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.
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 18.104.22.168 (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)
There appears to be a lot of time sensitive information in the Economy section which could do with updating. It currently reads as being all over the place in terms of what is considered to be current information and past projections: I.E. HDI figures for 2005 being discussed as if they were current; growth remaining strong in 2007. It's probably better described as 'confusing' due to citing statistical information from earlier in the century and using 2012 as 'current' for other information. I don't want to tag it for the moment, but it definitely needs a rework. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Considering the slow-going tug-of-war over these edits that's been going on for a couple of weeks now, I'd rather provide an extended rationale for reverting them here:
Flag of Chisinau: This little bit of foofaraw overloads the already bursting template and is absent in other country templates (such as those of neighboring Romania and Ukraine). So I'm removing it here, if only for consistency's sake.
"Part of Romania": The modern state of Moldova had never been part of Romania, so this statement is expressly false. The historical region of Bessarabia was indeed part of Greater Romania for twenty years, but describing how and when it was cut up to form what is now the Republic of Moldova is complicated and unnecessary for the intro, seeing as how state continuity of the Republic of Moldova can be traced to the foundation of the Moldovan SSR only.
"Although the country has been independent from the USSR since 1991, Russian forces have remained, supporting...": This statement is a non-sequitur - one part is irrelevant to the other. Also, while elements of the 14th army did indeed support the Transnistrian side during the 1992 conflict, the current contingent provides no (visible) support now. The sentence also largely duplicates the contents of the following sentence. Still, the continued presence of Russian forces (both peacekeeping and guarding the arms stockpile) may be worth mentioning in the intro. Perhaps the exact phasing can be worked out here, if deemed necessary.
"In August 1989 Moldova became the first..." - this statement is sourceless and unnecessary, as the following three sentences already cover what happened.
Dates for the "Independence" and "Soviet era" history sections: Setting Independence one year before the end of the "Soviet era" is unhelpful. The independence wasn't a singular event, but rather the culmination of several years of political buildup. Therefore, exact dating is unnecessary and probably impossible. --illythr (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on why you don't agree, Why not? indeed? All of illythr's points seem reasonable. Generic disagreement doesn't constitute an argument, just... er, non-specific antipathy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
non specific antipathy? Lol.. i will reply illythr in the next days for a complete answer..--Why not? indeed (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This account (and the IP) seems to be an old acquaintance (or a wannabe), so the antipathy is quite specific. :-) It's been a long time since the last outbreak, but I guess the recent events triggered a relapse. While reasoning with him had long since proven pointless, the rationale I provided is meant for other regular editors, who might be interested in actually improving the article. --illythr (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's see what the specifics are once he/she responds on the talk page. In the meantime, I'll just keep my eyes peeled for non-consensus changes to the article lest an edit war in looming. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
When you seen this map, what do you feel ?
It's really not important your opinion, more then 2000 years lived here the same people. Compare our history with yours. Why not? indeed (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The three principalities under Michael's authority, May – September 1600
This is the map from 1600. Are you gelous on Romania, Illy? Why not? indeed (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Russian forces remained there, it's a fact. Statement can stay in the text.
It's important to show a certain independence, which was real. So, why not to add it?
Well then why revert it?
There is no article subject, which is the modern state of Moldova, on these map. Seeing as how it was first created in 1940 (or 1991, if you don't count MSSR), it could neither have been part of nor "forcibly incorporated" into anything. You're confusing territories with countries and making the article suffer for it.
It is already mentioned in the main text, in the "Foreign relations" section.
No source. Redundant. It's already explained in the following sentences in detail, independence, language law and all. --illythr (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
EU and Moldova together (Russia's failure policy)
Romanians from Moldova, are eager to see the European integration issue solved as soon as possible and the Moldovans’ dream to be real European citizens to become reality.
This important dream, to become a part of the big European family again, the Moldovans started to dream ýears ago. Moldova’s future? Like Mihai Viteazul did in 1600..Moldova is Europe's "only Latin state outside the EU". What links has ever had to Russia? ..There is only 1 future: in EU with Romania united.Why not? indeed (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly my point. What do you have against Romania and Moldova? I see you just represent Russian POV.Why not? indeed (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing against Romania or Moldova. I try to take my function as being neutral very, very seriously. You are welcome to bring up any relevant issues you wish in this article as long as they are from verifiable and reliable sources. If you have such material, please feel free to bring it to the table and I will judge it on its merit. If I consider it to be well sourced, I'm fully prepared to copyedit awkward grammar, syntax, etc. for those who are not native English speakers. I am simply reminding you that this is not a forum for nationalist POV pushing. I'd also like to remind you that you should not make personal attacks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)