Talk:Moldova

Archives
Archive1 Until January 2006 Archive2 January 2006 - April 2006 Archive3 April 2006 - May 2006 Archive4 – Moldova vs. Republic of Archive5 June 2006 - October 2006 Archive6 October 2006 - April 2007

Problematic sentence

I want to include this sentence: Also, Moldova aspires to join European Union and NATO. Is there such a bid deal to include in the text? --Tones benefit 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It may well be true. Please present a source proving it. Alæxis_¿question? 10:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you present a source for proving the contrary, till now you don't agree with it. (http://www.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=en&ID=68715 ( "Voronin highlighted, that we will strive for becoming an EU member"), http://english.people.com.cn/200706/27/eng20070627_387937.html (Moldova seeks Slovenian support on road to EU))--Tones benefit 13:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

An important remark

Let's add this Moldova has never existed as an independent political entity within its present borders. --Tones benefit 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we know that until 1812, the area between the Prut and Nistru Rivers was neither considered a distinct territory of the Moldovan principality, nor had a particular name. The original region known by the name of Bessarabia was the swath of territory between Danube and Dnestr and washed by the waters of Black Sea. The area came to be known as the land of the Basarab dynasty, or Basarabia, after that the Walachian prince Mircea cel Bătrîn (the Old, 1386-1418) of the Basarab dynasty had wrested the region from the Tatars. The reason to expand the name of Bessarabia over the entire part of Moldova between the Prut and Nistru, north as far as the fortress at Hotin, was of a political nature. In keeping with the 1807 French-Russian Tilsit Treaty, Russia pledget to withdraw its troops from Moldova and Walachia, obligation that was not fulfilled. In the subsequent negotiations in 1908, the Russian representative showed that the Tilsit Treaty did not mention anything about Bessarabia, interpreting its name in a larger sense, and insisted that it remained to Russia. --Tones benefit 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? I mean, Moldova's present borders were drawn in 1940 when it was formed into the Moldovan SSR - not an independent political entity to begin with. --Illythr 01:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In the past days, this article was subject to a lot of small edits that are both POV and not in English [1]. A lot of them are also irrelevant to this article, and there is a link to an article that, given rules outlined in the MoS, should perhaps not have been created, and itself look awful. Who has the energy to deal with this? Dahn 14:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the addition of the sentence discussed here ("Moldova has never existed as an independent political entity within its present borders") to be rather absurd. Not only does this go for most states of the Soviet Union, for virtually any state in Africa, for many states in Asia etc., but, hell, if taken for its exclusive meaning ("having those exact borders") it also works for countries such as post-1945 Germany or Italy etc., as well as for both post-1918 Romania and post-1945 Romania. As for an independent state which Moldova can (and probably does) cite as a precedent, leaving aside Moldavia for various reasons, you have the Moldavian Democratic Republic... it may not have been "within those borders", but it was surely not "outside those borders". Dahn 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make corrections where possible after changes every 2-3 days. But sometimes that amounted to explaining some things in more detail. The result could be an imbalance, because I did not add details in other places: certain things are more detailed, others less, and given that this is after all the article of a country, is not completely negligible.

I erased that sensence from the intro. As I said in the comment - it is possible to mention that in the History section - but putting 100 remarks and pieces of info in the intro makes less and less clear. About the name Bessarabia, it was actually duke of Rechelieu (a French noble fleeing the revolutionary France, in service of imperial Russia, and in particular, the founder of Odessa; indeed a very distant relative of a sister if I'm not mistaken of the Cardinal) who coined the name for the whole region, b/c he was commissioned to do a map, and wrote the name vertically instead of horizontally.:Dc76 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's probably important to note that Russians have tried to use the name as a propaganda tool to claim rights over Bessarabia, they read "Bessarabia" as "Bess Arabia" -- "Without Arabs (Muslims)" and that they coined the name because they got rid of Turks in that area, which of course is a patented lie. -- AdrianTM 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it read "Bez Arabia", then? Can you source it to someone other than Zadornov? :-) --Illythr 18:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumable they used French (diplomatic language and all). I'll look for sources. -- AdrianTM 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, this sort of detail most likely belongs on Bessarabia. Dahn 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Total non-sequitur, just interesting that "bez" in Latvian also means "without". PētersV 21:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NATO

Reading the second paragraph, I couldn't get if Moldova is or is not part of NATO. Am I misreading or the text need to be improved?--ClaudioMB 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"and an early member of the NATO Partnership for Peace", "Many inside Moldova also advocate the country joining NATO, however to date no official intent on the issue has been acknowledged." -- I fail to see where is the problem, to me it's pretty clear. -- AdrianTM 12:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"and an early member of the NATO Partnership for Peace" means Moldova is part of NATO? "Many inside Moldova also advocate the country joining NATO, however to date no official intent on the issue has been acknowledged." means some people in Moldova wants to join NATO but there is no official plan to do that? Thanks. --ClaudioMB 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"and an early member of the NATO Partnership for Peace" means that Moldova is part of "NATO Partnership for Peace". The second part means that many people want to join NATO but there's no official plan for that, BTW, I'd like to see "many" quantified somehow and a reference (poll), otherwise is just weasel words -- AdrianTM 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Now it's better, after linking Partnership for Peace to its article. Also, now it's "some" instead of "many". "Many" is too strong to be used without a source. Even though, I fell that affirmation still need source, what should not be too difficult to find if there is a real discussion in the country about that. Newspaper should have reports about that.--ClaudioMB 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will remove that completely because is not sourced and it uses weasel words "some", "many"... -- AdrianTM 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to give a change for someone find a source for that sentence. But, removing is right also, when someone find a source, write it back. --ClaudioMB 17:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Country Motto

looks as though some Vandalism has gotten off here. I'm afraid I don't know the real motto of Moldova, but it needs to be corrected.

68.110.10.11 17:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Selective archiving?

Any objections if there's a selective archiving of the stale Mauco + Mark Street + Truli sockpuppet et al. diatribes to get this down to legitimate article discussions? PētersV 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I say, whack every issue that has been adressed here. That's, uh, pretty much everything, actually... Except the language thing. Somebody may still chime in there. --Illythr 01:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The official language

Look, the name of the official language in Moldova is called Moldovan. No one disputes that. What others and I want to do is to refer to the status of the Romanian language as taking part of the official language, as according to the Moldovan legislation. If Moldova wants to repell that standing, then they should get rid of the laws that contradict their current laws. If, however, they choose to go with a double message, then so should we. Therefore, I suggest that we make it clear that Romanian is not to be counted as the official name of the language, but as some kind of substitute. As I have said before: if you guys disagree with presenting the role of the Romanian language, then we should also get rid of the footnote, because it has the same function as adding the name there; the difference being that it is a bit unclear. To remove the footnote, however, would be a biased thing to do and against the policy. I suggest that we write in parenthesis the following (Romanian under the old legislation). Yes, I know it's a bit long, but it's the best thing I could think of. I think we should agree on such a compromise. It's both accurate and reasonble. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that text be "(identical with Romanian)"? Because under current law they accept the Moldovan-Romanian linguistic identity. Dpotop 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because the section doesn't deal with that subject. It merely deals with the official name of the language. It doesn't matter if the languages are identical. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Moldovan (Romanian) should do very fine. -- AdrianTM 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, what you call "previous legislation" is law today. The Moldovan law stipulates which language is official. It does not stipulate how to call that language, and in different parts, it calls is differently. As I said: Moldova in the Constitution, Romanian in the Declaration of Independence, Moldavian with a Moldo-Romanian linguistic unity in the Law of Official language. What is not clear here? A child understand that. :Dc76\^talk 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• The four official languages of Moldova are called: Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz. Constitution of Moldova provides for their nation-wide protection, laws provide for their regional protection [2] [3]. It is not a question of debate, but of a simple knowledge of Moldavian legislation. Moldopodo 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

That seems to apply only to Transnistria. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

- Anitta, your argument is not clear, pease be more precise and give sources and links (see like I did, for example) Moldopodo 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Official language[4] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well. Official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken.

The source is the one you posted, where it says that, "Limbile oficiale în Transnistria sînt limba moldovenească, în baza grafiei latine, limbile ucraineană şi rusă. Republica Moldova garantează funcţionarea şi altor limbi pe teritoriul Transnistriei." It says nothing about the entire state of Moldova. And I agree with the definition of the official language and as I see it, the other languages do not hold a special legal status in Moldova. In the link that you provided, when you go to the Russian version, in the upper left corner it says "Varianta în limba de stat" which confirms that only Moldovan/Romanian is the official language. Now, please stop reverting or you will be reported. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Constitution of the Republic of Moldova Article 13. The National Language, Use of Other Languages
(1) The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet.
(2) The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country.
(3) The State will encourage and promote studies of foreign languages enjoying widespread international usage.
(4) The use of languages in the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be established by organic law.

• Anita, the laws posted refer to the regional official status of the language, whereas Constitution of the Republic of Moldova gives this status and protects it on the whole territory of the Reoublic of Moldova.

Anitta, you seem not to know Moldavian laws. If you agree with Wikipedia definition of official language, please exlain how you don't see other languages holding official status? It is a rather strange and contradictory conclusion to my mind.

Anittas, could you explain, why do you change Moldavian to Moldavian/Romanian, whereasm no such mention in Moldavian legislation exists.

Anittas, when you go to the Russian version, in the upper left corner it says "Varianta în limba de stat" this is not an argument, as I have explicitely cited relevant laws and Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.

Anitta, please stop doing these controversial intentional edits with no justification, as I have all reasons to report you. Moldopodo 10:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Go ahead and report me. The source that you posted speaks about the official language in Transnistria only. Russian, Ukranian, and Gagauz are not official languages and you don't understand what the definition of the official language means. Point blank, you need to source those statements, which you cannot. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been protected for edit warring. All facts require verifiable reliable sources which you need to cite. Removal of sourced information without a good reason is disruptive. --Haemo 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also POV pushing and also WP:OR. (add WP:CIVIL from User:Moldopodo). --Moldorubo^talk 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Aw crap, at the Wrong Version, as usual... --Illythr 23:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Law on functioning of languages in Moldova

Республика Молдова ПАРЛАМЕНТ ЗАКОН Nr. 3465 от 01.09.1989

О функционировании языков на территории Молдавской ССР

Опубликован : 01.10.1989 в B.Of. Nr. 009 ИЗМЕНЕН ZP206/29.05.03; MO149/18.07.03 ст.598

Закрепление Конститутцией (Основным Законом) Молдавской Советской Социалистической Республики статуса молдавского языка как государственного призвано способствовать достижению полноты суверенитета республики и созданию необходимых гарантий для его полноценной и всесторонней реализации во всех сферах политической, экономической, социальной и культурной жизни. Молдавская ССР поддерживает получение образования и удовлетворение своих культурных потребностей на родном языке молдаванами, проживающими за пределами республики, а с учетом реальности молдавско-румынской языковой идентичности - и румынами, проживающими на территории СССР.

Придавая молдавскому языку статус государственного, Молдавская ССР обеспечивает защиту конституционных прав и свобод граждан любой национальности, проживающих на территории Молдавской ССР, независимо от используемого языка в условиях равенства всех граждан перед Законом.

В целях государственной охраны и обеспечения развития гагаузского языка Молдавской ССР создает необходимые гарантии для последовательного расширения его социальных функций.

Молдавская ССР обеспечивает на своей территории условия для использования и развития русского языка как языка межнационального общения в СССР, а также языков населения других национальностей, проживающего в республике.

ГЛАВА 1. ОБЩИЕ ПОЛОЖЕНИЯ

Статья 1. В соответствии с Конституцией (Основным Законом) Молдавской ССР государственным языком Молдавской ССР является молдавский язык, функционирующий на основе латинской графики. Молдавский язык как государственный применяется во всех сферах политической, экономической, социальной и культурной жизни и выполняет в связи с этим на территории республики функцию языка межнационального общения.

Молдавская ССР гарантирует всем жителям республики бесплатное обучение государственному языку на уровне, необходимом для выполенния служебных обязанностей.

Статья 2. В местностях проживания большинства населения гагаузской национальности языком официальных сфер жизни является государственный, гагаузский или русский языки.

Статья 3. Русский язык как язык межнационального общения в СССР используется на территории республики наряду с молдавским языком как язык межнационального общения, что обеспечивает осуществление реального национально-русского и русско-национального двуязычия.

Статья 4. Молдавская ССР гарантирует использование украинского, русского, болгарского, иврит, идиш, цыганского языков, языков других этнических групп, проживающих на территории республики, для удовлетворения национально-культурных потребностей.

Статья 5. Настоящий Закон не регламентирует употребление языков в межличностных отношениях, в производственной деятельности железнодорожного и воздушного транспорта (за исключением сферы обслуживания пассажиров), а также в воинских частях и учреждениях, подведомственных Министерству Обороны СССР, воинских частях КГБ СССР и МВД СССР.

ГЛАВА II. ПРАВА И ГАРАНТИИ ГРАЖДАНИНА В ВЫБОРЕ ЯЗЫКА

ГЛАВА III. ЯЗЫК В ОРГАНАХ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ВЛАСТИ, ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ И ОБЩЕСТВЕННЫХ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЙ, НА ПРЕДПРИЯТИЯХ, В УЧРЕЖДЕНИЯХ И ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯХ

ГЛАВА IV. ЯЗЫК ДЕЛОПРОИЗВОДСТВА ПО УГОЛОВНЫМ, ГРАЖДАНСКИМ И АДМИНИСТРАТИВНЫМ ДЕЛАМ, АРБИТРАЖА, НОТАРИАТА, ОРГАНОВ РЕГИСТРАЦИИ АКТОВ ГРАЖДАНСКОГО СОСТОЯНИЯ

ГЛАВА V. ЯЗЫК В СФЕРАХ НАРОДНОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ, НАУКИ И КУЛЬТУРЫ

ГЛАВА VI. ЯЗЫК В НАИМЕНОВАНИЯХ И ИНФОРМАЦИИ

ГЛАВА VII. ГОСУДАРСТВЕННАЯ ЗАЩИТА ЯЗЫКОВ

/see here full text

Let's try this again (prior comment replaced). What is the point of extensively quoting something which talks about a pile of "official" languages (meaning you can conduct official business in that languge) which are then guaranteed to get translated into Russian for official promulgation/archiving/etc. within the context of the USSR authorities? The Soviet Union is dead the last time I checked. PētersV 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Just checked again to make sure. Still dead. PētersV 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The really funny part, Peters, is that this law is still in force - USSR, KGB and all that. It took me a while to get Moldopodo to acknowledge that, but his interpretation of it kinda baffles me. --Illythr 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe somebody didn't bury her in time... seems like it started to stink. -- AdrianTM 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

) :Dc76\^talk 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Vecrumba, it is very simplistic to delete the text you say you do not understand, then say you understand the title, then make the whole analysis of the above cited law and cite a couple of examples to which refers the law. So do you understand or you do not? All of that shows first of all your bad faith, secondly you could have deleted either everything and leave at least only section titles of the law or keep article 3 and 4 where it is explicitly stipulated on Russian and Ukrainian. Furthermore, this is actual Moldavian legislation whether you like it or not, just as Moldavian Constitution, art. 13. It's written black on white and it cannot be an object of discussion or interpretation. It's more than clear. Anyway, Wikipedia is not about someone's personal opinions, it's about the truth, remaining neutral. I am afraid you have failed to prove these qualities in one edit. Moldopodo 21:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Moldopodo

• Actually, you ARE interpreting it. Nowhere does it explicitly state that Russian, Gagauz or Ukrainian are official in all of Moldova. And Wikipedia isn't about the truth, just verifiability. --Illythr 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with Illythr. There is no room for interpretation and the text of Constitution and of the law nowhere makes Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz unofficial languages. All of them have a specific legal status, even if one of them is not widely spoken (Gagauz), which fully corresponds to the definition of Wikipedia on official languages. What is there to interpret when one article in Constitution and about 16 articles in the law of 1989 explicitely give in detail the legal regime of usage of each of these languages? We have simply stick to the letter of the Law/Constitution and please avoid unnecessary debate and personal opinions and interpretations. Moldopodo 08:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• "nowhere makes Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz unofficial languages" is an interesting approach to sourcing information. The law also mentions a heap of other languages, like Yiddish, Roma etc nowhere making them unofficial. According to your logic, they must be official as well... Hey, I could understand such strange affirmations coming from someone living on the other side of the globe, having only read about Moldova in some tabloid or blog, but you, as a resident of Moldova, should know first hand the political situation in the country. The steadfast refusal of the nationalist government of the MSSR to grant official status to any language other than Moldovan (Romanian) was the cause of the Moldova-wide strike in 1989 and one of the stated reasons for the whole conflict with Gagauzia and Transnistria later on. --Illythr 12:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My dear Moldopodo, my "do not understand" comment (deleted) was merely a brief moment of levity and laziness. That moment passed, replaced by curiosity. I'm perhaps not quite as inept as I protest (and I really do know some Pushkin by heart)--I do reasonably well with a couple of machine translators and a good dictionary. And so, my good-faith reading is that: "Moldovan" is the official language (Latin script, ergo Romanian by any other name). As for the rest, both Moldovan (official) and anything else you use for conducting your affairs (short list of other languages in certain parts of the ССР) will be translated into the true mother tongue of the СССР, Russian. And, of course, since the СССР is a polyglot union nurturing every language and ethnicity, you can conduct your national (as in a people) cultural affairs in whatever language you like--any language used anywhere in the СССР is just fine and dandy. (Ah, if only the Soviet Union had conducted its affairs in accordance with its own constitution, it's quite a magnificent document! A conversation for another time.) I have to interject, so what? Every language got translated into Russian for the (Soviet) record. Every language was respected constitutionally. That does not make any of those languages "official." This document makes it quite clear the only official language is Moldovan, even while Moldova was still a ССР (but feeling its oats, as the expression goes). Contending the document in question promulgates a wide range of "official" languages is completely not what the document says, it's only Latin script Moldovan: "государственным языком Молдавской ССР является молдавский язык, функционирующий на основе латинской графики". You can't miss it (it's even bolded).

Contend something is official because an official document does not say something is explicitly unofficial... well... that's not dissimilar to Anonimu's argument that the proof that the Soviet Union did not occupy Romania is because there are no scholarly sources written about the fact that the Soviet Union did not occupy Romania, only writers of fiction are compelled to put pen to paper (that is, since all scholarly sources do indicate the Soviet Union occupied Romania, those sources all lie since no one bothers to write about what is obviously true). Historical syllogism or constitutional syllogism, it's still a syllogism. PētersV 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Some offtopic

A side note, stepping away from the "debate" (Moldopodo's misreading, I'm afraid) for a moment... The reason for the guarantee of translation into Russian was, of course, to insure that Big Brother Moscow could watch over you by having copies of all records in Russian. This even extended to historical records on an as-requested basis. For example, say you lived in the U.S. and you needed the certificate of birth for your grandfather, on file in Straseni. You speak Romanian, the record is in Romanian. No, you do not get a "copy"--as in facsimile or transcription. You get the product of the following process:

• all the information you personally provided (for example, you might have submitted photocopies of some other documents in Romanian) as well as the complete contents of the records requested are translated locally into Russian
• that package is all sent to Moscow
• that package is all recorded in Moscow, so Big Brother is now watching over you and your dead grandfather
• in Moscow, the document you requested is then translated from the Russian translation into the language of the country whence the request originated, so, in this case, into English
• eventually you receive your grandfather's birth record--not a copy, not a transcription, but a second-generation translation which, of course, will have been edited and censored--perhaps true, perhaps a complete fabrication (quite common, after all, the СССР regularly erected red granite memorials to those they killed, inscribing them as having died in the battle for the proletarian cause).

P.S. Thanks to Illythr for the confirmation the law is still in force. Obviously anything with reference to the СССР has ceased effectiveness with the death of the Soviet Union. Although, to AdrianTM's point, perhaps one of those hermetically sealed Father of the Soviet Peoples fishbowls has developed a leak! PētersV 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, an attempt to pierce the Iron Curtain, especially from the "potential enemy" state certainly might interest the authorities, but that's kinda beside the point. You habit of seeing sinister intent behind everything even remotely connected to the USSR tends to cloud your judgment, it seems. The main reason all those "...and Russian" changes were introduced to that 1989 law was the massive resistance to the attempt of kicking Russian out of the public sphere. AFAIR, the early original draft of the law didn't include all those "...and Russian" clauses and made a point at switching Russian to a "local minority language" and "Moldovan" to the "language of interethnic communication", which, in 1989, was quite a bit too forward. But this is waaay off topic...

PS: Why that law wasn't brought up to date with present reality (it WAS amended as late as 2003) I have no idea. --Illythr 16:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you think in cities Balti, Bender (Tighina), Dubasari, Rybnitsa (Ribnita), Tiraspol, Dnestrovsk (Cuciurgani) and cantons of Grigoriopol, Dubasari, Camenca, Rybnitsa (Ribnita), Slobozia, Taraclia, the application of the 1989 Law (articles 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 7, 10(1), 15, 17) was delayed until 1 January 1995, instead of immediate application on the whole territory of the Republic of Moldova? Moldopodo 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Continuation of discussion on languages in Moldova

• Vecrumba, thank you for your extensive answer. Please bear in mind that this talk page is read by many users and when it will be archived it will be more difficult to find each others comment. From all what you said I can see only one argument, Moldavian is official becuase it is said in the law that it is State language. However, English Wikipedia definition of official language refers to a legal status given to a language, even though it is not wide spoken (i.e. Gagauz in Moldova). You certainly will not contest that giving a legal framework for a language in Constitution, Law and Decision of the Parliament is not a legal status (than what it is?). Hence all for languages have legal status in Moldova, consequently, all four languages are official in Moldova. Just to make you think, when I source my arguments with direct link to governmental database on Moldavian law pages in Russian, does not it make you think one more time that Russian is official? Other than that, I do not see any practical or scientific need to comment your irrelevant statements on Big Brother, etc... To make a debate a true one, just give a statement and source it, you do not need to add your personal opinion. How many sources have you listed in support of what you have said above - zero? Moldopodo 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

You are not allowed to make such interpretations in the article. You need a credible source that confirms those languages to be official in the whole of Moldova. If such was the case, then I'm sure the state department in Moldova would confirm it. Additionally, we are not allowed to use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Lastly, your interpretation of what the Wikipedia article says on official languages, is incorrect. I believe you have difficulty comprehending English. What is the official language in USA, if I may ask? --Thus Spake Anittas 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• To Illythr, a very simple question, please give me a reference in Constitution or a law of the Republic of Moldova, where at least Moldavian language is called litterally "official". Also, you refer to initial version of the 1989 Law on functioning of languages[5] in Moldavian SSR. Do you have a source, so we cann all verify what this initial version was? Moldopodo 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

  A state language is official by default. Do note the redirect, BTW.

  I'd like to find that draft myself... --Illythr 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• To Illythr: So there is no litteral mention for any of the languages "official", you agree with me, be it Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian or Gagauz, I am glad for this conclusion. Now, how do we know what official language is? No source from you provided, Illythr. Nevermind, I give you one: definition of official language on Wikipedia:

An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well. Official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken.

I am sure you can make the necessary conclusions from this simple and clear definition. Should you have any problem, I am ready to help you. As for the draft, I think we should drop it, as we do not know about which draft we are talking, when, by whom it was prepared and what was in it, as no source from you is provided on this either. Moldopodo 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• to Anittas, I source all my arguments by direct link to pages in Russian of the governmental legal database of Moldova. You have probably forgot this, as I have said exact the same phrase on your talk page, after you openly lied that I do not source my edits. But unfortunately you have expediently deleted my answer from your talk page, so nobody can see. I do not see any use to comment your irrelevant statements on English, USA, etc.. The created articles on Wikisource n Russian[6] also state the same source - official governmental legal database portal lex.justice.md, I sourced the article on Constitution of Moldova from the gov.md server, I hope you still recognize Moldavian Government as official source. Moldopodo 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Your source does not support your statement. Your source only mentions Russian and Ukranian as official languages of Transnistria and not the whole of Moldova. It is for that reason that you were not allowed to keep your edits. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• To Anittas, the same question as to Illythr, which source states literally, as you claim it, that Moldavian is "official" language of Moldova (not State)? Did you read the entire article 13 of Constitution and the entire law 1989 as well as the entire Parliament's Decision on application of the aforementioned law[7]? Obviously no, if you make such statements. Also, as far as I understand only administrators on Wikipedia decide what is really allowed and what is not, you and me are discussing, that's all. Neither you, nor me can allow something really at this stage. Thank you. Moldopodo 16:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

No, it's the policy that allows what is to be what is not to be. Admins can enforce the policy, but they can also be in the wrong, which in that case, they will have to succumb to the policy. Are you Muntenian? --Thus Spake Anittas 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Anitta, I do not think your comment above calls for any answer from my part, which would be important for the discussion, please stick to the topic, and try to provide at least one source. Moldopodo 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Add when unprotected

I'd like the following text to be inserted into Human Rights of this article, but cannot edit it now:

The gay rights in Moldova are also in lack of respect in Moldova. Much criticism has ben made towards unfair treatment of homosexuals in the country.

Mikael Häggström 12:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Romanian culture

Trying to erase the words Romanian from this article sounds like Russification promoted by Voronin in 2007.---- Cezarika f. (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation

1) Please, stop adding Romanian to the official name of the language which is Moldavian. It is clear that Moldavian and Romanian are one and the same language, however, one has to stick with the official legal documents as Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Moldova, and they call the language Moldavian. The day the article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and the relveant laws will be changed and the language will be officially called Romanian, I will be the first to change it on Wikipedia as well. The same applies to Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz. The day these languages will dissapear from the Constitution and the relavant laws of the Republic of Moldova, I, and everybody else, will most certainly agree that there is only one official language in the Republic of Moldova - Romanian. Today this is not the case, moreover, no Moldavian legally binding document even allows for such an interpretation. Also please, stop erasing references to these legal documents.

2) For clarification of the fact that Romanian and Moldavian is one and the same language, please use the relevant pages. There are only two pages which allow for this explication: Moldavian language and Romanian language. When an official reference to the used language in Moldova is made, like in the infobox for example, only Moldavian can be put there, as this is how it is called in the official legal documents of the Moldavian Parliament: Constitution and laws. It is useless to add everywhere "slash - Romanian". None of the Moldavian legal documents names the language this way. However, once clicking on the Moldavian language, the reader wil be redirected to the Moldavian language page, where the identity between these two names should be explianed.

3) Please stop erasing that Russian, Gagauz and Ukrainian are official languages in the Republic of Moldova. It is not a matter of debate either, as these are the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and of laws of the Republic of Moldova. I do not see any need for their interpretation or debate on them. These are clear legal provisions and it is useless to erase them in the first hand, and to erase after Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz.

Thank you. Moldopodo (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

1. The actual name of the official language is "Moldovan" not "Moldavian", please get the facts right when you accuse people of misinformation. And Moldovan is just another name for Romanian.

I think I have the facts quite straight, as I do not fall into any debate or personal interpretation of official legal documents. By the way, none of them specifies the proper name of Moldavian/Moldovan in English. And yes, I agree with you Moldavian is often called Moldovan after 1989 (the change of script). Myself, I call it both Moldavian and Moldovan. So if you prefer Moldovan (the new version) I do not mind. Moldopodo (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

2. How is clarification = misinformation?

Argument yourself please. My argumentation is the following. The official legal document calls the language one way, you intentionally call it a different way. This is exactly what misinformation is. Moldopodo (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

This is the name used in Moldovan Constitution, in translation to English "Moldovan" can be translated as "Romanian" since it's the same language. See Britannica: "Official language:Romanian". By making clear that Moldovan is generally called Romanian we clarify things we don't misinform. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• "It can be" - this is your personal opinion. But I totally agree with you, taht Moldovan and Romanian is one language. (Offtopic: I can still remember the ridiculous story with a Romanian-Moldovan dictionary, which I totally disapprove). BUT, the Constitution of the RM and the laws of the RM call it Moldovan. That's what should be used. But then again, like I said earlier, on Moldovan language page and on page on Romanian language - a proper explication should be done tha these two names refer to one language. More than that, I would suggest to delete alltogether the article on Moldovan language and make sure that when someone clicks on Moldovan, one arrives on Romanian language page, where the first pragraph explains that Romanian is simply differently called in Moldova. However, as long as the Constitution of the RM and the laws of the RM stipulate "Moldovan", we cannot add "/Romanian" each time, especially inteh infobox which refers to the official names of the language used in the country. As for Britannica, I do not need to address it on this particular material issue as it is a secondary source compare to the Constitution and the laws of the RM - the clear primary source. Moldopodo (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

3. We erase them because they are not official languages of Moldova, how is that misinformation? -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Argument yourself please, you are looking for a debate, right?. Moldopodo (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I explained by replying to your reply to TSO1D down the page, basically Constitution is clear names it "national language" while Russian is protected, that doesn't mean official language, Ukrainian and Gagauz are not even mentioned. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution calls Moldovan "state language" (государственный язык/limba de stat), not national.Moldopodo (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

1) Fortunately, in the case of Russian, Ukrainian, and Gagauz, they already do not appear in the Constitution as official, so there is no ambiguity about the fact that they are not official languages of Moldova. Quoting from the Constitution: "The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet. (2) The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country" Of course, it's clear that to protect is by no stretch of the imagination the same as declaring them to be official. TSO1D (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another example of your selective sourcing. You have "by accident" omitted the last line of the article 13 of the Constitution of the RM: (4) The use of languages in the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be established by organic law. Also, why do you need to interpret teh Constitution? It does not refer to any of the languages litterally as official. Moldavian is called "state" language - true, Russian (second line of the article) is entitled to official usage by an official document. What's unofficial about Moldavian or Russian? What are you trying to suck out from the finger? The fourth line refers to organic laws, and namely to the Law of 1989 on Functionning of languages on the territory of the Moldavian SSR. According to this law, the Moldavian citizen has purely and simply the legally and officially protected by the state right to use either Russian or Moldvian at his choice anywhere in Moldova, and namely in relation with the state authorities. The state authorities are under obligation to provide a Russian version of any legal document upon request. Do you think that Russian version of Monitorul Oficial and of the lex.justice.md is just to please someone or fulfillment of a legal obligation? Moreover in specific regions of Moldova, Russian is explicitely called "state language": in Gagauzia and in Transnistria, and this according to the valid organic laws of the Republic of Moldova, to which the article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova makes explicit reference. Moldopodo (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

"Official language" or "national language" as it's called in Moldovan Constitution has a specific meaning, it doesn't mean merely in which languages documents should be made available, to quote from official language article: "It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well." (my emphasis) So the fact that documents are available in other languages doesn't make them "official". -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An official language is not to be confused with a national language, although the national language may be official if given legal recognition by the government.

• Moldovan language is not called either offical nor national in the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, nor in the law on Functioning of languages of 1989, nor in the law of 2005 on status of Transnistria, to which the Constitution explicitely refers in article 13. This is not my interpretation, this is what the simple legal reading is, and it is confirmed for example by the Law on Education of 1995, which cites in conformity with Constitution and the Law on functionning of languages (2005 law on Transnistria was not there yet). Moldovan language is called the state language, that's all there is said. Regarding the Wikipedia definiton you have supplied, (An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well. Official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken. This definition fully conforms with the situation in Moldova, hence fully supports that there are four official languages in Moldova: Moldovan, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz.Moldopodo (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

So calling a language the "state" language is not the same as calling it official? And you are saying that I am making interpretations :) And what finger am I supposed to suck? And what does that even mean? Anyway, the Constitution says that the law of languages will only function as long as it does not contravene the constitution. Thus that law's references to Russian have been declared unconstitutional by the Moldovan Constitutional Courth. Furthermore, there is no law mandating translations into Russian. That law has been changed to "translation into another language if requested" specifically because the former wording was unconstitutional (look up "Legea pentru modificarea Legii cu privire la actele de stare civilă" if you are interested. TSO1D (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please, when you say the law was declared unconstitutional, give a verifiable source. This law is still valid in its full version as it appears on the official governmental legal portal of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Moldova (you can find a beter source?) lex.justice.md, and it is copy-pasted on Wikisource in Russian and Romanian. I have started the translation in English, you are more than welcome to help. Also, please explain, what exactly said the Supreme Court, which material provision of the 1989 law contravenes to the Constitution?Moldopodo (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

You said: "Moldovan language is not called either offical nor national in the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova" -- I'm not sure what is that supposed to mean when I see clearly in Article 13: "The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet." What am I supposed to believe? Is that a bad translation? -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

2) Actually this isn't fully accurate. Some ministries exclusively use the term Romanian. Look at the Ministry of Education for example www.edu.md. This is an important reason why we have decided to include the name Romanian in the infobox alongside the Constitutional name. Please see past discussion of this page for further information if you are interested. TSO1D (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I found on the www.edu.md: Law regarding Education of 1995

Articolul 8. Limba de predare Statul asigură, conform Constituţiei şi articolelor 18, 19 şi 20 din Legea cu privire la funcţionarea limbilor pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova, dreptul de a alege limba de educare şi instruire la toate nivelurile şi treptele de învăţămînt. Dreptul cetăţenilor la educaţie şi instruire în limba maternă se asigură prin crearea numărului necesar de instituţii de învăţămînt, clase, grupe, precum şi a condiţilor de funcţionare a acestora. Studiul limbii de stat a Republicii Moldova este obligatoriu în toateinstituţiile de învăţămînt. Cerinţele faţă de predarea şi însuşirea ei sînt reglementate de standardul educaţional de stat. Responsabilitatea pentru asigurarea procesului de însuşire a limbii de stat în toate instituţiile de învăţămînt o poartă Ministerul Educaţiei şi Ştiinţei şi autorităţile administraţiei publice locale. Also in the menu the language selection says "MD" (which stays for Moldovan), and even the flag do designate the language is Moldavian (with a black dot symbolizing the eagle, to make sure the difference is seen with Romanian). Is thi what you were referring to? Moldopodo (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Look at the homepage of the Min of Ed. http://edu.md/?lng=ro See where lang=ro? And if you put the mouse over it, you also see Romanian. But this isn't my main argument. If you type in Moldovenesca in the search query you will get no hits. That's not the case for romana, though. Whenever the language is mentioned explicitly, the word Romanian is used. TSO1D (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, when I put the mouse over it, "MD" appears. May be we have different computers. The following sites have Russian version: www.parliament.md, www.president.md, www.moldova.md, www.gov.md. Why would they have a Russian version if, according to your personal opinion, there is no legal obligation?Moldopodo (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

3) I fully agree with you. There is no ambiguity here and this matter is explicitly addressed in the Constitution. Please see my comment above or look at the Constitution for additional information. TSO1D (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your agument is not clear, please explain. Thank you. Moldopodo (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

By the way, Moldopodo, since you said that you trusted Britannica's content, please look at how they dealt with the subject. Under the category of "official language" they have: Britannica: "Official language:Romanian". I believe that this concise line addresses all of your concerns. TSO1D (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I trust Britannica for the formal contents of the English language presentation and that is how it was cited before, not for material presentation, otherwise we can just copy-paste from Britannica. I repeat, according to the definiton of official language on Wikipedia, all four languages: Moldovan, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz are official in Moldova. Have you found the definiton of official language on Britannica?Moldopodo (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Wkikpedia is based on verifiability, and other encyclopedias are useful for that purpose. Usually primary sources are preferred, but reference materials can be used for a summary. Anyway, in this case, primary, secondary, tertiary, and all other orders of sources confirm the same thing, that Moldovan/Romanian is the only official language of Moldova, so there's no problem. TSO1D (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• TSO1D either one should consider your last statement as an open lie, or as an intentional misinformation, or your inability to read Moldovan Constitution and Moldovan laws (be it in Russian, Romanian or even English). Therefore there is a big problem. The primary and the most important source: the Constitution and Law explicitely mention the four languages Moldovan, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz. So, have you found the definition of official language on Britannica?Moldopodo (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and stop personal attacks on this page. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just asserting that you are right will not prove anything. Please cite a credible source and give the actual passage that supports your position. TSO1D (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I repeat, please read the Constitution of the RM, article 13, the law on Languages of 1989 (entire version), article 6 of the law on Transnistria of 2005. By the way, may I correct myself, the 2005 law on transnistria is probably the only lawin Moldova that ecplicitely refers to a alnguage as official (three languages in this case). As for you, TSO1D, I am still waiting for you to source your statements on uncostitutionality of the 1989 law. Here is what says art.6 of the 2005 law on Transnistria:

Ст. 6. - (1) Приднестровье имеет свою символику, которая применяется наряду с символикой Республики Молдова.

(2) Официальными языками Приднестровья являются молдавский язык на основе латинской графики, украинский и русский языки. Республика Молдова гарантирует функционирование и других языков на территории Приднестровья.

(3) Делопpоизводство в Пpиднестpовье, а также пеpеписка с оpганами публичной власти Республики Молдова, пpедпpиятиями, оpганизациями и учреждениями, находящимися за пределами Приднестровья, ведутся на молдавском языке на основе латинской графики и русском языке.[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldopodo (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you were talking about. But there already is a note (the 1 after official languages) that says: "Moldovan is commonly considered another name for Romanian (Gagauz and Russian are also official in the Gagauz Autonomous Region)." There should also be added: "Russian, and Ukrainian are also official in Transnistria." I will do so. However, these should be kept in the note, as the explanation of the exceptions doesn't fit into that line. TSO1D (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, come on, when each and every secondary source (Britannica, Encarta, Columbia + you name it) state that the only official language of Moldova is Moldovan (Romanian) then they gotta be on to something... --Illythr (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalism

Both Moldopodo and Cezarica (and the anon IP), please stop. We've had enough edit wars without you here. Dpotop (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What vandalism? Have you seen Estonia article? There is written Sovietic occupation. If there's written so in this article will be. Moldova as Estonia had the same history after 1940-1989. --62.84.145.2 (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume you are Cezarica. So:

1. You are mixing Bessarabia with the Republic of Moldova. 2. You are pushing far too much information in the lead, and in a manner than can be seen as POV (that info is either linked, or detailed below, anyway). 3. You are doing this persistently, without taking counsel with the other editors, against the advice of admins, and in a manner that can be qualified as vandalism. Dpotop (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I totally agree with you. You have to stop vandalising the article on Moldova and making personal interpretations of legal documents of the Republic of Moldova, seeing words that are not present in the legal text. If you repeatedly continue re-editing with slash Romanian and deleting at the same time any refrence to Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz, as well as the legal provisions of the Republic oif Moldova which refer to them, you intentionally misinform the reader on the one hand, and on the second hand you destroy the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia which should reflect only neutral facts, and not your personal opinions. Moldopodo (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

My line above was directed at you, too. Dpotop (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User/Administrator:Mikkalai is deleting every negative statement about USSR/Russia

EVEN IF THE STATEMENTS ARE REFERENCED!!! Furthermore, he gives no explanations to his deletions of referenced material (even from official sites).

I believe that if I confront him directly he will gravely abuse of administrative rights (I had to deal with his abusive before) and block me. I expect him to delete my edits too. Please somebody take care of this situation.

An example of deletion in the foreign relation section: "In 1st of October 2007, foreign minister of Moldova, Andrei Stratan, said at UN that Russian troups are in Republic of Moldova against the will of Moldovan Government. Reiterez, cu acest prilej, poziţia Republicii Moldova, potrivit căreia îndeplinirea angajamentelor asumate la Istanbul în 1999 de Federaţia Rusă, ale căror trupe staţionează pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova, contrar voinţei ţării noastre, va crea premizele necesare pentru ratificarea şi punerea în aplicare a Tratatului FACE Adaptat"

Nergaal (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Explained in edit summary. This is a general arcle and we cannot include each political rant by each politician on every occasion here. `'Míkka>t 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a political rant if it is ON AN OFFICIAL SITE! Check the link.It is from the website in Romanian/Moldavian of the Ministry of Foreign Relationships and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova.The foreign minister of Moldova is not just a politician. He represents at least at the official level, the position of the country.Nergaal (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that User:Nergaal and user:Cezarika f. are fresh socks of user:Bonaparte. `'Míkka>t 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have allready stated, he will most likely try to block me since I do not have his opinions and I have no administrative rights. I have no idea who the two users are. Cezarika made a statement on my talk page so I ended up checking his/her edits. Nergaal (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai, please don't "suspect", open a user check. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For now I only suspect. I may be mistaken. User check is quite busy. `'Míkka>t 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but we need to assume good faith and we shouldn't throw accusations on a hunch (personal opinion -- I have my own hunches, I try not to voice them) -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. `'Míkka>t 03:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you "open a user ckeck?" Nergaal (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CHECK -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been tagged as disputed several hours ago and 1h and 18mins later a Russian administrator comes to solve the dispute??? This is obviously a dispute between a pro-Russian point of view and a pro-Romanian point of view. Therefore an OBJECTIVE solution to this dispute cannot be found by bringing a Romanian or a Russian user/administrator, or a friend of such a user. Disputes should be solved by impartial users/administrators! Thank you. Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's kind of abrupt to assume bad faith from admins only because of their (assumed) nationality. But I do see the point in having more neutral admins around especially that user:Nergaal was already blocked once by user:Mikkalai. I also agree that the disputed reference should remain, it's not only "a politician rant" as user:Nergaal explained. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be noted that my previous block made by Mikkai was reverted due to impartiallity. Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably mean "lack of" impartiality... -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

yep Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Official statements of official Foreign ministry of Moldova will remain in the text

"In 1st of October 2007, foreign minister of Moldova, Andrei Stratan, said at UN that Russian troups are in Republic of Moldova against the will of Moldovan Government. Reiterez, cu acest prilej, poziţia Republicii Moldova, potrivit căreia îndeplinirea angajamentelor asumate la Istanbul în 1999 de Federaţia Rusă, ale căror trupe staţionează pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova, contrar voinţei ţării noastre, va crea premizele necesare pentru ratificarea şi punerea în aplicare a Tratatului FACE Adaptat" --Cezarika f. (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

are you mentally impaired? you were reverting a version that had this statement in it allready! god dammit kiddo please go away before you get thinks even worse! Nergaal (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

kiddo? wahat kind of version did you revert to? You should be honest with yourself, your version did not included the official statements as my version!--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This article is protected due to recent edit war. Currently protection is set to one week because this is the second time the page is fully protected within the month, can be shortened after everyone cooled down and consensus is achieved. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The current version it's OK. --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current version, it's just a means of stopping an ongoing edit dispute. So please discuss the points of contention with Nergaal and the other editors on this page. TSO1D (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

it is quite impossible to have a rational discussion to a 12-year old boy. I have tried that. Check my talkpage. Nergaal (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, personal attacks or such silly comments are unlikely to help. The best way to resolve this conflict is for both of you to present the points you disagree with and explain your rationale so that a consensus can be reached with input for all editors involved in this article. TSO1D (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly coments I will not consider Laagren. --Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is unprotected. Both acount waging an artificial edit war are blocked for disruption. `'Míkka>t 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes

I'd suggest a full revert of the lead to this clean version (except for changes by TSO1D). The current verion is rather messed up. "Soviet occupation" header should also be reverted to the far more neutral Moldavian SSR. Also, CDPP is not the only party in Moldova, why the heck is it listed as a "main" article for the government of Moldova?--Illythr (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I had actually done the exact same thing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172485286&oldid=172484954 earlier today but was reverted quickly. So I would encourage you to make that change (I would do it myself, but I would be getting close to 3RR). TSO1D (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to keep the good stuff instead of a total revert. Will take a while... --Illythr (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about the intro section

Here is what I was proposing as introduction. Please make suggestions to what is wrong, what should not be here. Also 'votes' towards keeping (and specifically what) would be nice.

" The Republic of Moldova (Republica Moldova) is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe, located between Romania to the west and Ukraine to the north, east and south. The majority of the population is represented by Moldovans, which are Latin people officially recognized as a distinct group from Romanians, having a separate Moldovan language - although probably identical in most aspects to Romanian language.

The Principality of Moldavia gained independence around the 14th century AD. Most of the present day territory of Republic of Moldova was annexed by the Russian Empire from Moldavia in 1812, and included in the guberniya Bessarabia. In 1918, after the collapse of the Russian Empire, Sfatul Ţării of Bessarabia decided with 86 votes for, 3 against and 36 abstainments, towards the union with the Kingdom of Romania. But after 22 years, as a result of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, Bessarabia was allowed by the Third Reich to be annexed by USSR. On June 28 1940, Romania received an ultimatum from the Soviet Union, demanding the evacuation of the Romanian military and administration from Bessarabia and from the northern part of Bukovina, with an implied threat of invasion in the event of non-compliance. Under pressure from Moscow and Berlin, the Romanian administration and the army were forced to retreat from Bessarabia as well from Northern Bukovina to avoid war. In 1944, Moldova was annexed again and administered by the USSR as the Moldavian SSR until the collapse of the USSR, when it declared its independence on August 27, 1991.

Present-day Moldova is a parliamentary democracy with a President as its head of state and a Prime Minister as its head of government. Although Moldova has been independent since 1991, Russian forces have remained on Moldovan territory east of the Nistru River despite signing international obligations to withdraw and against the will of Moldovan Governement. Moldova has officially been a neutral country since its independence, and an early member of the NATO Partnership for Peace. The country is a member state of the United Nations, WTO, OSCE, GUAM, CIS, BSEC and La Francophonie. Moldova currently aspires to join the European Union. and is implementing its first three-year Action Plan within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) of the EU."

Nergaal (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

add replies here please

• I personally don't like "although probably identical in most aspects to Romanian language", this doesn't sound encyclopedic, maybe we can drop "although probably" since there are enough references that say that Moldovan is just another name for Romanian spoken in Moldova. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The main article on the language begins with: "The term Moldovan (also Moldavian) is sometimes used to refer to the Romanian language in the Republic of Moldova and in its breakaway region of Transnistria.". Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1. I think the controversial issue of ethnicity shouldn't be present in the lead. I suppose that the official language may be mentioned, the way AdrianTM suggests. A short summary of peoples living in Moldova should be enough. 2. The history part is way too detailed for the lead section of an article about a modern country. Sufficient to say that it was annexed by, then became part of, then reannexed by then independent without delving into that much detail. I believe it is now fine as it is. 3. The presence of Russian forces should be linked to the Transnistrian conflict, not to Moldova's independence. 4. Some info on Moldova's current economic state would be good. --Illythr (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with all these points. -- AdrianTM (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• 1) change which are Latin people officially recognized as a distinct group from Romanians, to (officially recognized as a distinct group from Romanians). 3) troops remained then to help the Russian minoryty/majority cause. Yet they remained on the territory of an indemendent state with disregards to international agreements. I think this is a pretty big step agains the independence of the country. It is not a UN-reglemented/authorized army, therefore has no international acceptance to be there. In short should link both points: transnistrian war and breach of independence. 4) sure. that should not be too hard. some will say it is the lowest GDP country in Europe, others will say that Russian economic pressure lead to this (i.e. I mean political and economical pressure similar to the Georgia case). My $0.02Nergaal (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Does a people need to be officially recognized? I really don't see the need for this "distinct from Romanians" thing. The "Moldovans" article deals with this stuff and I think it best be contained there. 3. That is a rather complicated issue. In order to describe it neutrally, it needs to be put in proper context, that is, that the army is there to guard the stockpile, its role in the conflict (before and under Lebed), that there are two distinct forces (the peacekeepers and the guards), that most of the army is comprised of locals, political interests of all sides etc. That would be way too detailed for the intro as well, so I think that as long as the most important stuff is mentioned (that they're still there and were supposed to leave, but didn't do so completely), that part of the intro is fine. 4) Only the current state should be mentioned. Major industries, wine production and stuff. The whys are already there in the appropriate section. --Illythr (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

4) stating that the country is the poorest in Europe is quite a strong statement. I believe it is more important to give reasons for the state of the economy, than to list major industries, which because of the overall poorness, are somewhat negligible at international level.Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2) two things I believe are important enough to me mentioned in the introduction: first that Bessarabia joined Romania by 'free will' and the point with the votes was to show that it was a 'clear win' for the unionist movement (in 1918). secondly, the fact that the decision to annex Bessarabia was allowed by the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty is really important (it is an international document deciding the fate of a country without any decision rights from the parties involved). I believe changing hands is less important than the fact the Romanian goverment and army retreated for the fear of invasion.Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• only 2 other users have expressed their point of view until now. since (at least) one of them has been neutral during the edits, then how did this get into a long edit war? Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it's easier to revert than to discuss? -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

nope! I think we just found out why from the irrational edits made by user:Anonimu Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Bessarabia joined Romania after it was occupied by Romanian troops, and the nonrepresentative body supported by these troops voted for union, in diregard of the will of 50% of the population, and with conditions that weren't respected by the Romanian state. And Molotov - Ribb pact was not binding to Romania. Bessarabia was ceded by Romania after the request by the Soviets, who made no mention of the said pact and made no mention of any invasion (that part it's the POV on a wiki editor, not supported by the source). So better keep it simple.

a)the previous statement was made by user:Anonimu b) this is his text with my comments added to it Actually Bessarabia joined Romania after it was occupied by Romanian troops, and the nonrepresentative body supported by these troops voted for union, in diregard of the will of 50% of the population, and with conditions that weren't respected by the Romanian state. And Molotov - Ribb pact was not binding to Romania. (it was only a game of retreat or die user:Nergaal) Bessarabia was ceded by Romania after the request by the Soviets, who made no mention of the said pact and made no mention of any invasion (there was an ultimatum sent as an official document to the government of Romaniauser:Nergaal. ) (that part it's the POV on a wiki editor, not supported by the source). So better keep it simple. the statement made by Anonimu is the POV on a wiki editor, not supported by the source

c) my conclusion: Until you provide references to such statements I will take it only as a soviet-indoctrinated opinion. also, go check Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which you seem to vandalize fairly often Nergaal (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

All my statement refering to annexation of Bessarabia by Romania can be found in the pro-rumanian charles upson clark's "Bessarabia, Russia and roumania on the Black sea".

The source refering to the ultimatum doesn't support the text written in the article. Oh, and I noted you personal attack.Anonimu (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can take "soviet-indoctrinated point-of-view" as a personal attack, then please review you past history of personal attacks! Soviet-indoctirnated POV is nothing more nothin gless that what it states (a POV formed after a long brainwash by soviet propaganda). Cheers! Everybody has got a right to opinions and they are welcome to state them in wiki. Nevertheless, please do not try to impose it without providing ANY sources (translation in English: a charles upson clark reference is better than no referece at all), especially if it leads to disruprions to the collaboration process. Nergaal (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

3) you believe that breach of independence is not important enough? I understand that there were initial reasons to be there, but the fact that it is still there anthough the declaration of independence and international agreements.

Transnistria also has a declaration of independence...

to this comment made by user:Anonimu I am replying: and unlike Moldova (which is a part of UN and recognized by ALL countries in UN), Transnistria is not recognized by any Nergaal (talk)

So what? the point is that nobody gives a shit on a declaration of independence.. which, after all, is just a declaration like any otherAnonimu (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In order to not to continue proving the proofs of severe impedement of your own rational thougt process, please understand that if nobody were to care about declarations of independence, then they wouldn not be recognized by UN states in the first place (a good example would be Northen Cyprus)Nergaal (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, those troops were there at the request of the Sfatul Tarii. Don't forget that the marauding Bolshevik soldiers deserting from the front were causing quite a bit of havoc in Bessarabia, and the government feared for the welfare of its citizens. So I agree that the decision to join Romania was in part due to the dangerous circumstances of the period, however to claim that Romania occupied Bessarabia and then forced its governing council to abandon the country's independence is not very accurate. And what do you mean that the Rib-Mol pact wasn't "binding." What meaning does that adjective even have when describing the understanding between two states not to interfere in the other's unprovoked occupation of their neighbors? TSO1D (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nop, those troops where called by a white (russian) general to help him prevent bolshevics from taking power. The bolshevic were not marauding, at least not more than anybody else. The gvt of Chisinau actually protested the entry of Romanian troops on Bessarabian soil. So you see, Romania occupied Bessarabia and then forced it to "unite". Molotov-Rib didn't have any role in romania's decision to (retro)cede Bessarabia.Anonimu (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Romania just realized her evil ways and to correct them she decided to give present Bessarabia to Soviet Union, the Soviet troops at border and the ultimatum and the fact that Germany said to Soviets "take what you want from Romania as long our interests are protected" (for "interests" read "oil fields" and Germans in Romania) had nothing to do with it. BTW, can you provide a reference that Molotov-Ribbentrop didn't have anything to do it, or it's your own opinion? I can provide dozen of references that Romania lost Bessarabia as a result of secret protocols of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was something like: '-Hey Charlie, r'member that land your pa stole? -Hmm.. which one of them? -The one east of the Purth? -Oh yeah, I went there with my first lass... what's with that? -Reds want it back... - You mean that big country to the East with a big bloody army? - Yup, exactly. - And Adolf? What does he say? - He doesn't give a crap... -Hmm... After all the they asked it preety nicely, let's give it back...'Anonimu (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case, these discussions will be fruitless. If anyone wants to add any new information, as long as it is sourced that will be fine. And if someone disagrees with that information and provides a countersource, that can be included as well, as long as Wikpedia guidelines are followed, including NPOV and credible sources. So there is no point for us to try to come to an agreement about what really happened. TSO1D (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• How foolish of us not to think that. Man, Charlie must have been brain-dead not to realize this. Of course Charlie's pa stole the land. Everybody should remember that it is within the nature of any empire to go and conquer everything it can. Of course it is wrong to steal back that land. Of corse the Empire has all the rights to take (i.e. not steal, but just annex, colonize, brainwash, deport, subminate any nationalist movement, tax the colonized, a.s.o.) the land in the first place. The Empire has the army (and of course automatically the right) to come and take any land it feels like. Of course that if the Empire is weakened for about 10 years by a peasant revolution, it is extremely wrong to steal back that land. Come on, who are Charlie's pa to steal back from that Empire? And who are these Charlies to even make the Empire even listen to what they have to say. An Empire is an Empire and as long as they have a big enough bloody army east of Charlie's land there is absolutly no point to argue against the absolute rights of the Empire. Otherwise people will come and say things like: Charlie's pa stole the land from us, but we never stole it in the first place. And we do not have an expansionist and ignorant attitude about tiny, puny, infinitesimal, microscopic, microscopical, miniature, minute, teeny, teeny-weeny, Charlies. Referenced sources| Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

add replies here please:part 2

I might be wrong, but until now (excluding the unreferenced POV of Anonimu who seems to lack the will to compromise) this is the situation from what I see: 1) there seems to be some good amounts of agreements on this. 2) and 3) have still some debating left. 4) needs significant more debating before reaching agreements. Nergaal (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• 2) This is my updated proposal regarding the history section:

Most of its territory was historically part of the medieval Principality of Moldavia, and was ceded to the Russian Empire in 1812, as part of Bessarabia. In 1918, after the collapse of the Russian Empire, the National Assembly of Bessarabia voted almost unanimously towards union with Romania. But during World War II, as a result of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, Bessarabia was allowed by the Third Reich to be annexed by USSR. After the war, it was split between the Ukrainian SSR and the newly-created Moldavian SSR. The latter declared its independence from the USSR on August 27, 1991, as Republic of Moldova.

• Please add suggestions or state vote for support. Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I find the wording of "But during World War II, as a result of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, Bessarabia was allowed by the Third Reich to be annexed by USSR" a bit muddy ("was allowed to...") and it completely omits the Soviet ultimatum and Romania caving to pressure from Italy and Germany. 1812 may be oversimplified, I recall some machinations around Bessarabia being redefined as not the historical Besaraba. And the splitting "after the war" is incorrect chronologically, the split was done after the initial occupation under ultimatum and took effect again upon later re-occupation and the close of the war. You might take a look at establishment of the MSSR where I covered some of these issues. (Easier than retyping here!) Just some constructive feedback. —PētersV (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba please note the article has a history section, however Nergal wants to duplicate it in the lead. please don't join his game.Anonimu (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

the lead section is supposed to briefly state the most relevant issues from the article. Therefore duplicating information from article into lead is expected by definition. Anyways, the informaton is in the history section for backup for now. Also I would prefer if instead of pokings, you woud actually reply to my comments above. Nergaal (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

official language

this link "http://azi.md/news?ID=41925" says that there is a single official language,

[:user:moldoprodo] said: but the Constitution and the laws to which it refers says there are four official languages in Moldova. It is a general consensus that Constitution and the laws to which it explicitely refers in article 13 are a major source, with fundamental superior importance to any other source, press article, interpretation, commentary or a journalist personal view

I totally agree but I want to see a link showing the exact text of that article. I am tempted to believe that people here do not know that text exactly and they think it states 4 official languages. To my understanding "The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country" This does not imply official status of any other language than Moldovan.Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I found it!

• Article 13. (1) The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet.
• Article 13. (2) The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country.
• Article 13. (4) The use of languages in the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be established by organic law.
• Article 35. (3) In all forms of educational institutions the study of the country's official language will be ensured.

If the article 13 might be ambigous as to what is the meaning of "national" language. The article National language says (without references though) "A national language declared as such by legislation is the same as an Official language". But come on, Article 35 uses singular thus IMPLIES that there is a single official language. And there is no way that the national language is not official.

Please add 'bumps'/votes to show that you support this position (to have more weight agains people who decide to ignore facts). Nergaal (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus and how not to edit against it

I see only one editor on this page who claims that Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz are official languages of Moldova along with Moldovan, all the rest of editors who edited or expressed their opinions say something else. I suggest you stop trying to push your opinion over others', especially when you are in minority (actually the only one supporting this interpretation), please find at least another editor who agrees with you, before you revert the consensus built page. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We recently went through the constitution in painful detail, even allowing for its being a hold-over from the MSSR, it states there is one official language. Besides, we are not here to promulgate our personal interpretations of the constitution, that's WP:SYNTH and not admissible whether it's right or wrong. The most we can do is do a direct quote or cite a reputable source. PētersV (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I obviously agree with your point, but I'm not sure why are quoting WP:SYNTH. I don't think the problem is that the user in question is using published sources selectively, but that he is not using any sources to support his position. Thus, this would fall more under WP:OR or WP:Reliable Sources. Just giving my bureaucratic opinion :) TSO1D (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right--hard to keep all those categories straight. Maybe we can simplify some of those to WP:ISAYSO. :-) PētersV (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I have made a revert to his edits with this comment "revert. user Moldopodo continues to actively ignore decisions made on the talkpage, refuses to express his opinion there although tags told him to and deletes previously agreed-references."Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
2. This is getting ridiculous again. Moldo re-referted my edit again with the comment "User Nergaal actively inserts personal unsourced opinions, ignoring presented sources on the talk page: Constitution and laws of the Republic of Moldova." THIS PAGE DOES NOT EVEN EXIST!!! It is getting impossible to reason this person. Arguing, refusing referenced facts, choosing to interpret sources in a way that is far from the literal meaning of the sources, is one thing. But FABRICATING EVIDENCE to support personal pov, corroborated with complete disregard to appeals by other users to stop reverting until at least another user agrees on his pov, is the beginning of a VERY,VERY slippery slope. I beg anybody with the possibilities to deal with this situation, to take adequate measures. Thank you very much. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, Moldopodo obviously referred to his "evidence" presented on this talk page... --Illythr (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, nice of of backing up. with this attitude of brushing the dust beneath the carpet this discussion cannot go too far. thank you for mimicking the devil's advocate role here. nice try. And let's say your version makes sense: then why were my edits unreferenced since there was an initial reference (two in fact) that Moldo deleted himself? and say we are in an universe where that makes sense: then where are the presented sources were made on this talk? fro the past several days I was the only one bringing in references. everybody else were stating opinions. come on, why can't you choose to be objective? Nergaal (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo considers his interpretation of the constitution to be his reliable source (nice job debunking it above, btw), so he's not fabricating sources, but interpreting them (this is a bit tricker to refute, but, fortunately, not necessary). I didn't quite get the "dust beneath the carpet" part, though. Nice try in what? --Illythr (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted all of Moldopodo's and some of Nergaal's edits:

Moldopodo: 1. Please present at least one reliable secondary source stating that there is more than one official language in Moldova. 2. A section on relations with Russia is a good idea, however, it's currently too small and uninformative. Perhaps translating some info from the ru article might make it useful enough.

Nergaal: 1. That Cazacu guy doesn't strike me as a "neutral, unbiased, seemingly objective,well-referenced american author from 1927". In fact, that passage you used reads like an inflammatory pamphlet. If you absolutely must reference him, please present his opinion on the situation as an opinion, not objective truth. 2. This is a "by the book" example of WP:SYNTH. (Sorry, marked my last edit as "minor" by accident). --Illythr (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• thank you again for actually checking the reference! since you obviously check it, you probably noticed that the american guy from the 1927 actually said Time passes, and together with it Russia is passing out of Bessarabia. That must be said straight out; we must not lull ourselves with any sort of illusions." (Passages in brackets are not in my Russian text, but are in Cazacu's Roumanian translation.) In connection with this, let me set the eloquent epilogue of Cazacu's "O Suta de Ani de Robie" (A Century of Serfdom), written in 1912:.........
• If you would have cared enough, you would have noticed that the original reference is a Romanian guy, and the American gyu was used as a url=webreference. So the same websource links 2 things: and seemingly-objective American guy, and his reference of a Romanian author. Please be considerate of my time and spend 2 seconds to read what I link.Nergaal (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. The American guy said nothing about a strong anti-Russian sentiment on that page. There's plenty of it in Cazacu's passage. So source it to him, with proper attribution, as he is about as far from neutral as one can be. --Illythr (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had the curiosity to check the bottom of the page , then you would have seen the reference saying:

"Cazacu (1912), A Century of Serfdom, <http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/clark/bc_24.shtml> text: "The Russians are now holding their celebration of a century of material possession of Bessarabia. But her spirit they do not possess, nor shall they ever possess it. In the celebration of the Russians, the Moldavians have no share except that of deep and painful silence. The whole Roumanian people feels this pain, and does not lose hope that Bessarabia, and with her the Roumanian people, will have a chance to celebrate in her turn the day of salvation. It will come. History repeats itself so often, and the historical maxim remains: Babylon was, the Empire of Alexander of Macedon was, the Roman Empire was, the Byzantine Empire was, and the time will come to say of other empires also-they were. Not so long ago was 1855 with the Crimea, and not so long ago was Port Arthur and Tzushima, and-Great is the Lord God of Hosts!-it will be again, surely it will be again!" "Nergaal (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

it still does not answer the point of why you deleted the references. the references were good, but the description in my edit was partially confusing (that edit added about 4 different reference tags, and one of which was the Romanian guy). Again, the references were good. Nergaal (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

so? are you going to put back the references?Nergaal (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular one - no, unless you properly attribute the text the reference supports. The ref about Russian imperial authorities colonizing the area and the ref about the territory being predominantly Romanian do not support your synthesis that the former was *because* of the latter. The ref about MDR - I don't think one is really necessary there, but the one you used is a little off, because the MDR was initially declared as part of Russia, not an independent state. --Illythr (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)