Jump to content

Talk:Moldova

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.206.232.172 (talk) at 17:00, 8 September 2008 (→population: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives

References

Editors who added plenty of references regarding sources from Romania (mainly, but not only), please source the references in the proper way with the appropriate tags. This concerns especially references to unknown books, for which Wikipedia requires to use a special citation tag, including verifiable ISBN number. Otherwise I will simply delete these references, as no verification is possible whether they exist at all in the first hand, and whether the info supposedly cited in these books is really present in them.

Also, we have plenty of foreign references, but very few Moldavian. May be we can work on it and find more Moldavian evidence.

As for tag, it applies to all official Moldavian sources. It is useless to fake the contents of Wikipedia by changing it into Template:Ro. The official data should be sourced and cited as it is.--Moldopodo (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires mainly English language references, so it's nothing wrong with using too much of them. Also, the fact that important Romanian University profesors debunk the Moldavia-connected myths of Romanian nationalism can only boast our case.Xasha (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that, just source them correctly. Wikipedia has a special format for books, web cites, journals, etc...--Moldopodo (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, seems like we have a new Bonny's creation User:Flueras, editors beware--Moldopodotalk 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I was wondering how is this possible to create so many sock puppets (at least the ones we know or have strong doubts about)? What's the technique there that Wikipedia cannot do anything to ban Bonny once for good?--Moldopodotalk 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you ask? :-) Anyhow, open proxies can't be banned for long and there are too many anyway. Bonny also seems to have a number of admirers and lookalikes.
    Unless, of course, you meant, how is it possible to do the same stuff over and over for over three years and not get crazy... to that, I have no answer. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that after having used a number of different I.P. addresses, the range would be by now known for the I.P. checkers. Weird. And three years!!! Impressive, poor guy/girl... This reminds me something of another poor Romanian[1]--Moldopodotalk 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, look at that, just in the beginning of this page, the template Moldavian language is considered for deletion , guess who filed the request? I guess we should simply ignore this, as it is not serious and time consuming. I am trying to get my hands on an article about Moldo-Ukrainian relations and Moldo-Russian relations, and never have time for all the intra-wiki discussions...--Moldopodotalk 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can one be blocked for the above accusations? I would like to see Moldopodo blocked for what he said above. Flueras (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why Moldopodo and not me? -Illythr (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavian or Moldovan

As per this question[2] could you express your answers to this question? May also directly on that talk page as well... Thanks--Moldopodotalk 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan, definitely. --Gutza T T+ 19:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan. English Language authors distinguish between the Principality of Moldavia and the Republic of Moldova. The Principality of Moldavia had already existed for decades before it gained controle of the territory of the current Republic of Moldova (under the reign of Roman I or more likely Alexander the Good) and continued to exist for several decades after it lost controle of it in 1812. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, you would tell "should distinguish", but the fact is the vice-versa. --serhio talk 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Bucharest (1812): no annexation, but cession happened

According to the treaty part of Moldavian Principality was ceded to the Russian Empire by the Ottoman Empire. The article in its present reverted version says annexed with unclear contradictory references. Now, when I correct this error, certain users staunchly keep reverting to "annexed". I would like to draw their attention, that annexation cannot happen in this case, as there was a treaty signed. It's not like Russian Empire appropriated by a unilateral act, out of context of any treaty part of territory controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The references given to support this formulation defy the logic of any Wikipedian. None of them gives the source of their original research, except Moldova.org referring to a mysterious Historical Dictionary of Moldova.... And even they had a reference, this cannot be considered as annexation, otherwise we can erase the article Treaty of Bucharest (1812) an erase the reference to the treaty in the article on Moldova as well, since annexation means a unilateral act and should have happened utside the treaty framework (which is not the case here).--Moldopodotalk 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected according to the provided reference, provide another reference and change it according to it. (BTW, don't use Wikipedia as reference) -- man with one red shoe (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those references are valid secondary sources. Simply provide one or more of your own, and be free to change the wording accordingly. As it stands, your edits contradicted both sources (which say annexed), hence they were reverted. --Illythr (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was annexation, not ceding on the part of the Ottoman Empire. Recall that Russia invaded the eastern part of Moldova in 1806. After 6 years of warfare, Tsar Alexander I formally annexed the territory. That the Treaty of Bucharest between Tsar Alexander I and Sultan Mahmud II left the the annexation in place doesn't make it not-an-annexation. "Ceding" would be if the territory had not been invaded by Russia and had not been formally annexed by Russia during the war. —PētersV (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above are right. The only cession which involved Bessarabia was the 1940 one, the rest were just annexations.Xasha (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seriously doubt verifiability of the provided references for supporting the term "annexation". By the way, none of them explains the factual story of Russian invasion, which I first learned on this talk page. Speaking of a peace treaty and referring right after to annexation is simply not logical. The three references contradict the contents they support, first they say there was a peace treaty, then they say there was annexation. It's either one or another, the two don't come together and that's why there exists a terminological difference between "annexation" and "cessation". Can anybody provide a reference for the Russian invasion? The treaty was signed in 1812 and it is a peace treaty, which means it establishes peace and recognizes whatever cessions there were or to be done in future between the two countries formerly in war. If cessation is written in the treaty - then it is cessation.--Moldopodotalk 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The treaty just establishes the border on the Pruth. It doesn't use such modern wording. [3].Xasha (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reference for Russian invasion is proivided. So, that makes it, I guess, for this new justification for usage of the word "annexation". Thank you Xasha, for providing the link tot he Bucharest treaty. Yes, the cessation is clear in the text, please read article 4. Both parties signed this document in 1812 and the territorial new delimitation was explicitely stipulated. There was no violence, but only confirmed peaceful decision of both parties.--Moldopodotalk 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, all three artciles are relevant: 4, 5, 6

Article 4

Постановлено, что река Прут со входа ее в Молдавию до соединения ее с Дунаем и левый берег Дуная с сего соединения до устья Килийского и до моря будут составлять границу обеих империй, для коих устье сие будет общее.


Article 5

Е. вел. имп. и падишах отдает и возвращает Блистательной Порте Оттоманской землю Молдавскую, лежащую на правом берегу реки Прута, а также большую и малую Валахию с крепостями, в таком состоянии, как они теперь находятся, с городами, местечками, селениями, жилищами и со всем тем, что в сих провинциях ни заключается, купно с островами дунайскими...


Article 6

Кроме границы Прута, границы со стороны Азии и других мест восстановляются совершенно так, как оные были прежде до войны

--Moldopodotalk 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS Dahn (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moldopodo, there's no problem with "verifiability" of annexation, that's straight out of King's book (The Moldovans): invasion by Russia, formal annexation by Tsar Alexander I prior to cessation of hostilities/treaty. That a treaty subsequently stated "state X cedes A to state Y" in the case of Bessarabia merely formalized the prior annexation, it did not change that it was annexed. Your statement that there "was no violence" and that it was a "peaceful" decision does not conform to the facts of invasion and forcible annexation. —PētersV (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the intent of insisting on "cede" instead of "annexed" is to show the Ottomans were responsible for betraying the inhabitants of Bessarabia to Russia, that is incorrect. If the intent is to show the Russian take-over of Bessarabia was benign or beneficent, that is also incorrect. If the intent is to simply be factual, then "cede" on its own merits is incorrect as compared to "annexed." How the treaty describes borders is irrelevant, it is what reputable sources say about what happened that count. —PētersV (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no intent to say that Ottoman betrayed Moldavia (sounds rather bizzare even as a hypothesis, knowing Moldavian-Ottoman prior relations, Moldavians would be only gald to get rid off the Ottoman Empire. By the way, Dimitrie Cantemir has very well described Modavian-Ottoman and Moldavian Russian relations, have a look, [Decsriptio Moldaviae]). Nor do I have any intent as it may also please you to inetrpret and invent what I could have thought... The point being is that so far we do not have any credible verifiable source for using the term annexation and we have a treaty, which says excatly the contrary. And we also have common sense logic and some general culture which allows us to understand what annexation is and what cessation is, and how do we use these respective terms. At this moment the argument for using the term "annexation" turns around the principle "my word against your word", but no valuable evidence was provided. Who is King? Did you see what other books he wrote, how his works are appraised, what other topics he writes on, who are his collaborators? Who is King anyway really? Why does none of the three provided references mention at least some hint of a Russian invasion? Why all of the references boldly say: "annexed" (almost copy-pasting the entire contents from one another) and then "peace treaty" - does not that make a little bell ring that something is wrong in such kind of justification? --Moldopodotalk 00:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe I gave you a link to Charles King before, Moldopodo. BTW, whether or not Russia invaded or peacefully entered Moldavia is completely irrelevant to whether the transfer was a cession or an annexation, as long as Russian forces did enter Moldavia, then it was formally incorporated into Russia, and only then - a treaty was signed. --Illythr (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King's book is the seminal English language work on the history of todays Moldovans and today's Moldova, with all the history along the way. There is no more highly regarded source. He uses the term "annexed" exclusively. Moldopodo, you insist there are no sources, there are. You insist the take-over was peaceful, not being aware the Russian invaded in 1806. You insist on your personal interpretation of the articles of the treaty (which don't appear to use the word "cede" anywhere). What exactly are you wishing to accomplish? It's an annexation wrought under Russian military force, plain and simple, made permanent after-the-fact by treaty. You should expend your energy on more constructive and positive endeavors. —PētersV (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no more highly regarded source. - by whom?
He uses the term "annexed" exclusively. - Does he justify the usage of the term annexation? Stating it baldly - "there was annexation" does not mean there was one and is not scientifical at all, besides mentioning at the same time a peace treaty which fixes the "cession" is all contrary to the usage of the term "annexation"
Moldopodo, you insist there are no sources, there are. - Where are they?
You insist the take-over was peaceful, not being aware the Russian invaded in 1806
I say the treaty, where cession is explained and fixed, is a peace treaty, signed between two subjects of international law, previously at war and anyway, what do we have written on the invasion you are speaking of, invasion where, by whom against whom? --Moldopodotalk 12:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   My dear Moldopodo, all you have to do is do some searches to see for yourself how often King's text is cited in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals with regard to Moldova, Romania, and the Transnistrian conflict. As I've stated, Russia invaded and annexed Bessarabia. The treaty observed that annexation (not my word) as permanent. Yes, that is a transfer of sovereignty under treaty--that does not undo that the territory was forcibly annexed. I'm not here to write a treatise on the conflict between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Your protestation that you never heard that Russia invaded and annexed Bessarabia is lack of knowledge you should rectify as opposed to suggesting I'm somehow making it all up. At this point I'm reconciled to the fact that you have absolutely no interest in listening to anyone who attempts to inform your acknowledged gaps in your own historical awareness so that you might understand the flaws in your position.
Please, be civil - that you have absolutely no interest in listening to anyone who attempts to inform your acknowledged gaps in your own historical awareness so that you might understand the flaws in your position. Just one question to you - Why write so much to say so many words without one single diff or a source for something so obvious (to you)?--Moldopodotalk 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   Finally, let's not start on the IF "A" DOES NOT SAY "X" THEN "X" IS FALSE syllogism.
Yes, exactly, let's not start. I think I don't need to tell you who started--Moldopodotalk 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   "Not mentioning" something means nothing with regard to whether something is true or false. The topic of Bessarabia is so insignificant with regard to any general encyclopedia it's a wonder it's even mentioned. That the details of invasion and annexation are not dealt with in such sources is completely to be expected. I'm providing you a detailed source from a book that is entirely devoted to nothing but a history of the Moldovans. —PētersV (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you haven't provided any source or a single diff here. The book was discussed and dismissed here. I have provided at least 5-7 sources down below, all referring to the "cessation" and never mentioning any annexation whatsoever.--Moldopodotalk 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moldopodo, it's not your role or mine to take primary sources and interpret them; that function belongs to secondary sources, which we then work into articles without inserting our own interpretations. If King says annexation, it was annexation, unless we find a similarly reliable source saying not annexation. It is also not our job to ask the source for a source (though King does have an extensive bibliography), but merely to use that reliable source, provided what it says is not an obvious mistake or fabrication (in which event it wouldn't be reliable), which is patently not the case with King, based on his book's scholarly reception, etc. Biruitorul Talk 23:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's not your role or mine to take primary sources and interpret them - Exactly, that's why I have copy-pasted here the contents of Article 4 of the Treaty (primary source) and listed numerous links to secondary sources. Like I said, down below, you have at least 7 authoritative sources - which all say "cession, assigned, transferred" and never mention "annexed" - encyclopedias, books written by Moldavian scientists (have you ever thought they might know Moldavian history just a little better then Mr. King, widely acclaimed (the history did not tell us by whom, oh well) "professional" of Romania... and Caucasus...)--Moldopodotalk 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sources not mentioning the term "annexation" please see: Following the Peace concluded in Bucharest, in 1812, a part of this territory was asigned to Czarist Russia--Moldopodotalk 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • major encyclopedias speak of transfer of Moldavia to the Russian Empire
    • again "transferred/passed over to the Russian Empire
    • History of the Republic of Moldova: from most ancient times till our days - Association of Moldavian scientists "Milescu-Spataru" - Second reviewed and added edition. Elan Poligraf. 2002. pp. 95–360. ISBN 9975-9719-5-4.
    • Stati V.:History of Moldavia. Tipografia Centrală. 2002. pp. 218–220. ISBN 9975-9504-1-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) both use the phrasing According to the Article 4, Porta ceded to Russia the eastern part of the Moldavian Principality - the territory between Prut and Danube

And once again, the territory was annexed by Russia prior to the treaty which made the annexation permanent, i.e., ceded territory. Transfer of sovereignty requires the losing party to cede. That does not mean the territory was not annexed in the first place. Mr. King whom you disparage is a widely recognized expert scholar on Romania/Moldova. As to why today's Moldovan (or earlier Moldavian) scholars failed to observe that Russia had already invaded and annexed Bessarabia prior to the treaty, you'll have to ask them. That you have sources that ignore this basic historical fact and only focus on the treaty rather implies those sources are less thorough than they ought to be. Not mentioning something does not mean it did not happen. Provide a source that specifically states that the territory was "not annexed" (as opposed to your personal interpretation that "ceded = not annexed") and we'll have something to discuss. —PētersV (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M-R pact

Finally someone did it right. However, there's also something wrong: the Soviet Union never renounced its claim over Bessarabia. That '34 event was a non-aggression treaty, AFAIK, but no recognition of Romania's reign over Bessarabia was ever issued by the USSR. I'd rather like to see a citation from that book you're citing... --Illythr (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Nicolae Titulescu hasn't success in the USSR recognition of Romanian's rights over Basarabia... Finally, Romania lost it without shocks for Romanians, nor for Bessarabian people. --serhio talk 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "Romania lost it without shocks for Romanians", you mean that Romanians didn't care they lost Bessarabia, or that thousands of soldiers were killed by Soviets even though Romania agreed to withdraw? As for Bessarabians they probably didn't feel much shock because they don't consider themselves to be Romanians (and why Romanians were supposed to defend non-Romanians against the Soviets?) -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Romania didn't care very much. I consider this Romania's important error in the external politics. In fact, Romania was always a political prostitute. This is my opinion. The second war anyway have to begun, but Romania demonstrated once again its indifferent attitude to Basarabia. In the time of Great Romania Basarabia also wasn't taken in consideration very much, any investment... Only "the language" problem interested the administration. Not the province developpment... Even actual Romanians imagine Moldovans living in the threes. When I was in Brasov people asked me if I know what Pizza is :( --serhio talk 16:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all why should Romania care too much about people who don't consider themselves Romanian. Second, since Romanians don't talk "Moldovan" they have no idea how you call "pizza" it in your language, maybe you call it "Italian pie"... it's actually polite behavior not to assume that you know what "pizza" is. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! Stop it! Meanwhile, gotta throw some Russian meat into the Shaitan Box... --Illythr (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My language was and is Romanian. But I was and am Moldovan. And please, don't stop talking bull shit. One day Moldova will be united with the old Moldova and with this Moldovan ignorance will be finished. A lot of actually called "Romanian" culture and political key people was from Moldova. I think they belived in Romanian ideals, they was wrong. --serhio talk 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This heavily pro-Romanian, anti-Soviet source accedes that no recognition had taken place in 1934, although the agreement caused the USSR to soften its position towards the question of Bessarabia. The next page (133) explicitly states (and proves by citing an official Soviet document) that the issue was merely postponed until "better times". I think that the fall of France should also be mentioned as one of the indicators that these "better times" have come about in 1940. Perhaps the reasons for Soviet claims over Bessarabia - adamant refusal of Romanian officials to conduct a census in the region, because it would be "corrupted by Soviet propaganda" - should be stated somewhere as well, so that the events of 1940 would not appear as having come "out of the blue", but were a logical continuation of the previously suspended Soviet policy.
BTW, I wouldn't say that any of the sovereignty changes in Bessarabia over the last 500 years were without shock for its population (except maybe for the Russian annexation in 1812). --Illythr (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it until further discussion, since the claim is explicitly denied both by the Romanian source you mentioned and Charles King, which according to some users, including the one who added the claim, is the bestest source on Moldova.Xasha (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think is a good thing you removed that, let's keep only facts, interpretations can be POV-ish. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the issue was indeed revived after being suspended for 6 years. The dubious part is only that it was revoked in 1934, which does seem to be the opinion of some (including some Soviets, dismayed by the 1934 events), but this is not supported by facts. --Illythr (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My source is here. How about: "In August 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, and Nazi Germany recognized Romanian Bessarabia as being within the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, which led the latter to actively revive its claim to Bessarabia,<ref>Olson</ref> de facto renounced suspended in 1934 upon the establishment of diplomatic relations with Romania.<ref>Mitrasca</ref>" Biruitorul Talk 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first part is ok, the rest seems to be an opinion of some authors. Seeing as how the Soviet officials (after 1934) were explicitly instructed not to provide Romania with anything that might be interpreted as recognition of the status quo, I'd call that opinion wishful (or dismayed, depending on the side) thinking. Replacing "de facto renounced" with "suspended" would be much closer to reality, IMO. --Illythr (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that works, too, although we veer further away from the sources at our peril. Biruitorul Talk 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the one I cite explicitly says that it was a temporary measure and provides that instruction thingy as well as some supporting analysis, so it looks more solid that Olson, who seems to have just sucked that statement out of his finger. But if you feel that it absolutely must be there, at least attribute it directly, because it will be repeatedly contested. BTW, I think there's no need to reiterate that Bessarabia was Romanian at the time, seeing as how the whole previous section is called "Moldova in Greater Romania". Which is, by the way, somewhat misleading (should probably be either "Bessarabia..." or simply "Part of Greater Romania").
Oh and I deliberately picked an even more anti-Soviet source than yours, so it can't be accused of being Soviet apologetic or something. --Illythr (talk)
Right. Well, as you have both Olson and Mitrasca at your fingertips, I encourage you to write that sentence as you see fit. I'll then look it over. Does that sound good? Biruitorul Talk 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I REALLY should be asleep for about an hour by now. I'll try to do something comprehensive tomorrow... --Illythr (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that this should be just a summary, so only the widely acknowledged views should be presented. Other opinions could be developed in a dedicated article about Bessarabia under Romanian rule. And I think this matter speciffically is to complex to be summarised in a few words, as it is done now. Moreover, after 1934, the Soviet just stopped pressing for international resolution of the dispute, but domestically Bessarabia was always presented as Soviet territory under Romanian occupation. See for example this Soviet map from 1938.Xasha (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Page not moved. Consensus is to keep the page as is. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC) The move of the article to Republic of Moldova has been requested. The article itself states that the official name of the country is Republic of Moldova. The official name has been agreed upon by the United Nations Organization following membership talks. At that time some UN Member countries objected to the name of "Moldova" and after negotiations the government accepted the name of "Republic of Moldova". If this is the official name of the country, accepted both by the UNO and the government, why the title of the article be Moldova, which is not only objectionable (it has been officially been objected to and the objection has been internationally accepted) but also misleading.Afil (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: As long as we have main article titles such as United States, North Korea, South Korea, Burma or United Kingdom, there's no reason to move this article to the constitutional name of the country.Xasha (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that nobody has officially contested the name of the United Kingdom. There are two countries for which the names have been officially contested: Macedonia and Moldova. For both of them a decision had been taken by the General Assembly of the United Nations and with the consent of the governments of these countries the name of Republic of Moldova and Republic of Macedonia has been accepted. In the case of Macedonia this has been accepted in Wikipedia. However in the case of Moldova the error persists. The problem is that using the incorrect name is offensive for some, and this is not a personal matter but has been officially stated. I do not find any reason why a name which is offensive should be used. Afil (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nuthin' "offensive" in Moldova, not more than United States is "offensive" to Mexico. And ain't nuthin' similar with FYR Macedonia's case. See the UN site : [4] Moldova appears as Moldova, unlike Macedonia (see for comparation also the way they call Tanzania, Lybia, Iran, Laos, Syria and Venezuela).Xasha (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Afil, we have had this discussion a number of other times in the past (please see the archives if you are interested). The general consensus has been that Moldova is the most common English name for the country. Wikipedia naming conventions state that the most common English name for a place should be used. The formal (i.e. long) name of countries is rarely used outside a legal setting. For this reason, the articles about Germany or Russia are found at their short names, and not at Federal Republic of Germany or Russian Federation, as these states are officially called. TSO1D (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that nobody has officially contested the name of the United Kingdom. There are two countries for which the names have been officially contested: Macedonia and Moldova. For both of them a decision had been taken by the General Assembly of the United Nations and with the consent of the governments of these countries the name of Republic of Moldova and Republic of Macedonia has been accepted. In the case of Macedonia this has been accepted in Wikipedia. However in the case of Moldova the error persists. The problem is that using the incorrect name is offensive for some, and this is not a personal matter but has been officially stated. I do not find any reason why a name which is offensive should be used. Afil (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repeating what I said at Talk:History of Moldova#Requested move, agree that we should avoid terminology that some find offensive wherever possible, although Wikipedia policy doesn't go that far. But it's not always even possible. For example, whatever we do with the name Macedonia someone is going to be offended; In that case we ended up with the DAB at the unqualified name but this compromise is probably offensive to more individuals than any other solution, see Macedonia naming dispute. This seems to me to be another of those cases. Andrewa (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The argument that we should use official names continues to occupy a lot of time here. The policy is clear, but many people don't seem to believe it. Andrewa (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that using the incorrect name is offensive for some, and this is not a personal matter but has been officially stated. When a government officially objects to a name and this objection is accepted by an international forum such as the General Assembly of the United Nations, I do not find any reason why a name which is offensive should be used. It is not only a question of applying the official names policy, but of not using a terminology which has officially been accepted of being offensive. Afil (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above for reply to the issue of this name being offensive. As to the name being official or incorrect, my point above is that these may sound impressive arguments, but many, many discussions have consistently rejected them in principle. That's why the official policy reads as it does. Andrewa (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's the correct name, besides Moldova can be very easily confused with Moldavia or Mordovia, since the state is rather new an argument that Moldova is more common than Republic of Moldova can't be made as in case or Germania or other countries that have longer history. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Adrian's comment is an excellent reason for a dab header; but the country should be known by its unambiguous common, short, name. Longer forms will only be of limited use; Mordovia is also a republic. Why not keep it simple? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

population

the population stats near the top suggest Moldova gained almost a million people in the last five years. I'm guessing the 3 million stat is a typo, but don't know the data to correct it. Just pointing it out 12.206.232.172 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moldova&oldid=237094815"