Talk:Moldova/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

References

Editors who added plenty of references regarding sources from Romania (mainly, but not only), please source the references in the proper way with the appropriate tags. This concerns especially references to unknown books, for which Wikipedia requires to use a special citation tag, including verifiable ISBN number. Otherwise I will simply delete these references, as no verification is possible whether they exist at all in the first hand, and whether the info supposedly cited in these books is really present in them.

Also, we have plenty of foreign references, but very few Moldavian. May be we can work on it and find more Moldavian evidence.

As for (in Moldovan) tag, it applies to all official Moldavian sources. It is useless to fake the contents of Wikipedia by changing it into (in Romanian). The official data should be sourced and cited as it is.--Moldopodo (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires mainly English language references, so it's nothing wrong with using too much of them. Also, the fact that important Romanian University profesors debunk the Moldavia-connected myths of Romanian nationalism can only boast our case.Xasha (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem with that, just source them correctly. Wikipedia has a special format for books, web cites, journals, etc...--Moldopodo (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just out so total interest, History of Romanian language is so weak (short article using basicly terms like "hypothetical" and "believed"), compare to History of the Moldovan language which clearly gives references and an extensive history.--Moldopodo (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  Please note that the article Exploding whale is a featured article with lots of pictures an has as much sources as both aforementioned articles combined. Surely, this means something... not. --Illythr (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, seems like we have a new Bonny's creation User:Flueras, editors beware--Moldopodo^talk 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I was wondering how is this possible to create so many sock puppets (at least the ones we know or have strong doubts about)? What's the technique there that Wikipedia cannot do anything to ban Bonny once for good?--Moldopodo^talk 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Why do you ask? :-) Anyhow, open proxies can't be banned for long and there are too many anyway. Bonny also seems to have a number of admirers and lookalikes.

  Unless, of course, you meant, how is it possible to do the same stuff over and over for over three years and not get crazy... to that, I have no answer. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I thought that after having used a number of different I.P. addresses, the range would be by now known for the I.P. checkers. Weird. And three years!!! Impressive, poor guy/girl... This reminds me something of another poor Romanian[1]--Moldopodo^talk 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Now, look at that, just in the beginning of this page, the template Moldavian language is considered for deletion (in Moldovan), guess who filed the request? I guess we should simply ignore this, as it is not serious and time consuming. I am trying to get my hands on an article about Moldo-Ukrainian relations and Moldo-Russian relations, and never have time for all the intra-wiki discussions...--Moldopodo^talk 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can one be blocked for the above accusations? I would like to see Moldopodo blocked for what he said above. Flueras (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why Moldopodo and not me? -Illythr (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian or Moldovan

As per this question[2] could you express your answers to this question? May also directly on that talk page as well... Thanks--Moldopodo^talk 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan, definitely. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldovan. English Language authors distinguish between the Principality of Moldavia and the Republic of Moldova. The Principality of Moldavia had already existed for decades before it gained controle of the territory of the current Republic of Moldova (under the reign of Roman I or more likely Alexander the Good) and continued to exist for several decades after it lost controle of it in 1812. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, you would tell "should distinguish", but the fact is the vice-versa. --serhio ^talk 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Bucharest (1812): no annexation, but cession happened

According to the treaty part of Moldavian Principality was ceded to the Russian Empire by the Ottoman Empire. The article in its present reverted version says annexed with unclear contradictory references. Now, when I correct this error, certain users staunchly keep reverting to "annexed". I would like to draw their attention, that annexation cannot happen in this case, as there was a treaty signed. It's not like Russian Empire appropriated by a unilateral act, out of context of any treaty part of territory controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The references given to support this formulation defy the logic of any Wikipedian. None of them gives the source of their original research, except Moldova.org referring to a mysterious Historical Dictionary of Moldova.... And even they had a reference, this cannot be considered as annexation, otherwise we can erase the article Treaty of Bucharest (1812) an erase the reference to the treaty in the article on Moldova as well, since annexation means a unilateral act and should have happened utside the treaty framework (which is not the case here).--Moldopodo^talk 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I just corrected according to the provided reference, provide another reference and change it according to it. (BTW, don't use Wikipedia as reference) -- man with one red shoe (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Those references are valid secondary sources. Simply provide one or more of your own, and be free to change the wording accordingly. As it stands, your edits contradicted both sources (which say annexed), hence they were reverted. --Illythr (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It was annexation, not ceding on the part of the Ottoman Empire. Recall that Russia invaded the eastern part of Moldova in 1806. After 6 years of warfare, Tsar Alexander I formally annexed the territory. That the Treaty of Bucharest between Tsar Alexander I and Sultan Mahmud II left the the annexation in place doesn't make it not-an-annexation. "Ceding" would be if the territory had not been invaded by Russia and had not been formally annexed by Russia during the war. —PētersV (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the above are right. The only cession which involved Bessarabia was the 1940 one, the rest were just annexations.Xasha (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I seriously doubt verifiability of the provided references for supporting the term "annexation". By the way, none of them explains the factual story of Russian invasion, which I first learned on this talk page. Speaking of a peace treaty and referring right after to annexation is simply not logical. The three references contradict the contents they support, first they say there was a peace treaty, then they say there was annexation. It's either one or another, the two don't come together and that's why there exists a terminological difference between "annexation" and "cessation". Can anybody provide a reference for the Russian invasion? The treaty was signed in 1812 and it is a peace treaty, which means it establishes peace and recognizes whatever cessions there were or to be done in future between the two countries formerly in war. If cessation is written in the treaty - then it is cessation.--Moldopodo^talk 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The treaty just establishes the border on the Pruth. It doesn't use such modern wording. [3].Xasha (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No reference for Russian invasion is proivided. So, that makes it, I guess, for this new justification for usage of the word "annexation". Thank you Xasha, for providing the link tot he Bucharest treaty. Yes, the cessation is clear in the text, please read article 4. Both parties signed this document in 1812 and the territorial new delimitation was explicitely stipulated. There was no violence, but only confirmed peaceful decision of both parties.--Moldopodo^talk 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, all three artciles are relevant: 4, 5, 6

Article 4

Постановлено, что река Прут со входа ее в Молдавию до соединения ее с Дунаем и левый берег Дуная с сего соединения до устья Килийского и до моря будут составлять границу обеих империй, для коих устье сие будет общее.

Article 5

Е. вел. имп. и падишах отдает и возвращает Блистательной Порте Оттоманской землю Молдавскую, лежащую на правом берегу реки Прута, а также большую и малую Валахию с крепостями, в таком состоянии, как они теперь находятся, с городами, местечками, селениями, жилищами и со всем тем, что в сих провинциях ни заключается, купно с островами дунайскими...

Article 6

Кроме границы Прута, границы со стороны Азии и других мест восстановляются совершенно так, как оные были прежде до войны

--Moldopodo^talk 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS Dahn (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Moldopodo, there's no problem with "verifiability" of annexation, that's straight out of King's book (The Moldovans): invasion by Russia, formal annexation by Tsar Alexander I prior to cessation of hostilities/treaty. That a treaty subsequently stated "state X cedes A to state Y" in the case of Bessarabia merely formalized the prior annexation, it did not change that it was annexed. Your statement that there "was no violence" and that it was a "peaceful" decision does not conform to the facts of invasion and forcible annexation. —PētersV (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If the intent of insisting on "cede" instead of "annexed" is to show the Ottomans were responsible for betraying the inhabitants of Bessarabia to Russia, that is incorrect. If the intent is to show the Russian take-over of Bessarabia was benign or beneficent, that is also incorrect. If the intent is to simply be factual, then "cede" on its own merits is incorrect as compared to "annexed." How the treaty describes borders is irrelevant, it is what reputable sources say about what happened that count. —PētersV (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no intent to say that Ottoman betrayed Moldavia (sounds rather bizzare even as a hypothesis, knowing Moldavian-Ottoman prior relations, Moldavians would be only gald to get rid off the Ottoman Empire. By the way, Dimitrie Cantemir has very well described Modavian-Ottoman and Moldavian Russian relations, have a look, [Decsriptio Moldaviae]). Nor do I have any intent as it may also please you to inetrpret and invent what I could have thought... The point being is that so far we do not have any credible verifiable source for using the term annexation and we have a treaty, which says excatly the contrary. And we also have common sense logic and some general culture which allows us to understand what annexation is and what cessation is, and how do we use these respective terms. At this moment the argument for using the term "annexation" turns around the principle "my word against your word", but no valuable evidence was provided. Who is King? Did you see what other books he wrote, how his works are appraised, what other topics he writes on, who are his collaborators? Who is King anyway really? Why does none of the three provided references mention at least some hint of a Russian invasion? Why all of the references boldly say: "annexed" (almost copy-pasting the entire contents from one another) and then "peace treaty" - does not that make a little bell ring that something is wrong in such kind of justification? --Moldopodo^talk 00:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do believe I gave you a link to Charles King before, Moldopodo. BTW, whether or not Russia invaded or peacefully entered Moldavia is completely irrelevant to whether the transfer was a cession or an annexation, as long as Russian forces did enter Moldavia, then it was formally incorporated into Russia, and only then - a treaty was signed. --Illythr (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

King's book is the seminal English language work on the history of todays Moldovans and today's Moldova, with all the history along the way. There is no more highly regarded source. He uses the term "annexed" exclusively. Moldopodo, you insist there are no sources, there are. You insist the take-over was peaceful, not being aware the Russian invaded in 1806. You insist on your personal interpretation of the articles of the treaty (which don't appear to use the word "cede" anywhere). What exactly are you wishing to accomplish? It's an annexation wrought under Russian military force, plain and simple, made permanent after-the-fact by treaty. You should expend your energy on more constructive and positive endeavors. —PētersV (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no more highly regarded source. - by whom?
He uses the term "annexed" exclusively. - Does he justify the usage of the term annexation? Stating it baldly - "there was annexation" does not mean there was one and is not scientifical at all, besides mentioning at the same time a peace treaty which fixes the "cession" is all contrary to the usage of the term "annexation"
Moldopodo, you insist there are no sources, there are. - Where are they?
You insist the take-over was peaceful, not being aware the Russian invaded in 1806
I say the treaty, where cession is explained and fixed, is a peace treaty, signed between two subjects of international law, previously at war and anyway, what do we have written on the invasion you are speaking of, invasion where, by whom against whom? --Moldopodo^talk 12:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   My dear Moldopodo, all you have to do is do some searches to see for yourself how often King's text is cited in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals with regard to Moldova, Romania, and the Transnistrian conflict. As I've stated, Russia invaded and annexed Bessarabia. The treaty observed that annexation (not my word) as permanent. Yes, that is a transfer of sovereignty under treaty--that does not undo that the territory was forcibly annexed. I'm not here to write a treatise on the conflict between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Your protestation that you never heard that Russia invaded and annexed Bessarabia is lack of knowledge you should rectify as opposed to suggesting I'm somehow making it all up. At this point I'm reconciled to the fact that you have absolutely no interest in listening to anyone who attempts to inform your acknowledged gaps in your own historical awareness so that you might understand the flaws in your position.

Please, be civil - that you have absolutely no interest in listening to anyone who attempts to inform your acknowledged gaps in your own historical awareness so that you might understand the flaws in your position. Just one question to you - Why write so much to say so many words without one single diff or a source for something so obvious (to you)?--Moldopodo^talk 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   Finally, let's not start on the IF "A" DOES NOT SAY "X" THEN "X" IS FALSE syllogism.

Yes, exactly, let's not start. I think I don't need to tell you who started--Moldopodo^talk 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

   "Not mentioning" something means nothing with regard to whether something is true or false. The topic of Bessarabia is so insignificant with regard to any general encyclopedia it's a wonder it's even mentioned. That the details of invasion and annexation are not dealt with in such sources is completely to be expected. I'm providing you a detailed source from a book that is entirely devoted to nothing but a history of the Moldovans. —PētersV (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you haven't provided any source or a single diff here. The book was discussed and dismissed here. I have provided at least 5-7 sources down below, all referring to the "cessation" and never mentioning any annexation whatsoever.--Moldopodo^talk 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, it's not your role or mine to take primary sources and interpret them; that function belongs to secondary sources, which we then work into articles without inserting our own interpretations. If King says annexation, it was annexation, unless we find a similarly reliable source saying not annexation. It is also not our job to ask the source for a source (though King does have an extensive bibliography), but merely to use that reliable source, provided what it says is not an obvious mistake or fabrication (in which event it wouldn't be reliable), which is patently not the case with King, based on his book's scholarly reception, etc. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

it's not your role or mine to take primary sources and interpret them - Exactly, that's why I have copy-pasted here the contents of Article 4 of the Treaty (primary source) and listed numerous links to secondary sources. Like I said, down below, you have at least 7 authoritative sources - which all say "cession, assigned, transferred" and never mention "annexed" - encyclopedias, books written by Moldavian scientists (have you ever thought they might know Moldavian history just a little better then Mr. King, widely acclaimed (the history did not tell us by whom, oh well) "professional" of Romania... and Caucasus...)--Moldopodo^talk 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• For sources not mentioning the term "annexation" please see: Following the Peace concluded in Bucharest, in 1812, a part of this territory was asigned to Czarist Russia--Moldopodo^talk 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • major encyclopedias speak of transfer of Moldavia to the Russian Empire
  • again "transferred/passed over to the Russian Empire
  • History of the Republic of Moldova: from most ancient times till our days - Association of Moldavian scientists "Milescu-Spataru" - Second reviewed and added edition. Elan Poligraf. 2002. pp. 95–360. ISBN 9975-9719-5-4.
  • Stati V.:History of Moldavia. Tipografia Centrală. 2002. pp. 218–220. ISBN 9975-9504-1-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) both use the phrasing According to the Article 4, Porta ceded to Russia the eastern part of the Moldavian Principality - the territory between Prut and Danube

And once again, the territory was annexed by Russia prior to the treaty which made the annexation permanent, i.e., ceded territory. Transfer of sovereignty requires the losing party to cede. That does not mean the territory was not annexed in the first place. Mr. King whom you disparage is a widely recognized expert scholar on Romania/Moldova. As to why today's Moldovan (or earlier Moldavian) scholars failed to observe that Russia had already invaded and annexed Bessarabia prior to the treaty, you'll have to ask them. That you have sources that ignore this basic historical fact and only focus on the treaty rather implies those sources are less thorough than they ought to be. Not mentioning something does not mean it did not happen. Provide a source that specifically states that the territory was "not annexed" (as opposed to your personal interpretation that "ceded = not annexed") and we'll have something to discuss. —PētersV (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

M-R pact

Finally someone did it right. However, there's also something wrong: the Soviet Union never renounced its claim over Bessarabia. That '34 event was a non-aggression treaty, AFAIK, but no recognition of Romania's reign over Bessarabia was ever issued by the USSR. I'd rather like to see a citation from that book you're citing... --Illythr (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Nicolae Titulescu hasn't success in the USSR recognition of Romanian's rights over Basarabia... Finally, Romania lost it without shocks for Romanians, nor for Bessarabian people. --serhio ^talk 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Romania lost it without shocks for Romanians", you mean that Romanians didn't care they lost Bessarabia, or that thousands of soldiers were killed by Soviets even though Romania agreed to withdraw? As for Bessarabians they probably didn't feel much shock because they don't consider themselves to be Romanians (and why Romanians were supposed to defend non-Romanians against the Soviets?) -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Romania didn't care very much. I consider this Romania's important error in the external politics. In fact, Romania was always a political prostitute. This is my opinion. The second war anyway have to begun, but Romania demonstrated once again its indifferent attitude to Basarabia. In the time of Great Romania Basarabia also wasn't taken in consideration very much, any investment... Only "the language" problem interested the administration. Not the province developpment... Even actual Romanians imagine Moldovans living in the threes. When I was in Brasov people asked me if I know what Pizza is :( --serhio ^talk 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all why should Romania care too much about people who don't consider themselves Romanian. Second, since Romanians don't talk "Moldovan" they have no idea how you call "pizza" it in your language, maybe you call it "Italian pie"... it's actually polite behavior not to assume that you know what "pizza" is. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Argh! Stop it! Meanwhile, gotta throw some Russian meat into the Shaitan Box... --Illythr (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My language was and is Romanian. But I was and am Moldovan. And please, don't stop talking bull shit. One day Moldova will be united with the old Moldova and with this Moldovan ignorance will be finished. A lot of actually called "Romanian" culture and political key people was from Moldova. I think they belived in Romanian ideals, they was wrong. --serhio ^talk 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This heavily pro-Romanian, anti-Soviet source accedes that no recognition had taken place in 1934, although the agreement caused the USSR to soften its position towards the question of Bessarabia. The next page (133) explicitly states (and proves by citing an official Soviet document) that the issue was merely postponed until "better times". I think that the fall of France should also be mentioned as one of the indicators that these "better times" have come about in 1940. Perhaps the reasons for Soviet claims over Bessarabia - adamant refusal of Romanian officials to conduct a census in the region, because it would be "corrupted by Soviet propaganda" - should be stated somewhere as well, so that the events of 1940 would not appear as having come "out of the blue", but were a logical continuation of the previously suspended Soviet policy.

BTW, I wouldn't say that any of the sovereignty changes in Bessarabia over the last 500 years were without shock for its population (except maybe for the Russian annexation in 1812). --Illythr (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed it until further discussion, since the claim is explicitly denied both by the Romanian source you mentioned and Charles King, which according to some users, including the one who added the claim, is the bestest source on Moldova.Xasha (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think is a good thing you removed that, let's keep only facts, interpretations can be POV-ish. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the issue was indeed revived after being suspended for 6 years. The dubious part is only that it was revoked in 1934, which does seem to be the opinion of some (including some Soviets, dismayed by the 1934 events), but this is not supported by facts. --Illythr (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My source is here. How about: "In August 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, and Nazi Germany recognized Romanian Bessarabia as being within the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, which led the latter to actively revive its claim to Bessarabia,<ref>Olson</ref> de facto renounced suspended in 1934 upon the establishment of diplomatic relations with Romania.<ref>Mitrasca</ref>" Biruitorul ^Talk 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The first part is ok, the rest seems to be an opinion of some authors. Seeing as how the Soviet officials (after 1934) were explicitly instructed not to provide Romania with anything that might be interpreted as recognition of the status quo, I'd call that opinion wishful (or dismayed, depending on the side) thinking. Replacing "de facto renounced" with "suspended" would be much closer to reality, IMO. --Illythr (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that works, too, although we veer further away from the sources at our peril. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the one I cite explicitly says that it was a temporary measure and provides that instruction thingy as well as some supporting analysis, so it looks more solid that Olson, who seems to have just sucked that statement out of his finger. But if you feel that it absolutely must be there, at least attribute it directly, because it will be repeatedly contested. BTW, I think there's no need to reiterate that Bessarabia was Romanian at the time, seeing as how the whole previous section is called "Moldova in Greater Romania". Which is, by the way, somewhat misleading (should probably be either "Bessarabia..." or simply "Part of Greater Romania").

Oh and I deliberately picked an even more anti-Soviet source than yours, so it can't be accused of being Soviet apologetic or something. --Illythr (talk)

Right. Well, as you have both Olson and Mitrasca at your fingertips, I encourage you to write that sentence as you see fit. I'll then look it over. Does that sound good? Biruitorul ^Talk 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I REALLY should be asleep for about an hour by now. I'll try to do something comprehensive tomorrow... --Illythr (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that this should be just a summary, so only the widely acknowledged views should be presented. Other opinions could be developed in a dedicated article about Bessarabia under Romanian rule. And I think this matter speciffically is to complex to be summarised in a few words, as it is done now. Moreover, after 1934, the Soviet just stopped pressing for international resolution of the dispute, but domestically Bessarabia was always presented as Soviet territory under Romanian occupation. See for example this Soviet map from 1938.Xasha (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 Page not moved. Consensus is to keep the page as is. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC) The move of the article to Republic of Moldova has been requested. The article itself states that the official name of the country is Republic of Moldova. The official name has been agreed upon by the United Nations Organization following membership talks. At that time some UN Member countries objected to the name of "Moldova" and after negotiations the government accepted the name of "Republic of Moldova". If this is the official name of the country, accepted both by the UNO and the government, why the title of the article be Moldova, which is not only objectionable (it has been officially been objected to and the objection has been internationally accepted) but also misleading.Afil (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: As long as we have main article titles such as United States, North Korea, South Korea, Burma or United Kingdom, there's no reason to move this article to the constitutional name of the country.Xasha (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that nobody has officially contested the name of the United Kingdom. There are two countries for which the names have been officially contested: Macedonia and Moldova. For both of them a decision had been taken by the General Assembly of the United Nations and with the consent of the governments of these countries the name of Republic of Moldova and Republic of Macedonia has been accepted. In the case of Macedonia this has been accepted in Wikipedia. However in the case of Moldova the error persists. The problem is that using the incorrect name is offensive for some, and this is not a personal matter but has been officially stated. I do not find any reason why a name which is offensive should be used. Afil (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nuthin' "offensive" in Moldova, not more than United States is "offensive" to Mexico. And ain't nuthin' similar with FYR Macedonia's case. See the UN site : [4] Moldova appears as Moldova, unlike Macedonia (see for comparation also the way they call Tanzania, Lybia, Iran, Laos, Syria and Venezuela).Xasha (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Afil, we have had this discussion a number of other times in the past (please see the archives if you are interested). The general consensus has been that Moldova is the most common English name for the country. Wikipedia naming conventions state that the most common English name for a place should be used. The formal (i.e. long) name of countries is rarely used outside a legal setting. For this reason, the articles about Germany or Russia are found at their short names, and not at Federal Republic of Germany or Russian Federation, as these states are officially called. TSO1D (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that nobody has officially contested the name of the United Kingdom. There are two countries for which the names have been officially contested: Macedonia and Moldova. For both of them a decision had been taken by the General Assembly of the United Nations and with the consent of the governments of these countries the name of Republic of Moldova and Republic of Macedonia has been accepted. In the case of Macedonia this has been accepted in Wikipedia. However in the case of Moldova the error persists. The problem is that using the incorrect name is offensive for some, and this is not a personal matter but has been officially stated. I do not find any reason why a name which is offensive should be used. Afil (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating what I said at Talk:History of Moldova#Requested move, agree that we should avoid terminology that some find offensive wherever possible, although Wikipedia policy doesn't go that far. But it's not always even possible. For example, whatever we do with the name Macedonia someone is going to be offended; In that case we ended up with the DAB at the unqualified name but this compromise is probably offensive to more individuals than any other solution, see Macedonia naming dispute. This seems to me to be another of those cases. Andrewa (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The argument that we should use official names continues to occupy a lot of time here. The policy is clear, but many people don't seem to believe it. Andrewa (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that using the incorrect name is offensive for some, and this is not a personal matter but has been officially stated. When a government officially objects to a name and this objection is accepted by an international forum such as the General Assembly of the United Nations, I do not find any reason why a name which is offensive should be used. It is not only a question of applying the official names policy, but of not using a terminology which has officially been accepted of being offensive. Afil (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See above for reply to the issue of this name being offensive. As to the name being official or incorrect, my point above is that these may sound impressive arguments, but many, many discussions have consistently rejected them in principle. That's why the official policy reads as it does. Andrewa (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Support That's the correct name, besides Moldova can be very easily confused with Moldavia or Mordovia, since the state is rather new an argument that Moldova is more common than Republic of Moldova can't be made as in case or Germania or other countries that have longer history. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. Adrian's comment is an excellent reason for a dab header; but the country should be known by its unambiguous common, short, name. Longer forms will only be of limited use; Mordovia is also a republic. Why not keep it simple? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

population

the population stats near the top suggest Moldova gained almost a million people in the last five years. I'm guessing the 3 million stat is a typo, but don't know the data to correct it. Just pointing it out 12.206.232.172 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be an increase of "just" under 250,000, because the estimate includes Transnistria (half a million people), while the census doesnt.Xasha (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Romanian interwiki

The Romanian interwiki for both this article and Moldavia (the region) is ro:Moldova. Which is correct? Yoda swe (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Different small issues

• Ukrainain language.

I see. Is it the Moldova's legislation that states that Ukrainian has to be official in Transnistria, or this is based only on what Smirnov's "governmet" says? Either way, I do agree it should be official there, and it will be official there. Question is: are we allowed to say on WP our wishes? Anyway, I am not going to revert that even if it's wrong. Dc76\^talk 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, Transnistria still has its status of a "special territorial unit" like Gagauzia, which allows it to have its own official languages, among other things. --Illythr (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the economy experienced a constant economic growth after 2000: with 2.1%, 6.1%, 7.8% and 6.3% between 2000 and 2003 (with a forecast of 8% in 2004) --- This text (from the article) is a bit outdated. It should be updated with growth figures up to 2008. (131.211.108.186 (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Snegur ii.JPG

The image Image:Snegur ii.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

NATO

This reference regarding Transnistria should be discussed in the history section http://www.nato-pa.int/Default.asp?SHORTCUT=1652 Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Independence subsection of the History section

I am looking back at the work I have done today at the "Independence" subsection of the "History" section, and it looks to me too long. How about:

1. copyedit it for major mistakes, if any, ckeck-spelling and wikify it properly, if needed (esp. red links - I solved most of them, but not all).
2. create a separate article and copy all its content there. Divide it there into 3-4 sections, add references section, add see also section, add categories, search for inter-wiki.
3. in this article, make a resume of up to maximum 1/2 the current size.

Is this plan ok? Anyone wants to help? (My eye is now too much tuned to this section, so chances are I won't see any problem if I don't take a longer break to forget it, so I do need someone else to help if you want these 3 points done sooner than later.) Cheers, Dc76\^talk 15:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, that's +15K of stuff! Most of it really should be moved out to Politics of Moldova, as it is way, way too detailed for a short summary of the last 15 years. The sovereignty referendum should probably be mentioned, as well as the decline of the nationalist sentiment by 1994.

The NATO statement probably makes more sense in the articles about the conflict, where it is already present.--Illythr (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A good idea would be to reduce the subsection to the size of "Economic reforms" - barely a screenful, lest we bore the reader to death with the details. --Illythr (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me of the fact that we talk about economic reforms in both these subsections. shoot.

Also, tons of thanks for your very kind copyedit.

I have coppied the text to Politics of Moldova, so we can now do as you said: reduce to the size of that. I agree. But now is the painful task of cutting out. Who can do this? Dc76\^talk 20:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Shoot. All the latest edits since 19:13 December 11 must be done also in the article Politics of Moldova. Here we must cut out. Maybe we can ask an outsider to help along, at least to watch. I will be mostly offline for several days now, so the ball is to you and whoever else is interested. Obviously, I can check the work later. I have only one request: please, do not forget the article Politics of Moldova.

According to my measurements, the average rate of cut should be 4-fold. Of course, not an even cut along all paragraphs, since some might need to stay at 80%, while others can be cut 10 times. Dc76\^talk 20:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I brought the canges in Politics of Moldova up to date to the ones in this article. Hence, if someone wants to edit formulation, spelling, please edit there, not here. Edit here only to cut this subsection 4-fold, pls. Dc76\^talk 22:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On a more personal note, since I see your tacit support of the Democratic Movement of Moldova, now that CDPP has compromized itself, what do you think, is it possible that the vote of minorities would not go mostly to the communists & allies? Dc76\^talk 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

New edits

I am sorry that I was too bold to perform a numer of edits two days ago, but I have noticed some quite serious misrepresentations which any person with minimal knowlegebility of Moldova would see as wrong and politically charged. This was my sole reason for doing them: I assumed that nobody from the main interested editors read the article critically recently.

About the changes I am now partially re-doing, partially differnetly:

1. Autonomous Bessarabian Oblast established on April 29, 1818 was not a form of statehood, it was an ordinary provice in an empire that did not accept autonomy. It was not like Finland, not like Poland, not like Buxoro and Hiva. It was like all the rest.
2. On the other hand Declaration of Soveregnty on June 23, 1990 was when current Moldova aquired statehood
3. Bessarabia was first split between Ukrainian SSR and newly created Moldavian SSR, in 1940, and after that changed hands in 1941 and 1944, not vice-versa.
4. I added the phrase "Moldovans are a Romance people." because without it, it sounds as if Moldovans are a mixture of Latin and Slavic world, which is precisely Mr. Stati's theory renouned for its falsity. It is true however, that Slavic culture had a strong influence, perhaps the strongest than any other influences (German, Turkish, Hungarian, Greek Bizabtine, to name just a few).
5. Moldovan language is a controversy and a political name. When it comes to culture, one can only speak of the Romanian language. It makes sense to use "Moldovan language" in political contexts, but not in cultural ones. Using it in cultural ones would be taking the POV that Moldovan language is different from Romanian and has a culture distinct from Romanian. This the more absurd when the examples given are Eminescu and numerous others, which all, including Cantemir, called their language Romanian.
6. "One of the priorities of the national politics of the Republic of Moldova is the insurance of existence of the Moldovan language" is not a fact by itself. It is absolutely ok to mention it provided that we say who and when stated that, and that it is highly controversial.
7. Russian is provided with the status of a "language of interethnic communication" alongside the official language. That is what the 1989 law stated, and on this particular 4 words some of the Transnistrian delegates left.
8. Ukrainian, unlike Gagauz does not have regional speaker population. In fact, only 135,000 of the 280,000 ethnic Ukrainians speak it as native language. They are spread over a huge number of localities, not a at all in a compact manner. It is hardly possible to give a group of more than 2 neighboring localities with majority or plurality Ukrainian speakers. Generally, there are many Ukrainains in 1-2 hamlets around several larger Romanian speaking villages.
9. Also, it is incorrect to say that Gagauz is official in Gagauzia alongside Russian, without saying also alongside the official language.
10. Since Transnsitria does not have a legal final status, the determination of official languages must be attributed to the source, i.e. the breakaway authorities. These most likely would remain, however we should not let the reader understand that there was a region Transnistria with 3 official languages before separatism. Simply because it is not factually true: there was no region Transnistria before, let alone with some attributes. Dc76\^talk 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The difference is that it - Gubernia of Bessarabia - served as a base for the modern state.
2. MSSR already had statehood - as a republic within the USSR. I don't see much of a difference before and after June 23, 1990. Whereas the declaration of independence was the real deal.
3. True, but I'm not sure this detail is necessary in the lead - in the compressed form it becomes rather confusing to see what happened.
   • I restored the original wording, but kept the timeline correct.
4. The original phrase was "Located geographically at the crossroads of Latin and Slavic cultures, Moldova..." - it speaks about the country, without the ethnocentrism which didn't even exists a the time the sentence was referring to.
5. That part referrs to the de-jure official languages of the modern state. It's what the Moldovan laws say. The political thing.
6. It cites the law right next to it. Feel free to reformulate.
   • Well, you already did. I brought it a bit closer to the wording of the law, though.
7. alongside the Romanian language that is. Which is already discussed in the previous sentence. It kinda underscores the fact that Russian is not a state language.
   • Seems to be purely technical misunderstanding here. There is no Quebec in Moldova. ;-)
8. It's what the law explicitly states - in localities with significant Ukrainian and Gagauz populations... alongside the state language...
   • I checked the law again. It specifically mentions Gagauz, but not Ukrainian, which always heads the list of "other" languages. Feel free to reformulate, but mind the point that it is official "in the eastern region of Moldova."
9. It says that Moldovan is the state language right away as the first sentence of the section. It is quite clear that that language is official everywhere. But I'll change that a little...
10. The autonomous unit of Transnsitria, as a subject of Moldovan law, is granted the right to determine its own official languages. It's the same proposal that Gagauzia has. And what do you mean "there was no region Transnistria"? The region exists since the last major tectonic movement occurred a billion years ago, thank you very much! ;-) And if you mean that name - it was also in existence for at least 50 years, since Romanian occupation. --Illythr (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Addon: Heeey, what do you think this is: "În raioanele de est ale Republicii Moldova funcţionează limbile moldovenească, ucraineană şi rusă." - directly from the cited law. We don't even need to mention the Transnistrian authorities in this case. --Illythr (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

a. I am sorry I have a temporary problem with my internet connection. Also, I am not yet sure if I'd have possiblity and desire to contribute to WP at all during Christsmas and New Year. Chances are I would bounce now and then, but please don't count on me for anything serious for about 1 month.

b. I would try to arrive at a closure on this particular article. As I went through the observations raised by Illythr, except 1 & 2 (which are naturally together), I see "disagrements" with Illythr's proposals (the ones done as well the ones he only exaplained in the range of 0 to 2 words per issue. And in allcases with 2 words there is lot of room for reformulation. I will explain issue by issue when my connection is back normal, but I repeat I see absolutely no problem since Illythr's answer opened the door to a lot of positive ideas.

c. My only issue to which I respectfully have to disagree is 1 & 2. I see now the acute need to have the article Declaration of Independece of Moldova and the text in the wikisourse. As pointed out by Illythr, and I totally agree with this, Declaration of Independence (27 August 1991) was the real deal, while all others are secondary. I have the text of the declaration in a book, but I am sure you can find it online as well, and I hope I can do the article soon, as well. Well, accroding to the DoI,

<quote> (...) Proclamă solemn, în virturea dreptului poapoarelor la autodetrminare în numele întregii populaţii a Republicii Moldova şi în faţa întregii lumi:

Republica Moldova este un stat suveral, independent şi democratic, liber să-şi hotărască prezentul şi viitorul, fără nici un amestec din afară, în conformitate cu idealurile şi năzuinţele sfinte ale poporului în spaţiul istoric şi etnic al devenirii sale naţionale.

În calitatea sa de Stat Suveran şi Independent, Republica Moldova (...) </quote>

Before that come a series of reasons, or pretexts if you want. After that are a series of calls. The first list gives the reasons for independence. It least 1812 as desmembering of naitonal territory, 28 June 1940 as occupation, 2 August 1940 as against the prerogaives. So, it redards declaration as undoing of all those things, not as a base for statehood (which is Mr. Voronin's theory, and his anti-independence is well-known - but that's a different story, let's not enter it here). Also, it say as cause of the DoI:

<quote> Pornind de la Declaraţia suveranităţii Republicii Moldova, adoptetă de Parlament la 23 iunie 1990, şi faptul că populaţia Republicii Molodva, exercitând dreptul său suveran, nu a participat la 17 martie 1991, în ciuda presiunilor exercitate de organele de stat ale URSS, la referendumul asupra menţinerii URSS </quote>

My reading of DoI is that Only three event should and can be mentioned: 23 June 1990, 27 August 1991, 25 December 1991/2 March 1992. (I have no "opinion" about the choice of the latter, so I trust the guts of others.) Now, DoI is not God, but it is the basis of Moldova's independence, and the reasons explained by DoI are what forms the basis of Moldova's statehood. They might be totally wrong 1000 years from now, but in 1991 they were adopted bipartisan with unanimity of votes!

I am sorry, I do not have an English version. I presume we could find one online?

d. Biruitorul, thank you veyr much for your corrections. Would it be too much to ask you to also do them in Politics of Moldova, pls? (given my poor internet connection today) We are bound to cut that subsection 4-fold here... Dc76\^talk 15:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bessarabian counties

Regarding this:

2 counties (since 1828, ten years after annexation) of the Governorate of Bessarabia, Cahul County and Ismail County were returned to Moldavia in 1856, where they were organized as three (+ Bolgrad County). When annexed again by the Russian Empire, they were kept as a single county. Therefore, in Romanian literature, one speeks of 3 counties, while in Russian one there are sometimes 9 counties (1828-1856), sometimes 8 counties (1878-1917).

So that edit is not incorrect. Dc76\^talk 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is vince?

The data box lists the population as about 4m "plus Vince"! Vandalism or some valid piece of latin? --LeedsKing (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Moldova UN Soil Conservation/Reforestation Project to update article

http://wbcarbonfinance.org/docs/03062009_RM_BioCF_Moldova_Projec_Registered.pdf

There is a UN Soil Conservation/reforestation project currently. Information regarding this could be added to the article on Moldova as per link above. (142.104.53.146 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

2.4.2009 edits

• The Soviet Army reconquered and re-annexed the area in February-August 1944, and reestablished the Moldavian SSR. - The MSSR wasn't really reestablished, its Soviet government was, but the word "re-annexed" pretty much says that already.
• This influx of investments and people was stopped in 1991 - the influx of people stopped somewhere in the '70s. In the '80s there was a large "outflux", especially of ethnic Germans and Jews, especially towards the end of the decade, what with the anti-minority policies and riots and all.
• Along with the other peripheral Soviet republics - I guess the distinction is there for Russia, but it's kinda bad. Not only was it all Soviet republics but the RSFSR, I'm not sure Ukraine and Kazakhstan can be called "peripheral", big as they are.
• Post-independence politics (1991-2005) - this subsection should be severely shortened, with most of the non-critical content going to the Politics of Moldova article. It also shouldn't overlap with the Govt and Politics section.
• These "pro-independence oriented" governments... wanted to join Romania, remember?
• ...were followed one year after independence by a pro-Russian government of prime-minister Andrei Sangheli, which saw the removal of most reform-oriented individuals. - hehe, that's some strong nationalist POV there. The source I added explains it more succinctly (reforms continued, it was just the nationalist sentiment that had died down). Besides, it's actually the first one that really was "pro-independence".
• ...as well as one of largest ammunition depots in Europe. - most of the stuff was removed in the meantime, we'd need a source calling it such now, that is, post-2005 or so. --Illythr (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I already proceeded with the next stpe of BRD cycle :). So, everything that I am not mentioning should be assumed ok by me:

• MSSR is the government, the statal formation, not the territory. In 1941, Romania did not take over MSSR's territory, but re-established the situation of 1940, with Northern Bukovina and Budjak, and without Transnistria. Then in 1944, the Soviets re-established MSSR government. They re-annexed not only MSSR, but also Chernivtsi and Budjak. / Not mentioning this would be like saying in 1812 Ottomans gave their own territory to Russia, and not that of the Principality of Moldavia, vassal to the Ottomans. It is a fact that in 1941-44 Bessarabia and northern Bukovina were re-united with Romania (albeit then governed by a dictatorial regime). After saying the sentence, the article can then talk only about MSS, IMHO.
  • MSSR was a Soviet Republic - it didn't cease to exists under Axis occupation. You might want to check out the Baltic states for an example. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• ...
  • ethnic Germans emmigrated in 1980s from Russia itself, not from Moldavian SSR (well, I can accept there might have been a dosen...). The emmigration of Bessarabian Germans occured (from Budjak) in 1940.
  • As for the outflux of Jews, what you say is correct, and I now see we missed this info. We should add a separate sentence or more, but separate since that has nothing to do with Soviet industrialization/denationalization of Moldova
  • There were pro-democracy, pro-perestroika and romantic nationalism public demonstrations in 1988 and 1989, but the Soviets were in control all the time. Only after February-March 1990 election one can say otherwise. The immigration of Soviets occured well into the 1980s. Remember Igor Smirnov who came in 1987? Until 1990, anti-minority policies existed in the USSR as a whole, against the non-Russians. I propose a compromize: two sentences, one saying influx of people ends in early 1990, other says influx of investments ends in August 1991.
    • These were not exactly ethnic Germans, but rather the people who could find some German ancestor in their bloodline. But yes, mainly the Jews left in the 80s and pretty much every other ethnicity in the late 80s. It's quite silly to say that the influx of people stopped in 1991 - at that time what some called a demographic catastrophe was already unfolding.
    • Individual and small-scale transfers happened all the the time. The article talks about the large-scale ones, that, AFAIK, were over by the end of the 70s. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• (not changed)
• yes :) remember it was twice as big as now :), and me with Biruitorul shortened it in half. Overlapping obviously should be avoided (by the way, the para you moved to Politics... I absolutely agree), but the political situation in Moldova is very confusing, changes every 4 years. Just look: parties that existed 4 years ago are no more, and so many new ones. What is history, should be mentioned in History, if it is notable. I prefer saying in the last History subsection who won what elections, who became president/prime-minister and when, but leaving description of the political scene entirely for the Politics. Crude facts in history subsection only, IMHO, things that do not change, like the date presidents/prime-ministers took office, major events (again, only ones that can not be "undone") without interpretation.
• I remember that only a small fraction wanted to join Romania. But I am open to versions that would include the word Romania.
  • Yes, but that fraction was the loudest one. From the constant statements and agitation, a union seemed imminent (just delayed a little) until 1994, when the idea was largely dropped. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• the first one that really was "pro-independence" - hehe, that's some strong pro-Russian POV there. :):):) That government undid a number of 1990-92 reforms, and re-established close ties with Russia. They did say exactly that, they did not shy from it. Oh, they did not agree with those earlier reforms, or thought Russia rather than Romania/the west should receive more attention... - yes, correct, that's what they did/didn't. But we are not making judgement calls (it was wrong/right to bring closer ties with Russia), simply mention the fact (ties with Russia became closer). IMHO, stating what one government or the other did is ok, making judgement calls about those actions is politics. I would gladly talk about politics with you (than with most other people), but outside the scope of this article and WP in general (we can talk politics on my talk page... but I think we have better things to fill our day with :) )
  • Well, ok, we'll stick to the sources, then. Still, after Druc, (and generally, the whole 1990-1993 period), pretty much every following govt can be considered "more moderate". "Pro-Russian" gives a false impression of them being something like Russian pawns, whereas the first pro-Russian govt was supposed to be the Communist one, which it sort of was-then-wasn't-then-was-again-repeat-ad-nauseam. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• about ammo depot, I believe there were plenty of sources provided in the Transnistria article, if I remember correctly. Out of my mind, I remember that the evacuation was halted while still 40,000 tones remain (out of... close to 80,000 tones, again totally out of my mind). don't know about recent developments, but surely the depot has not been disassembled. Dc76\^talk 14:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but is it *still* the largest one in Europe? The Transnistria article talks about the 90s (regarding the depot), this sentence talks about 2006. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

duplicate article

Hello,

It seems that the Moldova article dupticates article about Moldavia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavia

Moldova and Moldavia are different names for same country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.244.47 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I found my error.

Change in GDP

Thanks to Gggh for updating the GDP figures. I was wondering how on earth the GDP per capita (nominal) had gone down, when the total GDP (again nominal) has supposedly gone up by 30%. On checking the figures, it looks like the old figure was just wrong, and I don't think it had anything to do with including or not including the Transdniester population. It seems that the IMF is using the census figures to calculate GDP per capita (they use 3.386 million), which presumably means they are calculating GDP for Moldova with Transdniester, although they don't make this clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spigot007 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009 events

Note that they already have two dedicated articles, and should probably be reduces, not expanded here, later this year. Regardless:

• Only one member has verifiably expressed concerns. She mentioned others, but that's according to her, just as the article says.
• adding that the OSCE report could not contain more criticism because of Russia's power of veto. - this is not what she said. Quote:

  The problem was that it was an OSCE report, and in the OSCE are, of course, the Russians, and their view was quite different, quite substantially different, for example from my own.

There is nothing about a veto power here, only that there are Russians in the OSCE with the implication that this is bad. It's probably best to leave that piece out, until a clarification of what she meant by that is provided.

• I've also cut out the part that duplicates the condemnation for the event, but focuses on one side only.
• I'm not sure if there's a problem with classifying the fire & looting thing as a riot independently from any of the involved sides, but I've provided a source that does that just in case. --Illythr (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS on nationalist/moderate: The sentence describes the internal policy of the two governments: the nationalist one was intolerant to the minorities, whereas the subsequent one was much less so. Their international sympathies can be added right next to it, once a supporting source is provided. The corresponding source section is:

On February 27, 1994, parliamentary elections were held. In the elections, the Democratic Agrarian Party of Moldova won a majority, marking a turning point for Moldovan politics. The new Parliament was able to make compromises between ethnic Romanians and ethnic Slavs, thus enabling it to pass legislation and set a more moderate tone for governing the country. Without a majority of Popular Front extreme nationalists in Parliament, a solution to the problem of Transnistria began to be more than just a futile hope.

--Illythr (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Illythr, I am sort of more interested in other things now, like List of cities in Moldova, and List of localities in Moldova. I will come back to this issue later, and will answer in full. For now, I obviously let your last edit stay, since I have provided no arguments against it (or whatever in it I believe should be adjusted), nor have I time to suggest now some other possibilities. As I said, I promise to come back to this, but don't know yet when. It's actually a lengthy matter, it will take hours to go into details, and I don't have that kind of time and interest now. I trust you edit further whatever you see necessary. BTW, I am sorry for the late response. Dc76\^talk 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Language

Please bother read this subsection, as well as previous discussions in the talk page. We don't have to restart a discussion about his every week/month for editors/IPs that did not bother read the previous things. Do you have to add aomthing not already mentioned in the discussion? Instead of rv, please feel free to expand that section if you see necessary. And, pls refrain from name-calling. Dc76\^talk 13:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic composition subsection

I am asking other editors to comment on Anonimu's edit [5]: is the new version better or worse than the one before?

And I kindly ask nobody to revert Anonimu's edit before some discussion takes place here. Don't revert him here without prior discussion, and do not in other articles. Do not get provoked. He can damage only so much. If we are going to confront him individually with the controversial edits, it will only be two editors edit warring, even if different editors in different instances. With every problematic issue of his, let's have a rule: first note it in the talk page, then discuss it/comment about it, and let's find a consensus/restate the existing one. He can go against every one of the editors in Moldova topic area and make it ugly, but he can not go against a consensus. I know it is tedious, but this is the only way we can get rid of such problems. I repeat, don't confront him alone in other articles, I feel he wants exactly that. (I hope this is the central place and people will see this note.) Dc76\^talk 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dc76, I ask you the 1000th time, stop spreading ad hominems, stop making suppositions about what I might do in the future and what are my "hidden goals". Discuss the content, if you think there's something wrong, don't discuss the editors. Otherwise I'll be forced to seek admin help. Don't let any beef you may have with me interfere with the optimum functioning of WP.

PS: You may want to remove my name from the section header; it may be interpreted as harassment.Anonimu (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to Anonimu: I wish I was making suppositions... Unfortunately my conclusions are based on your edits on a number of articles over the past week (and your repeated reverts of me. You don't even pay attention that no two of my edits are the same, my every edit suggests something more to think about as compromises, and somehow people like Illythr and Alaexis catch the finest and subtle of them, and you miss all of them, even the most obvious.) I wish I would have imagined this problem and I wake up in the morning and discover there are no problems with your edits... IMHO, unfortunately you are back at doing content-wise the same things you were doing before you were blocked. Talk-wise, you are surely reformed, and it's possible to talk with you. Unfortunately it's like Reagan and Brezhnev: can talk but can't agree on almost anything. I don't have problems with you, i have problems with your edits. Look, I am afraid that my discussion with you right now only provokes you further, so I'll abstain, if you don't mind. I will comment content-wise on what other editors would mention, so I am not closing any content-wise dialog with you, you just have to comment on those issues, too. But I am kindly asking you to stop talking with me. I believe it would be a better environment this way. Dc76\^talk 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonimu, doing the same things you were doing before you were blocked will probably lead to the same result. It's pretty illogical to behave in the same way and expect different results. The ethnic section resisted for a long time this way and it's a compromise respected by most of the people who follow this page, there's no reason for a new person who just came back from a long ban to start changing highly sensitive content. man with one red shoe 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt civil imposition of the WP policies could get anybody blocked. There are articles in WP that haven't been modified for a looooong time... unfortunately most of them are in an appalling state. Since there was no discussion and it clearly infringed basic WP rules (NPOV, OR, SYNTH), I modified it.Anonimu (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who decided it infringed NPOV, OR, SYNTH? You of your own. Did you previously discuss it on the talk page? No. Did your contribution led to a more productive environment on this country article? No, on the contrary, your brought in an old controversy. One can civilly add non-sense to WP, and cite WP policies to support that, also ignore the talk page history. IMHO, this is what you did to this article. You claim there was no discussion lately about this issue. OK, lately no, because it was before and extensively. But I already said that: we don't have to discuss the same issue every week/month. But have it; what prevented you from starting a discussion again? It is a good habit to start controversial edits with first announcing them on the talk page and see the reaction. That is a basic good collaboration principle, it comes before even one discusses content, NPOV, OR, SYNTH, etc. Most people behave so naturally. But not all. Some IMHO are trigger/revert-happy. Dc76\^talk 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one who decided, and it was pretty simple since the source present had no relation to the POV synthesis presented to the reader. It didn't change anything in the environment... just that you became dissatisfied with the state of the article. The controversy is pretty active, and although some editors may want to provide just one POV, this is against WP policies, especially when that POV is wholly personal and takes extreme liberty with the references to the verge of original synthesis. Actually, the edit I reverted was inserted by user Dc76 following an IP vandalism on June 6 this year diff. An earlier version (June 4) by User:Vecrumba, who can't seriously be accused of trying to hide the controversy or wanting to promote certain POV (at least not the one you accuse me of supporting), shows that the version I reverted to was the stable one. As anyone can see above (the earliest message dates from May 2008), that edit by Dc76 was not preceded by any discussion on this talk page (not a week ago, not a month ago, not even a year ago), and thus doesn't have any claim to consensus. If Dc76 didn't feel any need to edit the talk page when he introduced a personal opinion in the article, I see no need to do it, especially since I was restoring the verifiability of that section by presenting the letter and the spirit of the reference used.Anonimu (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For what is worth I think the current version is acceptable, it uses official sources, it notes that "The question whether Moldovans and Romanians form a single ethnic group, or are distinct ethnic groups is politically controversial." I think we can leave it like this or at most add that other reliable sources (with referenced included here) consider Moldovans and Romanians the same ethnic group. Since Wikipedia describes not prescribes that's probably the best way to avoid POV or SYNTH or to take any sides if Moldovans are or not Romanians. man with one red shoe 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this. It seems we have reduced the whole contovercy to indcluding or not this sentence. I propose to include it. Any thoughts?Dc76\^talk 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So you have an opinion that says my version (i.e. the stable one until you edited it one month ago) is acceptable and you go on to modify it to reimpose your own opinion? How should I call this if not POV pushing?Anonimu (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the "combined figure for Moldovans (Romanians)" part, it doesn't make sense to me, how can you combine "Moldovans (Romanians)"? I think at most we should say that 1. it's a political issue (that's already mentioned), 2. some sources (and which ones) consider Moldovans to be Romanians, that should do it, it people want to calculate the sum they can take a handheld calculator and do the sum themselves. man with one red shoe 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand your argument. Would this do it, or you think a direct citation from a source which argues Moldovans to be Romanians is better? or both? or none? My opinion: A direct wikilink exists to the "Controversy" article, and I think it makes more sense to rather add more sources there, not in every article this issues comes. Dc76\^talk 20:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice the article first time, yeah, since it's linked we might not need to add references and the second part that I proposed. I don't think though we need to add the sentence that you added since I think that's pretty clear, all the other ethnicities are exclusive. man with one red shoe 21:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You got me neutral now on the inclusion or not of this sentence. How about we ask somebody else we can trust to a have a sound mind? If that person says we don't need, I yield. Dc76\^talk 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat a challenge I issued before (to Xasha/Moldopodo). If Romanians actually form a small and distinct minority in Moldova, then, Anonimu, please write an article on the Romanian minority in Moldova. After all, they're more numerous than the Bessarabian Bulgarians, who do have an article (not to mention the Italians or Albanians of Romania). Write that article, using reliable independent sources, and you'll have a point. If not, then you concede the Romanian/Moldovan divide is a purely political one, and the two should be presented together.
Now, this is not to say we should forcibly change self-declared Moldovans into simple Romanians. We still should say what the census said. But nothing obliges us to pretend the two are wholly separate entities -- unless that article gets written. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you use a wrong argument, you can't argue anything from the existence or non-existence of a Wikipedia article, besides I don't think there's a Russian minority in Moldova or Ukrainian minority in Moldova article (maybe they exist with different names, correct me if I'm wrong). But the issue here is not about pretending that there are two entities, we should be agnostic to that, we should just mention what the sources say, if they are considered the same people we should find enough sources to explain that and add that as a relevant thing in the demographics section. man with one red shoe 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I didn't mean to imply that us having or not having such an article would say something about the validity of the concept. What I meant is that if such an article could be written - from reliable, independent sources that document the phenomenon of a Romanian minority in Moldova, then Anonimu would have a point. Otherwise, he implicitly acknowledges their sameness with the "ethnic Moldovan" majority. That said, I fully agree we ought to be saying what the sources say. This looks like a promising start:
Levinson, David. Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook, p.66 ("Romanians number 20.9 million in Romania and 3 million in neighboring Moldova") and p.56 ("The label Moldovan (or Moldavian) indicated nationality, as ethnic Moldovans are ethnically Romanian. Romanians (Moldovans) number about three million, or 65% of the population"). Greenwood Publishing Group (1998), ISBN 1573560197- Biruitorul ^Talk 01:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the comment below simultaneously with Biruitorul writting his comment above, i.e. before I read it.

I entered a couple times in the past the red link Ethnic groups in Moldova into WP articles. I will write this article (I have already some start version, but it's not wikified, i just gathered statistical data in a file on my computer. Quite a lot of data, including which lcoalities, and how many, languages used, etc, etc.) After that I go on and fill the gaps (we already have Bessarabian Jews, Bessarabian Bulgarians, Gagauz people, and Bessarabian Germans; but are missing Russians in Moldova (this link is a redirect), Ukrainians in Moldova, Poles in Moldova and Gypsies in Moldova). It's only a matter of time until we will have these articles. So, we can rise to the challenge.

That said, I agree with Man with one red shoe that the (non-)existence of a Wikipedia article is not an argument. (Note however that if an article Romanians in Molodva would be created, it would include data of 1930 census, when all Moldovans are Romanians, it would include the entire national culture, etc, and in the end it will be a content fork to Moldovans, so it cann't exist. This is a stronger argument than that the article does not exist at this moment.) Anyway, I agree with Man with one red shoe that the solution is: we need to work the articles related to the controversy, especially in bringing in more sources (there are plenty around), and make a short one-two sentence summary in the demographics section here. Anyone has a particular text for those one-two sentences in mind already? Please, be bold and do modifications in the article. I can promise to work on the controversy articles, but not before the end of August, I am sorry.Dc76\^talk 01:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First: I didn't read the replies to Biruitorul's first comment. Second: if I would want to, I could easily write such an article based on Czechs of Romania model, with our Moldovans article providing some interesting references. However I won't do it, since at the moment I'll publish it, it'll be filled by some editors with POVish OR such as "but if you add Moldovans, Romanians and Romanis you get this figure, which I personally extrapolated from the source because it helps me make a point". Whatever... those people don't consider themselves Romanians and WP should not either... Constanta was quite a magnet for Moldovan (temporary) emigrants and I got to know quite a few... how can someone judge one's ethnicity without asking them? You can't use the folk costume because they differ greatly (one from Vaslui is nothing like one from Suceava), religion has nothing to do, mentalities, "culture" and cuisine are shared regionally (even with all those ethnic stereotypes there's a greater distance mentality-wise between a "Romanian" from Transylvania and one from Wallachia, than between a "Romanian" from Wallachia and a "Bulgarian" from Southern Dobruja and the Rousse region... and the same it's all over Europe), you can't use outside perception (a guy like Cabral is not less "Romanian" than Vadim, the fact that one of his parents was from Africa and that he has a darker skin doesn't prevent him from being essentially Romanian... not to talk about Romanian writers adepts of the Judaism such as Mihail Sebastian), and the "surest" mean, language, is equally deceptive (what serious scientist would claim all native English speakers across the world as part of the same ethnic group). What are you left is self perception and perception inside the group. If two thirds of Moldova's population think of themselves as "Moldovan AND (NOT Romanian)", we have no right to impose our personal opinion about what those guys "really" are.Anonimu (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't stop wondering why Dc76 simply refutes any suggestion coming from me, while he wholeheartedly adopts the same suggestion when it comes from other editors. I mean, he just changed his view to fit that of Biruitorul's, even if that was content-wise the same as the one I supported and he fought days ago (Biruitorul just expressed it in better English... but the idea behind didn't change a bit).Anonimu (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've updated the controversy statement to accurately reflect the nature of the issue, it is not genetics but self-identification. Apologies I haven't had a chance to review the latest series of edits yet. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  12:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time genetics had anything to do with ethnicity, eugenics was considered science. Should I remind you how it all ended?Anonimu (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When one spots an entry in a table that he thinks should be corrected, first one tries to correct it, if that doesn't work he tells about the issue in the talk page. Only a vandal erases the whole table.

About "eugenics", if you intend to continue comparing your opponents with Nazi at every turn, you will be reported. Dc76\^talk 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again making suppositions about what I might think? I understand you have ceased to assume good faith long ago, but threatening to report me for speaking about things that have some relation with Nazis isn't really frightening me. Nazis had to learn it from the US, and, while not as abominable as its German counterpart, the memory of the US eugenics programme is enough for most scholars to strongly refute it as dangerous pseudoscience. Please drive your Volkswagen around me (note the "Nazi comparison"?) if you don't have anything to comment on content. I have no opponents on WP... if you do probably you're in the wrong place.Anonimu (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonimu, please contribute more positively when making comments than useless attacks alleging eugenics. If I had said "blood" that would have worked just as well as a figure of speech. To DC76, thanks for the clarification at the end, I had overlooked completing that part of the thought. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I updated the table to de-POV it (not "POC", typo!). VЄСRUМВА  ☎  18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you very much for helping diffuse this. Dc76\^talk 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(od) Dear Anonimu, you are gutting all the constructive changes which clearly laid out the self-identification issue as such, lastly undoing the table (sequenced by population %-age), separating Moldovans and Romanians as if completely separate. Please do not take the article backwards by injecting your personal POV. I must also note that edit summaries which can be interpreted as camouflaging your pushing of your POV (allow user to sort the table, for example) are not helpful. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  19:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vecrumba, my friend, the table still calls the "thing" self-identification, not ethnicity as it should, so that's actually an attempt to build consensus (even if its actually misrepresenting the source). Most of the theories about what ethnicity "really" is revolve around an existing self-identification, the only ones dismissing such notion being the eugenicists and other fellow supporters of proved pseudosciences. The current formulation is OK, because it doesn't impose an interpretation of what ethnicity means that's favoured by user X or user Y, it just says that a dispute concerning ethnicity exists. You may believe ethnicity comes by "blood", I believe that, in modern Europe, ethnicity is just a fake political classification used to gather votes in the post God-chosen-rulers era. However you theory has one big problem: what about Russified locals... by your theory we shouldn't count them as Russian, because they're "brainwashed", and we should add them to another category, preferably Romanian by your POV. So aren't you discriminating when you call all Moldovans "Romanian by blood", but ignoring the portion of Russian population which have exactly the same "blood" as the others. And what you do about people coming from mixed couples... should we put a note: "this may include non-pure/mulatto/whatever-Vecrumba-calls-them Romanians" just to satisfy your interpretation? Since Moldovans and Romanians were counted separately int he source, that's what WP should publish. Otherwise true believers may come with requests to put Russians and Ukrainians (weren't they called "Little Russians" till the 19th century) or Bulgarians and Gagauzes (i.e. Bulgaria's official policy until few years ago) in the same category because they are not "completely separate". All my edit summaries were strictly descriptive (making a table sortable does allow users to sort the table the way they want).Anonimu (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I again stand with Anonimu on this, for what it's worth - the spirit of his comment, not necessarily his edit. The notion of ethnicity is eternally subjective, and one cannot impose it on others, and I simply find it astonishing that we are here in 2009 still discussing the countenance of blood setting one people apart from the other. However much the data may in theory be manipulated by the Moldovan gvt, and however much we keep shouting about it (crying wolf, anyone?), the fact is that there is a significant portion of Moldova's population which does not/no longer does identify as Romanian. Ulterior speculations about that get overexposure, and racialist theory is best discussed on WP:FRINGE. Dahn (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tighina

Why people don't agree that official name is Tighina and not Bendery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Over Bruce (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who accepts and likes Russian language in Moldova? --Over Bruce (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This was covered extensively in the most recent article title disambiguation discussion. This has nothing to do with Russian or pro-Russian, Bender is currently common English usage. English usage unfortunately does not care how a place name came into existence or whether or not is what the native populace calls a place. (Not unlike the similar ongoing discussion at Kiev.) VЄСRUМВА  ☎  19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map in the infobox is very small. Can a larger map be inserted?Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the standard map for European countries. See other European countries the size of Moldova, such as Slovenia or Lithuania.Anonimu (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reference to Transnistria should be removed then, as it is not really discernible on this map.Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The map is actually fairly large if you look closely. --Illythr (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortening of the history section

I generally agree with the shortening of the History section and removal of sub-section from there. But I think the details should have been discussed here before, or at least after, b/c although that edit was generally good, it was radical and a few details are important and should not have been entirely removed, but rather should be shortened. Never mind. We can have a discussion now, based on:

• Revision as of 04:20, 1 September 2009 (old version; 85 K)
• 05:37, 1 September 2009 (by Dalderdj; 60 K)
• 01:38, 2 September 2009 (by me; 70 K)

I do not cling with teeth to my version, but I do want to kindly ask to look at it more carefully before/if anyone edits it and ask yourself "do you really think that or that issue should be removed?" If you have a particular reason for removing that or that, please state it breathly bellow. I will compare and think about those issues more carefully, and perhaps will agree with some and disagree with some.

This only refers to the issues that I touched in History section. Fell free to edit it in regard to issues I was ignorant about. BTW, I am using the word "issue" here in the sense of "event", not that there is any problem. Language section edits is a different question: if anything about that, just edit it and comment. No need to start a separate discussion unless there is actually something to discuss (personally I can easily follow in the comment). cheers, Dc76\^talk 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps a bullet list of key events that should be mentioned in the history section of this article is in order? --Illythr (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. In brief, I would say the relevant points IMHO are these:

• Dacia
• influence of the Roman and Byzantine Empires
• mention some invasions from Goths to Tataro-Mongols

  Mentioned. Probably excessively for main.

• Principality of Moldavia
  • established as independent in 1359
  • roughly clarify its territory in relation to the present territory of Moldova
  • mention Stephen the Great
  • mention paying tribute to the Ottoman Empire since 1538

    All there. Stephen's in the pic, might want to put a sentence about him in the section as well.

• Governorate of Bessarabia
  • mention in 1 sentence what happened in 1812
  • mentions oblast vs gubernia, russification, and since 1860 interdiction of education and mass in Romania

    Mentioned, but too excessively (the since 1860 thing is already part of the Russification process, should be shorter)

  • mention that 2 counties were part of Moldavia again in 1856, that in 1859 Moldavia united with Wallachia, establishing Romania, mention that in 1878 those two counties (since now merged as one) reverted to the Russian Empire
  • mention colonization of Germans, Gagauzes, Bulgarians and others in Bessarabia
• 1917-1918
  • mention the spirit of WWI
  • the establishment of Sfatul Ţării
  • Moldavian Democratic Republic
  • entrance of Romanian Army to counter the Bolshevik coup attempt

    Mentioned, but wasn't the reason "restore order due to rampaging units of the retreating Russian army?" I actually never heard of a Bolshevik coup attempt.

  • independence of MDR
  • union with Romania, and mention exactly how many pro/con votes

    Mentioned. Details on voters should go to the history article. Simply "voted to" should be enough.

  • mention the conditions of the union

    Mentioned. Don't think the details are needed here.

  • mention the Paris Treaty of 1920
• Soviet-Romanian non-military and military "clashes"
  • Soviets do not recognize the union

    Mentioned, might want to add some other countries that didn't, like the US, to avoid the impression that it was "Soviets against everyone else".

  • Tatarbunar Uprising
  • creation of Moldavian ASSR
  • Briand-Kellogg and London Treaty

    Mentioned, probably shouldn't (too much detail for top level).

  • start of Soviet occupation (June 28th, 1940)
  • establishment of Moldavian SSR (August 2nd, 1940)
  • Romania denounces alliance with France and Britain and becomes an ally of Germany (July 4th, 1940)

    Mentioned, probably shouldn't (the article's about mo, not ro).

  • Romania participates in Barbarossa
  • Romania continues the war beyond the Dniester

    This is unnecessary here and should be removed (not relevant to mo).

  • Romanian WWII occupation of Transnistria
  • deportation and extermination of numerous Jews in Transnistria (WWII)
  • many Moldovans die in WWII

    Mentioned. Probably should add how many participated.

• Soviet era
  • Stalinist period (mention the years: 1940-41, 1944-53)
    • deportations
    • Gulag and execusions
    • collectivization
    • famine (1946-47)
    • anti-Soviet resistance
    • mention that deportations, Gulag, executions, collectivization and famine also occurred in 1930s in Transnistria

    All there, except for the last part (that should be in the MASSR article).

  • post-Stalinist period
    • political persecutions are individual, no longer mass

      Not sure if this is needed (trend common to the whole of USSR).

    • migration of many Russophones from outside Moldova into urbanized areas of Moldova
    • 1970s and 1980s - Soviets want Chişinău to develop
  • Moldovenism: the name "Romanian" and "Romanian language" were forbidden, the alphabet was Cyrillic, not Latin
• perestroika and independence
  • Gorbachov, perestroika and glasnost
  • Democratic Movement of Moldova
  • Popular Front of Moldova
  • national revival movement
  • Marea Adunare Naţională (27 August 1989)
  • State language and Latin alphabet (31 august 1989)
  • first democratic elections (February-March 1990)
  • Declaration of Sovereignty (23 June 1990)
  • 1991 Soviet coup attempt and Declaration of Independence (27 August 1991)
  • governments of Mircea Druc (May 1990-May 1991) and Valeriu Muravschi (after May 1991)

    What for? Only the general politics is relevant in the history section.

  • some expect re-unification of Moldova with Romania
  • proclamation of PMR in Tiraspol (16th August 1990)

    Proclamation of Gagauz Yeri on 19 August 1991 should be mentioned too

• post-independence
  • market economy introduced (January 2nd, 1992)
  • UN member (March 2nd, 1992)
  • War of Transnistria (March 2nd-July 26th, 1992)

    Needs result.

  • national currency replaces the Ruble (1993)
  • new Constitution (1994), amended 2000 to no longer elect the president directly
  • autonomy of Gagauzia (1995)
  • presidents Snegur, Lucinschi, Voronin, governments of Muravschi, Sangheli, Ciubuc, Sturza, Braghiş, Tarlev and Greceanîi with respective years

    Governments should go into the History article.

  • Communists come to power (2001)

    Numerical details should be removed (people hate numbers they don't need).

  • Kozak memorandum (2003)
  • economic downturn lasts till 2001, upturn 2001-2008
  • emigration for work abroad; remittances represent an important part of GDP
  • April 5th, 2009 elections and their results

    The whole thing should be reduced to about 2-4 sentences, focusing on the protests and political fallout.

  • "Twitter revolution" and the reaction of police

    Same.

  • failure to elect the president; early elections are called
  • July 29th, 2009 elections and their results
  • I would stop at the point when the number of MPs for each party are stated. The rest imho belong to the Government and Politics section.

Dc76\^talk 12:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your latest edit, Illythr. I only have minor questions:

1) should we perhaps merge the para about Soviet non-recognition of the Union with the previous or the following para?

2) should we perhaps mention a sentence about 1998-2001. I missed this one.

3) I have small corrections to 2009, but non-essential.

The rest seems to me all right. Thank you very much for your time and effort to go through that. I was afraid Anonimu would edit before you and we would have another mess, but you cleared things out. I appreciate a lot your timely reaction. Dc76\^talk 13:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC) I would like to make a small edit to this section after you are done, and I would like you to read it before Anonimu. :) So, pls don't go after you finish, but wait 10 more minutes if you have that time, so you see my edit and have a chance to post-edit it first. Don't worry about me waiting, I am doing many things simultaneously, so basically I don't wait. Take you time as you see fit. Dc76\^talk 13:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC) On a second thought, forget it. My edit would be too minor. Even if someone edits in-between, there won't be a problem. Dc76\^talk 13:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Done. 2) It's a pretty boring period (except for the 1998 econ crisis, but it's already there albeit in a different section). Have anything worth mentioning in the article other than I graduated from school and was admitted in the USM? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

2) :) So now, I know your approximate age. :) I am a few (not many) years older. I have ran 3 times into edit conflict. Allow me 10 mins pls to check what I have just edited. Dc76\^talk 14:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. About 1998-2001, I have nothing to add now. But, let's say, if somebody (not necessary us) comes up with an intelligent sentence later, we would give it good faith consideration. Dc76\^talk 14:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If your age is advertised by your nick, then yes, you are somewhat older ;-) On topic - the key events of the time (98-01) seem to be the economic crisis of 1998, and the coming of the Communists to power in 2001. Both are sort of there already, so... --Illythr (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not necessarily against this edit by Tobby72, but what does it improve? IMHO, we need to try every sentence to add pertinent info in the global picture. More details can go to sub-articles. I undid it b/c I had to undo the vandalism by anon before that. If someone feels Tobby72's edit is an improvement, feel free to redo.

But look, we have a version A, written several months ago, essentially by me, then version B, which is comprimation of A, also by me. Now, editors x,y,z,t go back and forth between A and B. :) Where does this leave me? Pondering without clue. :) I understand if one reverts to a version by him or herself... Dc76\^talk 21:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Armageddon Wikipedia! --Illythr (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)