Talk:Unification of Moldova and Romania

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

message: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  Expectation of the unification 

message: Node asked for a citation for the different languages promotion.
Copy-paste from John Mackinlay, Peter Cross (2003) Regional Peacekeepers. United Nations University Press , 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)
thread_title:  Promotion of the idea of different languages 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Those damn capitalist Romanians 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New party 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  State language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Basarabia, pământ românesc! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Table

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: 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:
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  That Slavic gibberish they call "Bulgarian"?Dapiks 09:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Bring in the controversy 

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

message: "...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)
thread_title:  Dual citizenship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whitewashing neo-fascist groups 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Annexation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Phrase in the lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reasons 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redirect proposal 

message: 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 Fronthttp://www.pl.md/libview.php?l=ro&idc=78&id=1789 
Mihai Volontir, actorhttp://www.prime.md/rom/shows/item50/video/defacto/
*Ion Ungureanu, actorhttp://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=178900&data=2005-06-21
*Boris Dubosarschi, composer (of Jewish descent)https://www.romania-muzical.ro/articol/compozitorul-boris-dubosarschi-nu-sunt-un-strain-eu-am-crescut-aici/126561/761/2
*Valeriu Gagiu, movie director, member of the National Patriotic Fronthttps://www.timpul.md/articol/valeriu-gagiu-clasicul-cinematografiei-naionale-126441.html
Constantin Tănase, linguist ans journalisthttp://www.chisinau.md/libview.php?l=ro&idc=403&id=13605
*Nicolae Lupan, journalisthttp://www.probasarabia.ro/index.php?page=5
*Petru Păduraru, Metropolitan of Bessarabiahttp://www.evenimentul.ro/articol/un-patriot-mitropolitul-petru-al-basarabiei.html
If you speak Romanian, you will see that they are supporters RAMSES$44932 (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moldovan unionist advocates 

message: *Nicholas Medforth-Mills also expressed his support for the unificationhttps://www.romaniaregala.ro/jurnal/principele-nicolae-viziteaza-comunitati-locale-din-republica-moldova/ RAMSES$44932 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicholas of Romania 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sfatul Țării 2 

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