Talk:Moldova/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Back to normal

Romanians blame all their neighbors about vandalizing their articles. Only they hold the truth. They blame the Ukrainians, the Hungarians and the Russians. It's time for the Vlachs to look in the mirror. Whether you like it or not Moldova is an independent state recognized by the United Nations. It is sickening to see the chauvinistic and xenophobic propaganda directed against neighboring countries.

I invite to request unprotection for Moldova. The current version of the article on Moldova is much nationalized. And it is not normal for Wiki. We should not let nationalistic groups (in this case, Romanian nationalists) to take control over Wiki. Current normalized (from my point of view) version for Moldova See Here. Any of counties who are interests in Moldova can't vandalize Moldovan pages, its sovereignty and independence. I invite all constructive people to collaboration. serhio ^talk 08:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Beside the fact that you have deleted all references to Romania did you had any other contributions? Bonaparte talk 08:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not deleted all references to Romania. Please, don't start the dispute. Just compare Moldova page with other european countries in Wikipedia. serhio ^talk 10:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Serhio, Moldova is not a country like any other country. Moldova's history is strongly tied to that of Romania. So is its language and its culture. I think that even if you are Russian, you still cannot deny that. So to eliminate this kind of information from the page, I think it would only make the article much poorer in information.

Having said that, I do not think that we should unprotect the page. The revert wars will start again and nothing will get done. We should solve all our disputes here first before we proceed with changing the page.Constantzeanu 15:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out Austria... despite cultural and historical relations with Germany, Germans haven't been allowed to vandalise their page and add heaps of irrelevant drivel about Germany. --Node 08:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the case Node. Austria was never annexed by force from Germany and made a Soviet republic. I'm afraid you are too little and haven't read the history books yet. Bonaparte talk 08:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte, please withdraw your personal attack. It is offensive to me. --Node 08:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte, Austria was annexed by force from Germany and made part of it. Go read history books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschlu%C3%9F 81.95.39.42 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, read books. Austria was also occupied by Soviets for a short period after WWII 81.210.22.98 17:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How much time RM was under ROMANIA(not in Moldova, but in Romania)? 1918 - 1940 = 22 years. This is a significant time for history? :((
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA is an INDEPENDENT and SOVEREIGN state. Please RESPECT this fact!!!
Romania has recognized Moldova. What do you want now from us?serhio ^talk 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

About Bessarabia's period being "under" others, this actual independence it somehow related with genes, or what? Please be more explicit. --Vasile 01:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

Links from districts point to the county capitals, but they should point to counties, e.g. not Drochia but Raionul Drochia. Links like Anenii Noi County should be redirected not to Anenii Noi but to Raionul Anenii Noi. I've uploaded locator maps of counties in WikiCommons. They may be used in county pages. --Zserghei 10:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why "Raionul", but not "County"? serhio ^talk 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Raionul is russian. Who needs russian terms in English Wikipedia? Serghei I know you're russian from Moldova but stop pushing your POV fork Bonaparte talk 15:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand my point of view. Raionul Drochia may be redirected to Drochia County or vice versa, but not to town of Drochia. The same with section Administrative_divisions. --Zserghei 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Serhio I have written something in your user talk-page; I think its under archive now but I would really like you to take a look at it. Poate o să-ţi mai domolească oleacă românofobia.Constantzeanu 15:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Uite raspunsul shi lasa, pls tema asta serhio ^talk 13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

хорошо am lasat-o. Constantzeanu 07:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Census

Moldova's population does not place it 117th (error) as shown, but rather between 127th-131st.

Maybe this is not the best place to bring this up, but does anyone know if the recent census data in both RM and PMR have released their final versions. I noticed in the Tiraspol article and Tighina article that the population is reported to be 266.000 and 157.000 resp. which results in more then 400.000 people out of a 555.000 total for all of PMR. This seems to me a little off. Does anyone have a ref. for this data?Constantzeanu 15:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that neither Moldova, nor the MRT have released any official results. On the official Moldovan page: http://www.statistica.md/recensamint.php?lang=ro it says that only preliminary results exist. On Olvia Press, the main press organ of the MRT the last article I could find on the subject stated: В республиканском Центре обработки материалов переписи населения работа еще далеко не завершена (In the center of the republic, work on materials from the census is far from finished ....). TSO1D 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Then someone should use World Gazeteer data on the populations of Tiraspol and Tighina. I find it quite strange that the PMR census shows only 555.500 people in all of Transnistria but Tiraspol and Tighina toghether contain more then 400.000 of those. That leaves only 150.000 for the rest of Transnistria which seems to me very inaccurate. Constantzeanu 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The results from the recent census are in fact suspect, however so are results from previous studies, especially unofficial ones. I do not see a way to assess the veracity and accuracy of any of the results that are available in various sourses. I suppose the best way to deal with the problem is to utilize the results provided by MRT government, especially after they will be made official (if ever). After all, as suspicious as these numbers might seem, the official census is still the best source. TSO1D 03:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree but there is no proof that these numbers of 266.000 and 157.000 actually come form the official gov. census. Constantzeanu 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Landlocked

Dahn said (in the archives now) that Moldova received a few meters of coastline through a settlement with Ukraine in the 1990s. Even if that is correct (he wasn't sure), I don't think that it matter. I would call landlocked any country that doesn't have a seaport. Or at least a fishmen village on that coast :) MihaiC 11:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Moldova didn't even get a few meters of coastline. All it got was 100 m of danube.Constantzeanu 20:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, if you know could you provide some details on that. Because at some point I also heart a rumor that Moldova has actually got a part of Black See coastline.

The RM territory doesn't have any maritime coastline. Your confusion may come from the fact that the country had some disputed properties (inherited from USSR) in the seaside resorts of Ukraine.--MarioF 22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's true. It does. But I don't know what the status is on that. If I am not mistaken, Moldova has some property rights around Cetatea Alba. Can anyone confirm that?

I remember back in 97 there was idea of building a port In Giurgiulesti, I don’t know if government implemented it, but that is the only place where Moldova have access to the Danube (few hundreds meters).
EvilAlex 16:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Also I noticed the population table and I gotta say it's really dead wrong. An admin. should make the proper changes. Look at this site [1] for an update on the true population of the largest towns. Constantzeanu 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Largest cities" list of top 7 is incorrect: Balti is 3rd in Moldova (after Tiraspol, if you consider Transniestria "in" Moldova) with more than 200,000, so it must be included.

Hopes of joining EU

Related to the idea that RM "hopes to join EU in 2010": this is simply an immaterial remark and should be removed. There is no official document somehow endorsed by EU which would confirm such a hope. A somebody rather familiar with the political and economical realities of RM, I don’t think that the wishful thinking of some Moldovan officials about joining EU anytime soon should be introduced in a serious article. Moreover, I think that, instead of introducing these kinds of uncorroborated statements, one should say something about the more realistic perspectives regarding the EU vs. RM relationship: for instance, this country is indeed in cards as a subject of the EU's New Neighbors program.--MarioF 00:29, 15 January 2006

Even though I strongly against Moldova joining the EU, I protest your desire to remove that comment. Yes, many Moldavians dont endorse the union, but the governing body does plan on joining the EU on the first opportunity. This can be seen from the Parliament's unanimous vote to approve the program on EU intigration, presidents speach on 2005 New Year's Eve speach that mentioned his hopes, and this will has also been seen from the program established by the EU especially to deal with the Moldavian integration that has been enforced for well over 6 years now. Moldova is also planning on entering the EU membership competion in Athens in 2006, and has already provided 178,000 lei fee for the admission. So yes, the current goverment does want to integrate into EU and i hope you carefully consider my arguments- ktoto

(UTC)

I don't understand your point. Anyone with a minimum of information about the official and unofficial reluctance of EU with respect to any new admissions - including Croatia which is incomparably much more qualified than RM - must admit that the idea of RM becoming a member of EU in 2010 is almost hilarious and is totally uncalled in a wikipedia article. Even before bringing about the actual economical and political situation in RM... Even Voronin - a character which can hardly be considered as reasonable and realistic especially when it comes to launching populist messages - cannot be cited as "hoping" for membership in 2010. Why? Because the idea is so ridiculous that it cannot be realistically sold even to the extremely uninformed public of RM. Anyway, the presumed "hopes" are hardly less ridiculous even when considered formally: for example Romania, a country which became associate member of 1994 and started accession talks in 2000 is scheduled to become a member only in 2007 - 7 years after it started negotiations. On the other hand, RM is not even a potential associated partner of EU and, even if it were, the negotiation procedures are set to be much more complicated, harsh and longer for the newly accepted candidate countries - Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey. RM is not considered even in the same basket with the other group - Albania, Serbia and Bosnia. C'mon, in order to keep Wikipedia a veridical and serious source of information, one should avoid intoxicating the innocent visitor with this kind of underhanded propaganda.--MarioF 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, proposed lead

I just edited the lead without noticing that this page is protected. My apologies. I reverted myself. I still do propose the following alternate lead:

The Republic of Moldova (conventional long form, conventional short form: Moldova, local official long form: Republica Moldova) is a landlocked country in eastern Europe, located between Romania to the west and Ukraine to the east, north, and south. Historically, it was part of Romania, with which it was reunited in 1918. During World War II it was occupied by the Soviet Union during the period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1940-1941); after the war, in 1945, it was forcibly annexed, and became part of the Soviet Union from 1945 to 1991 as the Moldavian SSR. It declared its independence from the USSR on 27 August 1991.

Does anyone object to this changed lead? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose a change, the current lead is pretty bad, but two suggestions:

• The part: "located between Romania to the west and Ukraine to the east, north, and south." is misleading. Moldova shares a southern border with Romania, and the sentence is quite wordy. Indeed it would suffice to say that Moldova is bordered by the Ukraine and Romaina.
• Make the second to last sentece into two seperate sentences. Remove the semicolon and start another sentence.

Dannycas 04:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, your lead is slightly inaccurate: the republic was not "reunited" with Romania in 1918 since Romania appeared only after 1812 (when Basarabia was annexed by the Russians). In 1918, a territory including the actual RM was at most reunited with a Romanian nation state. It should be reformulated.--MarioF 14:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No it was reuinited since Moldavia included Bessarabia before 1812 and Moldavia decided to unite with Wallachia and form Romania so in essence Bessarabia was reunited to the successor state which Moldavia and Wallachia both created.Constantzeanu 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Romania is the successor state of the medieval principality of Moldova, but in legal terms Romania did not exist - even as a notion applied to the Romanian ethnos populating both principalities - in 1812. One of the defining characteristics of a state as a body of people is its unique legal representativeness which is related to the possibility of creating, destroying or transferring it. Thus, as a result of a voluntary merger of states into a new state, with a new name and new judicial and legislative powers, the united state inherits most of the representativeness of any of its parts but it is not the mere combination between these: legally, Romania became an international subject only in 1859, even if it inherited the political condition of its components as well as, by the will of its people, their material and spiritual wealth. So, before 1918, Basarabia had never been part of Romania (except its southern part) even if it had been part of a Romanian state - Moldova.--MarioF 01:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Moldova-Russia treaty of 1711 is clearly a matter of international law. In time of Dimitrie Cantemir, Russia recognized Moldova international status. Therefore, Bessarabia has been a part of Moldova, subject of international law, for a least one century, before 1918. --Vasile 02:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. It is more than obvious that the actual territory of RM was legal part of the principality of Moldova for centuries up to 1812 as it is obvious that in that year the russian empire annexed a territory upon which it had no rights... The problem is whether or not in 1918 Basarabia had ever been part of the kindom of Romania. This has no consequence on the rights of the Romanian state in the region since Romania inherits the rights of both Danubian principalities as its legal equal constituents.--MarioF 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Danube principalities were international subjects at 1856 and 1711. They were never formally annexed by Ottoman empire. At the moment of the unification of 1859, all their patrimony (including their legal obligations) is transfered to the new Romanian state (not formally a kingdom yet). Which legal international grounds had Bessarabia's annexation of 1812? Romania, as succesor of Moldova principality, would been pefectly entitled to seek an answer of this question, even the Romanian state didn't incorporate that territory between 1859 and 1918. --Vasile 18:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile, read again my comments. I've never said that that the russian empire had any rights to annex Basarabia, and yes, Romania had and has rights in the region. The point is that Romania is a state which formally appeared only in 1861 as a new socio-political construct with a new name, new institutions and new national projects. This body included Basarabia first time in 1918. Doesn't make sens to say that Basarabia "reunited" with a union which had never included it even if it had been a part of one of the parts.--MarioF 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Reunited" is not used in some exclusive legal meaning. There is no way you can assume that in 1856, 1859 or 1861, whatever, Moldavians changed in something different, forgetting their past, experience -part of their patrimony. You can't consider Bessarabia only the black shit of the horses on the peasant lands. Indeed in 1878, Romania, the legal and historic succesor of Moldovan principality, abandoned practically the territorial pretention to Russia.But the things changed by dissolution of Russian Empire. Then in 1918, Sfatul Tarii decided in Chisinau to reunite with Romania. --Vasile 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I take it that can all be summarized as "no, we don't have consensus on what the lead should say." -- Jmabel | Talk 01:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. I agree with your proposal. --Vasile 01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Joe: in principle and emotionally I do not have anything against your lead, but I cannot agree with some nuances factually doubtful or imprecise, as I explained above. Here is your text slightly modified:

The Republic of Moldova (conventional long form, conventional short form: Moldova, local official long form: Republica Moldova) is a landlocked country in eastern Europe, located between Romania to the west and Ukraine to the east, north, and south. Historically, its territory was part of the medieval principality of Moldova, a Romanian state. In 19-th century, it was annexed by the Russian empire, but it reunited with Romania in 1918. At the beginning of World War II, it was invaded by the Soviet Union as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939-1941), only to be again reconquered by Romania. However, in 1945, as a result of the defeat of Romania, the province was once more annexed by the soviets and became part of the Soviet Union from 1945 to 1991 as the Moldavian SSR. It declared its independence from the USSR on 27 August 1991.--MarioF 14:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Reunited" issue: I suggest to satisfy both opinions by making a more verbose (and more meaningful) desription: "In 19-th century, it was annexed by the Russian empire. In 1918 it reunited with the rest of the Romanian lands, which were unified into the state of Romania officially recognized in 1878." Or something like that. mikka (t) 20:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal for Moldova

As i can see there are many peoples working on many articles related to the topic Moldova. But i'm wondering if there's actually no centralised portal for this country? Portal Overview - Would be nice. Greetings --Perconte 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason for this occurance is that the link is intended for users who are more interested in the linguistic aspects of the issue rather than the political ones presented on the moldovan language page. I believe that this situation is logical and should not be ammended in the manner proposed by you. TSO1D 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Language Link

In the fact box, when you click on Moldovan as the official language the link goes to Romanian language, whether or not you feel they are the same language, the link should go to Moldovan language. When this page is unlocked this needs to be sorted out. --Horses In The Sky 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason for this occurance is that the link is intended for users who are more interested in the linguistic aspects of the issue rather than the political ones presented on the moldovan language page. I believe that this situation is logical and should not be ammended in the manner proposed by you. TSO1D 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The moldovan language page provides further links to whatever one may want. mikka (t) 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

But according to many Moldovans they are linguisticly different hence its official status as a language. I just think it is insulting to those that believe it is a independent language to bypass it. Maybe there should be a footnote to the bottom of the fact box stating its simularity to Romanian, but the link should go to Moldovan. --Horses In The Sky 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The language is not recognized as a seperate language by any other country. The redirect is correct. --Candide, or Optimism 22:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The redirect is incorrect. There is Moldovan language article. Period. Any other tricks are discrimination. mikka (t) 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a debate that often takes place on sites regarding Moldova or its language. Nevertheless, a great number of the contributors to the article are actually from that region and would be considered moldovans by all criteria. It is my firm belief (and one that I consider self-evident) that no person can assess the situation as well as them for they are aware of all aspects of the debate. From what I can see the majority of moldovan users of Wikipedia support the idea that the romanian and 'moldovan' languages are identical as do the overwhelming majority of proffessional linguists (I mean you can only find one or two who disagree which should speak for itself). Although all wikipedia users are welcome to discuss this issue, I maintain that one should give greater consideration to the people whom this issue affects directly. Don't you find it interesting that there are virtually no moldovans who are on the other side of the debate. The greates defenders of the moldovan language on wikipedia are of other nationalities and ethnicities and only have a slight understanding of the problem but are only intersted in the debate because of its political implications. TSO1D 15:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I respect your statement of your belief, but I am afraid that some of your premises are wrong. Being one of these "one or two", I never questioned the "Moldo-Romanian linguistic identity". Moreover, I myself added this phrase into the Moldovan language article. At the same time, there is a well-known fact that an attempt to rename the language in Moldova failed, for whatever reasons. therefore I stand that sneaking this renaming into the official infobox of the state is a disrespect of the sovereign state. Let the readers go to Moldovan language page and understand what's going on. mikka (t) 20:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the best method to resolve this question is by including both links to the Moldovan language and to Romanian language (the latter perhaps in parantheses. This will allow users to either go to the Moldovan page were the conflict regarding the language is disputed or to the romanian page where linguistic information is found. TSO1D 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The main official language of Austria is German and not Austrian even though there are some differences between them. The Spanish language spoken in several South American Countries varies quite a bit too, but nobody talks about "Argentinian" or "Chilean" or "Peruvian" or ... . Are the differences between Moldovan and Romanian versions more significant than these examples? I doubt it. Tsferreira 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't really get the idea, do you? As long as the Moldovan Constitution states here, that the state language is called Moldovan, so will it stay in Wikipedia. You can compare the linguistic aspects all you want, heck, the actual language could be Urdu for all I care, but as long as the law says it's Moldovan, Wikipedia must link the name to Moldovan language, where its similarity to Urdu or whatever should be noted accordingly. --Illythr 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

The official statistics shows Moldovans and Romanians separately. Someone insists to lump them. Official data must be restored unconditinally. mikka (t) 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Is this article ready for unprotection? It's been 3 weeks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you crazy. People can't agree on stuff. Constantzeanu 05:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

People like me who go through the pages that are protected often have no knowledge of the issues involved, which is why we ask before unprotecting. Civility please. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Change the name!

Please change Republic of Modova back to Moldova (after protection). --Elmo12456 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? The official name of the country is Republic of Moldova. Also, if using the name Moldova, you must address the confusion with the Romanian province of Moldova and how much RM can use this name defined along the ideological lines of the former soviet understanding. It's good to know that the population of the Romanian province Moldova (which was never under the cultural oppression of a foreign state) is twice more numerous than the number of Moldovans in RM, the capitals, documents and main historical events spanning the history of the medieval Moldova are on Romanian territory and the the respective principate is one of the pillars of Romanian statehood. It's a very delicate choice.--MarioF 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Most cities of the old principality are in the Romanian part( RM only has 2,3 towns), all the monuments are exclusively in Romania, all the former historical capitals are likewise in the Romanian Moldova. I would go even further and I would suggest that when one posts Moldova, the reader should have the option to go to the republic of Moldova or Moldova(Romanian Region). I really do not understand why Moldavia is used for Moldova(Romanian region) and Moldova for RM. Nobody uses Moldavia in Romania, when talking about the region.Constantzeanu 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is silly, no one who reads this will have the slightest idea that Moldova is the name of a Romanian state.

Ditto! This is the whole idea. Since the name Moldova denotes a region of Romania which is arguably the legal heir of the medieval state Moldova (including the actual word "Moldova"), I find it perfectly reasonable to keep the name "Republic of Moldova" for a country formed on a territory annexed from the medieval state by the Russian empire.--MarioF 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing they will know is that the country is called Moldova, and that is by default the English common name.

Who says that this is "by default the English common name"? Both "Moldova" and "Republic of Moldova" can be considered as proper by an English speaking reader. The problem is that Moldova means much more than this country and, moreover, its use in soviet understanding is considered offensive by Romanians. So, since both names are more or less legit, keep the less sensitive one.--MarioF 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So now you try to tell a native English speaker what is considered proper in my language? That is going really too far to be comical...--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your answer is irrelevant. Judge for yourself who's overstretching his opinions: while I do speak English and I live in the US, you don't speak Romanian and you seem to be completely parallel with respect to the idiosyncrasies of the respective region. Still, you're trying to sell a rule about how an obscure word borrowed from Romanian in unaltered form 15 years ago is "common" in English.--MarioF 06:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How you can really care what Moldova calls itself I don't know (frankly, it's childish and immature), but you could at least respect the fact that the use of common names is Wikipedia policy.--naryathegreat | (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I care, and I have a very natural right to care, for the simple reason that I am from Moldova - a historical region of Romania where any confusion with any Russian misappropriation of terms (used to denationalize my coethnics in the actual Republic of Moldova) is a very delicate subject. On the other hand, I'd say that childish and immature is your attempt to intervene and use adjectives such as "childish and immature" in a discussion with nuances you seem to ignore.--MarioF 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What's childish and immature is your behavior. Only children are so stubborn and refuse to concede defeat when faced with an irrefutable logical argument. In this case, the English term Moldova refers unambiguously to the country; therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, this article should be at Moldova.--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See below and please, control your uncalled insolence. The word "Moldova" is not an English word per se. It was borrowed from Romanian very recently and it is politically charged. Also, the official name of the country, as stated in its Constitution, is "Republica Moldova". In general, the fact that some may chose to use the short form instead is perfectly understandable, as a matter of convenience. However, placing it in a semi-official position such as the title of an encyclopedia is a politically interpretable statement which in this case can be easily avoided.--MarioF 06:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's time to step in :). No, seriously now. "Moldova" is not a word in English unless it refers to the Republic of Moldova. The historical region was, is, and always will be Moldavia. Moldova is used precisely so as to distinguish between the two (FYROM vs. Macedonia; Netherlands vs. Low Countries etc.) Getting the words "republic of" in is tautological, if you mean to sever the notions. It is against rules to regulate English to suit your taste. Keep in mind this: a peron who wants info on Moldova and seeks it on Wiki does not care about/will get confused/will develop distrust for Wiki when it directs him/her to info on Moldavia. Do not attempt to mask your agenda as reliable info, do not attempt to become the source. You may think the naming convention is stupid, but that does not make it be less in use. If you don't know it already, I should point out I'm Romanian. Dahn 11:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Seriously now", I don't agree with you. Let's see: as I conceded above, "Moldova" can be used to name the country, even if the Constitution of the respective country names it in the very first article "Statul Republica Moldova" and only this form is used throughout the document, so this is the official name of the country... I tend to concede since I'm not a fan of sticking with the official formula myself, mostly when it is obviously misleading. I admit that in English the unadvised user may prefer the form "Moldova", as I admit that even the more official approaches, for reasons of practicality, consider "Republic of Moldova" as the "long conventional form" (e.g., see CIA factbook). On the other hand, in the given case the situation is a wee bit more delicate and this is why I advocate using "Republic of Moldova" as the less conceptually divergent name. Hoping that you won’t pretend that "Moldova" is more official than "Republic of Moldova", it seems to me that your logical contraption rests upon the following conjectures: one, the allegedly precise difference between "Moldova" and "Moldavia" for the generic English speaker who, say you, will use the word "Moldova" exclusively for info on the country (this is what you proclaim as "the rule"), two, the non-Romanian visitor is the sole contender in this “let’s-not-bog-him” attempt, and three, "the rule" (English speakers will prefer using "Moldova") supersedes the substance of the situation, but "the rule" (that the name "RoM" is official) may be relaxed if practice of the English speaker is brought about. So, let’s see:

1. One, the English name Moldavia is ambiguous: it was used for the former soviet republic as well, as it still is for the medieval principality. This is natural, since the word "Moldova" settled in English only 15 years ago. The problem is that it was taken from Romanian language with a meaning confined to representing the country only via a contrivance which completely disregarded the potentially harmful connotations (a postcolonial territory named with a name rooted on an adjacent territory). So, on one hand, this (rather obscure) word has been in use for much too short a while in order to get a well structured discriminatory meaning with respect the "Moldavia" counterpart, and, on the other hand, the fact that it was borrowed very recently from a language which perceives it differently from the (potentially misleading) way it was adopted by English makes necessary further clarifications or a restructured system of names.
2. Two, the non-Romanian visitor is interested in something that is formally and conceptually Romanian which automatically makes the problem internal to the whole space where the word "Moldova" is used. This is irrespective of the exonymic understanding of terms since these terms were not simply created in English and subsequently applied as labels: they were adopted - again, very recently - already carrying a certain amount of local significance which should be nuanced.
3. The rules in a language are inherently somewhat fluid mostly because rules are made by sampling the standard practice of a meaning in a certain conceptual context which, nevertheless, is always opened, and not by adapting the meaning to a certain a priori understanding. The reality is that the generic English speaker won’t know anything about how Moldova is not Moldavia and vice-versa and any visit to an encyclopedia is supposed to give him that context in which the meaning of the word "Moldova" is substantiated. In fact, even if the word "Moldova" had a well established structured denotation in English, as long as this denotation is debatable, the name shouldn’t restructure reality, but the other way around.

It’s easy to prove that your comparison with the FYROM/Macedonia case is specious. Objectively speaking, the name “Macedonian” denotes different things in Macedonia and Greece such that the quarrel is about a misrepresenting word. In the Romanian case, the only difference between Romanian Moldova and the postcolonial understanding of Moldova is subjective and the quarrel is more than about a word, it’s about the identity of Romanian population in RM which is worth a bit more than a simple convention such as “Moldova” vs. “Moldavia”. And, Dahn, I hope that you’re not referring to me when talking about an “agenda”…--MarioF 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You must concede that English speakers almost unanimously mean the country (Republic of Moldova) when they say Moldova. It logically then follows that Moldova is the English common name, regardless of ethnic sensitivites in any other language. Thus, Wikipedia policy: use the common name. On a side note, I will assume for a moment that the use of Moldova is at best ambiguous and at worst discriminatory, derogatory, or disrespectful. If this is true, it is only true in either Moldovan or Romanian, not in English. It is impossible to be so. The word has only the denotative meaning of the country. Thus it refers only to the country and in no other sense. It thus cannot be derogatory in the context of English. You cannot feel insulted by a term which is not in your language. For instance, Germany calls itself Deutschland. In Spanish, this is Alemania. Is one more correct or polite than the other? No! The only word which can be derogratory is in the language of the country. We cannnot be discriminatory simply because of a word we use. If we decided to unanimously call Moldova Gerhardistan (I made that up), what would be the difference? Nothing! It's simply the term we use; it has no meaning other than that which we assign to it. Notice that definition. Thus, if you wish to work in an English encyclopedia, you must accept what we use as definitions. You cannot change the English language (though we have a habit of stealing words!). Please, allow us to continue working together, rather than getting upset over another language's terms.--naryathegreat | (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, finally a welcome change of attitude... The fact that most of the handful of English speakers who've ever heard about Moldova mean the country when they say Moldova is irrelevant when convoluted with the given special situation. When talking about a country "in the context of English" or whatever, you're not talking about a virtuality which changes its nature with its symbol. Technically, your argument reminds me of the way Romanians justify the use of the derogatory word "tigani" for the Roma people: the "argument" is that "tigan" is a Romanian word so that the Gypsies shouldn't impose their perception upon a word which is not necessarily pejorative "in the context of Romanian"... Anyway, I don't really understand why it is so difficult to keep the long conventional form.--MarioF 07:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we like to keep articles, including country ones, at their common names. It makes it easier on people just passing through and gives us legitimacy (makes us look like we know what we're talking about). My argument merely says the truth: if a child grew up in the United States and learned only to call the country Stupidville, it wouldn't be derogatory because the child would merely associate the country with the word. It's the same here. I had long been calling the country Moldova before I knew of any conflict over the name; hence, it is far to late to change, it never will change (unless you can control the media), and that's precisely why we should use the term. The world "tigan" in Romanian started out as derogatory, which isn't even really a different case to me. The meanings of words, particularly their connotations change over time, which you must at least accept.--naryathegreat | (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is supposed to be a well tuned source of information, such that its rules allow a certain amount of tweaking. Using the common name for a country is, in general, a good practice based on the fact that there is a natural selection of meanings already in the language of origin. This is not the case here. The country took the name "Republica Moldova" at the beginning of the 90's, with the word "Republic" added either due to a soviet reflex or as a contraction of the excessively nationalistic form proposed originally - Republica Româna Moldova. Up to that point, the only English exonyms used for the region were Moldavia and, imprecisely, Bessarabia. At that time, due to a certain socio-political naivette, many considered that the proclamation of the independent republic was only a step toward reunification with Romania. So, no one in Romania would have thought that the use of the name of a Romanian province carried any malevolent potentialities. English language adopted the word as is and, while you are right in the sense that the adoption was completely innocent, the situation is far from being so static. Since then, the communist party came back in power and the old soviet theories regarding the non-Romanian identity of the Moldovans resurfaced (although they are not accepted by most intellectuals). A very significant change is that the official ideology of the communists, unlike in the soviet times, is looking now for a set of nationbuilding symbols and they found them in the medieval Moldova. So, in spite of the colonial history, they claim that this piece of land represents the medieval state even if everyone knows that the state Moldova lasted long after the territory of the actual RoM had been seized by the Russians. And, attention, this nationbuilding project is propagandistically explicit anti-Romanian, that is against the very inhabitants of the Romanian province of Moldova. So, albeit ridiculous, the situation can be misrepresented in the eyes of a foreigner using a country name in an informative context. Nobody says that you mean something bad when using the short form "Moldova" in a casual context. However, using the colloquial form in an encyclopedia, after being advised about its connotations for the subjects of the respective term, you do make a biased political statement.

About the "tigan" vs. "rom" case: the racist "argument" is formally correct when pointing out that the word "tigan" doesn’t necessarily carry a derogatory meaning in Romanian. However, the "argument" is unacceptable since an icon – such as a word in a language – cannot be conceptually split from the respective signified. When it comes to naming a country or an ethnos, there are no such things as names devoid of internal meaning and this is why they must be used responsibly. Regards,--MarioF 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is quite absurd. How you can attempt to use Wikipedia as a place to protest the use of the term Moldova I don't know, but frankly I don't really care. I've tried being resonable but that doesn't seem to work. Let me say this once: In english, we call the country Moldova, regardless of any other circumstances. The fact that this article is not at Moldova makes us the laughing stock of the people working at Encyclopedia Britanica (or Encarta, or the CIA World Factbook, etc. etc.)! How are we supposed to gain legitimacy if we're too wrapped up in our own ethnocentrism and nostalgia that we can't even name an article what makes logical sense? This is simply stupid. Your refusal to accept that which will not change is your own decision, but please do not make us look dumb because of it. The world changes; please get over it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you returned to your insolent style. I don't try to use wikipedia to protest against anything. Irrespective of your tantrums and poor arguments, Moldova per se is defined within the data of whatever you consider as some kind of an uncalled protest. In English or Romanian, Moldova is still the same and the information doesn't change its substance with the change of language and perception of names. You either have a very rudimentary idea about what an enciclopedia is supposed to be, or you're simply rude. As far as I'm concerned, It's obvious that this is discussion is futile.--MarioF 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are raving. It's ridiculous that you should presume to characterize what hundreds of millions call something as "wrong" and then declare what you think is the only correct view. Of course we're all wrong because the Soviet government did this or that or because we don't fully comprehend the situation as outside observers (I don't suppose you considered that your own view might be compromised as one who is involved in the actual dispute). If I am insolent, you are egotistical. At least my views represent those of the English speaking community and Wikipedia consensus, not simply my own.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I became involved in this dispute for an unrelated reason, but since I have I'd like to finish it. I want to request unprotection for this page because it has been protected for a very long time. However, it needs to be moved back to Moldova, which it was at for a very long time. Is there anyone who any longer, including User:MarioF, who has a specific problem with unprotecting this page and moving it back to Moldova?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with it being moved. From the CIA World Factbook:

conventional long form: Republic of Moldova

conventional short form: Moldova

local long form: Republica Moldova

local short form: none

former: Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic; Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic

China, for example, uses the conventional long form for its page, so I would say that it is precedent to use the conventional long form and as such this page should remain where it is.--DannyBoy7783 :16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. Both the United States and the United Kingdom pages, to name some examples, use the "conventional short form" of the country name. This issue has been debated several times at each page and the result has been to not change to their "conventional long forms" (United States of America and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively). The example of China is unique due to the debate over what political entity can be called "China" (and as such, Wikipedia no country article at China). So, I would rather say the precedent is the other way around: use the conventional short form, not the conventional long form. --Colonel Cow 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You cite some good examples. I did some random searches and it seems to go both ways. The Republic of the Congo, Russia, Zimbabwe, Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia. I would now argue, actually, that there is NO precedent so who is to say if it should or shouldn't be moved.--DannyBoy7783 23:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would still argue that there is a clear precedent, even in the articles you cite. The articles with the long form of the name (Republic of the Congo, Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia) are this way because the conventional short forms are shared or can refer to more general places (note Congo, Ireland and Macedonia), again much like the situation with the China article. In this case, since Moldova already redirects to this page, I think precedent dictates changing this article name. --Colonel Cow 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you bring up a great point, but fail to hone in on it. You say that the longer form is used when the shorter form can refer to a more general place (or multiple places). Is not Moldova a perfect example of this? It also seems to me that Moldova should point to the disambiguation page, and then users can choose what they had really intended from their query (like Georgia does).--Andrew c 14:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew C's assesment. I don't really see a clear defined precedent here though. There are examples for both sides so one can't argue there is a precedent.--DannyBoy7783 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not notice that there is already a disambiguation page for Moldova (I thought Moldova redirected to Republic of Moldova and there was no disambiguation page already). As such, Moldova should redirect to that disambiguation page. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All of the articles you name really should be at their short forms. They are in any other reference work--I mean, take a look at a map. Some are special cases and can't be resolved, specifically Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo, which share a name and are thus by necessity at these titles, though convention has made these long forms the short forms in common speech as well. The only reason other country articles aren't at their short forms is because of the prejudices of people connected with the "issues". It's an intangible feeling that once they let itself be called something, it's an admission of defeat. The whole thing is stupid and makes us look stupid. And it might be interesting to note that the article from the CIA World Factbook is titled "Moldova". This article survived until now at Moldova without real problem--that is this article's precedent; I think it will be survive without issue at the same name.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My concern is not for the title of the article, but what page comes up when someone searches the word "Moldova". My position was that Moldova should redirect to the disambiguation page, where the country, historic region, etc. are all listed. Do you or anyone else object to that change? It is clear that Moldova can refer to a number different things, and I believe that is the purpose of disambiguation. If this proposal is accepted, the next argument would be over the title of this article: Moldova (country) vs. Republic of Moldova. --Andrew c 03:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too concerned. No one is going to confuse Moldova with the region. Nobody actually knows about it anyway. Moldova should be the country, with an {{Otheruses}} tag at the top directing interested users to a Moldova (disambiguation) page or the like. The Moldova article should be reserved for that which it is almost universally used. There's no real question about whether 99.9999% of the people who come here will be looking for the country anyway. The other 0.0001% can learn how to use a link.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can not understand the reason why the article could not be renamed simply "Moldova". --Vasile 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Second that. We need to submit the formal proposal to WP:RM. --Irpen 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually think the current situation—Moldova as a redirect to the article at Republic of Moldova—is a perfectly OK solution. A knowledgable English speaker looking for the region rather than the country will use Moldavia. And someone who types in Moldova will get the country, as they should. Why should they care that it is via a redirect? If it keeps some people happy to have the article at Republic of Moldova rather than Moldova, I don't really see any big negative.

On the other hand, I find the naming of Moldova (Romanian region) weird: in English, this is far more likely to be called Moldavia than Moldova. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsourced information

However, polls show that nowadays less than 30% of the Moldovans support the unification.

AFAIK, there was absolutely no poll, so no, we can't possibly know how many people support it. bogdan 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the majority of people want to unite with Romania. Romania represents economic prosperity, while Russia only nightmare. All the moldovans hate russians.

This is it. Hatred and other outbursts of extreme forms of negativity and evil feelings are well paid by your masters. And, yes, this is wonderful, to listen to the song on "economic prosperity" of Romania. Call those folks at bucharest, they should definitely know - otherwise they'd commit suicide before realizing their enormous wealth. Good luck, "majority of people". Continue barking, sitting at the end of a chain held by your supervisors.

Language

"demonstrates that a formal text in Romanian and Moldovan is identical."

This should be changed to "nearly identical"; the two texts aren't identical, and even linguistically there are two differences (Moldovan use of [î] and "un" where they are not found in the Romanian text). The Jade Knight 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

HUH?...this should not be changed into "nearly identical". Your proposal is misleading. There are no differences between them. You mean you can't read romanian? [î] or [â] is the same letter. Even in Romania before 1989 there was used [î] rule. Is just a rule not a difference.

People who have no clue about the language should not make baseless statements. Constantzeanu 17:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I am going to unprotect the article. It has been protected for 7 weeks. As a wiki, we can't really go beyond that. If it gets bad, I'll reprotect. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving to Moldova

Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. bogdan 22:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I support this move, because country articles are never supposed to have the full name in the title. --Khoikhoi 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

YOU HAVE 2 CHOICES *1. Delete it *2. Move it to Moldova--Elmo12456 23:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is that when I search Georgia on the wiki I get the disambiguation page, yet when I search Moldova I get sent to the Republic Moldova ? I was trying to get to Moldova the region of Romania! Thanks in advance! -Romanul

If you would kindly read the debate, you'll notice that the topic has been approached. The name for the Romanian region in the English language is Moldavia, not "Moldova". The disambigation would be useful on Romanian wiki, and only there. At most, this article ought to have a caption on top saying something like Moldova is also the Romanian language name for the region of Moldavia. See my point?Dahn 14:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Whaddya know. The caption it does have is better than the one I proposed. Dahn 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You get a disambiguation page for Georgia because, on a worldwide basis, among English-speakers, two meanings are roughly equally likely. - Jmabel | Talk 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Criminal history?

I know three people - a couple I know and a professor I had - who visited Moldova prior to its independence from the USSR, and all three recall it as the most corrupt part of Eastern Europe in terms of bribery, fraud, etc. A news-related item regarding this is at [2]. Does anyone have first-hand knowledge about the culture of crime in Moldova? I don't want to write anything negative based on my limited knowledge, but, if this knowledge reflects recent Moldovan history, it should be stated in the article, as in the article on Sicily.

That's a personal impression. Bribery is ubiquitous, so always someone runs into it here or there. Moldova no better or worse of the general rule of thumb: the poorer the country, the more visible bribery there. mikka (t) 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Culture section

Moldova has enriched its own culture adopting and maintaining the most beautiful of traditions.

We can't keep that part where it says, "the most beautiful of traditions." I don't think I need to explain why. --Candide, or Optimism 20:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You can clean its POV, but this section is a standard one in descriptions of all countries. mikka (t) 21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I came to this site looking for more information in the tradition of having a Nanashi at a Moldovan wedding. There is NOTHING on this site about the traditions and cultural of Moldova. VERY disappointing. Does anyone know where I can find some actual information on this?

A few points to consider

Ok guys, I have been quiet for quite some time about the subject but as it is right now this article is wrong for a number of reaons. I would like to call your attention on the following points:

• 1) The largest cities section is dead wrong. According to the last census Chisinau has just a little over 640.000 people. Balti has about 122.000 and Tighina is estimated at around 110.000, while Tiraspol at around 165.000 - but certainly not 266.000 - all of Transnistria has just over 550.000.

• 2) The ethnic map depicts Romanians and Moldovans as the same group. Obviously this is a very contested issue. Although most Moldovans on wiki will probably tell you that there is no difference between the two, some ethnic-Russians for some reasons or another will try to force a certain POV that Moldovans are ethnically somewhat different then Romanians. The point is that the view in the world which prevails is that Moldovans and Romanians are in fact the same. So why are we sepparating the two ethnic groups in the demographics section? Please go on CIA WORLDFACTBOOK and see what they have to say there about Moldova. Constantzeanu 02:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

On point 2: We're separating them because the Moldovan census makes this distinction. I agree that it's silly, but the silliness is theirs, not ours. If we aggregate the numbers we conceal an officially-made distinction. We can certainly discuss the arbitrariness of the distinction, but we shouldn't hide it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Emblem

Why is it labeled an "emblem"? Isn't it clearly the arms of the country? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you perhaps not familiar with the definition of the word emblem. Perhaps I can aid you in this case: Just follow this link to find elightenment http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=emblem. TSO1D 03:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that throughout Wikipedia we generally use the term coat of arms. I know we do on all articles related to Spain. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Language and Population

It is not my intention to become entangled in another revert war about this article. The reason I believe that the link to the Romanian language should be included is to allow users to directly research the link rather than learn about the controversy if that is their intention. The Moldovan link is preserved as that is the formal name of the state language. Nevertheless, the gist of that article is that the "Moldovan tongue" is in fact called Romanian by most experts. As a result it makes as much sense to have the Moldovan link as it does to include the Romanian link (the first for political reasons, and the latter for linguistic ones). As for the population, the 3+ million is not logical. I understand that this is the value from the census carried out by the Moldovan government, however it excludes data from Transnistria (where a separate census was carried out). The combined result does in fact yield 4,455,421 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html). TSO1D 03:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can everyone agree the changes before proceeding to revert previous data? Asterion 03:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, it seems you insist in listing Romanian as official language for the Republic of Moldova. This is clearly incorrect, for the Constitutional text:

Articolul 13. Limba de stat, funcţionarea celorlalte limbi

(1) Limba de stat a Republicii Moldova este limba moldovenească funcţionînd pe baza grafiei latine.

Before you continue reverting the article, I would appreciate you list your sources. Whatever your feelings about Moldavian, this is not a political forum but an encyclopaedia and you must respect this fact. Regards, Asterion 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In introduction of the laws concerning the functioning of the languages (september 1989), still applying [3] the linguistic identity between the Romanian language and the Moldovan langauge is mentionated [4]; So, according to the same laws that are functioning in Moldova, it defines the identity between Romanian and Moldovan.

Trolling from User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. mikka (t) 21:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Astorian or should I call you Serhiodudnic?

Trolling from User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. mikka (t) 21:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My alias is Asterion and I will not tolerate any thin-veiled accusations, which I would report to the appropiate sysops if I deem opportune. Your understanding of law is as bad as your manners: A constituion is the supreme legal text of a country. In the R of M Constitution, article 13, the official language is defined as Moldavian. Whether you believe this to be the same as Romanian is completely academic, as the Moldavian Constitution does not. Therefore, as for Wikipedia Guidelines, the only language to be listed in the official language entry is Moldavian. Regards, Asterion 21:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding is very low Astopion. Listen here very careful Astopion: ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF MOLDOVA THE LAWS REGARDING TO THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN REP. OF MOLDOVA ARE THE LAWS FROM 1989!!!! (see here http://presedinte.md/const.php?page=8700&lang=rom ) According to that law it is asserted the identity between Romanian and Moldovan. So much to speak about your knowledge in the matters of Romanian language.

Trolling from User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. mikka (t) 21:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that population field should include data from both with and without Transnistria as it does now. But official language field should say only "moldovan", because we talk about the official name here and constitution calls it like this. Linguistic as well as political points of view should be discussed in the Moldovan language article. --Zserghei 20:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Alhtough I greatly respect Astorian's view on the subject, I don't believe that he truly understands the nature of the dispute regarding the language. I accept the fact that the official name of the language is the "Moldovan language" as declared in the constitution. Nevertheless, this language only exists in the political realm, virtually all linguists deny the existence of the Moldovan language. For this reason, I believe that is logical to include both names in order to allow users to directly research the aspect of the language that interests them most. If they wish to learn about the controversy surrounding the language they can go to the Moldovan link. However, if they want to find linguistic information regarding the language, they will benefit from a link to the internatational name of the language. I don't even understand why some of my dear colleagues here feel so strongly regarding the matter. The only official language listed is the Moldovan language. The link to the Romanian language is only found in parantheses as a link to page that actually describes the language. If my esteemed colaborators would be kind enough to visit the Moldovan page they will understand that this page contains very little linguistic data but only describes the dispute regarding the ethnonym. TSO1D 21:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the Moldovan language := Romanian language dispute. However the official name is Moldavian. This should be linked to the Moldavian Language article and any dispute outlined there. We should stick to Wikipedia Guidelines. Official Language is the language listed in a country constitution. Quoting Wikipedia own article on the term: An official language is a language that is given a privileged legal status in a state, or other legally-defined territory. It is primarily the language of the constitution. I would also suggest you to visit the List of official languages by state. I will therefore remove the term Romanian from the box once again. Asterion 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I will try to answer you TSO1D. Some of our dear colleagues simply cannot hide their hatred towards romanians. They've been blocked for their violations on Anti-romanian articles as well. Some of the contributors even lived in the former USSR like Mikkalai. Now, how can he support the real truth that Moldova was forced to break up from Romania by the soviet tanks? How can he admit the fact that these are identical? Since is obvious that is a soviet artificial language. He will never accept it because he belong to that era. Look at his age! How old is he? And he still think that Moldovan is a separate language. He wants to clean-up this article so that no words, no phrase to reffer to Romania. Like others, they are not interested in the linguistic point of view but the political point of view, in which this case is the sovietic point of view. Mikkalai said once that USSR was a good thing and he missed that. Poor old guy.

Trolling from User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. mikka (t) 21:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at List of official languages by state, Ukrainian is listed as co-official in Transnistria but the same does not correspond with the text in this article infobox. Is this correct? Asterion 22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Moldova does not recognize the authority of Transjnistria. Russian and Ukrainian have no status in Moldova, and by the way, this is among the major roots of the whole Transnistrian trouble. mikka (t) 22:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Asterion, I undertand your argument and it is perfectly logical. Only the language explicitly named in the constitution of a state can be called its official language. And I fully accept this fact. I am not trying to propose the idea that another language should hold the same status. I merely want to also include the international name for the language. If you do not believe me look at the first sentence of the Moldovan language article: "Moldovan is the official name for the Romanian language"

For example look at how the CIA worldbook handled the subject: Moldovan (official, virtually the same as the Romanian language) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/md.html . They state that the Moldovan language is the offical tongue and explain that it is also called Romanian.

An even better example can be found on the US's State department profile of Moldova: Languages: Romanian (officially known as Moldovan). http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5357.htm Now you cannot seriously argue that that organization succumbs to Romanian nationalistic interests. TSO1D 03:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is misdirected. All what you want to say has already been said in the Moldovan language article, and no one is arguing against that. You keep on ignoring the main point: this is an infobox for the official info of the state.

United States and CIA have nothing to do with official definition of the souvereign state of Moldova. You must have to understand there were solid reasons to roll back the "romanization" in Moldova. Adding varions "explanations" here is a disrespect to souvereign state. mikka (t) 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"You must have to understand there were solid reasons to roll back the "romanization" in Moldova."??? What does that even mean. Are you refering to the actual country or to the Wikipedia article. As for your argument that that the infobox is only for the official state language, I absolutely agree with it, I am simply giving the international name of the language in addition to the name used in the Constitution. When the debates regarding the name took place various options were considered, such as Romanian (the term used in the Delcaration of Indpendence). Moldovan, or Moldovan-Romanian. The fact that the name Moldovan was chosen does not mean that this is a separate language but simply a preferred name for a language that is internationally referred to as Romanian. As for your argument that I am disrespecting a sovereign state, I don't even understand what you are talking about. I am not challanging the basis for Moldova's statality nor do I intend to. TSO1D 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an English word "Moldovan language", so it does not requires translation into an "international name". There is even an article about it, where the usage is fully and clearly explained. The infobox is an infobox and must not be stuffed with various "explanations". It is bad that you don't understand what I am talking about. You are challenging the right of the state to call their language as they want. It is just like to call Austrians Germans or say that Belarusian language is a dialect of Russian language mikka (t) 21:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The constitution says:

Limba de stat a Republicii Moldova este limba moldovenească funcţionînd pe baza grafiei latine.

"The state language of Republic of Moldova is Moldovan language, functioning on the base of Latin script."

This phrasing makes two important dsistinctions: (a) Latin script, to distinguish from Soviet times (2) Language is not named "Romanian", despite all "international" logic, and evidently for a good reason you pretend to "don't understand". Putting the "translation" into the infobox amounts to saying "these morons in Moldova even don't know how their language is called." mikka (t) 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, what do you believe are the "good reasons" for using a different name? As I explained, the change has a purely political meaning and no politician (except for Rodina block) would deny the fact that the two languages are the same. By the way, I am from Moldova and I pretty confident that I am acquainted witht the name for the language. I am not trying to make a political statement, I just intend to make the article more logical. It is for the reason that Romanian is the common name for the "Moldovan" language that virtually all major sources have that name in parantheses after the Moldovan language. I don't believe that Wikipedia should make an exception for the benefit of those whose knowledge of the dispute is only superficial.TSO1D 22:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D says: "I am not trying to make a political statement" - just as Moldova made a political statement by calling its language Moldovan, you, by adding and unnecessary "translation" (available one mouse click away), are making an opposite statement. Once more: infoboxes are navigation tools, not places for discussion. A very simple cut-off, otherwise you will see all kinds of "explanations" there. mikka (t) 01:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am Romanian, I speak Romanian, and I believe Moldovan to be Romanian in fact. That being said, there's this:

• all mentions about the language's existence or relation to Romanian can be referred to the article for the language, and just there. No need to push an agenda every single sentence - it is, simply, in bad taste.
• the fact that the wrong concept of Moldovan exists still qualifies it (or, indeed, qualifies it even more) for an article, and references to it by name in other articles. Galician language is argued by many to be Portuguese - but it still has an article and reference by name. Hell, even Australian English has one - and is referred to using that name in several articles.

Please make sure you don't take this out of context. Dahn 01:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, we have to stick to Wikipedia Guidelines. Official Language is the language listed in a country constitution: "An official language is a language that is given a privileged legal status in a state, or other legally-defined territory. It is primarily the language of the constitution". Regards, Asterion 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant. I realised I now my post wasn't clear enough. Dahn 02:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. I did not get what you meant. Cheers, Asterion 02:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been vanquished and surrender.TSO1D 03:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think TSO1D's 22:53, 30 January 2006 suggestion was on the mark: [[Moldovan language|Moldovan]] ([[Romanian language|Romanian]]) ==> Moldovan (Romanian). But I understand the notion of keeping it simple in the infobox, and I won't fight over it. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I will fight a bit over it. The argument of Asterion is that this is how the language is called in the constitution. But the language is regulated by the Academy of Moldova, which calls it Romanian. I will therefore change "Moldovan" to "Moldovan(Romanian)". Note that I do not question the existence of the official language. I'm just trying to put it in perspective (which in this case is justified). Dpotop 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I clarified a sentence in the "Language" section of the article. You tend to not give any importance to this law, but this is the law that regulates the official use of languages in Moldova. There is only one law on languages (so not "a september 1989 law"). Also I think that Romanian should be put next to Moldovan in the info box, because it clarifies the language. The CIA factbook does the same, and I know also other publications that do likewise. After all it is official that the two languages are identical (according to that same law from 1989 that still applies) --Danutz

Actually, the whole point is to keep POV pushing out of the infobox. Let Academy of Moldova regulate Romanian language, but the official language of the state is declared as Moldovan, not Moldovan(Romanian) and not Romanian. I am glad that Moldova is democratic enough to permit different opinions to coexist, but the infobox is about the state, not about its academy. Wikipedia does not have to copy blindly the CIA factbook. If you think that CIA does not have its own agenda, you are severely mistaken, colleague. mikka (t) 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Laws are not issued by the Academy, but by the guvernament, and approved by the parliament. What has to do the Academy with this? That is another issue. I'm not sure that the Academy even existed in 1989. --Danutz

This is my whole point: the language is officially called "Moldovan", and the opinion of the Academy is irrelevant. mikka (t) 20:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the entire point of the Moldovan vs. Romanian discussion here is law vs. common sense. The only way the Moldovan language exists is as an object of law, as defined by the Constitution of Moldova. I respect that, hence I write Moldovan. However, when some foreigner reads that infobox, he/she must be informed of the fact that in Romanian and Moldovan are the same language for all practical purposes. This is why I put Romanian in parenthesis. Dpotop 07:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Danutz. That is POV pushing. Any language controversy must be highlighted in the Moldovan language page. Let's keep the language entry as for Wikipedia standards, which means referring to the country written constitution. Therefore, the only neutral option is Moldovan. I already explained you this in the Spanish Wikipedia article. Regards, Asterion 21:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Asterion, the controversy is highlighted in the Moldovan language page, in fact that is all that page is about. The problem is that the Moldovan page has virtually no linguistic information but simply discusses the political aspect of the issue. You have to understand that Romanian and Moldovan are not similar but are absolutely identical as virtually all experts and native speakers will attest to. The only difference between the written language on both sides of the Prut River is some orthographic disparity regarding the use of the circumflex i or a. Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that it is the same language. You have to understand that there is no real dispute about this fact, it is not as if the Romanians would maintain that the languages are the same whereas the Moldovans would insist upon the fact that the languages differ. The only real point of contention in Moldova is the name given to the language, not its being the same as Romanian, even Stati (the main "expert" supporter of the Moldovan name) accepts the fact that the literary forms of the two languages are exactly the same. Therefore by including the two names for the language on Wikipedia (as sources such as the CIA factbook as well as other proffessional encyclopeidas have done) is a logical step in providing the readers of Wikipedia the choice to research the political debate regarding the name as well as to go immediatly to the page that discusses the linguistic aspects of the language. TSO1D 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no logic in your "logical step". If a person knows the issue, he knows how to research the political issue and ling aspects. If he doesn't, how he would know where the "linguistical asects" are? By clicking Romanian language first, he will not become any smarter, and he would have to click Moldovan language anyway. So I say keeping two links makes an unnecessary confusion as to what the hell this means. `'mikka (t) 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think, that the "official language" field should contain only Moldovan language, as it is defined in the constitution. If someone thinks that "Moldovan language" article discusses only political side, he is free to add some linguistic aspects there or write something like "For linguistic aspects see Romanian language". But a good place for this is the language article, not the article of the country, where writing of one language in parentheses just confuses an unfamiliar reader. --Zserghei 08:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that including both links creates more confusion than alternative versions. The name in parantheses implies that this link presents the actual name of the language whereas the first name represents the official name. A potential stranger might be confused by simply going to the Moldovan language page more as he would immediatly be exposed to a barrage of information of the differing viewpoints regarding the name of the language, the historical background of the orthographical differences between the version espoused by the Romanian Academy of Sciences and the Moldovan government, etc. On the other hand clicking on the Romanian language link would immediatley present him with information regarding the language, i.e. it is a Romance language similar to Spanish and Italian, etc. I realize that the existence of the two links can cause problems for users but I don't see a better alternative. Simply leaving the Romanian link might allow users to see information about the language, however since Moldovan is the name used in the Constitution it makes sense to include this name as well. Do you think it would be better to revert to the older version of the page, where only hte name Romanian existed in the info-box and the dispute was briefly discussed in a sub-section of the article with a link to the Moldovan language page where the conflict was analyzed more thoroughly? TSO1D 17:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, that the better idea is to leave only Moldavian language in infobox as it's the official name. There is already "Language" section in the article. So my suggestion is not to insert Romanian in infobox, but to write instead of "Main article: Moldovan language" in the language section "Main articles: Moldovan language, Romanian language". In my opinion, it doesn't lead to a confusion present in the current version. --Zserghei 08:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Serghei, I added the Romanian language link in the language section along with the Moldovan language link. However, I don't believe we should remove the two names from the infobox. The infobox should provide a quick overview of the country's information, and although the existence of the two links might cause some confusion, removing them will not truly aid anyone. For example, a user who would want to find some basic information regarding Moldova could just look at the box and see that the Romanian language is the state language (albeit oficially known by another name), I believe this is sufficiently clear from the format of that section of the box. TSO1D 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed romanian from the infobox by my arguments given above. --Zserghei 14:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I re-inserted romanian in the infobox by my arguments given below yours. TSO1D 15:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement "Romanian language is the state language". This is POV pushing against the official definition. That they are the same is not "basic information". Otherwise we wouldn't have "Moldovan language" article (some of Romanian nationalists here really wanted to kill it). `'mikka (t) 17:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Knowing the predominant language of a country is basic information. Now, no one can really disagree with the fact that Romanian is the state language of Moldova, although a different name is used in the constitution. For instance text books approved by the Ministry of Education for the teaching of the state language are titled "Romanian Language". I realize that the official stance of the government is different, however this is only in regards to the name. Therefore, I believe that it makes sense to include the actual name of the language along with the title preferred by the government. TSO1D 17:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Country infoboxes are for official definitions. They must be kept devoid of various "explanations", which are POV pushing. Recent Moldovan census doesn't confirm your opinion that it is "predominant language" More than half didn't think so. `'mikka (t) 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you are mistaken Mikka. According to unofficial results from the last census, 55% of the Moldovans/Romanians in the country named their language as Romanian. I assume that the majority of those who chose Moldovan are among the older rural populace. I don't understand how you cannot accept the fact that Romanian is the predominant language of Moldova. Slightly less than 80% of the population is Romanian/Moldovan, and what language do you think they speak? TSO1D 18:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I am mistaken about numbers. Still 45% "older rural" have the equal rights. And let me remind you, it is rural popolation where the original language is usually preserved. Ethnographers don't swarm in towns. They go countryside. Also, please don't make guesses what I acccept and what not. What I do accept is that right now the situation is in an indeterminate state. Therefore I am insisting on keeping things strictly neutral and where they belong. If Academy of Sciences is pro-Romanian, just wait and see whether they overcome the "older rural" (I trust you didn't mean to add '...and stupid, not knowing their good'). I'd hate to see wikipedia follow the steps of CIA which nonchalantly declared that the population of Moldova is 100% Romanians already 15 years ago. `'mikka (t) 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I did not intend to insult the rural population by any means. I also agree with you that the Romanian language was better preserved in the countryside, in the form of the traditional Moldovan dialect of it. During Soviet times (and even now to some extent) if one went to a city, the Russian language was spoken much more often than Romanian. This is due to the fact that rural people tend to be less flexible, or tractable. However, 45 years of Soviet propaganda dispersed through the educational system, media, etc., changed them greatly. For this reason, the younger generations tend to accept the Romanian identity of their language in greater numbers than older citizens. TSO1D 19:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Official language name is Moldovan. So, appeals to all kinds of unofficial results of the census is just a POV pushing. --Zserghei 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't trust you. Are you saying that Moldovan is not essentially Romanian? Iasi.

I did not use the census results to bolster my position on the inclusion of the word Romanian to describe the state language, but rather to respond to one of Mikkalai's questions. As for the including the real name of the language, I still support that for all the reasons listed above. TSO1D 20:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Population

The population estimate should represent an estimate of the entire population of the international entity MOldova. For the census section, it makes sense to exclude Transnistria as the national census was not carried out in the separatist territory (unless the data is to be combined with the Transnistrian results). However, in the main estimate section, the inhabitants of Transnistria have to be taken into consideration. TSO1D 13:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Very accurate. Iasi.

Territory of RM part of Moldova

I removed the description of the Principality as Romanian(Vlach). It appeared a bit clumsy and not really needed. The general section is a brief overview of the country and doesn't need to go into too much detail. TSO1D 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. Iasi.

Întrebare/Question

Cine sunt persoanele care nu acceptă că limba română e identică cu aşa zisa limbă moldovenească? Cine mai crede în ziua de azi că există o limbă separată, de sine stătătoare? --Iasi 20:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please translate into English. `'mikka (t) 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I will try but it will take me too much time. Meanwhile I will present all of you a study in romanian language.

His question is "Who doesn not accept the fact that the Romanian language is identical to the so-called Moldovan language? Who in this day still believes that it [Moldovan] is a separate and independent language?" TSO1D 20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oare mai are cineve îndoieli că această limbă nu e limba română? Iasi.

Official language

There is an edit-conflict going on, whether Romanian should be placed as an official language of Moldova. This should be easy to solve; it is not a question of whether Romanian and Moldovan are interchangable (the Moldovan census shows that they are), but rather what term is official. I know the census shows that many Moldovans stated that their language is Romanian, but is Romanian under that name also recognized as official in Moldova? Alexander 007 23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. The official terminology is Moldovan and this is what Wikipedia should say. Official Language is the language listed in a country constitution: "An official language is a language that is given a privileged legal status in a state, or other legally-defined territory. It is primarily the language of the constitution". Regards,Asterion 00:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)