Talk:Moldova/Archive 3

Language

The question regarding the propriety of using the term Romanian to describe the official language of the Republic of Moldova revolves around the question of whether the term is synonimous with Moldovan from I) a linguistic perspective, II) whether the people of the Moldova use this term when describing their native language, and III) whether the term Romanian language is used in official state documents.

I. The literary form of the Moldovan tongue is identical to Romanian. For native speakers, this fact is self-evident and experts in linguistic have also proven this relationship, as there are vitually no differences between the two tongues, barring a minor grammatical discrepancy (regarding the usage of î vs. â), a differnce that does not even hold true for the full extent of Romania and Moldova. The Moldovan language was merely the renaming of Romanian for political motives undertaken during Stalin's regime in order to justify the forceful takeover of Bessarabia. Nevertheless, the cultural unity of the Principality of Moldova that lasted for centuries could not be destroyed by 150 years of Russian occupation (1812-1918 and 1939-1991) and the language of the people on the two sides of the Prut remained the same. The very premise of the existence of a separate language in Moldova is absurd and contradicts common sense.

II. Despite of years of Sovietic propaganda whereby the distinct status of the Moldovan people and language where emphasized, 55% of respondents in the current Moldovan census have declared their native tongue as Romanian. Among people who received a tertiary level of education, this percentage is much greater.

III. Various documents have utilized the "Moldovan" or "Romanian" names of the language depending on the political climate, although the Moldo-Romanian linguistic unity has vitually never been disputed at the government level. The 1989 Law on Languages declares the Moldovan language the state language, however it recognizes the Moldo-Romanian linguistic identity. The 1991 Declaration of Independence (http://www.country-data.com/frd/cs/moldova/md_appnd.html) when referring to the 1989 law states "laws and decisions of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova concerning the laws reintroducing Romanian as the state language and the Latin alphabet on August 31, 1989". Thus although in the original Law on Languages, the term Moldovan was used, the Declaration states that the document referred to the Romanian language thus demonstrating the interchangability of the word in official use. The 1994 Constitution adopted the Moldovan term due to the political climate that existed at that period when the ruling Agrarian Party opposed union with Romania and opposed the attempts of the Popular Front to bring about a greater level of unity between the two nations. Nevertheless, to this date, various official documents have used both terms when describing the state language as is reflected on offical government sites where the option of Romanian exists but not Moldovan such as http://www.statistica.md.

In addition to all these arguments, one must take into account the fact that the term Romanian is better known by the general global populace and numerous international organizations prefer to use this term when referring to the main language of Moldova (or at least us it alongside Moldovan to prevent confusion). In my view using the term Romanian in parantheses next to Moldovan in the Wikipedia article as the majority of other international sources have done is perfectly logical. A simple search for language of Moldova demonstrates that the majority of sites and documents use both terms or simply Romanian. There is no reason for Wikipedia to not follow this general rule. TSO1D 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Map of the Roumanophone world

---

I just did more research and I can definitely prove that the government uses the term Romanian in official documents. This is a document from the Ministry of Education that details the process for satisfying the conditions for Moldovan citizenship.

Procedura de evaluare a gradului de cunoaştere a prevederilor Constituţiei Republicii Moldova şi a limbii de stat.

Procedure for the evaluation of the degree of proficiency of the Constitutional requirements for the state language.

Examenul de evaluare a gradului de cunoaştere a prevederilor Constituţiei Republicii Moldova este susţinut în scris, în limba ::română sau rusă, pe bază de bilete de examinare.

The evaluation examination of the level of proficiency of the language can be administered in Romanian or Russian based on the ::examination tickets.

I believe that this finally and definitely proves my point.

TSO1D 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If the Moldovan goverment uses the term Romanian in its own current official documents, I agree with you about the parenthesis. I will revert Zserghei accordingly. Alexander 007 00:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think, that it's just a situation, when "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing". Official language is nevertheless called Moldovan, but you have shown that some organizations even Ministries use term Romanian in the official context, that is wrong unless constitution is changed. But for now I will suspend reverting. --Zserghei 11:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the situation is very illogical. In normal circumstances the law stipulated in the Constitution as official would be used by that name in all official documents. However, when the very Constitution was hastily created amid cut-throat political wrangling where every faction simply wanted to consolidate its own position this is what happens. For this reason many officials from various ministries continue to use the term Romanian considering it synonimous with the Moldovan from the Constitution as this term is the correct and internationally recongized name for the language. Hopefully in the future the Constitution will be "rectified", however right now this problem has faded into the background as more pressing political and economic problems exist. TSO1D 14:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, î vs. â is orthography, not grammar. - Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how the language issue is treated in South America. I don't think there are Bolivian, Venezuelan, Argentinian languages, I think all those people speak Spanish (even though the dialectal differences are probably bigger between the Spanish in Argentina and the Spanish in Venezuela than between Romanian in Romania and Romanian in Moldova, same situation with English in US and UK). I also think that we need to use the linguistic criterium not political. For Russians to understand this idea: it's like saying that Russians in Kazakhstan speak Kazakian (or pick any other name you want) not Russian. Languages should be defined by linguists, not politicians. (by the way, there are many countries that speak the same language but the are still different states, it's silly to define statehood by inventing a language) AdrianTM 15:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

While your arguments are correct, your conclusion is wrong. We don't need neither "linguistic criterium not political". We must use what is publiched in reputable sources. Otherwise it will be original research. And it is not our business to decide how silly people behave in political issues. Our business is to report this silly behavior, again, basing on reputable sources. `'mikka (t) 15:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I shouldn't have added my personal opinion here about silly behaviors. And I also agree that "we must use what is publiched in reputable sources." however, my opinion is that we need to use linguists opinions since we talk about a language (not politicians opinions -- since we are not talking about political issues, my examples were only to clarify that Language and State are somewhat different issues). I'm sure we'll find "reputable sources" that will clarify the language issue. AdrianTM 15:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, the language issue is both linguistical and political. While language description and classification is purely linguistic issue, its usage is also a political issue, and this must be properly reflected as well. `'mikka (t) 16:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Politic ideas come and go. One party is in power today, in one year it might be another one that has other ideas. A language is what it is, it changes in hundreds of years. Given the quotes that were provided above it looks like even politicians are not consistent about calling the official language "Moldovan". It is necessary to make it clear that Moldovan is Romanian from practical reasons too: for example a foreigner learns Romanian then he has to travel to Moldova, does he need to learn another language: Moldovan? Or, a student who learns about languages and reads about Romance languages, will he learn that there are Romanian and Moldovan -- two Estern Romance languages or only one? How about from the historical point of view, is there a need for a separate language history class in case of Moldovan (did it develop separate from Romanian?). Think about who reads Wikipedia. Will Wikipedia inform or misinform someone who seeks to find out basic facts about Moldova? AdrianTM 17:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No matter if this is a linguistic or political issue, it still remains a problem. How can be otherwise, when Moldavian people don't know which language they speak? The majority of them are confused, not mentioning about children, who one day are told to learn Romanian and another day - Moldavian. Even if in fact they learn the same, the problem is still open as nobody knows what language exactly they speak. I think this situation has 2 points of view which need to be analyzed:

1. The official language of Moldova should be ROMANIAN:

Although a Romanian-Moldavian dictionary was published years ago, in fact is one language, with the same roots. The situation is similar to American-UK-Austrian English. Although there are different slang and pronunciations, it still remains English. So it's absurd to have two names for one language.

2. The official language of Moldova should be MOLDAVIAN:

Let's analyze from historical point of view: Moldova as a country appeared much earlier then Romania itself. Logical it means that Moldavian language appeared much early then Romanian; although at that time the problem of having an official language was not discussed.

Actually that's not correct on two accounts: Wallachia AKA "Romanian Land" was established as state before Moldova: in 1310 vs. 1351 (not by much but still...) Second, this is about statality not about language, people in both states were most likely speaking the same language, just like today (call it as you may: Romanian, Romanian/Moldovan, Romanian-Moldovan, Ardeleano-Moldovano-Wallachian language, etc)AdrianTM 08:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So, I think each point of view has lots of arguments which need to be analyzed carefully. Till then, the problem regarding what language Moldavian people speak remains a mystery ;o) Craftni

It's not at all any mystery, it's Romanian that's called Moldovan in Moldova for political reasons and that's that. Some Moldovans and other people don't see big problem with that since it seems logical on the surface (State name => language name), however Romanians are weary about this because they know that it was used as an argument for Russian occupation (not to mention that a big part of Romanian is called Moldova too), it's also useless from practical reasons since it's ridiculous to have Romanian-Moldovan translators just like is ridiculous to have NY-Californian translators, or to have separate teachers at a University, one teaching Moldovan and another Romanian. This can also create artificial political problems with the literature: for example they can say that Eminescu poems are written in Moldovan, however they can't deny they are written in Romanian too, because of course Moldovan = Romanian. AdrianTM 08:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anthem: Limba noastră

The language used in the song is Romanian. Anybody who knows Romanian can attest that. I don't know what they mean by calling the official language "Moldovan", however this is Romanian. The song is tought in Romania too (and not as a foreign language song) AdrianTM 21:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how people that don't know how to spell "Moldova" and "Moldovan" troll this page and revert my work without good or any explanations. I don't think we should accept that the "Limba Noastra" song is not written in Romanian (whatever they call their official language they picked a Romanian song as national anthem) AdrianTM 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

More importantly: it doesn't matter how they call official language, if the song is the same in Romanian than no matter what is the official language of Moldova or Romania or any other country the language of the song is Romanian too, by any measures. Example: Mark Twain writings will still be in English even if US declares that the official language of US is American. AdrianTM 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Population: Moldovans (Romanians)

If Moldovans speak romanian and they are the same people as moldovans from Romania, how come that is not allowed to have the text: Moldovans (Romanians) since Moldovans are Romanians? Can one give me a resonable proof that they are not identical? Iasi 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Walloons. Dahn 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, you're confusing "proof of difference" and "justification of why the discussion is not yet closed". I believe that you know the difference between the two, and that you understand why I say your reply is incomplete.

If not, I would like you to prove me that Moldovans are not Romanian. Of course, this is impossible, first of all because there is no clear measure of what a nation is, and second because the differences between Moldovans and Romanians are not that clear-cut. My oppinion is that you and User:Iasi should let Moldovans (from Rep. of Moldova) decide what they want to be. Dpotop 19:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Letting them choose what they want was precisely my point. Any connection between them an Romanians (as objective or subjective you and I may think it is) should go on relevant pages. If I'm wrong, then I urge Iasi to go on pages where it says "X was an Austrian" and turn it to "X was an Austrian German" (and perhaps Tyrolese". Dahn 19:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

However: why is Moldovans vs. Romanians not the same as Wallons vs. French? Some special reason I don't know about? Dahn 19:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now let me explain to User:Iasi. Dpotop 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:Iasi. Of course, Romanians (including you and me, and probably Dahn) know that Moldovans speak the same language and feel much in the same way as we do. In a word, they are Romanian. However, there are some problems. The Communist, and now Russian propaganda worked both inside Moldova and in the international community. A Moldovan language now exists, even if only formally (because it is identical with Romanian). It exists as official language of the Republic of Moldova. This makes people have reserves in accepting our assertions as truth. Moreover, some people from Moldova came to believe they are indeed different. There are some on wikipedia (including the infamous User:Node_ue) that are prepared to do everything to prevent Romanians from convincing other people that Moldovan=Romanian. Also, there are people from the ex-USSR (russians, etc) that ar

e convinced of the difference, and support this oppinion.

Now, wikipedia is about negociating articles with the other, and while we do not manage to convince 90% of the other that Moldovan=Romanian, we cannot write it here. The solution will come sometime, I hope, when Romania and Moldova will unite. But right now, it is quite impossible to make the other agree that Moldovan=Romanian. Dpotop 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dpotop and I find User:Iasi to be tedious, and somewhat annoying. We've already gone though these issues, and Iasi keeps bringing everything back to simplistic terms, like some parrot owned by User:Bonaparte (ahem...). Alexander 007 20:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed views on this subject. On one hand, it makes sense to directly use data from the RM census which lists Romanians and Moldovans as two separate ethnic groups. Nevertheless, from an analytical perspective, this differentiation is rather absurd as the Moldova on the Eastern side of the Prut that now constitutes the Republic of Moldova was only separated from the main Principality of Moldova in 1812. To state that ethnic changes occured in that region in 150 years (excluding the time that Bessarabia and Romania were reunified) is absolutely illogical. Having a separate category for Moldovans and Romanians who are somethimes actually part of the same family appears ridiculous. For this reason numerous influential international organizations and sources use the term Romanian or MOldovan (Romanian) when referring to the ethnicity. One solution might be to proceed like the Austrians who when declaring their main ethnos write German Speaker as opposed to German or Austrian. A similar design could be applied to our specific case and call the people Romanian-speakers. Nevertheless, this category does not appear in any official Moldovan documents and I have some reservations about implementing it in Wikipedia first. TSO1D 20:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may post my opinions on the matter.

• Dpotop, I don't mean to offend you, but your argument seems to me as extreemly flawed. So you are saying that because "Russians have pushed the POV that Moldovans are different then Romanians", then somehow this makes it right for us to present Moldovans as a different people? First of all, not all Russians are anti-Romanians or ignorant (to say that Moldovan does not mean Romanian); secondly just because someone that is totally alien to the subject at hand says something, does not mean that we just have to let it go.

To TSO1D, you have a constructive approach and that's good. If I may make a suggestion: most organizations like the CIA world Factbook state Moldovan(Romanian). I say we do the same. The reasons for that are:

• that we have to look at two documents which govern the official language of Moldova : the constitution which states that the official language is "Moldovan" and the 1989 Language Law which is still valid and says that "the Moldovan language is the same as the Romanian language". At wikipedia, you all bolster that we should take official documents into considerations. right? Well here they are. So I hope that the Russian shovinists ( I won't mention any names) are going to shut up for once and stop pushing their POV.

About the "Moldova is a multicultural country" - I am sorry but there is no document in the moldovan constitution or elsewhere that says so: Currently the native population is clearly the majority. Yes, there are important minorities but in no way is Moldova a multicultural state any more then France, Romania, Germany or Italy.

Concerning the ethnicity: I propose we state the full number 78.2% Moldovans(Romanians) and bellow that we mention the official results 76.1% "Moldovans" and 2.1% Romanians (of course with the note on the irregularities of the census).

Constantzeanu 00:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

About the "Moldova is a multicultural country" I am sorry, if you are including transnistria and gagauzia, it is truly multicultural and you don't need any document for such evident things. `'mikka (t) 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Moldovans(Romanians) your idea has merits. However I don't like the idea of meddling with the official table. But you may add a comment below, kind of "Moldovans and Romanians are kind of like a single ethnicity blabala, in total 78%, etc." `'mikka (t) 00:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that this article is the correct venue for for a long commentary on whether Romanian identity of the Moldovans. I wouldn't like to re-arrange the official results either as they have been collected that way by the government. However perhaps in order to reflect the realities of the situation it might be better as a compromise to combine the Moldovan and Romanian data into a Romanian-speaking category and below that have two indented sub-categories that will reflect how people actually declared themsleves. Something like this:

According to the 2004 Moldovan Census:

• Romanian Speakers: 78.2%:

-Moldovans: 76.1%

-Romanians: 2.1%

• Ukrainians: 8.4%
• Russians: 5.8%
• Gagauz: 4.4%
• Bulgarians: 1.9%
• Others: 1.3%

TSO1D 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Romanian speakers" is a no go here, sorry. 45% are "Moldovan speakers". The issue is a total mess today, so better not add more confusion. As I say, leave official "as is" and make a brief summary of the issue separately. `'mikka (t) 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And TSO1D proposes yet another theory I cannot agree with. I have relatives there, and while I know that minor cultural differences exist, I certainly know that they are not greater than those between Bucharest and other Romanian regions (or, for that matter, between various neighborhoods in Bucharest).

I have to agree with mikka. A true census/referendum on the matter should ask the questions "Are Moldovans Romanians?". "Are Moldovan and Romanian the same language?". This is the only way to solve this matter. But this question has been avoided upto now under soviet/communist/russian (sorry, Mikka, but proof of economic pressure is available at hand) influence. Dpotop 06:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So, after reading all this conclusion may be only one: Moldovans are Romanians.--Iasi 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the problem is very complex. Even if in the Population Census it is written moldovans and romanians it is also very important to mention that every moldovan does not see a difference from being romanian called moldovan. What? A moldovan from Romania does not consider himself a romanian? Of course yes, and using the same logic any moldovan which call himself a moldovan accept the fact that he belongs to the romanianism. Iasi 06:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am totally with Mikka on this and I am surprized that after similar debates elsewhere in Ukrainian topics we have to discuss this with same users. Census data is not for Wikipedians to process, add or subtract. Present it as is and add a footnote, if necessary. At the footnoe give referenced criticism of the census from the observers (if there is any) not a general voiceful speech. That's how to deal with this issue rather than give a Wikipedian produced number in a table. Someone will add up Ukrainians and Russians as "Slavs" in Transnistria article and will claim that Moldavians are a minority rather than plurality. This is all absurd. Don't tamper with census data and provide a referenced criticism at talk. --Irpen 08:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks. But like I told you on your talk page now the present text is missleading. --Iasi 08:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all Moldovans consider themselves Romanians - that's a fact. --Khoikhoi 08:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely true. When they don't consider that means the followings:

1. They are not moldovans, because they belong to other minority e.g. russian-speakers, ukr.-speakers, ...

2. They say primarly moldovans but they meant Romanians because any link related to Moldova must relate to Romania also. It's a very strong connection between them, a inner connection.

3. What are moldovans from Romania if not romanians? E.g. Moldovans from Iaşi? Iasi 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one must not assume that Moldovans who declare Moldovan don't also consider themselves Romanian; that is putting words in their mouth. By the same token, we don't know how many of them feel about the issue. Alexander 007 08:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So...it's very correct to have something like this: Moldovans(Romanians).Iasi 08:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as the census data says Moldovans, the issue of who considers themsleves how is a side one for the purpose of the infobox. As I say, if the census numbers are suspicious and there are serious sources that say so, not a Wikipedian's opinion or a natinalist article in a tabloid, fine. Use the ref to explain what's wrong with the census. In no way this justifies Bonaparte to substitute the official and sourced statistics by his own math. This is not a grade-2 math class to excersise adding numbers. --Irpen 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What Census says is POV, Moldovan Goverment POV in this case. Census doesn't says that Moldovans are not Romanians. What is more important? To have a missleading text or to have a better one? Why are you so against in having an explanatory text? I see no problem in fact that Moldovans are Romanians.

Do you think that is an indentity crisis about here? That Moldovans are not Romanians? Since they do speak the same language, have the same history that means are the same people.

One last question: a moldovan from Iaşi who is a moldovan is or is not a romanian? Iasi 09:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, golly. Lookey: the census says/assumes that Moldavians and Romanians are not the same (hence THE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS). In fact, the one argument against the census I've heard from within Romania is that the people were not informed on whether the two notions overlap (which is basically saying that the people who picked Moldovan over Romanian are mentally impared). Be that as it may, I, you, Irpen, the Pope, Conan the Barbarian or anybody else on the face of this planet or any other could not interpret the matter beyond that and pretent that "Moldovans" means something else than the context says it does. As to the Moldavians in Iaşi or Buhuşi (note, please note the elloquent difference between the two terms in the English language), the question of whether they are or are not Romanian is made pointless by the fact that they have Romanian IDs. Will this do already? Dahn 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really, it won't do. As wikipedians WE are the ones that assume that Moldovan does not mean Romanian. The people who were interviewed may have not thought this way. In fact, we have a number of reports that say that they didn't know what the difference was. So I think we should leave it the way it is, that is to say Moldovans(Romanians) 78.2% and then Moldovans 76.1% and right bellow that Romanians (2.1%).

No, that would be wrong, IMO. This might in fact be some cheap trick by the government to get more Moldovans, but we still do not know for sure. In fact, I doubt that, and I doubt it a lot: as I have said, I have no reason to think people are as stupid as to not consider declaring themselves Romanian when that is what they mean (or, if they are, I still have no reason to call them something else); the difference may be artificial, but all such debate belongs on the relevant page (NOT here), and as an open debate (i.e.: "this side says"/"this side says"); I'd rather not suppose that the Moldovan gvt. is carrying out large-scale indoctrination (and I have grown tired of seeing various Romanians suppose this); perhaps most people suppose the Flemings=Dutch , the Wallooons=Belgians=French, the Austrians=Germans, the Cypriots=Greeks etc etc etc but it is still impertinent to make one's own statistics (even if the CIA Factbook may do it). And a commentary dealing with pure logic: I wonder why Romanians complain about a Soviet Moldavisation/Russification campaign (lasting more than 50 years, mind you), and then expect it to have had no results on people's self-awareness - I mean, which is it?! Furthermore, if Romanians wake up trying to revert to before the process, or pretend that people can't choose what they are for themselves, are we not talking about the exact same Stalinist-type process and everything wrong with it? Dahn 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the report of the Council of Europe, it was widespread the practice of census workers 'recommending' to the people who wanted to declare themselves "Romanians" that it would be better to say "Moldovans" instead. bogdan 23:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my point still stands: how widespread was this practice, and how can we judge how many would have declared themselves "Moldovans" regardless? And, for those that listened to the "recommendation": what is it that made them change their minds? Revolvers? Bombs? Beatings? I agree that a mention of this concern should fit on pages dealing with the issue, but that's about it. Dahn 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, whatever such allegations are there, they belong to the text of the article in a balanced and unbiased form (if at all). Please no one sided cherry-picked quotes. If there are differences of opinions, both sides should be represented. And, in no way this affects how we present the census results, that is we present them as they are and comment on them separately. Wikipedians doing their own math with the numbers is unacceptable. --Irpen 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, even if the respected international organizations would have cited the census numbers as totally flawed (which is not the case here BTW), sill in no way this justifies using anything derived from the census by user:Bonaparte, user:Constantzeanu, user:Dahn or user:Irpen. In such case, we should find the results of the sociological surveys conducted by respected polling organizations and, if such exist, include them. In fact, if results of such surveys exist, it is worthy to cite them anyway as well as to use them to criticize the government rigged census (if and when applcable). But again, this survey results should be of the studies conducted by rexpected organization, rather than something just written in romare.ro or similar. Own speculations of Mr. Tudor or such can't be used for anything but his own or his party's articles at Wikipedia. --Irpen 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

multicultural state

Also, the thing about Moldova being a multicultural state is plain wrong. Just because of the Gagauz-eri? Come on, there are other countries with atonomous regions that do not consider themselves multicultural. Nowhere in any Moldovan official text does it say that Moldova is multiculutral :) Constantzeanu 18:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Although: granted, it is much more devolved than Romania is. Dahn 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Education (even higher), mass media (TV, newspapers, radio) in two languages countrywide, Gagauzia and Transnistira with several official langauges, about 24% of population are not Moldovans. It's enough to call a country multicultural. --Zserghei 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's establish a standard of quality already: if someone can't call Moldovans "Romanians" because they don't call themselves that, (s)he should not call the country "multi-cultural" when it doesn't call itself that. Don't cry wolf, Zserghei. Dahn 19:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiculturalism is by not necessary official. But census data is. I think, that Moldova meets some conditions, described in in "multiculturalism" article, and just have highlited this. By the way, your "the hell it is" looks more like a cry. --Zserghei 19:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So much fun to read all this. "Don't cry wolf, Zserghei"...It seems that he's an active supporter of those bluddy Soviets. They censored my text...bluddy Soviets :(

France has regional languages semi-official as of some years, and it does not call itself multi-cultural. And it shouldn't be called that. Moldova is not cantonal, cultural-federated, ,multi-lingual at national level (lest perhaps for the Moldovan/Romanian ambiguity in official documents, if you want to go that way ;) ), and it has not achieved devolution even to the point where the UK has (and the UK still isn't multicultural). My point about crying wolf is that you try to capitalize on other's goodwill, claiming that what opposes your view is Romanian nationalism (which is not my case, at least). Dahn 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never claimed something like this. --Zserghei 20:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Like what? Like "it isn't multicultural", or "what opposes your view is Romanian nationalism"? Sorry if I jumped to conclusions in the latter case, but you did precisely what Iasi has been doing: you interpreted data based on your own assumptions. Dahn 20:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Like "what oppoeses my view is Romanian natinalism". I've said, that Moldova is a multicultural state and provided arguments. You may argue, but don't misinterpret my words. --Zserghei 10:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dahn is clearly right here. Alexander 007 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I think most nations on earth are multicultural, but it is not notable in the case of Moldova. In the case of Switzerland, it is notable. Calling Moldova "multicultural" gives the reader the wrong impression. Alexander 007 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

80% of the nation's citizens (excluding Transnistria) are Romanian/Moldovan. Calling such a country a multi-cultural state is ridiculous. I find it intersting how Mikka used the European historian consortium as a credible site on the subject, even though he probably does not accept it in its entirety (just mention the part where the article talks about the Non-Romanian population of the country implying that the dominant group is the Romanian ethnic group). TSO1D 01:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make any guesses about what I accept and what not. This was first best reference. There are others. Reverting a referenced addition smells not good, colleague. Restored. You are free to find and add a reference that says something opposite. You math in talk page is called original research. If you read my refernce carefully, you'll probably notice that the text hints that the mutliethnicity is not much favored by Moldovan (Romanian) supernationalists, which caused worries in Europe. It is very interesting to observe how poor, suffering, oppressed ethnoses of the former Soviet Union quicky turned into "oppressors" after gaining independence. `'mikka (t) 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here is some discussion about "Moldova ca stat multietnic" thatn could be interesting to cover in wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambassador Pamela Hyde Smith's Declaration on Independence Day 2003 :

Although it took some time to develop, in the United States, this cultural diversity has become a source of strength. I hope that you, the people of Moldova, recognize and draw upon the power you have as a multicultural society and use it to make Moldova a more stable, prosperous democracy.

You need more? I'll find you several hudred refs. `'mikka (t) 01:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Exersise 1: Why would Pamela Hyde want to speak about this? (Hint: the answer starts with the letter "T" in English and "S" in Romanian)
• Exercise 2: What is wrong with number 80% mentioned above in this talk page (I am not talking about the M(R) problem)?

`'mikka (t) 02:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't undersant Mikka why you presented the Observatorul Article as it is directly contrary to your position. It talks about how Russian imperialistic tendencies manifest themselves through the support of myths such as Moldovan multiculturality (this is actual text fromt the article). As four your tirade about Moldova oppressing its ethnic minorities, with all due respect, I had to laugh when I saw that. Have you actually been to Moldova to observe this oppression. This is ridiculous, just a few years ago the Parliament wanted to make Russian the second state language and there have been virtually no reports of ethnic repression (except on the territory of Transnistria but the groups are reversed). I am not obsessed with the multiculturality sentence, I simply don't believe that is reflects the truth about Moldova. I am sure that you can find sources that describe Moldova as a multicultural state just like you can find an even greater number of sites that do not include this fact (and don't believe it is necessary to explicitly deny it) or that actually declare it untrue. Yes, there are people of multiple cultures residing in Moldovan, but the proportion of the autochtonous population is still 80% (or less with Transnistria). Compared to other states with larger proportions of national minorities it is not fully logical to maintain that Molova is one. TSO1D 02:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I presented the Observatorul as an example of denial, just for lazy you who simply delete what they don't like, rather than attempt to present opposite opinions, which is what NPOV about. So that you may be try to understand what is my goal in wikipedia.

As for "proportions" of minorities, a minority over 2% is normally considered as "significant" minority. And over 5% definitely derserves interest. By the way, you did not try to solve my two exercises above. Here is question #3:

• Is there any difference between Moldovan and Romanian cultures? `'mikka (t) 05:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC) `'mikka (t) 05:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Moldovans are Romanians what kind of difference do you expect? Iasi 05:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What it seems to me is that we are dealing with a little group here, who for some reason, be it racial, ideological or plain stupidity, are trying to push a certain school of thought here, that is the Stalinist school of thought which states that Moldovans are something different then Romanians. This ideology evolved only after 1920, when the USSR under its communist leadership attempted at annexing the territory between the rivers Pruth and Dnester. The "Moldovenist theory" was aimed exclusively at justifying why the Soviet Empire was annexing a territory that had no links with it: linguistic, ethnic, or cultural. The individuals who continue to believe in this theory today and who are here on this talkpage are outragously engaging in a revert war, constantly pushing their view on the subject: "that Moldova is a multicultural society and that the native population is not Romanian". Instead of engaging in discussion and attempting at listening to the other side, they seem to be interested not in creating a better article about Moldova but rather at one sole objective: that is to make Moldova seem as unrelated to Romania as possible. Sometimes they use articles in the constitution like the one on language, ignoring the language law of 1989 or the Molodvan Academy (which calls the language Romanian). Sometimes they use pure subjective comments made by some individual or another like in the case with the multicultural society. In other words they use whatever tacticts neccessary which would serve their end. I am sorry to tell those other people, who are actually trying to make a better article, that with people like this you cannot negotiate, agree or compromise, they will not listen to you because they already have a certain idea of what an article about Moldova should look like: "like a communist pamphlet from the 1950". I propose that we should ask someone to lock the page, and I invite the individuals who are tirelessly vandalising this article day and night to sit down and have a normal civilized discussion first. Constantzeanu 06:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't even get the fact that this debate continues. What is it that you don't understand in the sentence "Moldova does not call itself multicultural, ergo we should not call it that". The only thing that could be "proven" so far is that somebody else calls it that, and the sources cited fall into contradiction with what Zserghei was advocating when he got the sentence in there. People who promote this sentence have been editing this article for what is now a year (I think). At no time up to now was the question of "multiculturality" ever raised, to my knowledge. People who advocate getting the sentence in there have erased other's edits, have been combating others' POV, etc etc. And yet, no concept of "Moldova's multiculturality" ever stemmed from their keyboards. Please, help me get it right: did Moldova radically change her laws yesterday? Did any of you lead a coup in Chişinău? Are there now two or three states named "Moldova", and I'm on the page for the wrong one? Add to these that my original comments got no reply other than "I never claimed that". It took two or three edits for someone to get the false and biased sentence back in there, without taking into consideration what I and others have said against it. What am I to understand? You are not responsible for your actions? Dahn 09:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So, instead of answering my plain and simple three questions you want to engage into political attacks onto a "little group" of stupid racists. Godd day to you all. <Plonk>. `'mikka (t) 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mikkalai, you're right. I am the one to ignore questions submitted... What about the issues I have raised? What about objectivity? What about not calling me a racist? What about reading my posts and noticing that I have just been called a "Soviet supporter"? Frankly, I think you are upset because, instead of comfortably replacing Romanian spin with your own, you are meeting resistance from people who have no agenda... Dahn 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

A very good conclusion: some people here try to make Moldova seem as unrelated to Romania as possible. Iasi 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And others the exact opposite. Obviously, there are many people working on this article with their own strong opinions on this matter.

The only thing I would say solidly: certainly the official numbers and official views of the Moldovan government belong in the article. Equally certainly, so does some criticism, preferably well-cited, of the degree to which those numbers, distinctions, etc. are merely propagandistic. I don't have a strong opinion on the weight given to each; my tendency would be to report the government views first, then the criticisms of them. I happen to agree that Moldovan ethnicity and the distinction of Moldovan language from Romanian language are totally artificial and propagandistic constructs, and I gather that you and I are in agreement about that, but this isn't an article about your opinion or mine. - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Pool

I suggest to make a POOL. Let's see who is the winner here. I can bet that Romanians. Romanians are more united and have better interests than this bunch of idiots. Iasi 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Iasi or Bonaparte or whoever you are, I wonder if the latter part of ^this post is not ellaborate enough to get you a week's ban or so. My guess is that you are familiar with the procedure by now. Dahn 10:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On principle, truth is not established by polls, let alone by pools. Dahn 09:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the goal of wikipedia is not reporting truth, but NPOV, which means that viewpoints must be reported/merged according to their perceived weight. Therefore, polls are meaningful. :) Dpotop 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum. Dahn 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Around here, it's called "official policy", and you accepted the terms of use of wikipedia. Dpotop 10:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To both Zserghei and Dpotop: oppinions and votes have clear limitations when it comes to logic, and you may know this applies for your own POVs. These are:

• Dpotop: wikipedia did not vote on whether the Earth is round or birds fly.
• Zserghei: you did not provide proof that Moldova refers to itself as a multicultural state, which is what was demanded (and is the only thing that could be cited as proof). Dahn 10:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The fallacy in your approach here is that you assume social science and politics provide "theorems" in the sense of math and physics. There is no such thing as "proof" in ethnic-related issues. For instance, prove me you are ethnic Romanian and not a Romanian-speaking Moldovan/Hungarian/Rroma/Armenian/whatever. It's impossible. Dpotop 11:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming is precisely what I didn't do. I CANNOT and SHOULD NOT vote on whether you or anybody are Romanian or Turkish or Tupi because I feel that you are or than another is. THAT is the fallacy here. And that is what Iasi was requesting. Dahn 11:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, voting is the only way to do it in cases like this one. In theory, this should work, provided that enough independent bystanders will take into acount the pertinent arguments of the conflicting parties. Unfortunately, we are quarreling on such obscure subjects that nobody wants to get involved. Dpotop 11:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Again: this is not at all necessary, nor welcome, when we talk about objective facts. Objective fact no. 1: whatever percent of Moldova's citizens have declared themselves Moldovans, aware (as far as we may presume) that they had a choice. Objective fact no. 2: Moldova calls itself this and that in its laws, and it doesn't call itself that and this etc. You may note I did not "fall into the fallacy" of claiming these would be "exact science" - what I did was to reduce things to what we do know for sure. Voting on it is like establishing it will rain tommorrow because most people think it will. Dahn 11:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

For Zserghei it's different. He promotes a very narrow POV, which is not OK according to wikipedia policy. Dpotop 11:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

multicultural state, reloaded

The word "multicultural" means nothing if not properly defined. As it is used today by politicians and ambassadors, it's just a slogan saying "you're good guys, not bad ones". As for Moldova, saying that it does encourage ethnic minorities does not mean that it is different from, say, Romania, or France. Both of which are not defining themselves as multicultural. Dpotop 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone really wants to say Moldova is multicultural, I suggest the following statement:

"Like France, Germany, the UK, Romania, and most, if not all, European countries, Moldova is a multicultural country". Dpotop 10:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fur surtenly Moldova is not a national country as is Romania for example (you can see that from the Constitution: Romania: "România este stat naţional, suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil."; Moldova: "Republica Moldova este un stat suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil". I think it is ok to say multicultural, because Russian and Gagauz languages (Ukrainian and Bulgarian also at some extent) are very good preserved (Russian in the cities, Gagauz in Gagauzians, whereas Romanian in all country). --Danutz

National state does not mean ethnocracy (even if most Romanians believe it does). Not being a "nationstate" should not, and subsequently does not mean "multi-cultural", as this is not "one or the other". Note that the UK is neither. Sweden as well, or the US (which, notoriously, has no official language), etc etc. Countless models applying to all degrees of devolution. Bottom line: whatever Moldova may seem to be, it did not declare itself multicultural. Dahn 11:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And I remind Zserghei that a form of ethnic justification also exists in the constitution of Moldova, even though it's not as strong as in Romania. I cite:

"Considering that while growing into a nation the Moldovan people has given strong evidence of historical and ethnic continuity in its statehood"

Certainly, this phrase does not talk about the ethnic Russians that came after WWII. Dpotop 11:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a small note to Danutz. Hungarian is well-preserved in Romania, too. Does that mean that we must write in the Romania article that it is multi-cultural? Dpotop 12:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As a citizen of Romania I think I would be deeply offended if someone would claim that my country is not multicultural just because of the word national in the constitution. We are just as multicultural as any other European country which also has the word national in their constitution. If I am not mistaken France does too. Constantzeanu 16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on what you mean by "multicultural". I am not sure that many Romanians would like the goverment to do what Canada does, which is encourage very heteroclite immigration and the organization of the society into a lot of ethnic communities, each with its own customs, and some with special official organization, customary justice, a.s.o. Diversity in Romania is traditional, and people are encouraged to be citizens first, and then be whatever they want culturally. It's non-interference and freedom of thougt rather than active encouraging the diversity. Dpotop 17:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your last two sentences show me that you must have been living in another Romania, one wher the "Jews and Gypsies have ruined this country" is not on the lips of one man out of five on a good day. But, to stay on topic, I urge people to check out Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board#Nationalism is bad?, where I have stated my points about the generic ambiguities of the nation state, and its meanings in France, Romania, and Palau. Dahn 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the best friends of my family were jews, and we stay in contact even though they left for Israel some 20 years ago. I still miss them, and the Matzo they gave me for Pesah. I also appreciate Gypsy music, and I consider (like many Romanians do) that many of them are really gifted in hand crafts and arts (not saying that they are less gifted in other, but this is why I know them best for). I have had hungarian, jewish, moldovan, transylvanian, and other colleagues, and I have **never** had a conflict on ethnic-related issues before coming to wikipedia. I do appreciate what I know of the Russian and Hungarian cultures. But appreciating the Russian, Hungarian, or American culture will not make me be less bold when I am trying to understand and promote what I believe to be historical truth. Dpotop 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, it is true that I am pursuing an academic career, and that probably insulated me from some bad influences, but among my grandparents I can count a peasant, a railway worker, a professor, and an accountant. It's pretty diverse. And I can tell you that nobody I know in my family has been interested in discriminating minorities. However, all of them were nationalistic in the sense where they supported a strong Romanian national state that takes care of its citizens and encourages the development of a Romanian culture. Dpotop 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And yes, nationalism is an ambiguous nation. It can mean just about everything. Just like your cherished democracy, which ranges from the "popular democracy" of Socialist Romania to the "true" direct democracy that exist a bit only in Switzerland, with most western countries being somewhere in the middle. For my part, I am for direct democracy, even though the beginning is more difficult. Dpotop 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, when Romanians say that "Gypsyes are thiefs", I believe that they talk not about the ethnic Gypsyes, but about a political nation defined by extreme poverty and precarity. Maybe the closest term is Marx's "lumpenproletariat". Maybe you didn't notice, but any ragged and dirty guy can be called "Tigan" (Gypsy). It's the lifestyle, not the ethnos, that make a person a "Tigan" in Romania. Few would say that Madalin Voicu is Gypsy. :) Dpotop 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In my own experience, while the attitudes you describe do have their place, I must point out that they are not only exceptional - my experience tells me that they are also found in a package deal with rabid and irrational arguments for the same persons. To point out a few cliches which are widespread:

• "the Iron Guard was not all bad" (which is a mischevious "answer" to an attitude few would actually have, one that would say something on Earth is entirely evil, and is actually meant at quiet rehabilitation - I am tired of seeing it arise in cultural contexts)

Few Romanians believe this. And they can be called extremists, indeed. I know no Romanian that will state that the Iron Guard of Sima was not bad. At the same time, without an overall evaluation, I would say that the cultural experiment of Criterion (which had similar roots, without being identical) gave good results. So: let's condemn what's bad, and preserve what's good. Dpotop 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• "the Romanian state=the Romanian ethnicity" (we have touched this subject already: it is unfortunately backed by the legislators of Romania since 1866); again, the paradox: not the textbook, and in fact liberal definition of the nation-state ("for all purposes, ethnicity is replaced by citizenship", but the idea that there is "an ethnical core of Romania=the Romanians by blood")

The Romanian state has had no problems with greeks, armenians, remaining germans, lipovans, macedonians, bulgarians, etc. Many of them became successful politicians/artists/whatever in the Romanian system, through integration. In this sense, Romania **is** indeed like France. By blood, as you say, there are so few "pure" Romanians, that just defining it like this is stupid. This is why the Romanian fascists were so funny. I certainly have some armenian "blood", probably some russian. How about you? Dpotop 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• "the Jews were not victims in this country, but they are taking revenge on it" (consider the paradox; plus: when was it that they have stopped allowing Holocaust deniers or revisionists on tv? Last year? Or have they never stopped?); "Communists in Romania=Jews" (which has even given way to Mr. Stalin to push his attack on cosmopolitans and let Dej have his way (making Dej both the executioner and the victim - how convenient; just a month ago or so I had to erase anti-semitic, and just plain wrong comments in the article on Dej)

Jews were indeed victims in Romania, at **several** periods, and in various ways. But the cliche "Communists=Jews" is not specific to us. Take, for instance the books of Richard Pipes on the Russian Revolution. The guy dedicates a lot of space to disassembling this myth, proof to the fact that it's important even in the US. Dpotop 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Ceausescu was good in 68, when he risked nuclear war with the Soviets" (which was not only suicidal then, it is suicidal since: it allowead Mr. Ceausescu to pull all those tricks out of his ass)

Actually, Ceausescu did risk his ass, and did a good job then. And, to be sincere, I am proud of it, as the czechs are of their revolution. For Ceausescu managed to do this only because the entire population was behind him. I suggest you read the number of "National Geographic" describing a visit of a group of American sportsmen (so they say) in Romania at that time. The problem with Ceausescu is that his medieval methods became anachronic as soon as we did manage to get rid of the Soviets. Dpotop 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• "I can tell X is a Gypsy" (pure ethnical definition, pretending there is an objectivity behind it)/"this guy is behaving like a Gypsy"/"antisocial=Gypsy" (with the parallel "that Gypsies ought to prove to me that he is not like his kind"); to which I add - Gypsies were slaves here until the 1850s, and have been apartheitized ever since (conveniently kapt as "my Gypsy" by the person in a position of power: from Boyars that sent Gypsy tribes to steal horses in Ukraine to communist beauraucrats)

How do you define a Gypsy? Is Madalin Voicu a Gypsy? You're just bringing arguments to my theory. Gypsyes are today, in Romania, not an ethnic group, but a social group. Wealthy Gypsyes cease to be so (if they are not clan chiefs, that is), and poor Romanians/Hungarians become gypsyes. And don't mix today's gypsies with what they were 100 years ago. Dpotop 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Jews brought ruin to Moldavia when they flooded the place in the 1800s" (which whitewashes over the fact that all social problems which arose where the design of a the convenient discrimination: until 1923, Jews were not citizens - even after ALL other "heretical" communities had been allowed to integrate; they were only allowed to take certain jobs - in which they had to be underpaid in order to be useful to a quasi-feudal economy -Marxist term alert, but that is what I felt I should use; they were targets for the National-Liberals and other populist crapitudic populists, including some Socialists, and blamed for "holding Romania back", when in fact nobody had any plan to make Romania work, and Romania could do little else than what it had been doing).

Here you have a point. Romania could have done better. But then, why didn't western countries accept more of them, too? My impression is that Romania and Poland were used as buffer zones, which caused rapid population changes, which lead to clashes in the "Targu Mures" style (there, too, it's the change of ethnic composition which caused the ethnic tensions). So, YES, we could have done better, and are to be blamed, by absolute measures, by today's measures. But I'm not sure that YOU living at that time and with the given accepted customs of the time (of Germany, say, or France, or the UK), would have done better. Dpotop 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• "the Russians are _________" (fill in the blank: "imperialists", "child-killers", "un-civilised", or, to cite Zamfir Arbore, "naturally moronic and incestuous"). Note: I am not saying that the adjectives themselves are widespread, I am saying that Romanians I know have not passed the logic of finding "national scapegoats", which is here (and everywhere else it may appear) a logical consequence of the idea of "Volkgeist" - "we all have a spirit and a responsabilty" (and consequently: "we have nation-enemies, ethnicity-enemies, culture-enemies, and there is nothing illogical in that" (just check out Iasi's replies on this very page).

Have you ever read about the "boches", in France? I presume not, for it's very similar to your Russians-related stuff. And about "enemies". We don't have enemies, not more than any other nation. We just live in the world. And in the world, if you don't protect your stuff, it's being stolen. This is why **all** countries have "Defence ministries". Dpotop 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Stress was not on whether they were enemies (which is not a unique situations), but on "them" being enemies as nations. Responsabilities in Romanian nationalism (and all others that are Volkgeist-based) fall on ethnicities, not even nations (and, say what you will, even "les Boches" was a reference to the inhabitants of a state rather than to the representatives of a "race" or some other "ethnos"). This has the negative and external implications (slurring to Holocausting) as well as the internal "let's-call-them-'positive'-in-the-vaguest-sense-of-the-term" ones ("you Romanian ought to do ______ because you are Romanian"; which, again, in most cases is not even the equally fallacious but more traditional "you Romanian citizen", but rather "you Romanian ethnic", with different, higher or lower demands for the APTLY-AND-OFFICIALLY-NAMED "NATIONALITATI CONLOCUITOARE" (ever thought abot the meaning of the term?). Dahn 11:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

All of this is made especially possible since Romania was built on Volkgeist (and Volkisch nationalism), and more so than any other place surrounding us. Nationalism had to find "Romanians" in a mass of very different political allegiances, and it has done so by diminishing the right to be different on one's own terms (and, perhaps, the very concept of citizenship). This is still to be found in our laws, education, politics, and surfaces in debates that we have and the way we choose to see the world. Consider the things that have been said around the fact that people have "threatened the fibre of our state" by expressing their political option to seek regional autonomy (which I DO not support as a principle). Things are still rotten in this country, and the past attack of orange populism has shown that we still welcome it, and cannot see the world without it. Dahn 21:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that "things are still rotten in this country", but maybe not in your sense. I also agree that orange populism is a fast-spreading plague right now in Romania and many other parts of Europe and the world. I agree that solution is democracy, but I think it must be participative democracy, otherwise it's useless. With participative democracy of some sort and time, Romania would go in the right direction.

Maybe the populist pushes of today are exactly a symptom of the fact that people want to be listened. So they vote with people that look like them. In the bad ways (drunkards, womenizers, ill-tempered, a.s.o.) instead of the good ones. These days, identifying with a celebrity based on his/hers defects is the rule.

I do not agree with the "Bad" qualifications you put on nationalism and Romanian nationalism as a whole. It has been and still is a driving force in many countries. In some, for the good, and in others for the bad. Dpotop 09:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Iron Guard was the largest (indeed, huge!) and most viciously antisemitic group in Eastern Europe. A pogrom in a city Candide may point on the map was the sight of one of the largest, and the most recent of the pogroms in history (afaik). Which would mean that many people have taken part in or advocated the persecution and murder of thousands of others (in fact, I think there are few families in Romania without a legionnaire as a father-figure). The antisemitism present in Romania has reached levels which were impressive enough for Mr. Eichmann. Sure, that is all behind us, but doesn’t it contribute to that that there are so few of them left around (which still doesn’t prevent so, so, so many people I have met from having fantasies about the usual “Jew controlling the world” despite the fact that they are very unlikely to have ever met a Jew). Do come to Romania: perhaps you’ll have the chance of seeing a rerun of the show where (granted: on a crappy tv station) Gheorghe Becali, who has known a sharp rise in popularity while (note: “while”, probably not “because”) using Legionnaire slogans, Becali I say, with the historian Alex Mihai Stoenescu, telling you about all the good the Guard has done, and being kept in tune by a senile Guardsman - who also told stories about how he and his buddies attempted to lynch the poet Minulescu (because the latter would have written a piece satirizing Greater Romania, and thus “fought against true democracy, social democracy”, i.e. corporatism with a pretty name). And, again, Romania’s participation in the Holocaust was a non-sequitur until two-three years ago (which has prompted all those scandals which were news everywhere but in Romania); “participation” to put it nicely – in fact, Ro had its own Holocaust, and it began at grassroots levels (and the letter part of a continuum that began with Adrianople).

On why “we” see “them” without noticing that “we” is plural. Let me quickly say that the reason may be tied to numbers (percentage of Armenians vs. percentage of Jews) and prior regimes. Don’t forget that the declarative reason for exclusion after Adrianople was faith – Armenians were “schismatic”, but the West at least managed to make Wallachia/Moldavia/Romania stop exclusion for them while not being able to make the country denounce the principle of exclusion (which only happened AFTER WWI!). In fact, Romania agreed to open itself to Muslims in Dobruja (who were at special risk, considering the bullshit of the so-called “Capitulations” about Muslims on principality soil) and Armenians, using this AS CURRECY in exchange for not giving full rights to Jews (yes, Mr. Bratianu was indeed a genius). Even with Gypsies, the matter was translated into religious terms, ever since they decided pagans could be taken slaves (“au tiganii manastire?” – ever wondered what the kids’ saying means?). This behavior reminds of a line in Blazing Saddles (“ok, we’ll take the Negroes and the Chinese, but we don’t want the Irish”).

The argument itself: if I understand you correctly, you’re telling me that ethno-nationalism in Romania is unnatural and fringe. It is neither. Of course it is hypocritical (the core being, according to the term it insists on using, “mongrelized” and “corrupt”); but that sure as hell didn’t stop them from claiming something else at all times. And it sure as hell doesn’t mean that this isn’t the basic and widespread form of nationalism. At the same time the core had stopped officially being defined religiously (again, with the convenient exception for Jews), it had begun to invent itself as an ethnos. This drive not only ultimately united for the task Liberals with some conservatives (as pointed out by Caragiale in his time), it has led to the surreal allegations made by Mr. Eminovich ;) on the “cosmopolitan, corrupting city” and the “wide-necked Bulgarians, thin-nosed Greeks etc” (which is why, when asked to define his nationalism, the Ukraino-German Codreanu has repeatedly linked it to the founding father Eminescu).

To the importance of ethno-nationalism. Pray tell, Dpotop, how has Bucharest argued owning, let’s say, Cluj in 1918 when it hadn’t ever? Is it not because “the region is inhabited by Romanians”? Does this look like anything other than ethno-nationalism? Is this not based on Volkgeist? And, hell, when did Volkgeist become a nasty thing to mention in Romania – I mean, they still goddamn teach it in schools… Surely, the core may be plural (as any core might be), but everywhere ethno-nationalism has prevailed, people believing in it have one of these attitudes towards that fact: the audacity not to notice, the inability to understand, or the hypocrisy to put on different clothes depending on who their public is (an attitude I have observed even with Romanian gvts, and one we have talked about already). Ok, it’s not ethno-nationalism and I’m wrong: then why the hell do so many Ro wikipedians feel that they should contribute to a page about the “Origins of Romanians”? Surely, if we’re “Mixed” or “Phanariote-like”, it shouldn’t matter what origin people who are no longer related to us have… (plus, France – your reference for this – is not going to crumble if “the French” wake up feeling “less the result of a Gallo-Latin-Frankish add-mixture”). If we’re a national state, why do we have national minorities legislated? Could it be because Romanians are comfortable knowing that there’s “Romanians” and then there’s “the Rest”? Is this distinction not clearly made by everylegal system we have had since Adrianople?

As to the Gypsy and Russian “problems”. We ALL know that a Gypsy is defined according to exterior patterns (skin color? Ever heard of that criterion? What about purple warts or white palms? What about dress and fashion?) and we all know that a Gypsy is expected to “know his place” (I was in a corner shop the other day and Mr. Robert Turcescu walked in; I was waiting in line behind him – when he left, the five people in the shop started agreeing that “the Gypsy is arrogant now that he’s climbed up there”, based solely on his skin color; this is a recent example, but I could go on and on; in fact, you are the very first person I’ve seen to deny this is the deal in Romania – sadly, I have seen a lot who take pride in the fact that they think like that). As to their definition as “lumpen-proletarian”, you’re wrong: that cliché is filled by other communities (be they “intra”- or “extra”- “Romanian”). And the Russians: Romanian nationalism had not even been at war with the Russian one by the time slurs began on either side (I may be subjective, but I think the more phantasmagorical ones in this duel have been produced by the Romanian side). And I have heard from countless Romanians that the prototype enemy we have is “the Russians” (no, not even “Russia”); that is from those of us do not go with the stupid “the only friendly neighbor we have is the Black Sea”. Frankly, we have applauded that moron illiterate for 30 years (including those of us that had previously been in the Iron Guard) for having his moment in the sun when spitting on the “mighty Soviets” (please, please don’t debase Dubcek by saying that Ceausescu was in any way like him). And, because of innate faults in Romanian nationalism, we have allowed him to “fulfill the Adrianople dream” by “industrializing us” and giving us the “largest standing army in the world” and “giving Romania the opportunity to have a say on the world stage” et al. Read through producerist-nationalist literature from the very moment Romanians started considering Volkgeist, and you note that Ceausescu had more good-ole nationalism than communism in his bones. Surely, from that perspective, he did a few good things (since, again, no one is all-evil, and he probably slept a full eight hours a night), but I wager that most of these weren’t good – just not bad; as to the things he did do encouraged by the thesis of Ro nationalism, I say that they have all been disastrous.

Note: I do not put a “bad” qualification on Romanian nationalism and whatever kind of nationalism as a whole. I put an “illogical” qualification on all of them. “The driving force” argument is absurd, frankly: that many people believe in a form of nationalism is agreed; that they should is not a conclusion that would be drawn from facts; that a thing you (and perhaps you and I) would find to be of value in a certain paradigm is to be attributed to nationalism is far-fetched and condemned to forever be improbable; that all nationalism or a particular nationalism has merits that could not in fact be attributed to something else is an endless debate; that a certain nationalism could be justified by the merits of another is a contradiction in terms; that “many think” is “many do” is “many become what they think” makes no sense; that people are somehow less themselves because they are something else also is a consequence that does not derive from analysis. And, please don’t assume that I blame all “Romanians” or “these people because they are Romanians” – doing that would mean contradicting myself; every instance where it appears I have been doing this in my messages should be attributed to the rationale of not typing “those people, as diverse as they are without believing they are, that want to give us the impressions that to be a Romanian is to have unique characteristics that you share only within your group, and that they have been appointed to judge and measure”. There. Dahn 10:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me which of the contemporary Romanian historians you appreciate? Dpotop 12:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Few, because most back a version of the same thesis that has brought us to the eternal watershed. I frankly cannot think of any single one right at the moment, except perhaps Tismaneanu - who has the wonderful merit of criticizing things without following the thesis (be it coming with Noica, be it with Ceausescu) and the cliché milieu. Dahn 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not try to say here that Romanian nationalism is logical, or that is has not done wrong, or that it's not still doing wrong. It's not logical, like 90% of politics or human life in general. Countries around the world exist for no logical reason. But, unlike anarchists, I believe that we still need them to function and prosper, and that illogical criteria will still determine human government for a long time to come. What I am trying to show is that if we take today's France (the real one, not the one in political theory books) and Romania they are not so far apart in mentalities and functioning. And maybe Romania should try to follow the goal of being a real functioning society instead of searching for the holy grail of "The Well-Organized Society" that everibody imagines in a different way. Especially every other Romanian intellectual, which believes he/she knows how to make it work (this form of self-mesianic faith, in my view, is one of the core problems in Romania, along with the "the cult of the leader"). Dpotop 12:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, this was not about people's distorted perceptions and myths, as these may arise anywhere. In france, France has constantly provided us with gems such as Boulangisme and Poujardisme-Le Penism (hehheh, funny word), but these have paradoxical complications (as a side note, I'm going to mention the fact that that the extreme right in France, unlike that of Romania, has always been regionalist - since the left has always been nation-stateish; neither has been ethnocentrical, even if both have at times been, and now may again be soaked in lumpen-proletarian ethno-nationalist folklore). But the main problem and difference is in an altogether different part: even with the "wave" of immigrants in France, the issue now is more importantly placing the old immigrants (*cough* Sarkozy) against the new ones, and wherever this may arise, it is not passed through an etno-centrist law, it is still passed through a traditional normative system (which has had it's own paradoxes: in the 1930s, Czeslaw Milosz crossed a French border that advertised entry was forbidden for Jews, Poles, and Romanians - while Mr. Leon Blum was in power).

In Romania, the problem is of a completely different nature: many people here consistently show that they are not able to see the world beyond ethno-centrism, and that they do not understand other places guide themselves by other principles (simply because other places do not guide themslves by what Romanians think of them, with the unusual exception of our neuighbours - notably, as I have already mentioned, the Hungarian nationalists which have slowly turned pathetically ethno-centrical because Romanians have pushed them into Nationalist Wonderland). Let's analyse what we have so far, and agree that, if this what people think, I should have no business telling them off, just as my criticism of Christianity does not make me want to tell Christians that they should stop believing. And now we take a deep breath and come to notice that: my country and my alleged people are demanding things of me that I did not sign for in my social contract (which may be valid for other countries, but that is besides the point); that ethnonationalism has prevented any different voice from speaking (hell, even if it just for the goddamn sake of hearing a different voice speaking) - which IS NOT the case in most countries; that, on the very personal microlevel, it has led to this: Talk:Romania in the Dark Ages, User talk:Anittas#Să-ţi fie ruşine măi, User talk:Dpotop#Be careful !, User talk:Dahn/Archive 1#Nicolae Milescu + Iasi on this very page + etc. (and I don't even want to begin to cite what they post on Romanian wiki) - note that this is preventing people from stating objective facts NOWADAYS. Dahn 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As you put it so well, accepting minorities is **always** a question of numbers. This is why countries in the Old World do not like having very large unassimilated communities. Where do you think last year's riots came from in France? Having lived in both Romania and France for long periods, I don't feel there's a fundamental difference in this respect. We have Becali (formerly known as Vadim), they have Le Pen &co. I remind you, also, that racial riots happen in other countries, too, usually around ghettos. Dpotop 12:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also noted that this habit is subjective, hypocritical, and impertinent. In fact, it belongs to the realm of petty burgeois/lumpen-proletarian attitudes. While it is still yet to dictate policy in France (or, indeed, dictate policies again in France), it has always been the rule in Romania. (I really want to know, for example, what political movement in Romania -aside from the PNR half of the inter-war PNT and the inter-war social-democrats- has ever rejected or done without ethnical protectionism). Dahn 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and Ceausescu was in no way like Dubcek. You cannot compare a shoemaker with a guy whose bio makes me think of Flower Power. But I am still proud Romania did what it did then. :) Regardless the reasons of Ceausescu, the move was supported by the desire of Romanians to get rid of Russian influence, and we partly succeeded, while the Czechs didn't. Saying that you could have predicted at that time what was to happen in the '80s is presomptuous and unhistoric at best. For a shoemaker, Ceausescu did good as president. Too bad the communist system, as imposed in Romania, did not allow better guys to acquire power. And don't compare the Romanian system with the czech one. In Tchechoslovakia the communists came to power lawfully, and they had a large base of socialist/communist intellectuals. The Czech country has always been one of the most developed in Europe. In Romania, on the other hand, it's the communists that took the risk of even initiating mass urbanization (although they got it mostly wrong), so that today's Romania still has to overcome a major social transformation crisis other countries finished with 100 years ago. Dpotop 12:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, Ceausescu fulfilled the idiotic theories raised with Adrianople, while being the first one to be free from the "Jewish question". In that sense, every gesture of independence was a nail in Romania's coffin. Sure, Soviet repression in the non-Soviet Comecon countries was serious (although, overall, less than the one carried out by our own "independent" leaders Dej and Ceausescu); but note that all of them have had an easier ride, and most are in the EU now (because, since 1953 perhaps, the main request of the USSR was that they don't attempt the stupid projects attempted by Romania - sure, they have had their own, but Romania begged to top them each and every one). The comparison with Czechoslovakia cannot begin to stand on its feet (although, I must warn you the umpteeenth defenestration of Prague that happened in 1948 does not count as "legal takeover by the Communists/Soviets"). Czechoslovakia lacked the precise phantasmagorical conditions encouraged by Romania ever since Adrianople (including the ad-nauseam sophistry of economical indicators that placed us first in 1938, and which are positive only if you are a producerist). Also, I'd rather live in a country where urbanism came about rather than in one where urbanism was made (I feel compelled to reject the Fuehrerprinzip of Romanian "logic"). Dahn 14:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, you say "you cannot compare Romania with Czechoslovakia", but then you compare. My impression is that you simply cannot apply the Czech historical pattern or standards to Romania. At the time of the Austrian empire, Bohemia was THE industrial region. In their case, the communist regime was by all measures a plague (but again, the Czechs have voted the Communists in power). Romania in 1945 was an underdeveloped , rural country ravaged by two wars and the previous pillage by its king. You can say that things would have evolved faster without the communists, but Romania in '89 was radically different from the one in '45, whereas Czechoslovakia wasn't. Dpotop 16:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to "compare" in order to show why such a comparison would be flawed. If you want to talk Austrian realities, Transylvania came close to Bohemia as an industrial region, and it has been the lifesaver of Romanian economy (btw, the cliché about "Europe's granary" is a good example of what Romania has been doing to itself - few countries would take pride in providing markets with what those countries have in excess). But this is mostly about political realities: Czechoslovakia simply did not engage in adventures and nationalist "economical demands". Romania wanted to jump out from being a provincial provider which could have improved itself as such, to becoming "a world player". Urbanization: o, God, aren't the Bulgarians better off without such experiments? Don't they now have the prime real estate in Europe? Dahn 16:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you cite all the time Adrianople? I sincerely don't have a clue. :) Dpotop 16:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Adrianople. The radical restructuring of our economical relations with the world, and cited by counless Ro historians as the beginning of our economical independence (and thesource of a "need" to create a "Romanian" bourgeoisie). Every half-witted producerist theorem has had this as its watershed. It was also the symbolic beginning of the acute economical discrimination that was to never leave us. Dahn 16:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Romanian

The sample below taken from the Constitutions of Moldova and Romania demonstrates that a formal text in Romanian and Moldovan is identical.

Moldova File:FlagOfMoldova.png	Romania	English
TITLUL I: Principii Generale	TITLUL I: Principii Generale	FIRST TITLE: General Principles
Articolul 1 Statul Republica Moldova	Articolul 1 Statul român	Article 1 (Romanian/Republic of Moldova State)
(1) Republica Moldova este un stat suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil.	(1) România este stat naţional, suveran şi independent, unitar şi indivizibil.	(1) Romania/Republic of Moldova is a national, independent, united, and indivisible state.
(2) Forma de guvernămînt a statului este republica.	(2) Forma de guvernământ a statului român este republica.	(2) The form of government of the state is republican.
(3) Republica Moldova este un stat de drept, democratic, în care demnitatea omului, drepturile şi libertăţile ...	(3) România este stat de drept, democratic şi social, în care demnitatea omului, drepturile şi libertăţile ...	Romania/Republic of Moldova is a state of law, democratic and social, in which the human dignity, rights and liberties...
[1]	[2]	Links to the official page of Constitution for both countries

Mihai Eminescu, national poet of Romania and Moldova

Arguments in favour of writing Moldovan (Romanian) and not just simply Moldova

Main page: Talk:Republic of Moldova/Arguments Romanian

Law

This law still aplies: [3]

Law regarding the usage of languages spoken on the territory of the Republic of Moldova): "Moldavian RSS supports the desire of the Moldovans that live across the borders of the Republic, and considering the really existing linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity - of the Romanians that live on the territory of the USSR, of doing their studies and satisfying their cultural needs in their maternal language." [4]

Other official sources

• Ministry of Education of Moldova
• Academy of Sciences of Moldova
• Consiliul Coordonator al Audiovizualului
• Ministry of Justice
• Minitry of Foreign Affairs
• Minitry of Health
• Ministry of Transports

and so on...

Other encyclopedias or factbooks

• Encarta
• CIA Factbook
• Columbia Encyclopedia
• US State Department

Census

In the 2004 census out of the 3,383,332 population of Moldova, 16.5% (558,508) chose Romanian as their mother tongue, whereas 60% chose Moldovan. But this procent varies from the cities to the country side. In the cities, 40% of the Romanian/Moldovan speakers chose Romanian as their mother tongue, whereas in the country side each 7th Romanian/Moldovan speaker chose Romanian as his mother tongue; that is even though only 2% of the population of Moldova declared itself of Romanian ethnicity.

It is also important to note, that the group of international observers from the Council of Europe, that supervised the census, underlined that 7 of the 10 observer teams noted an important number of cases when peope were advised to declare themselves Moldovans or Moldovan speakers (more info here).

For detalied information about the relation Moldovan-Romanian in the 2004 census see the table at ro:Limba_moldovenească#Distribuţie_geografică or the National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova.

--Danutz

This is amazing! Are you serious? The communist anti-romanian government in chisinau said 16.5% of moldovans speak romanian? Wow! I would have never expected this. Then the real numbers were perhaps as large as the newspapers claimed with 55% of moldovans saying "romanian" and only 45% saying "moldovan". Notice how the census was conducted 2 years ago and it took the Commies more then 2 years to "process" the data -hahaha.

I would say this is a great victory for the truth if even Voronin could not hide the fact that a great number of Moldovans do in fact consider themsleves Romanian-speakers. Notice how under "Languages usually spoken" (Not mother language): Russian is usually spoken by 541.000 people or 16% of the population while Romanian is usually spoken by 555.000 people which is 16.5% of the population, ("Maldavanian" of course being about 59% of the population). Yet what is important here is that the language of the imperialist occupier is in decline (Russian was spoken by 1.2 mil people in 89) while the native language is on the rise. Constantzeanu 17:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you, please, point me to the census results? I've been looking on the web page of the Moldovan institute of statistics, but I found no data on ethnic composition/spoken language. They probably hid it very well. It seems that the preliminary results were public at a certain time in the past, but the archive is no longer accessible. Dpotop 19:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just go to http://www.statistica.md Then click on "recensămînt" on the right part of the page. There you will find various stats. TSO1D 21:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of ethnicity

I think that in this case Wiki rules on official data "have to be used with care" as argued by the international observers to the census. In fact the sentence "have to be used with care" is taken verbatum from what those observers said. They ment it exclusively in cases like these when we try to provide a reader with info on Moldova. The CIA world factbook seems to have taken the advice. Why can't we?

A number of users have engaged in a very unproductive revert war. Please, if you have some disagreements please post them here first and we shall try to adress them one by one. Constantzeanu 00:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

... and one of these users is Constantzeanu. the major point already discussed here, in the talk page is you cannot change official data. You can add comments about disagreements about its interpretation (but only if these opinions are published somewhere). `'mikka (t) 20:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the word Romanian from the top of the infobox to the footnotes and added the sentence Moldavian is commonly considered as another name for (Romanian). Official language is, as per Wikipedia's definition and guidelines, the language noted as such in a country's constitution. I also removed the comparison between Romanian and Moldavian, as this is a direct copy from the text in Moldavian language. We have discussed over this issue several times and seem to be getting nowhere at all. I have no time to leave this note as User:Alexander 007 (currently blocked?) has already reverted them--Asterion 15:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool down, Alexander 007

In your last edits on the Moldova article, you have marked the changes as a minor edit. This is not right. A minor edit generally implies trivial changes only, such as typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes and rearranging of text without changing any content. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it involves one word. The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because you may decide to ignore minor edits when viewing recent changes; logged-in users can even set their preferences to not display them. No one wants to be fooled into ignoring a significant change to an article simply because it was marked "minor." So remember to consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option. --Asterion 14:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, watch your language. Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. --Asterion 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: Leaving comments here as user's talk page seems to be blocked or protected. --Asterion 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

To Asterion

Asterion, I urge you to reconsider reverting the page and criticizing the other users, especially Alexander. The problem is that the language issue has been discussed numerous times and finally we seemed to have reached a consensus on leaving Romanian in parantheses but not going any further. You can see the more recent round of the discussion at the top of the page. The issue is very controversial, and we have spent a great amount of time trying to find the best solution. Alexander did not even support the inclusion of Romanian in parantheses in the beginning, but he fights for it now because that is the conclusion we reached. Do not become angry with him if he is a bit frustrated, but the issue absorbed much effort from numerous users and now you appear suddenly and revert the page without even reading the long discussion above. TSO1D 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Asterion, I would likewise ask you to reconsider the matter at hand and try to view this from all angles. I would also like to point out yet again something which I find is being ingored by those who advocate this Stalinist and communist theory, that a Moldovan identity separate of a Romanian one exists. What I would like to point out is the adivice by the International observers, which states that data from the referendum should be used with care since some of the question (especially langauge and ethnicity) were not conducted fairly. Many organizations have taken this advice already :). I don't see why Wikipedia should be an exception. Constantzeanu 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from making further edits on this. However I must point out it goes against Wikipedia's own guidelines and definition of Official language. Regarding my criticism of Alexander 007, I simply pointed out he should not use offensive language. The outstanding point, for which I am still awaiting a reply, is the duplication of the Language comparison table on this article. This is completely redundant as it has been taken directly from the Moldovan language page, word by word indeed! --Asterion 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. Yet Wikipedia rules have to be taken in light of the warning issued by the international observers Constantzeanu 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophistry alert. Is this about people "declaring themselves Moldovans" (under alleged pressure), or about the Moldovan language being described as official (with or without ambiguities)? Because the two issues do not appear to be connected (and, again, the first is subjective and likely exaggerated). And, again, the language issues go on language page (you make no extra point when you copy-paste from there). Dahn 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. People talk here about language, not ethnicity. And again, writing "moldovan (romanian)" simply states that a controversy exists. You cannot bury this essential point under a reference, assuming readers will take it. Dpotop 22:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Asterion, I am not a big supporter of the table, however just for your information it was not copied here from the Moldovan langauge page, but vice versa. The table existed on the Moldova page for a long period, then it was removed, then it reappeared, and finally it was moved to Moldovan language. TSO1D 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And why oh why is it that it should remain here and not there? Dahn 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mika's revert

Someone just made a revert breaking any kind of dialog here. His user name is User:Mikkalai. --200.43.108.10 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bonaparte. Dahn 20:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mika's edit should be revert I think also. --Moldo 20:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be studying for your PhD? —Khoikhoi 20:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think one can be so rude not to see the whole debate above and to step like that into an edit war. --Moldo 20:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think that his edits bring no good to the whole article. --Moldo 20:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And, lemme guess: you have been reading the debate above... Dahn 20:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

However I'm in between you and Dpotop. --Moldo 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your nationalism definition I must stress some things first:

• nationalism now is not the one to refer from the French revolution, 1789
• gypsy tollerance have been improving

--Moldo 20:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I had been answering to Dpotop who was claiming that Romania has been using the French model of "citizenship=ethnicity" (when he himself has proven that he does not believe this to be the case). Bottom line: official ideology has been, is, and will be ethno-nationalist (while misusing the "nation-state" label). This was not about how discrimination is "improving" (whatever that may mean), it was foremost about how Romania (unlike the textbook France or the textbook Netherlands), will always see "inner communities" beyond citizenship. The very fact that we are talking about "Gypsies" shows that Romanian nationalism is not as inclusive as Dpotop has claimed it is. Please, read my points again. Dahn 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And this is why we're having a primitive debate about whether "Moldovans" are "Romanians" or not. Dahn 20:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the actual topic was about something else altogether. Dahn 20:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The "ideal" model chosen by Romania was in the first instance the Frence one. However, between 1918-1939, Romania faced two important goals:

1. strengthenning and assimilation of new regions

2. leveling and building a "nation state"

--Moldo 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember now that all these concepts must be balanced one more time in European Union. Should it be a Europe of nations? Or should it be a Federal Europe? Imagine yourself EU in 10 years. More likely Moldova will get the status of Associated Country and who knows maybe even Member State of EU. How will be by then? --Moldo 20:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The two concepts aren't antithetic, I must warn you (so this would be a non-sequitur). The point is that nationalism is not only always subjective, it has countless different definitions - and few countries have ever used the syncretic form Romania has chosen as a self-reference. Dahn 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Will that be a debate over having two romanian states in EU? These days have been a lot of solutions proposed, even from Russian politologs, that suggest for example a reunion of Moldova with Romania. --Moldo 20:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In www.ziua.ro have been presented a strong plan for solving any dispute wheather are romanians/moldovans or not.--Moldo 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

States are states. They are not "Romanian" or "French" states. The issue is only translated into ethno-nationalism in places like Romania. Please, see my points again, because this debate is verging on the irrelevant otherwise (without meaning to insult you: I am rather trying to address the content beyond the form Romanian nationalism has imprinted on others, in the belief that all else guides itself after ethnicity). Dahn 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we are starting to move away from the subject at hand. Constantzeanu 21:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I had made some comments on the topic at hand. And your reply is... Dahn 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

GDP

GDP of Moldova is not the one expressed by the Gov. of Moldova. --Bombonel 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The data used currently represetns the CIA factbook estimate for the end of 2005. It is probable that some changes have taken palace since then. If you have updated information, please indicate the new values and the source. TSO1D 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

GDP is around 11 Billions $ and about 3000$ per capita. --Bombonel 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you have a source to back that information? TSO1D 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP pov-pushing - it's up to readers to decide whether Moldovans and Romanians are the same people, not for you to shove it in people's faces

Can one please explain me more in details what is this all about? A user named User:Khoikhoi just reverted a reasonable text bringing this argument. Is it really so? Are the readers well prepared to make the difference/decide whether Moldovans and Romanians are the same people or not? --Hassion 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

...and a user called Bonaparte is being disruptive. Give it up already, will ya? —Khoikhoi 18:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

In the demographics table I changed the heading "Moldovan and Romanian" to Daco-Romanian as the latter is a term that encompasses the two categories. It makes sense to use this term instead of simply repeating the subcategories, and I don't think there's any contrvoversy that Moldovans are Daco-Romanian. (Even Stati agrees). TSO1D 20:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Because I was always for discussion and compromise, I am going to agree to this. Constantzeanu 23:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanians from Moldova want to unite with Romania

Romanians from Moldova want to unite with Romania for 2 reasons:

• economical

As an EU member Romania attracts young people from Moldova to work for better wages. Now, the difference between Romania and Moldova are as high as 5 times. In Romania wages are around 500 € while in Moldova only 100 €.

• cultural

A Moldovan identity doesn't exist. There is now a stronger unification movement that supports a future re-union. All political parties are becoming EU-Romania friendly

Add a link to Moldovan Embassy in U.S.

In external links perhaps there should be the link to the Moldovan Embassy in U.S. http://embassyrm.org/ That is the official website where U.S. citizens would get some information about Moldova and mainly, the application for a visa to Moldova.

NOTE:

When searching for "Moldova Embassy" on Google, the first result that appears is http://www.moldovaembassy.org/ which is not the embassy's address, but instead is a gateway to Consular Assistance, Inc. (www.consularassistance.com) a company based in Virginia. The WHOIS records clearly shows that both www.moldovaembassy.org is registered by the founder of Consular Assistance -- Radu Bujoreanu, also the former Consul of the Embassy of the Republic of Moldova in Washington, DC. according to the http://www.consularassistance.com/who.html

The business model of Consular Assistance consists basically in re-mailing the applications for Moldovan visas to the actual Moldovan Embassy for a $60 surcharge (normal visa fee is $40, they charge $100). This business model is probably not illegal, but is certainly deceptive. The deception is twofold:

1. Even though they claim to be "... gateway to Moldovan Embassies" they do not provide a link to the actual embassy page, that shows the intent to prevent individuals from finding the actual embassy visa application page in hopes that they would use their re-mailing service.

2. The web page and the url moldovaembassy.org shows an attempt to disguise themselves as the Embassy of Moldova in U.S.

Given those reasons, it seems that there should be a link to the official website of the Embassy of Moldova in U.S.

Also perhaps add the address of the U.S. Embassy in Moldova - http://moldova.usembassy.gov/

--Ccabal 06:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian

{moved from user talk:Irpen)

Irpen, I noticed that you removed the Daco-Romanian super-category in the Moldova article. A few weeks ago the header read Romanian/Moldovan, and I replaced it with Daco-Romanian because that is what the definition of the latter word is. Nobody is trying to mislead the readers that the census had that category, however in my view it is logical to leave the two categories apart as the census was conducted this way, but to show their aggregate due to the close de facto relation between the two groups. As some members of various families declared themselves Moldovan, whereas others declared themselves as Romanian the difference between the categories is blurry, and simply presented their sum in addition to preserving the category used in the census makes sense. Once again, I did not introduce the super-category, just the name, and for about a month that seemed to work, even Mikka did not display any opposition to the design. I do not wish to enter into a revert war, and I would hate to see one between you and Contanteanu on this subject, I simply urge you to reanalyze the situation. TSO1D 20:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, thanks for your message. I have no objection against letting readers know that M and R belong to the Daco-Romanian category. By all means elaborate on that right after the census results. However, census results themselves have to be presented in unaltered form, so that the reader doesn't infer from the census something that wasn't there. I take no position on whether Moldovans are Romanians. What I want is to see the facts presented and have the readers judge them on their own themselves. Facts are that Census presented them as two ethnic groups. Facts also are that some dispute that view and some even criticize census as objectionable. The way to go is, present the census results and right after them present a referenced criticism. The lumping together what census considers separate and presenting such lumping as census results actually distorts the results we are trying to present. Again, we are not trying to say that Moldovans are not Romanians. We simply let the reader know that the census didn't view them as such. --Irpen 20:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, however I don't believe that by including a super-category the census results are altered. Furthermore, in my view the previous version [5] might have presented more POV as Romanians and Moldovans were lumped into an arbitrary category with no explanation. Writing the word Daco-Romanian as the top category in my view does not change the presentation of the census, the same results from the INS is presented only a category is used to indicate that the two groups that are part of a closely knit category. The term Daco-Romanian is not contested by the Moldovan government, it is universally accepted that Moldavans and Romanians belong to the Daco-Romanian group which is simply the Eastern branch of these Romance groups. Although the Moldovan government might dispute whether the Moldovan ethnic group constitutes a separate ethnos or is part of the Romanian ethnos, virtually no one decides that Moldovans are part of the Daco-Romanian grouping. Therefore in my view then, as both of these groups can be classified into this category without introducing POV and thus presenting a more clear picture to a reader, using this format is a good idea. After the table further analysis can be provided, that would discuss the disputed attribution of Moldovans to the Romanian ethnos, however the information in the table would make no such link directly. TSO1D 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, I agree with everything in your verbal explanation. I disagree, however, that adding a supercat doesn't alter the data as this changes the presentation of the census. Census does not describe affiliation between the groups. No one adds Ukrainians and Russians to a supercat "East Slavs", while their both's belonging to an East Slavic group is not contested. Here is the census data in an unaltered from:[6]

• Total: 3383332

• moldoveni: 2564849 or 75.8%
• ucraineni: 282406 or 8.4%
• ruşi: 201218 or 5.9%
• găgăuzi: 147500 or 4.4%
• români: 73276 or 2.2%
• bulgari: 65662 or 1.9%
• alte nationalităţi: 34401 or 1.0%
• nedeclarată: 14020 or 0.4%

When we say in the article that these are the census results, we should present them as such. If you think you then need to explain the grouping of census subgroups, by all means do that right after the census. Please give a thought to what would you say to someone adding the numbers and explaining that Ukrainians, Russians and Bulgarians are Slavs and the Slavic population of Moldova consistutes about 16%. But that's a separate issue. All I want for now is to have the census data processed outside of the census table. Elaboration even immediately below is fine by me. --Irpen 01:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this point of view, official results are official results, however we have to remember that here we don't talk about categories like "Ukrainians, Russians and Bulgarians" grouped as Slavs, a better example would be if we would divide Russians from Transnistria in Russians and "Transnistrans" or "Dneparskis".. or something similar. Romanians call themselves Moldovans in Romania too, it doesn't mean that they are a different nationality. AdrianTM 02:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand why Irpen doesn't want to add another category that would include Romanians and Moldovans as that would in fact alter the format of the official published census results, the only problem is that an analysis or a small caveat would in my opinion need to be provided whenver this table is included to provide an explanation for the situation, because many sources such as the CIA factbook completely fuse the two categories under the term "Romanian" without preserving the categories used in the Moldovan census results. I suppose a sentence could be added at the end detailing the problem though. As for the Slav analogy, I also have to agree that there is virtually no controversy from the Moldovan government or other sources that Moldovans are closer to Romanians than Bulgarians to Russians for instance. TSO1D 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

THe OSCE observers said that the "census results should be used with extreeme care", exactly because of the issue of Moldovan/Romanian. The CIA world factbook seems to have followed this warning. We should too. If the Communist and neo-Stalinist government in Moldova and their few Russofile sympathysers on this forum want to use Moldovan only (for their own political purposes), then I am sorry but WIkipedia is an encyclopedia and what an ecyclopedia does is offer information and information should be given from a neutral point of view. The OSCE observed that in 7 cases out of 10, censors pushed people to say "Moldovan", and this is why the CIA world factbook puts Moldovans and Romanians in one category. Constantzeanu 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that, Wikipedia needs to present information and most importantly the whole information (partial information is useless). It's true that people in Moldova declared themselves as Moldovans, however Moldovan = Romanian (in Romanian language, just like Texan or Yankee = American in English). So we have 3 important reasons to show this info: the fact that Moldovan=Romanian in Romanian language, the fact that OSCE as noted above said that census results were influenced by censors, and to make it consistent with other sources: CIA factbook, the map that's displayed in the same paragraphAdrianTM 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

New template

I see that a new template has been substituted for the old "country infobox" template. The new design apparently causes some problems. I don't believe, however, that the new template will stay for long, so I urge you not to make radical changes yet. I just moved the portal down for now as that added an unnecessary new column under the new design. TSO1D 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Moldavian Moldavan Maldavan etc.

All the adjective entries such Moldavian, Moldavan, Moldovian etc. should be replace with Moldovan.

Moldavia was the russified version of Moldova, name imposed by the Soviet Union during the occupation. The adjective version became Moldavian, so the Soviets were talking about "Moldavian" wine, "Moldavian" land etc.

Today the official name of the country is "Republic of Moldova" or "Republica Moldova" in Romanian. The adjective version is thefore Moldovan. So instead of "Moldavian wine" it should be "Moldovan wine". "Moldavan culture" should be "Moldovan culture" etc.

NOTE: Today most Russians who live in Moldova would still insist on saying "Maldavia". Therefore just like in the case of Romanian vs. Moldovan language or nationality, this is a point of contention, and could start editing wars. Nevertheless the offical version should be present in the encyclopedia entry.

--Ccabal 09:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, that first "a" is not really an "a" but an open "o" sound. Or at least, that's what Russians say...Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is clear, the official name is Moldova therefore Moldovan is the preferred form, not "Moldavan".AdrianTM

Just as a side remark, Moldav is also a form related to latin for example "Descriptio Moldaviae", however the modern prefered term is "Moldovan".AdrianTM 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the two instances where the word Moldavan was used in favor of Moldovan. However, conventially in the English language the word Moldavian is used to denote the historical region of the Principality of Moldova, and to describe Moldova before independence, so those names should not be changed. TSO1D 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not the Soviets that coined "Moldavia". If French, at least, "Moldavie" was used in the 19th century. And Cantemir uses "Descriptio Moldaviae", not "Descriptio Moldovae". It may be some degree of Russian/Slavic influence, but then 10% of Romanian is, too. Dpotop 19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan/Romanian

The usage of the terms Romanian and Moldovan are directly interchangable, even in official use by the Moldovan government. Nevertheless, in this article it makes sense to choose the more suitable nuance of the word in various instances for historical or political reasons. In the case of the poem Limba Noastra, it was written in Romanian, before the development of a theoretical Moldovan language by Soviet linguists. Therefore in this case it is much more logical to use the term Romanian language. TSO1D 22:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with that. Thanks for the explanation. What I don't approve of is people switching around offical census statistics so Wikipedia can be platform for the România Mare cause. I guess I can live with Constantz's compromise however, even though it's still borderline POV-pushing. —Khoikhoi 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Khoikhoi. It's important not to confuse this sort of sensitive issue with Boni's nationalism! I am not a supporter of România Mare, the party or the notion in itself. I think that at one point you were ok with the comprimise to put both the added numbers and the official data since this issue is very, I repeat, very controversial and the organization which monitored the census explained in a very detailed manner that the census results should be used with care, which is what i think this compromise between us does. Constantzeanu 18:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Eurovision

Thank you for granting full points to Romania. We did the same to you. Soon, we will reunite, and then there will be no need for exchange of points. --Candide, or Optimism 13:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is crap, can you please don't add irrelevant discussions to this page that's already too big.AdrianTM 15:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Syntax error. --Candide, or Optimism 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

It says on the top of the page: '"Moldova" redirects here. For other uses, see Moldova (disambiguation).'

'Moldova' does not redirect here at all, that's the disambiguation page.

218.228.195.44 15:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It does redirect for me: Moldova AdrianTM 16:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this page directly under Moldova? Luis rib 13:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Telex had changed the Redirect of Moldova to the disambig page. I just changed it back to the Republic of Moldova page. TSO1D 14:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it's not better to have "Moldova" link to the disambig page. The official name is "Republic of Moldova" and there are many other Moldovas. AdrianTM 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out something: whoever created the article Moldova (Romanian region) is a con artist. Moldavia covers both the principality and the informal region of today. Whoever is denying that to underline the supposed legitimacy of his claims to the Republic of Moldova is in fact, without being aware of it, weakening the notion that Moldavia/Moldova united with Wallachia as a legitimate state, through a legitimate act (and chose to become "the region of Moldova"). Can that person see my point, or is he the challenged in ways I would tend to think he is? Dahn 17:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that Bogdaniusca created that article, however I doubt if your accusations are actually substantiated. I will give Bogdan the benefit of the doubt that he was not aware of the existance of the Moldavia (historical region) article as it is a bit difficult to arrive to it, or that he did not know the extent of its coverage, or that he had a valid reason for creating the new article. For now I removed it from the Moldova disambig page and added the Moldavia (historical region) link which was previously missing. TSO1D 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, and I apologize to Bogdan (I don't know precisely at what point the article was created, so it might have been an involontary duplication). My rash accusations were prompted by the fact that I have seen Romanian contributors (other than Bogdan, of course) doing everything in their power to stress a point which I do not find to be outlandish as much as I believe its repetition annoying.

I propose that all links of that ilk redirect to Moldavia, and that the article cover all possible nuances for what is now inside Romania (as, no matter what regions where lost - and they all have articles). The Romanian region of today is the direct successor of the principality, while the historical region is actually the principality itself. Dahn 18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen this discussion, and I do not agree with it. The names "Moldova" and "Moldavia" are the same in native use. The only difference is that they have been borrowed into English at different times. The form "Moldavia" is the traditional one (I've seen it in books dating back to the 1850s), even though it may carry a russian "accent". Funny enough, it's the Soviet period which coined "Moldova" and "Moldovan", which otherwise may seem as closer to the native form of the language (but appearences can be cheating). Anyway, both terms say exactly the same thing. It is quite obvious to me that Moldova and Moldavia should point to the same disambiguation page where the two versions of the name are compared. This disambiguation page should then point (but without preference) to:

• Republic of Moldova - the state of today
• Moldova (Romanian region) - today's Romanian region
• Moldova (Historical region) - including Bessarabia and Bukovina
• Principality of Moldavia - the state
• Moldovan ASSR
• Moldovan SSR
• Moldova (River)
• a.s.o.

Dpotop 07:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)