Talk:Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

message: What is this??at the demographics?? Moldovans and Romanians are the same thing...there's no difference..it's as if one said that there was a German minority in Austria, or that people in San Marino aren't Italian.
There is no difference between the moldavian language and the romanaian...there are only political interests
antonio.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  216.195.161.228 (talk • contribs) 
: This situation is somehow explained in articles Moldovans and Moldovan language, but there is also the official data from censuses and from Soviet and later Moldavian constitution. That data should be kept and not changed to meet someone's POV. --Zserghei 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that the official data is POV. Giving only this data means expressing only the view of the Soviets/Moldovenists. bogdan 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everything should be clarified either in the articles corresponding to the ethnicity and to the language or below the census like in Republic of Moldova. Changing Moldovans to Romanians in every census and Moldovan language to Romanian language in every infobox is not a proper solution. --Zserghei 23:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But what are Moldovans? I speak about Moldovans from both Romania and Moldova? Aren't they Romanians? --Chisinau 12:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah but back in 1989, only 3000 people were marked as romanians and not 1.8% of the population.Constantzeanu 07:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: This section is not politically neutral, it is exclusively devoted to the negative sides of the Soviet propaganda and ideology. It ignores historical backgroud of that region.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Masiutin (talk • contribs) 
:Feel free to add the possible sides of Soviet propaganda and ideology to add balance, if you can do so within the framework of rules on which Wikipedia operates. If you believe a part of the text diplays bias or is unsusbstantiated, please explain your issue so it can be adressed. TSO1D 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have to say anything positive about soviet propaganda, but the title ot the section is "Culture and Ideology". By Culture I mea art, music, literature, and related intellectual activities, knowledge and sophistication. There is nothing said about culuture in this section. Only about propaganda, as though culture didn't ever exist. Don't force me to "either you write about culture or I will remove the NPOV clause", because the section is factually NPOV now, beleive it or not. --Maxim Masiutin 13:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would changing the title of the section to just ideology solve the problem? TSO1D 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the phrase"In order to emphasize the alleged differences and to break ties with Romania, Moldovan language was written with the Cyrillic alphabet" is POV, it doesn't clarify the preceiding use of Cyrillic in Transnistria and Principality of Moldova. Also, there is no confirmation for the figures "hundreds of thousands", a citation to a trustworthy reliable source is needed. --Maxim Masiutin 08:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture and Ideology NPOV 

message: No composition per sector (agriculture, industry, services) figures are given (but there is a statement that MSSR was solely agricultural) and no figures how many industrial object have been built in Transnistria and the rest of MSSR, altough there is a false statement that the only region where industry was built was Transnistria. The origin of the data of this Economy section is unknown. nformation on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. --Maxim Masiutin 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: It seems that given that the formal name for this nation was "Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name.  Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic.  We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we?  --Micahbrwn (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this multimove here --Lox (t,c) 11:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

message: I think this should go to Soviet occupation article, as a subsection there, since it is not only about Moldavian SSR, but about entire Bessarabia and northern Bukovina/User:Dc76
: Well, the relationship and debate was between the Moldavian SSR and Romania and AFAIK, there was no dispute between the rest of the regions and Romania, so probably it's more appropriate here. bogdan (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so I must be misunderstanding something here. Was MSSR one side in this debate and Communist Romania the other? I think one side was USSR, if not that it was mostly a monologue, for the Soviets cared less about what Romanian communists were saying - they knew Romanians won't dare do anything official, even an inocent official declaration. Do we have at least one declaration from communist Chisinau? I proposed to move it there, b/c there we have a section with reaction to the occupation, where I intend to add that of USA, etc. So I was simply thinking of a larger picture. But, as I said, I must be missing some point... Would you explain me, please.  Dc76\talk 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This, and the fact that MSSR was as occupied by Soviets as were Moscow or Leningrad in 1917-1991. Good luck with changing sections 2,3 and 4 of this article to "Soviet Occupation".Xasha (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not responding to provocation. Dc76\talk 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd rather move most of the stuff from there to here, seeing as how the persecutions and all was directly caused by the Soviet administration (I.E., the MSSR), which was in turn established during the occupation. Thus the detailed stuff should be here, whereas there should be a short summary the size of the intro here. --Illythr (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, disagree. But not entirely. Technically, the Soviet occupation is about areas that were alotted to Ukraine as well, and as Soviet policies in those areas did not differe a iote from the policies in MSSR, moreover they were against the same individuals and groups of people, they should be treated in one place. Those areas are not just a few villages. And when someone talks about Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, we should not put words in that person's mouth and claim he said something about MSSR. It is a different story about 1956-1989 era, when most events, attitides, etc were MSSR-specific, and I definitevely agree to have this article as the main article for the post-Stalinist period. For example, is USA's position regarding B&NB about MSSR? No, they say clearly about what they talk. Is the thaw and stagnation about MSSR? Yes, because the same periods about areas in Ukraine should mention Ukrainian communist leaders, and that means one should read UkSSR. ETC, we can give dosens of such examples. Dc76\talk 08:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Romania 

message: * These moves angered... - this is an oversimplification of what really happened, and sitting as it is now, it presents things in such a manner that PMR's secession and associated conflict arose solely from the language law, i.e. "evil commies and occupants hated the national emancipation" thing - essentially the nationalist point of view on the events of 1988-1992. This should either presented fairly, or not at all (already described here and here for instance).
*considered politically sensible you probably meant "sensitive," as "sensible" is something that makes sense. If you're referring to the stuff like Lysenkoism, (active repression of genetics) that has already passed with Stalin. Might be a good idea to provide an example.
* hopes people had in American intervension - Huh? American intervention into Soviet territory? in the '60s? This is a pretty wild idea, stated remarkably inappropriately (what, like, the whole people?). Seems to be an attempt to carry over a slightly more tangible expectation that did occur to the west of the Prut. Should stay out until substantial evidence of its existence in the MSSR is brought in. --Illythr (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mmhm, stuff

message: As Bogdangiusca pointed to the fact that new sections and subsections should be added only with something written in them, here is a list of sections that are missing in the article. Please do help to write them:
*subsection Soviet apparatus in section Organization and leadership
*subsection Energy and transport in section Economy
*subsection Education" in section Economy''
*subsection Immigration in section Society
*subsection Emigration in section Society
*subsection Health care in section Society
::Dc76\talk 19:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a need for a separate "Soviet apparatus" subsection? The whole organization was pretty much a part of said apparatus. Also not sure about emigration - was there anything of note at the time? We're talking voluntary there, right? --Illythr (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections needed 

message: I think this should go to Soviet occupation article, as a subsection there, since it is not only about Moldavian SSR, but about entire Bessarabia and northern Bukovina/User:Dc76
: As this is something concerning general state politics and extends way beyond the occupation (into 1991), it should go to Soviet-Romanian relations, an article that unfortunately doesn't exist, instead. --Illythr (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with Communist Romania

message: The text says:
"..civil war began in Transnistria.."
Was it really civil war? --Chisinau 12:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to war of words? There was notable amount of military action taken --Frozenport (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: civil war?

message: I believe the name Moldavia/n, in English, refers to the historical region and the old principality, whereas the name Moldova/n refers to the now independent country, so I'm thinking that since the M. Soviet Socialist Republic was created with the objective to link it to Bessarabia (what is now Moldova), it would be more consistent to call this short-lived country for Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic. Any thoughts? --Cei Trei (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Moldavian instead of Moldovan 

message: There are certain users who have been editing other SSR articles on Wikipedia for the past year, by stating that the soviet republics existed until the adoption of their new constitutions in the mid-1990s. 
Moldavian SSR declared itself independent and changed its name to Republic of Moldova in 1991, and there are absolutely no arguments to back up that this state existed until 1994. That would be rewriting history. A new state is not just a matter of all-new constitutions, but also of its status and form of government. Afghanistan has had a lot of states since the abolishment of monarchy in the 1970s: the First Republic (1973–1978), Democratic Republic/Second Republic (1978–1992), the Islamic State (1992–2001), the Islamic Emirate (1996–2001), the Afghan Interim Administration (2001–2002), the Afghan Transitional Administration (2002–2004), and the present-day Islamic Republic since 2004. Yet they have only had four constitutions since then: 1976, 1987, 1990 and 2004. Is that to say that we should change these yearspans totally as well, so that most of these states didn't exist? The People's Republic of Hungary ended in 1989, but an all-new constitution was first made in 2011. Should we also say that the PR of Hungary existed until 2011, then? That would make little sense. Although Moldova did not adopt a new constitution before 1994, there's no doubt about that it was a totally different state. It had a totally different form of government, its name was changed, it was an independent state (not a federated state), it was not a Soviet socialist republic. These factors are a lot more independent than the adoption of an all-new constitution. And although the constitution was not all-new, and formally the same constitution although heavily amended, it was amended to fit a new state and was not really the same constitution in practice. You'll have to agree that the 1991 transition is a lot more historically significant change in Moldova's history than the adoption of a new constitution. A.h. king • Talk to me! 21:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article editing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413022824/http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/basarabeni-turnati-de-securitate-la-kgb.html to http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/basarabeni-turnati-de-securitate-la-kgb.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100513230114/http://kishinev.info/architecture_en/ to http://www.kishinev.info/architecture_en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521093105/http://www.contrafort.md/2006/135/958.html to http://www.contrafort.md/2006/135/958.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216093607/http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/52-6-111.shtml to http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/52-6-111.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216093607/http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/52-6-111.shtml to http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/52-6-111.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress