Jump to content

Talk:Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old talk

[edit]

What is this??at the demographics?? Moldovans and Romanians are the same thing...there's no difference..it's as if one said that there was a German minority in Austria, or that people in San Marino aren't Italian.

There is no difference between the moldavian language and the romanaian...there are only political interests antonio.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.161.228 (talk • contribs)

This situation is somehow explained in articles Moldovans and Moldovan language, but there is also the official data from censuses and from Soviet and later Moldavian constitution. That data should be kept and not changed to meet someone's POV. --Zserghei 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the official data is POV. Giving only this data means expressing only the view of the Soviets/Moldovenists. bogdan 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be clarified either in the articles corresponding to the ethnicity and to the language or below the census like in Republic of Moldova. Changing Moldovans to Romanians in every census and Moldovan language to Romanian language in every infobox is not a proper solution. --Zserghei 23:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what are Moldovans? I speak about Moldovans from both Romania and Moldova? Aren't they Romanians? --Chisinau 12:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah but back in 1989, only 3000 people were marked as romanians and not 1.8% of the population.Constantzeanu 07:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History section NPOV

[edit]

Speaking about Romanians in Transnistria is ignoring historic aspects of ethnics, culture and tradition. Somebody seem to just replace "Moldavian" to "Romanian" throughout the text. Historically, Transnistria didn't have significatnt links with Romania, which led to a formation of a distinct Moldavian ethnic identity in 19th and 20th century. Transnistria was a part of Russian Empire since 1792, Bessarabia since 1812, while the state of Romania was formed later, in 1859. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Masiutin (talk • contribs)

Are you satisfied with the section as it is now? Looking at it cannot see a pronounced POV. If you believe the tag should be preserved, please list specific concerns that you have. By the way, please sign your statements. TSO1D 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what does it mean "and it gave many rights to the Romanian minority there, possibly to encourage a dissent of the Romanian Moldavians."? --Maxim Masiutin
I removed that clause because it was confusing at best. TSO1D 21:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have removed the POV-clause. --Maxim Masiutin 08:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and Ideology NPOV

[edit]

This section is not politically neutral, it is exclusively devoted to the negative sides of the Soviet propaganda and ideology. It ignores historical backgroud of that region.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Masiutin (talk • contribs)

Feel free to add the possible sides of Soviet propaganda and ideology to add balance, if you can do so within the framework of rules on which Wikipedia operates. If you believe a part of the text diplays bias or is unsusbstantiated, please explain your issue so it can be adressed. TSO1D 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to say anything positive about soviet propaganda, but the title ot the section is "Culture and Ideology". By Culture I mea art, music, literature, and related intellectual activities, knowledge and sophistication. There is nothing said about culuture in this section. Only about propaganda, as though culture didn't ever exist. Don't force me to "either you write about culture or I will remove the NPOV clause", because the section is factually NPOV now, beleive it or not. --Maxim Masiutin 13:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would changing the title of the section to just ideology solve the problem? TSO1D 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the phrase"In order to emphasize the alleged differences and to break ties with Romania, Moldovan language was written with the Cyrillic alphabet" is POV, it doesn't clarify the preceiding use of Cyrillic in Transnistria and Principality of Moldova. Also, there is no confirmation for the figures "hundreds of thousands", a citation to a trustworthy reliable source is needed. --Maxim Masiutin 08:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

[edit]

No composition per sector (agriculture, industry, services) figures are given (but there is a statement that MSSR was solely agricultural) and no figures how many industrial object have been built in Transnistria and the rest of MSSR, altough there is a false statement that the only region where industry was built was Transnistria. The origin of the data of this Economy section is unknown. nformation on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. --Maxim Masiutin 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the history section

[edit]

I did some minor clean up of DC76’s addition to the history section. However, I also made two substantive changes:

  • I changed “communist party activists” to “conservative activists”. Mostly the leadership of the OSTK was from the professional elite in Tiraspol—factory managers, shop foremen, skilled engineers, and other industrial leaders. There were a few communist party workers, but they made up less than 10% of the organization.
  • I took out the statement that the war took place when Russian troops helped separatists. What I think is intended is that elements of the 14th Army which was claimed by Moldova, Russia, and Pridnestrov’e took part in the fighting. It was not until most of the fighting was over that Russian troops under Russian command took part in the conflict. Or, at least, this is what most English-language scholarship maintains. If some scholars claim that Moscow ordered Russian army involvement earlier, then it should be presented as a historical debate and not an established fact. jamason 09:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry for my quick edit, which I did not even bother to re-read b/c I was in a little hurry. Very sorry, and thank you very much for corrections.

  • My addition of "communist party activists" was meant in reference to people in Chisinau, in addition to people in Tiraspol, many of which were not communist activists. I should have not ersed "conservative activists in the east", sorry. I was thinking of MSSR as a whole.
  • I believe "After an initial desire to unify with Romania" might desearve to be restored, since that was all very actual in 1990-91, but became less important after Moldova's declaration of independence in 1991. Again, in my intention of reflecting on MSSR as a whole, I must have chose a wording that in the particular case of Transnistria sounded strange, at least before Jamason's clean up.
  • no, you are right. Russian army only lent weapons to the breakaways fighters, but engaged in fighting only during the last month.

Again, if I would have sone a good edit, all these problems would have been avoided. I'll never edit in a rush again. :Dc76 13:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem--The changes I made were all very minor. The only reason I took out the clause about Romania was that the subject of the sentence, "it," referred back the the Parliament of Moldova. We should bring it back in, though. Maybe something like: "Although many parliamentary leaders expressed a desire to unite with Romania, the country became a sovereign, independent country on August 27 1991 after the failed putsch." Agreed? Also, do you happen to have any citations for this sentence? For example, any excerpts of Popular Front election platforms or quotes of Druc, Khadyrke (sp?), Dabizha (sp?), etc. calling for unification of Moldova and Romania? Thanks! jamason 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something like the sentense you are suggesting is absolutely fine. I don't have any citations at hand, b/c right now I'm not in Moldova, but I'll try finding something online. Anyway, "it" could have refered to who knows what :-), for if I read myself, I write bad, if I don't - it's a desaster. Thank you for correcting. In the future, please be bold in correcting me if you happen to see something not fit (if there will be something i'd want to insist on, I'll bring it back, don't worry)
Just a little funny how you spelled the names :-) Druc [drooc] is correct. Hadîrcă [kha-dyr-ka] (with last "a" as in "cat"; and I hope you know the sound î="y" b/c I don't know how to find an English equivalent), Dabija [da-bi-zha] (j=zh you might know the sound if you know a couple words in French, or if you've see several word in pinyin (Chinese)). For both Hadîrcă and Dabija, the stress is on the second of the three syllabes.:Dc76 10:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expended the history section here with the contents from a section in History of Moldova+copyeditted. IMHO, the history part of this article should be developed, while the section in History of Moldova should stay about the size as is now - of course, the content there would have to be editted more, at least to create the impression :-) that it's different from (a resume of) the one here. I couldn't find a specific citation yet for what you asked. I added some dates though in a ref-/ref (I found some info here + click on "historic", but this is a political party's website, and i'm not trusting them 100%, b/c there is a lot of POV there and especially promotion of current politicians "in historic perspective", but i'd doubt they'd falsify the dates). Please, be bold in editting. cheers,:Dc76 12:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

[edit]

It seems that given that the formal name for this nation was "Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name. Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we? --Micahbrwn (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this multimove here --Lox (t,c) 11:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Romania

[edit]

I think this should go to Soviet occupation article, as a subsection there, since it is not only about Moldavian SSR, but about entire Bessarabia and northern Bukovina/User:Dc76

Well, the relationship and debate was between the Moldavian SSR and Romania and AFAIK, there was no dispute between the rest of the regions and Romania, so probably it's more appropriate here. bogdan (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I must be misunderstanding something here. Was MSSR one side in this debate and Communist Romania the other? I think one side was USSR, if not that it was mostly a monologue, for the Soviets cared less about what Romanian communists were saying - they knew Romanians won't dare do anything official, even an inocent official declaration. Do we have at least one declaration from communist Chisinau? I proposed to move it there, b/c there we have a section with reaction to the occupation, where I intend to add that of USA, etc. So I was simply thinking of a larger picture. But, as I said, I must be missing some point... Would you explain me, please. Dc76\talk 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This, and the fact that MSSR was as occupied by Soviets as were Moscow or Leningrad in 1917-1991. Good luck with changing sections 2,3 and 4 of this article to "Soviet Occupation".Xasha (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not responding to provocation. Dc76\talk 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather move most of the stuff from there to here, seeing as how the persecutions and all was directly caused by the Soviet administration (I.E., the MSSR), which was in turn established during the occupation. Thus the detailed stuff should be here, whereas there should be a short summary the size of the intro here. --Illythr (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, disagree. But not entirely. Technically, the Soviet occupation is about areas that were alotted to Ukraine as well, and as Soviet policies in those areas did not differe a iote from the policies in MSSR, moreover they were against the same individuals and groups of people, they should be treated in one place. Those areas are not just a few villages. And when someone talks about Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, we should not put words in that person's mouth and claim he said something about MSSR. It is a different story about 1956-1989 era, when most events, attitides, etc were MSSR-specific, and I definitevely agree to have this article as the main article for the post-Stalinist period. For example, is USA's position regarding B&NB about MSSR? No, they say clearly about what they talk. Is the thaw and stagnation about MSSR? Yes, because the same periods about areas in Ukraine should mention Ukrainian communist leaders, and that means one should read UkSSR. ETC, we can give dosens of such examples. Dc76\talk 08:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC) So, let me say again: If B&NB were kept in one place, then I would support what Illythr just said. But, according to reality, it was not. Dc76\talk 08:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmhm, stuff

[edit]
  • These moves angered... - this is an oversimplification of what really happened, and sitting as it is now, it presents things in such a manner that PMR's secession and associated conflict arose solely from the language law, i.e. "evil commies and occupants hated the national emancipation" thing - essentially the nationalist point of view on the events of 1988-1992. This should either presented fairly, or not at all (already described here and here for instance).
  • considered politically sensible you probably meant "sensitive," as "sensible" is something that makes sense. If you're referring to the stuff like Lysenkoism, (active repression of genetics) that has already passed with Stalin. Might be a good idea to provide an example.
  • hopes people had in American intervension - Huh? American intervention into Soviet territory? in the '60s? This is a pretty wild idea, stated remarkably inappropriately (what, like, the whole people?). Seems to be an attempt to carry over a slightly more tangible expectation that did occur to the west of the Prut. Should stay out until substantial evidence of its existence in the MSSR is brought in. --Illythr (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be a simplification not to mention other things (please, do help bring more info), but that is not a reason not to mention that language issue was key. And I disagree that War of Transnistria or History of Moldova are more central articles to this issue. Moldavian SSR is. War of Transnistria is not the only thing that stemmed from 1988-92, and History of Moldova might grow too large in the future, hence some details might be omitted there. I think the proper place for those details is this article, until a proper article on 1988-92 would appear, which does not seem to happen in the next years.
    • Yes, you are right. I am sorry for the mistake in words. I presume you would not deny the existance of areas that were under tight control: Genetics, History, Philosophy, Teology, the substancial part of Economics. That is what I mean to say. That I am not a good orator is a well-known thing, so please be bold and correct me where is the case. I never minded your corrections :) There always were a great inspiration to me.
    • Definitevely not in 1960s. I thought it was clear that 1960s can not be before 1956? :):) American intervention was expected by the anti-Soviet resistance in Moldova, especially in 1949-52. After 1952, when most of it was destroyed, hopes were theoretical only. I would illustrate and cite in more detail when the article about resistance will come. Please, take no offence in what I am going to say: this is by no means a case of me trying to "carry over" something from across the Prut, please assume good faith in this respect, myself I did not know much about this before I read more. However, i agree with you that I added it perhaps a bit too early, it should come with the other future articles. Dc76\talk 18:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By providing links to those two articles I also provided a relatively neutral form to describe the events. Yes, the process of establishing of the (sole) official language was central to the chain of events, but presenting the whole thing (strife, secession, war) as the wrath of "some apparatchiks" is very bad.
      • Heh, Theology was present under "Scientific Atheism," well, sort of... Besides, it is not a science. The rest were, of course, presented and (developed, more or less) from a Marxist-Leninist POV, still this is best sourced somehow.
      • Actually, a source is needed for the existence of such resistance beyond 1952 or so. I'm not aware of any analogues to Forest Brothers and the like. The source must then explicitly state that these people had indeed somehow believed that Operation Unthinkable was not as unthinkable as it, well, was. And how many there were, too. This map, for example, does give one red dot, but it provides neither the time scale, nor the source it utilizes, unfortunately. --Illythr (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New sections needed

[edit]

As Bogdangiusca pointed to the fact that new sections and subsections should be added only with something written in them, here is a list of sections that are missing in the article. Please do help to write them:

  • subsection Soviet apparatus in section Organization and leadership
  • subsection Energy and transport in section Economy
  • subsection Education" in section Economy
  • subsection Immigration in section Society
  • subsection Emigration in section Society
  • subsection Health care in section Society
Dc76\talk 19:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a need for a separate "Soviet apparatus" subsection? The whole organization was pretty much a part of said apparatus. Also not sure about emigration - was there anything of note at the time? We're talking voluntary there, right? --Illythr (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Communist Romania

[edit]

I think this should go to Soviet occupation article, as a subsection there, since it is not only about Moldavian SSR, but about entire Bessarabia and northern Bukovina/User:Dc76

As this is something concerning general state politics and extends way beyond the occupation (into 1991), it should go to Soviet-Romanian relations, an article that unfortunately doesn't exist, instead. --Illythr (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

civil war?

[edit]

The text says:

"..civil war began in Transnistria.."

Was it really civil war? --Chisinau 12:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to war of words? There was notable amount of military action taken --Frozenport (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Moldavian instead of Moldovan

[edit]

I believe the name Moldavia/n, in English, refers to the historical region and the old principality, whereas the name Moldova/n refers to the now independent country, so I'm thinking that since the M. Soviet Socialist Republic was created with the objective to link it to Bessarabia (what is now Moldova), it would be more consistent to call this short-lived country for Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic. Any thoughts? --Cei Trei (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article editing

[edit]

There are certain users who have been editing other SSR articles on Wikipedia for the past year, by stating that the soviet republics existed until the adoption of their new constitutions in the mid-1990s.

Moldavian SSR declared itself independent and changed its name to Republic of Moldova in 1991, and there are absolutely no arguments to back up that this state existed until 1994. That would be rewriting history. A new state is not just a matter of all-new constitutions, but also of its status and form of government. Afghanistan has had a lot of states since the abolishment of monarchy in the 1970s: the First Republic (1973–1978), Democratic Republic/Second Republic (1978–1992), the Islamic State (1992–2001), the Islamic Emirate (1996–2001), the Afghan Interim Administration (2001–2002), the Afghan Transitional Administration (2002–2004), and the present-day Islamic Republic since 2004. Yet they have only had four constitutions since then: 1976, 1987, 1990 and 2004. Is that to say that we should change these yearspans totally as well, so that most of these states didn't exist? The People's Republic of Hungary ended in 1989, but an all-new constitution was first made in 2011. Should we also say that the PR of Hungary existed until 2011, then? That would make little sense. Although Moldova did not adopt a new constitution before 1994, there's no doubt about that it was a totally different state. It had a totally different form of government, its name was changed, it was an independent state (not a federated state), it was not a Soviet socialist republic. These factors are a lot more independent than the adoption of an all-new constitution. And although the constitution was not all-new, and formally the same constitution although heavily amended, it was amended to fit a new state and was not really the same constitution in practice. You'll have to agree that the 1991 transition is a lot more historically significant change in Moldova's history than the adoption of a new constitution. A.h. king • Talk to me! 21:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. 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:

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) 14:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moldavian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic&oldid=1209126018"