Talk:Moldova/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

moldovan flag

Does anyone know why the moldovan flag has the flag of the ottoman empire in it in the form of a bulls horn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.187.200 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not the Ottoman Empire's flag. The bull's horns make it look like a half moon... It is just a coincidence, and has nothing to do with the Ottomans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.174.72 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible Moldova project

Anyone interested in a dedicated group, which is initially proposed to begin as a task force, dedicated to improving content relating to the nation of Moldova is more than welcome to indicate their interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Moldova work group. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Xasha's edits

Xasha, I reverted your additions, because I thought many things you added violated NPOV, and it would have been too much of a hassle to try to remove that content. I will try to go back and reintroduce the more uncontroversial edits you made. Some of the things that you added that I found objectionable are saying that the Council only voted for union with Romania because of the influence of the Romanian army, the statement that Romanians wanted Moldovans to view them as brothers, changing Romanian to Moldovan in the inter-war period, even though in the Romanian census the population was recorded as Romanian, and a few other things. Due to the controversial nature of this section, please describe some of the more extensive changes you wish to make on the talk page first so that other users can discuss them. TSO1D (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after I reintroduced some your changes, it seems that the difference between your version and the current version isn't that great. I only omitted a few sentences and words. Please feel free to discuss those issues here. TSO1D (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They were all from the book "Nation-building and Contested Identities", published in the same time at Iasi's Publirom and Budapest's Regio Book in 2001. The author is a lecturer at the University of Bucharest [1], so you can't say it's propaganda or lies. Here's a presentation of the book. You may not like it, because it doesn't fit the traditional nationalist history, but it is souced. From what I've read on policy pages, you must accept this text unless you can prove the source is biased. However, I'll let you think about it (or prove me wrong) before restoring the text. Xasha (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia policy in this regard is a bit more complicated. Please take a look at WP:NPOV. One aspect of this policy is that simply because something is sourced does not automatically qualify it to be included. It also has to reflect a neutral point of view attributing all disputed issues to a particular source, providing multiple sources for those issues, and not giving undue weight to one side. Furthermore, it is often better to add details to the relevant subarticle, for example that would be History of Moldova in this case. TSO1D (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what's a NPOV? This is an article of a lecturer of the University of Bucharest, in a book edited by a reputable Romanian publisher and favourably reviewed by Romanian-American historian Vladimir Tismăneanu, so you can't accuse it of Soviet propaganda or manipulative POV. I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that disputes what that source says. If there are some Romanian nationalist who say otherwise, it's not my job to search their writings for their personal views. I find it stupid to prevent the publication of some information just because there may be some book in the world that may dispute it.Xasha (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

About the census in interwar Romania: we have proofs that a signifiant number of Ukrainians were counted as "Romanians who had forgotten their mother language", so it's no surprise there were no Moldovans in the census. (It's the only Bessarabian census with no Moldovans - Romanians, on the other hand, appear in every census since 1897). The policy in Romania nowadays is the same: if you say you're a Moldovan, Oltenian or Vlach, you're counted as Romanian.Xasha (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the census, you can define yourself however you like. For instance, in the last census, there were around 100 people who claimed to be "Dacians". :-) bogdan (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So how come no Moldovans or Vlachs?Xasha (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, did it contain a blank field too, like the last Russian one? Were there any Hobbits counted? :-) --Illythr (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

From census data: "In the data processing at certain ethnic groups were included: the Romanians – also include the persons who declared themselves Aromanians (25053 persons) and Macedonian-Romanians (1334 persons)", ("Vlach" is exonym for "Aromanian", meaning they don't call themselves "Vlachs" other people, Greeks and Serbs call them "Vlachs") I don't know about Moldovans, I bet there were not more than couple of hundreds who declared themselves "Moldovans" I don't know about "Dacians" haven't found the info, but it's very much possible, the number is probably included in the 151615 "Other ethnic groups" before you jump to the conclusion that most of the 151615 are "Moldovans" in North-East region there are only 6765 "Other ethnic". So there you go... Ah, and hobbits are there too, the ones who declared themselves as such, the rest go undercover. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that all people in Moldavia west of Pruth declared themselves Moldovans in 2002, just that the Romanian government didnt change it's attitude towards Moldovans since 1930. However, I think Moldovans are counted as Romanians, as the Vlachs, rather than "Other ethnic groups". Is there any way to get the raw results of the census (that doesn't add people based on Romania's government policy)?Xasha (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that, when there was an aggregation done it was clearly specified in text. I've never met somebody from Moldavia who declare himself/herself "Moldovan" or "Moldavian" in the sense of ethnicity. Like how Americans declare themselves "New Englanders" or a "Yankees" that doesn't mean "non-American", during the census I doubt many of them declares themselves "Yankees". (and there is no anti-yankee conspiration either...)-- AdrianTM (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meetings before the results were released they discussed this "problem", and decided to take care of it by adding the results. Did you meet all the 4,7 million? And the US census is very different from the usual Eastern European census. But let's come back to our discussion: Why were sourced informations deleted from the article?Xasha (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

About the census, I agree with you, if people had declared themselves as "Moldovan", they would have been recorded as "Romanian." But that is exactly my point, we should be presenting the results as they were recorded. TSO1D (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but this would have been mentioned just like Aromanians were included in the count and it was mentioned, the census was done by professionals who would not invalidate the results by just recording in a different category. No, I haven't met all the Moldavians (I mean those from Romania, not "Moldovans"), but I haven't met one who didn't consider himself/herself Romanian, of course there's still time... there are even some Texans who don't consider themselves Americans... I don't doubt that there are some who don't consider themselves Romanians, but again that's beside the point, the point is that this is about Moldova not about Romania -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, why isn't there any article about the Romanian region of Moldavia?Xasha (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

there is. TSO1D (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's about the principality of Moldova, so it covers whole mediaeval Moldavia and 50 years of Cispruthian Moldavia. Nothing about Moldavia as part of Romania (state which appeared in 1862). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xasha (talk • contribs) 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Moldova (region) redirects to Moldavia, I guess what needs to be said about region can go into Moldova article, that's how I interpret the redirect. If people consider that's something important to be said about the region that doesn't fit well in Moldavia article then they can edit here directly and remove the redirection. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Xasha,

Please do not take my edits as a sign of aggressiveness. I tend to edit boldly, but I wish to believe I tolerate and listen and change my opinion if proven with good arguments. I believe that helps identify the core the problems, avoids mixing several issues, and brings the dispute, if any, to a small number of points. Now, I'd like to answer some of your observations. But before I want to thank you for your contribution. Whether we agree on some political issue or not, it does not mean we can not be nice and civilized, and respect each other's opinions. Anyway, I am not trying to change your opinion about anything, as I am sure you are not trying to change mine. We are here to edit the article, to convey facts/sources/(sourced) arguments in a neutral tone. In fact, I'd add "also to explain to the world" that there are certain divergent opinions about certain things.

Refer to this change.

• why mention an invalid treaty? It is the first time I hear that the treaty of paris is invalid. If that is true, I think we should first proper discuss that issue at the article of that treaty, because it would have many-many more implications in hundreds of articles. So I believe, we need a lot of feedback there. Please, just let me know when you raise the question there, I'd be very eager to listen to your arguments. You just have to present them to a larger audience, than the talk page of a single article.

It's basic international law. A treaty becomes valid when all parties ratify it. Japan never ratified it. Here's an analysis from a prestigious Romanian historical magazine [2]:

"Tratatul de la Paris din 28 octombrie 1920 nu s-a pus niciodata în practica. Pentru ca nu a fost ratificat de Japonia (Rusia sovietica a stiut sa cointereseze eficient Japonia pentru a o determina sa nu semneze, iar diplomatia româna s-a miscat greu si cu mare întârziere în spatiul asiatic). Astfel ca el n-a putut fi invocat de români în 1940. Si nici în 1947. Si nu poate fi invocat nici azi, la alte gânduri basarabene. De parca Nistrul s-ar fi mutat definitiv pe Prut."

This is exactly what I am talking about. We are deciding here whether an international treaty is valid or not. We have no authority to do this. All we can do, is copy the opinions of people who have authority. Otherwise, we are doing original research WP:OR, which is automatically deleted. And again, we can not argue in Moldova that it is not valid, and in Romania and in 100 other articles that it is valid. It has to be discussed elsewhere, in Treaty of Paris. :Dc76\^talk 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not deciding nothing. We are not the UN or the League of Nations. Since Japan didn't ratify it, it is invalid. It's the same thing as the European Constitution: it has been signed by all EU countries, it was ratified by a lot of countries, but France and the Netherlands didn't ratify it, so it's invalid, and they had to create another. No original research, but basic international law, which, moreover is also supported by a prestigious source.Xasha (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did not understand what I meant. You suggest that we apply the "international law". Which is automatically WP:OR. The most we can do is cite sources. You can definitively say "Some claim (and give the reference) that the treaty is invalid because ..." That's what I am suggesting you to do. This way, you would edit in a scholarly way. I'm afraid your edits currently are more of a politician or journalist way to edit. :-) :Dc76\^talk 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact is simple: The only source we have says it's invalid. The right formulation is "X author claims this was invalid, while nobody ever claimed the contrary." My style is encyclopedic, yours is something "I know this happened and this not". You must remeber you're not God, so just by "knowing" something, you don't make that a truth.Xasha (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I told you a hundred times, the issue belongs to the article Treaty of Paris. Are you afraid to pursue your point there? Prove your point there. European countries had mutual assistance treaties with Romania, had consulates in Chisinau. Would you open a consulate in Chisinau if you don't recognize? Only USSR did not recognize.:Dc76\^talk 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll edit the article too. So you "know" European countries recognized Romanian annexation of Bessarabia and opened consulates in Chisinau, or you have sources to prove it?Xasha (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Romania did not annex anything. We made union with Romania in 1918, just as we did not made union with it in 1991. It's us, not Romanians. About consulates, for example the Italian consulate was later a NKVD/KGB headquater, and hundreds of people where killed there. What sources do you want, that there were treaties between Romania and Britain/France/US/Italy/Germany/Poland/Czechoslovakia/Yugoslavia/etc. Just read more of WP about foreign relations of Romania in the interwar period and you will find dosens of references. I do not tell you to believe me. No, please, don't believe me. But, please, take some time to read as well, not just chose 3-4 articles and edit those. Read more!!! :Dc76\^talk 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It aneexed Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania. The Diet was pressured into proclaiming Union with certain condition. Giving the fact the Romanian gvt refused that conditions, and those conditions were dropped illegaly, the proclamation was de facto invalidated. Do those treaties specify that they recognize the annexation of Bessarabia. As for the US, in its census tables used Bessarabians or Russian when reffering to the immigrants from the region. Why would the Us have done that if they ackowledged the annexation?Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand or not that your POV on Transylavania, Bukovina, etc is irrelevant for Bessarabia?

Well, no offense, but bother reading them, pls. I have better things to do than find you 100 links. When you find the treaties, if you see there "not recognized", please call me.

B/c they were emigrants from before, or b/c they were ethnic Russians. There were also many Romanian emigrants to US, did you check those numbers?:Dc76\^talk 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't mean Bessarabia wasn't annexed by Romania.

I brought you a prestigious sources that the only treaty explicitely recognizing the annexation was invalid. It's your job to bring source that this or that country recognized it, otherwise we don' mention that supposed recognition.

I was talking about the post 1918 emigrants, and records mentioned country of origin most of the time, not ethnicity. So what? I've never denied Romanians emigrated to the US in the period.Xasha (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• the pressure form Romanian army was not towards the union, but 1) to bring order and 2) occasionally to slow the agrarian reform! This definitively deserves more elaboration. But in a proper sub-article, like Union of Bessarabia with Romania or Sfatul Tarii or Moldavian Democratic Republic. Here we just say what happen. Since there are clear different opinions, did or did not Romanian army influence, we should not favor one of them. In other words, we need to "outsourse" the issue to proper article devotted to the respective historical events.

From Charles King's "Moldovans", pg. 35:

"with Romanian troops already in Chisinau, Romanian planes circling around the meeting hall, and the Romanian prime minister waiting in the foyer, many minority deputies chose simply not to vote."

From Cristina Petrescu's "Contrasting/Conflicting identities", pg 156(see credentials above):

"it is reasonable to suppose that the presence of Romanian troops in Bessarabia created a situation in which the majority in the Sfatul Tãrii decided to rally the faction that was advocating the union with"

First of all, it is an opinion, it is not a legal fact. There is no Romanian Army ultimatum or smth like that. Now, let's suppose it its true. so what? if some of those 36 instead of being honest with themselves thought otherwise, it is a problem those individuals have with themselves and their electorate. Noone pressured the 86 who voted for to do so. In fact, those 86 repeatedly called for union for months prior to that session! It is simple arithmetic here. 86 pro, 3 against, 36 abstained. BTW, the 3 against, do you know what happened to them. They were normal people afterwords, noone persecuted them for anything. Balamez was even a succesful politician, and has died... in 1941 in an NKDV prison... for being a member of the Sfatul Tarii. "The devil punishes his own" :Dc76\^talk 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pressure" is not legal of course. It's quite important: just some months before, with no millitary support whatsoever from the (White) Russian government, the Diet decided to join Russia. Days after Romanian troops entered Chisinau, Moldova split from Russia and was annexed to Romania. Magic? Also, remeber I brought two sources proving Romanian military pressure, can you produce sources supporting the lack thereof? Cause if you can't, there's no dispute whatsoever... just 2 reliable source vs anonymous wikipedia editor Dc76. Xasha (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please give a source saying Sfatul Tarii decided to join Russia? What do you mean by "Days after Romanian troops entered Chisinau, Moldova split from Russia and was annexed to Romania." That is total news to me. The Romanian troops entered Moldova after repeated calls from the government of the Moldavian Democratic Republic to help quill the security situation given the large number of deserters from the Russian Army. Afterwards, Moldova proclaimed independence. And Moldova joined Romania by its own will, it was not annexed. I am not trying to deny your right to produce any sources, just place them where they supposed to be. This article should only contain a very-very general overview, not so many details. That's what I am saying. I can produce and will definitively sources saying what happened exactly on that day: who invited who (Moldavians invited the Romanian prime minister, he did not come out of his imagination), Moldavians, not Romanians called for union. I don't, though, understand what sources you want denying that there was any pressure. You can not ask for sources "denying something". Sources "claim", don't "deny". Your sources and my sources can stay together in the same article, and I see no problem with that. But, As I said, let's move to the proper article for this discussion. Cheers,:Dc76\^talk 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is common knowledge for everyone interested in history. But let's read the proclamation of the Moldovan Democratic Republic of 2 December 1917:

"În puterea temeiului acesta şi avînd în vedere aşezarea rînduielii obşteşti şi întărirea drepturilor cîştigate prin revoluţie, Basarabia, sprijinindu-se pe trecutul său istoric, se declară de azi înainte Republică Democratică Moldovenească, care va intra în alcătuirea Republicii Federative Democratice Ruseşti, ca părtaş cu aceleaşi drepturi."

"Numai astfel vom scăpa noi ţara noastră şi vom feri-o de peire pe maica noastră a tuturor – marea Republică Democratică Rusească."

Surprised? They forgot to tell you this in those "history" classes they teach you in Romania, isn't it? Romanian army entered Bessarabia at the request of a non-Moldovan White Russian general. The Moldovans were quite surprised by this move, and the population didn't quite like their overstay. Moldova was annexed by Romania. Otherwise, you should also say "The Moldovan people, represented by its vanguard, the PCM, requested to join the USSR." 2 sources state the pressure, and none denies it. So, according to wikipedian rules, my information can stay, yours not.Xasha (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

care va intra în alcătuirea Republicii Federative Democratice Ruseşti E scris la timpul viitor! A intrat? Nu. Atunci ce mai vrei? A ales sa se uneasca cu Romania. BTW, I learnd history in Moldova, not in Romania. Please, stop personal allusions.

Care to name that general? I can name the minister of foreign affairs of the Moldavian Democratic Republic, Ion Pelivan. He was the one, who convinced Romanian government to send one division.

PCM can consider itself the vanguard of anything. But it was not a democratically elected parliament!

I do not deny that some sources can say some pressure might have existed upon someone. But that is the problem of those (a clear minority of) individuals who abstained from voting against their own conscience. :Dc76\^talk 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Every native Moldovan (and most Romanians for that matter) will understand that is just a formulation of the administrative jargon. Moldova did join Russia. Otherwise, why did it have to proclaim independence later?

Of course, General Shtcherbatcheff, the Russian Commander-in-Chief at Iasi. Pelivan had no mandate to request a foreign intervention, and Romania didn't consider its request. Even if it would had, the situation is the same as with the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968: some officials, without any mandate, requested foreign intervention, and Soviets, like Romanians, decided to respond this request.

Sfatul tarii wasn't "elected" more democratically than the Moldovan soviet in 1940.Xasha (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no source saying there wasn't pressure, but there are 2 that confirm it. Thus we say it was under presuure (that is if we want to build an encyclopedia, not a collection of personal opinions of anonymous users)Xasha (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it did not leave Russia yet!

So it did not join, and it did not leave. Did they teach you logic in school?Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

MDR's government repeatedly asked General Shtcherbatcheff for troops to help keep order, but he had none to spare, they were desintegrating. Shtcherbatcheff helped as much as he could in the months before. And he was commander in chief at the front, not in Moldavia. You comparison to Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia is your personal POV. BTW, in Moldova there were no fight with the population. The pro-communist and anarchist gangs just fled.

The fact is that Moldovans requested support from the Russian Army, and a Russian general was the one who called the Romania army. There was no sever fight, but the population wasn't content either. The comparatian with Prague 68 is valid: some official called for a foreign intervention, without approval from the Parliament in both cases. There was no much fight in Czechoslovakia either.Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, your comparison is irrelenvant for the article. It is your POV. Let's stick to what source says what.

I agree. Since sources say Romanian army pressured the Diet to proclaim union, let's stick to that. Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You want a source saying there wasn't something. How in the heaven name there could be such sources? Sources say something was, not something wasn't (pressure). Your sources say X was pressured, not the entire country. :Dc76\^talk 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's none of my bussiness. We don't write articles based on what you "know", or you what you "know" source would have denied if they would have thought more about it. Union was not voted by the entire country.Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• You erased "the union was recognized by the European countries". I assume this is a mistake you did. why erase this? Noone doubts they did, as none doubts that Russia did not.

There was no official recognition since the treaty was invalid.

Dc76\^talk 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Xasha (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, per my observation above. :Dc76\^talk 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bessarabia was not annexed, because it united. Annexation is when a country has no say. :Dc76\^talk 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Annex: to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state. From Meriamm-Webster Dictionary. Also, the union was proclaimed by a diet under pressure from a foreign army, not by the country.Xasha (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should run a usercheck of Sasha vs. Anonimu. I am willing to bet on it. Nergaal (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure wether that's bad or good, but it should be done if necessary. And it's Xasha, not SashaXasha (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To Negraal: No, it's not the same style. Anonimu did not speak Russian. Xasha to me seems like a person from Moldova whom the communists paid to go study politics abroad, hence his loyalties. Whoever he is, he is not a problem as a user. Some of his edits are. Anonimu had experience with WP, Xasha doesn't. See how Xasha adds 7 controversial changes to one good of his? If he knew enough WP, he would have edit a la "X claims Y (citation)", and his good edit would have been untouchable.

Are all person who declared Moldovans in the last census paid by communists? I really take that as an offense. No mather what I think about the Soviet rule of Moldova, I don't support any form of political extremism, and moreover I didn't came here because someone paid me. Administrators (I've seen that TSO1D's page says he is one of them) should do something to prevent such insults.Xasha (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what the communists try to say, that Moldavian = communist. That's not true. There are 2.8 million ethnic Moldavians/Romanians in Moldova, and only 500,000 voters voted for communits. Mind the fact that there were many non-Moldovans who voted for communists, there are still 2 million Moldovans who do not share the POV of the communists. No, I don't think someone paid you to come here, it would have been too much effort. I think (and you will confirm it) that you share communists' POV upon the events of 1917-1918. Which is in contradiction with scholarly works in history/politics/legal issue. Why you share, it is your business, not mine. I only speculated that there could have been more than simple ideology, I speculated that your social and economic position make you share that POV. If you find my speculation offensive, then I appologize for the speculation. Yet, I do think you share a politically extremist POV. You simply do not realize that it is extremist.:Dc76\^talk 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To Xasha: you have engaged in edit war already. Our dispute is no longer a dispute, but an edit war. And I have a principle: I don't participate in such things. If it leaves the realm of a dispute, I'm out. I think I made clear comments on each of your controversial edits. Hence, you know exactly what is the problem with them. Now, the article is "yours". You can do to it whatever you want. But be careful, other users might request you being sanctioned for vandalism if you continue rv. Continuous reverts are very much not the spirit you should seek. But well, it is your judgement. If you wish to discuss, though, I'll be around. :Dc76\^talk 12:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The only "problem" with my edits is that there are no sources that say the contrary.Xasha (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, sources that would assert a negative are often quite suspect themselves. I think it's best to state that the treaty recognized the union, but Russia did not and move the issue of legality of that treaty into its own article. --Illythr (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly agree. :Dc76\^talk 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as the treaty is mentioned, I think it is necessary to put the info about it's lack of force.Xasha (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly had no force for Russia (and US?), but it was recognized as a legal document by those who ratified it. --Illythr (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The treaty, like most modern treaties, stated it came into force only after it was ratified by all signatories.Xasha (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All this WP:OR. A treaty is a treaty, a constitution is a constitution. Arguing that the EU constitution not being ratified by all making it not valid for any means that all parties not ratifying a treaty means not valid for any is personal speculation. Treaties are regularly signed later, or not signed but resolutions passed indicating conformance to said treaty, or not signed at all (in terms of who participated or was initially named as a party versus who signed). If Japan didn't sign the Treaty of Paris, well, then it didn't agree to any treaty provisions having to do with Japan. (I don't have the text of the treaty, but I rather expect that Japan was not directly involved in any territorial obligations). Everyone else who signed agreed to its bilateral and multi-lateral terms and obligations as those pertained to themselves and the other involved parties. —PētersV (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan signed it, but did not ratify it, so according to the treaty text it never came into force. The only party who participed but refused to sign it was the US.Xasha (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "The only 'problem' with my edits is that there are no sources that say the contrary" is a syllogism. If no one says a statement is untrue, that does not mean that statement is true. Best regards, PētersV (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:-)))))) yeap, it came to that! :Dc76\^talk 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So how can you prove that is not true then? I must say that I fully support your statement about sources on this page: [3] Xasha (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I invite editors to continue this discussion on Talk:Treaty of Paris (1920) for my latest response to this thread. —PētersV (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Hello Moldova/Archive 8! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To Xasha: Don't believe what Russian propaganda tells you

You proposed the following:

just take one of Creanga's books and count the Slavic words not found in standard Romanian

I suggest we start with these tales that are online:

http://www.romanianvoice.com/culture/povesti/ic.php

Please, read them and tell me which words I am not supposed to know. Dpotop (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Romanians shouldn't use dictionaries to read their literature

I'll search one of his books published in Romania and scan the dictionary at the end (the one I've personally seen had about 6 pages of it). You'll have to wait about two weeks.Xasha (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong here, if people are not supposed to use dictionaries in their language then why would such dictionaries exist? As far as I know there is a English dictionary, there is a Russian dictionary, there is a Romanian dictionary, what use do they have if people are supposed to know all the words inside? Besides, a language can have 100,000+ words, a person can know and usually knows much less than that. Your argument doesn't need proof because it's a useless argument any proof that you'd bring will not prove anything. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, have you ever tried to read William Shakespeare ? Do you know that the average person bearly knows 15,000 words in the mother tongue ? The worst book in the world, is the one you learn no word from it. :Dc76\^talk 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's even more to it. If you take, for instance, "Ivan Turbinca", it's about a Russian guy. You do need a dictionary because the guy uses russian (slavic) words. "Pasol na turbinca, ciorti" is in Russian, it's not in Moldovan with Russian words. You do need a dictionary to read it, or someone with knowledge of Russian.Dpotop (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that you wouldn't even find into a Romanian dictionary... maybe "turbinca", but anyway anybody who has a bit of knowledge about language knows that the same language can have different words for the same thing depending of area where the language is spoken, but nobody claimed that the Romanians in Transylvania speak "Transylvanian" because they call corn "cucuruz" (word borrowed from Hungarian), actually if I think well the Romanian spoken there is further from "standard" Romanian then Romanian spoken in Moldavia and Moldova. That brings me to a funny story, there was a guy that spoke with an accent and many kids were calling him "mai Moldovene" (hey Moldavian), the guy was born in Târnăveni... so that should give you an idea how people in Romania are able to distinguish between different accents, that's like somebody from California telling somebody from Alabama, "Hey, I like your Yankee accent". By the way, I've heard that Redneckese is a language, is that true? -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is simple: Moldovans don't need a dictionary to read Creanga, Romanians do. Do Moldovans have a larger memory than Romanians? I doubt it. When a language has a lot of duplets with the same meaning, you talk about two languages. Moldovan and the north transylvanian dialect of Romanian are closer than Moldovan and Standard Romanian. After all, the founders of Moldova came from northern Transylvania. The situation is comparable to Scandinavia: Danish is closer to the Skane dialect of Swedish than to Standard Swedish.Xasha (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what exactly does this discussion have to do with the article? But w/e, I'm interested so I'll jump in. Xasha, I agree with you that it is probably easier for somebody from Moldova to understand Creanga for instance than it would be from someone from the non-Moldavian parts of Romania. However, this is natural, since Creanga wrote in the dialect of Moldavia, it makes sense that Moldavians would be able to understand him easier. The same is certainly true for authors from other parts of Romania as well, they would be more easily understood in the regions of their origin than in others. However, the mere existence of these differences does not automatically mean that different languages exist. For instance, a Muntenian might have the same difficulty reading an older novel from Moldavia as well as from Transylvania, yet few people would argue that these three regions have three distinct languages. Of course the notion of language is not exactly defined, but the dialects spoken in Moldavia (both the parts in Moldova and Romania), Transylvania, and Wallachia are so close to one another that calling them separate languages seems a bit bizarre. Specifically, why would only make that exception for the language spoken in Moldova and not other dialects of Romanian? Furthermore, the literary form of Romanian is identical. However, back to your original point, I don't understand how using a dictionary in order to read older texts is proof of a different language. When I read Creanga or Sadoveanu for instance, there are many words that I don't know and I have to look them up either because they're archaic or obscure regionalisms that I am unfamiliar with. When I was younger I remember asking my grandparents these words and they were usually familiar with them, simply because they had learned an earlier version of the language in the countryside. But does that mean that I speak Romanian and they speak Moldovan? TSO1D (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It proves that non-Russian Slavonic had a more important impact on Moldovan than on standard Romanian. Creanga wrote about 120 years ago, so it's not that old. I've shown Romanians the constitutive acts of the Moldovan Democratic Republic (just 80 years old) in original and they thought I had compilled them myself just to make them look un-Romanian. Moldovan is a language, because up to 2.5 million people, from Tallin to Reni, and from Khotin to Vladivostok speak it as mother language. And a more personal question: are you a Romanian national, or a Moldovan one? (N.B: "national" in the Anglo-Saxon, non-ethnic, sense)Xasha (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, are you linguist? (By the way this is Original Research, but nevermind we can discuss this...) Linguists are actually amazed how uniform is Romanian given the territory and the history, languages like French and German are more fragmented than Romanian, I know of a story of two Germans in a village in Transylvania, the were living across the street from each other, when they met they were speaking Romanian because that was easier than trying to understand each other German dialects. The German spoken in Bavaria is very different from the one spoken in the north, that's normal evolution... English and American English differ considerable more than Romanian dialects. People in Swiss speak German even if they don't consider themselves Germans. It's also a matter of definition, what is a language, the common rule of thumb is that if the dialects are mutually intelligible they are just that dialects not separate languages, in case of Romanian even the word "dialect" is too strong, the word that should be used is "accent" because that's how people detect that the other person is from other part of the country, different words are very few and most of the people know them even if they don't use them (for example people outside of Transylvania know what "servus" means but they never use the word). I have Moldovan friends and they speak in "Moldovan" and I speak in "Romanian" and we never need translator, and no I haven't learned Moldovan and they haven't learned Romanian, by the way I saw that you tagged some documents with (in Moldovan) and I took a look and couldn't find 1 (one) word that I didn't understand, again, I didn't take any course in Moldovan. To me if Moldovans want their own country that's fine, but they shouldn't use cheap tricks thinking that a separate language will bring them more arguments against Romania (assuming that they are afraid that Romania wants to "integrate" them by force), personally, just to clarify the issue I'm against a re-union with Moldova, but politics have nothing to do with the reality, there's no such language, no linguist who respects himself would say that, even serious Russian linguists recognize this. How about Limba noastră the national anthem of Moldova, please tell me which word am I supposed to not know, if you speak Moldovan why did you pick a Romanian text for your national anthem? Or it just happened to be identical with Romanian? I hope you'll realize on what pile of flaming bullshit this theory of "Moldovan language" rests. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Romanian linguist can be amazed by their own theories. You never went to Moldova, so how would you know the differences? Serb, Croat, Bosnian and Montenegrin are mutually inteligible, yet they are different languages. In Romania you may call it "accents", but any foreign linguist will speak about Northern Transylvanian, Banat or Wallachian dialects of Romanian. I don't know what "servus" means. Moldovan and Romanian are mutually inteligible, so it isn't any surpirse you could understood eachother to a large degree. And remember that Moldova has 500,000 Romanian speakers, so maybe you talked with one of them. (Another proof: only 1,100 Romanian ethnics in Moldova have Moldovan as their mother language, but 1,600 use it most commonly. This means that at least 500 Romanian ethnics in Moldova make the differece between Romanian and Moldovan. I couldn't say what words aren't you supposed to know, because I'm not a native Romanian speaker. Our national anthem is in Moldovan. You could search for a book by Mateevici published in Romania, and look at the dictionary at the back of the book, or in the lower part of the pages.Xasha (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• "No. Romanian linguist can be amazed by their own theories" -- search in Google books for Romanian and Moldovan you'd be amazed what a load of books you get written by Americans, English, Hungarians, etc. None of the references that I brought are by Romanian lingusts.
• "You never went to Moldova" -- how do you know? And how is this relevant in this discussion? You are out of arguments and started now with original research and personal items? I'm not going to play this game...
• If the national anthem is in Moldovan and the text is the one in Wikipedia please tell me which word I am not supposed to know (as I've never studied Moldovan). -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The uniformity of Romanian is a Romanian myth.

You would have been swift to note it if you had. When you say American and British English are more different than Moldovan and Romanian, you are supposed to have witnessed both language pairs in action. If you never went to Moldova, how could you?

I'm not a native Romanian speaker, and I don't know all the words you use there. I told you where you can find those words.Xasha (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not according to linguists. You also use circular reasoning: I am wrong because I've never been to Moldova and that's because I'm wrong, because if I ever been to Moldova I wouldn't be wrong. You are holding onto straws... Since you want to go down the path of original research and personal experience, yes, there's not one word in "Limba noastra" that I don't understand, moreover I wouldn't even dream that's written in anything else than Romanian, if you claim that you have a different language why your anthem is in Romanian and is called "Our language". --AdrianTM (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, according to Romanian linguists. If you had been to Moldova, you would be more credible. You said above that Romanian use dictionaries when reading "their' older literature, so I wouldn't know you didn't look in that dictionary (that contains a lot of terms unique to Moldovan). Our anthem is in Moldovan, not in Romanian. The fact you understood it it's a proof the two languages are mutually intelligible to a large degree, thing I have never disputed.Xasha (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Two separate languages that are merely "mutually intelligible" to some degree? WP:OR. WP:OR. WP:OR. WP:OR. WP:OR. I don't speak the same Latvian as my relatives, their conversation is peppered with Russianisms like "davai". So I would contend we speak two different "mutually intelligible" languages because I might need to look up давай? —PētersV (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This concept of separate languages that are "mutually intelligible" boggles the mind, by definition if they are mutually intelligible they are the same language. How are they separate, but yet mutually inteligible? How come the trivial example of "Moldovan" such as the national anthem is identical to Romanian? How is that text Moldovan and not Romanian? Please explain why "Limba noastra" is not Romanian. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montengrin are all mutually intelligible, yet they're regarded as separate languages and all of them are officially recognized in Montenegro. Macedonian and Bulgarian are mutually intelligible, but they're also regarded as separate languages. Even Czech and Slovak mutually inteligible to a signifiant degree. I'd bet that if you take 100 Romanian translators and ask them to translate in their language from an English literal translation, you'd get a very different poem. Because it was written in Moldovan.Xasha (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's politics, not linguistics, for example linguists speak of two dialects, not of two languages in case of Serbo-Croatian. But in any case that's not for us to decide, lots of reliable source point out that Moldovan is a dialect of Romanians and actually a close dialect -- it can be called an accent rather than dialect. As for "because it was written in Moldovan" argument about "Limba noastra" that's another circular argument, you basically say "it's like that, because it's like that" (not to mention that by that time the idea of a separate Moldovan language didn't even exit), and you can't prove that's not written in Romanian. That's the point. And if it were written in Moldovan and there's not a word different from Romanian, doesn't that mean that Moldovan = Romanian? Oh, and by the way the grammar is the same too. So, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... but it's not a duck?! I'm going to continue this discussion when you are going to prove that "Limba noastra" is not Romanians, till then I will leave you alone with your circular arguments. -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So who cares? Stop that accent thing... nobody uses it except Romanians. Moldovan was a recognized language at least since the early 19th century, so it was written in Moldovan. I can't prove it since I'm not a native Romanian speaker. It would be like me giving you a Japanese text and ask you to prove it's not Korean. BTW, checking an online Romanian dictionary, I found at least one word that doesn't have the same sense in Romanian and Moldovan ("hram"). However, considering the Romanian dictionaries generally include a lot of Moldovan words (to help Romanians understand "their" literature), the number of words in the anthem not found in standard Romanian may be higher. Grammar is not exactly the same: it shares the common Romance and Balkan-Sprachebund background, but there are some different features.Xasha (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Stop that accent thing... nobody uses it except Romanians" -- That's demonstrable false, please read page 6 from this material you'll learn something, please note that the authors are not Romanian (at least by name) "considering the Romanian dictionaries generally include a lot of Moldovan words" -- yeah, we stole your words... -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see where Moldovan is called an accent of Romania. Could you paste the specific fragment? (I think 2 sentences or so can't be considered copyright infringement). No, you didn't stole them, you needed them to read Moldavian authors.Xasha (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it only says that "linguists in both countries agree that Romanians and Moldovan are essential the same language" I posted the wrong source, this one only says what "dialect" and "accent"... actually this source says that Moldovan is a dialect of Romanian which is fine by me, but there's another source in the article that clearly says that linguists consider Moldovan "at most a dialect of Romanian" -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But what would you call it? Dialect? It is a separate language only from a political point of view, after all... --Illythr (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While from a strictly linguistically point of view, the language could be called a dialect (as could be Croatian&Serbian, Swedish&Danish, Bellorusian&Ukrainian), there is more to a language than linguistics. Even our officials agree that we use a common literary form (more or less, I'd say). But 2.5 millions all over Eurasia can't be all idiots. Xasha (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They call their language Moldovan, that doesn't mean that they subscribe to the idea that is another language than Romanian, it's also that they probably didn't actually have much contact with other Romanian dialects, it's partially that they are from Moldova so it's normal to call themselves Moldovans. Heck, I wouldn't call them Romanians either... -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be equally wrong to assume they consider Moldovan and Romanian the same language? Also how do you explain the fact there are more Romanians who speak Moldovan in every day life than Romanians who speak Moldovan as their mother tongue?Xasha (talk)

But it can't really be denied, that the literary form of the two is pretty much identical. Otherwise, it would be very strange to note that the primary language taught in Moldovan schools is called "Romanian". I think that the point of this (or, rather that) article is to write about "Moldovan" from the linguistic point of view, noting its similarities with and differences from the main language, and then present the political pov that makes it into a separate language. What's wrong with that? --Illythr (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The linguistic part of that article should also present the things that make Moldovan (non-literary, and even literary)different from Standard Romanian. After all the literary language is used only in a limited number of occasions. The scientific motivation for a separate language should be also presented (quite a lot historians or linguists, Stati being just the most publicized by Romanian and Pro-Romanian Moldovan media). The article should also get an infobox, as do other mutually intelligible languages.Xasha (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the first sentence, as long as that part is not used to support a linguistic argument for its identification as a separate language. But what can this scientific (by science, you mean linguistics, right?) motivation be? I understand, the difference, same as with those other mutually intelligible "languages" you mention here is purely political... As for infobox - if a dialect can have one, why not this dialect? --Illythr (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to looks at what the authors have to say. Romanians could help with Alexander Graur, and I (and probably you too) with Russian and Moldovan scholarship on the matter. It seems that Romanian editors here consider the infobox some kind of insult. Maybe it's the colorXasha (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be very interested to find what makes Moldovan different than Romanian. I've been asking this for a while on this page... I mean I read a text, I understand everything and I'm told I've read a Moldovan text, while I don't remember to have studied Moldovan ever... -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lexic. Phonetics. Some grammar (verbs, pronouns). Of course, all these are much more evident in informal Moldovan. Oh, and just because a word is in the Romanian dictionary, it doesn't mean it isn't a word specific to Moldovan. Here are presented some differences. The guide calls Moldovan a dialect of Romanian. However it uses some strange literary-informal mix. Don't miss the fragment of one of Creanga's stories translated into what seems standard Romanian on page 67. Xasha (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, this is hilarious, not the material, the fact that you want to prove something with it. A language has many registers, read this Register (linguistics), again there's no word that I don't understand there, in Romanian we can say things in many ways, I can say "Era o data o baba" I can say "A fost o data o baba", or "A trait o baba". Frankly I'm not sure which one is supposed to be proper Romanian out of these three options, all three sounds equally right. The only real differences are noted in pages 72/73 (I liked the explanation for "liubov") but two pages of differences don't make a language -- besides in General Moldovenisms most of them are known by any Romanian, a se sui/a se urca or grai/vorbi etc, you or Moldovans might not know the Romanian word because of isolation, but think about it 1/3 of Romanians if not more are Moldavians, of course all the Romanians know these words, some do sound like very regional words "curechi" but other are used all over the Romania "oaspete" or "jumate", etc. That brings me to another point 1/3 of Romanians are Moldavians, do they speak a different dialect than Moldovans in your opinion? -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That was actually a proof that speakers of Standard Romanian aren't accustomed with some common Moldovan features and expressions, so they had to explain them. We use "a fost odata" in Moldovan, not "o data". What about pages 60 to 63? You should really speak with a Moldovan (and I don't mean writing messages on the Internet). Also, note that this is just a basic synthesis of the differences, that wasn't meant at any time to be all-inclusive. Of course you may know some Moldovan words, after all you study these Moldavians authors in school (and I personally think there's no better children book author in the Eastern Romance space than Creanga). The Moldavians in Romania are part of the language continuum. In the south and in the big cities they speak mostly standard Romanian, while elsewhere they speak a combination of the two languages.Xasha (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I think that standard Romanian is "a fost odata" people do make such mistakes... I do make spelling and grammar mistakes from time to time, sorry if my mistakes propagate the myth of a different language, LOL! -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and since you claim that the Creanga story is "translated", I'm curious, do you understand the translated version or it's another language for you? Personally if I saw those text I wouldn't know which one is supposed to be "Moldovan" and which one is supposed to be "Romanian" -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I do (mutually intelligible, remeber?) Although I'm not sure if I would had understood "stupizi" if I hadn't knew English and French. The use of "separa" in Moldovan it's quite technical, and I wouldn't use it in informal speech. Also the future form used in the second text it's quite a strong mark of that common "literary form". Note this is only interpretation, and other Moldovan speaker may have other opinions. After all, as Charles King says, the Moldovan intelligentsia - which I am part of(I hope you're aware of the non-haughty meaning of the term; some Romanian I met weren't) - was Rumanized in the 80s.Xasha (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all if you understand the text, I understand the text why the need to even translate it? As for the word "stupizi" I'm not sure that has even fully entered Romanian, meaning that somebody from the countryside would probably never use it, "separa" sounds there out of the place for me too, as for "voi" vs. "oi" yes that's mark of formal speech, but not of a different language, in informal Romanian, especially at countryside, no matter where: Transylvania, Moldavia, Muntenia, and especially from older people you'll hear the same form. Actually, if I think well I don't use either form, I use "o sǎ merg" almost never "voi merge". So you see, you found three minor issues that are not even specific to Moldovan, it's mostly informal vs. more formal speech. Even if those difference were real not imagined that would not make for a different language -- the difference between the English spoken in NY and the one spoken in Alabama is probably bigger. But since you brought this up, what determined the Romanization in the 80s, sure it wasn't the Communist Romania attraction or the admiration for Ceauşescu... this kind of puzzles me. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who translated it. It was translated by Romanian speakers. If they felt they need to translate it, it's their problem. By doing it, they de facto proved the languages are different. It was influenced by the rejection by some scientist of what they thought as unfit for their stature (i.e. speaking the same language as the peasants) and by the massive influx of Romanian books.Xasha (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Only that they don't call it translation, you do, it's just like presenting the original Shakespeare and a modernized variant... that's not translation, and of course Shakespeare language was much more different from today English than Creanga's Romanian is from today Romanian. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare wrote 400 years ago, Creanga just 100 y ago. If you want to compare something with Shakespeare, compare Neacsu's letter.Xasha (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't like my example, but I think you get the idea, using a different form of a language is not called "translation" even though Shakespeare's English was much different from nowadays English it is still not called translation if somebody uses a modernized variant. In case of Shakespeare that's needed (especially for foreigners) so in a sense is a bad example because in case of Creanga that's not even needed. I want to assume good faith from you, but in this case it's strange to claim that the second text is needed (maybe foreigners who have very reduced vocabulary) but for Romanians it wouldn't pose any problem, it's mainly presenting a text in a different style. Mark Twain wrote in a specific style, you can always change that to a modern, urban English, that doesn't make it a different language and in any case not a "translation", it's called different style, not different language. Is Mark Twain a better example than Shakespeare? Do you get the point? AdrianTM (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, most of this section is pure original research. We're not here to analyze the language, its vocabulary, phonology, registers, etc. If any of you happens to be a linguist and has published works on this subject then please cite those works. This is not the place for a scientific debate. — AdiJapan ☎ 10:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We established this section is mostly about our personal opinions some time ago.Xasha (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean up the article

Let's clean up the article. Anyone knows a good article of some country we can model upon? The history section, in my opinion, should be very-very overview, but with all proper links. List below contemptious issues, and let's settle them one by one. Just propose a diff, and people would answer: good/bad/what improvements/what alternatives.:Dc76\^talk 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

Adrian, the concept of Moldovan as a separate language existed officially since 1924, the inception of the MASSR. The Soviet annexation of Bessarabia occurred in 1940 and was finalized in 1947. By 1945 the front has moved significantly away from there. Your other source, Grenoble, has got it right, on page 90. The other one is in error. Looks like even reliable sources are not correct 100% of the time...

Additionally, the Russian loanwords began entering the language since early 19th century. I'm not sure this can be considered recent. --Illythr (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As a note: Moldovan has been an official language since the early 19th century.Xasha (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Was it really? I know that it was since 1924 in MASSR and since 1940 in MSSR, but in imperial Bessarabia? Wasn't Russian the only official one? --Illythr (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The 1818 Statute of the administrative organization of Bessarabia calls the Moldovan language "official language, in addition to the Russian language". This situation lasted for about 10-15 years. See also here (in Russian).Xasha (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know that. Is it possible that the language was simply named after the people who lived there, the Moldavians without taking note of what the language really is? --Illythr (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Although, considering Russia could have used a common language the same way it used the common religion (as an excuse to annex more Ottoman territory), it's doubtful. Xasha (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To Illythr, yes I've seen that, but two of the sources that I put there use 1944/1945 and I assume they refer to the fact of when the theory was actually relevant/effective, MASSR of course was not Moldova and Moldova was not part of Soviet Union in 1924. We could change that to 1924 though and say that it become effective when Moldova was anexed. However you prefer.-- AdrianTM (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the other source is just mistaken, judging by the brushing notice the event gets there. The issue is somewhat tricky to describe due to the territory being repeatedly recomposed and changing hands (I bet, during the Romanian occupation of 1941-1944 Romanian was used again). Take a look at the Moldovenism (#in ussr) article, maybe the structure can be from there. Illythr (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I used the wording from Moldovenism (it also seemed to be better referenced) Is this better? -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it a little bit. As, per Xasha's source, the term "Moldovan" was used as early as 1818, I changed "did not exist" to "came into view" (is there a better English form for that, btw)? --Illythr (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with "became established on the territory of modern Moldova", it's not clear that's the case, the concept was imposed and it's not clear if it's established at all, since a little bit up in the paragraph it shows that Moldovans call the language Romanian in schools, and it's not also clear how many of the people who call it Moldovan actually think it's a separate language from Romanian, Xasha notwithstanding -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, actually the concept of a different language didn't "come into view", it didn't exist before and that's clearly stated in 3 sources even though they don't agree on the specific year, even if some people were calling Moldovan they were fully aware that's a Romanian accent, so I'm going to follow the sources and revert. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I mean, geographically, that is, "what is now modern Moldova", because Moldova technically exists only from 1991. Besides, there's the 1818 Statute above that does establish "Moldovan" as a "language of office". --Illythr (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But yes, "came into view" sucks, I just can't think up a good equivalent of "came to be considered as". --Illythr (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Considered by whom? No, the concept was created/developed by Russians/Soviets, it didn't came into view or to light, and it didn't come to be considered (at least not by independent linguists, nor by majority of people who were speaking it). -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By local Soviet authorities. After all, this is implied all over the text. No to light is bad. Perhaps, came to be considered? Or just "introduced as"...--Illythr (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to rephrase it once again. It is certainly incorrect to claim that Soviet authorities began referring to Moddovans as Moldovans only after 1940 and this statute suggests that "Moldovan" was used (perhaps for similar goals) also in imperial Russia. --Illythr (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks good I think, just to comment on your comment, Moldovans were called Moldovans in Romania too, even now they are called Moldovans (both sides of the border: Moldova and Moldavia) but the idea of a separate language is rather new invention no matter how people or even language was called, Moldovans could have called their language "Moldovan" just like the dialect spoken in Transylvania (Ardeal) was called "Ardeleneşte", but that doesn't mean that it was considered ever a different language. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this may be a key difference, but I can only speculate whether imperial Russia promoted Moldovenism as well, or it was just a word to denote the people who live there. Say, an offshoot question - since when (approx date) did Romanians became known as "Romanians" (and not, say, "Vlachs" etc) and the language came to be called "Romanian"? --Illythr (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Romanian language" is older that "Romanian ethnic" (a 19th century invention).Xasha (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable false again, see Neacsu. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The letter doesn't refer to "Romanian' as an ethnic term. Also, the Moldavian chroniclers who wrote later all used the demonym Moldovan.Xasha (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because Chinese inhabited the "Rumanian land"... *rolls eyes* -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it relevant to Moldova, anyway?Xasha (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not very relevant, a question was asked, I tried to respond, you provided false info, I tried to debunk it, that's all. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean, specifically the term "Romanian language" as referring to, well, that specific language. --Illythr (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know since they were calling themselves Rumanians/Romanians I can assume that they were calling their language the same. it was probably before 1000, Aromanians and how they call their language and themselves come to support this because Aromanian and Romanian separated some 800-1200 years ago (according to linguists) and of course Aromanians are called Vlachs by others too, but anyway I don't want to open another pandora's box, I really don't want to discuss about Aromanians here, it's just a hint for smart people to investigate the issue if they are interested. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. If Neacsu's letter is the first written mention of "Romania", and it's written in the 16th century, how come you know the term to be over 1000 years old? --Illythr (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim I know, I only assume, if Aromanians have been using a related form for "Romanian" and the languages split about 1000 years ago, it follows that the term was in use at that time, right? (unless of course you make other theories that Aromanians have invented the term or borowed it in the meantime which I think fails Occam's razor test) -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The large influx of French words in the 19th cenutry made modern Romanian different from the Romanian spoken before 1800 (which was closer to Moldavian, by the way).Xasha (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How could a source calling Moldova "autonomous" in 2000 be considered a reliable source?Xasha (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Which source, what page? I could also bring other source, there's a load of sources about this issue. -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those are pretty big books. Grenoble doesn't look so bad to me. --Illythr (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Compendium. Also, how am I supposed to verify the information in "Kogan" and "Grenoble"? I recommend other great sources, such as: "Waikiki 1998, page 217", "Mulan 2002, page 335" and "Val-d'Aoste 2009, pages 14-17" And let's not forget "Titiran (chronology)".Xasha (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, none of the sources says the Moldovan language didn't exist before 1924.Xasha (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the book by Grenoble can be previewed, at least, the mentioned pages... --Illythr (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would try, if I knew the title.Xasha (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the one? -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I had 2 sources that said that the theory didn't exist/was not implemented before 1944/1945, we corrected that to 1924 (which Illythr found in one of the references that I brought). The discussion is right in this talk page. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I really wouldn't know. I could assume it is one of these, but the article doesn't tell me which.Xasha (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm totally stupefied. This section begins with my comment on this book (yep, it's this one) as "The other source by Adrian". However, I just noticed that there's no link provided to it! How the heck did I comment on it, then (do check the page 90)?! Duuhhhh... --Illythr (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because I removed those 2 sources when I copied&pasted the material from Moldovenism which already had 4 references, I didn't want to add the my 2 references to those. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not implemented doens't mean not existent. Just look at all those unimplemented theories in phisics. My formulation was more neutral, and made no assumption about the existence or non-existence of the concept. Was it wrong?Xasha (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

it was "created" that means that "it didn't exist", whatever, it should be there in the sources, sorry I'm tired now to run to check every word you want. please see the sources from this edit history and port them back if you find it useful, I removed them when I copied&pasted the material from Moldovenism which already had 4 references. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The only source that says it didn't exist, says it didn't exist before 1940, fact that you have since dismissed.Xasha (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, the simplest solution would be to actually find a source stating that Moldovenism did exist before 1924. The 1818 Statute demonstrates that "Moldovan" was used by that time, but gives no indication whether it is a separate language. Such a source would be interesting, because the research I read on the topic almost never mentions the imperial period. Even that Upson Clark guy doesn't elaborate on this in his otherwise rather detailed book... --Illythr (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Unluckily, the only guys who cared about the ethnicity of Moldovans in those times were Romanian nationalists. Something may be found in the Bessarabian press of the time, but I doubt I could find collections outside Chisinau.Xasha (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this "recent loanwords" part. With the context the sentence it is part of, it sounds as if the loanwords came into the language in the 1990s. The compendium entry also completely ignores the Imperial period for some reason (no data?). I suppose "autonomous" in that context means "independent". --Illythr (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of linguistics 19-20 century is "now", those words are very recent, if you want you can elaborate, but it's the correct word. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be so bad to remove "recent"? --Illythr (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Only that it reduces the information content of the article... and it's also in the sources if I'm not wrong. If you want I can use more details from the sources so it's clear how recent are those loans, but I am not sure the Moldova article is the right place for that level of detail, maybe this needs to be added in "Moldovan language" article. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to detail, please do it on Moldovan language. We already have a language controversy section double the culture section, and as large as geography or government. There's more to Moldova than the language controversy. Xasha (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Germany as example

Let us take Germany for example. There are there 15% foreign people. Can you find from the first line that there the turks speak turkish about 5%? No. Then why should we keep the russian here as well?BereTuborg (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page to explain your edits; please also consider using edit summarties as well in the future. El_C 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete this line:

11% of the population uses Russian as the native language.

This one above is not relevant since there are many other countries with larger minorities and still no mention about it. Just take into account California.BereTuborg (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

president picture

I don't think that any serious article about a country has also an image with the bust of the president (not even Putin's image is in Russia). That picture should be take out since it adds nothing to the article. Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it's actually a good idea to have the president picture if the article talks about him/her in any significant length. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove it in 2009, before the election. :-) --Illythr (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is one of only two states in the world with a democratically-elected communist government, the other being Cyprus.Cyprus has not an elected communist government,it is just the president elected by the people that is communist NOT the government.Someone should correct this is not right(i am no good in editing) :)Wrcrack (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Moldova

It's up and running, please join! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Serhio deleted a whole paragraph! That's unacceptable. Qu90 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, your pro-Russian edits are evident. Let Moldova, and Moldovans be themselves. Qu90 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, don't you ever get bored with this over all these years? --Illythr (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

About this map (Physical ancient Moldavia):

Здравствуйте or Bunǎ ziua, & sorry for my poor English (I'm best in French)

Xasha delete the map PhysicalAncientMoldavia.jpg. He thinks his political map easier to read, and want this map alone in the article. Depending on me, may be it's easier to read for a connoisseur, but not for a profane. Why ?

1)- The partition Moldavia (blue)/Bessarabia (green) in his political map is ephemere (only 1812-1945): in the larger part of the Moldavian history (1359-1812) Bessarabia was only the lower side of the country (Danubian & pontic plain, Bucak in Turkish, now Budzak or Budjak); the larger part of the actual Moldova was NOT Bessarabia but only the eastern part of Moldavia. The inhabitants called themselves Moldovani, Moldoveni, not Basarabeni, and when Moldova claimed its independence in 1917 and in 1991, it called itself Moldova and not Basarabia.

2)- The Soviet MASSR (figured with stripes) is NOT a part of the ancient Principality.

The PhysicalAncientMoldavia.jpg map have three advantages:

1)- only the ancient Moldavia is colored, that's clear for a profane reader;

2)- the names of the ancient provinces between 1775 (Bukovina) or 1812 (Bessarabia) and 1945 are writed in black, so the profane reader can't think that the Bessarabia (green) was early (before 1812) separate and different from Moldavia (blue); if he think that, he can't understand why we have Moldova and Moldovans, and not Bessarabia and Bessarabians;

3)- the relief and principal towns are on the map.

So, I suggest to leave the both maps, but in different places. Best regards, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To address these points, 1) The different colors denote current territorial affiliation. 2) That's why it's striped gray, although I agree that it shouldn't've been there in the first place, except, perhaps to denote Moldova's territory. 3) Relief only clutters the image, IMO, since the map is supposed to denote political changes (the terrain has hardly changed for the last several thousand years anyway). The cities are kind of nice, though. I am not against the inclusion of this map either, although perhaps it might make sense to move one of them to Moldavia to avoid cluttering the somewhat small section they compete for. --Illythr (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Spiridon Manoliu. That is a very good map. It needs a few minor adjustment, but it is very good. Do you have one with higher resolution? Do you have one without place names, so that we can use it as a "template" for maps of the Principality of Moldavia featuring different fortresses, localities, regions, etc? Both your and Xasha's map give complementary information, in my humble opinion. I see no problem with having both of them.

Minor modifications which can improve your map:

• international boundaries --> modern international boundaries
• Budzak --> Budjak
• Jedisan --> Yedisan
• Add "Ukraine" also near Yedisan and "Romania" also in Transylvania and Valachia.
• Remove "Ancient Moldavia" (currently it looks like the name of a town). Title the map "Medieval Moldavia" or "Principality of Moldavia"

Xasha's map can be improved by de-coloring Moldavian ASSR and by making better captioning, i.e. saying clearly that Bukovina and Bessarabia are historic, not modern regions, which appeared respectively in 1775 and 1812, when ... etc. Dc76\^talk 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but...

...Bucovina and Bessarabia as your map describe, were defined BY the Austrian (1775) and the Russian (1812) annexations and did NOT exist respectively before 1775 and 1812. Before these annexations we had only ONE Moldavia. Verify please, and I suggest to open our discussion to others contributors. --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Same as your map, that one depicts the historical Moldavia, with respect to whom its various regions belong to now. What's the problem with that? Your map mentions Ukraine and Romania, but those states didn't exist back in the 18th century either. --Illythr (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but each map have its advantages, and depict also the actual partition, so I dont't understand why Xasha delete the physical ancient one. No problem but the formulation: "Bukovina, Bessarabia and eastern Moldavia compose the ancient Principality" mean that B., B. & e. M. exists IN the ancient Principality, but that's wrong. This regions began their different existences by & since the autsrian and russian annexations.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's somewhat hard to name those places correctly: You could say "Modern Bukovina, Bessarabia and eastern Moldavia compose the ancient Principality", but Bessarabia isn't "modern". Perhaps something along "The ancient medieval Principality was partitioned into..." --Illythr (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree with something like that. :Dc76\^talk 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Xasha !? in english, "ancient" means "Antiquity" ? and 1812 isn't "modern" ? I had ignore this ! However "The medieval Principality was partitioned into..." is the right formulation, thank you Illythr, but is impossible to work together, if Xasha refuse to corrige me, and if he prefere to revert all my (little) contributions integrally (I hope then my romanic-looking pseudonyme is not the reason of his attitude)... --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this article a private property of Xasha ?

My english is poor but i'm a geographer and historian. I support nether the russian nether the romanian POV about Moldova (I'm not emotionally involved in this controverse), I support history and sciences.

Wikipedia is a COLLECTIVE work and not the private property of ONE contributor.

Read before writing, PLEASE !!!!! And search the historical sources and referencies, not the school books from Romania, Moldova or USSR...

The Illythr's formulation: "The historical Principality of Moldavia was partitioned into Bukovina in 1775, Bessarabia in 1812 and western Moldavia who compose Romania in 1859 by union with Wallachia. Today the former Moldavia is partitioned into Moldova, Romania and Ukraine" is a RIGHT formulation (concording with the FACTS), and the formulation beloved by Xasha: "Bukovina, Bessarabia and western Moldavia compose the Principality of Moldavia" is WRONG (it's NOT concording with the facts).

In the facts, Bukovina was created as an AUSTRIAN Kronland in 1775 and Bessarabia was created as an RUSSIAN Gubernia in 1812: before this, these was NOT "established regions on historical Moldavia". The historical Principality of Moldavia had two OTHER established regions: "Tara de sus" and "Tara de jos" ("Highland" and "Lowland"). The first one includes the north part of the Principality (Suceava, Falticeni, Cernauti, Balti, Soroca), the second one includes the rest.

This is the FACTS: Xasha please, read Dimitrie Cantemir's "Descriptio Moldaviae", read History and OPEN YOUR MIND (if not for Wikipedia or Moldova, for YOURSELF) !

Thank you, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mm, really, Xasha, what's the problem with that formulation? --Illythr (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not Poland to have been partitioned. Spiridon's formualtion makes it seem like Moldavia was independent in 1775-1812, and again sometimes after, when it was partitioned by Romania, Ukraine and Moldova.Xasha (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oh ! I'm finally understanding the problem: as many other not-specialists, Xasha thinks the medieval Moldavia as a part of another state (probably the Ottoman empire). But the Ottoman empire was not organised in principalities, but in pachaliks, wilayets, mutessarifliks, sanjaks, raias. The principality of Moldavia was not an ottoman province (even if the little soviet pupils, and also occidental pupils, learn this). Moldavia was a christian state, with its own Princes (Voivodes, Hospodars), councils (Sfat), laws, armies, fleets, embassies (see Nicolae Milescu by exemple). But a christian state, under ottoman vassality since 1538. Vassality not means rule. And this state was partitioned since 1775. Even if Xasha were right (= even if Moldavia was only an ottoman province), his formulation is wrong, because if Moldavia was not an autonomous state, how Bukovina, Bessarabia and western Moldavia can "compose" the Principality ????? Xasha's formulation makes it seem like the Principality began AFTER the austrian and russian annexations of Bukovina and Bassarabia.

In reality, verify if you dont't trust me, the Principality of Moldavia began its existence in 1359, and cease in 1859 when western Moldavia (the last territory again autonomous) compose Romania by union with Wallachia (and this new state, Romania, continue to be under ottoman vassality (but not rule) until 1878. This is the reason because the Illythr formulation is RIGHT. All this discussion and time passsed have ONE cause: Xasha believe knowing, he's sure to be right without verifications, and try to refrain me... Xasha, you don't refrain me. You refrain human collaboration and knowledge growth. So bad... I'm sorrowful for you. But you're a human being: as me, you're perfectible !  :-) --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I understand, the problem is merely in the formulation. So all we need to do is figure out the one that merely states the facts without any possibility of false interpretation. Take a look at my attempt. Any problems? --Illythr (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Illythr, you work as a real Wikipedian. But yes, we have again problems, because the partitions of 1775 and 1812 and the actual split are not corresponding. To use only ONE map for explain it, is to choose the hardest option. But we have not choice with Xasha. With your new fomulation, we must add precisions: "Territories of the medieval Principality of Moldavia are now split between Ukraine (southern Bessarabia with Budjak, northern Bessarabia with Khotin and northern Bukovina), Romania (western Moldavia with southern Bukovina) and Moldova (center of Bessarabia)." So it's OK, I hope the agree of Xasha (if you obtain it, Wow ! congratulations !) However, it would have been easier, if we could have, to use two maps and the formulation: "The medieval Principality of Moldavia was partitioned into Bukovina (1775) Bessarabia (1812) and western Moldavia who... etc); today it's split between Ukraine, Romania and Moldova." But we have not this freedom. It's not a problem for me, I had lived and worked before 1990, in the east side of the former "iron courtain", so I know this way of working... Bye ! --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think that with images, people are more interested in looking at the actual picture, and the caption must be two lines tops, with just enough detail to raise the reader's interest to read the surrounding section, which should contain the rest. After all, the details that Budjak, Khotin and parts of Bukowina are all in turn parts of Bessarabia, are already in the section and probably can be expanded into the more specific Bessarabia article. --Illythr (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Government

Moldova's democratically-elected communist government make it unique, at least until Nepal gets a new government. Why is this information being removed regularly?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I see one problem with this: Wikipedia doesn't encourage trivia. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, perhaps "detrivializing" it would help - simply state that the communist party has the most seats in the Parliament and mention the rest in the politics section. --Illythr (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)