Talk:Moldova: Difference between revisions

duplicate article

Hello,

It seems that the Moldova article dupticates article about Moldavia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldavia

Moldova and Moldavia are different names for same country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.244.47 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I found my error.

Change in GDP

Thanks to Gggh for updating the GDP figures. I was wondering how on earth the GDP per capita (nominal) had gone down, when the total GDP (again nominal) has supposedly gone up by 30%. On checking the figures, it looks like the old figure was just wrong, and I don't think it had anything to do with including or not including the Transdniester population. It seems that the IMF is using the census figures to calculate GDP per capita (they use 3.386 million), which presumably means they are calculating GDP for Moldova with Transdniester, although they don't make this clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spigot007 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009 events

Note that they already have two dedicated articles, and should probably be reduces, not expanded here, later this year. Regardless:

• Only one member has verifiably expressed concerns. She mentioned others, but that's according to her, just as the article says.
• adding that the OSCE report could not contain more criticism because of Russia's power of veto. - this is not what she said. Quote:

  The problem was that it was an OSCE report, and in the OSCE are, of course, the Russians, and their view was quite different, quite substantially different, for example from my own.

There is nothing about a veto power here, only that there are Russians in the OSCE with the implication that this is bad. It's probably best to leave that piece out, until a clarification of what she meant by that is provided.

• I've also cut out the part that duplicates the condemnation for the event, but focuses on one side only.
• I'm not sure if there's a problem with classifying the fire & looting thing as a riot independently from any of the involved sides, but I've provided a source that does that just in case. --Illythr (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS on nationalist/moderate: The sentence describes the internal policy of the two governments: the nationalist one was intolerant to the minorities, whereas the subsequent one was much less so. Their international sympathies can be added right next to it, once a supporting source is provided. The corresponding source section is:

On February 27, 1994, parliamentary elections were held. In the elections, the Democratic Agrarian Party of Moldova won a majority, marking a turning point for Moldovan politics. The new Parliament was able to make compromises between ethnic Romanians and ethnic Slavs, thus enabling it to pass legislation and set a more moderate tone for governing the country. Without a majority of Popular Front extreme nationalists in Parliament, a solution to the problem of Transnistria began to be more than just a futile hope.

--Illythr (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Illythr, I am sort of more interested in other things now, like List of cities in Moldova, and List of localities in Moldova. I will come back to this issue later, and will answer in full. For now, I obviously let your last edit stay, since I have provided no arguments against it (or whatever in it I believe should be adjusted), nor have I time to suggest now some other possibilities. As I said, I promise to come back to this, but don't know yet when. It's actually a lengthy matter, it will take hours to go into details, and I don't have that kind of time and interest now. I trust you edit further whatever you see necessary. BTW, I am sorry for the late response. Dc76\^talk 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic composition subsection

I am asking other editors to comment on Anonimu's edit [1]: is the new version better or worse than the one before?

And I kindly ask nobody to revert Anonimu's edit before some discussion takes place here. Don't revert him here without prior discussion, and do not in other articles. Do not get provoked. He can damage only so much. If we are going to confront him individually with the controversial edits, it will only be two editors edit warring, even if different editors in different instances. With every problematic issue of his, let's have a rule: first note it in the talk page, then discuss it/comment about it, and let's find a consensus/restate the existing one. He can go against every one of the editors in Moldova topic area and make it ugly, but he can not go against a consensus. I know it is tedious, but this is the only way we can get rid of such problems. I repeat, don't confront him alone in other articles, I feel he wants exactly that. (I hope this is the central place and people will see this note.) Dc76\^talk 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dc76, I ask you the 1000th time, stop spreading ad hominems, stop making suppositions about what I might do in the future and what are my "hidden goals". Discuss the content, if you think there's something wrong, don't discuss the editors. Otherwise I'll be forced to seek admin help. Don't let any beef you may have with me interfere with the optimum functioning of WP.

PS: You may want to remove my name from the section header; it may be interpreted as harassment.Anonimu (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to Anonimu: I wish I was making suppositions... Unfortunately my conclusions are based on your edits on a number of articles over the past week (and your repeated reverts of me. You don't even pay attention that no two of my edits are the same, my every edit suggests something more to think about as compromises, and somehow people like Illythr and Alaexis catch the finest and subtle of them, and you miss all of them, even the most obvious.) I wish I would have imagined this problem and I wake up in the morning and discover there are no problems with your edits... IMHO, unfortunately you are back at doing content-wise the same things you were doing before you were blocked. Talk-wise, you are surely reformed, and it's possible to talk with you. Unfortunately it's like Reagan and Brezhnev: can talk but can't agree on almost anything. I don't have problems with you, i have problems with your edits. Look, I am afraid that my discussion with you right now only provokes you further, so I'll abstain, if you don't mind. I will comment content-wise on what other editors would mention, so I am not closing any content-wise dialog with you, you just have to comment on those issues, too. But I am kindly asking you to stop talking with me. I believe it would be a better environment this way. Dc76\^talk 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonimu, doing the same things you were doing before you were blocked will probably lead to the same result. It's pretty illogical to behave in the same way and expect different results. The ethnic section resisted for a long time this way and it's a compromise respected by most of the people who follow this page, there's no reason for a new person who just came back from a long ban to start changing highly sensitive content. man with one red shoe 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt civil imposition of the WP policies could get anybody blocked. There are articles in WP that haven't been modified for a looooong time... unfortunately most of them are in an appalling state. Since there was no discussion and it clearly infringed basic WP rules (NPOV, OR, SYNTH), I modified it.Anonimu (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Who decided it infringed NPOV, OR, SYNTH? You of your own. Did you previously discuss it on the talk page? No. Did your contribution led to a more productive environment on this country article? No, on the contrary, your brought in an old controversy. One can civilly add non-sense to WP, and cite WP policies to support that, also ignore the talk page history. IMHO, this is what you did to this article. You claim there was no discussion lately about this issue. OK, lately no, because it was before and extensively. But I already said that: we don't have to discuss the same issue every week/month. But have it; what prevented you from starting a discussion again? It is a good habit to start controversial edits with first announcing them on the talk page and see the reaction. That is a basic good collaboration principle, it comes before even one discusses content, NPOV, OR, SYNTH, etc. Most people behave so naturally. But not all. Some IMHO are trigger/revert-happy. Dc76\^talk 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one who decided, and it was pretty simple since the source present had no relation to the POV synthesis presented to the reader. It didn't change anything in the environment... just that you became dissatisfied with the state of the article. The controversy is pretty active, and although some editors may want to provide just one POV, this is against WP policies, especially when that POV is wholly personal and takes extreme liberty with the references to the verge of original synthesis. Actually, the edit I reverted was inserted by user Dc76 following an IP vandalism on June 6 this year diff. An earlier version (June 4) by User:Vecrumba, who can't seriously be accused of trying to hide the controversy or wanting to promote certain POV (at least not the one you accuse me of supporting), shows that the version I reverted to was the stable one. As anyone can see above (the earliest message dates from May 2008), that edit by Dc76 was not preceded by any discussion on this talk page (not a week ago, not a month ago, not even a year ago), and thus doesn't have any claim to consensus. If Dc76 didn't feel any need to edit the talk page when he introduced a personal opinion in the article, I see no need to do it, especially since I was restoring the verifiability of that section by presenting the letter and the spirit of the reference used.Anonimu (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For what is worth I think the current version is acceptable, it uses official sources, it notes that "The question whether Moldovans and Romanians form a single ethnic group, or are distinct ethnic groups is politically controversial." I think we can leave it like this or at most add that other reliable sources (with referenced included here) consider Moldovans and Romanians the same ethnic group. Since Wikipedia describes not prescribes that's probably the best way to avoid POV or SYNTH or to take any sides if Moldovans are or not Romanians. man with one red shoe 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this. It seems we have reduced the whole contovercy to indcluding or not this sentence. I propose to include it. Any thoughts?Dc76\^talk 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So you have an opinion that says my version (i.e. the stable one until you edited it one month ago) is acceptable and you go on to modify it to reimpose your own opinion? How should I call this if not POV pushing?Anonimu (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the "combined figure for Moldovans (Romanians)" part, it doesn't make sense to me, how can you combine "Moldovans (Romanians)"? I think at most we should say that 1. it's a political issue (that's already mentioned), 2. some sources (and which ones) consider Moldovans to be Romanians, that should do it, it people want to calculate the sum they can take a handheld calculator and do the sum themselves. man with one red shoe 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand your argument. Would this do it, or you think a direct citation from a source which argues Moldovans to be Romanians is better? or both? or none? My opinion: A direct wikilink exists to the "Controversy" article, and I think it makes more sense to rather add more sources there, not in every article this issues comes. Dc76\^talk 20:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice the article first time, yeah, since it's linked we might not need to add references and the second part that I proposed. I don't think though we need to add the sentence that you added since I think that's pretty clear, all the other ethnicities are exclusive. man with one red shoe 21:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You got me neutral now on the inclusion or not of this sentence. How about we ask somebody else we can trust to a have a sound mind? If that person says we don't need, I yield. Dc76\^talk 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat a challenge I issued before (to Xasha/Moldopodo). If Romanians actually form a small and distinct minority in Moldova, then, Anonimu, please write an article on the Romanian minority in Moldova. After all, they're more numerous than the Bessarabian Bulgarians, who do have an article (not to mention the Italians or Albanians of Romania). Write that article, using reliable independent sources, and you'll have a point. If not, then you concede the Romanian/Moldovan divide is a purely political one, and the two should be presented together.
Now, this is not to say we should forcibly change self-declared Moldovans into simple Romanians. We still should say what the census said. But nothing obliges us to pretend the two are wholly separate entities -- unless that article gets written. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you use a wrong argument, you can't argue anything from the existence or non-existence of a Wikipedia article, besides I don't think there's a Russian minority in Moldova or Ukrainian minority in Moldova article (maybe they exist with different names, correct me if I'm wrong). But the issue here is not about pretending that there are two entities, we should be agnostic to that, we should just mention what the sources say, if they are considered the same people we should find enough sources to explain that and add that as a relevant thing in the demographics section. man with one red shoe 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I didn't mean to imply that us having or not having such an article would say something about the validity of the concept. What I meant is that if such an article could be written - from reliable, independent sources that document the phenomenon of a Romanian minority in Moldova, then Anonimu would have a point. Otherwise, he implicitly acknowledges their sameness with the "ethnic Moldovan" majority. That said, I fully agree we ought to be saying what the sources say. This looks like a promising start:
Levinson, David. Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook, p.66 ("Romanians number 20.9 million in Romania and 3 million in neighboring Moldova") and p.56 ("The label Moldovan (or Moldavian) indicated nationality, as ethnic Moldovans are ethnically Romanian. Romanians (Moldovans) number about three million, or 65% of the population"). Greenwood Publishing Group (1998), ISBN 1573560197- Biruitorul ^Talk 01:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the comment below simultaneously with Biruitorul writting his comment above, i.e. before I read it.

I entered a couple times in the past the red link Ethnic groups in Moldova into WP articles. I will write this article (I have already some start version, but it's not wikified, i just gathered statistical data in a file on my computer. Quite a lot of data, including which lcoalities, and how many, languages used, etc, etc.) After that I go on and fill the gaps (we already have Bessarabian Jews, Bessarabian Bulgarians, Gagauz people, and Bessarabian Germans; but are missing Russians in Moldova (this link is a redirect), Ukrainians in Moldova, Poles in Moldova and Gypsies in Moldova). It's only a matter of time until we will have these articles. So, we can rise to the challenge.

That said, I agree with Man with one red shoe that the (non-)existence of a Wikipedia article is not an argument. (Note however that if an article Romanians in Molodva would be created, it would include data of 1930 census, when all Moldovans are Romanians, it would include the entire national culture, etc, and in the end it will be a content fork to Moldovans, so it cann't exist. This is a stronger argument than that the article does not exist at this moment.) Anyway, I agree with Man with one red shoe that the solution is: we need to work the articles related to the controversy, especially in bringing in more sources (there are plenty around), and make a short one-two sentence summary in the demographics section here. Anyone has a particular text for those one-two sentences in mind already? Please, be bold and do modifications in the article. I can promise to work on the controversy articles, but not before the end of August, I am sorry.Dc76\^talk 01:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First: I didn't read the replies to Biruitorul's first comment. Second: if I would want to, I could easily write such an article based on Czechs of Romania model, with our Moldovans article providing some interesting references. However I won't do it, since at the moment I'll publish it, it'll be filled by some editors with POVish OR such as "but if you add Moldovans, Romanians and Romanis you get this figure, which I personally extrapolated from the source because it helps me make a point". Whatever... those people don't consider themselves Romanians and WP should not either... Constanta was quite a magnet for Moldovan (temporary) emigrants and I got to know quite a few... how can someone judge one's ethnicity without asking them? You can't use the folk costume because they differ greatly (one from Vaslui is nothing like one from Suceava), religion has nothing to do, mentalities, "culture" and cuisine are shared regionally (even with all those ethnic stereotypes there's a greater distance mentality-wise between a "Romanian" from Transylvania and one from Wallachia, than between a "Romanian" from Wallachia and a "Bulgarian" from Southern Dobruja and the Rousse region... and the same it's all over Europe), you can't use outside perception (a guy like Cabral is not less "Romanian" than Vadim, the fact that one of his parents was from Africa and that he has a darker skin doesn't prevent him from being essentially Romanian... not to talk about Romanian writers adepts of the Judaism such as Mihail Sebastian), and the "surest" mean, language, is equally deceptive (what serious scientist would claim all native English speakers across the world as part of the same ethnic group). What are you left is self perception and perception inside the group. If two thirds of Moldova's population think of themselves as "Moldovan AND (NOT Romanian)", we have no right to impose our personal opinion about what those guys "really" are.Anonimu (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't stop wondering why Dc76 simply refutes any suggestion coming from me, while he wholeheartedly adopts the same suggestion when it comes from other editors. I mean, he just changed his view to fit that of Biruitorul's, even if that was content-wise the same as the one I supported and he fought days ago (Biruitorul just expressed it in better English... but the idea behind didn't change a bit).Anonimu (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've updated the controversy statement to accurately reflect the nature of the issue, it is not genetics but self-identification. Apologies I haven't had a chance to review the latest series of edits yet. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  12:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time genetics had anything to do with ethnicity, eugenics was considered science. Should I remind you how it all ended?Anonimu (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When one spots an entry in a table that he thinks should be corrected, first one tries to correct it, if that doesn't work he tells about the issue in the talk page. Only a vandal erases the whole table.

About "eugenics", if you intend to continue comparing your opponents with Nazi at every turn, you will be reported. Dc76\^talk 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again making suppositions about what I might think? I understand you have ceased to assume good faith long ago, but threatening to report me for speaking about things that have some relation with Nazis isn't really frightening me. Nazis had to learn it from the US, and, while not as abominable as its German counterpart, the memory of the US eugenics programme is enough for most scholars to strongly refute it as dangerous pseudoscience. Please drive your Volkswagen around me (note the "Nazi comparison"?) if you don't have anything to comment on content. I have no opponents on WP... if you do probably you're in the wrong place.Anonimu (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonimu, please contribute more positively when making comments than useless attacks alleging eugenics. If I had said "blood" that would have worked just as well as a figure of speech. To DC76, thanks for the clarification at the end, I had overlooked completing that part of the thought. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I updated the table to de-POV it (not "POC", typo!). VЄСRUМВА  ☎  18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you very much for helping diffuse this. Dc76\^talk 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Language

Please bother read this subsection, as well as previous discussions in the talk page. We don't have to restart a discussion about his every week/month for editors/IPs that did not bother read the previous things. Do you have to add aomthing not already mentioned in the discussion? Instead of rv, please feel free to expand that section if you see necessary. And, pls refrain from name-calling. Dc76\^talk 13:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tighina

Why people don't agree that official name is Tighina and not Bendery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Over Bruce (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who accepts and likes Russian language in Moldova? --Over Bruce (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)