Talk:Unification of Moldova and Romania

Polls

Polls show that nowadays there is an important Moldovans (sic) support the unification.

Well, it would be better to have the exact result of such a poll... bogdan 12:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Figures have been meanwhile mentioned. Yet, the majority of Moldovan citizens do not support reunification. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Expectation of the unification

Node asked for a citation for the expectation of the unification.

Copy-paste from John Mackinlay, Peter Cross (2003) Regional Peacekeepers. United Nations University Press ISBN 9280810790, page 139:

Following cultural Romanianization and the eventual independence of Moldova, there was a general expectation, especially in Romania, though also to some extent in Moldova (despite Chisinau’s doctrine of ‘‘two independent Romanian states’’), that the two countries should and would unite.

bogdan 00:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Promotion of the idea of different languages

Node asked for a citation for the different languages promotion.

Copy-paste from John Mackinlay, Peter Cross (2003) Regional Peacekeepers. United Nations University Press ISBN 9280810790, page 140:

Following their annexation of Moldova in 1940, the Soviets insisted that Moldovan, written in Cyrillic script, was a different language from Romanian in order to promote the idea that Moldovans and Romanians are separate nations.)

bogdan 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Those damn capitalist Romanians

Node asked for a citation about the Romanians being called capitalist oppressors.

Copy-paste from John Mackinlay, Peter Cross (2003) Regional Peacekeepers. United Nations University Press ISBN 9280810790, page 135:

Bright lights burned permanently in Soviet Tiraspol to impress the Bessarabian peasants under the Romanian landlord-capitalist yoke across the river!

bogdan 00:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really find that citation proving the blame all Romanians are capitalist oppressors? The Soviet time Socialist propaganda has never been just that primitive: it always stated that every people has its oppressors and its oppressed ones, there could be no blame "Romanians = capitalists". In its current version the article (proposed for translation of the week) looks not neutral. Amikeco (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet propaganda called "Moldovans, Ukrainians, Russians, and other nationalities of our motherland" oppressed ones in contrast with "Romanians" as oppressors. It was just a name calling. If you called yourself Romanian, you must have been the yoke-oppressor and fascist. If you don't want to be called fascist, you had to dissociate yourself from the term Romanian, and call yourself Moldovan. Dc76\^talk 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New party

I don't know how notable is this new Moldovan party. (Unionist Movement of the Republic of Moldova) http://www.jurnal.md/articol.php?id=4007&cat=3&editie=430 bogdan 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

More on Moldova

The Current area of this page is completely devouted to Romania with little discussion of the status of this movement within Moldova

State language

There is an inconsistency on the name: "In September 1989, with the liberalization in the Soviet Union, the Moldavian SSR Parliament declared Moldovan to be the official language" and "In 1989, Romanian became the official language of Moldova".

1) AFAIK, the name was originally "Moldovan" in 1989, switched to "Romanian" upon independence and then back to "Moldovan" in 1994. 2) In 1989 the state was still MSSR, not Moldova. --Illythr 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was only disbanded in 1991. The Republic of Moldova declared independence on August 27, 1991. What is this "liberalization" business? A reference to perestroika or glasnost, perhaps? More openness? This sentence ought to be clarified, so a casual reader (like myself) will understand what is meant by it. - Mauco 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Basarabia, pământ românesc!

Hi, you could write also about this Romanian-Moldovan movement. See www.romanism.net. I wrote about it on the Dutch wiki (see interwikilink). Salut, User:Al. 82.171.215.71 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Table

In the "possible results of unification" table, anyone knows whether the Transnistrian is included or not? Also I am editing to slightly highlight the Transnistrian problem, of much importance in this issue, whereas it appears very diluted in the present text. Thanks Mountolive 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

There is some confusion as to the timeline in the following two sentences:

"While many Moldovan writers and intellectuals supported the union and wanted a "reunion with the Romanian motherland",[7] there was little popular support, with more than 70% of the Moldovans rejecting it, according to some 1992 polls.[8] Nevertheless, Transnistria used the movement for unification with Romania as a pretext for declaring its independence.[8]"

A clarification is needed:

• 1989: Popular Front starts to campaign for Moldovan independence.
• 1989-1990: This is done on a reunification platform.
• 1990: Since independence has a broad appeal, so does the rest of the platform. Voters associate independence (freedom from Soviet Union) with Romanian reunification.
• 1990: This makes Transnistria scared. Transnistria separates from the MSSR.
• 1991: Moldova declares independence.
• 1991: It becomes clear to all, voters and politicians alike, that independence does not come part and parcel with Romanian reunification.
• 1992: General support for reunification cools as a result. It is now, in 1992, rejected by some 70%.

The timeline point is important because in 1989 and 1990, reunification was NOT rejected by 70%. The events in Chisinau in 1989 led to the moves in Tiraspol in 1990.

It the article speaks of popular support in Moldova, remember that popular support BEFORE the 1991 declaration of independence is not the same as popular support afterwards.

This is especially pertinent if we, in the same breath, bring in Transnistria's declaration of independence (which happened in September of 1990, a full year before Moldova's independence). The 70%-justification refers to 1992, and not 1990. Please fix this phrasing. - Mauco 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

But the question is: was there really a popular support for the unification in 1990? The Moldovan elite was always pro-union, but I tend to doubt that the people wanted something more than independence from the USSR. bogdan 17:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. But you will find something else that is surprising, too: The majority of the ordinary Moldovans (as opposed to the elite) didn't even want independence. I know that this is a heresy. But hopefully now, with the Cold War dead and buried for 15+ years, we can begin to look at this objectively. Which is that if the All-Union referendum had been held in the MSSR, then most of the ordinary voters would've wanted to keep the USSR together. Sorry, I know that this is off-topic to this article. But if you look at Moldovan independence (for instance like King does, who are referenced here), then you will see that the general, very widespread and genuine unhappiness with lack of quality of life in the USSR was bundled together with independence from the USSR and reunification with Romania as an all-or-nothing "package deal" which was promoted by the Popular Front in 1989/1990. This later all changed, as I point out. - Mauco 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm.. I'll try to find more on the 1990 elections. bogdan 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This will likely be hard, but please share what you find (either here or in other relevant talk pages). In fact, anything that will give us an indication of how the population of Moldova felt about reunification prior to independence (in 1989, 1990 or early 1991) will be VERY interesting. Relevant to this particular article, too, in fact. - Mauco 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in late August/early September 1991, it was the decissive moment, when the union was very close, but I still miss some details. I'll try to find as much as I can. Oh, well... Happy New Year! See you next year! :-) bogdan 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Transnistrian War started in 1992, when it was clear that the union was not going to happen. In fact it was clear after Moldovan president Snegur suddenly changed his views in September 1991 and started opposing it. bogdan 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, again, you are correct. But the problem is that this is not clear from the article. The use of the word "nevertheless" and the juxtaposition of a 1992 poll makes it sound like Transnistria wanted independence in 1992. Whereas in reality, the push for independence was a 1989/1990 affair, simultaneous to the early Moldovan moves towards independence. For Transnistria, the war in 1992 was not an independence war or a war for secession. In their eyes, they had already declared independence (in 1990) and the war happened when Moldova (after having gotten U.N. membership and international recognition of its MSSR-era borders) decided that the time was right to assert its claim of sovereignty over Transnistria. - Mauco 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Bring in the controversy

Well, controversy follows me wherever I go around here nowadays. It seems some of my old Romanian h8rz have stuck around to start pestering me on other topics of interest to me, usually anonymously, and of course on my livejournal, I have been pestered two or three times in Romania- and Moldova-related posts by people from here (although I lock them all now).

So it goes without saying (although I am saying it) that my involvement here may bring lots of condemnations from the international Romanian diaspora, as usual.

...anyhow

Two questions:

1. There must have been a reason for the sudden change to a less pro-Romanian, and at times quite anti-Romanian, stance in Moldovan political discourse in the mid-'90s. What made Moldova, as a nation, change its mind?

Public opinion changes from time to time. Either on it's on or helped by propaganda. I highly doubt you will find any time soon a document somewhere describing a plan to change the opinion in Moldova, so just take it as it is: the opinion changed.Chivas314159 01:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The passports say nothing about union. There are millions of Moldovans living and working abroad. Many of them really want to get out of that country. And now that Romania is in the EU, they are free to go to Portugal as long as they have access to Romania because EU = open borders. And we all know about Moldovan visa agreements with Romania. Just because Vlad applied for Romanian documents doesn't mean he loves the country and wants it to get married to Moldova. All it means is he's trying to leave Moldova for one reason or another. Stop twisting it. --Node 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Millions of Moldovans??? Node, I respect your opinion even though I really do not agree with it but at least get your facts straight. According to the last census, there are only 2.5-2.6 Moldovans in Moldova and about 600.000 or so Russians and Ukrainians. If MILLIONS of Moldovans are out working then Moldova would be an empty wasteland right now, wouldn't you think? Dapiks 09:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole... don't you think I've edited Moldova-related articles enough to know that there are less people in Moldova than there are in Arizona? Still, though, there is a huge number of Moldovans living and working abroad. Applying for Romanian passports does not, as I noted, does not mean they're getting all googly-eyed screaming "ZOMG I WANNA BE ROMANIAN!!!".--Node 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it remains to be seen: If Moldova ever does join the EU, if their official language is still "Moldovan", and it is still basically the same as Romanian, and it still uses the Latin alphabet (those Moldovans and their changing alphabets... tomorrow they may be using the Greek alphabet! Darn them!), will the EU adopt Moldovan as an extra official language? I don't imagine that the EU would ever actually spend the millions of extra dollars to re-translate documents into Moldovan (lol... that would be fun though), but it does seem possible that they would spend the small costs for Moldovan localisation of already-translated documents (as much as you try to tell people otherwie, there are slight expressional differences between Moldova and Romania, and it is undeniable that the official orthographies are different). If, by some miracle, Transnistria were to become independent and admitted to the EU, it would be great to be able to read the EU website in real Moldovan (the Cyrillic kind!). I can't understand it now, the only Cyrillic pages they have are in that Slavic gibberish they call "Bulgerian" or whatever. --Node 09:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That Slavic gibberish they call "Bulgarian"?Dapiks 09:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what they call it, but it doesn't really matter... it's just Slavic gibberish with a few pseudo-Moldovan words tossed in here and there. --19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag

This section reads "expressing the strong link between the same nation" which is, obviously, a POV claim. User Iulian Andreea keeps insisting re-stating this redaction everytime I remove it. I would like to hear other's opinion. If this is not a POV claim, approximately of an elephant-size, then, I don't know what is a POV claim anymore.

Duh, it's not a POV claim. When Moldova became independent in 1991, they adopted a similar flag and the same national anthem as Romania, called Awaken Thee Romanian. The goverment, at the time, made no secret of what their intentions were. You can't say that it's a POV when you're not sure of it. You can, however, ask for a source for that specific comment to stay, but I believe it to be an unnecessary thing to do. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive | Talk 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not POV to say something about the same nation, people. POV would be the vice-versa not to tell about it. E.g. people like you need to read it, 'cause they didn't knew it before that is about the same people, nation.--Iulian Andreea 19:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I know they were the same nation. And, if I didn't know, there is the article to prove it. The problem is that we don't need to push so hard in that direction by saying that the Moldovan flag "express the strong link between the same nation". Did the flag tell you so? or do you have any references to prove that? If so, then the sentence makes sense with the relative footnote, but I can't see that footnote.

Since the colours are the same and the article is very clear, to add that extra re-assuring sentence is blatant POV. Mountolive | Talk 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Putin fears of eventual re-union of Moldova with Romania

Even Putin fears that Moldova will re-union with Romania. Nice article. --Tones benefit 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It’s not in english, so we can’t substantiate if it’s bullsht or not. Can you give any direct quotes made by Ptuin that would lead someone to think he "fears" a union between the two states?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.141.8 (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

"...and as many Moldovans have applied for Romanian passports in August and September 2006, alone"

The word "alone" at the end of the sentence seems to suggest there may be something (a number) missing in this sentence ".....and as many [as x thousand] Moldovans have applied......" perhaps?

92.3.150.234 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing neo-fascist groups

Dear User:Serenusaurelius and IPs (socks?), why are you removing the very simple fact that one of the organisations in the "Union Council" is a neo-fascist Romanian group? It is well established in academia that the ultra-nationalistic, antiziganistic and homophobic Noua Dreapta is a neo-fascist organisation. There's no objective reason to whitewash the group, so please restore the text you removed.Anonimu (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Romanian law makes neo-fascist organizations ilegal. Therefore it is impossible for Noua Dreaptă (New Right) to be legally registered, as it is at the moment. The Emergency ordinance 31/2002 outlawas fascist, racist and antisemitic organizations. To call Noua Dreaptă like that is iliogical and unbojective. Just so that you can see that it is corect to change that definition in this article, I leave you a link to the law I mentioned:

http://www.criminallawreview.eu/article/emergency-ordinance-no-312002-prohibiting-organizations-and-symbols-of-fascist-racist-or-xenophobic-character-and-promoting-the-cult-of-persons-guilty-of-crimes-against-peace-and-humanity-approved-by-law-no-1072006-the-legal-damage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.114.11 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Annexation

The annexation of Bessarabia did occur, but to the detriment of the Ottoman Empire, for sure not to the detriment of Romania, that simply didn't exist yet, or to the detriment of Moldavia, which didn't exist as an independent subject of the international law, but merely as an Ottoman dominion. Consequently, the first paragraph underwent cosmetic change. If somebody doesn't agree, please explain the reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.239.193 (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Moldavia wasn't an independent state, but it wasn't integrated in the Ottoman Empire, either (like Bulgaria or Hungary). It was a tributary state: it kept its internal autonomy in exchange for a yearly tribute. bogdan (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What Bogdan said. The Ottoman Empire actually annexed only the the border fortresses, the rest of Moldavia was a vassal state. --illythr (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The consensus is that the proposed title is sufficiently concise, even as a hypothetical situation. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Movement for the unification of Romania and Moldova → Unification of Romania and Moldova – WP:CONCISE. See Korean reunification. Relisted Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Երևանցի ^talk 02:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC) It is obviously a movement, however, per WP:CONCISE it would make more sense to call this article "Unification of..." instead of "Movement for the unification of...".

And I suggest we change the lead to

The unification of Romania and Moldova refers to the possible unification of the two countries that became a popular concept in the late 1980s during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Romanian Revolution of 1989 and the independence of Moldova in 1991 further contributed to the development of a movement for the unification of the two Romanian-speaking countries.

--Երևանցի ^talk 02:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA #1 and #2. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

User:In ictu oculi Hmm. "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize." and "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English."? Would like to be more specific? --Երևանցի ^talk 01:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is if we put a title like Unification of Germany everyone will assume Germany was actually unified (even if they have been living under a rock and don't know). That's different from Korean reunification where the "re-" serves a purpose that distinguishes from Unification of Korea. Plus Moldova isn't as well known in media as Germany and Korea. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some people may assume that that Moldova and Romania have already been unified, but let's not base Wikipedia article titles on assumptions. Reading the first sentence ("refers to the possible unification") is not hard and everyone can do it. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Could Unification of Romania and Moldova be confused with Union of Bessarabia with Romania since what we now call "Moldova" is much the same area as Bessarabia? —  AjaxSmack  03:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bessarabia is the historic name of Moldova (and the surrounding area) and is not used for any modern political entity nowadays. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but "Moldova" could be projected back in time 100 years. We often speak of the "History of X" in periods long before "X" existed (e.g., History of South Sudan). —  AjaxSmack  04:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:CONCISE Red Slash 02:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support - it does seem odd to me that we would talk of something that hasn't happened as if it has, but there does seem to be plenty of precedence. United States of Europe is another. Per WP:CONCISE, the proposed title is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The term "unification of Romania and Moldova" doesn't seem to be particularly common, so there's no reason to choose it over the more neutral current one, per WP:NDESC. The situation is unlike Korea or China (or, historically, Germany), where the unification is, at least formally, an objective of both involved governments. In this case, Moldovan officials have repeatedly objected to an "unification", while the Romanian government has never officially endorsed the unification as state policy. For the sake of neutrality, the current descriptive title should stay.Anonimu (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:CONCISE and against arguments showed by Anonimu. Why not? indeed (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that the above user looks like a SPA.Anonimu (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; see the user page. Vote struck. --BDD (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Amakuru. Whether or not such a unification is hypothetical is too heavy a load to make the title bear. We may as well be concise. --BDD (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE. @Anonimu, I don't see how the current title is more "neutral" than the proposed. Personally, I'd have a slight preference for "Romanian and Moldovan unification" as being more people- than state-centric, but the proposed (and per the Korean example cited) is fine. I should add that the separation of Moldova and Romania is totally artificial (i.e., starting with the Russian-named conquered "Bessarabia", that is merely the eastern half of what once constituted the principality of Moldavia. There is no such thing as a Moldovan people in a historical territory defined by today's Moldova. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. While in the case of Korea or China the prospect of unification is affirmed at all levels, in the case of Romania and Moldova it is just the desire of a minority without any official support (to the contrary). Also, note that every border in the world is artificial, as being primarily a human mental concept. As a matter of fact, the separation between Moldova from Romania is more natural than, say, the one between Latvia and Russia, as it is marked by a natural feature (the river Prut). Your POV is further highlighted by your denial of a basic human right to the people of Moldova (per UDHR Art. 18).Anonimu (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhm. "it is just the desire of a minority without any official support" I think you should take a look at the article before commenting. Romania's president is a strong supporter of the unification. Almost all pro-European parties of Moldova are also for it. It has been a huge deal in the past 25 years. It's actually more realistic than the Korean reunification. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The movement could consist of three people and it wouldn't matter so long as it passed GNG. I don't see either the current or proposed names suggesting strength of support anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is pretty SYNTHy anyway, as the topic is subsumed by scholars into Romanian nationalism (nationalists in every country in the Balkans and even Central Europe want to reunite a mythical homeland). I failed to identify any scholarly article discussing the subject, all we have is passing mentions and inflamed op-eds. Therefore, this article could very well fit as a section in a Greater Romania (political concept) (modelled after Greater Hungary (political concept) or Megali Idea). Nevertheless, considering that the existence of such a movement among a minority of Moldovan citizens is used by the Transnistrian break-away authorities to legitimate themselves, I think the continued existence of this as a separate article is not so bad. However, changing the title erases the important distinction between this movement and the official reunification policies pursued by Germany, Korea and the likes. Moreover, as pointed by the Moldovan prime-minister and by all leaders of the parties in the ruling ("pro-European") coalition in reaction to Romania's president "recommendation", the suggestion that unification is state policy can only serve the cause of the different separatists in Moldova, violating our NPOV policy.Anonimu (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment, shouldn't we use Reunification, rather than Unification, considering that there already was a Union of Bessarabia with Romania. Charles Essie (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support with "Reunification of Romania and Moldova".—SPESH531Other 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Phrase in the lead

Furthermore, while the Romanian leadership has at times publicly endorsed an unification, successive governments of Moldova have reaffirmed their commitment to independece'

Which are the sources that support this text? 86.127.10.228 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasons

Puzzled that more Moldovans oppose unification than support it, I figured that it could benefit the article if it had a section listing common, sourced "yea" and "nay" arguments from both countries. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a section about people who support unification, shouldn't there be a one with people who oppose it?

I am not an expert of the topic, but I assume that just like there are politicians who support the unification, there are also those who oppose it.. Is there a particular reason for such a list to not be included?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirect proposal

Shouldn't "Romanian unification" be a redirect leading to this page, given that it describes the potential unification of 2 culturally and linguistically Romanian countries? (Moldovan isn't a language, it's the Moldovan variant of the Romanian language) (97.90.153.18 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC))

Renaming proposal: Reunification of Romania and Moldova

I think the movement deserves to be named Reunification of Romania and Moldova, since Romania and Moldova have been part of the same country (between 1918, after WWII, till 1939, after the extended Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact and Russian invasion of Bessarabia). The movement is based on the idea that the 2 countries have already been one entity in the past and the separation occured after the invasion of Russian troops. What are your thoughts on it? --~~ JOrb (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Moldova as the concept that we know today has never existed before the Russian invasion. I don't think it is accurate to say that the Principality of Moldavia, Bessarabia and the Republic of Moldova can be called the same. Thus, "this" Moldova has never been part of Romania, even if the region it covers was. Super Ψ Dro 15:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! But the previous political entity that existed on the territory of Republic Moldova wasn't Principality of Moldova, but Moldavian Democratic Republic, a short lived country that existed between 1917-1918. The only purpose of the existence of this country wasn't to be unify with Romania, but to decide whether to remain autonomous or unify with Romania. It's National Assembly decided the unification with Romania, and due to its short existence i doubt it was internationally recognized, but it existed de facto. So, in 1918, a country, Moldovian Democratic Republic which had a modern political organization, decided unification with Kingdom of Romania. So if today Republic of Moldova would decide unification with Romania that would be the 2nd time the republic autonomous country decides unification. It appears to me that strongly qualifies as "reunification".

For comparison, I want to use the example of Korean reunification. The previous political entities that existed on Korean territory before the unification into Korean Empire were medieval states. Also, if we speak about Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea, this was only a de jure country, partially recognized and Government in exile. De facto, they didn't have any control over the country. So the question is, why would be called reunification when 2 countries (North Korea and South Korea) want to unite, when in the past, there were 2 medieval political entities that unified into another medieval monarchy. Also, the territories of the countries that united in the past didn't correspond neither to North or South Korea, but to both.

In conclusion, the Romania-Moldova unification is a better example of reunification than any other.--~~ JOrb (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• For for the reasons mentionned above. Martin m159 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Seems the current preferred usage is "union" both for supporters and opponents. English language sources don't show any preference, both terms are used.Anonimu (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's true that in Romanian they use the word "unire" which is translated to "unification", but at the same time, Romanian lacks the concept of reunification. Even though they have a similar word ("reunire") it only means "to come together". There are also 2 words "unifica" and "reunifica", but they are French borrowings and they are not highly used. The Romanian common language lacks the concept of reunification. I think this is the only reason they don't use the exact word, but when they talk about a future unification they invoke as legitimization the 1918 unification which resulted in Greater Romania. I think it would be a pity for English version of Wikipedia not to make the distinction between "unification" and "reunification" when they already did this on other pages (i.e. Korean reunification)). --JOrb (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose If the majority of Moldovans want to unite with Romania, fine, call a referendum and it will be done, no Romanian politician can afford to refuse such offer. Since that did not happen, we infer that the majority of Moldovans do not want to unite with Romania, so reunification pushes the POV that the majority of Moldovans seek union with Romania and some strange reason or occult force prevents it. It is simply a matter of demography: it seems that the majority of Moldovans do not self-identify as Romanians. The gist: they do not want to reunite with Romania because they do not feel Romanian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Unification of Romania and Moldova → Reunification of Romania and Moldova - Reasons:

- Romania and Moldova have been part of the same country (between 1918, after WWII, till 1940, after the extended Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact and Russian invasion of Bessarabia). The movement is based on the idea that the 2 countries have already been one entity in the past and the separation occured after the invasion of Russian troops.

- Moldova as a concept and country that we know today existed before the first union with Romania (from 1918).the previous political entity that existed on the territory of Republic Moldova wasn't Principality of Moldova, but Moldavian Democratic Republic, a short lived country that existed between 1917-1918. The only purpose of the existence of this country wasn't to be unify with Romania, but to decide whether to remain autonomous or unify with Romania. It's National Assembly decided the unification with Romania. So, in 1918, a country, Moldovian Democratic Republic which had a modern political organization, decided unification with Kingdom of Romania. So if today Republic of Moldova would decide unification with Romania that would be the 2nd time the republic autonomous country decides unification. It appears to me that strongly qualifies as "reunification".

- It's true that in Romanian they use the word "unire" which is translated to "unification", but at the same time, Romanian lacks the concept of reunification. Even though they have a similar word ("reunire") it only means "to come together". There are also 2 words "unifica" and "reunifica", but they are French borrowings and they are not highly used. But the concept itself of Romanian reunification is strongly legitimized by the previous unification. Both Romanians and Moldovans see it as a situation in which a country was forcefully occupied and after the liberation it seeks for reunification. Also, we are talking about the English version of Wikipedia where the word "reunification" is used when situation is that of a reunification and not of an unification. I think the English version of Wikipedia not to make the distinction between "unification" and "reunification" when they already did this on other pages (i.e. Korean reunification). I think we need consistancy when using some terms. --JOrb (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: I still hold my view that the current Republic of Moldova is not exactly something we've seen in history before and that it therefore cannot be "reunified" with Romania, but it is true we usually portray Moldova as a successor of the Moldavian Democratic Republic, which did unite with Romania, in Wikipedia. However, the 1918 union is referred to as "Union of Bessarabia with Romania" (focusing on geography) and not as "Union of the Moldavian Democratic Republic with Romania" (focusing on politics, like this article). So I am not completely sure and my opinion may change based on what do other users say. Super Ψ Dro 22:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

But Bessarabia was just an informal name for Moldavian Democratic Republic (same as The Netherlands are sometimes referred as Holland). If you look on the Union Act ([1]), it clearly says that the unification is between Moldavian Democratic Republic (Bessarabia) and Romania. So Moldova is a direct successor of Moldavian Democratic Republic (even though territorial changed did occur).

PS: I found it kinda funny on your user page you wrote that you support the "reunification" of Romania and Moldova, so I wish you'd support me in renaming the article. --JOrb (talk)

Well, I don't know. I will wait for others to give their opinion to get a solid vote. I've removed my oppose for now. And I hadn't realized that userbox said "reunification"... Super Ψ Dro 08:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Going back to opposing per nominator's comment below. Super Ψ Dro 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: as above. Regarding the claim about Romanian terminology, the motivation is false: reunification is a word in Romanian, and the word is commonly used for the German reunification in 1990 (see for example [2], [3], [4]).Anonimu (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this seems like wp:OR. Without sources calling it "reunification" we shouldn't change it—blindlynx (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many sources calling it "reunification": [5], [6], [7]. Surely they are less in number, but I think it needs to be changed not because it's more used, but it's more accurate. Also, when you say the "Unification of Romania and Moldova" someone would think of the unification from 1918. There is 1 name for 2 events (one that happened and one that could happen in future). We need to avoid confusion and the name should be an accurate description of the article. Also, we should provide an consistency in the way we use words when every article where there was a past unification, the movement is called "reunification" (for example: Korean Reunification). Actually the Romanian reunification is the best example of reunification I Know. In Korean case, the countries didn't join each other, but they became one country following military conquests. It is a very important thing for the understanding of an article. People would conclude since the article is called "unification", it would be the first time the countries were unified. To resume, I think the most 3 important things which are important for an article title are: accuracy, avoiding confusion and consistency in the terms used. --JOrb (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen no English-language source referring to the Moldavian Democratic Republic as Moldova.Considering that "Moldova" only entered English language after 1991, it is highly unlikely that any English-language user would think of a unification of Romanian and Moldova in the past. Consistency in Wikipedia should not trump verifiability, and do note there's no other articles called "Reunification of X and Y" (only one redirect), thus the consistency argument is moot. On a side note, Bessarabia DID became part of Romania in 1918 following military conquest.Anonimu (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. It's clearly at this point that there is no interest in renaming this article. It's hard to say who's right or wrong where there is a lack of objective criteria. At the same time, changing the page name doesn't make any difference. So from my side, consider this discussion over. --JOrb (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moldovan unionist advocates

There are way more personalities that expressed their support for the unification in Moldova. Here are a few that I posted but, I don't know why, they were deleted: Valeriu Graur, movie director, member of the National Patriotic Front

Mihai Volontir, actor

• Ion Ungureanu, actor

• Boris Dubosarschi, composer (of Jewish descent)

• Valeriu Gagiu, movie director, member of the National Patriotic Front

Constantin Tănase, linguist ans journalist

• Nicolae Lupan, journalist

• Petru Păduraru, Metropolitan of Bessarabia

If you speak Romanian, you will see that they are supporters RAMSES$44932 (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The few live links don't indicate their support for the unification. Maybe you should check your Romanian?Anonimu (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Nicholas of Romania

• Nicholas Medforth-Mills also expressed his support for the unification RAMSES$44932 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Sfatul Țării 2

In 2016, in Moldova, some unionists made Sfatul Țării 2, which, at the end of the meeting, proclaimed a symbolic union woth Romania. Important members of it: Nicolae Dabija, Mircea Druc, Ion Ungureanu, Alexandru Moșanu, Alecu Reniță, Mihai Cimpoi, Ion Negrei, Eugen Doga, Arcadie Suceveanu, Nicolae Botgros, Ion Varta, Petru Hadârcă, Iurie Colesnic, Gheorghe Mustea, Ninela Caranfil, Ion Iovcev, Octavian Țîcu, Sandu Grecu, Vasile Iovu, Petru Bogatu, Silviu Tănase. Source: https://infoprut.ro/43513-s-a-constituit-sfatul-tarii-2-la-98-de-ani-de-la-unirea-basarabiei-cu-romania.html RAMSES$44932 (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Unification of Romania and Moldova → Unification of Moldova and Romania – Alphabetical order. That's it. Super Ψ Dro 19:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Soft oppose? I don't really understand why we would want to make this move (I can't see any discussion on the talk page either) and so in general I would oppose the move as "unneeded", but I will also add that Ngrams is telling me that "Romania and Moldova" is a slightly more common ordering than "Moldova and Romania". Overall though, I have no strong opinion on this question. BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Mostly for consistency with other unification articles about Romania. Union of Bessarabia with Romania, Union of Bukovina with Romania and Union of Transylvania with Romania all have the land to be united with Romania first in the title and Romania itself last on it. They also follow an alphabetical order except the Transylvania and Romania one, I am not sure why did I put "alphabetical order" as the only rationale for this as the reason I just expressed was the main reason I started to think about proposing this move some days before I did. It is indeed not much of a change but I like consistency. Super Ψ Dro 17:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the move then. Move justification seems aligned with WP:CONSISTENCY, which is counterbalanced by the indicator that the current name is slightly more common. BilledMammal (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm also neutral on the move. Morgengave (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.