Talk:Moldova/Archive 7

message: I want to include this sentence: Also, Moldova aspires to join European Union and NATO. Is there such a bid deal to include in the text? --Tones benefit 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may well be true. Please present a source proving it. Alæxis¿question? 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you present a source for proving the contrary, till now you don't agree with it. (http://www.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=en&ID=68715 ( "Voronin highlighted, that we will strive for becoming an EU member"), http://english.people.com.cn/200706/27/eng20070627_387937.html (Moldova seeks Slovenian support on road to EU))--Tones benefit 13:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic sentence

message: Reading the second paragraph, I couldn't get if Moldova is or is not part of NATO. Am I misreading or the text need to be improved?--ClaudioMB 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "and an early member of the NATO Partnership for Peace", "Many inside Moldova also advocate the country joining NATO, however to date no official intent on the issue has been acknowledged."  -- I fail to see where is the problem, to me it's pretty clear. -- AdrianTM 12:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "and an early member of the NATO Partnership for Peace" means Moldova is part of NATO? "Many inside Moldova also advocate the country joining NATO, however to date no official intent on the issue has been acknowledged." means some people in Moldova wants to join NATO but there is no official plan to do that? Thanks. --ClaudioMB 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "and an early member of the NATO Partnership for Peace" means that Moldova is part of "NATO Partnership for Peace". The second part means that many people want to join NATO but there's no official plan for that, BTW, I'd like to see "many" quantified somehow and a reference (poll), otherwise is just weasel words -- AdrianTM 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's better, after linking Partnership for Peace to its article. Also, now it's "some" instead of "many". "Many" is too strong to be used without a source. Even though, I fell that affirmation still need source, what should not be too difficult to find if there is a real discussion in the country about that. Newspaper should have reports about that.--ClaudioMB 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove that completely because is not sourced and it uses weasel words "some", "many"... -- AdrianTM 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to give a change for someone find a source for that sentence. But, removing is right also, when someone find a source, write it back. --ClaudioMB 17:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NATO

message: looks as though some Vandalism has gotten off here. I'm afraid I don't know the real motto of Moldova, but it needs to be corrected.
68.110.10.11 17:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Country Motto

message: Any objections if there's a selective archiving of the stale Mauco + Mark Street + Truli sockpuppet et al. diatribes to get this down to legitimate article discussions? PētersV 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say, whack every issue that has been adressed here. That's, uh, pretty much everything, actually... Except the language thing. Somebody may still chime in there. --Illythr 01:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective archiving?

message: Look, the name of the official language in Moldova is called Moldovan. No one disputes that. What others and I want to do is to refer to the status of the Romanian language as taking part of the official language, as according to the Moldovan legislation. If Moldova wants to repell that standing, then they should get rid of the laws that contradict their current laws. If, however, they choose to go with a double message, then so should we. Therefore, I suggest that we make it clear that Romanian is not to be counted as the official name of the language, but as some kind of substitute. As I have said before: if you guys disagree with presenting the role of the Romanian language, then we should also get rid of the footnote, because it has the same function as adding the name there; the difference being that it is a bit unclear. To remove the footnote, however, would be a biased thing to do and against the policy. I suggest that we write in parenthesis the following (Romanian under the old legislation). Yes, I know it's a bit long, but it's the best thing I could think of. I think we should agree on such a compromise. It's both accurate and reasonble. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that text be "(identical with Romanian)"? Because under current law they accept the Moldovan-Romanian linguistic identity. Dpotop 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the section doesn't deal with that subject. It merely deals with the official name of the language. It doesn't matter if the languages are identical. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Moldovan (Romanian) should do very fine. -- AdrianTM 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anittas, what you call "previous legislation" is law today. The Moldovan law stipulates which language is official. It does not stipulate how to call that language, and in different parts, it calls is differently. As I said: Moldova in the Constitution, Romanian in the Declaration of Independence, Moldavian with a Moldo-Romanian linguistic unity in the Law of Official language. What is not clear here? A child understand that. :Dc76\talk 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems to apply only to Transnistria. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The source is the one you posted, where it says that, "Limbile oficiale în Transnistria sînt limba moldovenească, în baza grafiei latine, limbile ucraineană şi rusă. Republica Moldova garantează funcţionarea şi altor limbi pe teritoriul Transnistriei." It says nothing about the entire state of Moldova. And I agree with the definition of the official language and as I see it, the other languages do not hold a special legal status in Moldova. In the link that you provided, when you go to the Russian version, in the upper left corner it says "Varianta în limba de stat" which confirms that only Moldovan/Romanian is the official language. Now, please stop reverting or you will be reported. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Go ahead and report me. The source that you posted speaks about the official language in Transnistria only. Russian, Ukranian, and Gagauz are not official languages and you don't understand what the definition of the official language means. Point blank, you need to source those statements, which you cannot. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also POV pushing and also WP:OR. (add WP:CIVIL from User:Moldopodo). --Moldorubotalk 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Aw crap, at the Wrong Version, as usual... --Illythr 23:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The official language 

message: This page has been protected for edit warring.  All facts require verifiable reliable sources which you need to cite.  Removal of sourced information without a good reason is disruptive.  --Haemo 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also POV pushing and also WP:OR. (add WP:CIVIL from User:Moldopodo). --Moldorubotalk 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Aw crap, at the Wrong Version, as usual... --Illythr 23:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: /see here full text
Let's try this again (prior comment replaced). What is the point of extensively quoting something which talks about a pile of "official" languages (meaning you can conduct official business in that languge) which are then guaranteed to get translated into Russian for official promulgation/archiving/etc. within the context of the USSR authorities? The Soviet Union is dead the last time I checked. PētersV 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The really funny part, Peters, is that this law is still in force - USSR, KGB and all that. It took me a while to get Moldopodo to acknowledge that, but his interpretation of it kinda baffles me. --Illythr 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ) :Dc76\talk 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law on functioning of languages in Moldova

message: * Vecrumba, thank you for your extensive answer. Please bear in mind that this talk page is read by many users and when it will be archived it will be more difficult to find each others comment. From all what you said I can see only one argument, Moldavian is official becuase it is said in the law that it is State language. However, English Wikipedia definition of official language refers to a legal status given to a language, even though it is not wide spoken (i.e. Gagauz in Moldova). You certainly will not contest that giving a legal framework for a language in Constitution, Law and Decision of the Parliament is not a legal status (than what it is?). Hence all for languages have legal status in Moldova, consequently, all four languages are official in Moldova. Just to make you think, when I source my arguments with direct link to governmental database on Moldavian law pages in Russian, does not it make you think one more time that Russian is official? Other than that, I do not see any practical or scientific need to comment your irrelevant statements on Big Brother, etc... To make a debate a true one, just give a statement and source it, you do not need to add your personal opinion. How many sources have you listed in support of what you have said above - zero? Moldopodo 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not allowed to make such interpretations in the article. You need a credible source that confirms those languages to be official in the whole of Moldova. If such was the case, then I'm sure the state department in Moldova would confirm it. Additionally, we are not allowed to use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Lastly, your interpretation of what the Wikipedia article says on official languages, is incorrect. I believe you have difficulty comprehending English. What is the official language in USA, if I may ask? --Thus Spake Anittas 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Your source does not support your statement. Your source only mentions Russian and Ukranian as official languages of Transnistria and not the whole of Moldova. It is for that reason that you were not allowed to keep your edits. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's the policy that allows what is to be what is not to be. Admins can enforce the policy, but they can also be in the wrong, which in that case, they will have to succumb to the policy. Are you Muntenian? --Thus Spake Anittas 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, Anitta, I do not think your comment above calls for any answer from my part, which would be important for the discussion, please stick to the topic, and try to provide at least one source. Moldopodo 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation of discussion on languages in Moldova 

message: I'd like the following text to be inserted into Human Rights of this article, but cannot edit it now:
The gay rights in Moldova are also in lack of respect in Moldova. Much criticism has ben made towards unfair treatment of homosexuals in the country. 
Mikael Häggström 12:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add when unprotected 

message: Trying to erase the words Romanian from this article sounds like Russification promoted by Voronin in 2007.---- Cezarika f. (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romanian culture

message: EVEN IF THE STATEMENTS ARE REFERENCED!!! Furthermore, he gives no explanations to his deletions of referenced material (even from official sites).
I believe that if I confront him directly he will gravely abuse of administrative rights (I had to deal with his abusive before) and block me. I expect him to delete my edits too. Please somebody take care of this situation.
An example of deletion in the foreign relation section:
"In 1st of October 2007, foreign minister of Moldova, Andrei Stratan, said at UN that Russian troups are in Republic of Moldova against the will of Moldovan Government. Reiterez, cu acest prilej, poziţia Republicii Moldova, potrivit căreia îndeplinirea angajamentelor asumate la Istanbul în 1999 de Federaţia Rusă, ale căror trupe staţionează pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova, contrar voinţei ţării noastre, va crea premizele necesare pentru ratificarea şi punerea în aplicare a Tratatului FACE Adaptat"
Nergaal (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explained in edit summary. This is a general arcle and we cannot include each political rant by each politician on every occasion here. `'Míkka>t 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a political rant if it is ON AN OFFICIAL SITE! Check the link.It is from the website in Romanian/Moldavian of the Ministry of Foreign Relationships and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova.The foreign minister of Moldova is not just a politician. He represents at least at the official level, the position of the country.Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As I have allready stated, he will most likely try to block me since I do not have his opinions and I have no administrative rights. I have no idea who the two users are. Cezarika made a statement on my talk page so I ended up checking his/her edits. Nergaal (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Mikkalai, please don't "suspect", open a user check. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now I only suspect. I may be mistaken. User check is quite busy. `'Míkka>t 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but we need to assume good faith and we shouldn't throw accusations on a hunch (personal opinion -- I have my own hunches, I try not to voice them) -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. `'Míkka>t 03:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How do you "open a user ckeck?" Nergaal (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CHECK -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's kind of abrupt to assume bad faith from admins only because of their (assumed) nationality. But I do see the point in having more neutral admins around especially that user:Nergaal was already blocked once by user:Mikkalai. I also agree that the disputed reference should remain, it's not only "a politician rant" as user:Nergaal explained. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be noted that my previous block made by Mikkai was reverted due to impartiallity. Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably mean "lack of" impartiality... -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yep Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User/Administrator:Mikkalai  is deleting every negative statement about USSR/Russia

message: "In 1st of October 2007, foreign minister of Moldova, Andrei Stratan, said at UN that Russian troups are in Republic of Moldova against the will of Moldovan Government. Reiterez, cu acest prilej, poziţia Republicii Moldova, potrivit căreia îndeplinirea angajamentelor asumate la Istanbul în 1999 de Federaţia Rusă, ale căror trupe staţionează pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova, contrar voinţei ţării noastre, va crea premizele necesare pentru ratificarea şi punerea în aplicare a Tratatului FACE Adaptat" --Cezarika f. (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: are you mentally impaired? you were reverting a version that had this statement in it allready! god dammit kiddo please go away before you get thinks even worse! Nergaal (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: kiddo? wahat kind of version did you revert to? You should be honest with yourself, your version did not included the official statements as my version!--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official statements of official Foreign ministry of Moldova will remain in the text

message: This article is protected due to recent edit war. Currently protection is set to one week because this is the second time the page is fully protected within the month, can be shortened after everyone cooled down and consensus is achieved. --WinHunter (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version it's OK. --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is not an endorsement of the current version, it's just a means of stopping an ongoing edit dispute. So please discuss the points of contention with Nergaal and the other editors on this page. TSO1D (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is quite impossible to have a rational discussion to a 12-year old boy. I have tried that. Check my talkpage. Nergaal (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, personal attacks or such silly comments are unlikely to help. The best way to resolve this conflict is for both of you to present the points you disagree with and explain your rationale so that a consensus can be reached with input for all editors involved in this article. TSO1D (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly coments I will not consider Laagren. --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Protected again - I have kept this page on my watchlist since I last protected this page and it appears that the edit dispute have started again. Please kindly discuss your disputes here instead of reverting each other in the article. Thanks. --WinHunter (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I'd suggest a full revert of the lead to this clean version (except for changes by TSO1D). The current verion is rather messed up. "Soviet occupation" header should also be reverted to the far more neutral Moldavian SSR. Also, CDPP is not the only party in Moldova, why the heck is it listed as a "main" article for the government of Moldova?--Illythr (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I had actually done the exact same thing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172485286&oldid=172484954 earlier today but was reverted quickly. So I would encourage you to make that change (I would do it myself, but I would be getting close to 3RR). TSO1D (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll try to keep the good stuff instead of a total revert. Will take a while... --Illythr (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested changes

message: I might be wrong, but until now (excluding the unreferenced POV of Anonimu who seems to lack the will to compromise) this is the situation from what I see: 1) there seems to be some good amounts of agreements on this. 2) and 3) have still some debating left. 4) needs significant more debating before reaching agreements. Nergaal (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vecrumba please note the article has a history section, however Nergal wants to duplicate it in the lead. please don't join his game.Anonimu (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the lead section is supposed to briefly state the most relevant issues from the article. Therefore duplicating information from article into lead is expected by definition. Anyways, the informaton is in the history section for backup for now. Also I would prefer if instead of pokings, you woud actually reply to my comments above. Nergaal (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Moldova's coming into existence is a bit more torturous a path than that of many other countries--having that in the lead is appropriate. Either the representation in the lead needs more detail or needs to be summarized in a way that makes it clear there's a lot more under the covers. The Moldovan is "practically the same as" Romanian in the current lead is also a problem. There are words in rural Bessarabian Romanian that might not be common in standard Romanian, but that's no more than regional variation in any language. PētersV (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: add replies here please:part 2

message: this link "http://azi.md/news?ID=41925" says that there is a single official language, 
:[:user:moldoprodo] said: but the Constitution and the laws to which it refers says there are four official languages in Moldova. It is a general consensus that Constitution and the laws to which it explicitely refers in article 13 are a major source, with fundamental superior importance to any other source, press article, interpretation, commentary or a journalist personal view
::I totally agree but I want to see a link showing the exact text of that article. I am tempted to believe that people here do not know that text exactly and they think it states 4 official languages. To my understanding "The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country" This does not imply official status of any other language than Moldovan.Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: official language

message: Constitution of the Republic of Moldova
Article 13. The National Language, Use of Other Languages
(1) The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet.
(2) The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country.
(3) The State will encourage and promote studies of foreign languages enjoying widespread international usage.
(4) The use of languages in the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be established by organic law.end of citation of article 13 of Constitution
Organic Laws
1) Law regarding the Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR.2) Decision of Parliament regarding "Implementation of the law regarding Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR".3) Article 6 of the Law regarding Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of the Dniestr Left bank  Localities (Transnistria).
(1) Transnistria has its own symbols (heraldry), which are applied together with the symbols of the Republic of Moldova.
(2) Official languages of Transnistria are Moldavian written in Latin alphabet, Ukrainian and Russian languages. The Republic of Moldova guarantees functioning of other language on the territory of Transnistria.
(3) Record keeping, as well as correspondence with public power intitutions of the Republic of Moldova, companies, organisations and institutions, situated abroad from Transnistria, are held in Moldavian language written in Latin alphabet and Russian language.
Official language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'''
An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well. Official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken.
An official language is not to be confused with a national language, although the national language may be official if given legal recognition by the government.
One of the official languages of sierre leone is French.
Comparative law as an example
Three official languages in Luxembourg: Multilingualism in Luxembourg belongs to the everyday life of Luxembourg's population.
Article 29 of Constitution of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg :
(Modified on 6 May 1948)
"The law will regulate the use of languages in administrative and judicial matters."
The law of 24 February 1984 about the use of the languages in Luxembourg is (translated from French):
*Article 1: The national language of the Luxembourgers is Luxembourgish.
*Article 2: The laws are in French.
*Article 3: The language of the government: Luxembourgish, German and French can be used.
*Article 4: administrative questions: If a citizen asks a question in Luxembourgish, German or French, the administration has to reply, as far as possible, in the language in which the question has been asked." 
In most other multilingual countries, such as Switzerland or Canada, the distribution of the languages is geographic, but in Luxembourg it is functional.
'Functional' means that the use of the language depends on the situation.
Comparative law as an example - equivalent provisions in Moldovan law
Article 6 of the Law regarding Functioning of Languages:
Regarding institutions of state power, state administration and public organisations, as well as companies, other instituions and organisations located on the territory of the Moldavian SSR, the language of oral and written communction - Moldavian or Russian - is chosen by the citizen. The citizen's right to use Gagauz language in the aforementioned conditions is guaranteed in localities with population of Gagauz nationality.
In localities, where the majority of population is composed of Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian nationalities, the native or other convenient language is used.
Therefore, there are four official languages in Moldova: 
1) Moldavian language (wich is the same as Romanian linguisticly and scientificly, however no legal reference to Romanian exists in Moldovan legislation)
2) Russian language (language of international communication (as stipulated by the Moldovan law) (official "state" language in Transnistria and Gagauzia)
3) Ukrainian language which used to be legal language of the Modavian Principality (как актовый язык Молдавского княжества), which is official "state" language in the easten cantons of Moldova. (official language in Transnistria)
4) Gagauz language, which is official "state" language in the southern autonomous region Gagauzia.
Moreover, as per evidence cited above, Romani language, Hebrew language and Bulgarian language enjoy a clearly established legal status in Moldova. What we need here is to establish the list of localities where the population is really majority of respective nationalities and speaks these languages.
Please, refer to langauges articles in multinational countries, like Switzerland (where they not simply name the language, but specify the country Swiss German, Swiss French, Swiss Italian  and leave only Romansh without country reference, for example. I think articles Moldovan Romanian, Moldovan Russian, Moldovan Ukrainian and Gagauz might be more appropriate as simply language reference without country mention. There one could write not only about linguistic aspects, but also about the number of speakers, specific regions of Moldova, etc. For example the article Moldovan Romanian one could start: The Romanian language is officially called in Moldova "Moldovan". And then explain the identity, controversy, political issues related to this.  
I do not think it is necessary to write more than two paragraphs on each language on the Moldova page proper. The rest should be put in the aforemnetioned relevant "language articles".
Moldopodo (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet. I don't see the plural for languages and I don't see the comma "," and the other. So, as it is written black and white there is only one official language. When it will be written "(1) The state languages of the Republic of Moldova are Moldovan, Russian and Ukrainian." then I will agree with you. --Sambure talk 12:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, No, when you deal with laws you take them AD-LITERAM, by the book as it is written there. Is it written there that there are 3 official languages? No. It is written that only one and only and only one is official language. Citation: (1) The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan . Other problems? Sambure talk 13:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official languages in Moldova 

message: I agree, only the Costitutional Court has that right. Please look at the following decision
  1. Recunoaste  constitutionale  dispozitiile art.6  alin.(1),  art.8
alin.(1)  si  (3), art.10, art.11 alin.(1) si art.12 alin.(1) din  Legea
nr.382-XV  din  19  iulie  2001 "Cu privire  la  drepturile  persoanelor
apartinind   minoritatilor   nationale   si  la  statutul   juridic   al
organizatiilor  lor",  cu exceptia sintagmei "...si rusa" din art.10  in
partea   referitoare  la  denumirea  localitatilor  si  strazilor  si  a
sintagmei "...si rusa" din art.11 alin.(1).
    2. Declara neconstitutionale  sintagma  "...si rusa" din art.10  in
partea  referitoare la denumirea localitatilor si strazilor si  sintagma
...si  rusa" din art.11 alin. (1) din Legea nr.382-XV din 19 iulie  2001
"Cu privire la drepturile persoanelor apartinind minoritatilor nationale
si la statutul juridic al organizatiilor lor".
    3. Declara neconstitutionala  sintagma  ...si limba rusa" din  art.5
alin.(4)  din  Legea  nr.100-XV din 26 aprilie 2001 "Privind  actele  de
stare civila".
    4. Prezenta Hotarire  este definitiva, nu poate fi supusa nici  unei
cai  de  atac,  intra  in vigoare la data adoptarii  si  se  publica  in
"Monitorul Oficial al Republicii Moldova".
In a long decision, the court analyzes the usage of languages in Moldova based on the Constitution and the Law on Languages from 1989. The decision and their arguments reveals that they consider that since Moldovan is the state language, any mention of the Russian language at the official level is unconstitutional. The only area where documents may explicitly refer to other languages, including Russian is in the sphere of education, although documents bearing on civil matters should be translated in another language if requested. 
I am glad that this debate is finally over.TSO1D (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am afraid you are baldly inetrpreting the Constitution and the definition of official language 

message: Wikipedia policy states that:"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. 
"A tertiary source is a publication such as an encyclopedia or other compendium that sums up other secondary sources and primary sources. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up widely accepted results of large amounts of primary and secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be useful in avoiding original research in topics where there exist very large amounts of primary and/or secondary sources."
Since we are disagreeing about the content of primary sources, the only solution is to look at existing analyses from credible sources, and here we have plenty of those. Look at Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, etc. So since discussing primary sources will get us nowhere, if you have a credible secondary source or tertiary source supporting your position, please provide that, otherwise I see no point in continuing this dicussion. TSO1D (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[OR]] and Credible Sources

message: Can somebody please clear away these huge quotes from legal texts that have cluttered this page? It's entirely unreadable. Since apparently all these texts are easily available on Wikisource, it's entirely sufficient to just link to there, rather than copy the whole bulk here. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better move them all (quotes+comments related to them) to Talk:Moldova/Discussion about the official language(s) or something similar. I don't think anyone will take the difficult job of sorting quotes from comments. After all, this is a talk page, not an article.Anonimu (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clean this up 

message: Here is my new proposal on the history part of the lead (based on all the suggestions given until now):
 Most of its territory was historically part of the medieval Principality of Moldavia, and was ceded to the Russian Empire in 1812, as part of Bessarabia. In 1918, after the collapse of the Russian Empire,  the National Assembly of Bessarabia voted almost unanimously towards union with Romania.Pelivan (Chronology) But during World War II, with the agreements of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, Bessarabia was allowed by the Third Reich to fall under the sphere of influence of USSR. After an ultimatum from USSR the Romanian government and army retreated from Bessarabia in 1941Soviet Ultimata and Replies of the Romanian Government in Ioan Scurtu, Theodora Stănescu-Stanciu, Georgiana Margareta Scurtu, Istoria Românilor între anii 1918-1940 (in Romanian), University of Bucharest, 2002 - which was then split between the Ukrainian SSR and the newly-created Moldavian SSR. The latter declared its independence from the USSR on August 27, 1991, as Republic of Moldova.
Nergaal 04:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: inistead of "almost unanimously" maybe "in great majority" might work-I believe a measure of degree is relevant since it was more than 2/3 pro. Not sure about the '41&'44 events. The 1947 event might probably be as important as the recognition of the union in 1918 by France & UK but not Russia. Nergaal 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: in 1947 Romania was under Soviet occupation, I don't think it's very relevant if they recognized MSSR as part of USSR at that time -- it's not like they had much choice... -- AdrianTM 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: going once Nergaal 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "During World War II, with the agreements of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Bessarabia was allowed by the Third Reich to fall under the sphere of influence of USSR." is awfully clumsy. As part of MR, Hitler signaled he had no interest in Bessarabia, this opened the door to Stalin's ultimatum (remember Hitler and Stalin were still buddies) and Romania capitulating to the Soviet ultimatum under pressure from Italy and Germany for stability and continued access to Romania's oil--as Romania also saw that there would be no aid from the French or British. It's somewhat disjointed the way it's phrased now, this sentence and the one following don't flow together well. —PētersV (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, make a better proposal Nergaal (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New attempt to discuss lead section

message: During the retreat, the Romanian Army was attacked by the Soviet Army, which entered Bessarabia before the Romanian administration finished retreating - some 42,876 Romanian soldiers died or disappeared
:Are these numbers important? Officers - yes, but many solders simply returned to their homes in Bessarabia and N Bukovina. The actual number of killed military was maybe 5 or 10 fold less that. Civilians- that's a different story, those were persecuted more methodically and in bigger numbers. Needs reformulation. --Dc76 (moved to talk by Illythr (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the figure is taken from that rather controversial book by Goma. It would indeed be nice to find a neutral source for that. --Illythr (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing controversial about that figure, it's from Romanian archives, Goma's book is "controversial" (meaning that some people don't like it) because of conclusions and the way things are interpreted, nobody claimed that sources are misquoted in the book. I don't know though how many soldiers in Romanian army in that part of the country were from Bessarabia, that would be interesting to know... -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers are clearly from the Romanian military archives. In fact, only cca. 400, if I remember well, were officers. Those we killed, yes.  Perhaps some other 3-4 solders for every officer. My estimative total: 2,000 killed, 40,000 returned to their houses in Bessarabia and northen Bukovina. Anyway, I reformulated for neutrality: "Romanian army undercounted 42,876 solders and officers." How's that? Personally, I think 2,000 dead in 5 days is catastrophic. Remember, to push the Soviet army in 1941 from Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, there were only cca. 12,000 dead, and they faced enemies such as Belov's kavkorpus and Malinovsky's motorized corps (these would become famous in the Battle of Moscow).
Second, about development of Moldavian SSR in 1970-1980. I changed "highly qualified specialists" to "qualified specialists", since the first formulation works really only for the experts in the filed, IMHO. Adding "highly" makes the whole sentence non-serious, IMHO. The influx stopped with the independence of Moldova, when the Gosplan was not doing any more the economic policy. It has nothing to do with Belovezha, where the leaders of 3 foreign countries decided something that mattered mostly for them. By then, Moldova was recognized by most European and North Atlantic countries. Finally, we all know what "investment" means in market economy accounting practice, and what it meant in the planned economy. I erased one of the two occurrences. Anyway, I'm obviously open to further suggestions.:Dc76\talk 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet era

message: Romanians are still waiting to unite with Moldova. --116.214.31.93 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, right. And what about Moldovans? What do they want? --Ungurul (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romania toward Moldova: we wait you to unite with us