Talk:Moldova/Archive 5

message: Just a short question, what do you think, is Moldova a country on the Danube? I tried to examine the map but I couldn't figure out if Danube actually touches Moldova or not. Do they have a port on the Danube? I guess that would be the yardstick for including it in the "countries on the Danube". -- AdrianTM 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It appears that the Republic of Moldova has some 1km of fronteer on the Danube . :) I guess it qualifies. Dpotop 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was wondering. No port though? AdrianTM 17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does have a harbour - it's in construction now but its name is Giurgiulesti. What happened was that in the late 90s Moldova gave Ukraine a road that Ukraine wanted and Ukraine gave moldova some 100 extra meters on the Danube, enough for it to build a harbour.
D39 11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries on the Danube?

message: The map, coat of arms and some text is outside the table, and the page stretches my browser (Opera). Could somebody look at it? I've got no experience when it comes to tables... Jetro 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks OK in Opera 9.0 (on Linux) -- AdrianTM 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it looks ok when I select "Fit to width". Guess there's no problem then. Jetro 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's wrong about the table 

message: In the article, it states:
"[...]opened the new Delegation of the European Commission to Moldova on 6 October, to be headed by Cesare De Montis."
What year is this October? Is the reader supposed to assume the article is still talking about 2004, or? Could someone who knows please put in the year. HJV 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 October 

message: I've always wondered. How could this be? Even the Baltic republics were only half as populated. Is this related to the fact that climate of Moldova is warmer? Dpotop 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might have part of it. The country has 53% arable land with excellent soil and a mild climate. This might have attracted urban as well as rural settlers throughout the history of the region. TSO1D 14:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the chernozem soil and climate play a large role.  I also think that it is/was viewed as a favorable place to move to (or return to in some cases) by those leaving Russia.--vkxmai 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that even if you leave aside the Russian population the population density would still be high. -- AdrianTM 04:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most densely populated former Soviet Republic 

message: I haven't looked through them all, but http://www.unghiul.com/ looks awfully narrow, more of a local news site for one city than anything national. But I leave it to native speakers to make the judgment. - Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News links 

message: The Soviet periof of history of Moldova is given negatively. It describes only the horrors of the Stalin's period when Moldovans were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan, but doesn't cover 60's, 70's and 80's. For example in the two decades from 1971 to 1991 Moldova have got such a development like nowhere in the history. In 1971 the Council of Ministers of the USSR has adopted a decision "About the measures for further development of Kishinev city", that secured more than one billon of rubles of investments from the USSR budget, not counting the highly-quailified specialists sent to Moldova from all over the USSR. Since the independence of 1991, the development have stopped. Thst's why I have marked the "History" section as "politically non-neutral". Maxim Masiutin 01:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: let me see, other positive points that are missing for the Soviet period: people were born, people got married, people didn't die of hunger (most of them anyway), children were taught in schools, companies produced goods, people bought them. Did I forget anything? None of these things are however characteristic for Soviet rule, none of these things are notable. Please add facts you think are notable, without caracterization (as NPOV princinple states) and nobody will have anything against it. Till then I will remove the tag. -- AdrianTM 04:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have added the facts about 70's and 80's.--Maxim Masiutin 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The History section is still not neutral. It tell that Soviet rule enforced Cyrillic but does not explain the preceding use of Cyrillic in Bessarabia and Transnistria.--Maxim Masiutin 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't reject your objections on principle, and certainly want to see a more relevant and professional treatment of both the History section and its main article, but this particular claim is sophistical. The Cyrillic in use was Romanian Cyrillic, not Moldovan or Russian (see article Romanian Cyrillic alphabet); it had been replaced by then, and was obsolete and ill-adjusted for writing in accomplished Romanian, but was kept (and, as far as I know, partly replaced with a hybrid version) by the Imperial Russian authorities. The alphabet as used by the Soviets had, in itself, no historical precedent, and did not want to be perceived as a successor to Romanian Cyrillic, but rather as a version of the Russian alphabet (it is even less adjusted than Romanian Cyrillic for writing in accomplished Romanian). Furthermore, the initial Soviet plan was to keep Romanization in Moldovan/Romanian script, a plan discarded after Stalin changed his mind. Please make note of these distinctions. Dahn 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The refusal to acknowledge the distinct Moldovan ethnic (Bessarabia and Transnistria being protectorate or posession of Russian Empire/Soviet Union and the people were separated by Prut river for centuries) is disputable, altought there are numerous references to "ethnic Romanians from Bessarabia/Transnistria".--Maxim Masiutin 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a theoretical debate as opposed to factual info. Please note that the "centuries of separation" argument relies on investing some meaning to the Prut river course; note, however, that it was only a border after 1812 (and even that shouldn't imply anything in particular). IMO, the definition of Moldovans is not questionable as much for making other claims than for making the one wherby Moldovans are not different from Romanians, they are somehow different from Moldavians as well (after all, Romanians themselves were separated for millenia, and yet they came up with the same political concept - this may either mean that the ethos could not be strangled etc as the nationalists would say, or that all you need is a political ideal, which may surface regardless of circumstances; in either case, your point is moot). Dahn 15:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are only described cases of repression of Moldovans by Soviet rule, but not told how many Jews were repressed or killed by Romanian Army/Police.--Maxim Masiutin 14:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Dahn 15:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Charles King's book, "The Moldovans", (published by Hoover Press), has a lengthy and well-researched history section which is fully sourced + politically neutral. It is unfortunately not available online but still a good source to refer to for a balanced treatment and to fact-check any claims that we as Wikipedia editors suspect might be NPOV. - Mauco 19:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not familiar with the book, but I suggest most info on such topics be referenced to articles such as (first) Moldovans and (second) History of Moldova. This page here is bound to be a brief review of only the most relevant of topics (I personally object to both its length, and, although not necessarily agreeing with Maxim on all topics, its POV-focused perspective). Dahn 20:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is available from Amazon.com and is extremely well researched by King, an American historian, with a wealth of footnotes from original archives in Chisinau and elsewhere. He doesn't have a POV to push (at least none that I know of, and I have read the book several times). He doles out blame to both Russians and Romanians at various times in history. It is a shame that the text of it is not available online (in fact, not even part of it is). I am not active in this topic, but if I can be of any help to anyone, I don't mind looking up any of the facts from the book. - Mauco 22:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No political neutrality of the history section

message: Is there a reason this article refers in one place to "Northern Bukovine" instead of "Northern Bukovina", or is it just a typo? - Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably the "internationalization" of the name something similar to "Moldova" -> "Moldavia" for example. French spelling? -- AdrianTM 10:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna go with typo (the link is there only because a French speaker may have created it - yes, it is the French spelling). Just correct it. Dahn 11:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bukovine 

message: I have a strong tendency to remove the "Ştefan cel Mare" entry in the Culture section. The only thing there that's related to culture is "Some of the best pieces of Moldovan medieval art date from his reign." Churches should be under the Religion category unless there's some info detailing the cultural importance of church paintings or church architecture as it is now Ştefan cel Mare was a great ruler, but is not very clear why is he listed as the first cultural figure. What do you think? -- AdrianTM 19:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no objections, or comment, I will remove. -- AdrianTM 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ştefan cel Mare = Culture? 

message: Is there a standard in English? I think the term that needs to be used is Nistru and Prut since that's how people in Moldova call them. I'd also think you'd have a hard time finding some English speaking person to say "Dniester" right. -- AdrianTM 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if they are conventional, I know that they are traditional in English. Please note, however, that, although I favor the current version of names myself, my main goal was to give a single version of the name in references to the rivers at the very least in the Geography section. If people decide on another version, let them use a single on. This article needs serious copyediting to comply with wiki criteria in regard to overlinking, incosistent tone, repetitions, and un-wiki stuff (such as the culture section, which is pathetic - I know of no Culture section listing writers by name foe lack of relevant detail or interest in the topic). Dahn 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, yeah, but then again we have Bucharest, and we do have a Moldavia etc. The point is about the usage in English. Pruth may be outdated, but Dniester is obviously the actual in word in English (just as Bucharest). I don't think that is subject to changes inside Moldova... Dahn 05:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Naming rules for English Wikipedia specify that the most common name which is currently in English usage should be the article title. In these cases, they are Dniester and Prut. Dniester is actually not exactly Russian, which is Dnestr (Днестр). If anything, it is closer to the Ukrainian version of the name (which is Dnister). - Mauco 03:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dniester and Pruth spelling

message: GDP values in the article ( and elsewhere in the Internet ) are all over the map.
Nominal GDP:
$381 as of 2002 ( Economy section ) 
$861 as of 2005 ( from List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita )
GDP (PPP):
$1,470 as of 2002 ( Economy section )
$1,800 (2005 estimate) ( from CIA World Factbook )
$2,100 as of 2005 ( Economy section )
$2,374 (2005 estimate) ( from the infobox )
$2,527 as of 2005 ( from List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita )
Furthermore, 2002 figures are not consistent with everything else. Getting from $1470 even to $2100 in 3 years requires 14% annual growth rate, but the article says it's closer to 7%. --Itinerant1 05:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget the weakening dollar during that time; its effects on PPP are trickier than on straight-out exchange rate, but because of imported goods, there are non-negligible. But I don't know how much that explains. In any event, since comparisons over time are important, sourcing would be very useful. - Jmabel | Talk 23:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP