Talk:Moldova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This subject is featured in the Outline of Moldova, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Nuvola apps date.svg A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 27, 2004, August 27, 2005, August 27, 2006, August 27, 2007, August 27, 2008, and August 27, 2009.

Archives
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved.

Contents

[edit] Disambiguation

"Moldova" should be redirected to the disambiguation page, as it is done in the case of "China" and "Macedonia". The primary meaning of the word refers to the whole region, not to the internationally recognized state.

Please post new messages at the bottom of this page. Moldavia may be what you are looking for. Moldova is used in English almost exclusively for the independent state.Anonimu (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Russian ideas

I suggest Russian editors to stop editing Moldova's website. --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just love the header - "Editing History of Moldova" --Illythr (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep your Russians ideas in your ARSE! --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
1) "ass" is the correct spelling. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngzyyRVYfkg&feature=related 2) This is Wikipedia's website, not Moldova's. Constructive contributions are welcome from anybody, provided they are colnstructive. Please note, it generally takes time and thought to read through and compare previous edits. Don't assume someone edits in bad faith just because one edits. Read them through carefully. Also, pls refract and apologize for the incivil words. To quote: "your have the right and obligation to shot bin Laden, but you have no right to swear at him". 3) Was there a check user performed? Are we assuming this is Bonaparte or it is a known fact? Dc76\talk 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it seems "ass" is American and "arse" is British. I had no idea! :) But that's not a nice word (watch the youtube video) :) Dc76\talk 14:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Either British or American English, that place is the same :).. It's not a nice word but it's still in dictionary and can be used. --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There are many words in the dictionary that should not be used. Whatever, the way you addressed was incivil. A civil person would apologize and refract. Dc76\talk 15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the right to revert to a long standing version that lasted many time. Why should I appologize for reverting to that version? --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, which is the difference between soviet propaganda and russian propaganda. I don't get what you mean b/c I haven't noticed a difference between them. --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • You misunderstood. Not to apologize for an edit. But you said: "Keep your Russians ideas in your ARSE!" and "why don't you stick your Russian ideas in your ASS??!!!!" That is called a personal attack, and either you apologize for it or you are banned.
I admit I done that. I apologize. Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • To get an idea about it, read Soviet propaganda. It means all major falsities actively promoted by the Soviets. However, it is not clear what you mean by "Russian propaganda": is it Russia that promotes it (which Russia, tsarist? modern?), Russians (are you sure you want to say all ethnic Russians promote propaganda?), Russophones (again, there are millions of people who speak Russian, but have nothing to do with Soviet propaganda), some political regime (be specific which)? The expression "Russian propaganda" as such IMHO is a non-sense. There does exist Moldovenism, non-sense expressed publicly time and again by some individuals (Voronin, Putin, Smirnov), but that is not constitute a "Russian propaganda". And BTW (by the way), what exactly is propaganda in this article? Could you, please, copy-and-paste a few such sentences below? Dc76\talk 17:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not a secret the present Russia perpetuates the same old sovietic methods, even today. I will bring all the propaganda from article here. Few sentences.Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So what? Illythr is not from Russia, and his relationship to Soviet things is at most melancolically nostalgic, and that only at times. What point do you intend to make? If you intend to discredit him, that would be very-very unlikely (read impossible), b/c he has the record of years of positive contributions and not a single time has he muttered an incivility (a lot of people, including me, could vouch strongly for that), while you have one day with already 2 serious incivilities and basically no constructive contributions whatsoever. If your point is that something is not true but just Soviet propaganda, please attempt to make such point only after you clearly indicate what sentences you mean. I am not negating that occasionally there are Soviet propaganda things that stick to some articles for several weeks. But I saw most if not all such things eventually removed. WP has rather the reputation of hitting hard Soviet "heritage" rather than sucombing to the lure of communist propaganda, IMHO. Calm down, discuss content, LISTEN, and THINK before you rush to edit. Pls. Dc76\talk 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, Bonaparte, didn't they block your new account yet? Dahn (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


[edit] List of Russian/Sovietic propaganda in Moldova's website

-'was subsumed by the Soviet Union' -'Transnistria' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghimpu Moldova 1, I think you should try to calm down. (You would do better to use your energy to improve a "stab" articles; there are so many of them around that need development.) Don't try to paint a better picture of Moldova than the reality is. The major problems with this article IMHO are standardization of references and making existing red links blue. I find nothing wrong in using the word "Transnistria". Nor in using the word "subsumed" (the articles make it clear that subsumtion was done through occupation). Dc76\talk 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "language of inter-ethnic communication"

What is that supposed to mean? Is it still current, I see in other articles that that was the situation in Soviet Union, see this paragraph from Ukraine

Officially, there was no state language in the Soviet Union until the very end when it was proclaimed in 1989 that Russian language is the state language. Still it was implicitly understood in the hopes of minority nations that Ukrainian would be used in the Ukrainian SSR, Uzbek would be used in the Uzbek SSR, and so on. However, Russian was used in all parts of the Soviet Union and a special term, "a language of inter-ethnic communication" was coined to denote its status. In reality, Russian was in a privileged position in the USSR and was the state official language in everything but formal name—although formally all languages were held up as equal. Often the Ukrainian language was frowned upon or quietly discouraged which led to the gradual decline in its usage. Partly due to this suppression, in many parts of Ukraine, notably most urban areas of the east and south, Russian remains more widely spoken than Ukrainian.

In any case this seems to be part of the Soviet Union legislation and at most there can be some remains in legislation of some of the republics that resulted from its collapse. We should probably not use this in the infobox since there's no such concept in the English language or in the rest of the world for that matter... man with one red shoe 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with The Man (and his Shoe): there is no reason whatsoever for that dated and ultimately irrelevant distinction, not just because it's messy and POVish, but also because we're already cramming to much crap into infoboxes. Dahn (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys have some nerves removing a sourced edit without notice : in december 2003, the parliament of Moldova stated (in Romanian/Moldovan) that Russian was the "language of inter-ethnic communication". It's no "crap", this denomination is also used in other FSU countries such as Tajikistan (where it is in the Constitution). Now I'm putting my edit back and I hope you'll read the source before thinking about reverting again.Mitch1981 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mitch, that was called "concept of national politics" (or something like that), it was a political program that the then majority wanted to ideologically impose on the state. Why the Constitution only mentions the official language? Your conclusion looks to me like "In the soviet Union the working class is in power" b/c official text wrote that. That did not put the working class in any power. Only the Party had the power (Article 6 of the Constitution of the USSR). Dc76\talk 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed this - the "concept" is actually referencing the (acting) Article 3 of the language law. Of course, the law was written to reflect the realia of 1989, but it *is* part of the core legislative documents of the republic, even as of 2009. --Illythr (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ..end of controversy: 'Moldovan language'

Is this the one the end of controversy? In Brussels on September 29, Filat became the first Moldovan leader in a decade to publicly announce abroad that his language is "Romanian." --Disraelly (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not yet - wait till they change the Constitution. So far, it's just his personal statement. --Illythr (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(...) moved to an editor's talk page

This is not a forum... please... man with one red shoe 01:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I will move it to my talk page. We can continue there. Dc76\talk 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] facts

I added 'approximately 800,000 of Moldova's current 3.4 million inhabitants have already applied for Romanian citizenship' which is a fact. --Disraelly (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's given undue weight in the lead section, that is, it's not one of the most important facts about Moldova. Consider adding this to Foreign relations or Demographics sections. The other things you added/changed are just strange. --Illythr (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It's very important since Moldova was part of Romania, inhabitated by a Romanian majority. --Disraelly (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the place is in Foreign relations and it should include if possible how many people are Russian or Ukrainian citizens (if those are notable numbers too) man with one red shoe 15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You're free to add there as well. --Disraelly (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Disraelly, nobody is denying that info. But there are other things that need to be in the lead, like where on the globe the country is situated, what is it capital, in which year it became independent. Just add that info in another section. Is that so difficult? Please. Dc76\talk 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't difficult at all, I added that info in another section. --Disraelly (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"is a Romanian-speaking country, the language spoken is Romanian," - please stop doing these things, return to constructive editing and we can continue pretending you're not a sockpuppet of a banned user. --Illythr (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the sockpuppet of anyone, the consensus in Wikipedia is not the same with the consensus in reality. So, Wikipedia should reflect the reality. Do you argue Moldova it's not a Romanian-speaking country? Disraelly (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The article section you're inserting this redundant piece of info already deals with the controversy sufficiently. The way you do this is typical of a known banned Romanian nationalist. If you're not him, it should be easy for you to drop this matter and focus on constructive things in this article. --Illythr (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disraelly, please stop pushing those edits, you see that you go against the consensus here, if you continue it will tantamount to trolling. I also suggest somebody starts a sockpuppet check on this account. man with one red shoe 17:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You can check as you wish. Disraelly (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are or not a sockpuppet is irrelevant at this moment, you need to stop disruptive edits man with one red shoe 14:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Disraelly, "a Romanian-speaking country" is a redundant piece of info. The article already says that. About applications for Romanian citizenship, please google and find a normal source, and use the same wording as in the source. That's easy to do. But be mindful where you insert it. "Chisinau is the capital of Moldova" is a more important info than "800,000 Moldovans applied for Romanian citizenship". If you have time and energy, better start an article Romanian citizenship, describe the existing legislation for all categories, describe the procedures, describe the practical state of things. That would be very constructive. Try to contribute to WP with qualitative information that will stay, not with information that is unsourced, not quite encyclopedially written, and which because of its shortcomings is bound to be removed by other editors. Dc76\talk 00:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Moldova regained its post-Soviet independence on the same historic basis - it ceased being hostage of the secret Molotove-Ribbentrop protocols."..and Illythr what's the problem with 'drama' here? Disraelly (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    See WP:NPOV. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, not a propaganda mouthpiece. --Illythr (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "..Only recently has Moldova shown decisive signs of ‘‘Europeanization’’, due in large part to the recent deterioration in its relations with the Putin government." Illythr what's the problem with this one too?Disraelly (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    See WP:OR. You need a reliable source saying so and then you'd have to attribute the statement to that source, as, I'm sure, such an opinion is not shared by everyone in the Moldovan parliament. --Illythr (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    It's not shared by 46% namely the Communist Party from Moldova.
  • You know the Romanian saying: fereasca prostii cu initiativa..--Disraelly (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    "...он лоб расшибёт." - yes, some of the more common traits of the human characters transcend cultural borders. Meaning that you really should propose the more controversial of your initiatives here first, so that other editors can approve/reject/talk about them. --Illythr (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • More OR. There were ethnic Moldovans fighting for the PMR and Russians and Ukrainians - for Snegur's forces Moldova's military. And the PMR govt was formed before the war, not after it. And so on. --Illythr (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna add this one too:
    "Most Russians came to the country after it was annexed by the Soviet government in 1940 and after WorldWar II." How do you say? Disraelly (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    Already there: "The postwar period saw a wide scale migration of ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, and other ethnic groups into the new Soviet republic..." --Illythr (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    (User-related discussion moved to an appropriate talk page) --Illythr (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I will only comment on a couple details:

  • Disraelly: First: You need to learn to write encyclopedially. It is not enough if something is true, it must be written professionally, not opinionated. It must be mathematically exact, i.e. no more and no less. Second: You should find sources to back up everything you introduce. Better so, find sources first and edit based on that. I recommend you use Google Books.
  • Illythr: You do realize that "Snegur's forces" is a denigratory euphemism, don't you? Moldova was an independent country in 1992. I am sure you also know that it is not completely clear on which side Snegur was. If Disraelly says some non-sense, there is no need to push the pendulum in the opposite direction. Sooner or later Disraelly will realize the futility of non-constructive approach. Dc76\talk 08:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What? Snegur was in charge of Moldova's military at the time, so I don't see anything bad in mentioning him as the supreme commander of Moldova's army. I'm also not sure what you mean by "not completely clear on which side Snegur was" - for that particular conflict it is quite clear (infobox and all). --Illythr (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Bush's forces" would also be pejorative, it's "US forces" and "Moldovan forces" -- if we talk about countries that don't have rules and have all kind of chieftains then yes we can use names like that, but in a country that has laws and constitution the NPOV way to name the forces is to use the name of the country. Even in case of civil war we don't say "Davis' forces" or "Lincoln's forces" because those were not their personal forces. man with one red shoe 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Umm. X's forces only means that X is the force's leader. Although it is often used to pile responsibility for the force's failures on the figurehead... Ah, whatever. --Illythr (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Snegur was not a general in a campaign. You can definitively say Vlasov's or Chuykov's forces, but Stalin's would misslead, giving raise to fantesist ideas. About whose side Snegur was, it's a different discussion, and perhaps better done off-wiki per NOTAFORUM. But I really don't care about him. Dc76\talk 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that link points to a some political fights, is not about the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, normally people and newspapers refer to the forces there as "US troops" not "Bush's troops" or "Obama's troops". Also even if you find such formulation you'd probably find it in some partisan newspaper that does use it in a pejorative way. man with one red shoe 21:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
If I will use Google books then it's plagiarism. Are the books copyrighted? Disraelly (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You can use them as references to support article text. It won't be plagiarism if you do a short summary of what the sources say. Also, with controversial issues, the whole thing is even more complex than Dc76 describes, so I'd suggest you propose what you intend to add here on the talk page, form and sources included. --Illythr (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Disraelly, I only gave you a brief outline. Start with less controversial issues. I suggested you to create Romanian citizenship. I am sure you can google about that. Don't start with big sentences in major articles. Alternatively, you can do what I do. Pick a book and read it. Add info from it to different articles. This way you both enjoy reading something, and simultaneously contribute to WP.
One sentence is not plagiarism if you cite it right away. That's called proper attribution. Dc76\talk 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You know very well that in Transnistria, the existence of an ethnic Russian diaspora had been a key component of Moscow’s interest since Tsarist and Soviet times, exaclty when emigration of ethnic Russians into Moldova was encouraged. Such policies really set a historical precedent for Russian involvement. At the same time, the diaspora was relatively small and was not identified as a particularly threatened segment of the population. Moreover, the existence of Russian speakers in Transnistria does not fully explain Moscow’s partiality towards the sub-state region; a greater number of ethnic Russians were present in other parts of Moldova. Thus, Russian support of Transnistria did not mean supporting ethnic Russians in general.Disraelly (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, I can understand neither the point of this statement, nor... well, the statement itself. o_O I can only note that the Russian population in Transnistria became significant only after WW2. Before that the place mainly had Moldovan, Ukrainian and (before 1942) Jewish residents. --Illythr (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldova"