Talk:April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:2009 Moldova civil unrest)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Romania  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for April 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election protests:
No to-do list assigned.
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Moldova (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Are the 3 casualties confirmed? I wasn't able to find any source in international media. -- (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Valery Obade, director of the Republican Hospital, said his staff had treated 76 people for injuries. Moldova’s national television channel also reported that a young woman died of carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of a fire set in the Parliament building, but it was impossible to independently confirm the report." quote from So probably should remove even the one reported death. Fred Talk 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to come here and bring that up. The article states that one civilian and two police are dead but the Romanian sources cited say nothing of the sort (according to Google translate). The only one which mentions deaths apparently says "A rumor circulates among the protesters say that a young girl had been killed by the forces of order. Rumor was not confirmed" and cites this to a twitter page. This is clearly not a reliable source. I will remove this from the article. I did find a source for one death, a woman apparently suffocated from smoke from a fire set by protesters, I will add this - Dumelow (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Fred missed your NYT link, I will put that in (as unconfirmed reports) - Dumelow (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This Intefax entry (in Russian, citing the national television channel "Moldova 1") says the girl (the one civilian casualty) was saved by the medics. --Illythr (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


I think we should probably rename this article to perhaps "2009 Modovian demonstrations", or something similar. Although we might wait a bit and see what usage develops in the media. It is hard to tell at this point whether the events will be a major turning point in Moldavian history or just a flash in the pan. So this initial event may be a preclude to much more significant events, or simply be it. We probably need to tie this into the report of the election. I suppose there is a link to that in the article. Fred Talk 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The highlighted things are more of a riot, really. See the pics. The peaceful demonstrations occurred on the 6th and in the morning of the 7th, but they are hardly the topic of this article now... --Illythr (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The title is still demeaning. Demonstrations are not always peaceful. Dpotop (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed the title following the example of 2007 civil unrest in France. Dpotop (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as how the protests continue, but the riots have ceased (for now), I think the move was ok. Maybe only change to "2009 Civil unrest in Moldova", to conform to the given example. --Illythr (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I (re-)propose to change the name to 2009 civil unrest in Moldova (from current 2009 Moldova civil unrest). Personally I don't see the need for capitalization of "civil", as the title starts with "2009", not with "civil". More thoughts? Dc76\talk 07:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Government reaction[edit]

The declarations of Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin are diminished; the unabridged ones try to minimalize demonstrations: "a handful of drunk Fascists attempted a coup d'etat" and put a direct threat: "we tried to avoid blodshed but if situation require this, it will happen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin zeitblom (talkcontribs) 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Equidistance was forgotten when quoting an article regarding interference of external security services. Serafim Urechean's declaration is represented, even if it sounds more like a gossip, whether an opinion of former president Petru Lucinski (from the same article) is overlooked. Please, be impartial when editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin zeitblom (talkcontribs) 09:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of repetition in this section about the fates of protesters who lost their lives in the event. (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC) J.O


Should this article be merged with Moldovan revolution? Caleb Jon (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence to say it is a revolution. Right now, it appears to be just protesting, and rioting. If things get more heated, such as a coup, or something to that nature, yes. America69 (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I redirected that page to this one (didn't have any new content). If this doesn't break out into a real revolution, that redirect will have to be deleted. --Illythr (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That re-direct should really be deleted. There was no revolution in Moldova. The protesters, who make up a small, radical portion of the population, didn't achieve their goal to overthrow the democratically elected government. --Tocino 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate the redirect for deletion. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming, part 2[edit]

I have already changed the name once. I suggest here a new name: 2009 anti-communist protests in Moldova. It's clearer, and supported by foreign sources (BBC). Dpotop (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, while that is a major thrust of the civil unrest, I think it could be misleading, and that there is more at stake here than anti-communism.--Patrick «» 20:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Voronin isn't a communist anyway because he doesn't promote world revolution and he's part of Zyuganov's chauvinistic grouping. -- (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If he identifies with the Communist Party, it's appropriate to call him a communist. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's necessary. Have there been any other protests in Moldova, so distinction would be necessary? The reasons for the protest should, naturally, be explained in the lead. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am against the title 2009 anti-communist protests in Moldova because such a title would not cover government crackdown, which need not be covered in a separate article, but better here. Obviously, there are election results and reaction, anti-communist protests, including violent and non-violent, crackdown, recounting, and aftermath. Dc76\talk 07:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OSCE view[edit]

OSCE's view should be presented in the "Background" section, a section which also contains remarks of members of the same OSCE observation team. It does not belong in the lead, as the dispute does not revolve on what OSCE sayd. This is a third-party point of view. SISPCM (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Emma Nicholson[edit]

Nicholson is just 1 of 208 OSCE observers. Why haven't any other OSCE observers come out with similar accusations. She wrote a piece in The Independent the other day [1] where she blamed Russia for everything and warned that the West should help the rioters so that Moldova doesn't "sink back into the dependency of Russia". This is not an impartial person and her accusations are given too much weight on this article. --Tocino 02:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Single observers noticing problems are significant in cases of elections because the observers are not everywhere, and large discrepancies consist of small problems. You wouldn't want these averaged out. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is that the opinion of a single member (which amounts to a gut feeling and "There are Russians in the OSCE, so OSCE - bad!") is provided with over 5 times more space than the actual report statement (that is, undue weight). --Illythr (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This could be useful for the article and our discussion. What do you think? SISPCM (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing new there. Odd that the part of the statement about the Russian-infested OSCE is excluded. --Illythr (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Nicholson has little credibility in Britain anyway because she is a fanatical EU integrationist and most British people regard the EU as anti-democratic. -- (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, your statement about "most British people" is really no better than hers. She has enough credibility to be included in the OSCE team, so that's not something for us to evaluate. It's only that her opinion is given way too much weight here, especially since she failed to substantiate it in any way so far. --Illythr (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is merely an observation. She is a bit of a political eccentric. -- (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I will have to strongly disagree with User: and say that most people in the UK who are ignorant towards the EU oppose it and that an increasing amount of people who understand it, support the EU. "Sweeping Statements" are not helpful on this discussion page, however I respect the right for anonymous users to edit. Ijanderson (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not a "sweeping statement" when all the opinion polling evidence suggests this. The British oppose the EU not because of what you arrogantly call "ignorance", but because they see the anti-democratic mentality reflected in statements such as this from Barroso: "Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires." [2] -- (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are we giving so much space to Emma Nicholson's comments? This isn't Emma Nicholson's views on the Moldovan elections. This article is about the protests. Offliner (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Difference between Communists' percentage of votes and percentage of seats[edit]

I understand that a significant factor in the difference is a unusually high threshold of seat allocation. Is that the sole cause? Are elections in Moldova generally proportional? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The seat percentage seems to have been recalculated for just the parties that made it past the admission threshold. --Illythr (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Generation gap[edit]

Please consider the following views and newspaper articles: Emma Nicholson's, this, this and this. In them, one can read about "a profound generation gap in Moldova", "an enormous demographic and generation shift", "a generational clash". I ask editors if this can't be added to the article? Thank you. SISPCM (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is just her opinion and she has a pro-EU agenda to push. She is not a reliable or neutral academic source. -- (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OSCE report and WP:UNDUE[edit]

I think the current version is giving undue weight to the negative aspects of the OSCE assessment. Most of the report was positive, but the section in our article gives about 15 times more space for the negative issues than for the positive ones. Offliner (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just look at how this article differs from the coverage in mainstream sources such as the BBC:
"Observers from the European security body, the OSCE, concluded that the vote had been generally fair, but opposition parties and many students accused the authorities of fraud." [3] (note: no mention at all of Nicholson or of the negative aspects of the OSCE report)
Compare that to our article:
"An OSCE report declared the elections generally free and fair, although it also reported that the comparison of data on the voting age population provided by the MID with the number of registered voters provided by local executive authorities revealed a discrepancy of some 160,000.[9] Furthermore, a member of the observation team, Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, voiced concern over this evaluation, stating that it is "difficult to endorse the very warm press statement" from OSCE,[10] and concluded that she, and other observers, had a "very, very strong feeling" that there have been some manipulation citing unusual change of the proportions of running tally of count during nighttime, when few observers were around.[11][12] She also declared that at the numbering of the votes that at 1:00 the PCRM had 35% of the votes and the 15-16 parties from the opposition 40-45% altogether while shortly later, at 8:00 the situation changed radically and the PCRM had 50%. [13] She suggested that the discrepancy between her assessment and OSCE report was due to members from Russia influencing this report.[14] Nicholson, who was one of 280 OSCE observers, blamed Russia for Moldova's problems and called on the West to intervene and help the protesters so that Moldova won't "sink back on the dependency of Russia", which, according to Nicholson, "would be a deeply unhappy prospect."[15]
Notice the diffenrence? Offliner (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that there is more to say about the positive aspects, mention them in the article, please. --Olahus (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the short summary about the OSCE report is enough. Why are we giving such a huge amount of space to Nicholson's comments in relation to everything else? Please read WP:UNDUE if you haven't already. Also note, that this is not an article about the elections, or about Nicholson's views, this is an article about the demonstrations. Offliner (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the short summary about the OSCE report is by far not enough. If you believe that there is more to say about the positive aspects, mention them in the article, please. Nobody hinders you to expand the article. Nobody. --Olahus (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of independent observance of elections is to find problems. If we want our coverage of the election observance to be neutral, we must give reasonable coverage of observers who noticed problems. Accordingly, I support discussing the Baroness' findings in the article. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We can give her some space, sure. But not like 30 times the space we give to the main OSCE report! One sentence on Nicholson should be enough. Offliner (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
She is the only observer who claims to have noticed "problems," and she is hardly a reliable source given her long standing hostility towards Russia and its allies. That section has turned into a paranoid Russophobic rant packed with unsubstantiated claims. -- (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
What does her supposed hostility towards Russia have to do with elections in Moldova? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
She claims Russia is covering up supposed election fraud. -- (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't waste any article space on this Russophobe. No other OSCE observer has come out with similar claims. It seems that a majority of editors agree that it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT --Tocino 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the feeling that some users here are trying to protect the Communist and Russian point of view, by misinterpreting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and using this misinterpretation as a pretext to delete the inconvenient phrases. As I already wrote above: nobody is hindered to write more about the positive aspects mentioned by the OSCE. That what Emma Nicholson said is very important to that what happens those days in Moldova.--Olahus (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what is strange? Moldova is not a part of Russia; Russia should not be involved in any way in Moldova elections. But by claiming that pointing out problems in Moldova elections is an anti-Russian activity, Tocino is implicitly making the case that Russia was involved in voting irregularities, after all. Hmm. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This dosn't justify the deletion of Nicholson's statement. We can use Russian sources for this article too. Why not? --Olahus (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It might make sense to actually read the subject of this discussion before making global assumptions. So far, her "criticism" is expressed by a "very-very strong feeling" that something is wrong and the statement that "there are Russians in the OSCE". How the latter is connected to elections in Moldova is a question best left to Mrs Nicholson to answer. --Illythr (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The OSCE position is not "the Communist and Russian point of view" and it is far more notable than the self-admitted innuendo coming from Nicholson. Nicholson's claims have not been supported by other non-Russian members of the OSCE delegation. -- (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, but are her accusings against the Communists and Russians justified reasons to delete her statements? Nicholson expressed more or less that what the demonstrants believed. --Olahus (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Her claims aren't notable compared to the OSCE position. -- (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


Olahus said "I have the feeling that some users here are trying to protect the Communist and Russian point of view, by misinterpreting WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and using this misinterpretation as a pretext to delete the inconvenient phrases." Please don't engage in personal attacks against other editors. -- (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack. --Olahus (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are accusing other editors of trying to "delete the inconvenient phrases." This is unconstructive and a personal attack. -- (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not, read WP:PA. --Olahus (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Making negative accusations against other users is a personal attack. -- (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you didn't reas WP:PA. --Olahus (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." -- (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Article style[edit]

Right now, this article reads like a blog post written by a 15-year-old. In the past I followed along the new changes to it and tried to clean up after anonymous editors adding entire sentences that don't even make sense, but it's too much of a task for one person. --Node (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Slanted sources[edit]

I just did a count of the 75 sources in the article currently. By national origin, these are:

40% from Romania 19% from UK 15% from US 7% from Moldova 4% from Russia

Can you imagine if we used such a balance of Israeli sources to report on the Middle East conflict? On top of that, the majority of Romanian articles are from just two sources, Evenimentul Zilei ( and Cotidianul ( With such a long article and so many references, we should try for a little more balance than this. --Node (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe there's anything wrong with these sources?
Because in absence of specific problems, attempting to ascribe legitimacy to sources by their (supposed) ethnic allegiance is OR at best, and possibly AGF violation. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. In trying to provide a neutral, balanced view of any event, it is always necessary to evaluate sources from all "sides". I didn't look at every single article, but I have read a few EvZ and Cotidianul articles on Moldova in the past and there's generally a current of pro-EU, anti-Russia, and anti-communism. WP:AGF requires us to assume good faith of Wikipedia editors, NOT to assume good faith of writers of external sources.
Also, I wonder if the situation were reversed, with 40% Russian sources, you would take a very different position. --Node (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we should try to achieve a more balanced selection of sources. Offliner (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem with balancing Russian and Romanian sources is that the event got a better exposure in the Romanian press. For example, in Evenimentul Zilei, the events in Moldova were the top story on the main page on six issues: on April 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th and based on the top story on the online edition, it will be on 16th, too.
Anyway, if you think something is wrong, just dispute it, and if you think it's imbalanced, bring other sources/points of view. bogdan (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
More coverage than in Moldovan papers? I wouldn't mind so much the dearth of Russian sources if there were more Moldovan sources. The problem, in my mind, is that 40% of the sources are all from Romania. If it were 40% Moldova, 40% Romania, 10% Russia, it might seem a bit unfair still but not really to the point that I would object. If 90% were from, say, Spain, Italy, and Belgium, and the rest were from Romania, I wouldn't mind either. If you check, for example, on YouTube, many videos on the topic are uploaded by people in Romania, and many of the comments are from Romanians (I posted something in Cyrillic Moldovan and got reactions from angry Romanians telling me to stop writing "Russian" on their video; Moldovans, on the other hand, replied to the content of my messages rather than the script) --Node (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, I think the source of this issue is not that there is more coverage in Romanian sources, although that is obviously the case, but rather that most of the people who have added sources are people whose preferred language is Romanian. If you check the Russian WP, you find their sources are mostly in Russian, with a couple in Ukrainian and Moldovan or Romanian. In fact, it appears that the Hungarian version uses a higher percentage of English sources than we do! --Node (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain the comparison between Romanian and Israeli sources? From what I know, there is no conflict between Romania and Moldova, there is no such thing as Romanian armed forces' occupation. Regarding the ethnic composition of Moldova (73% Romanians, 11% Ukrainians, 9.4% Russian) it just seems normal that Romanian newspapers are more interested towards demonstrations than theirs counterparts from the rest of Europe. Besides, one can only wonder, keeping in mind the aforementioned percentages, why so much attention and space within this article is given to Russian points of view, official statements etc. Florin zeitblom (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Florin, this is absolutely ridiculous. If you know the situation, you're simply playing dumb; if you don't, you need to read more about it. Romania and Russia both have a vested interest in Moldovan internal affairs. --Node (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That's beyond any question, of course (although the interest of Russia in Moldova is a special topic, given the fact that this territory should have nothing to do with Russia). But I still cannot understand what makes Romanian sources non-reliable; and you didn't explained your comparison regarding Israel sources: it's the same situation as in the Middle East? I really doubt it.Florin zeitblom (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I never said Romanian sources are unreliable. Quite simply, every source has some bias or other, thus it makes sense to use diverse sources, and the current heavy reliance on Romanian sources for this article is unacceptable. You cling to technicalities when I think you know very well what I am talking about, if you disagree please explain why instead of picking at what you perceive to be a poor analogy. The analogy is not the point of the argument, merely a device to further it. --Node (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
But if other sources didn't cover these events, what do you expect? Should we invent some "sources" (Chinese or German or Vietnamese) just for the sake of diversity? Or should we pay more attention to 2 or 3 Russian newspapers known as official "speaking trumpets"? I'm not "clinging to technicalities" but your analogy was very poor, indeed. Romania is not in war with Moldova as Israel is with Palestine.Florin zeitblom (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Tampering with an election is like a crime. (In civilised countries, it is a crime.) Observers who noticed tampering are like witnesses.

When Wikipedia discusses a crime and reports what witnesses said, it doesn't make any sense to report how many people didn't say anything or quote them saying that they didn't say anything for "neutrality". The "one person claimed to have seen the murderer running but seven hundred people didn't see anything because they were elsewhere" style just isn't encyclopædic. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about Nicholson, then you should note that she can, naturally, only asses the situation at her observation post. She claims to have noticed discrepansies there. Fine, but does it affect the outcome of the election? No, and this was confirmed by Vladimir Socor and OSCE. We have to look at the big picture here. Giving so much space to Nicholson's rant as was given in the previous version is a classic example of WP:UNDUE. "According to one member of the OSCE team" is a completely accurate and acceptable formulation. Offliner (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not the business of Wikipedia to guess how the election was affected. It is the business of Wikipedia to describe what happened. The Baroness happened, so we are to describe her. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not the business of Wikipedia to guess how criminal KAPO really is. It is the business of Wikipedia to describe what happened. Teinonen happened, so we are to describe him. Offliner (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia should describe what happened, but this article is about the riots. The detailed paragraph should be included in 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election. bogdan (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Moldova's "Twitter Revolution"[edit]

Some international media outlets, such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty ([4]), Spiegel ([5]), and The Christian Science Monitor ([6]), refer to the Moldova events as "Twitter Revolution". Should this moniker be included somewhere in the article? --KoberTalk 15:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Dc76\talk 07:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraphs[edit]

According to Russian Marxist theoretician Boris Kagarlitsky, the description of the government as Communist "is bereft of any political meaning. The social policies of the 'left-leaning' government in Chisinau and the 'right-leaning' government in Tbilisi are identical.

Opinions on the economic/social ideology of the Moldovan Communist Party have no relevance here since they are not the reason why the protests started, so they should be written in the article about the Communist Party.

The Party of the European Left, which includes the governing AKEL party in Cyprus,

This has absolutely no relevance here, if people want to know who is a member of the Party of the European Left, they can just click the link.

The move was attacked by British conservatives, who claimed that this would allow a million economic migrants into the UK because of the EU's visa-free travel laws.

What the British eurosceptics think about the Romanian nationality law has no relevance here, it should be in that article, not here. bogdan (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)