This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
The article says "the French language occupies the principal place among the foreign languages. In 2009/10 it was told taught to 52% of schoolchildren as L1 and 7% as L2. It is followed by English having 48% and 6% respectively, and German, which was taught to 3% altogether." L1 customarily means a person's native language that they learn in the home, with L2 denoting a second language picked up in addition to the mother tongue, whether through formal education or otherwise. The meaning implied therefore is that 52% of schoolchildren are treated as if French is their mother tongue, and likewise for English with the other 48%. This would entail educated them in French and English in the same way that French and English children are, instead of these langauges being taught to them as foreign languages. Someone must have got confused somewhere. I presume these are actually percentages of children learning French and English as their L2, but then what do the L2 percentages given in the article refer to? Credulity (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like whoever added this confused "Langue Vivante" from the source article with the L classification. Corrected. Now that you mentioned this, however, I find the original claim dubious as well - from what I know, English is the most popular foreign language in Moldova, not French. And the source used in that article is dead. Will have to check... --illythr (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The state language of Moldova, as stated in the country's constitution, is Moldovan.
Standard Moldovan is the same as standard Romanian.
The first one is covered in the infobox directly - Article 13 of the constitution leaves no room for interpretation, and there's even a special provision that invalidates any section of any legislative act that would contradict the supreme law. The second point is explained in the second sentence of the article Moldovan language, as well as in the intro of the "Languages" section here. On top of that we have a special infobox footnote to really rub it in. I don't see how this can be "dishonest" in any way. Note that Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro articles don't go that extra mile in the infobox like we do here. --illythr (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
In its Declaration of Independence, the official language of the Republic of Moldova is Romanian. As pointed out both by the Romanian Academy and the Academy of the Republic of Moldova, the "Moldovan language" does not exist and it only appeared in political discussions, for rather obvious reasons, as Moldova was then part of the USSR. Furthemore, on the 5th of December 2013, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova declared that the country's official language is Romanian. This settles the issue once and for all. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, my uneducated guess is that Moldova is NOT landlocked as long as it has a 480 metres-long quay on the international Danube river and its own merchant fleet. All donated by Ukraine (sigh). However, I'm not an expert on international law. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it would appear that you're right, but the UN and CIA World Factbook still consider it landlocked as of February 2013. So I'm not sure how to proceed here. And don't sigh about those ships, they're all ancient relics. --illythr (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It's so great you consider CIA factbooks, well, the article was just updated exactly using CIA as arguments. Enjoy. Sandstunk (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, landlocked means not directly connected to the sea. Rivers don't count. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
With today's decision by the Constitutional Court, judging that the name should, after all, be "Romanian", this RFC has become irrelevant. --illythr (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the the Moldovan or the Romanian language be mentioned when describing the regional variant of the country's name in the article header? SilvrousTalk 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Looking at the Moldovan language article, it seems that the two are almost identical, and that the difference is mostly a political one rather than a linguistic one. However, we don't want to take sides on the issue - I would go with "Moldovan/Romanian", as in this revision. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 11:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment yes, it's certainly political, but as long as the country's highest law says it's called "Moldovan" (Article 13 of the constitution), the infobox and header should say the same (with an explanation in the corresponding article and maybe a footnote here). The situation here is virtually identical to the Montenegro article, except that Romanian nationalists appear to be much more active than Serbian ones. --illythr (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
comment — Put a de facto language(s) if none are official. If one is put it.. — 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The state language is quite official. The point is that it's officially called "Moldovan", but its literary norm is the same as that of Romanian. --illythr (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Moldovan (Moldovan: Republica Moldova pronounced [reˈpublika molˈdova]) there are miniscule differences between the two, just as Valencian and Catalan. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Moldovan as this is specified in the Moldovan constitution. Even if it is almost identical to Romanian, the difference and political status should be enough for it to be under this name. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Moldovan since this is the official language. While it is nearly identical to mainstream Romanian, it's different enough (even if it's just political) to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Arathald (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The infobox says Moldovan (Romanian). We can call it anything the government wants to call it as long as we acknowledge it's Romanian. That Moldovans are surprised after half a century of Soviet propaganda that Romanians understand "their" language doesn't make their language any less Romanian. There are no differences that wouldn't normally develop in local use. They do not reflect a "different" language. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The only ones who are "surprised" nowadays are foreigners who just assume that the language of a country is called "<Country>an" (Austrian, Brasilian etc). The language is widely referred to as "Romanian" and is taught in schools under this name. The different name is purely a political choice made shortly after independence in pursuit of the goal of preserving a separate identity, and through it, a separate state. As with the aforementioned Montenegrin and Valencian, it is rooted in legislation at the highest level, which is why we use it for the infobox and intro. "Moldovan (Romanian)" explains nothing to a clueless reader, the contents of "footnote a" does. --illythr (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment If a sovereign state's constitution says that their language is called "Moldovan" -- or "Fredian", or anything else -- then Wikipedia should call it the same. It doesn't matter whether or not it's identical or very similar to a well-known and widely used language that goes by a different name. Clarifying the potential confusion about the issue should be handled in a footnote. -- Greg (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Moldovan, as an ausbau language, should be listed in the infobox. The Moldovan language makes clear that it's mutually intelligible with Romanian. Article text here should also make it clear, but the specific regulated dialect, Moldovan, is what should be in the infobox. CMD (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The fact that Moldova's ecomony effectively survives on remittance from Russia that is. The current passage on "service sector" is ambiguous at best. Wishes, 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Pre-empting edit warring over language and demonym
Rather than allowing the recent constitutional technicality to motivate an outbreak of nationalistic edit warring (which I've been following), for the sake of the reader it is preferable to discuss how the article should reflect this by arguing it out here on the talk page.
As there is information in the English language press, it makes sense to use these sources as a starting point. The changes and ramifications are inevitably going to be analysed in depth further down the line (it's only been a few days!), and reliable secondary sources can be introduced. This is an article, not a race against time to squeeze in as much information dedicated to individual preferences in order to establish an imaginary foothold ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much of a real-life change to happen there - the language was already referred to as "Romanian" in most spheres of life. The way I see it, for us this presents the need to swap the name clusters to make "Romanian" primary and stow "Moldovan" into a footnote or something until they finally amend article 13 of the Constitution, at which point "Moldovan" can be removed from the infoboxes altogether. --illythr (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Going on what I know about Moldova, that sounds like a logical approach. Any deviations from this should, then, be reverted and the contributor referred to this section if they feel that they have verifiable secondary sources, not emotive arguments, to indicate otherwise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Illy, you know all problems will be solved when Moldova unites with Romania again. Why to stop this anyway? It's a natural process.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't pre-empt the news as it is not a crystal ball. Changes to information are made after they are confirmed and backed up by secondary sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of this section, the descriptor 'dystrophy' is used. I suspect that the accurate translation should be muscle atrophy, however the PDF version of the "Tismăneanu Report" doesn't actually go up to pages 747 and 752 (per the citation). Could someone provide me with some help on this issue, please? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)