Talk:Moldova/Archive 1

message: "Under Stalin, ethnic Russians were brought into the new country, especially into urbanized areas, while many ethnic Romanians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan."
The first is true, but I am not sure where the second is coming from. Surely, many Romanian soldiers were deported, but during my 5 years in Moldova I have not heard of any significant deportations of the population. (User:Gaidash 8 May 2005)
* I didn't write the passage; it's not cited; and I don't know for sure, but… I have heard that  there are a good number of Romanian speakers remarkably far east in Russia and formerly Soviet Central Asia, and this seems to me like the most likely explanation. But does someone have something solid on this either way? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
* There were several waves of deportations, especially during WWII, but also afterwards. See: Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union 07:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deportation 

message: ===Background===
Currently, Moldova is the article on the independent state and Moldavia is about the historical region, which includes parts of Romania, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.
The main problem with current status is that outside Wikipedia there is no consensus on this usage and the current status quo is rather arbitrary, and therefore confusing. Here are some facts:
* Moldova is the Romanian name for the historical region and sometimes used in English to refer to the Romanian partion as well.
* Moldavia is the Russian name for the whole region and was borrowed in English. Most English language historical text use Moldavia for the historical region, but the same name is often used for the Soviet Republic which is now the Republic of Moldova and sometimes used to refer "Republic of Moldova" as well.
* In Romania, while "Moldova" refers to the Romanian part of the historical region, "Republica Moldova" refers to the "Republic of Moldova"
* The official name of the "Republic of Moldova" is "Republica Moldova", and the Constitution always uses this term. 
===Similar situations===
*Ireland and Republic of Ireland
*Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia
*China and Republic of China / People's Republic of China
*Congo and Republic of the Congo / Democratic Republic of the Congo
===Proposal===
* Moving Moldova to Republic of Moldova
* Moving Moldavia to Moldova
* Redirect Moldavia to Moldova
Moldova should discuss only about the whole region, Republic of Moldova about the country and Moldova (Romanian region) about the Romanian partion of Moldova.
===Comments===
(Please add your suggestions here)
I'm not very concerned about the naming, but we should have three articles, one on the historic region, one on the present-day republic, and one on the present-day region of Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to [[Republic of Moldova]] 

message: (Please add your suggestions here)
I'm not very concerned about the naming, but we should have three articles, one on the historic region, one on the present-day republic, and one on the present-day region of Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Listen, observers complained that the census had irregularities and that there were many occasions were censors wrote all the information using pencils. After they were finished taking all the information down, they used to erase “Romanian” and replace it with “Moldovan”. Also, on many occasions censors urged people to declare themselves as “Moldovans” and not “Romanians”. Hence we do not know exactly how many people declared themselves as “Moldovans” and how many as “Romanians”. It is quite known that when it came to language, about 66% of the population declared “Romanian”, not “Moldovan-language” as mother language. So please put your political motivations aside. This is a Wikipedia where we value NPOV so stop changing the article. Thank you. 
PS: BTW, the whole notion of a "moldovan" ethnic group different then the Romanian one is quite dubious. Most serious sourses will mention that Moldovans are Romanians. 
Duca 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Duca, if the source is dubious, you can make a note about it in the article. However, the math you do on your own, and make it based on allegedly dubious source, produces even less encyclopedic numbers. You either find something more reliable than the official census or leave it alone. If you can support your complaints with some respectable references, no one will revert any reasonably sourced allegations about the census you might add. But you cannot just add your own analysis o the census data. Also, do not make inflamatory section titles or edit summaries. --Irpen 07:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using census numbers

message: There seems to be an edit war regarding the lead paragraph. I think it is important to state that Moldova was part of Romania for most of history because Moldova still maintains cultural links with Romania - the majority of its residents are ethnic Romanian (even if they're called Moldovans in the census). I'm definitely not a Moldovan unionist - in fact, I think there are differences between Moldovans and Romanians that make union near-impossible. However, fundametally, Moldovan and Romanian culture is similar and Moldovan culture has been far more influenced by Romanian culture than Russian. In short, Moldova is a Romanian nation influenced in 50 years by Russian culture that now makes it unique from both Romania and Russia, but the role of Romania is very significant, more significant that Russia's. Just saying that Moldova was a USSR republic and then became independent misses this fact. If we're going to state that Moldova was part of the USSR, then we should also state what it was before that, if only in a few words. Stop arguing that it makes the lead section long because it doesn't. The lead section is too short anyway. Adding a few extra words saying "Historically part of Romania" doesn't make the lead section more cluttered or short. Ronline 06:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory section 

message: Under "official language" we currently have "Moldovan (Romanian)(+ Gagauz and Russian in the Gagauz Autonomy, Ukrainian and Russian in Transnistria not recognized internationally". This really doesn't parse. What is not recognized internationally? Foreign countries don't get to recognize an official language or not. Could someone explain what this means to say? I realize that the de facto government of Transnistria is not internationally recognized (nor, I believe, is it properly recognized by the central government of Moldova), but this is a section on official languages, not on the status of governments. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official language 

message: I've edited the section "Relations with Romania and the European Union". One sentence strikes me as rather POV, but I've left it alone, because I think it is well put and on the mark; it would be good, though, to replace it with a cited quotation, since it is an expression of opinion: "At present, Moldova remains the poorest country in Europe, with rampant corruption and a sadly booming trade in people." 
Also in that section: "under the clause of 'anti-nationalism'". Does this refer to a particular clause in a particular law, or should it just be "under the rubric of 'anti-nationalism'"? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant, sadly 

message: Since these recent edits are by an anonymous editor who is  accusing me of bias over Romania (which I presume would extend to bias over Moldova) I do not feel free to revert. 
However, I think these should be reverted. It is tedious to do things this way. I would really appreciate that if I'm going to be accused of bias, please file an RfC, so that I have an appropriate place to respond and try to clear myself of the charge.
I'll take up the anon's changes one by one; bold indicates his/her additions, strikethrough indicates deletions:
*"The Moldovan flag is similar to the flag of Romania, with the same color, but with the addition of a coat of arms, expressing the link between the same nation." This is bad English usage (you can't have a link "between" one thing). Also, while I don't doubt that Moldova chose this flag to represent common history and nationhood, I would have let the similarlity speak for itself, instead of claiming without citaiton to know the intent expressed. In any case, can someone please at least fix the English usage.
* "Ştefan cel Mare ("Stephen the Great"), a prince of Moldavia, is considered a national hero in both Romania and Moldova, being a symbol link between them." Again, bad English usage. I'm guessing that "a symbol link" means to say "a symbolic link". And, again, I'd let the matter speak for itself: I don't think the two countries chose to consider Ştefan  a hero in order to symbolize their oneness.
*  "IfWhen Romania joins the EU, and Moldova were later to will unify with Romania…". I don't mind rewording "if" to "when" for the first clause—Romania's joining the EU is pretty much a foregone conclusion—but saying that Moldova will unify with Romania, instead of "if Moldova were to unify with Romania" is absolutely out of line: the countries seem unlikely to unify in the near future, if ever.
*  "Moldova remains the one of the poorest country in Europe": again, bad grammar. I think this means to say "Moldova remains one of the poorest countries in Europe". I believe, though I am not certain, that "the poorest" is true; it is poorer than Albania, the only other contender I can imagine. Would someone at least fix the grammar? And I think that unless a poorer country can be cited, "the poorest" should be restored. 
Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree with these edits 

message: About the :Category:Moldovan people and List of Moldovans, who should be a "Moldovan"? People that have the the Moldovan citizenship, are Moldovans by at least one definition of the term, but what about people that lived in today's territory of the Republic of Moldova before this citizenship was created ? bogdan | Talk 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is a Moldovan? 

message: It seems to me that a lot of the recent editing in this article has been detrimental. All of the following occurred in the last 36 hours. I think they were all changes for the worse, and they seem to have resulted from sort of political struggle that I am not really interested in deciphering. I certainly think they all should at least require explanation as to why they were done. For the moment, I am not going to try to fix any of this, but I believe someone should.
# "The western part of Moldavia remained an autonomous principality and united with Wallachia to form the Old Kingdom of Romania in 1859" became "The western part of Moldavia remained an autonomous principality and united with Wallachia to form the Romania in 1859". I have literally never heard the usage "the Romania". I also think that "Old Kingdom of Romania" conveyed useful information, the distinction from Greater Romania after 1918.
#"Initially, there was a movement to reunite with Romania, but a March 1994 referendum saw an overwhelming majority": Well, I wasn't there and wasn't paying close attention to Moldova in those days, but from what I remember reading at that time, the removed phrase is accurate. Probably could use a citation, though.
#: Actually, there was some enthusiasm at the time: "podul de flori", Moldova sets the new official language Romanian (later changed to Moldovan), the flag the Romanian tricolour, the new anthem "Deşteaptă-te, române" (later changed to "Limba noastră"), etc. bogdan | Talk 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political editing 

message: I think that to call R.M. "Historically a part of Romania" is too much. Romania exists since 1862, and the current territory of R.M. has only been part of Romania for 22 years (1918-1940); that's hardly "historically" in my view.
However, we must also acknowledge the fact that the current R.M. territory didn't emerge from nowhere in 1945 to become the Moldavian SSR. Some time ago I rephrased that sentence as: "Historically part of the Principality of Moldavia, the current territory of the R.M. became part of the USSR in 1945 as the Moldavian SSR [...]". However this seems to have been lost in the edit war currently in progress. 
I'm bringing it up again, and am asking all parties to comment. Thanks, IulianU 16:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, you are right. I Agree. serhio talk 17:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise attempt on introductory section 

message: I invite all Moldova editors in Wikipedia, to join also the WikiNews Project.
I have created Moldovan Page at this address: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:Moldova
serhio talk 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoldovanPage on WikiNews 

message: 202.69.200.15  and 195.175.37.38 blocked for 24 hours. If they will not learn how to cooperate in wikipedia, they will be blocked permanently. In particular, they must understand that a topic is divided into several articles. To avoid duplications and contradictions, usually the detailed information is contained only in one article, most relevant to the subject. Other articles contain either summaries or only directly relevant information. Putting the whole history of Romania into the article Moldovan language or into Moldova is absolutely out of question.
See also Talk:Moldovan language#195.175.37.38 blocked. mikka (t) 19:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Users blocked

message: CIS Elections Monitoring Organization (CIS-EMO)
Soon after the CIS monitors declared the Kyrgyz vote was "free and transparent," large-scale and often violent demonstrations broke out throughout the country protesting what the opposition called a rigged parliamentary election. These protests culminated on 24 March when Kyrgyz President Askar Akaev fled the country and a new government was formed.
Is The CIS-EMO An NGO?
In December 2003, a group calling itself the CIS Elections Monitoring Organization (CIS-EMO) was registered in Nizhnii Novgorod, Russia, as a nongovernmental organization; a spokesman for the group said it has no ties to the official CIS monitors.
The reasons for the founding of this group are unclear. One possible explanation is that after so many discrepancies between CIS monitors' conclusions and those arrived at by OSCE election observers, a "neutral" NGO was needed to lend legitimacy to the official CIS reports and to thereby reinforce Russian policy goals.
A certain amount of confusion resulted from the fact that this NGO had a very similar name to the official CIS monitors, and that its reports were almost carbon copies of those filed by the official CIS monitors.
The CIS-EMO played a minor role as an observer in the Ukrainian elections in 2004. CIS-EMO leader Aleksei Kochetkov complained that he had been beaten by people wearing orange armbands, a complaint that was dismissed as a ploy by many people.
In the February Moldovan parliamentary elections, a trainload of CIS-EMO observers were not allowed into the country -- being turned back at the Ukrainian-Moldovan border. Earlier, Moldova had also rejected the presence of official CIS monitors.
see CIS: Monitoring The Election Monitors
EvilAlex 11:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is EMO? 

message: Link: *http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2005-11-28&id=12172
:"Moldovenii si romanii sunt, in esenta, un singur popor" declared romanian President T. Băsescu.
:"Moldovans and romanian are in essence, the same people" (President of Romania T. Băsescu). I found this very interesting and deserve to be added in the text.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs
::Yes, it is interesting. How one country strives to swallow another one. I have learned that there is no such thing as a goodwill in politics. mikka (t) 08:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, for those who do not read Romanian, is "Russia wants to recolonize the Republic of Moldova." -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of official remarks by the new administration.  Last April the Romanian Ambassador to the United States, Sorin Ducaru, visited Cleveland, Ohio to give a talk.  There was a Q&A session afterwards, during which I asked him, quite directly the following question.  "Will Moldovans be required to pay for a visa for travel to Romania, in light of the two countries' prior travel arrangements as well as their shared linguistic and cultural history?"  His response was as follows: "I understand now that Moldovans need visas to travel into Romania and that situation will not change for the forseeable future."  It was of course completely false and it drew a few snorts of disdain from other Moldovans in the audience, as well as a few chuckles.  I am only adding this anecdote because for me it further highlights the problems facing Moldova, if even the Romanian Ambassador to the US didn't readily know the facts on it.  Granted, he might not have had to ever deal with such a question.  Also of note, during his brief powerpoint presentation, he quickly skipped over a few slides on Transnistria and Moldova.vkxmai 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. He made a mistake. Maybe he was thinking about passports. Moldovans in the present time they don't need visa to enter in Romania. But they need a valid passport. Some years ago this was not neccessarly. They could have enter only with a valid ID card. The agreements with EU is that Romania can choose a country with which it may have special relationship. So even when Romania will join EU in 2007 the agreements with Moldova will be in such a manner that they will not need visa. E.g. Ukraine, Russia, Serbia, Turkey they need visa for Romania now.  Bonaparte  talk 17:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Statement of President [[Basescu]] concerning the same romanian people from Moldova and Romania

message: BTW, right now I noticed a curious word in the infobox, not found in my dictionary "inglobation" and with very curious occurrence in the internet. I guess it is a false friend for Romanian speakers, like, "o inglobate in istituti europei" I'd suggest to find something less italian. mikka (t) 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Inglobation" certainly does not exist in English. May I assume that in this context it means the date when the entity came into existence with more or less it's current borders? If so, we could say "Borders established" and be clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lots of activity on this page, but still no answer to my question after 11 days. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Inglobation"

message: I've added this. Would it be someone so kind to help us to reveal the real numbers? Thank you. -- Bonaparte  talk 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Yes, I'm working on updating them now. I deleted some of the entries since they didn't include Moldova in their studies (the Competitiveness Yearbook, the AT Kearney report, etc, which only included larger countries).  Ronline ✉ 04:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ronline. We need people like Ronline.  Bonaparte  talk 18:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International rankings 

message: This page could have been a pretty decent page were it not for bad English and what seems to be almost constant references to Romania. Granted, Moldovans speak Romanian (even if they call it Moldovan), but just as how Austrians speak German and maybe ethnically German, there seems to me to be no reason for this article and its associated discussion to be involved in some kind of dispute over the identity and language of the people in the area called Moldova. If Moldovans were really intent on reunification there was ample time (nearly 14 years) in which to do so. And even if the government was promoting "Moldovan" over "Romanian", the mere fact that the majority of Moldovans have not voted for the only party advocating unification with Romania and that the majority of Moldovans have not brought down their government with protests and insisted on unification demonstrates that reunification is not a pressing issue. Also, why all this bickering over "Moldovan" language and "Romanian" language? In the United States the language is called English or American English, but we don't see any bickering or edit wars over this. In Belgium the languages are either "French and Dutch" or "Walloon and Flemish" but are tempers raging and people being verbally attacked over on any of those pages? You should all get some administrators in here to lock the page and put up warning signs until things can be worked out peaceably.anon user
: Speaking of which, linking for the official language like this
:* Moldovan
: … is inappropriate, given that we have an article Moldovan language. We can argue till hell freezes over as to whether Moldovan is a language, a dialect, a variety, or just another name for Romanian (FWIW, from everything I've seen, I'd say "just another name" is closest to the truth, with "a variety" being arguable, and claims of a distinct "dialect" or even "language" being pretty much polemical), but our article Moldovan language is largely about these questions, and about the question of official language in Moldova. Bypassing that by piping a link is basically an Easter Egg link, specifically advised against at Wikipedia:Piped link. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a pity 

message: I think you noticed that I did not say "the Moldovan people" but "the people of Moldova"-Basescu []
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/nitransit/2003/moldova2003.pdf
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/nitransit/2004/moldova2004.pdf
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/nitransit/2005/moldova2005.pdf
-- Bonaparte  talk 15:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Basescu

message: The tourism section appears to be out of place and contains very little information. The section resembles the introductory paragraph to a brochure about the country but has very little relevant information. It contains no facts nor any statements that cannot be found in other parts of the article. Furthermore, no other wiki article about a country contains such an ubiquitous section. I propose removing it completly. TSO1D 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Tourism Section 

message: Maybe this is not the best place to bring this up, but does anyone know if the recent census data in both RM and PMR have released their final versions. I noticed in the Tiraspol article and Tighina article that the population is reported to be 266.000 and 157.000 resp. which results in more then 400.000 people out of a 555.000 total for all of PMR. This seems to me a little off. Does anyone have a ref. for this data?Constantzeanu 06:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Census