Talk:Moldova

An event mentioned in this article is an August 27 selected anniversary.

Older comments

Moldovan Language ? There is no such thing as it's identically Romanian language, not even a difference.

Until 1940, when the Russians occupied it because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact here was spoken Romanian. There's no way to change the language of 4 millions people in 60 years.

The differences between English and "American" are much greater than between Romanian and "Moldovan".

Last time I read a book in Moldovan language, I noticed it wasn't written in Romanian only after I checked the publishing house that was located in Moldova. :-)

HI! The above statements are certainly true! Bessarabia, now known as the "Republic of Moldova" actually represents almost half of the real Moldova. Moldova, Transylvania and Wallachia are the 3 ancestral Romanian provinces, which form the state of Romania. "Bessarabia" is the eastern half of the historical province of Moldova: Romanian land. Along the course of a cruel history, Russia has managed to snatch several times the eastern half of Moldova ("Bessarabia") from Romania, transforming it into the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova, which has been in fact populated by Romanians, for the last 2000 years!!! My point is there is no "Moldovan" language, as there is no "TRansylvanian" or "Wallachian" language: there is only Romanian. The republic of Moldova carries the Romanian National Flag colours: Red, Yellow and Blue, and its population speaks Romanian, because they are Romanian :-) Have a nice day

---

Quote from history section:

"Moldova has suffered from several invasions, including the Kievan Rus and the Mongols. "

The Kievan Rus had it's border on the Nistru/Dnister (that's the reason why Transnistria was colonized with Russians, to defend the western Russian border), so Moldova wasn't actually invaded by the Kievan Rus. Bogdan 08:34, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Can anyone help me with this? This article gives 9 subdivisions, but in the last few years the government has split the country into 32 Rayons again - the map and info is out of date - anyone care to help? Thanks ! The Trolls of Navarone 16:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems that the Moldovan government's sites are often self-contradictory. :) Anyway, I found that they switched from the Romanian-style of "judete" to Russian-style of "raioane" in February 2003. [1]

I did a google search, but I couldn't find a map with the new 32 "raioane", but only an older map with 40 "raioane" [2]. Bogdan | Talk 19:35, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

Hmm. The 40 one is the old Soviet, I think, the govt changed to 12 on independence, and then changed again a couple of years back to 32. I have a new paper copy, but it may not be frequent on the internet. Let's have a search... ;) The Trolls of Navarone 06:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

According to moldova.md, and to the constitution the official site of the republic, the solo official language is moldovan language (romanian), and the russian's language use is granted. You can say something about that in =Demographics=. --Danutz

I'm pretty sure that, while not an official language in the whole country, in the Semi-autonomous regions Russian and Gagauz are official languages - it will probably be in some presidential decree or act of parliament, or perhaps in an act passed by the semi autonomous region, which might explain why it is not on the main MD page. I see your point, but how do you suggest that we convey that Russian is officially used by a significant minority of govt officials, not to mention people? The Trolls of Navarone 15:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about stating that Russian and G are officially used in some parts? The Trolls of Navarone 15:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, I'll write this, after the template of Italy:

Moldovan (Romanian)
(+ Russian in Transnistria and Gagauzia, Ukrainian in Transnistria and Gagauz in Gagauzia)

--Danutz

I used the <br> tab just for everybody to see clearly that romanian is no local official language, just that it is the same as Moldovan.

People, the Official Therm cannot be used for Transnistria, because is a seraratst region. So, i will remove it from the page...

---

Shouldnt this page be merged with Moldavia ? --Piotrus 14:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. Moldova is the former MSSR, now an independent country; Moldavia is the adjacent Romanian province. Both names go back to the same historic name for the region. -- Jmabel 15:44, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Landlocked

"Landlocked"---at the present moment, because those who drew borders made sure to landlock it. Alexander 007 09:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True enough. Do you think that should somehow go in the article, or are you just remarking? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:10, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

If there are references out there that discuss how the border was drawn so that it conveniently ended up a landlocked country, it should be discussed in the article. If it is not already. Alexander 007 19:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Deportation

"Under Stalin, ethnic Russians were brought into the new country, especially into urbanized areas, while many ethnic Romanians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan."

The first is true, but I am not sure where the second is coming from. Surely, many Romanian soldiers were deported, but during my 5 years in Moldova I have not heard of any significant deportations of the population. (User:Gaidash 8 May 2005)

• I didn't write the passage; it's not cited; and I don't know for sure, but… I have heard that there are a good number of Romanian speakers remarkably far east in Russia and formerly Soviet Central Asia, and this seems to me like the most likely explanation. But does someone have something solid on this either way? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• There were several waves of deportations, especially during WWII, but also afterwards. See: Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union 07:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC) (unsigned, apparently User:Bogdangiusca)

• I didn't write that either, however I was taught in my Soviet History course that the USSR deported many thousands of Romanians and Germans from Bukovina, Bessarabia and Ukrainian Galicia to Siberia and Kazakhstan. vkxmai 16:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

GDP

Could someone come up with good, cited statistics on GDP? Especially because for a country in this region there are really two important numbers, GDP by exchange rate and GDP by purchasing parity, and they will differ by at least a factor of four. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Here you have one:

• http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/md.html#Econ

It says: purchasing power parity - $1,900 (2004 est.)

 Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Population

Similarly, a recent anonymous edit completely changed the statistics on population makeup, also without citation. Can we please have some cited numbers? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

They were taken from the census results. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 06:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan, I've now added that as a reference, on your say-so, but I myself cannot access the link. Are you sure the link is correct? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I can access it, although it seems that their server is pretty slow. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 08:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, today I seem to be able to access it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Moldova?

Recently added to lead: "sometimes called Eastern Moldova". Rarely. Less than 600 Google hits for "Eastern Moldova" and, is you'd imagine, a lot of them refer to the eastern part of the Republic of Moldova. I suspect (though I do not know offhand) that this usage reflects some specific politics, possibly Romanian irredentism. Does someone know what is going on here? -- Jmabel | Talk June 28, 2005 05:26 (UTC)

"Eastern Moldova" is usually known as Bessarabia. I think it should redirect there, not here. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 28 June 2005 06:49 (UTC)

I think "Moldova" and "Eastern Moldova" shoudn't merge because Moldova is an independent country and the term "Eastern Moldova" would mean east of the country Moldova.

• Seems like we agree. What about we turn Eastern Moldova into a disambiguation page (or possibly something slightly richer—if there really are people who call the Republic itself "Eastern Moldova", there are probably some interesting politics to be discussed—but get this out of the lead of this article, and (if there is much to be said) just have a "see also" here, because calling the entire country by this name is, at best, a rather obscure usage. -- Jmabel | Talk June 30, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

i don't think people will search for "eastern moldova" on wikipedia. they wil search for "moldavia, moldova or basarabia/bessarabia". no need for an "eastern moldova" redirect or disambig, and this goes for "Northern Dobruja" as well -- Criztu 30 June 2005 11:28 (UTC)

Both phrases occur just enough on the web that I can imagine someone turning to Wikipedia for clarification; and if we aren't careful, they'll get obfuscation, instead. -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Why don't we just let it be for a while and see what's going to happen with it before we jump to conclusions. I, for one, have heard this term before, several times and I don't think that nobody will use it. And, no, I would not say it's Romanian irridentism. It's just a geographical term.

PS: I also searched Eastern Moldova on google and you would be surprised how many sites make refferenfes to it. Go see all those sourses I listed under the article "Eastern Moldova"

Duca 1 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

• As discussed at Talk:Eastern Moldova, not even one of the citations provided so far bears out the content at Eastern Moldova. Most use lower-case-"e" "eastern Moldova" to refer to Bessarabia in 1940 or earlier; some refer to the eastern part of the present-day republic. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 17:57 (UTC)

No, there are a lot of sourses there and serious ones too like BBC and encarta and some use capital E. In any case we can switch to "eastern Moldova" if you really insist and redirect the article here. I still think it is a valid term to be mentioned.

On top of that Eastern Moldova and Bessarabia within its borders from 1812 and 1918 are slightly different things.

Duca 2 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)

• Please let's have this conversation in one place. I've answered your citations one-by-one at Talk:Eastern Moldova, I don't intend to one-by-one here, as well. I would welcome the participation of others in the discussion on that admittedly obscure talk page; readers and contributors of this page are more than welcome to join the discussion there. -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 03:17 (UTC)

• • There has now been much discussion of this at Talk:Eastern Moldova, and I've done a significant rewrite of Eastern Moldova that seems uncontroversial. On the basis of what is there, I feel that the mention of "Eastern Moldova" in this article should be demoted to a "see also": as a way of referring to the Republic, it seems to be a rather obscure usage, on the basis of the evidence so far presented. I see nothing to bear out notability at a level that belongs mentioned in a lead paragraph. If anything, there was less than I expected to find. Rather than duplicate that discussion here, I urge others to take a look there. At this point, I think I've stated my opinion clearly, and unless this comes to a poll, or if new citations are produced, I don't have enything else to add. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Phone directory

Why are we linking to the Kishinev phone directory? I'm unaware of any other country article that links to its capital city's phone directory. -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 16:56 (UTC)

I left it in the Chişinău article and deleted it from all the others (Moldavia, History of Moldova, Bessarabia). bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 3 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

The Future

Moldova is such a paradox. It is true, it is not the same place as Bassarabia once was, geographically speaking. It is true, the Soviets scrambled it's borders and first created the idea that the Moldovan language was not a dialect of Romanian but it's own tongue. It is true also that Moldova has been a political football, thrown about between Romania and Russia with little regard for the feelings of the people who actually live there. However, Moldova must come to grips with it's rpesent, and more importantly, it's future. Will Moldova remain independent? Will the Transdnitria break away into some new European microstate, like San Marino or the Vatican? Will it stay a part of Moldova? Will the Russian army leave? If so, what will happen to the Russian speaking minority that lives there? Will Ukraine, herself a nation that has been substantially altered by the Soviets, ever be convinced to restore Moldova's seaport, even though it was not the Ukrainian people who took it from them, and thus not the Ukrainian people who are liable for the loss of it? We can write volumes on the history of Moldova/Bassarabia. And it is all very interesting. But the thing that is truly fascinating about Moldova is not it's past. It's all the possible futures that could take place here. What will happen in 2007 when Romania enters the EU? What if Ukriane enters the EU as well? What course will Moldova take? In many ways, it appears that the fate of the world will depend on what this tiny state decides to do.Dave 03:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You got it wrong. Bessarabia has never been thrown by Romania. And certainly not "with little regard for the feelings of the people who actually live there". I'm Romanian and I have relatives there. The history goes like this:

   1812   - After yet another russian-ottoman war, Bessarabia is "given away" by the Ottoman Empirethough the Treaty of Bucharest.
          I am not sure that was legal, even though the principality of Moldavia was a vassal. Moldavia becomes landlocked.
   1856   - After the Crimean war, through the Treaty of Paris, Moldova gets back the southern part of Bessarabia. Moldavia 
            gets back access to the sea.
   1859   - Moldova and Wallachia unite. No change in fronteers.
   1878   - Independence of Romania, after a war between the russians, the romanians, and the ottomans. 
            Southern Bessarabia is annexed by the Russians, 
            in spite of the pre-war treaty between Russia and Romania (when the treaty has been shown at the peace conference in Berlin, the russians 
            were really embarassed). Nevertheless, due to international pressure Romania did not cease to exist, despite russian attempts to 
            take full control of it. It's this event that triggered the "russo-phobia" of romanians (phobia should be taken here in its first sense,
            which is fear, and not hate).
   1917/18- The russian revolution. The different provinces (including Bessarabia) declare their independence. Bessarabia then decides to unite with
            the Romanian kingdom.
   1918   - The Austrian Empire disappears. Romanians from Transylvania, Banat, and Bukovine choose to unite with Romania.
   1940   - After securing the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, Soviet Russia issues an ultimatum and then re-occupies Bessarabia. It also seizes the 
            northern half of Bukovine. Quite shamefully, romanians did not fight back (this is often blamed on Carol II, the illegal king of
            Romania. However the question is: given the russian might, what could romanians do).
   1941   - Romania enters war against Russia and recovers the lost territory.
   1944/45- Even more territory is lost after the war. Southern Bessarabia and Northern Bukovine are given by the soviet ruler to Ukraine.
            Soviet Moldavia is created by adding to the remainder a small territory beyond the Dniestr (Transnistria).
   1990's - With russian military help, Transnistria becomes de-facto independent.

As you can see, at no moment Romania willingly said "you can have it" (of course, if you exclude the communist governments from immediately after the war, but even they were kind of bullied into it). For the future, I hope that Romania enters the EU and that it is able to create economic links stronger than the russian influence. I believe that actual unification is not what counts most today. Concerning Ukraine, I presume it will never enter the EU (not in the foreseable future, and not if the UK fails in pushing the EU into becoming yet another free-trade zone). Ukraine is a huge country, and already the EU seems to have problems even with Romania and Bulgaria (as well with the previously-integrated countries). User:Dpotop

Recent problematic addition

I copy edited a recent addition, and hope I had correctly undestood it (e.g. I'm pretty sure "polis" meant "police", because "polis" made no sense in the context, stuff like that. However, it's still a bit obscure, probably a bit POV, and uncited:

In 1992, Moldova was involved in a short-term war with Russia and Russian armed power. The local population from the eastern region of Moldova was not involved in the war. People from Russia called kozaks (in fact, Russian mercenaries) fought, supported by the Russian army. The war started with an attack of Russian mercenaries on the Moldavian town of Dubosari, situated on the eastern bank of Dniestr, but unloyal to the separatist regime. Since 1992, Russia has maintained a military occupation of the eastern regions of the neutral state Republic of Moldova. The puppet pro-Russian Transnistrian Moldavian Republic separatist regime established in the occupied territory is undemocratic, and since 1992 no rotations in the political power have taken place in this area. The Transnistrian regime has enforced Russification, the denationalization of ethnic Ukrainians and the discrimination against Moldavians (the attacks of Transdnestrian police against the Moldavian schools from Tiraspol, Bender and Ribnita in 2004).

1. How long did the war last?
2. What is the Cyrillic word transliterated here as kozaks?
3. Is the claim that they were "mercenaries" rather than simply "soldiers" justified?
4. "Attack on the... town": invasion, bombardment? What actually happenned? Were there casualties?
5. Is the town Dubosari or Duboşari?
6. I would guess that "separatist regime" means the Chişinau regime, separatist from Russia, but this could be clearer.
7. The Republic of Moldova is "neutral" in what sense? Neutral between what powers?
8. "Puppet" is a strong word. Do we have someone to cite for this?
9. "Denationalization" usually means a government selling off a business. I would guess that here it is intended to mean revocation of citizenship; in any case, I added the word "ethnic", since I presume that was what was meant here, not Ukrainian citizens.
10. Similarly: does "discrimination against Moldavians" mean against ethnic Moldovians (ethic Romanians) or against people from the Republic of Moldova? I'd guess the former, but shouldn't have to guess.
11. The parenthesized phrase refers to unspecified "attacks", with no citation. Also, I would guess that Tiraspol should be Tiraşpol, and am almost certain that Ribnita is Ribniţa.
12. Where is this cited from?

This has so many problems that I am almost inclined to cut it, but it seems like it could be turned into something decent, so I'm trying to work with others to improve it. Answers to any of the questions above would be helpful. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone who actually knows much about Moldova working on this article? No one is answering any of this.

Also, do we really need "sometimes called eastern Moldova" in the lead sentence? At Eastern Moldova we could not find a single citation for someone using "eastern Moldova" as an alternate name for the Republic. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody calls it "eastern Moldova". In Romania, most often it is called either "Republica Moldova" or "Basarabia". (rarely "Moldova" because it would create confusion with the Romanian part of Moldova). bogdan | ^Talk 21:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The phrase, which I consider misleading (and Bogdan is apparently with me on this) seems to be here at User:Duca's and User:Domnu Goie's insistence. You might want to look at Talk:Eastern Moldova. Since Domnu Goie has already (in that talk page) suggested that I am somehow biased on this matter (I'm not sure why), I'm not going to be the one to remove this, but I think it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Moving to Republic of Moldova

Background

Currently, Moldova is the article on the independent state and Moldavia is about the historical region, which includes parts of Romania, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.

The main problem with current status is that outside Wikipedia there is no consensus on this usage and the current status quo is rather arbitrary, and therefore confusing. Here are some facts:

• Moldova is the Romanian name for the historical region and sometimes used in English to refer to the Romanian partion as well.
• Moldavia is the Russian name for the whole region and was borrowed in English. Most English language historical text use Moldavia for the historical region, but the same name is often used for the Soviet Republic which is now the Republic of Moldova and sometimes used to refer "Republic of Moldova" as well.
• In Romania, while "Moldova" refers to the Romanian part of the historical region, "Republica Moldova" refers to the "Republic of Moldova"
• The official name of the "Republic of Moldova" is "Republica Moldova", and the Constitution always uses this term. [3]

Similar situations

• Ireland and Republic of Ireland
• Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia
• China and Republic of China / People's Republic of China
• Congo and Republic of the Congo / Democratic Republic of the Congo

Proposal

• Moving Moldova to Republic of Moldova
• Moving Moldavia to Moldova
• Redirect Moldavia to Moldova

Moldova should discuss only about the whole region, Republic of Moldova about the country and Moldova (Romanian region) about the Romanian partion of Moldova.

Comments

(Please add your suggestions here)

I'm not very concerned about the naming, but we should have three articles, one on the historic region, one on the present-day republic, and one on the present-day region of Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Votes

(Please add your votes here)

Nota Bene

The following exchange was inappropriately at the top of the talk page, I've moved it down here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Romanians and Moldavians nationalityes are consideried different people. Let's respect this national position in wikipedia.

serhio

hey serhiodudnic/serhio, where have you been for the past 60 years? Moldovans and Romanians are one and the same thing. Even the maps you have so kindly provided ( one of which comes from the texas university maps and I think is copy-righted) say so too. Read bellow if you do not think so?

What are you? Some kind of communist, Russian-Moldovan from Tiraspol?

Pashli na hui pidaras!!! Duca 05:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The census is the result of declaration of Moldavian people, everybody has declared the nationality how it fell themselves. This thing can't be decided by somebody, you, for example. Thank you for your comprehension.

serhio 06:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Stalin-erhio! Why don't you go to the Russian version of the wikipedia and post your crap over there. Everyone knows that the census was suspicious and that the communists over there mislead everyone. Go read the reports of the observers that were there. And learn how to speak proper English: it's result, themselves not selutat or thimself and its not "MOLDAVIAN" but moldovan when you reffer to all the citizens of the RM. What's the matter? They don't teach you English in Tiraspol? Only Russian and "MALDABIAN"? Please come with sourses for all your maps and changes. Otherwise go take Duca's advice.Mihaitza 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

End moved text

Mihăiţă, Duca, please, stop acting childish. This is not the way to solve a dispute on Wikipedia. bogdan | ^Talk 16:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:/ ye. The internal disputes are internal, and is no good to manifest it here, in this encyclopedia. serhio

I that serhio is dead wrong here, but I also think that Duca's and Mihaitza's ad hominem attacks are way out of line. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mihaitza for your the remarks. I recognize - I am not a very powerful in English, I will try do not commit mistakes. Asha ca mai bine trec in Romana. In primul rand, nu e cazul sa ofensezi pe nimeni. Intr-al doilea rand, sa fi fost eu in Tiraspol, atunci aveam sa fiu shi mai increzut, ca Reunificarea Moldovei nu imi va aduce nimic bun. Din cauza la asha vorbe, Moldova pan acu sta in bull shit shi nu se mishka din loc cu reintegrarea. In ceea ce priveshte incalcarile la recensamant, da-mi shi mie nishte linkuri sa le pot citi.

Stiu ca Moldovenii is foarte deshtepti, de aceea suntem pana acum cea mai saraca tzara din Europa.

In loc sa-shi dezvolte economia, "elita nostra intelectuala" tzipa de se rupe cine in ce limba vorbeshte shi de ce nationalitate este. Iar pan atunci rushii deschid intreprinderi, stabilesc relatii economice, politice etc.

De unde suntetzi, dragilor? Nu cumva de pe fostele "Fronturi Populare", care pentru un loc de vice-speacker si-au vandut ideile shi alegatorii? Sau poate suntetzi din caharta Lucinski (Shurik)?

Nu ash vrea sa insult pe cineva, dar, va rog, comportatziva civilizat, ca de altfel ma faceti sa cred ca faceti parte din aceeashi Mulidoveni, de care pomeniti inseva... serhio

Doing my best here to translate the above from florid and sometimes strangely spelled Romanian (or, if you prefer, very strangely spelled Moldovan). Feel free to edit to correct me (just edit in the text below). I usually feel I can read Romanian pretty well, but I found this passage very difficult. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So it will be better to cross over into Romanian

In the first place, it is not the case that I intended to offend anyone. In the second place, if I had been in Tiraspol, then I would have been even more confident that Moldovan reunification would not bring about anything good. Because of such speech, Moldova until now remains in bull shit and does not move toward reintegration. Insofar as what you say encroaches upon the census, give me also some links that that I can read.

I know that Moldavians are very clever, from there until now it remains the poorest country in Europe.

[I'm sure I don't understand the following paragraph correctly, can someone clear it up? JM] In place of economic development, "our intellectual elite" shouts that they will break who in what language speaks also of what nationality they are. But until then they undertake open shame, stabilize economic relations, political relations, etc.

Where are you from, dear ones? Not such as were the past "Popular Front", that for a position as vice-speaker would have sold (out) ideas and voters? Or perhaps you are from the caharta (cohort?) Lucinski (Shurik)?

I didn't want to insult anyone, but, please, comport yourself in a civilized manner, which on the other hand will let me believe that you make part of (?) those Moldovans, of which you speak...

end (semi-)translated passage

"Moldova (Republic of)"

I would say Republic of Moldova is a more appropriate name than the current and more according to the standards of Wikipedia (Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of China etc.) bogdan | ^Talk 19:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the article about the republic should be under Moldova entry because it is the most likely article that the user who enters "Moldova" string is looking for. On the top, we would add "otheruses" template that would redirect automatically to Moldova (disambiguation). The current Moldova entry which is a disambiguation should be moved to Moldova (disambiguation). Why not submit these two proposals to WP:RM? On the side note, the incivility of some users here is truly disgusting. --Irpen 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

We have the following articles:

• Moldova, the Republic
• Moldova, the historical region
• Moldova, the medieval principality
• Moldova, the Romanian region
• Moldova, the disambigation.

Now all we have to do is find a suitable title for each :-) bogdan | ^Talk 18:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I reverted Moldova because it was moved by copy&paste to Moldova (historical region). bogdan | ^Talk 18:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

To Bogdan's list of articles, this is how I view the solution:

• Article about the modern republic should be under Moldova entry, since a most likely aim of whoever enters "Moldova" in the search string. Republic of Molvoda should redirect there. The article should start with otheruses template, which automatically links to Moldova (disambiguation). The first words of the article would still be: "The Republic of Moldova is..."
• Historical Region and Principality articles should be merged and left under the name Moldavia. This is what Britannica does. This is what WP does in cases of, for example, Galicia and Bukovina. SHould still link to Moldova (disambiguation) on top;
• Moldova (Romanian region) as is now;
• Moldova river, as is now
• dab should be under Moldova (disambiguation).

This is my proposal for the solution. --Irpen 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I Agree serhio ^talk 17:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Using census numbers

Listen, observers complained that the census had irregularities and that there were many occasions were censors wrote all the information using pencils. After they were finished taking all the information down, they used to erase “Romanian” and replace it with “Moldovan”. Also, on many occasions censors urged people to declare themselves as “Moldovans” and not “Romanians”. Hence we do not know exactly how many people declared themselves as “Moldovans” and how many as “Romanians”. It is quite known that when it came to language, about 66% of the population declared “Romanian”, not “Moldovan-language” as mother language. So please put your political motivations aside. This is a Wikipedia where we value NPOV so stop changing the article. Thank you.

PS: BTW, the whole notion of a "moldovan" ethnic group different then the Romanian one is quite dubious. Most serious sourses will mention that Moldovans are Romanians.

Duca 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Duca, if the source is dubious, you can make a note about it in the article. However, the math you do on your own, and make it based on allegedly dubious source, produces even less encyclopedic numbers. You either find something more reliable than the official census or leave it alone. If you can support your complaints with some respectable references, no one will revert any reasonably sourced allegations about the census you might add. But you cannot just add your own analysis o the census data. Also, do not make inflamatory section titles or edit summaries. --Irpen 07:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Introductory section

There seems to be an edit war regarding the lead paragraph. I think it is important to state that Moldova was part of Romania for most of history because Moldova still maintains cultural links with Romania - the majority of its residents are ethnic Romanian (even if they're called Moldovans in the census). I'm definitely not a Moldovan unionist - in fact, I think there are differences between Moldovans and Romanians that make union near-impossible. However, fundametally, Moldovan and Romanian culture is similar and Moldovan culture has been far more influenced by Romanian culture than Russian. In short, Moldova is a Romanian nation influenced in 50 years by Russian culture that now makes it unique from both Romania and Russia, but the role of Romania is very significant, more significant that Russia's. Just saying that Moldova was a USSR republic and then became independent misses this fact. If we're going to state that Moldova was part of the USSR, then we should also state what it was before that, if only in a few words. Stop arguing that it makes the lead section long because it doesn't. The lead section is too short anyway. Adding a few extra words saying "Historically part of Romania" doesn't make the lead section more cluttered or short. Ronline 06:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Official language

Under "official language" we currently have "Moldovan (Romanian)
(+ Gagauz and Russian in the Gagauz Autonomy, Ukrainian and Russian in Transnistria not recognized internationally". This really doesn't parse. What is not recognized internationally? Foreign countries don't get to recognize an official language or not. Could someone explain what this means to say? I realize that the de facto government of Transnistria is not internationally recognized (nor, I believe, is it properly recognized by the central government of Moldova), but this is a section on official languages, not on the status of governments. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is still (or again) in the article, and makes no more sense than it did before. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Rampant, sadly

I've edited the section "Relations with Romania and the European Union". One sentence strikes me as rather POV, but I've left it alone, because I think it is well put and on the mark; it would be good, though, to replace it with a cited quotation, since it is an expression of opinion: "At present, Moldova remains the poorest country in Europe, with rampant corruption and a sadly booming trade in people."

Also in that section: "under the clause of 'anti-nationalism'". Does this refer to a particular clause in a particular law, or should it just be "under the rubric of 'anti-nationalism'"? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with these edits

Since these recent edits are by an anonymous editor who is accusing me of bias over Romania (which I presume would extend to bias over Moldova) I do not feel free to revert. However, I think these should be reverted. It is tedious to do things this way. I would really appreciate that if I'm going to be accused of bias, please file an RfC, so that I have an appropriate place to respond and try to clear myself of the charge.

I'll take up the anon's changes one by one; bold indicates his/her additions, strikethrough indicates deletions:

• "The Moldovan flag is similar to the flag of Romania, with the same color, but with the addition of a coat of arms, expressing the link between the same nation." This is bad English usage (you can't have a link "between" one thing). Also, while I don't doubt that Moldova chose this flag to represent common history and nationhood, I would have let the similarlity speak for itself, instead of claiming without citaiton to know the intent expressed. In any case, can someone please at least fix the English usage.
• "Ştefan cel Mare ("Stephen the Great"), a prince of Moldavia, is considered a national hero in both Romania and Moldova, being a symbol link between them." Again, bad English usage. I'm guessing that "a symbol link" means to say "a symbolic link". And, again, I'd let the matter speak for itself: I don't think the two countries chose to consider Ştefan a hero in order to symbolize their oneness.
• "IfWhen Romania joins the EU, and Moldova were later to will unify with Romania…". I don't mind rewording "if" to "when" for the first clause—Romania's joining the EU is pretty much a foregone conclusion—but saying that Moldova will unify with Romania, instead of "if Moldova were to unify with Romania" is absolutely out of line: the countries seem unlikely to unify in the near future, if ever.
• "Moldova remains the one of the poorest country in Europe": again, bad grammar. I think this means to say "Moldova remains one of the poorest countries in Europe". I believe, though I am not certain, that "the poorest" is true; it is poorer than Albania, the only other contender I can imagine. Would someone at least fix the grammar? And I think that unless a poorer country can be cited, "the poorest" should be restored.

Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

His edits have continued, with the new section "Turism" (sic). "This piece of land boasts a rich history, abundant in dramatic and agitated events." This from the person who accuses me of not being neutral. Is there no one but me who thinks this is taking the article the wrong direction? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Serhiodudnic has now reverted all of these edits and more. I mostly agree with what he did, though it may have been overkill in the other direction. In any event, in the process he undid several edits of mine that I think should be uncontroversial. I have restored those without discussion because I think they were just caught in the crossfire. If he or someone else has a problem with this, please let's discuss it rather than have an edit war. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• • And I see that downstream of Serhiodudnic's edits most (maybe all) of this has now been restored. Frankly, I'm too busy to fight this out. I stand by all of the remarks I made above, and I think that editorialization like "expressing the link between the same nation" is an embarrassment to an encyclopedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is a Moldovan?

About the Category:Moldovan people and List of Moldovans, who should be a "Moldovan"? People that have the the Moldovan citizenship, are Moldovans by at least one definition of the term, but what about people that lived in today's territory of the Republic of Moldova before this citizenship was created ? bogdan | ^Talk 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What does mean "moldovan"? In which language is that word? Romanian census from 2002 showed that are 0 Moldavians and all Moldavians from Carpathians to Prut River consider themselves Romanians.

Political editing

It seems to me that a lot of the recent editing in this article has been detrimental. All of the following occurred in the last 36 hours. I think they were all changes for the worse, and they seem to have resulted from sort of political struggle that I am not really interested in deciphering. I certainly think they all should at least require explanation as to why they were done. For the moment, I am not going to try to fix any of this, but I believe someone should.

1. "The western part of Moldavia remained an autonomous principality and united with Wallachia to form the Old Kingdom of Romania in 1859" became "The western part of Moldavia remained an autonomous principality and united with Wallachia to form the Romania in 1859". I have literally never heard the usage "the Romania". I also think that "Old Kingdom of Romania" conveyed useful information, the distinction from Greater Romania after 1918.
2. "Initially, there was a movement to reunite with Romania, but a March 1994 referendum saw an overwhelming majority": Well, I wasn't there and wasn't paying close attention to Moldova in those days, but from what I remember reading at that time, the removed phrase is accurate. Probably could use a citation, though.

   Actually, there was some enthusiasm at the time: "podul de flori", Moldova sets the new official language Romanian (later changed to Moldovan), the flag the Romanian tricolour, the new anthem "Deşteaptă-te, române" (later changed to "Limba noastră"), etc. bogdan | ^Talk 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

   Well, the part of the phrase that I show as struck is still (or again) missing from the article. I think it should be restored. Bogdan's remark confirms what I thought. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

3. (Section: Migration) "Estimates say that between 600,000 and a million Moldovans are currently out of the country seeking work (migratie.md), while one third of those who remain state that they would leave if they had a chance. They usually provide manual labour on Romanian farms and work in construction in Russia. Another serious issue is prostitution and trafficking of women, being estimated that more than 10,000 Moldovan women seek jobs as prostitutes. Turkey alone deports annually approximately 2,500 Moldovan women for prostitution. (state.gov)." This was removed. As far as I can tell, the linked articles bear out what is written here (although of course fuller citations would be an improvement. It seems relevant to the topic. Why was it removed?

Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Compromise attempt on introductory section

I think that to call R.M. "Historically a part of Romania" is too much. Romania exists since 1862, and the current territory of R.M. has only been part of Romania for 22 years (1918-1940); that's hardly "historically" in my view.

However, we must also acknowledge the fact that the current R.M. territory didn't emerge from nowhere in 1945 to become the Moldavian SSR. Some time ago I rephrased that sentence as: "Historically part of the Principality of Moldavia, the current territory of the R.M. became part of the USSR in 1945 as the Moldavian SSR [...]". However this seems to have been lost in the edit war currently in progress.

I'm bringing it up again, and am asking all parties to comment. Thanks, IulianU 16:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think, you are right. I Agree. serhio ^talk 17:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

MoldovanPage on WikiNews

I invite all Moldova editors in Wikipedia, to join also the WikiNews Project.
I have created Moldovan Page at this address: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:Moldova serhio ^talk 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Users blocked

202.69.200.15 and 195.175.37.38 blocked for 24 hours. If they will not learn how to cooperate in wikipedia, they will be blocked permanently. In particular, they must understand that a topic is divided into several articles. To avoid duplications and contradictions, usually the detailed information is contained only in one article, most relevant to the subject. Other articles contain either summaries or only directly relevant information. Putting the whole history of Romania into the article Moldovan language or into Moldova is absolutely out of question.

See also Talk:Moldovan language#195.175.37.38 blocked. mikka (t) 19:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing anything that connects to the ROMANIA is strange and somehow dangerous

There are a lot of attempts made by the anti-romanians Node ue, Serhiodudnic and others to eliminate everything that has a relation to Romania, this is such a stupid thing since it does not have any connection to reality, read some books first, in Moldova was applied a russification process since 1812, but still the romanian elements are the majority after so many years. It is too much politics here and in reality.

Adding disputed content and flagging it as "Minor changes" [4] is bad manners, no matter what side of the dispute you are on.

Otherwise, as I explained before, calling R. Moldova "a historic part of Romania" seems like an exaggeration. Unless you have some reasonable argument against this, please refrain from adding that phrase back. IulianU 19:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I corrected this in this way: The Republic of Moldova (conventional long form, conventional short form: Moldova, local official long form: Republica Moldova) is a landlocked country in eastern Europe, located between Romania to the west and Ukraine to the east. Its border with Romania follows the Prut and lower Danube rivers. Historically part of Romania it was united with Romania in 1918, then it was annexed by the Soviet Union in 1945 after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as the Moldavian SSR. It declared its independence from the USSR on 27 August 1991.

In this way is the one who will read will be better informed about the history of Romanian provinces. Moldova was first united with the other romanian parts in 1600 by Michael the Brave.

May be he was Brave, but it was not Romania. Also, Moldavia was even before. So please stop this super-romanism. mikka (t) 16:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Being so anti-romanian and anti-semit is not good for your helth Mikkalai mikka. Good to see your picture mikka you are now in the database of the activists of the anti-romanian order. You will pay for all.

The wording that seems to me to split the difference is "Historically a part of the Principality of Moldavia and then (from 1918) the Kingdom of Romania…." Given how prominently this fact played in the politics of the early 1990s, and continues to play to some extent today, it seems to me to be highly relevant, and belongs in the introductory paragraph of an article for an English-speaking audience, who are mostly going to be unfamiliar with the history of this area. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the user Jmabel, we have to mention that Moldova was a Romanian part for many centuries. Jmabel is right, we let the page like he made, I will do so.

False. It was fully joined to Kingdom of Romania in 1918. The history was a bit complicate to squeeze in into the intro. There is the whole section and the whole article. Saying that it was part of Romania "for centuries" is plain false. mikka (t) 20:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

ANTI

Gentilmans, I am not anti-Romanian. I am Moldovan. I don't go to the "Romania" page, and I not vandalize it. Please, lat Moldovan Page alone. serhio ^talk

Serhio you are romanian , moldovans are romanians, unless you are a russian or ukrainean.

the first paragraph should state the fact that is about Romanian territory

• In the first lines should be stated that Moldova is a Romanian territory.

Language - Comparison with Romanian

The following text is given for comparison in so called Moldovan and in Romanian, with an English translation. The English translation is only provided as a guide to the meaning, with an attempt to keep the word order as close to the original as possible.

so called Moldovan	Romanian	English
Vocala este un sunet din vorbirea omului, făcut cu trecerea sonoră, liberă şi fără piedică, a vântului prin canalul sonor (compus din coardele vocale şi întreaga gură) sau un semn grafic care reprezintă un atare sunet.	Vocala este un sunet din vorbirea omului, făcut cu trecerea sonoră, liberă şi fără piedică, a vântului prin canalul sonor (compus din coardele vocale şi întreaga gură) sau un semn grafic care reprezintă un atare sunet.	The vowel is a sound in human speech, made by the sonorous, free and unhindered passing of the air through the sound channel (composed of the vocal chords and the whole mouth) or a graphic symbol corresponding to that sound.
Aşa bunăoară, avem şase vocale ce se fac cu vântul ce trece prin gură, unde limba poate să se afle într-un loc sau altul şi buzele pot să stea deschise un soi sau altul.	Aşa bunăoară, avem şase vocale ce se fac cu vântul ce trece prin gură, unde limba poate să se afle într-un loc sau altul şi buzele pot să stea deschise un soi sau altul.	This way, we have six vowels that are produced by the air passing through the mouth, where the tongue can be in one place or another and the lips can be opened in one way or another.
Vocalele pot să fie pronunţate singure sau împreună cu semivocale sau consoane.	Vocalele pot să fie pronunţate singure sau împreună cu semivocale sau consoane.	The vowels can be pronounced alone or together with semivowels or consonants.

As was presented above both "languages" are identical. It was proved that there is only one language: romanian. 21.55,4.Nov.2005

what is EMO?

CIS Elections Monitoring Organization (CIS-EMO)

Soon after the CIS monitors declared the Kyrgyz vote was "free and transparent," large-scale and often violent demonstrations broke out throughout the country protesting what the opposition called a rigged parliamentary election. These protests culminated on 24 March when Kyrgyz President Askar Akaev fled the country and a new government was formed.

Is The CIS-EMO An NGO?

In December 2003, a group calling itself the CIS Elections Monitoring Organization (CIS-EMO) was registered in Nizhnii Novgorod, Russia, as a nongovernmental organization; a spokesman for the group said it has no ties to the official CIS monitors.

The reasons for the founding of this group are unclear. One possible explanation is that after so many discrepancies between CIS monitors' conclusions and those arrived at by OSCE election observers, a "neutral" NGO was needed to lend legitimacy to the official CIS reports and to thereby reinforce Russian policy goals.

A certain amount of confusion resulted from the fact that this NGO had a very similar name to the official CIS monitors, and that its reports were almost carbon copies of those filed by the official CIS monitors.

The CIS-EMO played a minor role as an observer in the Ukrainian elections in 2004. CIS-EMO leader Aleksei Kochetkov complained that he had been beaten by people wearing orange armbands, a complaint that was dismissed as a ploy by many people.

In the February Moldovan parliamentary elections, a trainload of CIS-EMO observers were not allowed into the country -- being turned back at the Ukrainian-Moldovan border. Earlier, Moldova had also rejected the presence of official CIS monitors.

see CIS: Monitoring The Election Monitors

EvilAlex 11:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

let's not be biased

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/md.html

the CIA world factbook ( a very reliable sourse recongnized by most people by the way) seems to think that when speaking of ethnicity Romanians and Moldovans are reported jointly in the 2004 census. I propose we do the same and we make a note on the bottom explaining the official results and consequent objections. I do not think the CIA would have any reason to be biased in the matter.

Also the map provided, talks about Romanians(Moldovans) not "Moldovans". Until a map would be produced which will show romanians as sepparate areas from the Moldovans I think we should keep the two toghether for simplicity's sake.

Constantzeanu 18:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. But it seems that BIAS editor like Mikka, Mikkalai, he makes even here controversial edits not only on the page of Moldovan language. He blocked the page only to edit himself in an old, Soviet based theories, biased edits against the majority of other users.

No, I'm afraid that Mikkalai made a fair point that the official data from the country in cause should prevail over whatever estimate (or "opinion") some external entities provide. The CIA World Factbook is a fine source, but is certainly not infallible. If 76.1% of the people from the Republic of Moldova want to be counted as Moldovans, we should respect that fact, no matter what opinions we may have on how the Moldovan national identity came to be. Iulian U. 19:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that international obeservers made a very good point too when they showed that there were problems with the census and the censors would put pressure on the respondents to say that they are "Moldovans", not "Romanians".

All this stuff about "let's let Moldovans decide for themselves" is a great idea except that they were not allowed to choose for themselves. The Communist government under V. Voronin chose for them. Constantzeanu 20:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

<My sarcastic remark removed> Democracy begins from respect to other's choice. A disrespect to other's opinion will bring you trouble in wikipedia. mikka (t) 02:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Stop it! Before it's too late. Mikka you have to withdraw your sarcastic political remarks and please Constantzeanu admit that they called himself only officially even if 2/3 of the people consider themselves romanians that speak romanian. I think a good compromise is Moldovans(Romanians) and the language Moldavian(Romanian). Bonaparte  talk & contribs

OK. consider sarcasm removed. What I really meant that the commented phrase amounts in a disrespect to the democratic desicion of the country. I have absolutely no idea about political situation on Moldova, but obviously the previous government screwed something up very seriously so that these beaten and slandered and cursed to death communists gained power. mikka (t) 21:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice of you to withdraw your sarcastic remarks. Anyway the debate about moldovan/romanian will still continue in Moldova. The census results were censored, people were forced to say that are "Moldovans", not "Romanians". Even so, 2/3 people admitted that they are romanians and they spoke romanian. My advice is when someone has "absolutely no idea about political situation on Moldova" is to keep quiet and try not to put fan on flames. I'm afraid you just did that... Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Now you can revert your edits and of Mark.

PS. After the orange revolution in Ukraine this government of communists had reoriented the foreign policy of Moldova towards EU and the West, despite the relations with Russia. President Voronin textually said "we will froze (without russian gas), but won't give up" [[5]] & [[6]]

Officially Moldovan is not de facto identic as Romanian?

User:Mikkalai reverted without any explanation the phrase: "Officially Moldovan, de facto identic as Romanian ". I think this is another bias edit of User:Mikkalai which proved so far that his only contributions are to revert anything that relates to romanian language. His history profile on the page of Moldovan language is allready well known.

Anyway he reverted to a version that is inacceptable and does not meet the consensus. I am not going to revert one more time, I hope somebody else will do this.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

This was an official country infobox. No meddling. There are articles for various explanations and opinions. mikka (t) 21:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, five years was good that note, why suddenly now is not good anymore?  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

I suggest to put it back.

That's how wikipedia works. Nothing is ideal from the very beginning. Once again: infobox is a summary table (like in "table of contents"), not a place for various notes and comments. mikka (t) 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason this clarification is needed is that a typical English-speaker (our audience) would simply call this language "Romanian". On the other hand, the Moldovan government chooses to call it "Moldovan". We need to both acknowledge the official name and communicate useful information to the reader. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I think most English speakers would call the official language of Moldova Moldovan. Given that I've heard people refer to nonexistant languages like "Belgian", "Swiss", "Indian", "African", etc, I think it's more likely that the average English speaker would find it much more logical that the language spoken in a country shares its name with the country itself. --Node 23:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong. I have given example and proofs that this so called moldovan language is just a russian invention. Even after so many years and attempts to make it sound different from romanian is still identical. They are identical. -- Bonaparte talk 09:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that the average English speaker is knowledgable on the topic, and would have an opinion; while I try to assume good faith, it is really hard for me to believe that you honestly thought that is what I meant, and I think your are probably deliberately being difficult by pretending to misunderstand me. I am saying that a typical English-speaker who has any familiarity at all with the language would know of it as "Romanian:, not as "Moldovan". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Population

I suspect this anonymous change without citation is wrong: it would show an increase in estimated population of over a million people in a single year, without a census. I am reverting it pending citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It is only 3,386,000 people without Transnistria and Tighina according to the official site (http://www.statistica.md/statistics/dat/596/ro/Nr_pop_la1ian_2005.doc). By the way also at this site one can choose the language of the page between (ROM-RU-EN). So nobody says MD. This is another official institution that recognize the fact that they speak romanian.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

But if you count with the population of Transnistria then is is true (4,5 millions). Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Official Statement of President Basescu concerning the same romanian people from Moldova and Romania

Link: *http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2005-11-28&id=12172

"Moldovenii si romanii sunt, in esenta, un singur popor" declared romanian President T. Băsescu.

"Moldovans and romanian are in essence, the same people" (President of Romania T. Băsescu). I found this very interesting and deserve to be added in the text.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Yes, it is interesting. How one country strives to swallow another one. I have learned that there is no such thing as a goodwill in politics. mikka (t) 08:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

President Voronin of R. of Moldova said: „Rusia doreste sa recolonizeze Republica Moldova". -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Which, for those who do not read Romanian, is "Russia wants to recolonize the Republic of Moldova." -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying to solve this language thing

Right now, you could easily read this article and think no one in Moldova would understand a word of Romanian unless they learned it as a foreign language. That is clearly misleading.

Mikkalai: you keep removing from the infobox the all mention that Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian. Which of the following is going on:

1. You think that linguists generally consider Moldovan and Romanian to be different languages.
2. You think that linguists disagree on this, and there is doubt as to whether Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian.
3. You think that there is currently a dispute on this matter in Wikipedia, and that this shouldn't be mentioned on the article page until that dispute is resolved (in which case please indicate who is disputing that Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian; as far as I can tell, the most extreme view on this is from Node ue, who—again, as far as I can tell—does not seem to be saying that the differences are large.
4. You think that linguists all, or virtually all, agree that Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian, but you don't think our article should mention that (in which case please explain why not).
5. You think that linguists all, or virtually all, agree that Moldovan is essentially the same as Romanian, and you think our article should mention that, but you don't want it in the Infobox.

   This variant would be ideal IMO. mikka (t) 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd greatly appreciate if no one else interject in this section until Mikkalai has a chance to respond. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I have already answered that. It is very bad idea to allow creeping all kinds of comments into infoboxes. They are already large by themselves. Why is it so difficult to realize that once you start allowing this, pretty soon these infoboxen will be a field of POV wars and "explanations"? Exactly the same reason was given me a year ago when I tried to mention in Russia infobox that former currency symbol was RUR, which was IMO a very small but useful addition, since it still may be found all over the web, not to mention paper-printed texts. mikka (t) 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, if some people think it is important to mention that the languages are the same, and I am pretty much sure that there will be a growing number of people to say that they are "identical", not to a lesser degree it would be important not to leave people wondering why these <plural offensive word> have two names for the same language. (And btw so far no one explained me this, despite my numrous inquiries at the talk page: what was the reason that Moldovan parliament rejected renaming; the only explanation was a conspiracy-type opinion "Russian blackmail") mikka (t) 07:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And yes, our good friend Bonaparte tried to push his motto "identical", while in the quiz above you are using a more cautious phrasing, which is exactly my position: there are no two "identical" things in the real world. This is a matter of convention and official recognition. When Moldovan parliament says they are identical, they will be identical. But for some reason (and I don't really care by which, just normal (or patholoical) wikipedian's curiosity) they seem don't have a consensus yet. Surely their opinion outweigs user:Bonaparte's. mikka (t) 07:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like we are not too far apart, then. I, for one, could care less whether this is in the infobox or elsewhere in the article, and I suspect that a lot of this argument has been a misunderstanding.

I will add a section on language to the article; it seems to me that we can deal with the Moldovan/Romanian issue there rather than the Infobox. Probably what I will write will be only a first approximation to what it should say, but I assume that we can edit in the usual manner from there. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Inglobation"

BTW, right now I noticed a curious word in the infobox, not found in my dictionary "inglobation" and with very curious occurrence in the internet. I guess it is a false friend for Romanian speakers, like, "o inglobate in istituti europei" I'd suggest to find something less italian. mikka (t) 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Inglobation" certainly does not exist in English. May I assume that in this context it means the date when the entity came into existence with more or less it's current borders? If so, we could say "Borders established" and be clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)