This is an archive of past discussions about Moldova. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Moldova" should be redirected to the disambiguation page, as it is done in the case of "China" and "Macedonia". The primary meaning of the word refers to the whole region, not to the internationally recognized state.
Please post new messages at the bottom of this page. Moldavia may be what you are looking for. Moldova is used in English almost exclusively for the independent state.Anonimu (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
No it's not. Both are used synonymously. The attempts to make a distinction between the different spellings is quite modern an d is not based on any given facts.
1) "ass" is the correct spelling. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngzyyRVYfkg&feature=related 2) This is Wikipedia's website, not Moldova's. Constructive contributions are welcome from anybody, provided they are colnstructive. Please note, it generally takes time and thought to read through and compare previous edits. Don't assume someone edits in bad faith just because one edits. Read them through carefully. Also, pls refract and apologize for the incivil words. To quote: "your have the right and obligation to shot bin Laden, but you have no right to swear at him". 3) Was there a check user performed? Are we assuming this is Bonaparte or it is a known fact? Dc76\talk14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it seems "ass" is American and "arse" is British. I had no idea! :) But that's not a nice word (watch the youtube video) :) Dc76\talk14:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There are many words in the dictionary that should not be used. Whatever, the way you addressed was incivil. A civil person would apologize and refract. Dc76\talk15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, which is the difference between soviet propaganda and russian propaganda. I don't get what you mean b/c I haven't noticed a difference between them. --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood. Not to apologize for an edit. But you said: "Keep your Russians ideas in your ARSE!" and "why don't you stick your Russian ideas in your ASS??!!!!" That is called a personal attack, and either you apologize for it or you are banned.
To get an idea about it, read Soviet propaganda. It means all major falsities actively promoted by the Soviets. However, it is not clear what you mean by "Russian propaganda": is it Russia that promotes it (which Russia, tsarist? modern?), Russians (are you sure you want to say all ethnic Russians promote propaganda?), Russophones (again, there are millions of people who speak Russian, but have nothing to do with Soviet propaganda), some political regime (be specific which)? The expression "Russian propaganda" as such IMHO is a non-sense. There does exist Moldovenism, non-sense expressed publicly time and again by some individuals (Voronin, Putin, Smirnov), but that is not constitute a "Russian propaganda". And BTW (by the way), what exactly is propaganda in this article? Could you, please, copy-and-paste a few such sentences below? Dc76\talk17:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not a secret the present Russia perpetuates the same old sovietic methods, even today. I will bring all the propaganda from article here. Few sentences.Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So what? Illythr is not from Russia, and his relationship to Soviet things is at most melancolically nostalgic, and that only at times. What point do you intend to make? If you intend to discredit him, that would be very-very unlikely (read impossible), b/c he has the record of years of positive contributions and not a single time has he muttered an incivility (a lot of people, including me, could vouch strongly for that), while you have one day with already 2 serious incivilities and basically no constructive contributions whatsoever. If your point is that something is not true but just Soviet propaganda, please attempt to make such point only after you clearly indicate what sentences you mean. I am not negating that occasionally there are Soviet propaganda things that stick to some articles for several weeks. But I saw most if not all such things eventually removed. WP has rather the reputation of hitting hard Soviet "heritage" rather than sucombing to the lure of communist propaganda, IMHO. Calm down, discuss content, LISTEN, and THINK before you rush to edit. Pls. Dc76\talk22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ghimpu Moldova 1, I think you should try to calm down. (You would do better to use your energy to improve a "stab" articles; there are so many of them around that need development.) Don't try to paint a better picture of Moldova than the reality is. The major problems with this article IMHO are standardization of references and making existing red links blue. I find nothing wrong in using the word "Transnistria". Nor in using the word "subsumed" (the articles make it clear that subsumtion was done through occupation). Dc76\talk22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"language of inter-ethnic communication"
What is that supposed to mean? Is it still current, I see in other articles that that was the situation in Soviet Union, see this paragraph from Ukraine
Officially, there was no state language in the Soviet Union until the very end when it was proclaimed in 1989 that Russian language is the state language. Still it was implicitly understood in the hopes of minority nations that Ukrainian would be used in the Ukrainian SSR, Uzbek would be used in the Uzbek SSR, and so on. However, Russian was used in all parts of the Soviet Union and a special term, "a language of inter-ethnic communication" was coined to denote its status. In reality, Russian was in a privileged position in the USSR and was the state official language in everything but formal name—although formally all languages were held up as equal. Often the Ukrainian language was frowned upon or quietly discouraged which led to the gradual decline in its usage. Partly due to this suppression, in many parts of Ukraine, notably most urban areas of the east and south, Russian remains more widely spoken than Ukrainian.
In any case this seems to be part of the Soviet Union legislation and at most there can be some remains in legislation of some of the republics that resulted from its collapse. We should probably not use this in the infobox since there's no such concept in the English language or in the rest of the world for that matter... man with one red shoe18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur with The Man (and his Shoe): there is no reason whatsoever for that dated and ultimately irrelevant distinction, not just because it's messy and POVish, but also because we're already cramming to much crap into infoboxes. Dahn (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You guys have some nerves removing a sourced edit without notice : in december 2003, the parliament of Moldova stated (in Romanian/Moldovan) that Russian was the "language of inter-ethnic communication". It's no "crap", this denomination is also used in other FSU countries such as Tajikistan (where it is in the Constitution). Now I'm putting my edit back and I hope you'll read the source before thinking about reverting again.Mitch1981 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Mitch, that was called "concept of national politics" (or something like that), it was a political program that the then majority wanted to ideologically impose on the state. Why the Constitution only mentions the official language? Your conclusion looks to me like "In the soviet Union the working class is in power" b/c official text wrote that. That did not put the working class in any power. Only the Party had the power (Article 6 of the Constitution of the USSR). Dc76\talk20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed this - the "concept" is actually referencing the (acting) Article 3 of the language law. Of course, the law was written to reflect the realia of 1989, but it *is* part of the core legislative documents of the republic, even as of 2009. --Illythr (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I added 'approximately 800,000 of Moldova's current 3.4 million inhabitants have already applied for Romanian citizenship' which is a fact. --Disraelly (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It's given undue weight in the lead section, that is, it's not one of the most important facts about Moldova. Consider adding this to Foreign relations or Demographics sections. The other things you added/changed are just strange. --Illythr (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the place is in Foreign relations and it should include if possible how many people are Russian or Ukrainian citizens (if those are notable numbers too) man with one red shoe15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Disraelly, nobody is denying that info. But there are other things that need to be in the lead, like where on the globe the country is situated, what is it capital, in which year it became independent. Just add that info in another section. Is that so difficult? Please. Dc76\talk17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"is a Romanian-speaking country, the language spoken is Romanian," - please stop doing these things, return to constructive editing and we can continue pretending you're not a sockpuppet of a banned user. --Illythr (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the sockpuppet of anyone, the consensus in Wikipedia is not the same with the consensus in reality. So, Wikipedia should reflect the reality. Do you argue Moldova it's not a Romanian-speaking country? Disraelly (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The article section you're inserting this redundant piece of info already deals with the controversy sufficiently. The way you do this is typical of a known banned Romanian nationalist. If you're not him, it should be easy for you to drop this matter and focus on constructive things in this article. --Illythr (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Disraelly, please stop pushing those edits, you see that you go against the consensus here, if you continue it will tantamount to trolling. I also suggest somebody starts a sockpuppet check on this account. man with one red shoe17:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Disraelly, "a Romanian-speaking country" is a redundant piece of info. The article already says that. About applications for Romanian citizenship, please google and find a normal source, and use the same wording as in the source. That's easy to do. But be mindful where you insert it. "Chisinau is the capital of Moldova" is a more important info than "800,000 Moldovans applied for Romanian citizenship". If you have time and energy, better start an article Romanian citizenship, describe the existing legislation for all categories, describe the procedures, describe the practical state of things. That would be very constructive. Try to contribute to WP with qualitative information that will stay, not with information that is unsourced, not quite encyclopedially written, and which because of its shortcomings is bound to be removed by other editors. Dc76\talk00:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(Mid-October point-counterpoint)
"Moldova regained its post-Soviet independence on the same historic basis - it ceased being hostage of the secret Molotove-Ribbentrop protocols."..and Illythr what's the problem with 'drama' here? Disraelly (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"..Only recently has Moldova shown decisive signs of ‘‘Europeanization’’, due in large part to the recent deterioration in its relations with the Putin government." Illythr what's the problem with this one too?Disraelly (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
See WP:OR. You need a reliable source saying so and then you'd have to attribute the statement to that source, as, I'm sure, such an opinion is not shared by everyone in the Moldovan parliament. --Illythr (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not shared by 46% namely the Communist Party from Moldova.
"...он лоб расшибёт." - yes, some of the more common traits of the human characters transcend cultural borders. Meaning that you really should propose the more controversial of your initiatives here first, so that other editors can approve/reject/talk about them. --Illythr (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
More OR. There were ethnic Moldovans fighting for the PMR and Russians and Ukrainians - for Snegur's forces Moldova's military. And the PMR govt was formed before the war, not after it. And so on. --Illythr (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna add this one too:
"Most Russians came to the country after it was annexed by the Soviet government in 1940 and after WorldWar II." How do you say? Disraelly (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Already there: "The postwar period saw a wide scale migration of ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, and other ethnic groups into the new Soviet republic..." --Illythr (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Disraelly: First: You need to learn to write encyclopedially. It is not enough if something is true, it must be written professionally, not opinionated. It must be mathematically exact, i.e. no more and no less. Second: You should find sources to back up everything you introduce. Better so, find sources first and edit based on that. I recommend you use Google Books.
Illythr: You do realize that "Snegur's forces" is a denigratory euphemism, don't you? Moldova was an independent country in 1992. I am sure you also know that it is not completely clear on which side Snegur was. If Disraelly says some non-sense, there is no need to push the pendulum in the opposite direction. Sooner or later Disraelly will realize the futility of non-constructive approach. Dc76\talk08:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
What? Snegur was in charge of Moldova's military at the time, so I don't see anything bad in mentioning him as the supreme commander of Moldova's army. I'm also not sure what you mean by "not completely clear on which side Snegur was" - for that particular conflict it is quite clear (infobox and all). --Illythr (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"Bush's forces" would also be pejorative, it's "US forces" and "Moldovan forces" -- if we talk about countries that don't have rules and have all kind of chieftains then yes we can use names like that, but in a country that has laws and constitution the NPOV way to name the forces is to use the name of the country. Even in case of civil war we don't say "Davis' forces" or "Lincoln's forces" because those were not their personal forces. man with one red shoe20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Snegur was not a general in a campaign. You can definitively say Vlasov's or Chuykov's forces, but Stalin's would misslead, giving raise to fantesist ideas. About whose side Snegur was, it's a different discussion, and perhaps better done off-wiki per NOTAFORUM. But I really don't care about him. Dc76\talk21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that link points to a some political fights, is not about the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, normally people and newspapers refer to the forces there as "US troops" not "Bush's troops" or "Obama's troops". Also even if you find such formulation you'd probably find it in some partisan newspaper that does use it in a pejorative way. man with one red shoe21:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You can use them as references to support article text. It won't be plagiarism if you do a short summary of what the sources say. Also, with controversial issues, the whole thing is even more complex than Dc76 describes, so I'd suggest you propose what you intend to add here on the talk page, form and sources included. --Illythr (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Disraelly, I only gave you a brief outline. Start with less controversial issues. I suggested you to create Romanian citizenship. I am sure you can google about that. Don't start with big sentences in major articles. Alternatively, you can do what I do. Pick a book and read it. Add info from it to different articles. This way you both enjoy reading something, and simultaneously contribute to WP.
You know very well that in Transnistria, the existence of an ethnic Russian diaspora had been a key component of Moscow’s interest since Tsarist and Soviet times, exaclty when emigration of ethnic Russians into Moldova was encouraged. Such policies really set a historical precedent for Russian involvement. At the same time, the diaspora was relatively small and was not identified as a particularly threatened segment of the population. Moreover, the existence of Russian speakers in Transnistria does not fully explain Moscow’s partiality towards the sub-state region; a greater number of ethnic Russians were present in other parts of Moldova. Thus, Russian support of Transnistria did not mean supporting ethnic Russians in general.Disraelly (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Er, I can understand neither the point of this statement, nor... well, the statement itself. o_O I can only note that the Russian population in Transnistria became significant only after WW2. Before that the place mainly had Moldovan, Ukrainian and (before 1942) Jewish residents. --Illythr (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 30, Panici
Please note that the referred to article by Andrei Panici in the Global Review of Ethnopolitics was discovered as a serious case of plagiarism. The article was later removed from the homepage of the journal. For anyone who have read Charles Kings's book "The Moldovans" it is obvious that Panici copied substantial parts from King's text. Suggest the footnote is replaced by a reference to King.
Chisinau2010 (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Footnotes, 23 and 25
While I'm at it. The link to the Tismaneanu report is correct, but to refer to pages in the range of 740 when the report contains 666 pages I do not get. Footnotes need to be adjusted.
Chisinau2010 (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
WWII Troops
I'm finding it highly unlikely that Moldova could field an army of 150k soldiers let alone LOSE 150k soldiers in that 3 year period. Someone with sources please fact check this. Thanks. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the number of conscripts drafted into the Romanian (1941-1944) and Soviet (1944-1945) armies. It's not like they were trained professional soldiers of anything. --illythr (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering that in WWII one third or more of the soldiers died or went missing (I think that's true both for Romanian and Soviet armies) it's not inconceivable that recruits from Moldova suffered that casualty rate if not more (due to lack of training and discrimination). Doesn't sound "highly unlikely" to me, but of course it would be nice to have all the numbers nicely documented. man with one red shoe14:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The anonymous user doubts not the casualty rate, but the total number of conscripts. I brought the supporting source for the Soviet army numbers from ruwiki and removed the unsourced data about the Romanian army. Would be nice to add it back once a source is found. --illythr (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to expand Crime in Moldova. A crime section appears to be something of an exception in country articles. Nonetheless it is present here and might warrant a sentence or two on this issue as well... --illythr (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This problem plagues all underdeveloped countries, so it is hardly correct to say that Moldova is "epicenter". I bet Russia is a much larger source of sex slaves. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Language
I see a slow-moving revert war is in this page about how to name the language of Moldova. Please discuss it in talk page. I do agree that the language is essentially Romanian, but the argument it's called "Romanian" in English, is dubious. First, there is such concept as synonym. Second, if term "Moldovan language" does exist in English, and even wikipedia article :-). Third, this page writes "Moldovan(Romanian)", and with a footnote, thus clearly attracting attention to a political controversy, which is good for encyclopedia. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Music
A lot of people are familiar with this country from Sergy Stepanov, or the "Epic Sax Guy", a Youtube and internet sensation. Should he or the music show be included in this article? 99.231.232.207 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"He has been fittingly dubbed "Epic Sax Guy."" This sentence displays an nonobjective association between "epic" and pelvic thrusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.4.245 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Map
The seperatist movement in Transnistria is not recognized by any country or organization in the world. The region is recognized part of Moldova's territorial integrity and sovereignty. So there really is no reason so highlight the seperatist region, it is already mentioned properly a couple times in the article. This should be correctly reflected in the map of the infobox. Neftchi (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Transnistria has minor if unconvincing recognition, but that aside, it's a simple fact that Moldova has no actual control over the territory in question, and never really has. The placing of it in a different shade of green balances both Moldovan and Transnistrian POV's. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The question is what exacly is a map supposed to show? Territorial integrity and sovereignty or de-jure and de-facto control? There is no such regulation on these issues, thats why I suggest using the standard map untill this issue is solved. I also think this map needs to be a zoom in section, no offense but Moldova is a small country and a zoom in can will be helpful to many readers. Neftchi (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it's supposed to show the country. No map can show 'territorial integrity', that being an abstract concept. As for the zoom, that'd be good, but it'd have to be standardised with other smaller European countries. Interesting proposal though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Neftchi, the shades of green and light green actually are not discernable on current unzoomed version. Brandmeistert13:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
No Sax Guy???
Honestly, this is the only reason Americans have heard of this country. Run Away is an internet meme.
Hamolton (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the rant, delete as you wish.
Um, no. I heard of Moldova/Moldavia in history courses as early as the 6th grade, then very heavily in college history courses, not to mention looking at it on a large globe we had in our family. And it's mentioned in Dracula; today it is often in the current-events news. Many people will have 'heard' of this country from many different sources; and I have no idea who "Sax Guy" is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
This issue have been risen in the past, but I have to address it again, because the current state of the relevant Wikipedia section is too politically biased.
Why it is written that _IN CONTRAST_ Moldovan was written in Cyryllic while Romanian in Latin”. Yes, there were different alphabets for the same language, but this has just happened historically and not done by Soviets specifically to confront Romanian vs Moldavian identities, as it is written. Cyrillic alphabet is mainly used by countries which practice Orthodox Cristianity, and Cyryllic was used in Moldova since Stephen the Great (Prince of Moldavia between 1457 and 1504), so Cyrillic was always used in Chisinau. Why don’t we write on Wikipedia that the differences in alphabet were historical and religious, and not political?
If you tell me that Moldovan Cyrillic was different from the Cyrillyc in Russian language, and Soviets did change Moldovan Cyrillic to be exactly like Russian Cyrillic, this was also a technical measure (alphabet/language reform) rather than a political measure. It was easier to make small adjustments in the Cyrillic alphabet to comply to the modern standards than to switch entirely to Latin. When the language evolves over centuries, so the alphabet evolves. Russia did by itself several times have made some reforms to the Cyrillic alphabet it have used for the Russian language, so why the reform of Cyrillic used for Romanian language in Moldova is considered on Wikipedia an act of opposition of Moldovan vs Romanian languages, and to promote distinct cultural identities?
Maxim Masiutin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC).
The alphabet issue is not related to Moldovenism. As you know, it was Stephen the Great (Prince of Moldavia between 1457 and 1504) who have introduced Cyrillic, long before the Moldovenism took place. ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC).
While the section contents might need some swapping around between articles, the information about the promotion of a separate Moldovan identity is there. The "in contrast" bit is accurate because the Moldovan language was to "stick to the roots" in contrast to Romanian, which was "sold to the French bourgeoisie" and switched to Latin some fifty years ago. --illythr (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, the "change" to Romanian in Cyrillic was completely political. First, Stalin promoted the (continued) use of the Latin alphabet in the hopes that would assist in the export of Communism to Romania proper. When that failed, then the policy of "returning" "Moldovan" to its "historic roots" was instituted. (That sorry line is still repeated today in the PMR's propaganda) That being Russian Cyrillic, which does not include all the phonetic sounds of Romanian. Those sounds are included in both Latin Romanian and the original pre-Latin historical Cyrillic Romanian. The artificial manufacture of Cyrillic Moldovan ensured cutting off Moldovans from their Romanian brethren. Today's "Cyrillic" "Moldovan" is purely political. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you get your facts right at least for once? The reason for using the Latin alphabet (which was never used in the region except by a small romanophile minority) has nothing to do with "exporting Communism to Romania", it was a Union-wide switch to Latin for all minor languages (all Central Asian languages switched to Latin around the same time, and there surely was no neighboring country using the Latin alphabet to export Communism to). The main reason for this was speeding up alphabetization of the masses (Latin was generally seen as easier to learn). The same desire (helping people learn to read and write) stood behind the simplification of the Russian alphabet (a dozen redundant letters were dropped) and the Moldovan Cyrillic one (which did include all phonetic values of Romanian, in certain aspects being better fit to the language than the Latin one - such as using three different signs for three different sounds, all written in the Latin variant as "i"). Writing systems are inherently purely political, otherwise all the world would use the same basic alphabet.Anonimu (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I do have my fact straight. I have read the best current sources on Romanian and Moldovan history. They all point to your account being the (departed but propaganda not forgotten) official Soviet account. Post-Soviet scholarship is clear on the timetable and motivations behind changes in official position on language/alphabet. Don't even get me started on the Soviet-era manufactured dictionary of "Moldovan." (Thanks for jarring the memory circuits, hadn't thought about that in a while.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK03:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have serious doubts. It's ludicrous to say the Soviets changed the alphabet of 66 (!) unrelated languages at the same time just to "export Communism to Romania". Anonimu (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Human rights
Human rights in Moldova are discussed in two articles: Human rights in Moldova and Human rights in Transnistria. Therefore both of them are "main" articles for subsection "Human rights". I fail to see the reason why Chipmunkdavis disagrees with this. His edit summaries are self-contradictory: he writes Transnistria is part of Moldova, and thus its human rights should be discussed in the Moldovan article and under this reason he reverts my edit which serves precisely this purpose. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors, please stop making decisions based on stereotypes, and actually check the facts. In this case, the Moldovan census form had no checklist for nationality, every person could literally write in anything in field No. 7. The fact that you simply don't like certain facts is not reason enough to ignore them.Anonimu (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
What decision, what stereotypes? Why do you accuse fellow editors of such things? Remind us, weren't you banned a while ago for pushing an agenda and being uncivilized in discussions in talk pages? Why do you continue with this type of behavior?
It's great to see your only arguments are ad hominem. And to make it clear, I was never banned "for pushing an agenda". Again stereotypes. Anonimu (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Getting back to the issue, we could probably use this source:
"The results of the 2004 census further underscored the successes of the Moldovanist project. The choice of ethnic self-identification in the census was highly politicized due to the presence of ‘Moldovan’ and ‘Romanian’ answer options in the census question that asked about ethnic affiliation. As the census results reported in the bottom left column of Appendix I indicate, only 2.2 percent of citizens chose to identify themselves as Romanians, while 75.8 percent stated that they were Moldovans. There were numerous allegations, somewhat supported by the Council of Europe observers, that ethnic affiliation numbers were rigged." -- http://www.policy.hu/protsyk/Publications/NationalisminMoldova.pdf
Nothing in this quote supports the claim that one couldn't declare both Moldovan and Romania. Moreover, you have the census forms above, could you point out where are the answer options for ‘Moldovan’ and ‘Romanian’ ? Anonimu (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, I don't speak Moldovan :) But, I think it's pretty clear that they had to declare there one nationality, not something like "Moldovan (Romanian)" or "Moldovan/Romanian". But again, it's not our place to interpret forms, it's a documented ongoing controversy and glossing over is whitewashing. man with one red shoe23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I added the reference and mentioned that there were many allegations that the numbers were influenced by census-takers. I avoided to mention that people had to choose between Moldovan and Romanian although that stands to reason even though it was a write-in field, and even though that was mentioned in the source. man with one red shoe15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Teaching of languages in schools
The article says "the French language occupies the principal place among the foreign languages. In 2009/10 it was told taught to 52% of schoolchildren as L1 and 7% as L2. It is followed by English having 48% and 6% respectively, and German, which was taught to 3% altogether." L1 customarily means a person's native language that they learn in the home, with L2 denoting a second language picked up in addition to the mother tongue, whether through formal education or otherwise. The meaning implied therefore is that 52% of schoolchildren are treated as if French is their mother tongue, and likewise for English with the other 48%. This would entail educated them in French and English in the same way that French and English children are, instead of these langauges being taught to them as foreign languages. Someone must have got confused somewhere. I presume these are actually percentages of children learning French and English as their L2, but then what do the L2 percentages given in the article refer to? Credulity (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like whoever added this confused "Langue Vivante" from the source article with the L classification. Corrected. Now that you mentioned this, however, I find the original claim dubious as well - from what I know, English is the most popular foreign language in Moldova, not French. And the source used in that article is dead. Will have to check... --illythr (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it would appear that you're right, but the UN and CIA World Factbook still consider it landlocked as of February 2013. So I'm not sure how to proceed here. And don't sigh about those ships, they're all ancient relics. --illythr (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It's so great you consider CIA factbooks, well, the article was just updated exactly using CIA as arguments. Enjoy. Sandstunk (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
With today's decision by the Constitutional Court, judging that the name should, after all, be "Romanian", this RFC has become irrelevant. --illythr (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the the Moldovan or the Romanian language be mentioned when describing the regional variant of the country's name in the article header? SilvrousTalk07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Looking at the Moldovan language article, it seems that the two are almost identical, and that the difference is mostly a political one rather than a linguistic one. However, we don't want to take sides on the issue - I would go with "Moldovan/Romanian", as in this revision. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪11:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment yes, it's certainly political, but as long as the country's highest law says it's called "Moldovan" (Article 13 of the constitution), the infobox and header should say the same (with an explanation in the corresponding article and maybe a footnote here). The situation here is virtually identical to the Montenegro article, except that Romanian nationalists appear to be much more active than Serbian ones. --illythr (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
comment — Put a de facto language(s) if none are official. If one is put it.. —18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The state language is quite official. The point is that it's officially called "Moldovan", but its literary norm is the same as that of Romanian. --illythr (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Moldovan (Moldovan: Republica Moldova pronounced [reˈpublika molˈdova]) there are miniscule differences between the two, just as Valencian and Catalan. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Moldovan as this is specified in the Moldovan constitution. Even if it is almost identical to Romanian, the difference and political status should be enough for it to be under this name. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Moldovan since this is the official language. While it is nearly identical to mainstream Romanian, it's different enough (even if it's just political) to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Arathald (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The infobox says Moldovan (Romanian). We can call it anything the government wants to call it as long as we acknowledge it's Romanian. That Moldovans are surprised after half a century of Soviet propaganda that Romanians understand "their" language doesn't make their language any less Romanian. There are no differences that wouldn't normally develop in local use. They do not reflect a "different" language. VєсrumЬа ►TALK03:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The only ones who are "surprised" nowadays are foreigners who just assume that the language of a country is called "<Country>an" (Austrian, Brasilian etc). The language is widely referred to as "Romanian" and is taught in schools under this name. The different name is purely a political choice made shortly after independence in pursuit of the goal of preserving a separate identity, and through it, a separate state. As with the aforementioned Montenegrin and Valencian, it is rooted in legislation at the highest level, which is why we use it for the infobox and intro. "Moldovan (Romanian)" explains nothing to a clueless reader, the contents of "footnote a" does. --illythr (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment If a sovereign state's constitution says that their language is called "Moldovan" -- or "Fredian", or anything else -- then Wikipedia should call it the same. It doesn't matter whether or not it's identical or very similar to a well-known and widely used language that goes by a different name. Clarifying the potential confusion about the issue should be handled in a footnote. -- Greg (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Moldovan, as an ausbau language, should be listed in the infobox. The Moldovan language makes clear that it's mutually intelligible with Romanian. Article text here should also make it clear, but the specific regulated dialect, Moldovan, is what should be in the infobox. CMD (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
State language
There are two simple facts to take care of here:
The state language of Moldova, as stated in the country's constitution, is Moldovan.
Standard Moldovan is the same as standard Romanian.
The first one is covered in the infobox directly - Article 13 of the constitution leaves no room for interpretation, and there's even a special provision that invalidates any section of any legislative act that would contradict the supreme law. The second point is explained in the second sentence of the article Moldovan language, as well as in the intro of the "Languages" section here. On top of that we have a special infobox footnote to really rub it in. I don't see how this can be "dishonest" in any way. Note that Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro articles don't go that extra mile in the infobox like we do here. --illythr (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
In its Declaration of Independence, the official language of the Republic of Moldova is Romanian. As pointed out both by the Romanian Academy and the Academy of the Republic of Moldova, the "Moldovan language" does not exist and it only appeared in political discussions, for rather obvious reasons, as Moldova was then part of the USSR. Furthemore, on the 5th of December 2013, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova declared that the country's official language is Romanian. This settles the issue once and for all. 141.99.211.174 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Dystrophy or muscle atrophy?
In the second paragraph of this section, the descriptor 'dystrophy' is used. I suspect that the accurate translation should be muscle atrophy, however the PDF version of the "Tismăneanu Report" doesn't actually go up to pages 747 and 752 (per the citation). Could someone provide me with some help on this issue, please? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Time sensitive information
There appears to be a lot of time sensitive information in the Economy section which could do with updating. It currently reads as being all over the place in terms of what is considered to be current information and past projections: I.E. HDI figures for 2005 being discussed as if they were current; growth remaining strong in 2007. It's probably better described as 'confusing' due to citing statistical information from earlier in the century and using 2012 as 'current' for other information. I don't want to tag it for the moment, but it definitely needs a rework. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits
Considering the slow-going tug-of-war over these edits that's been going on for a couple of weeks now, I'd rather provide an extended rationale for reverting them here:
Flag of Chisinau: This little bit of foofaraw overloads the already bursting template and is absent in other country templates (such as those of neighboring Romania and Ukraine). So I'm removing it here, if only for consistency's sake.
"Part of Romania": The modern state of Moldova had never been part of Romania, so this statement is expressly false. The historical region of Bessarabia was indeed part of Greater Romania for twenty years, but describing how and when it was cut up to form what is now the Republic of Moldova is complicated and unnecessary for the intro, seeing as how state continuity of the Republic of Moldova can be traced to the foundation of the Moldovan SSR only.
"Although the country has been independent from the USSR since 1991, Russian forces have remained, supporting...": This statement is a non-sequitur - one part is irrelevant to the other. Also, while elements of the 14th army did indeed support the Transnistrian side during the 1992 conflict, the current contingent provides no (visible) support now. The sentence also largely duplicates the contents of the following sentence. Still, the continued presence of Russian forces (both peacekeeping and guarding the arms stockpile) may be worth mentioning in the intro. Perhaps the exact phasing can be worked out here, if deemed necessary.
"In August 1989 Moldova became the first..." - this statement is sourceless and unnecessary, as the following three sentences already cover what happened.
Dates for the "Independence" and "Soviet era" history sections: Setting Independence one year before the end of the "Soviet era" is unhelpful. The independence wasn't a singular event, but rather the culmination of several years of political buildup. Therefore, exact dating is unnecessary and probably impossible. --illythr (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on why you don't agree, Why not? indeed? All of illythr's points seem reasonable. Generic disagreement doesn't constitute an argument, just... er, non-specific antipathy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This account (and the IP) seems to be an old acquaintance (or a wannabe), so the antipathy is quite specific. :-) It's been a long time since the last outbreak, but I guess the recent events triggered a relapse. While reasoning with him had long since proven pointless, the rationale I provided is meant for other regular editors, who might be interested in actually improving the article. --illythr (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's see what the specifics are once he/she responds on the talk page. In the meantime, I'll just keep my eyes peeled for non-consensus changes to the article lest an edit war in looming. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Russian forces remained there, it's a fact. Statement can stay in the text.
It's important to show a certain independence, which was real. So, why not to add it?
Well then why revert it?
There is no article subject, which is the modern state of Moldova, on these map. Seeing as how it was first created in 1940 (or 1991, if you don't count MSSR), it could neither have been part of nor "forcibly incorporated" into anything. You're confusing territories with countries and making the article suffer for it.
It is already mentioned in the main text, in the "Foreign relations" section.
No source. Redundant. It's already explained in the following sentences in detail, independence, language law and all. --illythr (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
EU and Moldova together (Russia's failure policy)
Romanians from Moldova, are eager to see the European integration issue solved as soon as possible and the Moldovans’ dream to be real European citizens to become reality.
This important dream, to become a part of the big European family again, the Moldovans started to dream ýears ago.
Moldova’s future? Like Mihai Viteazul did in 1600..Moldova is Europe's "only Latin state outside the EU". What links has ever had to Russia? ..There is only 1 future: in EU with Romania united.Why not? indeed (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing against Romania or Moldova. I try to take my function as being neutral very, very seriously. You are welcome to bring up any relevant issues you wish in this article as long as they are from verifiable and reliable sources. If you have such material, please feel free to bring it to the table and I will judge it on its merit. If I consider it to be well sourced, I'm fully prepared to copyedit awkward grammar, syntax, etc. for those who are not native English speakers. I am simply reminding you that this is not a forum for nationalist POV pushing. I'd also like to remind you that you should not make personal attacks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Iryna. Moreover, using the "or" conjunction in this context is meaningless. One should analyse the sources and decide which is the official language. Finally, since this story Moldovan/Romanian is going on since years, I warn that if this edit war will continue I will suggest ArbCom to include Moldova in the list of articles where administrator discretionary sanctions are allowed. Alex2006 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Pre-empting edit warring over language and demonym
Rather than allowing the recent constitutional technicality to motivate an outbreak of nationalistic edit warring (which I've been following), for the sake of the reader it is preferable to discuss how the article should reflect this by arguing it out here on the talk page.
As there is information in the English language press, it makes sense to use these sources as a starting point. The changes and ramifications are inevitably going to be analysed in depth further down the line (it's only been a few days!), and reliable secondary sources can be introduced. This is an article, not a race against time to squeeze in as much information dedicated to individual preferences in order to establish an imaginary foothold ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much of a real-life change to happen there - the language was already referred to as "Romanian" in most spheres of life. The way I see it, for us this presents the need to swap the name clusters to make "Romanian" primary and stow "Moldovan" into a footnote or something until they finally amend article 13 of the Constitution, at which point "Moldovan" can be removed from the infoboxes altogether. --illythr (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Going on what I know about Moldova, that sounds like a logical approach. Any deviations from this should, then, be reverted and the contributor referred to this section if they feel that they have verifiable secondary sources, not emotive arguments, to indicate otherwise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Illy, you know all problems will be solved when Moldova unites with Romania again. Why to stop this anyway? It's a natural process.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.50.9 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Please check again. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court of Moldova in December of last year. The 1994 copy of the Constitution of Moldova is out of date. I have added WP:V, WP:RS to "Romanian" as the language per WP:NPOV. It is you who is ignoring the fact that the law has been changed. If you feel this to be incorrect, please provide reliable, verifiable and neutral sources to demonstrate that the Constitutional Court of Moldova has overruled its own overruling. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Modern Constitution of Moldova:
TITLE I - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 13. State language, use of other languages
(1) The State language in the Republic of Moldova is the Moldavian language, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet.
Iryna wrote above that the Supreme Court overturned this article last year. You should bring an up-to-date copy of the constitution showing that the article remained as it was in 1994. It should not be difficult to find an adjourned copy on the web. IN DUBIO PRO REO. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The Constitutional Court ruled that the official language is Romanian, and there are three solid references about that. If the parliament did not change the constitution or issue another law in order to overthrow the decision of the court, the decision of the court is final. If you don't agree, you can ask a third opinion. Alex2006 (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Enough tendentious editing, Лобачев Владимир. I've removed your 'tit for tat' image for the Moldovan Nation Anthem which was: A) Conveniently uploaded by you at 16:51, June 13, 2014 and obviously not a poster in "downtown Chișinău" as you'd labelled it on both this article and in Russian on the Wiki Commons file; B) Plainly WP:POINTy in the context of the plethora of content and image changes you've been making to various articles surrounding the subject of Moldova in English Wikipedia over the last few days. The fact that you've also made substantial, WP:POV changes to the content and images in a dozen other language Wikis is their concern, not mine. We've presented honestly sourced WP:RS in order to make these articles factual. Your actions, and refusal to desist from blanking and overwriting current facts clearly demonstrates your WP:NOTHERE attitude to English Wikipedia. Any more WP:ICANTHEARYOU disruption and I'll be opening an AN/I. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Table under Languages
The table under Languages should be Romanian (Moldovan) instead of Moldovan (Romanian) as it incorrectly implies Moldovan as an official language, when it not. Furthermore, the link points to Romanian language article so again it doesn't make sense to write it that way. Dan Cojocari (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue your minor changes around May 4th, but I'm wondering how you managed to conflate regions (both from different periods in history and geographical descriptors of regions) into your May 7th string of unsourced edits ranging from "was an autonomous republic of the Ukrainian SSR, encompassing the current Moldovan territory, Transnistria." (see this edit) to Bessarabian Independence, to this and this. My thanks to Anonimu for reverting these strange, WP:POV content changes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how my edits are strange and uncited when they are all cited. Except "was an autonomous republic of the Ukrainian SSR, encompassing the current Moldovan territory, Transnistria." which was rephrased from the first paragraph of Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic article. These are facts I take from the cited course and not a POV. Maybe you should add your own edits if you are so familiar with the subject, instead of criticizing my efforts to improve an article. Dan Cojocari (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Bessarabian Independence and Greater Romania
The paragraph is describing the independence of Bessarabia and formation of Greater Romania. The previous title said "Russian revolution and Greater Romania". There was Russian revolution is either Bessarabia or Greater Romania, so I don't see how that is an appropriate title. Dan Cojocari (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody recognized Bessarabia's independence, not even Romania. Both the Entente (which hoped Russia would revert to a favourable government) and Central Powers (which hoped that by awarding it to Romania, as they did at Buftea, they would prevent any further Romanian-Russian collaboration and furthermore they could free troops from the front after the Romanian army would be forced to operate in the east against the Bolsheviks) shied away from providing the Moldavian Republic with international recognition. Romania later claimed that the declaration was perfectly valid and should be recognized, a scenario recently copied by Russia when annexing Crimea... Anonimu (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Moldova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Moldova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Moldova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to one external link on Moldova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
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.
No working archived captures, but found capture at 'is'. Link was to a mirror site, so removed. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Official language
User:Azxdw keeps on adding Moldovan as an official language of Moldova, contrary to the resolution no. 36 from 5 December 2013 of the Constitutional Court of Moldova that declared that article 13 of the Moldovan constitution is superseded by the Declaration of Independence, thus giving official status to the language named as "Romanian". User:Azxdw, what is your source when adding Moldovan as an official language of the Republic of Moldova? Mentatus (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I won't enter a constitutional law-related polemic here, nevertheless bear in mind that the Constitutional Court is mandated to interpret the Constitution, therefore its resolutions are mandatory. This is what is at stake here - whether the Constitutional Court's decision is correct or not is another matter, which it's futile to be discussed here (WP:OR). Mentatus (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Moldova. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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.
For the sake of clarification in the relevant paragraph, Xx236, was the German exodus prior the cession of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina or directly after? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand that my contribution was symbolic only.
Thanks. As you'd know by now, I'm aware of that. I'll clarify it later. Essentially, it's actually fine the way it is, but I'll grab the reference and add a couple of words to make it clear that you've added it in the correct sequence. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Link site
Măi oameni buni.
Vedeți că hiperlegătura către site-ul oficial al guvernului Moldovei este în prezent greșită.
I have just modified 3 external links on Moldova. 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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Moldova. 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.
The introductory section says that only 11,000 tourist visits to Moldova occur each year, with a link to a 2014 web page. Following the Wiki links to the Tourism in Moldova page, we find that more than 94,000 overnight stays were recorded, and 2.85 million visits including non-overnight visits from neighboring countries such as Romania. The external link for these numbers is to a Moldovan government web site. Additional sources of data are needed to resolve the discrepancy between 11,000 and 94,000. The 11,000 number seems unreliable, coming from a private travel website that provides numbers only in multiples of 1,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkC162 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Due to the heavy amount of trade and dual citizens that travels between the Moldovan & Romanian borders, I imagine the numbers are greatly inflated by daily commutes (for example between Ungheni and Iasi). I know that there are <1000 annual visits by Americans, so I think the numbers add up. We do need a better citation for this, however. Skirts89 (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
New constitutional crises in Moldova and how to handle the information
as you may have heard in the news that Moldova is going through a crises now and I would like to know how to approach this information with? Because I have changed the information on multiple pages where Igor Dodon was the past president since the courts have decided but then there is the other side to the parliament who claims he is still the president. Advice on this can help me and others out on approaching the edits of moldovan related pages.
Andrian Candu is not the President of the Parliamnet according to the Constitutional Court. According to them the actual Parliament is dissolved and there is no any elected or interim President of the Parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.202.159.213 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a moderator on Wikipedia which decided that Igor Dodon is still the president of this country. When I changed it to the actual new president, he reverted the edit to the state it was before and now the president is still listed as Igor Dodon (the old president). Before reverting an edit, make sure that the edit is 100% not based on real facts or news. LDRAGOplayz (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
A user called Yesua Rafael Jara Alcivar has changed the map in the infobox, editing Moldova to include the Budjak. The change was made on 19 May 2021; I've reverted it. Please be cautious in case it happens again; the edit was made on Wikimedia Commons and is thus not shown on the Wikipedia article's editing history tab. That's probably why no one has noticed it for three days. Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
"Captured state"
I see a new user is heavily promoting articles authored by political scholar Ion Marandici, and now he insists adding a contentious designation in this article. While Marandici seems to be a legit scholar, adding this obviously political label to a country article as a fact is a gross violation of WP:NPOV (just like adding in Cuba's page a phrase that the country is a "state sponsor of terrorism" because some US hawks said so). As I suggested in the edit summary, this could be discussed, attributed and in a neutral way, in the article about the government(s) that supposedly have overseen a "captured state" in Moldova, unless proofs are brought forward that this label is accepted as a fact by a majority of the scholars of recent history of Moldova.Anonimu (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Removal of map
The accuracy of the map titled Polska_1386_-_1434.png has been in dispute and all corrections have been reverted by the original author who refuses any communication not in Polish. That map is entirely in Polish and may not present a neutral view (I don’t have enough knowledge of the area to make a judgement). It is also not available in SVG format. I think it would be best to remove the map from this page (which I will do), pending a review or at least a civil discussion about its merits (e.g. the same city appearing in two places with different names). ⚜ Moilleadóir✍02:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Excessive reverting is "Edit warring"
This is exceedingly relevant. There is NO reference to the 2022 Moldovan Refugee Crisis in the article. That's refusing to acknowledge or include a highly notable fact.
This, for self-evident reasons of high notability, should be added to the article and should be no longer reverted. See needed edit--
Sorry if my edit summaries struck you as rude or immature. I am just trying my best to convey my thoughts through short comments. I'll now write a longer reply here, so building bridges between us hopefully becomes more feasible.
I am reverting your edits, despite them being sensible, because they lack consensus and look misplaced. The "for" template should only be used in areas where it is relevant; if the article does not mention Moldova's role in the current Russo-Ukrainian War, then I feel adding a "for" template redirecting to the article about the country's role in the conflict is inappropriate.
What I suggest you should do instead is adding a short description of Moldova's role in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in the history section, under a new sub-section. From there, you can add a "main article" template linking to Moldova's role regarding the ongoing Ukrainian refugee crisis.
I appreciate your willingness to add information about a very relevant topic, though, and I hope this comment explains my thoughts better than my short edit summaries. --KingErikII(Talk page)14:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Confusing status of Moldovan areas east of the Dniester river
I'm confused.
The maps on this page indicates that various salient into Transnistria areas are under Moldovan control. If so, this would mean that Transnistria is split into two as the Moldovan areas touch the Ukraine border (specifically, the area comprising Vasilievca, Roghi, Cocieri and Corjova).
The Geography section of the main Transnistria page suggest these areas are under the control of Joint Control Commission rules, yet the page for this does not explain how this works in practice. Either side can pass through as they wish? Transnistria can use the roads but not the lands either side? How then would Moldova access these lands? The roads are neutral?
I'm confused as to how any of this work in theory or practice.
I'm sorry but Moldovan as ethnic group doesn't exist, and people who declare themselves Romanians which are more than 7% are the same people as Moldovans. Can you please change ethnic group label and mark both Romanian and Moldovan as Native, to not make any confusion 188.237.249.130 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Real name of country is Republic of Moldova
Moldova is a region both Romania ( west if Pruth River ) and alsi in the Republic of Moldiva (east of Pruth river ). There are parts of historic Moldova in Ukraine ( North Bukovina in Cernivsti Region and Bugeac in Odessa Region )..
Roman8ans call eastern part of Moldova as Basarabia. 5.14.154.169 (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The use of the generic name Moldova is an abuse when reffering to former Socialist Soviet Republic of Moldavia. The generic name should be used by the main historical region which is now in Romania. The country namwd Republic of Mokdova should be renamed Eastern Moldavia or Oriental Moldavia in order to avoid confusion. Koczka17 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. I've tried in the past to do this, as a precursor to an eventual (under official Ro government managed) designation of the state as the Former Soviet Republic of Moldova, and Ultimately as the Republic of Bessarabia, in full agreement with its historical legacy as a imperialist-colonial Tsarist and Soviet entity Caliniuc (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=spacer}
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Archives x 2 confirmed as correct; archive x 1 pointing to redirect page, therefore corrected to direct archive capture. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
