agree with the statements these sources support, but deleting them "just because" is not the way to NPOV the article. Excessive tagging is also not necessary, a single cn tag pro paragraph usually suffices. --Illythr (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop blindly reverting and hiding behind the revert rule. The source citation tags were deleted, moreover a robot had fixed them giving them a date when they were placed. I have no issue of agreement or disagreement with whatsoever as far as the contents is concerned. All I am looking for is verifiable and properly edited sources, which takes away by itself any question or suspicion of modified, POV contents.--Moldopodo (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference format is not that important. I've seen articles featured on the main page that don't use the full citation templates, yet are considered among the best articles on Wikipedia. As for the ISBN, I think a search on the web will provide one (athough it would be a further proof of trustworthiness if the one who provided those sources also put the requested details). Moldopodo, if you don't trust a source, you may mark it with the form Template:Verify credibility and wait for someone uninvolved to verify them. Even better, you could bring your own reliable sources that contradict the ones put by this suspicious IP editor.Xasha (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, of the four sources Moldopodo deletes one is available online, two more are already supplied with an ISBN code and only Nistor is not specified. It supports rather minor points, though. --Illythr (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it's kinda funny that those Moldovan sites have their state language versions in folders called "ro"/"rom", even when the captions says "Moldavian". :-) --Illythr (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will bring back whatever I have accidentally deleted, if these were serious verifiable properly sourced references, this wthout deleteing previous source requests. As for your remark on "rom" folders used in the page http code - it sounds rather childish and not like a serious legal argument at all. I am sure you are fully aware of this as well.--Moldopodo (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What argument? If the site says it's in Romanian, then it's in Romanian, as long as the language is Romanian. If, on the other hand, it says that its Romanian is actually Moldovan, we can call it that. Note how I distributed the mo/ro icons in the article.

Off topic

Another curious thing is that the language taught in schools is called "Romanian", so, basically, nobody who went to school after 1989 speaks Moldovan. :-) --Illythr (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So you imply 85% of Moldova's population was born before 1980?Xasha (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? --Illythr (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone born after 1980 had most of his state education after 1989, yet only about 15% of Moldova's population speaks Romanian.;)Xasha (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, could please cite a law that stipulates that education is (or ever was in the whole history of Moldova) in Romanian language? Thanks in advance--Moldopodo (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to go dig for it just to use on a talk page. However, that's how it's been called in every state education institution. Were this illegal, we'd have a bit of a problem...

Xasha - huh, you're right - they learn Romanian, but speak Moldovan. Must be magic... :-() --Illythr (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, just checked the site of the Ministry of Education of Moldova and did not notice a subject called "Romanian language", funny... How am I supposed to believe your word, you might also say they learn Hindi, you know...--Moldopodo (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is one: [14]. Of course since Moldovan has almost the same literary form as Romanian, and in school you study the literary form of the language the problem is not that great. Although it would be better if you studied the literary form of your native language, and not one of a closely related one. Xasha (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

With the difference being only in the name, it's not a big deal. Plus, there's "History of the Romanians" as a "local history" discipline in schools (or at least when I was in school). --Illythr (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the name. They got rid of it, cause it wasn't more relevant than "History of the Tatars", "History of the Russians" or any history of the majoritarian population of a state the ephemerally controlled Moldova. Also, I think you're talking about the early 90s, when some politicians uncritically adopted Romanian history, as written at the height of Ceausescu's nationalist policy, and tried to impose it on schoolchildren. Hopefully, this is all in the past now.Xasha (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The literary form (studied at schools) is pretty much identical to Romanian, thanks to the reforms. Well, HistofRo was in the curriculum at least up to 2000. Could be that it was removed recently, dunno. --Illythr (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is getting a little surreal (and may violate WP:FORUM, but we all do that on occasion). The entire Moldovenist ideology is built on a pretence - that Bessarabians are gloriously unique, as distinct from their kinsmen across the Prut as they are from Tatars or Russians. Give me a break. What - really, what, other than a passport (and in many cases not even that) - distinguishes an inhabitant of Ungheni from one of Ungheni?

I doubt the 100+ years as a Russian province made all that much of an impression (except maybe in the cities, of which there were few). The Soviet system, however, has had a major effect. --Illythr (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. And Moldovans are far more likely to speak Russian, and adhere to the Moscow rather than Bucharest church. So I don't want to claim there are zero differences. That said, if you take someone born (say) after the mid-1980s and move him from Chişinău to Bucharest, or even from Soroca to Satu Mare, he'll probably adapt rather fast. (The inverse may be true as well.) That's not the case with, say, Kazan->Iaşi or Murmansk->Timişoara. Which doesn't necessarily prove anything, except that Moldovenism can rather easily be used to make fairly exaggerated claims. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Take anyone born, say, after 1990 and move them anywhere, and he/she can become a model national of his/her new home in no time. And, since Russian is still widely spoken, a lot of the 1980ers will be able to adapt in Kazan etc just as easily, simply due to youth and flexibility. Nationality is, first and foremost, culture and tradition. The young ones simply don't have that yet, whereas the older ones mostly have the Soviet one. In my opinion, the Moldovan nation is at a crossroads - it may continue on its way and split off completely, or it may do the inverse. Mentioning Stalin or Soviet propaganda is useless at this point. --Illythr (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, not literally, I imagine - take someone from Duluth and drop him in Matsuyama - I imagine the adaptation process will last rather longer than "no time". Anyway, I take your point - only that the "no time" will likely be shorter for Mo->Ro even than for Mo->Tatarstan. By the way, the textbook controversy is continuing, and probably deserves mention at Education in Moldova. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you drop someone older than 13 or so from Duluth into, for example, North Korea, you might be guilty of murder by proxy. ;-) So, no not literally. But if age, language and public tolerance permit it, sure. Yes, that should be mentioned. --Illythr (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Romanians don't seem to have any problems in adapting in Spain. Does this mean Spaniards are Romanian too?Xasha (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really, now.. Perhaps I made a rather ham-fisted assertion, but the point was clear enough. Anyway, many Spaniards have been quite hostile (a bit surprising, since one might think they'd welcome some Christians for a change), and Romanians have done things in Spain (live all in the same communities, learn a new language, bring in Orthodox priests) that, for instance, refugees leaving Bessarabia during WWII did not do. (For instance my grandfather's family, after fleeing Cotiujenii-Mari, ended up in Timişoara. He lived in Vaslui and Botoşani before settling in Bucharest after about 15 years, his sister and parents in Iaşi and his brother in Galaţi, then Buzău. None of them brought a priest with them, none of them learned a new language, none (to my knowledge) was ever thought of as being a foreigner, and none of them interacted with other Bessarabians (outside their family) on a daily basis.) Biruitorul ^Talk 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have a challenge to issue to those who may be interested. If Romanians and Moldovans are different, and since 2% of Moldovan inhabitants declared as Romanian in 2004, why on earth don't you go ahead and create a Romanians in Moldova article? I'd be curious to see how that one comes out. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I bet it'd fail the OR and NOTABLE criteria ;-) --Illythr (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to write about Romanians in Moldova. There are only about 2% of them, and a sfar as I know, nobody really ever cared to study them. However, we have studies on Polish, Bulgarians, but also Russian speaking Moldavians, Ukrainian speaking Moldavians, Gagauz speaking Moldavians. I guess it is because the actual 2% representing Romanian minority never really contributed to anything notable in Moldova, contrary to other ethnicities.--Moldopodo (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Another risible, fictitious claim. Ever heard of Pan Halippa, Ion Inculeţ, Ion Pelivan, Iurie Roşca, Vlad Cubreacov, Pavel Stratan? Let's stop playing games here: nobody studied the "Romanians of Moldova" because all Romance-speaking people in Moldova, whether they identify as Moldovans or as Romanians, are in fact Romanians. Yes, Stalinist policy partly succeeded in erasing the Romanian consciousness from them. But I'm sorry, I just can't imagine someone could make such assertions (positing the existence of a "Romanian minority in Moldova") with a straight face.

Also, see here and here - minorities of far less than 2% have articles on Wikipedia. Some of them don't say much, but they at least indicate these groups exist, and at "2%" of the population, they're notable. So my challenge remains. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that still be OR? And I do believe I meantioned WP:BEANS more than once already... --Illythr (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Biuitorul, Wikipedia is not a battle field, and you are free to write about whatever you want as long as it is true, sourced and really exists. Go ahead and write the article, but be attentive. For example among those you've named as "Romanians in Moldova" half are not Romanians, they are Moldavians.--Moldopodo (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I will not write the article, since reliable sources indicate that Moldovans include both groups. Halippa, Inculeţ, Pelivan, Roşca and Cubreacov all fought for or are fighting for union with Romania - I think that makes them Romanians. Stratan has said: "Desi ma abtin ca sa fac aprecieri politice, pot sa va spun ca sufleteste as câstiga orice concurs lansat sub egida 'Români din toate tarile uniti-va!'". Once again, a Romanian. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This propaganda style rhetorics does not bring in any valuable argument worthy of encyclopedia. However, it clearly justifies your description as an ethno-racist user (which has already been given to you by other users) who denies simple and obvious things as Moldavian state, Moldavian language, Moldavian nation, etc.. It's not because you will erase on all Wiki pages Moldavian and put instead Romanian that it will become Romanian.--Moldopodo (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosca and Cubreacov may be Romanians, however the older ones can't be clearly classified at such. They just miraculously changed their allegiance to Romania when the Romanian troops occupied Chisinau. As for Stratan, I think this qualifies as a statement (note also the outrage of Romanians there). Xasha (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, they actively sought to join Romania, which they saw as their motherland -- and from about 1905, maybe earlier, not 1917. They served in Sfatul Ţării; they voted, willingly, to join Romania. I fully admit that very few of Bessarabia's non-Romanians were enthusiastic about joining Romania. But among Romanians - certainly among pro-Unionist activists like those three - there is little doubt they considered themselves Romanians or, more properly, Bessarabian Romanians - no one (except the 2004 Moldovan census) says you can't be both Bessarabian and Romanian. (I myself am both, but I consider the first subordinate to the second, wider, more complete entity.) About Stratan: well, that's disappointing, the earlier statement was itself rather unambiguous. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

again "no, no they...", Biruitorul, are you giving yourself a callenge to fill in the next archive of the talk page in couple of days without one single source, but with plenty of your "thoughts"?--Moldopodo (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, now, this offtopic seems to be getting even more off, so I suggest we close the discussion, as it's obviously not anywhere constructive. --Illythr (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to, myself. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with map showing location of Bălţi

The map (Image:Moldadm C.png) currently in the infobox highlights the location of Chişinău, not Bălţi. Richwales (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)