Talk:History of Moldova

Untitled

"Although it is more than 10 years after the independence declaration, the traces of the Soviet regime's propaganda are still very deep and the Romanian Moldovans are still afraid and ashamed of their origin." I find this comment to be a bit inappropriate--certainly a qualifier must be inserted before Romanian Moldovans, perhaps "some" or even "there are a few groups of." Perhaps the "shame" is not of their origins, but rather of their unfortunate economic situation and their communist mayor in Chisinau as well as their somewhat pro-Russian President, Vladimir Voronin.

The president Vladimir Voronin is a puppet of Kremlin, not just 'somewhat pro-russian'. The mayor of Chisinau, Serafim Urechean, is not a communist, he represents the opposition.

---

Another variant is that was named after a river by a Hungarian noble - what hungarian noble ? -- criztu

Moldova's Latin origins can be traced to the period of Roman occupation of nearby Dacia - shouldn't the sarmatians(iazygians) be mentioned as living in Moldova ?

The Roman cities (formerly Greek colonies) on the Black Sea shore. What's about sarmatians? --Vasile 02:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Polish fief ?

Was Moldova a Polish fief in 15th century ? --Lysy ^(talk) 11:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) ¨ Moldavia recognized Polish sovereignty. --Anittas 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Zubr/Aurochs

Regarding the Moldova coat of arms is pretty much inconsintency in articles some mentioning Zubr and others Aurochs.CristianChirita

Bad etymology

The Moldovan plains were inhabited since ancient times by Dacians, and it is thought that the name derives from the Dacian words molta=many and dava=fortress, city.

That is a really bad etymology. :-)

• Who says there was a Dacian word "molta"? Romanian "mult" (many, much) is from Latin "multum".
• Also, the etymology is not possible because intervowel "v" disappeared from ancient times to modern Romanian, so we'd have moltada or something like that.
• BTW, I never saw that etymology anywhere else. Is that original research? bogdan 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were the one who said that the suffix -va could come from Dacian dava, as it might be with Suceava, tho it seems that the name of Suceava might be of Hungarian origin. --Candide, or Optimism 20:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was me. The suffix "-va" is usually from Slavic, but yes, Suceava is from Hungarians (IIRC, even Dimitrie Cantemir said so). bogdan 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn it. --Candide, or Optimism 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dimitrie Cantemir probably took the information from Simion Dascalu (the same guy who said Siret comes from hungarian Stretem "i like it") , even if an hungarian suczvar would have eventually evolved to sucioara or something similar. Anyway, it wouldn't be the only error in Descriptio Moldaviae.

Capitals of Moldova

The capitals of Moldova were: Baia, Siret, Suceava and Iaşi.

Chisinau/Kishinev

TSO1D: I think the Russian name is justified at that point, since the city (and fom that point, capital) was officially known under that name for a substantial period of time. --Illythr 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I did that was that the name of the city was given in other languags in the main page about the city, and the in other sections of the article. But I guess you are right, during Bessarabia's existance as part of the Russian Empire and the USSR, both names should be given. But what version of Кишинёв should be used? Should the Cyrillic version be used, Kishinev, or Kishinyov? I don't think we should use the strange hybrid Kishinёv that was up there before. I think Kishinev was the English name for the city until independence and that should be included in paranthases. But should it say that that was the name of the city in Russian, I mean Kishinev is the anglicized form of the Russian name, but not the Russian name itself? Maybe the Cyrillic should be provided in one place to explain that that was the real official name. TSO1D 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually now that I looked at the paragraph, I think it's too brief to warrant a full explanation of the etymology of the name. I think it's enough to have Kishinev in parantheses whenever the name is encountered. TSO1D 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that when existing cities are mentioned in a historical background, their official names of that historical period should be mentioned at least once, for reference. In short - I agree with your edits. --Illythr 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The events of June 1940

Hey, DPotop, now that you're here, I have found another option for that annexed/occupied thingy in the Moldova article: The Soviet Union forced Romania to cede Bessarabia in June 1940 in an agreement with Germany... or Romania was forced to cede Bessarabia to the Soviet Union in June 1940 in an agreement with Germany... How about that? I don't think it can get any more accurate... --Illythr 19:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the first version. I'd say "Following the June 1940 Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union forced Romania to retire its administration from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovine, which were immediately annexed". I mean, Romania indeed retired without fight, but it is clear from the letter of acceptation that the Romanian government did not accept the move as lawful. It was treated like an occupation. Dpotop 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The first version is syntactically incomplete, it should read "The Soviet Union forced Romania to cede Bessarabia to the Soviet Union", creating a nasty repetition. I'll just grab your version instead.

My main issue with "invasion" was that it is usually associated with warfare - guns blazing, bombs falling, strategic positions being overrun, that kind of thing. --Illythr 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Principality of Moldavia

And since we're at it, I'm sorry to say, but Moldovenist claims to political continuity with the Principality of Moldavia are quite unfounded and misleading. I mean, people of the Republic of Moldova assuming a "Moldovan" ethnicity is their choice. But this has nothing to do with the Principality, which chose through a democratic process the union inside Romania. The *legal* history of the Republic of Moldova as it exists today begins in 1812, when it was ceded by the Ottomans and then organized as an oblast, then guberniya inside the Russian Empire.

Therefore, the history part of the article should start with something like:

• Most of today's Republic of Moldova, formerly known as Bessarabia, was part of the Principality of Moldavia starting from the 14th century and until 1812, when it was ceded to the Russian Empire following yet another Russian-Turkish war. This is why the Republic of Moldova revendicates the cultural heritage of the Principality and the name of "Moldovan".
• Further Moldovenist claims are controversial from a legal point of view and also lead to political imbroglio. In particular, an official document adopted in 2003 by the Moldovan parliament reclaims the Republic of Moldova as the rightful successor to the medieval Principality. It must be seen, however, that the Principality of Moldova did not cease to exist after 1812. Far from it, its institutions steadily evolved and grew stronger, the development of a Romanian national feeling continued, and the population democratically chose, in 1859, union with Wallachia inside the Romanian national state.

This text should go instead of the misleading section "Roots to 1812" to make things a bit clearer. Dpotop 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actully, I think we could steer away from any controversy by simply tracing the history of the territory inside the Principality and Bessarabia (important developments in the area, with the "Main article" and "See also" system). The same kind of move needs to happen for Bessarabia, which (besides containing a lot of questionable and low-quality info) is very, very, redundant. Dahn 06:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this text is not controversial in itself. It merely expresses two points of view, whose understanding is essential.

I do agree that you should present the history of the territory, but it must be clear that it's the territory you talk about, and not some political formation. The current article starts with "Moldavia", thus suggesting the exact form of continuity revendicated by the Moldovenists.

Cultural continuity, maybe. But "the rightful successor of the medieval principality", this is impossible. Dpotop 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The top part is shaky: I was not arguing in favour of keeping it, I was trying to find a guideline for the new one. After all, we've debated this at length and I believe you know we have the same view about this topic. Dahn 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to put an introduction to the article. What do you think about it? Dpotop 10:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it is required for this article to delve into that. Moldova is not dependent on the theory, and this article should actually refer to the history of the region that came to be a state (in the same way US history refers to Pre-columbians and Czechia's with Bohemia). In other words, we should try to focus this on things with the principality that were relevant to the region, more than repeat info in the Moldavia article (for example: battles which were fought on its territory, etc.); the same could go for its history inside Romania. I do not think this was ever seriously attempted, so it would need some research and patience. Dahn 11:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the information about the Moldovenist theory is not really needed here, that can be found at Moldovenism. This is mostly a historical article detailing the history of the region that now falls under the admnistration of the RM. As for adding information that specifically happened in Bessarabia before 1812, I suppose that can be done, but I don't think that should be removed from the context of the larger Moldavia article. What I mean is that we need to keep some general information that refers to Moldavia as a whole in this article rather than presenting some incidents by themselves. TSO1D 13:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. What I was saying is that we needn't be redundant (for the love of me, I can't see why this needs to state stuff about Bogdan and Dragoş, and go into the routine about how Stephen fought the Turks) Dahn 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Proto-Romanian

As banned user Anittas points out on his user talk page "Vlachian (proto-Romanian) Principality of Moldavia" is nonsense. "Proto-Romanian" is off by about a millennium.

He also questions the name "Dragoş of Maramureş" suggesting that this should be "Dragos [presumably Dragoş] of Cuhea". - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ceded or occupied

Really, when a jackass bullies you calling you an idiot, you are not necessarily one. Similarly, when an evil empire (The Soviets) forces an ultimatum on you, it does not mean the ultimatum is some sort of reference. It's just a text issued by a jackass. Dpotop 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Romanian side never accepted to cede territory. It accepted to withdraw. And given the number of times we discussed this shit, I cannot assume good faith. Dpotop 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember us discussing this before. Perhaps you're thinking about Anonimu? The withdrawn of the military equals to cede the territory. We were ruled by a Tatar(escu). --Thus Spake Anittas 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Anittas. Indeed, it was Anonimu, our national Communist propagandist. Dpotop 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually i'm an internationalist. Please watch the civility guidelines.Anonimu 16:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We lost the land because we were idiots. We should have kept Titulescu and the money from the oil should have been invested in infrastracture and the military. When WW1 started, our military had a very poor infrastracture; when WW2 started, things were even worse. Instead, money were spent on rich idiots and snobbish bitches. If we had done better in WW1, we may have gotten more. Perhaps more of Banat. But we were idiots and in WW1, we couldn't decide whether we wanted to attack south, or north. I always laugh when I read about the Bucharestneans living their last moments of joy, knowing that their stupid city would soon be occupied. Their last struggle was to fight for the Austrians to occupy their city so that it wouldn't fall into the hands of the Bulgarians. Luckly, the Moldavians took matters into their own hands and repelled everyone at the Moldavian border. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

They got rid of Titulescu because he was supporting the International Brigades. Mothaphukin fascists...Anonimu 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

They got rid of Titulescu because he was incompetent. All his work was directed at supporting the post-WWI status quo and the Society of Nations, and concocting useless alliances. This ultimately proved useless. Not only against large countries, such as Germany and the USSR, but also against Hungary and Bulgaria. Not to mention the way he let himself cradled by the promises of the Soviets, while in the end there was no result. So, when WWII started, we were completely out in the cold. Good job, Titulescu! Dpotop 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Like you really hate Romania's interwar position...Anonimu 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand your statement. Dpotop 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Secession?

I'm reading the section on Gagauzia and Transnistria and they are both pretty much described in the same breath and with secession in the section title. "Separatist Gagauzia and Transnistria" or "Autonomous.." which they are legally (regardless of the PMR regime) would be far more appropriate; moreover, the discussion of the two needs to be separated. The one is definitely not like the other. PētersV 21:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at that time (the beginning) they were more or less the same: both asked for autonomy in order to be able to make Russian and Gagauz/Ukrainian official, to be able to legally gain independence in case Moldova joins Romania, etc. Both were (rather rudely) refused and had then declared independence unilaterally. Actually, armed volunteers were sent to Gagauzia as well. --Illythr 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And, one important detail, both were pushed by the soviet authorities to do so. in fact, it was not locals who declared (transnistria) / wanted to declare (in gagauzia) independence, but the soviet apparatchiks. The locals were used in a political game: because moldovan politicians were stupid enough to prevent that. And with all due respect "volonteers were sent" sounds like "I am volonteering you". They were (pertially! and only without munition!) armed. The volonteers were needed for one single thing: psychological effect. The special police units did all the rest, the commanding general of the soviet troops that entered from ukraine into gagauzia and his quaters were arrested, and with that the "republic" ended (september 1990).

But then, after 1991, there is a big difference between the two. Gagauzia followed an exemplary process of negociations, village-by-village prebescite and became the best example of local ethnic authonomy for the entire europe (words of osce at the time). Transnistria followed a different path - war, russian military presence, installation of old soviet apparatchiks to ferm power, end of personal freedoms. That's not the same thing. So, you are both right, only Illythr is right in reference to pre-1991, while Peters is right in reference to post-1991. Both aspects should be reflected in the article, imho. :Dc76\^talk 14:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also have the impression that in Gagauzia there's a functional democracy, there's no such thing in Transnistria. -- AdrianTM 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the situation in Gagauzia isn't ideal and there were some serious problems there not very long ago.

ps. Surely it was evil apparatchiks who did everything - what sane person wouldn't dream of living in the paradise on Earth :)) Alæxis_¿question? 16:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why Russians from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky emigrated to that "paradise on Earth" -- AdrianTM 17:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, that's simple: Darth Igor had used his powers of foresight to see that the Soviet Union will break apart in four years' time and Transnistria will be the place he can do the most evil. --Illythr 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So it was the Soviet apparatchicks who pushed the Popular Front loving ethnic minorities of Moldova to declare independence after their representatives were kicked out of the Parliament building in Chisinau. Hm, a most interesting... point of view, there. I take it, the referendums in those two regions were so overwhelmingly in favor of staying within the USSR because all the voters were apparatchiks in disguise... --Illythr 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Gifting version

I'm sorry, but really, the version being inserted multiple times of late by more than one editor making it like all sorts of territory was practically gifted to the Soviet Union by the Nazis and others is highly POV. I would trust the repeated insertion of text portraying the Soviet Union as benign is not being used to entice AdrianTM into a 3RR. The multiple reversions to the inserted version, instead of stopping to discuss after the intial revert to the original version, certainly looks like such a provocation to me. PētersV 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a clear occupation, even if Romania or Germany "gifted" Soviet Union with that territory nobody asked the people living in those territory what they wanted. And this "gift" was made with the loaded pistol pointed against the back of the head. Portraying any kind of armed robbery as "gifting the wallet" is nothing else than POV-pushing. -- AdrianTM 20:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's how Romania got Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania after WWI, but i don't see you calling those acts occupations.Anonimu 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they weren't, brush up your history knowledge a little bit. -- AdrianTM 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just an act signed under the pressure of the romanian occupation troops, voted by a congress that claimed to represent only the vlachophones (50% of bessarabia's population). The same thing happened in Bukovina (just that there were less vlachophones there). Transilvania was also acquired by a fait accompli politics ( occupation first, negotiations later), ignoring the decision of the important hungarian community there. At least the Soviets waited for Romania's formal approval before entering Bessarabia.Anonimu 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it not exactly waited... --Illythr 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Romanian ambassador in the Soviet Union told the Soviets Romania had accepted their proposal on 27 june. So the Soviets waited about 20 hours before entering Bessarabia.Anonimu 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the Nazis "waited" a few hours (also "offering" Poland a peace deal if she made massive concessions) after the Gleiwitz incident -- so what? That kind of thing didn't fool anyone in 1939/40. You must be the only person on Earth to attach any importance to that 20-hour "wait". Biruitorul 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The same tired, anti-Romanian nonsense. It was our land, OK? Romanian troops can't "occupy" Romanian lands (spaţiul mioritic). And we are Romanians, not "vlachophones" (a term normally confined to the radical right in Hungary). While I respect the rights of minorities (note: minorities), the majority has the inalienable right to choose its own state. And by the way: Romania gave up claims on the western Banat at Versailles, and left Hungary after a few months in 1919 (having crushed the Reds), so you can't accuse Romania (unlike the USSR) of having pursued random imperialism, just acquisition of territories that rightfully belonged to us. God gave us a glorious chance in 1918, and the HEROES of that year - whose memory you so ignominiously spurn - rose up to the occasion. Let us embrace that fulfilment of Mihai's legacy. "Noi suntem români, noi suntem romani, noi suntem aici pe veci stăpâni!" Biruitorul 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just the truth. Anti-romanian would mean also anti-myself, but I'm not a nihilist. It wasn't our land. God didn't gave it to us. We took it from Russians, who took it from Moldavians, who took it from Tatars, who took it from Cumans, who took it from Hungarians, who took it from Bulgarians ... who took it from the the first human inhabitants, who took it from animals... Not "our land". "Spatiul mioritic" is bullshit.. like a nation born out of mountain dwellers (according to the official theory) could be influenced by hills and valleys. The Romanian lands are the lands under the administration of the Romanian state. There are no constant Romanian lands... and Bessarabia wasn't a Romanian land in 1918 (and, de jure, it never was a romanian land). Sorry, the majority of Szekler Land, Western border, Northern Bukovina, Budjak and Southern Dobruja were not Romanian inhabited by a Vlachophone majority, and certainly didn't want to live in the state of the Romanians. Romania has pursued imperialist dreams since its independence... after all it accepted to take Dobruja, even if its vlachophone population was cofined to the Danube coast. Mihai was just a dictator who wanted power. Ceausescu era history transformed that enslaver of the peasantry into a hero. (You see, I am critical of whom I support, unlike you).Anonimu 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that Romania has a legitimate claim to the land due to its past belonging to Moldavia and Romania, and the takeover by Russia. Romania is the successor of Moldavia and Wallachia and as such, can claim land that it feels was unjustly talken from those two factions. Moreover, the Tatars and the Bulgarians were not indigious to the area, whereas we--whether we came from the south or were there already--had cultural links to the land, since it once belonged to the same faction that we lived in: the Roman Empire. You can be anti-Romanian and not be anti-yourself. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that the World was unjustly taken from me, as a descendent of the first man, so I also have a legitimate claim. According to your logic, Mr. Ahmadinejad has a better claim on Bessarabia, having cultural links with Darius, the ruler of southern Bessarabia 400 years before the Romans. I forgot I was a tatar/gypsy/mongol/russian (© Bonaparte & dacodava)Anonimu 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Iranian tribe would've maintained a solid continuity in Bessarabia, then the answer is yes. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool, we're now at the core of this stupidity, in which you mix half truths with outright lies, and mix notions such as Romanian (ethnic) with Romanian (belinging to Romania). If I am sticking with your Szekler Land, etc. argument, you are considering the ethnic thing. Under this POV:

1. Bessarabia was Romanian in 1918, and before that. The national conscience that slowly formed there was Romanian, until the post 1940 Soviet Moldovanization.
2. Southern Dobrudja (and Dobrudja as a whole) was not Romanian when Romania got it. However, both were romanianized. BTW, Dobrudja was taken not as an imperialistic gain, but as a counterpart for Southern Bessarabia, taken by the Russians. For Southern Dobrudja it's different (imperialistic indeed, like any decent country).
3. The south of Northern Bukovina (as well as the Soviet-stolen Herta region) had a Romanian majority.

As concerns Mihai, I agree with you, but not for the "dictator" part. He never got real power, anyway.

As concerns your first argument (the one about Bulgarians, Hungarians, Cumans, etc...) Is this ethnic, or political? If it's ethnic, you should let the world know you have a crystal globe. :) Dpotop 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What half truths and lies? Yes, I was pretty ambiguous, but i thought contributors are smart enough to sort em out. Vlachophone were under 50% of Bessarabia's population in 1918, so it was not "Romanian". The romanian nation was born in the mind of some boyars and then imposed on the masses in the 19th century. Being under Russian rule, the Bessarabian masses missed that imposition, so the conscience of "Romanianness" was not developed. Southern Dobruja never had a vlachophone majority, and Northern Dobruja needed 30 years to get. Dobruja was taken without asking its population, thus it was anti-human (just like awarding a kid to fags). The northeast of Southern Bukovina also had and has a Ukrainian majority. so what? I've never denied that the soviets occupied hertsa in 1940-1941 and 1944-1947. The presence of Bulgars and Hungarians in Bessarabia is documented both by byzantine sources and archaeological remains.Anonimu 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was indeed practically given Bessarabia on a silver platter by Germany, who took France out of the picture, signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop protocols and persuaded Romania to back off. I don't see how this (as well as the other contested changes) portrays the Soviet Union as benign, however. Pretty much every ceding of territory in history was not a happy event for the losing side and occurred because there was no other choice. --Illythr 22:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Germany persuaded Romania just by refusing to support her. Romania was occupied only in October, so Germany's role was not that important.Anonimu 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union by giving 20 hours for Romania to withdraw troops committed an aggression, no country can withdraw troops and administration in 20 hours from such a large territory. Thousands of Romanian soldiers were killed. Romanian Army losses: dead, wounded, and missing by July 6, 1940: 356 officers, 42.876 soldiers, in history there were entire wars where less soldiers died. I also never heard of the term "vlachophone" till now, that's interesting... do they still speak Vlach there? And how come you counted them to be exactly 50%, weren't they the majority even then (and especially then, before being sent to Siberia or Kazakhstan by "liberators"?) And also remember that the Bessarabian Congress called for Romanian troops, it wasn't "occupation" since it's not occupation when the country asks for help. -- AdrianTM 00:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Romania accepted to do it. It could have fought, but it didn't. Now we use figures given by Goma... great... I can't wait for the article about Jewish massacres against Romanians (hope its a red link). Vlachophone is a generic term for speakers of Eastern Romance languages/dialects/whatever-polticized-word. They were actually less than 50%... i guess i was a bit biased towards Vlachophones ;). No, the leader of the Bessarabian Congress protested against the entry of the Romanian troops. Remember that the "but some of them did call us" excuse was also used by Soviets in Cezchoslovakia in 1968... wasn't that an occupation?Anonimu 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get your less than 50% number? Ok, little bit of history specially for you: "The Russian Empire annexed the territory between Prut and Dnestr in 1812. These lands had no particular name before, they were simply part of the Moldavian Principality. Russia had to find a justification that allowed her not to withdraw her troops from this area. They employed a misleading name, stating that in the Treaty of Bucharest of 1812 it was not required to leave Bessarabia. Bessarabia, however, had only been the southern part of what is today known as Bessarabia, also called the Bugeac, but the Russians extended the name ”Bessarabia” to all the region between Prut and Dnestr, so that they could annex it. In fact, this region was the most fertile part of Moldavia, and even bigger than the rump-Moldavia remaining independent. 90% of the population were Romanians." [1] I see here a percentage of 90% will all the russification and "trips" to Siberia for natives it never fell to under 50%. -- AdrianTM 13:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See the 1897 All-Russian census. Even if the 90% in 1812 seems a bit exagerated, it's understandable, considering that the southern third of Bessarabia became virtually uninhabited after the expulsion of tatars.Anonimu 13:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a German troop presence in Romania, but the country was never occupied - a sovereign government continued to take independent decisions, all under the aegis of the great man whose 86th birthday we just celebrated. Biruitorul 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean that piece of shit that didn't move a finger when his subjects where massacred by his troops?Anonimu 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you somehow related to the old royal house? Carol I was great. Ferdinand I was okay. That's it. --Thus Spake Anittas 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but Mihai is King of the Romanians (and hence my King and liege lord, to whom I owe ultimate fealty). He is the spiritual father of all Romanians. Carol II was modern Romania's first Orthodox monarch (despite being an adulterer) and greatly promoted the Church (for instance elevating her Patriarch to the premiership). Granted, he made some bad political choices, but still, a nice guy. Michael was a beacon of anti-Communism in a steadily-expanding Red Tide, and his eloquent example of an exiled King keeping alive for decades the holy flame of Romanianism before being denied his rightful Orthodox throne by a gang of Red thieves (the FSN) serves as an inspiration to many Romanians. Biruitorul 04:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He is no longer King of Romania, altough I think he was allowed to keep his title. Nonetheless, we are under no obligation to restore him as king. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And some say i'm the indoctrinated one...Anonimu 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Romanians would have preferred a non-Orthodox monarch in place of Carol II. One that did his job, for instance at creating (at least) a good army, after all the money he defrauded. I have no problem with guys stealing some money if they do something good in return. But this guy's only contribution was the Carol foundation (which, as a side note, was also used for his cult of personality). Dpotop 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert the "Establishment of the MSSR and World War II" section to either prior version. I've rewritten it based on Charles King's "The Moldovans" -- a text, by the way, that even PMR-propaganda pushers respected and used for their purposes elsewhere on Wikipedia. (I should mention they had to misquote it to tailor it for their purposes, the text does not take sides.) King's work has been hailed as the first English language reference to present a complete picture of the Moldovans and their land. If anyone doesn't like the words "occupation" and "annexation", they are used in the reference. King is an expert in the field (and not some POV nationalist). Anyone not liking the words used and denouncing them as POV is welcome to buy the book or borrow it at the library and indicate where I've misrepresented the source. Hopefully this will save both sides from being accused of edit warring. PētersV 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Dpotop for the edit. Editing is (obviously!) fine. If we stick to what reputable sources say and observe their representations, neither embellishing nor diminishing, the article will make a lot more progress.

   So, for example, where King indicated something Pravda printed, I felt obliged to embellish that as "Soviet propaganda", which after due consideration and following my own advice, I changed to "Official Soviet press." The source did not use "propganda" so neither should I. PētersV 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think these changes are for the better, thanks for contribution and solving this editing war (as it seems) -- AdrianTM 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty of references from dealing with paid propagandists pushing the Transnistrian-Smirnov line. I've just been too tangled up in other stuff to do much here other than to keep tabs on goings on. Glad to assist. PētersV 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Time for another section

I see some deeply indented conversation going on above. Anonimu is contending that "< 50% of Bessarabia's (that is, the later Bessarabia, not the original Bessarabia) were of Romanian origin in 1918", and, more generally, that it was never really majority Romanian? Source(s)? PētersV 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1897 Russian Empire Census counted less than 50% "Moldavians and Romanians" in Bessarabia. Since the general trend of the vlacophone population of the region had been to decrese for the past century, the most cautios estimate is that they were less than 50% in 1918 too.Anonimu 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's tricky how they considered Bessarabia, if they included territories that are now part of Ukraine or not. It's also telling that in 1812 there were around 90% (I see in some sources 86%) Romanians in Bessarabia and in 1897 less than 50%, if that's true that's not an argument to support Russian/Soviet claims, on the contrary this comes to show how bestial the Russian regime was during that time, but from what I see just immediately afterwards under Romanian rule Romanians were around 64%... "În anii 1919-1922, în Basarabia sub administraţia românească moldovenii-români alcătuiau 64%" [2] I don't know what to believe, maybe many were too scared to declare themselves Romanians/Moldovans or maybe many returned from the winter "vacation" in Siberia. -- User:AdrianTM 01:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It included the land between the Pruth, Dniester, Black Sea and Bukovina. You ignore an important fact: in 1812 the southern third of bessarabia was deserted after the tatars living there were expelled. On that uninhabited land, Russia colonized Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Gagauzes, Germans and even Vlachophones and Frenchmen. Excepting the northern part of the region, that already had an important Ukrainian population, all other non-Vlachophone population was concentrated in the towns (mainly Jews and Russians). So, even if the Russian regime was very opressing (of all lower classes, no matter the ethnicity) it was not "bestial". The first Romanian romanian census in 1930 showed only 58% "romanians" after 10 years of colonization (and remember that some ukrainians we're also considered "romanians who forgot their language"), so that source of yours is obviously wrong.Anonimu 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you can pick your words, this is how I describe killing people and sending them to Siberia, and yes there was Russification and colonization of other people since it's easy to give to somebody else something that doesn't belong to you, again, we start from 86% Romanians, if you claim that it wasn't Russian occupation I don't know what that was... I am not sure were my source comes up with 64% Romanians at that time, but even that is irrelevant, the majority (simple if not absolute) were Romanians -- Ukrainians were around 20 something percent, Russians not even 8%... and as you just admitted many were only recent colonists. -- AdrianTM 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sending people to Siberia was Stalin's thingie. During imperial Russia only yakuts & other asian natives lived north of the transsiberian. As for killing, any source that there was any important killing of Eastern Romance speakers(ERS) in Imperial Russia? That land belonged to tatars, so ERS can't complain. Colonization is a fair way to populate a region. Colonists must have the same rights as previous inhabitants (that are also descendents of other colonists anyway), so they had the right to chose the state they wanted to live in as much as the other inhabitants. "We were there first" is a typical nationalist argument, and can it bring only war and destruction.Anonimu 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, since Magosci's Historical Atlas of East Central Europe shows, for ethnolinguistic distribution ca. 1900, Romanian throughout all of Bessarabia and across to the left bank of the Dniester (current Transnistria). Where Romanians are not shown is roughly in the territory which was incorporated into Ukraine, where there is only a small pocket of Romanians, otherwise inhabited by Ukrainians, Germans, Bulgarians, and Turks. So, Romanian throughout what is current Moldova and including Transnistria (PMR, not WWII Transnistria).

If it also shows pockets of Ukrainians in the region of Balti, that map is good.Anonimu 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the map shows a pocket of Ukrainians along the left bank of the Prut in Bălţi. So I think we are good. PētersV 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   BTW, Vlachs are only a portion of Romance language speakers and (ca. 1900, same map) were found primarily in Macedonia and Greece. Vlachophone is a wholy improper term for referring to Romanian speakers.

Southern Romania is called Wallachia (Vlach land) and Moldavia has been refered at times as Moldovlachia. There's nothing wrong with using this generic term for eastern romance speakers. Anyway, it much more neutral than "Romanians", the politicized term that ignores the self identification of people.Anonimu 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Vlachophone means what you think it means... you could use Romanians/Moldovans (if you consider there's a difference between them, or use only one of them, I don't mind if you call them either Moldovans or Romanians) instead of using an improper name (creating a name like that is a bit of original research especially when the term is generally used for other purposes) -- AdrianTM 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

   I should mention Magosci's work has been hailed (hate to use that word again) as the first work to comprehensively cover the historical development of east central Europe. PētersV 01:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alas, calling things what they are rather more not than what they rather more are because no one wants to be associated with alleged Romanian expansionism (quoting politicians, not anyone here). Since there were/are people who are true Vlachs, using Vlach to refer to a territory where Vlachs no longer reside to describe a language spoken by a people who are not Vlachs seems awfully torturous to me. Be that as it may...
   I can't find Bessarabia via the search on the online copy of the census, no help there. Assuming the Russian Wikipedia quotes the census correctly, for the Bessarabia gubernya we have:

• 47,6 % of inhabitants of Bessarabia were Moldavians
• 19,6 % Ukrainians
• 11,8 % Jews
• 8 % Russians
• 5,3 % Bulgarians
• 3,1 % Germans
• 2,9 % Gagauz

If we subtract the territory of Bessarabia that is now Moldova, then just by Magosci's demographic map overlayed on the old gubernya we pretty much eliminate the bulk the territory that is non-Moldavian/Romanian. PētersV 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are only 1-2,000 who call themselves "Vlasi", the rest of the ones usually refered as vlachs in modern times call themselves armani or rumari (diacritics not shown). I don't really see the probem. After all, this is a discussion page, not a mainscpace article. The results can be found here (in Russian, but if you know to transliterate cyrillics you'll understand the main idea). I had a project to publish a 1907 vs 1989 ethnic map of bessarabia. But since i wanted it georeferenced, it took me too much time and i abandoned it. The similarity between the two are striking anyway (i have the non georeferenced 1989 map almost ready, with a gagauz canton and some transnistrian communes unfinished , if you want to compare it with magocsi's).Anonimu 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. "Vlachophone" appears to be used with regard to Hellenistic references, so I believe it really is meant to refer only to the Vlachs, not Romanians. PētersV 02:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

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

The result of the proposal was Page not moved. See discussion at Talk:Moldova#Requested_move. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• History of Moldova → History of the Republic of Moldova -— (Discuss) - The official name of the country is Republic of Moldova. The title History of Moldova is misleading, creating the impression that it deals with the entire history of Moldavia which is not the case. The inclusion of a paragraph about Dragoş and Stephen the Great all increase the confusion. The proof are many of the discussions of the article which deal with problems related to Moldavia and have nothing to do with "Moldova" such as the discussion of the former capitals.

I have attempted to move the article but the move was contested by another wikipedian.Afil (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You have already opened a move request at Talk:Moldova#Requested move. No need to double the discussion.Xasha (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just requested that the terminology used should not be offensive to anyone. I have indicated that the terminology used is offensive. Please be aware, that I have indicated this in a polite manner, simply indicating that I don't see why an offensive language should be tolerated in Wikipedia. Afil (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that we should avoid terminology that some find offensive wherever possible, although Wikipedia policy doesn't go that far. But it's not always even possible. For example, whatever we do with the name Macedonia someone is going to be offended; In that case we ended up with the DAB at the unqualified name but this compromise is probably offensive to more individuals than any other solution, see Macedonia naming dispute. This seems to me to be another of those cases. Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. And that discussion seems to be heading to an overwhelming rejection of the move proposal, so far. Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The proper solution, as with the main discussion, is a headnote linking to the history of Moldavia; if the present wording does not make clear this is not that article, reword. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Weird periodization

I see two probmems here. One is chonological gap in the sections:

1. Post independence: 1993 to 1998
2. Recent history: 2001 to present

Second, why exactly these years are watershed ones? More precisely: in which sources this periodization is accepted? Timurite (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess nobody just bothered to write about 1998-2001. That period was kinda uneventful, as opposed to 1993-1998 (economic decline, political stabilisation) and 2001- ("communist" rule). --Illythr (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary revert war

If Xasha's additions are being reverted purely due to his topic ban, will there be any objections if I intruduce those myself? The sources look good to me, the wording can be neutralized if need be. --Illythr (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is about Xasha's topic ban; also, he's weaseling in a lot of data unrelated to those sources, please mind the gap. --Gutza ^{T T+} 18:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On, the contrary, if you would not bother doing them, Xasha would bring them again when off the ban. So, if Illythr introduces them now, it avoids a whole lot of conflict. Illythr, you don't have to ask such things. I might on fringed occasion contested your understanding of a particular word or two, but I never doubted your judgement. All my past experience on WP says that if I want to prove you something, I only need to bring the evidence. So, when there is other evidence, it has a right of its own. The fact that Xasha also brought this has nothing to do with the right of the evidence. I would never take your edits even as a slight air of confrontation. If not for other reason, then for the hope of you not taking mine. And I am witness to myself that i occasionally do very bold edits. The fact that they are not regarded as confrontation speaks for the kind of people I met here. I am really priveleged to being debated on facts by people who see nothing personal in one's edits.Dc76\^talk 02:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a go. Check it out. It would be nice to verify the contents of that "This new status was considered..." source, as I bet it's going to be challenged a lot. --Illythr (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the sweet spot, and while I concur that particular point might be disputable I think your wording is decent for a first attempt. Regarding "ceded" vs. "annexed" in the context of the Ottoman → Russian handover, it was definitely ceded. I think Dc76 is confusing that with the later USSR annexation from Romania (which was indeed an annexation, regardless of what the treaty actually read). --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Dc76 thought that the wording implied that Bessarabia was ceded by Moldavia, which it doesn't. There's also a redundancy there, between the chapters, BTW... --Illythr (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Perhaps a solution would be to mention the Ottoman Empire in the lead as the empire to which Moldavia was vassal. Also, I eliminated some of the redundancy, but do check me out. Dc76\^talk 02:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, we were both wrong -- Dc76 actually contends that "the passive form creates the false inmpression that Bessarabia was part of the Ottoman Empire, when it was of the Principality of Moldavia". I must say he has a point -- without any further explanation, that specific wording does lead to the impression that Bessarabia had already been something of a stand-alone entity, which is obviously not the case. Indeed, it is typically assumed that annexation is related to an arbitrary piece of land, as opposed to ceding a predetermined self-contained region. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you, please elaborate more one "arbitrary" vs "predetermined". If you want, just give examples from European history of what you mean, that is also fine. My understanding is like this: USA, France, USSR, GB occupied Germany at the end of WWII, ditto USA now in Iraq (the main phase ended with the transfer of power to the civilian gvnmt, but since the troups are still there and not by a treaty to station, but involved in action...), Israel occuied Palesianian territories and Golan height (might even have the right to do so, but the action itself was occupation), then some years latter annexed only eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. So, to me the words are technical (ditto "invasion"), they do not carry a necessarily negative conotation. For example, i am a strong supoorter ot the US invasion of Iraq, and the occupation of that country until such time that the power can be fully handed to a strong civilian gvnmt. I support the occupation! Ditto, I support the annexation of east Jerusalem. These are positives! They bring in my personal oppinion normality to abnormal situation. Of course, "normal"/"abnormal" is not a fact, but a personal oppinion. To a Iraqi general under Hussein everything was normal before, and he is also right. "Normality" is a wessel word, "occupation", "annexation" are only technical. In the case of Bessarabia, in 1812 there was a treaty (with a power that did not have the right to, but that's a different question), in 1940 there was no treaty.(Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty did not say that from this date this territory... In fact, in practice Bukovina was different from Molotov-Ribbentrop maps.) So I see you have a different understanding. I am trying to understand it.Dc76\^talk 02:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

These are different concept that mean different things. Invasion: forced entry of a foreign army with a goal to topple an existing government. Occupation: a military takeover. Annexation - a unilateral process, when one country acquires a part of another. Cession: a bilateral process, when one country is forced (usually) to give up some of its territory, via some official document. None of these are good or bad by themselves, however, some had acquired negative connotations due to political and propaganda acitivity.

To Gutza: I don't get it. Both cession and annexation can be done with any kind of territory. The difference is mainly that annexation is unilateral, whereas cession is agreed to (under threat of arms, usually).

The cession of 1812 was done though a treaty. The annexation of 1918 was done through local irredentists, the events of 1940 are disputable, but the Romanian government did formally agree to withdraw. The events of 1940, 1941 and 1944 were also occupations (not sure about 1812). --Illythr (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

← We'll need a source for this edit, even I find the summary dubious. (True, the summary only mentions Budjak, for which the statistics may concur, but we must be really careful not to weasel in any convenient assumptions.) --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are abosolutely right. i have the sourse and will add it in a few moments.

To all editors (well, perhalps i do not want to extend it to the banned ones): But in general, I do understand that there might be some more such requests. Do not be afraid to put them in the article, on the contrary i wouldn't know i need to do smth if i don't see them. Do not be hesitant to change my wording of different phrases. I never claimed to have the last word. If I don't like your changes, no problem, I'll bring the issue up. No strings attached.Dc76\^talk 02:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not know where to put this as reference in the article, so here is the thing, and we can later put it (if necessary). So, I have the newspaper "Timpul" from 27 June 2008, page 10. It is one-page "Arhive" article "Chişinău, 12 iunie 1946. La CC al PC(b) din Uniunea Sovietică, tovaruşului Stalin". It has three parts: two small commentaries from the the newspaper and the letter itself. There are also 2 photos, and one exerpt from the letter featured. The exerpt reads: "Din datele prezentate, populaţia ucraineană din judeţele basarabene trasmise Ucrainei este minoritară celei moldoveneşti". Now in more detail:

• The first commentary:

Vă prezentăm mai jos scrisoarea secretarului CC al PC(b) din Moldova N. Salagor şi a preşedintelui Consiliului de Miniştri al RSSM N. Koval către I. Stalin privind reîntoarcerea în componenţa RSS Moldoveneşti a judeţelor Hotin, Akkerman şi Ismail. Copia ei ne-a adus-o istoricul Victor Voloşin, propunându-ne s-o dăm publicităţii. [I guess they wanted to say "publicării"]

• The second commentary:

Ziua de 28 iunie 1940 va rămâne pentru totdeauna o zi neagră în istoria tuturor românilor, dar mai ales a Basarabiei. După semnarea pactului Ribbentrop-Molotov şi a protocolului adiţional acestuia, Germania şi URSS au împărţit Europa de Est în zone de influenţă. În condiţiile în care România se pomenise într-o izolare internaţională, pe 26 şi 27 iunie, guvernul URSS îi adresează note ultimative, iar pe 28 iunie armata sovietică ocupă Basarabia. Odată cu Basarabia mai sunt ocupate Nordul Bucovinei şi ţinutul Herţa. Degrabă în aceste teritorii încep deportările şi distrugerea intelectualităţii, dar şi hăcuirea lor în stil stalinist. Astfel, la 2 august 1940, este formată RSS Moldovenească în care intră Basarabia, fără teritoriile de nord şi de sud, dar şi cinci raioane transnistrene din fosta republică autonomă moldovenească din cadrul Ucrainei. Celelalte raioane ale autonomiei, nordul şi sudul Basarabiei au fost incluse în Ucraina.

După război, în iunie 1946, conducerea de stat şi de partid de la Chişinău îi adresează o scrisoare lui Iosif Stalin în care cer şi motivează retrocedarea teritoriilor basarabene date Ucarinei.

• I will give also exerpts from the letter, namely its first part, omitting the second part that deals with economic issues, which are also interesting, but maybe another time, so to avoid copyright issues:'

Dragă Iosif Visarionovici,

CC al PC(b) din Moldova, Prezidiul Sovietului Suprem şi Consiliul de Miniştri al RSS Moldoveneşti adresează CC al PC(b) din Uniunea Sovietică, Guvernului URSS şi Dumneavoastră personal rugămintea de a reîntoarce în componenţa RSS Moldoveneşti judeţele Basarabiei Hotin, Akkerman şi Ismail.

În 1940, după eliberarea Basarabiei şi a norodului Bucovinei de sub jugul boierilor români, în baza unei părţi a raioanelor fostei RSS Autonome Moldoveneşti şi a unei părţi a judeţelor Basarabiei eliberate, a fost formată Republica Sovietică Socialistă Moldovenească.

La formarea RSS Moldoveneşti, în componenţa ei au fost incluse şase din cele paisprezece raioane ale fostei RASS Moldoveneşti şi şase din cele nouă judeţe ale Basarabiei, iar opt raioane ale RASSM şi trei judeţe ale Basarabiei - Hotin, Akkerman şi Ismail au fost transmise în componenţa RSS Ucrainene.

Trasmiterea către Ucraina a acestor judeţe a Basarabiei, care au constituit istoric şi economic parte integrantă a Basarabiei, a fost motivată prin faptul că în ele ar prevala populaţia ucraineană faţă de cea moldovenească; componenţa etnică a populaţiei în momentul transmiterii către Ucraina a judeţelor basarabene Ismail, Akkerman şi Hotin se prezintă aşa precum urmează:

În judeţul Akkerman moldovenii alcătuiesc 18%, ucrainenii - 20%; în judeţul Hotin - 35% şi 41,6%; în judeţul Ismail - 31% şi 4,7%, iar în două judeţe în ansamblu moldovenii alcătuiesc 28,6%, ucrainenii 25,4%.

• [I guess they mean the two southern ones]

În regiunea Ismail, formată de RSS Ucraineană din judeţele Akkerman şi Ismail, ucrainenii alcătuiesc 11,9%, moldovenii 18,3%.

• [my explanation of the above is that some Moldavian and Ucrainian villages were retained in RSSM, e.g. around Vulcăneşti and Ştefan Vodă]

După cum se vede din datele prezentate, populaţia ucraineană din judeţele basarabene transmise Ucrainei este minoritară celei moldoveneşti.

La soluţionarea problemei transmiterii în componenţa RSS Ucrainene a judeţelor Basarabiei Hotin, Ismail şi Akkerman a ieşit din câmpul vizual comunitatea, istoric constituită, a teritoriilor Basarabiei, comunitatea economică a judeţelor de sud, centrale şi de nord ale Basarabiei, comunitatea lingvistică, culturală şi etnică a poporaţiilor ce locuiesc în aceste judeţe.

Se ştie că limba vorbită a populaţiei din judeţele Basarabiei trecute la Ucraina este limba moldovenească. Toate poporaţiile, inclusiv ucrainenii, ce locuiesc în judeţele Basarabiei Ismail, Akkerman şi Hotin vorbesc în limba moldovenească autohtonă a Basarabiei.

În virtutea faptului că populaţia judeţelor Basarabiei Ismail, Akkerman şi Hotin vorbeşte în limba moldovenească, pentru ea se creează o serie de dificultăţi legate de învăţarea limbii ucrainene, ceea ce se răsfrânge negativ asupra creşterii în continuare a nivelului cultural-politic al întregii populaţii din aceste judeţe.

(...)

CC al PC(b) din Moldova, Prezidiul Sovietului Suprem şi Consiliul de Miniştri al RSS Moldoveneşti Vă roagă să examinaţi problema reîntoarcerii în componenţa RSS Moldoveneşti a judeţelor basarabene Hotin, Akkerman şi Ismail, care în prezent fac parte din RSS Ucraineană.

Alăturăm la acestă problemă [propunere??] harta RSS Moldoveneşti în graniţele proiectate.

Secretarul CC al PC(b) din Moldova

N. Salagor

Preşedintele Consiliului de Miniştri al RSS Moldoveneşti

N. Koval

• As I said, I did not copy a big chunk of the letter, b/c of possible copyright issues. There, basically, they make a general economic argument, and then they detail it in 4 points. Dc76\^talk 03:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

section break

Dc76, phrasing like "some scholar" is completely unacceptable in a Wikipedia article. Also, Gagauzia had declared independence from MSSR even before Transnistria. --Illythr (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"National emancipation" is a very positive POV of what was simply a rise of a nationalist sentiment instigated by a number of power hungry individuals. "Increasing self-expression" is still positive (a bit less so), but I don't have a neutral tesm that everyone will like, so probably better leave the US Library of Congress wording for now. --Illythr (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

1) ok, just change "some scholar". I do not insist on my wording of that sentance

2) ok, just introduce it. if you can also add a sourse (at some point, not necessary now), that would be great

3) "National emancipation" is what it was considered by 65% of population. "rise of a nationalist sentiment instigated by a number of power hungry individuals" is the POV that in the MSSR everything was right and noone was abased on ethnic grounds, it si the Soviet POV. "Increasing self-expression" is ok, but it may refer to a very wide thing. In this case it was a movement of "national" self-expression. How about adding this word?

You say: "Increasing self-expression" is still positive (a bit less so). But WP can not present every event neutrally. It can only present it in neutral tone. The way an event is portreted in an WP article should be the way it is in mainstream scholar literature. If they imply positive/negative, we have to, as well.Dc76\^talk 22:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean the tone as well. There's the nationalist POV and the opposing, Soviet POV. "emancipation" is leaning to the nationalist side all the way. And you're wrong about positive or negative portrayal of anything on Wikipedia depending on outside sources. WP:NPOV is one of its core policies. --Illythr (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, "emancipation" is leaning to the "emancipation" side all the way" :) not nationalist. WP:NPOV means neurality of the way facts are presented, not neutrality of the facts. Let's not go into our oppinions about the events. Let's restrict to the title of the section, b/c that we can definitevely settle w/o problems. As for oppinions, we need but to present both.Dc76\^talk 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, yes, the word "murder" is also just a word by itself and is leaning nowhere. But it's application to describe, say, abortion, would be very heavily "pro-life" POV, wouldn't you agree? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of spirit of teasing I would loved to answer "but it is murder"  :) OK. This is not helpful, we are derailing the discussion to a political one on subjects we never thought before. :) I think "Inceasing self-expression" is used in sourses to describe the whole 1985- period, while our section is only about 1988-. So one option is to expand the section. Another is to have smth like "Increasing national self-expression". alterntives are more than welcome. Dc76\^talk 01:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would rather have it the other way around - expand that section to cover 1980-, that is, the period when the national sentiment rose into prominence. --Illythr (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

4) I don't understand changing "Soviet period east of the Dniester" back to"Beginnings of the Soviet period". Could you, please, elaborate. 1924 was not a cornerstone of Moldova's history. This section deals only with what happend on 1/10 of Moldova's therritory in an interval of 16/22 years. How about simply "MASSR" ?

This article deals with the history of modern Moldova. This does include Transnistria, especially since it was pretty important for future (1940) establishment of Soviet control. On the other hand, Soviet influence in Bessarabia didn't begin with the creation of the MASSR. So I guess "MASSR" would be ok too, for now. --Illythr (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

5) How did "the official dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the year had further increased tensions in Moldova" ? I sincerely don't understand what you mean. Most people have never heard anything happen in Moscow/Belavezha. The Soviet Union was already broken in August. Ah, they decided to divide the property in a civiliyed manner, that's a different aspect. Are you saying Smirnov and Topal started this b/c they did not get their share? I never thought of it this way.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had a lasting impression on everybody inside. Additionally, both the MSSR and the breakaway governments had appealed to the central authority of Moscow for moderation. That central authority was gone. They were practically left to fend for themselves after some 45 years of strict central control. --Illythr (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see... Dc76\^talk 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

6) Is any problem of calling the Transnistrian authorities "breakaway"? Not that I insist, but does this add something that is not true even 1%?

I removed that one instance because it was redundant - there's no need to call them "breakaway" at every mention. Once in a section or so is enough. --Illythr (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

fine, very logical. Dc76\^talk 01:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

7) In fact all the other things are minor, and I'm sure we will settle them in one go (there is plenty of room for alternative formulations in each instance). The only real problem is this. Dc76\^talk 22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a source with more exact number of these volunteers Costas sent to "pacify" the locals sould be provided. --Illythr (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is not the sourse. The whole "event" I claim is boggus and never happened. It is definitevely an exageration of something, but I can't figure out of what. You see, who ever introduced that, did not even bother to emntion when. Because here is the sobaka zaryta. If one hides when, one can say anything. The rest of the edits do not pose a problem to me. They seem rather stylistic alternatives.Dc76\^talk 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, but Costash did send those guys in. I suspect the number 50000 is rather ovweblown, but it was in response to those volunteers (and accompanying police forces) did the initially administrative secessions start forming local self-defense units that eventually coalesced into the Republican Guard of Transnistria and local Gagauzian police. Here's a ruwiki article stub about the volunteers going to Gagauzia: ru:Поход на Гагаузию. --Illythr (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not what the article now says. It says that at an undefined moment in time there was also a "Pohod na Transnistriyu". Which is wasn't. Are we talking about the same paragraph? Obviously, I do not negate the Septemebr 1990 events in Gagauzia. But that's not part of the problem. Dc76\^talk 01:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Somebody probably confused the two. The events involving volunteers and Transnistria were limited to the shooting at the Dubossary bridge, when the police & volunteers were not let through at the cost of 3 lives. I fixed that a bit. --Illythr (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I see you understood what I meant. I will let you edit now and will see later, all right? I only have a remark about the sourse you added. Although Memoral is a credible sourse, you would agree that the particular passage is not neutral. Because it selected only events of violence against Russophones. And b/c of some exageration that is totally obvious, like убийство в драке в кафе молдаванина Думитру Молдовану, в ходе спора о новом государственном флаге Молдовы which they consider ignorable, and then when as a reaction to that one gets a punch, or that is such a racist behavior, especially comparing to that inocent killing. Surely, I wouldn't want to be the guy who gets the punch, but would you want to be the one who gets killed? Look, I am not denying the facts of occasional nationalist behavior, but the level of magnitude is the work of propaganda. 30,000 armed nationalist moldavians managed to bit until he dies in hospital one (not two) person (where are the 30,000 guns? why don't they just shoot him?) definitively that was a crime. but i doubt he got punches even from 300, not 3o,000 people. Most likely it was just 3 idiots who should have gone to jail. And devastating CPM headquater is like devastating NSDAP one, that is not nationalism, that is rebelion against the regime. Dc76\^talk 01:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is how these organizations work (gathering individual facts and trying to anayse them; HRW does it somewhat similarly), but yes, that particular passage is not neutral. Still, for as long as a better one is unavailable, it can stay, if we avoid adding its analysis and keep only the facts in. BTW, AFAIK, the volunteers were mostly armed with makeshift weapons, so I just removed the word "armed", until this is clarified further. --Illythr (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"if we avoid adding its analysis and keep only the facts in" That is my policy, too. I do not doubt that those events occured. The sourse can stay, I have no objection. It says the truth, But it does not say all the truth, and it says also things other than the truth (analysis), too. Unlike Dahn, I am content with facts from a non-neutral sourse, as long, as you just said, we do not add the analysis. Dc76\^talk 02:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Catching up on the thread, been busy... I did see the old Bessarabia thing again at the very top...

1. Russia annexed what it named Besssarabia prior to the end of the war, so: annexed first
2. By treaty, the Ottomans ceded the territory at the end/as part of ending the war, so: next ceded by treaty
3. And, oh by the way, the Ottomans had no authority to do so as under the existing relationship of Moldavia with the Ottomans, the Ottomans had suzerainty but Moldavia retained its (ultimate) sovereignty, so the Ottomans gave away something they did not possess.

So, give away something you don't have anyway, stop the war, the big guys are happy, the little guys, well,... just another regional power slice-and-dice. —PētersV (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The usual shuffling about, yes. But did Russia really annex Bessarabia, that is, formally incorporate it into the state, before the war ended? As for no rights - well, the Ottomans probably didn't have the right to invade Moldavia and make it pay the tribute anyway. That Bogdan's little rebellion against Hungarian rule (deposing a legally appointed local ruler) was very much illegal as well. I'm sure the local Tatars and Slavs might've said something about the legality of the Hungarian occupation force military expedition on what was previously their land. Oh, such a lawless world, we live in... --Illythr (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gagauzia

Gagauzia declared independence from the MSSR just as Transnistria did, becoming, well, independent. Meaning, outsode of Chisinau's control. That it didn't take much to bring it back into the fold (not a very defensible area, no weapon caches lying around). I hear, those volunteers just beat some sense into the locals, and those were happy to get the autonomous status in 1994. --Illythr (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated and more interesting, with Turkey's active involvement and all. —PētersV (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"those volunteers just beat some sense into the locals" I am surprized at such words. Can we actually avoid this whole debate?

There is big differnce between declaring independence and becoming independent, as well as between declaration of independence and control. I am sure you know this and I don't have to tell you. From October 1991 till March 1992, Chisinau gradually lost control over Transnistria. But it did not happen in Gaguzia. I told you, I have been at the time in Comrat (I was a teenager), and except the flag on the town hall, there was nothing. There were no policemen, no milicia, nothing. You could just stay in front of the city hall and do whatever you want, like speaking loudly about politics in Romanian. Noone cared! Financial, economic, education and all other matters, including police were abiding by the same order as before, that is byb Chisinau. In Transnistria, on the other hand, was completely different. Chisinau de facto, not just declaratively, lost control.

The autonomy status of Gagauzia is a serious achievemnt, a solution to a problem that could have blown up. To say that someone bit sense into them is to say that the actions of some Gagauz leaders in 89-94 were directed at preserving the old Soviet system, not at improving the situation of Gagauzians, just as PFM was saying. Gagauzians put first their own being rather than that of the Soviets, that's why they were satisfied with autonomy. An indeed, Turkey is a major player. Dc76\^talk 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this'll have to be sourced. Still, Gagauzian declaration of independence is there. It would be most peculiar, if they had followed orders from Chisinau after declaring it... How many official languages did they have in 1991-1994? --Illythr (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am talking about something else. The article says that after August 1991, Moldova moved to regain control of Gagauzia, and in the same sentance with the start of violence in Transnistria. I only state that this kind of formulation is wrong, b/c it suggests the possibility that there was a "war of gagauzia" which does not have an article yet. Gagauzia's declaration of independence is already present in another sentance. So, what the reader understands? that not only that there was a declaration, but Moldovan police lost the area and then went back in force. Which is not true even for Transnistria where the fighting occured only in the villages that refused to subordinate to Tiraspol. Do you see the problem?

I could speak with them in Moldavian/Romanian, but had to use simple words to get understood. Which was kind of surprizing, b/c you couldn't do that with the Russophones in the the big cities, who simply refused to say a word. They complained that having to learn 4 languages in school is too much. So, the only meaning of "official" could be the language of the country, of Moldova. They did not have an official language at the local level back then, b/c at the local level they were just a number of localities, whose (some of the) mayors and concelors would sometimes meet to make some declaration and then go home and do whatever they do in their localities. Looks like a democracy, not like separatism. Ah, it was used by the pro-Soviet media to say 1000 things, that's a diff story.Dc76\^talk 01:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily fighting. A show of force is often quite enough. Still, it would be interesting to see just how far the Gagauzian declaration of independence went. I removed the mention of bringing it back under control fr now. --Illythr (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The flag

Huh, what's the problem? Somebody did a pretty thorough job at Flag of Romania, so the article's got them all, historical, modern, standards, whatever. --Illythr (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I agree. Dc76\^talk 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Neolithic Era

I just got through adding a couple of paragraphs at the beginning of the article about the prehistorical period of time of the area of Moldova. I do hope that what I wrote does not inspire the same level of controversy that seems to have plagued other periods of time in this page. However, I would like to propose either altering the name of the section "Antiquity and early middle ages" to "Prehistory to early middle ages" - or - to create a separate new section just on "Prehistory". There were significant cultures that existed in Moldova territory before the Dacians arrived, and to ignore them seems unscholarly. Saukkomies 01:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Foundation of Moldavia GAR

Hello. Foundation of Moldavia, a subpage of this article, has received a Good Article Review. It is proposed the article be failed due to the poor readability of its prose throughout the article. It also has significant (fixable) problems with the copyright status of its images. Please visit the review page to join the discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Moldova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.europeanairlines.no/Arcticles_Rumania1_250306.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512230751/http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russian-troops-in-transnistria-a-threat-to-the-security-of-the-republic-of-moldova-20998-eng.html to http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russian-troops-in-transnistria-a-threat-to-the-security-of-the-republic-of-moldova-20998-eng.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://omg.md/Content.aspx?id=2437&lang=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Moldova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100513230114/http://kishinev.info/architecture_en/ to http://www.kishinev.info/architecture_en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011752/http://dev.eurac.edu:8085/mugs2/do/blob.pdf?type=pdf&serial=1047909431571 to http://dev.eurac.edu:8085/mugs2/do/blob.pdf?type=pdf&serial=1047909431571
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204031935/http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/eng/40/ to http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/eng/40/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Moldova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204004958/http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2368523 to http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2368523

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bolohoveni land from A.V. Boldur description.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)