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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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 subject is featured in the Outline of Moldova, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Pre-empting edit warring over language and demonym
Rather than allowing the recent constitutional technicality to motivate an outbreak of nationalistic edit warring (which I've been following), for the sake of the reader it is preferable to discuss how the article should reflect this by arguing it out here on the talk page.
As there is information in the English language press, it makes sense to use these sources as a starting point. The changes and ramifications are inevitably going to be analysed in depth further down the line (it's only been a few days!), and reliable secondary sources can be introduced. This is an article, not a race against time to squeeze in as much information dedicated to individual preferences in order to establish an imaginary foothold ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much of a real-life change to happen there - the language was already referred to as "Romanian" in most spheres of life. The way I see it, for us this presents the need to swap the name clusters to make "Romanian" primary and stow "Moldovan" into a footnote or something until they finally amend article 13 of the Constitution, at which point "Moldovan" can be removed from the infoboxes altogether. --illythr (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Going on what I know about Moldova, that sounds like a logical approach. Any deviations from this should, then, be reverted and the contributor referred to this section if they feel that they have verifiable secondary sources, not emotive arguments, to indicate otherwise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Illy, you know all problems will be solved when Moldova unites with Romania again. Why to stop this anyway? It's a natural process.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't pre-empt the news as it is not a crystal ball. Changes to information are made after they are confirmed and backed up by secondary sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Please check again. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court of Moldova in December of last year. The 1994 copy of the Constitution of Moldova is out of date. I have added WP:V, WP:RS to "Romanian" as the language per WP:NPOV. It is you who is ignoring the fact that the law has been changed. If you feel this to be incorrect, please provide reliable, verifiable and neutral sources to demonstrate that the Constitutional Court of Moldova has overruled its own overruling. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Modern Constitution of Moldova:
TITLE I - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 13. State language, use of other languages
(1) The State language in the Republic of Moldova is the Moldavian language, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet.
Iryna wrote above that the Supreme Court overturned this article last year. You should bring an up-to-date copy of the constitution showing that the article remained as it was in 1994. It should not be difficult to find an adjourned copy on the web. IN DUBIO PRO REO. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The Constitutional Court ruled that the official language is Romanian, and there are three solid references about that. If the parliament did not change the constitution or issue another law in order to overthrow the decision of the court, the decision of the court is final. If you don't agree, you can ask a third opinion. Alex2006 (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Enough tendentious editing, Лобачев Владимир. I've removed your 'tit for tat' image for the Moldovan Nation Anthem which was:
A) Conveniently uploaded by you at 16:51, June 13, 2014 and obviously not a poster in "downtown Chișinău" as you'd labelled it on both this article and in Russian on the Wiki Commons file;
B) Plainly WP:POINTy in the context of the plethora of content and image changes you've been making to various articles surrounding the subject of Moldova in English Wikipedia over the last few days.
The fact that you've also made substantial, WP:POV changes to the content and images in a dozen other language Wikis is their concern, not mine. We've presented honestly sourced WP:RS in order to make these articles factual. Your actions, and refusal to desist from blanking and overwriting current facts clearly demonstrates your WP:NOTHERE attitude to English Wikipedia. Any more WP:ICANTHEARYOU disruption and I'll be opening an AN/I. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering the slow-going tug-of-war over these edits that's been going on for a couple of weeks now, I'd rather provide an extended rationale for reverting them here:
Flag of Chisinau: This little bit of foofaraw overloads the already bursting template and is absent in other country templates (such as those of neighboring Romania and Ukraine). So I'm removing it here, if only for consistency's sake.
"Part of Romania": The modern state of Moldova had never been part of Romania, so this statement is expressly false. The historical region of Bessarabia was indeed part of Greater Romania for twenty years, but describing how and when it was cut up to form what is now the Republic of Moldova is complicated and unnecessary for the intro, seeing as how state continuity of the Republic of Moldova can be traced to the foundation of the Moldovan SSR only.
"Although the country has been independent from the USSR since 1991, Russian forces have remained, supporting...": This statement is a non-sequitur - one part is irrelevant to the other. Also, while elements of the 14th army did indeed support the Transnistrian side during the 1992 conflict, the current contingent provides no (visible) support now. The sentence also largely duplicates the contents of the following sentence. Still, the continued presence of Russian forces (both peacekeeping and guarding the arms stockpile) may be worth mentioning in the intro. Perhaps the exact phasing can be worked out here, if deemed necessary.
"In August 1989 Moldova became the first..." - this statement is sourceless and unnecessary, as the following three sentences already cover what happened.
Dates for the "Independence" and "Soviet era" history sections: Setting Independence one year before the end of the "Soviet era" is unhelpful. The independence wasn't a singular event, but rather the culmination of several years of political buildup. Therefore, exact dating is unnecessary and probably impossible. --illythr (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on why you don't agree, Why not? indeed? All of illythr's points seem reasonable. Generic disagreement doesn't constitute an argument, just... er, non-specific antipathy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
non specific antipathy? Lol.. i will reply illythr in the next days for a complete answer..--Why not? indeed (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This account (and the IP) seems to be an old acquaintance (or a wannabe), so the antipathy is quite specific. :-) It's been a long time since the last outbreak, but I guess the recent events triggered a relapse. While reasoning with him had long since proven pointless, the rationale I provided is meant for other regular editors, who might be interested in actually improving the article. --illythr (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's see what the specifics are once he/she responds on the talk page. In the meantime, I'll just keep my eyes peeled for non-consensus changes to the article lest an edit war in looming. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
When you seen this map, what do you feel ?
It's really not important your opinion, more then 2000 years lived here the same people. Compare our history with yours. Why not? indeed (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The three principalities under Michael's authority, May – September 1600
This is the map from 1600. Are you gelous on Romania, Illy? Why not? indeed (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Russian forces remained there, it's a fact. Statement can stay in the text.
It's important to show a certain independence, which was real. So, why not to add it?
Well then why revert it?
There is no article subject, which is the modern state of Moldova, on these map. Seeing as how it was first created in 1940 (or 1991, if you don't count MSSR), it could neither have been part of nor "forcibly incorporated" into anything. You're confusing territories with countries and making the article suffer for it.
It is already mentioned in the main text, in the "Foreign relations" section.
No source. Redundant. It's already explained in the following sentences in detail, independence, language law and all. --illythr (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
EU and Moldova together (Russia's failure policy)
Romanians from Moldova, are eager to see the European integration issue solved as soon as possible and the Moldovans’ dream to be real European citizens to become reality.
This important dream, to become a part of the big European family again, the Moldovans started to dream ýears ago. Moldova’s future? Like Mihai Viteazul did in 1600..Moldova is Europe's "only Latin state outside the EU". What links has ever had to Russia? ..There is only 1 future: in EU with Romania united.Why not? indeed (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly my point. What do you have against Romania and Moldova? I see you just represent Russian POV.Why not? indeed (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing against Romania or Moldova. I try to take my function as being neutral very, very seriously. You are welcome to bring up any relevant issues you wish in this article as long as they are from verifiable and reliable sources. If you have such material, please feel free to bring it to the table and I will judge it on its merit. If I consider it to be well sourced, I'm fully prepared to copyedit awkward grammar, syntax, etc. for those who are not native English speakers. I am simply reminding you that this is not a forum for nationalist POV pushing. I'd also like to remind you that you should not make personal attacks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Iryna. Moreover, using the "or" conjunction in this context is meaningless. One should analyse the sources and decide which is the official language. Finally, since this story Moldovan/Romanian is going on since years, I warn that if this edit war will continue I will suggest ArbCom to include Moldova in the list of articles where administrator discretionary sanctions are allowed. Alex2006 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The table under Languages should be Romanian (Moldovan) instead of Moldovan (Romanian) as it incorrectly implies Moldovan as an official language, when it not. Furthermore, the link points to Romanian language article so again it doesn't make sense to write it that way. Dan Cojocari (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue your minor changes around May 4th, but I'm wondering how you managed to conflate regions (both from different periods in history and geographical descriptors of regions) into your May 7th string of unsourced edits ranging from "was an autonomous republic of the Ukrainian SSR, encompassing the current Moldovan territory, Transnistria." (see this edit) to Bessarabian Independence, to this and this. My thanks to Anonimu for reverting these strange, WP:POV content changes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how my edits are strange and uncited when they are all cited. Except "was an autonomous republic of the Ukrainian SSR, encompassing the current Moldovan territory, Transnistria." which was rephrased from the first paragraph of Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic article. These are facts I take from the cited course and not a POV. Maybe you should add your own edits if you are so familiar with the subject, instead of criticizing my efforts to improve an article. Dan Cojocari (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Bessarabian Independence and Greater Romania
The paragraph is describing the independence of Bessarabia and formation of Greater Romania. The previous title said "Russian revolution and Greater Romania". There was Russian revolution is either Bessarabia or Greater Romania, so I don't see how that is an appropriate title. Dan Cojocari (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody recognized Bessarabia's independence, not even Romania. Both the Entente (which hoped Russia would revert to a favourable government) and Central Powers (which hoped that by awarding it to Romania, as they did at Buftea, they would prevent any further Romanian-Russian collaboration and furthermore they could free troops from the front after the Romanian army would be forced to operate in the east against the Bolsheviks) shied away from providing the Moldavian Republic with international recognition. Romania later claimed that the declaration was perfectly valid and should be recognized, a scenario recently copied by Russia when annexing Crimea... Anonimu (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)