Talk:Unification of Romania and Moldova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Romania (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for Unification of Romania and Moldova:
No to-do list assigned.
WikiProject Moldova (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Polls[edit]

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)

Expectation of the unification[edit]

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 ISBN 9280810790, 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)

Promotion of the idea of different languages[edit]

Node asked for a citation for the different languages promotion.

Copy-paste from John Mackinlay, Peter Cross (2003) Regional Peacekeepers. United Nations University Press ISBN 9280810790, 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)

Those damn capitalist Romanians[edit]

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 ISBN 9280810790, 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)

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)
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)

New party[edit]

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)

More on Moldova[edit]

The Current area of this page is completely devouted to Romania with little discussion of the status of this movement within Moldova

State language[edit]

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)

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)

Basarabia, pământ românesc![edit]

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)

Table[edit]

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)

Clarification needed[edit]

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)

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

Bring in the controversy[edit]

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:

  1. 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)
  1. The passports say nothing about union. There are millions of Moldovans living and working abroad. Many of them really want to get out of that country. And now that Romania is in the EU, they are free to go to Portugal as long as they have access to Romania because EU = open borders. And we all know about Moldovan visa agreements with Romania. Just because Vlad applied for Romanian documents doesn't mean he loves the country and wants it to get married to Moldova. All it means is he's trying to leave Moldova for one reason or another. Stop twisting it. --Node 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
That Slavic gibberish they call "Bulgarian"?Dapiks 09:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
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)

Flag[edit]

This section reads "expressing the strong link between the same nation" which is, obviously, a POV claim. User Iulian Andreea keeps insisting re-stating this redaction everytime I remove it. I would like to hear other's opinion. If this is not a POV claim, approximately of an elephant-size, then, I don't know what is a POV claim anymore.

Duh, it's not a POV claim. When Moldova became independent in 1991, they adopted a similar flag and the same national anthem as Romania, called Awaken Thee Romanian. The goverment, at the time, made no secret of what their intentions were. You can't say that it's a POV when you're not sure of it. You can, however, ask for a source for that specific comment to stay, but I believe it to be an unnecessary thing to do. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive | Talk 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not POV to say something about the same nation, people. POV would be the vice-versa not to tell about it. E.g. people like you need to read it, 'cause they didn't knew it before that is about the same people, nation.--Iulian Andreea 19:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I know they were the same nation. And, if I didn't know, there is the article to prove it. The problem is that we don't need to push so hard in that direction by saying that the Moldovan flag "express the strong link between the same nation". Did the flag tell you so? or do you have any references to prove that? If so, then the sentence makes sense with the relative footnote, but I can't see that footnote.
Since the colours are the same and the article is very clear, to add that extra re-assuring sentence is blatant POV. Mountolive | Talk 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Putin fears of eventual re-union of Moldova with Romania[edit]

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

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)

Dual citizenship[edit]

"...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)

Whitewashing neo-fascist groups[edit]

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)

Annexation[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The consensus is that the proposed title is sufficiently concise, even as a hypothetical situation. Cúchullain t/c 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


Movement for the unification of Romania and MoldovaUnification of Romania and MoldovaWP:CONCISE. See Korean reunification. Relisted Armbrust The Homunculus 21:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Երևանցի talk 02:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC) It is obviously a movement, however, per WP:CONCISE it would make more sense to call this article "Unification of..." instead of "Movement for the unification of...".

And I suggest we change the lead to

The unification of Romania and Moldova refers to the possible unification of the two countries that became a popular concept in the late 1980s during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Romanian Revolution of 1989 and the independence of Moldova in 1991 further contributed to the development of a movement for the unification of the two Romanian-speaking countries.

--Երևանցի talk 02:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User:In ictu oculi Hmm. "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize." and "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English."? Would like to be more specific? --Երևանցի talk 01:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is if we put a title like Unification of Germany everyone will assume Germany was actually unified (even if they have been living under a rock and don't know). That's different from Korean reunification where the "re-" serves a purpose that distinguishes from Unification of Korea. Plus Moldova isn't as well known in media as Germany and Korea. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that some people may assume that that Moldova and Romania have already been unified, but let's not base Wikipedia article titles on assumptions. Reading the first sentence ("refers to the possible unification") is not hard and everyone can do it. --Երևանցի talk 02:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Bessarabie.jpg
Bessarabia is the historic name of Moldova (and the surrounding area) and is not used for any modern political entity nowadays. --Երևանցի talk 03:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but "Moldova" could be projected back in time 100 years. We often speak of the "History of X" in periods long before "X" existed (e.g., History of South Sudan).  AjaxSmack  04:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:CONCISE Red Slash 02:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Support - it does seem odd to me that we would talk of something that hasn't happened as if it has, but there does seem to be plenty of precedence. United States of Europe is another. Per WP:CONCISE, the proposed title is fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The term "unification of Romania and Moldova" doesn't seem to be particularly common, so there's no reason to choose it over the more neutral current one, per WP:NDESC. The situation is unlike Korea or China (or, historically, Germany), where the unification is, at least formally, an objective of both involved governments. In this case, Moldovan officials have repeatedly objected to an "unification", while the Romanian government has never officially endorsed the unification as state policy. For the sake of neutrality, the current descriptive title should stay.Anonimu (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:CONCISE and against arguments showed by Anonimu. Why not? indeed (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Note that the above user looks like a SPA.Anonimu (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed; see the user page. Vote struck. --BDD (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Amakuru. Whether or not such a unification is hypothetical is too heavy a load to make the title bear. We may as well be concise. --BDD (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONCISE. @Anonimu, I don't see how the current title is more "neutral" than the proposed. Personally, I'd have a slight preference for "Romanian and Moldovan unification" as being more people- than state-centric, but the proposed (and per the Korean example cited) is fine. I should add that the separation of Moldova and Romania is totally artificial (i.e., starting with the Russian-named conquered "Bessarabia", that is merely the eastern half of what once constituted the principality of Moldavia. There is no such thing as a Moldovan people in a historical territory defined by today's Moldova. VєсrumЬа TALK 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:CRYSTALBALL. While in the case of Korea or China the prospect of unification is affirmed at all levels, in the case of Romania and Moldova it is just the desire of a minority without any official support (to the contrary). Also, note that every border in the world is artificial, as being primarily a human mental concept. As a matter of fact, the separation between Moldova from Romania is more natural than, say, the one between Latvia and Russia, as it is marked by a natural feature (the river Prut). Your POV is further highlighted by your denial of a basic human right to the people of Moldova (per UDHR Art. 18).Anonimu (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Uhm. "it is just the desire of a minority without any official support" I think you should take a look at the article before commenting. Romania's president is a strong supporter of the unification. Almost all pro-European parties of Moldova are also for it. It has been a huge deal in the past 25 years. It's actually more realistic than the Korean reunification. --Երևանցի talk 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The movement could consist of three people and it wouldn't matter so long as it passed GNG. I don't see either the current or proposed names suggesting strength of support anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is pretty SYNTHy anyway, as the topic is subsumed by scholars into Romanian nationalism (nationalists in every country in the Balkans and even Central Europe want to reunite a mythical homeland). I failed to identify any scholarly article discussing the subject, all we have is passing mentions and inflamed op-eds. Therefore, this article could very well fit as a section in a Greater Romania (political concept) (modelled after Greater Hungary (political concept) or Megali Idea). Nevertheless, considering that the existence of such a movement among a minority of Moldovan citizens is used by the Transnistrian break-away authorities to legitimate themselves, I think the continued existence of this as a separate article is not so bad. However, changing the title erases the important distinction between this movement and the official reunification policies pursued by Germany, Korea and the likes. Moreover, as pointed by the Moldovan prime-minister and by all leaders of the parties in the ruling ("pro-European") coalition in reaction to Romania's president "recommendation", the suggestion that unification is state policy can only serve the cause of the different separatists in Moldova, violating our NPOV policy.Anonimu (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment, shouldn't we use Reunification, rather than Unification, considering that there already was a Union of Bessarabia with Romania. Charles Essie (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with "Reunification of Romania and Moldova".—SPESH531Other 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Phrase in the lead[edit]

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)