Talk:Moldova

Human rights

Human rights in Moldova are discussed in two articles: Human rights in Moldova and Human rights in Transnistria. Therefore both of them are "main" articles for subsection "Human rights". I fail to see the reason why Chipmunkdavis disagrees with this. His edit summaries are self-contradictory: he writes Transnistria is part of Moldova, and thus its human rights should be discussed in the Moldovan article and under this reason he reverts my edit which serves precisely this purpose. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The main article for human rights in Moldova is Human rights in Moldova. That is the article which focuses on the topic. Human rights in Transnistria is a subtopic of human rights of Moldova, and thus the main Moldovan article should cover everything. CMD (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I understand it now. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Census forms

Dear fellow editors, please stop making decisions based on stereotypes, and actually check the facts. In this case, the Moldovan census form had no checklist for nationality, every person could literally write in anything in field No. 7. The fact that you simply don't like certain facts is not reason enough to ignore them.Anonimu (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What decision, what stereotypes? Why do you accuse fellow editors of such things? Remind us, weren't you banned a while ago for pushing an agenda and being uncivilized in discussions in talk pages? Why do you continue with this type of behavior?

It's great to see your only arguments are ad hominem. And to make it clear, I was never banned "for pushing an agenda". Again stereotypes. Anonimu (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't the one who accused editors of stereotypes. man with one red shoe 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue, we could probably use this source:

"The results of the 2004 census further underscored the successes of the Moldovanist project. The choice of ethnic self-identification in the census was highly politicized due to the presence of ‘Moldovan’ and ‘Romanian’ answer options in the census question that asked about ethnic affiliation. As the census results reported in the bottom left column of Appendix I indicate, only 2.2 percent of citizens chose to identify themselves as Romanians, while 75.8 percent stated that they were Moldovans. There were numerous allegations, somewhat supported by the Council of Europe observers, that ethnic affiliation numbers were rigged." -- http://www.policy.hu/protsyk/Publications/NationalisminMoldova.pdf

man with one red shoe 16:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in this quote supports the claim that one couldn't declare both Moldovan and Romania. Moreover, you have the census forms above, could you point out where are the answer options for ‘Moldovan’ and ‘Romanian’ ? Anonimu (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't speak Moldovan :) But, I think it's pretty clear that they had to declare there one nationality, not something like "Moldovan (Romanian)" or "Moldovan/Romanian". But again, it's not our place to interpret forms, it's a documented ongoing controversy and glossing over is whitewashing. man with one red shoe 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Clear how? Because you know it? Anonimu (talk)

I added the reference and mentioned that there were many allegations that the numbers were influenced by census-takers. I avoided to mention that people had to choose between Moldovan and Romanian although that stands to reason even though it was a write-in field, and even though that was mentioned in the source. man with one red shoe 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Teaching of languages in schools

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)

State language

There are two simple facts to take care of here:

• 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)

"Landlocked"

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[1]. 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)