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 Archive7 May 2007 - December 2007

moldovan flag

Does anyone know why the moldovan flag has the flag of the ottoman empire in it in the form of a bulls horn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.187.200 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Moldova project

Anyone interested in a dedicated group, which is initially proposed to begin as a task force, dedicated to improving content relating to the nation of Moldova is more than welcome to indicate their interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Moldova work group. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Xasha's edits

Xasha, I reverted your additions, because I thought many things you added violated NPOV, and it would have been too much of a hassle to try to remove that content. I will try to go back and reintroduce the more uncontroversial edits you made. Some of the things that you added that I found objectionable are saying that the Council only voted for union with Romania because of the influence of the Romanian army, the statement that Romanians wanted Moldovans to view them as brothers, changing Romanian to Moldovan in the inter-war period, even though in the Romanian census the population was recorded as Romanian, and a few other things. Due to the controversial nature of this section, please describe some of the more extensive changes you wish to make on the talk page first so that other users can discuss them. TSO1D (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after I reintroduced some your changes, it seems that the difference between your version and the current version isn't that great. I only omitted a few sentences and words. Please feel free to discuss those issues here. TSO1D (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They were all from the book "Nation-building and Contested Identities", published in the same time at Iasi's Publirom and Budapest's Regio Book in 2001. The author is a lecturer at the University of Bucharest [1], so you can't say it's propaganda or lies. Here's a presentation of the book. You may not like it, because it doesn't fit the traditional nationalist history, but it is souced. From what I've read on policy pages, you must accept this text unless you can prove the source is biased. However, I'll let you think about it (or prove me wrong) before restoring the text. Xasha (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia policy in this regard is a bit more complicated. Please take a look at WP:NPOV. One aspect of this policy is that simply because something is sourced does not automatically qualify it to be included. It also has to reflect a neutral point of view attributing all disputed issues to a particular source, providing multiple sources for those issues, and not giving undue weight to one side. Furthermore, it is often better to add details to the relevant subarticle, for example that would be History of Moldova in this case. TSO1D (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what's a NPOV? This is an article of a lecturer of the University of Bucharest, in a book edited by a reputable Romanian publisher and favourably reviewed by Romanian-American historian Vladimir Tismăneanu, so you can't accuse it of Soviet propaganda or manipulative POV. I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that disputes what that source says. If there are some Romanian nationalist who say otherwise, it's not my job to search their writings for their personal views. I find it stupid to prevent the publication of some information just because there may be some book in the world that may dispute it.Xasha (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

About the census in interwar Romania: we have proofs that a signifiant number of Ukrainians were counted as "Romanians who had forgotten their mother language", so it's no surprise there were no Moldovans in the census. (It's the only Bessarabian census with no Moldovans - Romanians, on the other hand, appear in every census since 1897). The policy in Romania nowadays is the same: if you say you're a Moldovan, Oltenian or Vlach, you're counted as Romanian.Xasha (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the census, you can define yourself however you like. For instance, in the last census, there were around 100 people who claimed to be "Dacians". :-) bogdan (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So how come no Moldovans or Vlachs?Xasha (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, did it contain a blank field too, like the last Russian one? Were there any Hobbits counted? :-) --Illythr (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

From census data: "In the data processing at certain ethnic groups were included: the Romanians – also include the persons who declared themselves Aromanians (25053 persons) and Macedonian-Romanians (1334 persons)", ("Vlach" is exonym for "Aromanian", meaning they don't call themselves "Vlachs" other people, Greeks and Serbs call them "Vlachs") I don't know about Moldovans, I bet there were not more than couple of hundreds who declared themselves "Moldovans" I don't know about "Dacians" haven't found the info, but it's very much possible, the number is probably included in the 151615 "Other ethnic groups" before you jump to the conclusion that most of the 151615 are "Moldovans" in North-East region there are only 6765 "Other ethnic". So there you go... Ah, and hobbits are there too, the ones who declared themselves as such, the rest go undercover. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that all people in Moldavia west of Pruth declared themselves Moldovans in 2002, just that the Romanian government didnt change it's attitude towards Moldovans since 1930. However, I think Moldovans are counted as Romanians, as the Vlachs, rather than "Other ethnic groups". Is there any way to get the raw results of the census (that doesn't add people based on Romania's government policy)?Xasha (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that, when there was an aggregation done it was clearly specified in text. I've never met somebody from Moldavia who declare himself/herself "Moldovan" or "Moldavian" in the sense of ethnicity. Like how Americans declare themselves "New Englanders" or a "Yankees" that doesn't mean "non-American", during the census I doubt many of them declares themselves "Yankees". (and there is no anti-yankee conspiration either...)-- AdrianTM (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meetings before the results were released they discussed this "problem", and decided to take care of it by adding the results. Did you meet all the 4,7 million? And the US census is very different from the usual Eastern European census. But let's come back to our discussion: Why were sourced informations deleted from the article?Xasha (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

About the census, I agree with you, if people had declared themselves as "Moldovan", they would have been recorded as "Romanian." But that is exactly my point, we should be presenting the results as they were recorded. TSO1D (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but this would have been mentioned just like Aromanians were included in the count and it was mentioned, the census was done by professionals who would not invalidate the results by just recording in a different category. No, I haven't met all the Moldavians (I mean those from Romania, not "Moldovans"), but I haven't met one who didn't consider himself/herself Romanian, of course there's still time... there are even some Texans who don't consider themselves Americans... I don't doubt that there are some who don't consider themselves Romanians, but again that's beside the point, the point is that this is about Moldova not about Romania -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, why isn't there any article about the Romanian region of Moldavia?Xasha (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

there is. TSO1D (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's about the principality of Moldova, so it covers whole mediaeval Moldavia and 50 years of Cispruthian Moldavia. Nothing about Moldavia as part of Romania (state which appeared in 1862). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xasha (talk • contribs) 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Moldova (region) redirects to Moldavia, I guess what needs to be said about region can go into Moldova article, that's how I interpret the redirect. If people consider that's something important to be said about the region that doesn't fit well in Moldavia article then they can edit here directly and remove the redirection. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Xasha,

Please do not take my edits as a sign of aggressiveness. I tend to edit boldly, but I wish to believe I tolerate and listen and change my opinion if proven with good arguments. I believe that helps identify the core the problems, avoids mixing several issues, and brings the dispute, if any, to a small number of points. Now, I'd like to answer some of your observations. But before I want to thank you for your contribution. Whether we agree on some political issue or not, it does not mean we can not be nice and civilized, and respect each other's opinions. Anyway, I am not trying to change your opinion about anything, as I am sure you are not trying to change mine. We are here to edit the article, to convey facts/sources/(sourced) arguments in a neutral tone. In fact, I'd add "also to explain to the world" that there are certain divergent opinions about certain things.

Refer to this change.

• why mention an invalid treaty? It is the first time I hear that the treaty of paris is invalid. If that is true, I think we should first proper discuss that issue at the article of that treaty, because it would have many-many more implications in hundreds of articles. So I believe, we need a lot of feedback there. Please, just let me know when you raise the question there, I'd be very eager to listen to your arguments. You just have to present them to a larger audience, than the talk page of a single article.

It's basic international law. A treaty becomes valid when all parties ratify it. Japan never ratified it. Here's an analysis from a prestigious Romanian historical magazine [2]:

"Tratatul de la Paris din 28 octombrie 1920 nu s-a pus niciodata în practica. Pentru ca nu a fost ratificat de Japonia (Rusia sovietica a stiut sa cointereseze eficient Japonia pentru a o determina sa nu semneze, iar diplomatia româna s-a miscat greu si cu mare întârziere în spatiul asiatic). Astfel ca el n-a putut fi invocat de români în 1940. Si nici în 1947. Si nu poate fi invocat nici azi, la alte gânduri basarabene. De parca Nistrul s-ar fi mutat definitiv pe Prut."

This is exactly what I am talking about. We are deciding here whether an international treaty is valid or not. We have no authority to do this. All we can do, is copy the opinions of people who have authority. Otherwise, we are doing original research WP:OR, which is automatically deleted. And again, we can not argue in Moldova that it is not valid, and in Romania and in 100 other articles that it is valid. It has to be discussed elsewhere, in Treaty of Paris. :Dc76\^talk 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not deciding nothing. We are not the UN or the League of Nations. Since Japan didn't ratify it, it is invalid. It's the same thing as the European Constitution: it has been signed by all EU countries, it was ratified by a lot of countries, but France and the Netherlands didn't ratify it, so it's invalid, and they had to create another. No original research, but basic international law, which, moreover is also supported by a prestigious source.Xasha (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did not understand what I meant. You suggest that we apply the "international law". Which is automatically WP:OR. The most we can do is cite sources. You can definitively say "Some claim (and give the reference) that the treaty is invalid because ..." That's what I am suggesting you to do. This way, you would edit in a scholarly way. I'm afraid your edits currently are more of a politician or journalist way to edit. :-) :Dc76\^talk 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact is simple: The only source we have says it's invalid. The right formulation is "X author claims this was invalid, while nobody ever claimed the contrary." My style is encyclopedic, yours is something "I know this happened and this not". You must remeber you're not God, so just by "knowing" something, you don't make that a truth.Xasha (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I told you a hundred times, the issue belongs to the article Treaty of Paris. Are you afraid to pursue your point there? Prove your point there. European countries had mutual assistance treaties with Romania, had consulates in Chisinau. Would you open a consulate in Chisinau if you don't recognize? Only USSR did not recognize.:Dc76\^talk 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll edit the article too. So you "know" European countries recognized Romanian annexation of Bessarabia and opened consulates in Chisinau, or you have sources to prove it?Xasha (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Romania did not annex anything. We made union with Romania in 1918, just as we did not made union with it in 1991. It's us, not Romanians. About consulates, for example the Italian consulate was later a NKVD/KGB headquater, and hundreds of people where killed there. What sources do you want, that there were treaties between Romania and Britain/France/US/Italy/Germany/Poland/Czechoslovakia/Yugoslavia/etc. Just read more of WP about foreign relations of Romania in the interwar period and you will find dosens of references. I do not tell you to believe me. No, please, don't believe me. But, please, take some time to read as well, not just chose 3-4 articles and edit those. Read more!!! :Dc76\^talk 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It aneexed Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania. The Diet was pressured into proclaiming Union with certain condition. Giving the fact the Romanian gvt refused that conditions, and those conditions were dropped illegaly, the proclamation was de facto invalidated. Do those treaties specify that they recognize the annexation of Bessarabia. As for the US, in its census tables used Bessarabians or Russian when reffering to the immigrants from the region. Why would the Us have done that if they ackowledged the annexation?Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand or not that your POV on Transylavania, Bukovina, etc is irrelevant for Bessarabia?

Well, no offense, but bother reading them, pls. I have better things to do than find you 100 links. When you find the treaties, if you see there "not recognized", please call me.

B/c they were emigrants from before, or b/c they were ethnic Russians. There were also many Romanian emigrants to US, did you check those numbers?:Dc76\^talk 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't mean Bessarabia wasn't annexed by Romania.

I brought you a prestigious sources that the only treaty explicitely recognizing the annexation was invalid. It's your job to bring source that this or that country recognized it, otherwise we don' mention that supposed recognition.

I was talking about the post 1918 emigrants, and records mentioned country of origin most of the time, not ethnicity. So what? I've never denied Romanians emigrated to the US in the period.Xasha (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• the pressure form Romanian army was not towards the union, but 1) to bring order and 2) occasionally to slow the agrarian reform! This definitively deserves more elaboration. But in a proper sub-article, like Union of Bessarabia with Romania or Sfatul Tarii or Moldavian Democratic Republic. Here we just say what happen. Since there are clear different opinions, did or did not Romanian army influence, we should not favor one of them. In other words, we need to "outsourse" the issue to proper article devotted to the respective historical events.

From Charles King's "Moldovans", pg. 35:

"with Romanian troops already in Chisinau, Romanian planes circling around the meeting hall, and the Romanian prime minister waiting in the foyer, many minority deputies chose simply not to vote."

From Cristina Petrescu's "Contrasting/Conflicting identities", pg 156(see credentials above):

"it is reasonable to suppose that the presence of Romanian troops in Bessarabia created a situation in which the majority in the Sfatul Tãrii decided to rally the faction that was advocating the union with"

First of all, it is an opinion, it is not a legal fact. There is no Romanian Army ultimatum or smth like that. Now, let's suppose it its true. so what? if some of those 36 instead of being honest with themselves thought otherwise, it is a problem those individuals have with themselves and their electorate. Noone pressured the 86 who voted for to do so. In fact, those 86 repeatedly called for union for months prior to that session! It is simple arithmetic here. 86 pro, 3 against, 36 abstained. BTW, the 3 against, do you know what happened to them. They were normal people afterwords, noone persecuted them for anything. Balamez was even a succesful politician, and has died... in 1941 in an NKDV prison... for being a member of the Sfatul Tarii. "The devil punishes his own" :Dc76\^talk 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pressure" is not legal of course. It's quite important: just some months before, with no millitary support whatsoever from the (White) Russian government, the Diet decided to join Russia. Days after Romanian troops entered Chisinau, Moldova split from Russia and was annexed to Romania. Magic? Also, remeber I brought two sources proving Romanian military pressure, can you produce sources supporting the lack thereof? Cause if you can't, there's no dispute whatsoever... just 2 reliable source vs anonymous wikipedia editor Dc76. Xasha (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please give a source saying Sfatul Tarii decided to join Russia? What do you mean by "Days after Romanian troops entered Chisinau, Moldova split from Russia and was annexed to Romania." That is total news to me. The Romanian troops entered Moldova after repeated calls from the government of the Moldavian Democratic Republic to help quill the security situation given the large number of deserters from the Russian Army. Afterwards, Moldova proclaimed independence. And Moldova joined Romania by its own will, it was not annexed. I am not trying to deny your right to produce any sources, just place them where they supposed to be. This article should only contain a very-very general overview, not so many details. That's what I am saying. I can produce and will definitively sources saying what happened exactly on that day: who invited who (Moldavians invited the Romanian prime minister, he did not come out of his imagination), Moldavians, not Romanians called for union. I don't, though, understand what sources you want denying that there was any pressure. You can not ask for sources "denying something". Sources "claim", don't "deny". Your sources and my sources can stay together in the same article, and I see no problem with that. But, As I said, let's move to the proper article for this discussion. Cheers,:Dc76\^talk 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is common knowledge for everyone interested in history. But let's read the proclamation of the Moldovan Democratic Republic of 2 December 1917:

"În puterea temeiului acesta şi avînd în vedere aşezarea rînduielii obşteşti şi întărirea drepturilor cîştigate prin revoluţie, Basarabia, sprijinindu-se pe trecutul său istoric, se declară de azi înainte Republică Democratică Moldovenească, care va intra în alcătuirea Republicii Federative Democratice Ruseşti, ca părtaş cu aceleaşi drepturi."

"Numai astfel vom scăpa noi ţara noastră şi vom feri-o de peire pe maica noastră a tuturor – marea Republică Democratică Rusească."

Surprised? They forgot to tell you this in those "history" classes they teach you in Romania, isn't it? Romanian army entered Bessarabia at the request of a non-Moldovan White Russian general. The Moldovans were quite surprised by this move, and the population didn't quite like their overstay. Moldova was annexed by Romania. Otherwise, you should also say "The Moldovan people, represented by its vanguard, the PCM, requested to join the USSR." 2 sources state the pressure, and none denies it. So, according to wikipedian rules, my information can stay, yours not.Xasha (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

care va intra în alcătuirea Republicii Federative Democratice Ruseşti E scris la timpul viitor! A intrat? Nu. Atunci ce mai vrei? A ales sa se uneasca cu Romania. BTW, I learnd history in Moldova, not in Romania. Please, stop personal allusions.

Care to name that general? I can name the minister of foreign affairs of the Moldavian Democratic Republic, Ion Pelivan. He was the one, who convinced Romanian government to send one division.

PCM can consider itself the vanguard of anything. But it was not a democratically elected parliament!

I do not deny that some sources can say some pressure might have existed upon someone. But that is the problem of those (a clear minority of) individuals who abstained from voting against their own conscience. :Dc76\^talk 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Every native Moldovan (and most Romanians for that matter) will understand that is just a formulation of the administrative jargon. Moldova did join Russia. Otherwise, why did it have to proclaim independence later?

Of course, General Shtcherbatcheff, the Russian Commander-in-Chief at Iasi. Pelivan had no mandate to request a foreign intervention, and Romania didn't consider its request. Even if it would had, the situation is the same as with the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968: some officials, without any mandate, requested foreign intervention, and Soviets, like Romanians, decided to respond this request.

Sfatul tarii wasn't "elected" more democratically than the Moldovan soviet in 1940.Xasha (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no source saying there wasn't pressure, but there are 2 that confirm it. Thus we say it was under presuure (that is if we want to build an encyclopedia, not a collection of personal opinions of anonymous users)Xasha (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it did not leave Russia yet!

So it did not join, and it did not leave. Did they teach you logic in school?Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

MDR's government repeatedly asked General Shtcherbatcheff for troops to help keep order, but he had none to spare, they were desintegrating. Shtcherbatcheff helped as much as he could in the months before. And he was commander in chief at the front, not in Moldavia. You comparison to Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia is your personal POV. BTW, in Moldova there were no fight with the population. The pro-communist and anarchist gangs just fled.

The fact is that Moldovans requested support from the Russian Army, and a Russian general was the one who called the Romania army. There was no sever fight, but the population wasn't content either. The comparatian with Prague 68 is valid: some official called for a foreign intervention, without approval from the Parliament in both cases. There was no much fight in Czechoslovakia either.Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, your comparison is irrelenvant for the article. It is your POV. Let's stick to what source says what.

I agree. Since sources say Romanian army pressured the Diet to proclaim union, let's stick to that. Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You want a source saying there wasn't something. How in the heaven name there could be such sources? Sources say something was, not something wasn't (pressure). Your sources say X was pressured, not the entire country. :Dc76\^talk 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's none of my bussiness. We don't write articles based on what you "know", or you what you "know" source would have denied if they would have thought more about it. Union was not voted by the entire country.Xasha (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• You erased "the union was recognized by the European countries". I assume this is a mistake you did. why erase this? Noone doubts they did, as none doubts that Russia did not.

There was no official recognition since the treaty was invalid.

Dc76\^talk 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Xasha (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, per my observation above. :Dc76\^talk 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bessarabia was not annexed, because it united. Annexation is when a country has no say. :Dc76\^talk 20:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Annex: to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state. From Meriamm-Webster Dictionary. Also, the union was proclaimed by a diet under pressure from a foreign army, not by the country.Xasha (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should run a usercheck of Sasha vs. Anonimu. I am willing to bet on it. Nergaal (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure wether that's bad or good, but it should be done if necessary. And it's Xasha, not SashaXasha (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To Negraal: No, it's not the same style. Anonimu did not speak Russian. Xasha to me seems like a person from Moldova whom the communists paid to go study politics abroad, hence his loyalties. Whoever he is, he is not a problem as a user. Some of his edits are. Anonimu had experience with WP, Xasha doesn't. See how Xasha adds 7 controversial changes to one good of his? If he knew enough WP, he would have edit a la "X claims Y (citation)", and his good edit would have been untouchable.

Are all person who declared Moldovans in the last census paid by communists? I really take that as an offense. No mather what I think about the Soviet rule of Moldova, I don't support any form of political extremism, and moreover I didn't came here because someone paid me. Administrators (I've seen that TSO1D's page says he is one of them) should do something to prevent such insults.Xasha (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what the communists try to say, that Moldavian = communist. That's not true. There are 2.8 million ethnic Moldavians/Romanians in Moldova, and only 500,000 voters voted for communits. Mind the fact that there were many non-Moldovans who voted for communists, there are still 2 million Moldovans who do not share the POV of the communists. No, I don't think someone paid you to come here, it would have been too much effort. I think (and you will confirm it) that you share communists' POV upon the events of 1917-1918. Which is in contradiction with scholarly works in history/politics/legal issue. Why you share, it is your business, not mine. I only speculated that there could have been more than simple ideology, I speculated that your social and economic position make you share that POV. If you find my speculation offensive, then I appologize for the speculation. Yet, I do think you share a politically extremist POV. You simply do not realize that it is extremist.:Dc76\^talk 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To Xasha: you have engaged in edit war already. Our dispute is no longer a dispute, but an edit war. And I have a principle: I don't participate in such things. If it leaves the realm of a dispute, I'm out. I think I made clear comments on each of your controversial edits. Hence, you know exactly what is the problem with them. Now, the article is "yours". You can do to it whatever you want. But be careful, other users might request you being sanctioned for vandalism if you continue rv. Continuous reverts are very much not the spirit you should seek. But well, it is your judgement. If you wish to discuss, though, I'll be around. :Dc76\^talk 12:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The only "problem" with my edits is that there are no sources that say the contrary.Xasha (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, sources that would assert a negative are often quite suspect themselves. I think it's best to state that the treaty recognized the union, but Russia did not and move the issue of legality of that treaty into its own article. --Illythr (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly agree. :Dc76\^talk 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as the treaty is mentioned, I think it is necessary to put the info about it's lack of force.Xasha (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly had no force for Russia (and US?), but it was recognized as a legal document by those who ratified it. --Illythr (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The treaty, like most modern treaties, stated it came into force only after it was ratified by all signatories.Xasha (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All this WP:OR. A treaty is a treaty, a constitution is a constitution. Arguing that the EU constitution not being ratified by all making it not valid for any means that all parties not ratifying a treaty means not valid for any is personal speculation. Treaties are regularly signed later, or not signed but resolutions passed indicating conformance to said treaty, or not signed at all (in terms of who participated or was initially named as a party versus who signed). If Japan didn't sign the Treaty of Paris, well, then it didn't agree to any treaty provisions having to do with Japan. (I don't have the text of the treaty, but I rather expect that Japan was not directly involved in any territorial obligations). Everyone else who signed agreed to its bilateral and multi-lateral terms and obligations as those pertained to themselves and the other involved parties. —PētersV (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan signed it, but did not ratify it, so according to the treaty text it never came into force. The only party who participed but refused to sign it was the US.Xasha (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "The only 'problem' with my edits is that there are no sources that say the contrary" is a syllogism. If no one says a statement is untrue, that does not mean that statement is true. Best regards, PētersV (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:-)))))) yeap, it came to that! :Dc76\^talk 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So how can you prove that is not true then? I must say that I fully support your statement about sources on this page: [3] Xasha (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I invite editors to continue this discussion on Talk:Treaty of Paris (1920) for my latest response to this thread. —PētersV (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Hello Moldova! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To Xasha: Don't believe what Russian propaganda tells you

You proposed the following:

just take one of Creanga's books and count the Slavic words not found in standard Romanian

I suggest we start with these tales that are online:

http://www.romanianvoice.com/culture/povesti/ic.php

Please, read them and tell me which words I am not supposed to know. Dpotop (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To Dpotop: Romanians shouldn't use dictionaries to read their literature

I'll search one of his books published in Romania and scan the dictionary at the end (the one I've personally seen had about 6 pages of it). You'll have to wait about two weeks.Xasha (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong here, if people are not supposed to use dictionaries in their language then why would such dictionaries exist? As far as I know there is a English dictionary, there is a Russian dictionary, there is a Romanian dictionary, what use do they have if people are supposed to know all the words inside? Besides, a language can have 100,000+ words, a person can know and usually knows much less than that. Your argument doesn't need proof because it's a useless argument any proof that you'd bring will not prove anything. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, have you ever tried to read William Shakespeare ? Do you know that the average person bearly knows 15,000 words in the mother tongue ? The worst book in the world, is the one you learn no word from it. :Dc76\^talk 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's even more to it. If you take, for instance, "Ivan Turbinca", it's about a Russian guy. You do need a dictionary because the guy uses russian (slavic) words. "Pasol na turbinca, ciorti" is in Russian, it's not in Moldovan with Russian words. You do need a dictionary to read it, or someone with knowledge of Russian.Dpotop (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that you wouldn't even find into a Romanian dictionary... maybe "turbinca", but anyway anybody who has a bit of knowledge about language knows that the same language can have different words for the same thing depending of area where the language is spoken, but nobody claimed that the Romanians in Transylvania speak "Transylvanian" because they call corn "cucuruz" (word borrowed from Hungarian), actually if I think well the Romanian spoken there is further from "standard" Romanian then Romanian spoken in Moldavia and Moldova. That brings me to a funny story, there was a guy that spoke with an accent and many kids were calling him "mai Moldovene" (hey Moldavian), the guy was born in Târnăveni... so that should give you an idea how people in Romania are able to distinguish between different accents, that's like somebody from California telling somebody from Alabama, "Hey, I like your Yankee accent". By the way, I've heard that Redneckese is a language, is that true? -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is simple: Moldovans don't need a dictionary to read Creanga, Romanians do. Do Moldovans have a larger memory than Romanians? I doubt it. When a language has a lot of duplets with the same meaning, you talk about two languages. Moldovan and the north transylvanian dialect of Romanian are closer than Moldovan and Standard Romanian. After all, the founders of Moldova came from northern Transylvania. The situation is comparable to Scandinavia: Danish is closer to the Skane dialect of Swedish than to Standard Swedish.Xasha (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what exactly does this discussion have to do with the article? But w/e, I'm interested so I'll jump in. Xasha, I agree with you that it is probably easier for somebody from Moldova to understand Creanga for instance than it would be from someone from the non-Moldavian parts of Romania. However, this is natural, since Creanga wrote in the dialect of Moldavia, it makes sense that Moldavians would be able to understand him easier. The same is certainly true for authors from other parts of Romania as well, they would be more easily understood in the regions of their origin than in others. However, the mere existence of these differences does not automatically mean that different languages exist. For instance, a Muntenian might have the same difficulty reading an older novel from Moldavia as well as from Transylvania, yet few people would argue that these three regions have three distinct languages. Of course the notion of language is not exactly defined, but the dialects spoken in Moldavia (both the parts in Moldova and Romania), Transylvania, and Wallachia are so close to one another that calling them separate languages seems a bit bizarre. Specifically, why would only make that exception for the language spoken in Moldova and not other dialects of Romanian? Furthermore, the literary form of Romanian is identical. However, back to your original point, I don't understand how using a dictionary in order to read older texts is proof of a different language. When I read Creanga or Sadoveanu for instance, there are many words that I don't know and I have to look them up either because they're archaic or obscure regionalisms that I am unfamiliar with. When I was younger I remember asking my grandparents these words and they were usually familiar with them, simply because they had learned an earlier version of the language in the countryside. But does that mean that I speak Romanian and they speak Moldovan? TSO1D (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It proves that non-Russian Slavonic had a more important impact on Moldovan than on standard Romanian. Creanga wrote about 120 years ago, so it's not that old. I've shown Romanians the constitutive acts of the Moldovan Democratic Republic (just 80 years old) in original and they thought I had compilled them myself just to make them look un-Romanian. Moldovan is a language, because up to 2.5 million people, from Tallin to Reni, and from Khotin to Vladivostok speak it as mother language. And a more personal question: are you a Romanian national, or a Moldovan one? (N.B: "national" in the Anglo-Saxon, non-ethnic, sense)Xasha (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Xasha, are you linguist? (By the way this is Original Research, but nevermind we can discuss this...) Linguists are actually amazed how uniform is Romanian given the territory and the history, languages like French and German are more fragmented than Romanian, I know of a story of two Germans in a village in Transylvania, the were living across the street from each other, when they met they were speaking Romanian because that was easier than trying to understand each other German dialects. The German spoken in Bavaria is very different from the one spoken in the north, that's normal evolution... English and American English differ considerable more than Romanian dialects. People in Swiss speak German even if they don't consider themselves Germans. It's also a matter of definition, what is a language, the common rule of thumb is that if the dialects are mutually intelligible they are just that dialects not separate languages, in case of Romanian even the word "dialect" is too strong, the word that should be used is "accent" because that's how people detect that the other person is from other part of the country, different words are very few and most of the people know them even if they don't use them (for example people outside of Transylvania know what "servus" means but they never use the word). I have Moldovan friends and they speak in "Moldovan" and I speak in "Romanian" and we never need translator, and no I haven't learned Moldovan and they haven't learned Romanian, by the way I saw that you tagged some documents with and I took a look and couldn't find 1 (one) word that I didn't understand, again, I didn't take any course in Moldovan. To me if Moldovans want their own country that's fine, but they shouldn't use cheap tricks thinking that a separate language will bring them more arguments against Romania (assuming that they are afraid that Romania wants to "integrate" them by force), personally, just to clarify the issue I'm against a re-union with Moldova, but politics have nothing to do with the reality, there's no such language, no linguist who respects himself would say that, even serious Russian linguists recognize this. How about Limba noastră the national anthem of Moldova, please tell me which word am I supposed to not know, if you speak Moldovan why did you pick a Romanian text for your national anthem? Or it just happened to be identical with Romanian? I hope you'll realize on what pile of flaming bullshit this theory of "Moldovan language" rests. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Romanian linguist can be amazed by their own theories. You never went to Moldova, so how would you know the differences? Serb, Croat, Bosnian and Montenegrin are mutually inteligible, yet they are different languages. In Romania you may call it "accents", but any foreign linguist will speak about Northern Transylvanian, Banat or Wallachian dialects of Romanian. I don't know what "servus" means. Moldovan and Romanian are mutually inteligible, so it isn't any surpirse you could understood eachother to a large degree. And remember that Moldova has 500,000 Romanian speakers, so maybe you talked with one of them. (Another proof: only 1,100 Romanian ethnics in Moldova have Moldovan as their mother language, but 1,600 use it most commonly. This means that at least 500 Romanian ethnics in Moldova make the differece between Romanian and Moldovan. I couldn't say what words aren't you supposed to know, because I'm not a native Romanian speaker. Our national anthem is in Moldovan. You could search for a book by Mateevici published in Romania, and look at the dictionary at the back of the book, or in the lower part of the pages.Xasha (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who the hell are you to tell that "You never went to Moldova"? How do you know that? And how is it relevant?!?! And you did not answer the question of AdrianTM: Are you a linguist? Or just another drone (read propaganda agent) of the Moldovan Communist Party (or worse, the Transnistrian "government"). Man, am I tired of you guys with your unscientific and populist arguments (for instance, you suggest I should speak with all 500000 Romanian speakers to get an idea...). Every time we need one year to uncover you, and it sucks. And your English sucks, too. Dpotop (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool!! El_C, the defender of all Communists (e.g. Anonimu) and Mikkalai the defender of all Soviets are back on Moldovan business along with our expandable propagandist (Xashe). Why am I not surprised? Dpotop (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean up the article

Let's clean up the article. Anyone knows a good article of some country we can model upon? The history section, in my opinion, should be very-very overview, but with all proper links. List below contemptious issues, and let's settle them one by one. Just propose a diff, and people would answer: good/bad/what improvements/what alternatives.:Dc76\^talk 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Controvercy section

Adrian, the concept of Moldovan as a separate language existed officially since 1924, the inception of the MASSR. The Soviet annexation of Bessarabia occured in 1940 and was finalized in 1947. By 1945 the front has moved significantly away from there. Your other source, Grenoble, has got it right, on page 90. The other one is in error. Looks like even reliable sources are not correct 100% of the time...

Additionally, the Russian loanwords began entering the language since early 19th century. I'm not sure this can be considered recent. --Illythr (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)