Talk:Moldova–Ukraine relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine Mid‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moldova Low‑importance

	Moldova portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Please, wait for a couple of minutes, 20-30, I am writing the article in this very moment--Moldopodo^talk 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was proposal to change Moldavian to Moldovan. It would be interesting to know what other users think of this? By searching for a mere defition o Google "define:Moldovan" / "define:Moldavian", the adjective Moldavian is defined through the Wikipedia definition so it's not really a source to check, Moldovan as of or relating to or characteristic of Moldova or its people or culture (Pinceton).So, I wonder whether Moldavian is absolutely irrelevant and misplaced for an adjective regarding Moldova? I wonder whether this discusson has already taken place on English Wikipedia?--Moldopodo^talk 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is obvious from the spelling, Moldovan is something about the Republic of Moldova, whereas Moldavian is something related to the Principality of Moldavia. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the source you gave does not speak of Moldavian Principality: –adjective 1. of or pertaining to Moldavia, its people, or their language. –noun 2. a native or inhabitant of Moldavia. 3. a dialect of Romanian spoken in Moldavia and written in the Cyrillic alphabet.--Moldopodo^talk 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldopodo is right, the mentioned site makes no differences between Republic of Moldova and Moldavia. see here the inverse: moldavian - linked to the region of Romania and moldovan - to Republic of Moldova --serhio ^talk 20:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually both you and Moldopodo are wrong. Merriam-Webster says precisely the same thing as dictionary.com, which is precisely what I said above. --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

The topic is notable; however, there are a couple of serious problems. First, the adjective form of Moldova is Moldovan, so that should in fact be the title. Second and more important, one can only begin to speak meaningfully of Moldovan-Ukrainian relations in 1991. Sure, one could give a prehistory of the topic (see Polish-Ukrainian relations) - MASSR, etc., but the two states have only existed in stable form since 1991. There was of course a Moldavia until 1859/62, and that entity had relations with places to its east, but Moldova is not its successor and we should avoid giving that impression. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some researches (here or here), I found Biruitorul right:

Former Soviet Union: The states (preferable to the term republics, although can be used synonymously) are:
- Azerbaijan - adjective: Azerbaijani for people and state;
- Belarus - not double s - adjective: Belarussian;
- Kazakhstan - adjective Kazakh (not Kazakhi or Turkmeni etc);
- Kyrgyzstan - adjective Kyrgyz;
- Moldova - adjective Moldovan;
- Tajikistan - Tajik;
- Turkmenistan (note the i) - Turkmen;
- Uzbekistan - Uzbek; ;)

--serhio ^talk 09:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the relations of the Principality of Moldavia with its Cossak neighbours before and particularly after the Zaporozhian Host was established are very interesting and, in my oppinion, most welcome. However this article should not be used as a POV pusher in the question of Moldovenism and one shouls carefully distinguish between the foreign relations af a feudal (and mostly vassal) state with a neighbouring people and for some-time "quasi" or de-facto state and the foreign relations of two very recent modern states Moldova and Ukraine. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. One could have such a section here, provided the distinction between feudal Moldavia and the Republic of Moldova were made quite clear, or one could have a "Foreign policy" section in Moldavia, and deal with it there. The theme is quite interesting and deserves mention; the important thing is that it be presented appropriately and not used to create false impressions about continuity between Moldavia (-1859) and Moldova (1991-). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan pertains to Moldova, the country. Moldavian pertains to Moldavia, a historical state entity. They are not interchangeable. Nor are historical references to Moldavian for the Romanian spoken in Moldavian the same as describing the Romanian spoken in toay's Moldova as Moldovan. —PētersV (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. With regard to both references to language, neither originated because there was/is actually a different language, but that's a topic for a different discussion. (Nor is there any historical continuity between those references, in spite of Voronin's proclamations about "6 centuries.") —PētersV (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the given references nothing prevents one from using alternatively both terms. Only Serhio's reference points to an unambiguous guideline. This makes it one against two. --Moldopodo^talk 00:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure how you're reading the dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster references, but they are most definitely not saying you can interchange the terms -- all sources indicate the same thing, you're the only one who says otherwise. --Gutza ^{T T+} 13:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all sources indicate the same thing - not true, try to make your arguments more constructive. I'm not at all sure how you're reading the dictionary - this is uncivil, moreover uncivil from an administrator.--Moldopodo^talk 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is POV pushing. Regardless of how you render the name of the present-day republic in english, the Principality of Moldavia is different political entity. While its relations with the Cossaks may constitute a "pre-historic" back-ground of the foreign relations between the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine (and of those between Romania and Ukraine, as well) they are a different subject. The relations of Italy and Greece can hardly be seen as a continuation of the relations of Venice and the Byzantine Empire. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about relatios between two countries. Certainly both parts: history and the modern part should, and I hope will be, well developped by ineterested Modlavian and Ukrainian users in the spirit of constructive contribution to Wikipedia.--Moldopodo^talk 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which countries? Or, to be exact, which states, since that's what the article reads? --Gutza ^{T T+} 13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read the talk page and the article. --Moldopodo^talk 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have, that's exactly why I'm asking the question. The article reads "The relations between two states date back to late 16th century" -- and I'm not at all sure which states we're talking about in the 16th century. Could you please help me out here? --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan for Moldova, Moldavian for Moldavia

Contrary too all sources (and to logic, I might add), it appears at least one person is still not clear that the adjective "Moldovan" pertains to Moldova, whereas "Moldavian" pertains to Moldavia. I will take the time to explain this in detail, although I find the exercise as meaningful as proving that "Albanian" pertains to Albania whereas "albinistic" pertains to albinos.

Please, refrain, from uncivilities, or I will have to report you for vioaltion of the Divurgen arbitration. It is at least third violation of Divurgen by you. --Moldopodo^talk 01:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, do -- threatening me like this all the time makes me feel uncomfortable, I'd much rather have this sorted out. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have the following sources: Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, The Telegraph, and even Zozanga.com. Here's what each of them says:

Please note, the sources are given with the respective inetrpretation of User:Gutza and partially mine as a response and an attempt not to let a reader to fall into interpretations of a user enaging only himself and clearly not the definition itself. I have also quoted extensively some citations, which User:Gutza "forgot" to quote till the end. I did my best not to interpret personally in any way the below given definitions.--Moldopodo^talk 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your implication that I acted in bad faith -- I have provided links to the respective articles (readers can make up their minds themselves), I explicitly asked whether I missed anything just below the table, and I have courteously asked you to address any personal interpretation that you felt conflicted with the sources. Your sarcasm throughout this talk page made it relatively difficult to maintain my replies civil and constructive, but I have made consistent efforts to be civil and address any and all objections you made -- and now you're accusing me of being in violation of the Digwuren restriction and acting in bad faith ("I have also quoted extensively some citations, which User:Gutza "forgot" to quote till the end.") --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remain civil. Please do not interpret neither what I say (reading what is not written), nor what the dictionaries say. As for Digwuren request, this is not the place, nor the moment for this discussion, again please bear in mind the existence of the Digwuren General restriction for editors on Eastern European topics.--Moldopodo^talk 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Moldovan	Moldavian
Dictionary.com	link User:Gutza said(no entry), but it basically redirects to Moldova (notice that the none of the definitions are of the adjective "Moldovan", they're all about "Moldova"). The article on Moldavia on the other hand gives as the first sense the region in Romania, and in the second sense (the republic) it clarifies explicitly that the official name is Moldova, not Moldavia (I'm led to infer they consider the usage of Moldavia for Moldova as informal or inappropriate, but since they don't mention that we're left at least with "unofficial"). User:Moldopodo said: let's quote exactly what the dictionary says, and yes there is an entry: Mol·do·va /mɔlˈdoʊvə/ [mawl-doh-vuh] – noun official name of Moldavia. Related forms Mol·do·van, adjective, noun. I have nothing more to say.--Moldopodo^talk 16:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]	link "of or pertaining to Moldavia, its people, or their language" User:Gutza said: there are also a couple of definitions for the respective noun, which also point to Moldavia; the only remote link to Moldova is the definition about the language, but that's because they assume everybody knows there is no such thing as a Moldovan language, so they talk about the dialect spoken throughout all of Moldavia, but written in Cyrillic -- a neutral definition of the Moldovan "language"; they carefully avoid the word "language" though. The present definition defines makes no reference whatsoever to Moldova, neither explicit nor implicit. Also worth noting is the fact that there are Moldavians on both sides of the border, a reference to Moldavians in no way implies the Republic of Moldova exclusively. User:Moldopodo said: the present definition exactly decribes the today's Republic of Moldova, its people (who did not change and still remained Moldavians) and it perfectly describes the offical langauge spoken in Moldova - Moldavian language, existing from Middle Ages--Moldopodo^talk 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster	link Describes Moldova ("country in E Moldavia region; formerly (as Moldavian Republic or Moldavia) a constituent republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"). User:Gutza said: Admittedly they do mention "Moldavia", but that's obviously a mistake since they clearly talk about SSR Moldova. User:Moldopodo said: I refrain to comment on mistakes seen by User:Gutza of Merriam-Webster and leave it to the readers...--Moldopodo^talk 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]	link User:Gutza said: Soft redirect to Moldavia ("Main Entry: Mol·da·via"); describes Moldavia ("region Europe in NE Romania & Moldova between the Carpathians & Transylvanian Alps on the W & the Dniester on the E"); finally, a soft redirect to Moldova for completeness" User:Moldopodo said: I would like ot make sure first of all that the quatations are fully cited. So, here we go: 1 region Europe in NE Romania & Moldova between the Carpathians & Transylvanian Alps on the W & the Dniester on the E 2 — see Moldova — Mol·da·vian \-vē-ən, -vyən\ adjective or noun . Secondly, here again, the definition speaks for itself and I have nothing to comment or interpret.--Moldopodo^talk 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph	link "Moldova - Moldovan"	(n/a)
Zozanga.com	link User:Gutza said: "Moldova -- Moldovan". Admittedly, this source is not the best in the lot, but I mentioned it because it was referenced above by Serhio. User:Moldopodo said: just a note for this source: this site advertises Arabic girls - it's up to the readers to decide on credibility of this source as far as toponyms and linguistics are concerned.--Moldopodo^talk 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]	(n/a)

Please let me know if I missed anything. --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure did not miss to add personal interpretations, which are irrelevant, since you pretend everything is so clear. Sounds like a contradiction to me. From the given definitons above, your personal inetrpretations put aside, it is clear that Moldavian describes modern Moldova/Moldavia just as well as Moldovan and nothing forbids to use the term Moldavian to describe the Republic of Moldova and whatever else pertains to it.--Moldopodo^talk 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't presume to speak the Truth -- please feel free to address any personal interpretation that you feel conflicts with the sources above. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should someone discuss your interpretation? It's either we have a fact a source (credible and verifiable one) or we don't. All the rest does not have its place at Wikipedia.--Moldopodo^talk 01:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, thank you for being objective. As such, it inherently follows you agree with renaming the article Moldovan-Ukrainian relations and dropping the part about Moldavia, yes? --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been bold and moved, removed the inappropriate section and spell-checked the article (it mistakenly used "Moldavian" instead of "Moldovan" a lot). Anyway, if you have sources proving my changes wrong I'd be happy to reconsider. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you really want to dive into the topic of Moldavian-Ukrainian relations, I suggest we create a separate article for those -- we could reuse the previous title of this article for that purpose, and we could link to it from this article, from Moldavia, and from Moldova. I think that would be a fair, NPOV way of going about it. --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, I've asked an outside party to weigh in on this matter. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I was asked this nor why there's such a hot debate over this but here goes. At best, "Moldavian" could refer to Moldova since Moldova was known as Moldavia pre-independence and it was once part of the Principality of Moldavia. However, even under this scenario, "Moldavian" is ambiguous as it refers to these other entities as well. WP:PRECISION instructs to "...name your articles precisely. If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase." In this case, the precise word would be "Moldovan" which, in English, much more unambiguously refers to the current Moldova. The sources cited above confirm this. Although, Wikipedia editors are often deeply involved in their particular subject, remember that this encyclopedia is for a general audience of English-speaking readers. I would hazard most readers would recognize and associate "Moldovan" with the topic over "Moldavian." However, if those disagreeing feel their case is strong, please make a formal move request and post it at WP:RM to gain wider input. — AjaxSmack 06:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support a move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this unilateral move made by administrator User:Gutza, who has violated Divurgen arbitration enforcement on numerous times on different talk pages related to eastern Europe and followed the path of the banned user for socket puppetry. But I'll come to this later.
Fully agree with the statement of AlexSmack "...name your articles precisely. If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase." and precisely for this reason disagree with the following of your statement, approving the controverisal unilateral move operated by the aforementioned user violating basic rules of civility and pushing through that what a banned user could not do. Moreover, the persoal interpretation added by the same user to the clear definitions and sources (in order to give them the "right" (in his view) reading) reminds me of trolling.
Moldavia, since the Principality of Moldavia has always kept the form Moldavia. Even after the Prinicpality was split in two halfs, the half that was continued to be called Moldavia, was the only one that kept a statal form of organisation and always enjoyed autonomy, be it Russian Empire or Soviet Union, and had therefore the right to conduct international relations, which was the case, namely during Soviet times, Moldavia being a subject of a larger union. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the term Moldovan is sometimes used as alaso related to the Republic of Moldova, but there is nothing that makes it to prevail over Moldavian. When an article is written on bilateral relations, this encompasses a large part of history, including all statal forms Moldavia had, and therefore the term Moldavian is not only the most logical, but also the most widely used. --Moldopodo^talk 16:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on many counts except that relations between union republics of the USSR are not considered foreign or international relations and the explicit topic here is foreign relations (see first sentence, categories, &c). Even if historical relations are considered, the modern names of states (Moldova, in this case) are frequently projected back to times before their usage. We no longer use Abyssinia, Siam, Turkmenia, Dahomey, or Ellice Islands to title articles, even if the subject covers events that occurred when those names were contemporaneous. For example, the Czech Republic-Mongolia relations article narrative begins in 1950, long before the creation of the Czech Republic, but the title is not Czechoslovakian-Mongolia relations or Bohemian-Mongolia relations. The current article on Moldovan-Ukrainian relations only covers from 2005 forward so the historical arguments are even weaker here. There is simply no need for the ambiguous "Moldavia" when "Moldova," the widely accepted standard, is available. — AjaxSmack 16:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not see how a prallel can be drawn with Czechoslovak/Bohemian examples. The term Moldavia never ceased its meaning as related to a statal political formation. It will be 950 that it exists now.--Moldopodo^talk 17:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider the term Moldavia ambiguous? Because some users on Wikipedia renamed the article Principality of Moldavia simply Moldavia? There is no confusion for Moldavia and Moldova as it is one and the same thing. As for Ukrainain-Moldavian relations - they did exist well before 1991, as you can see in the article. Certainly, the article is not fully written yet (is there an article that is completely written in Wikipedia?), but there were quite enough events taking place between today's Ukraine and Moldova as far as international relations are concerned before 1991. This goes without saying how much could and will be certainly written on cultural, economic, etc relations, about ethnic Moldavians living in Ukraine, about Ukrainians speaking Moldavian and Moldavians speaking Ukrainian, etc, etc... Denying this obvious reality (just for ex. Zaporozhye and Moldavian Principality, MaSSR and USSR, MSSR and USSR, Gybernya time in Russian Empire, odesskaya, etc, etc), does not make your argument to weigh more. --Moldopodo^talk 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do you consider the term Moldavia ambiguous? Because some users on Wikipedia renamed the article Principality of Moldavia simply Moldavia?" Yes, exactly. 'Nuff said. — AjaxSmack 17:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuff Said is an album by singer/pianist/songwriter Nina Simone (1933-2003) - what did you mean by this?--Moldopodo^talk 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:Nuff said. — AjaxSmack 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the non-totally-immersed-in-Romania-Moldavia-Hungary-endless history, Moldavia = short for Principality of Moldavia and that territory encompassed, Moldova = a territorial entity created by the USSR, now an independent nation within those boundaries. Territories of the two overlap, however, they are not historically continuous entities and we should should not title articles on state relations in a manner which confuse the two. —PētersV (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who established that Moldavia is short of Principality of Moldavia? Just for the record, did you know that Moldavia is Moldova in Moldavian language? And how is that Moldova was created by the Soviet Union? So you mean before there was no Moldova (in Moldavian) or Moldavia (in English) - there was no such political territorial administraive unit? This is something new.... --Moldopodo^talk 18:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm still here — what a masochist. While no one person or entity established this usage (English usage doesn't work that way), it is widespread in English, not only that of Wikipedia. Compare Britannica:

Moldova: "Republic of Moldova..., formerly...Moldavia... [a] country lying in the northeastern corner of the Balkan region."
Moldavia: "[a] principality on the lower Danube River that joined Walachia to form the nation of Romania in 1859."

How about Encarta:

"Moldova, republic in southeastern Europe. In Moldovan, the state language, the country’s official name is Republica Moldova."
"Moldavia (Romanian Moldova), former principality, located in southeastern Europe in what is now Romania, Ukraine, and Moldova."

Notice they all use "Moldovan" for the adjective of Moldova and "Moldavian" as the adjective of Moldavia. — AjaxSmack 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldopodo, please review WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT. It's a simple change of wording we're discussing, you've been shown ample evidence that "Moldovan" is preferred, and it will cost you nothing to concede this silly little quarrel. Perhaps you should review WP:STICK too. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, It's a simple change of wording we're discussing, if you really consider it so, why do you give so much effort to it? Until now, there was no decisive evidence shown for preference of the Moldovan term. However, numerous interpretations were made by certain users, including saying the contrary of what the dictionary definition says. If that's what you call amlpe evidence - it is not such for me.--Moldopodo^talk 23:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I wouldn't say I've put very much effort into this - Gutza and AjaxSmack have been more active here. Second, ample evidence has indeed been adduced in favour of "Moldovan". Third, there comes a point in every debate (especially a minor one like this) where you bow in the face of consensus and move on. Not doing so tends to become disruptive. Whether you have reached that point is not for me to say, but again, given the evidence for "Moldovan" and the rather minor nature of the dispute, why press on? Why not focus on more important matters? Biruitorul ^Talk 23:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately what is disruptive and may certainly not be considered as a constructive contribution is the desire to make something desired appear as established and real. Given that no evidence was presented that Moldovan prevails over Moldavian why press on, why not to focus on more imortant issues indeed? For the interest you show in this article, may be you have somethig constructive to add to the contents of the article in fact, of Moldavian-Ukrainian relations? --Moldopodo^talk 23:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You saw the quotes provided by AjaxSmack and Gutza; you saw my Google and Google Books results; claiming "no evidence" is patently incorrect. At least four users subscribe to the "Moldovan" view; I suppose we could wait for 5,6,7 to show up, but it's clear the way the wind is blowing. If you don't want to respect that consensus, it's your decision, but there is good reason to respect it. (This isn't exactly the life-and-death scenario of 12 Angry Men.)

I generally consider "X-Y relations" articles to be overkill, which is perhaps one reason for my failure to expand this one, plus of course the fact that it fails to distinguish between Moldavia and Moldova. Then again, it's not totally absurd like, say, Moldavian-Luxembourgish relations, which really should be tagged for deletion when I get the wherewithal to do it. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WE have all seen your efforts for deleting the language tag "MO" {{mo icon}} already, so there is nothing new you communicate here, although this is not the matter of the present discussion, so please remain civil.--Moldopodo^talk 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoratio elenchi. That TfD has nothing to do with this move discussion. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "MO" as in the "MO"ldovan Wikipedia (still hasn't been deleted the last I looked) signifies "Moldovan" (Romanian) returned to its Cyrillic roots by Stalin. Romanian in Cyrillic is not a language, hopefully it's not being suggested that it is. A discussion for another place and time, but an alternate name for a language does not make a different language. Same for centuries ago when foreigners referred to Romanian spoken in Moldavia as Moldavian. —PētersV (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to relations of states, Moldavia and Moldova are two different state entities, separated by time. Moldavian and Moldovan are the appropriate words to use, respectively, to insure clarity. —PētersV (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Moldavia and/or Moldova in English designates the same state. It is used to describe the actual Republic of Moldova, previously Republic of Moldavia, previously Autonomous Republic of Moldavia, previously Moldavian Gubernya, previously Principality of Moldavia, as you can see from the provided reference and links by Gutza and other users the usage shows there is no prevalence established for the term Moldovan. --Moldopodo^talk 14:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Molodopodo, but only in your own WP:OR. You simply dismiss sources you don't like (as in, who is King anyway to say Bessarabia was annexed, another of your editorial trench warfare efforts currently underway) and you insist you are the bearer of truth based purely on your own contentions. As I've indicated to you, there are far more constructive ways to edit in good will and demonstrate pride in Moldova. I regret you have found my advice of no value. —PētersV (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remain civil and don't lie, otherwise provide a diff to prove what you say. As for King, even though it is irrelevant here, I have proved so far not only that the number of references using the term "cession" outweighs by far the unexplained invention of Mr. King, I have also proved that even the would be reference you quoted the book "Annexation of Bessarabia" - actually uses the wording "cessation" as well... What esle there is to say, user Peters? --Moldopodo^talk 11:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moldova–Ukraine relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]