Talk:1994 Moldovan referendum

What is going on here?

The source list is longer than the near-stub article, but it looks like this is tagged with complaints that the sources don't justify the content of the article. Can anyone explain exactly what appears to be at issue? - Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears CristianChirita added them, but left no explanation in the edit summary. I'm removing them temporarily until he does. Khoikhoi 06:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no such referendum. Get informed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.138.98.85 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 November 2006.

The references in this article beg to differ... Khoikhoi 20:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This article provides false infomation.

I remember the Public Opinion Poll "Chatting with people", on 6 March 1994, There was NO referendum. The Poll was about Moldova's integrity. The Moldovan press wrote about that. Only pro-Russian sources speak of that poll as of a "nationwide referendum in the Republic of Moldova". Moldovan citizens never answered any question about the reunification with Romania.

Why do you keep this diversionist article? Is Wikipedia a sort of Russia's propagandistic mechanism? Well, congratulations! You succeeded.

If you can support this position with some sources, I'll be happy to help you. The sources can be journal citations, official acts, etc. For instance: what were the actual questions asked? Dpotop 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Here it is the text of the question proposed by the Moldovan government on 6 March 1994: “Are you for the Republic of Moldova to develop as an independent and integral undivided state within the borders recognized on the day when the sovereignity of Moldova was proclaimed (23.06, 1990), to promote a policy of neutrality, maintain mutually advantageous economic relations with all countries of the world and to guarantee all citizens equal rights, according to the norms of international law?” (see The Report No. 4/94 of the OSCE Mission in Moldova). From the above-mentioned report of the OSCE Mission, we can also find out that the turnout for "the presidential public opinion poll on 6 March 1994 regarding the integrity and independence of Moldova was slightly over 75 per cent". Moreover, the OSCE report says that this percentage is high "when bearing in mind that the opposition boycotted the poll and participation from Transnistria was negligible. The yes-vote was 95.4 percent". See [1] or: [2]

"La sfat cu poporul was neither a referendum nor a public opinion survey." [3]

"Pentru observatorii locali era evident din start că legislaţia respectivă poate fi interpretată astfel încît să nu se mai ajungă la declararea referendumului dacă acest lucru nu-i convine fracţiunii majoritare. Vorba e că în RM s-a stabilit deja o tradiţie că referendumurile se pot desfăşura numai dacă acest lucru este favorabil guvernanţilor. Aşa s-a întîmplat în martie 1994, cînd în baza unei hotărîri a Prezidiului Parlamentului a fost desfăşurat sondajul sociologic republican "La sfat cu poporul" [4]

"27 august 1994 - Mesajul presedintelui R. Moldova Mircea Snegur catre natiune cu prilejul aniversarii a III-a a proclamarii Independentei

„Chiar daca luam in consideratie toate lipsurile ce ne innoureaza existenta, putem spune ca in viata noastra exista destule premise care ne insufla optimism… Un act politic de anvergura a fost si sondajul sociologic „La sfat cu poporul” de la 6 martie, in cadrul caruia poporul si-a reafirmat consecvent intentia ferma de a trai intr-un stat independent, unitar si indivizibil, capabil sa promoveze o politica de neutralitate si de colaborare cu toate tarile lumii, sa garanteze drepturi egale tuturor cetatenilor sai, inclusiv minoritatilor etnice. Sondajul a spulberat multe temeri ale conlocuitorilor, a imprimat mai multa stabilitate vietii politice si sociale a acestor categorii de cetateni. La rindul lor, deputatii au fost receptivi la doleantele gagauzilor si au adoptat in prima lectura proiectul de lege cu privire la statutul juridic special Gagauz Yeri”. [5]

"

Nice work. Please, even if you don't sign (which is already not OK), do format the text properly. I found that reading it is difficult. Imagine what other people would think. You could try to format it better even now. Dpotop 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Both [6] and [7] are essential. It is clear that this wikipedia article has to be changed a bit. Dpotop 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the article of King? I'd really like to read it. Can you send it to me? Dpotop 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find the OSCE report. The link provided in the article was broken, and I deleted it. I tried to search on the site of the OSCE mission to Moldova, and I cannot find the reference. Can you find me a working link? Dpotop 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The source [8] is interesting. Not only for this citation from Snegur, but also for the fact that the armistice between Moldova and Transnistria was signed between Snegur and Eltsin. Is it true? Dpotop 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference [9] is long. Didn't have time to read it. Dpotop 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for name change

Given the actual question asked during the referendum, this article should be named "Moldovan referendum of 1994 on independence and territorial integrity". Dpotop 20:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, given new sources presented above, the term "referendum" may be exaggerated, but let's deal with "union" vs. "independence and integrity" first. Dpotop 20:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispite what the quesiton was, they voted whether to reunify with Romania or not. This, for example, says "In a 1994 referendum, the Moldovan people voted overwhelming to not reunify with Romania." Khoikhoi 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have here 2 sources: One is the actual question of the poll, and then you have all those "interpretations" by some organizations. We should include both, but the actual question asked is paramount. Dpotop 23:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have no problem renaming it to Moldovan referendum, 1994. In fact, I'll rename it right now. Khoikhoi 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The changes are OK

I'm OK with the changes. And I will try to answer your questions, Dpotop. First of all, I must say I don't know what do you mean by "format" (I'm not very familiar with this Internet staff, sorry). Yet, I'm not so good at English. Would it be OK if I answer in Romanian?

• Do you have the article of King? I'd really like to read it. Can you send it to me? Dpotop 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Raspuns: Nu e vorba de articolul lui King, ci de un comentariu la lucrarea lui King, facut de cineva din Republica Moldova. Din pacate, acum nu-l am la indemana, dar il voi cauta. P e Internet n-am gasit decat aceasta bucatica de text, cu referirea la "intrebarile tendentioase" formulate de autorii sondajului din 1994.

Translation: "I'm not tlaking about King's article, but about a commentary on his work, made by someone from Moldova. Unfortunately, I don't have it on hand right now, but you look for it. On the internet I have not found more than this bit of text, with reference to the "biased question" formulated by the authors of the 1994 survey." (translation courtesy Node)

• I cannot find the OSCE report. The link provided in the article was broken, and I deleted it. I tried to search on the site of the OSCE mission to Moldova

Raspuns: Va referiti la Raportul Misiunii OSCE în R. Moldova nr. 4/94, 16 martie 1994? Nu l-am gasit nici eu, presupun ca el nici nu este diposnibil online. Multe dintre rapoartele OSCE nu sunt publicate pe situl lor. Cu atat mai interesante sunt "comentariile" din raport (ele parca ar fi fost copiate dintr-un ziar rusesc din acel timp!) Tin minte foarte bine acel referendum. N-au existat, la acea data, discutii publice despre vreo reunificare cu Romania. Da, erau (si sunt si acum) unele forte politice care o doreau, dar ele nu aveau acces la mijloacele mass-media, si, in plus, nimeni n-a propus vreo cale, concreta, de realizare a unirii. Atmosfera generala era una explozobila: pe de o parte nimeni nu intelegea ce face Snegur cu "chestiunea Transnistreana" (cedeaza sau mai "lupta?), pe de alta, ni se spunea ca trebuie sa facem "concesii" in fata Rusiei, ca sa fim lasati in pace. Si prin "concesii" se intelegea, desigur, campania antiromaneasca din audio-vizual si presa oficiala si cea rusa.

Translation: "Will you look at Are you interested in the report of the OSCE mission in R. Moldova #4/94, 16 March 1994? I haven't found it at all, I assume it's not available at all online. Many of the OSCE reports aren't available from their site. So interesting are the "comments" on the report (apparently they were they could have been copied from a contemporary Russian newspaper!) That referendum sit very strong. I remember very well that referendum. You won't find in that data At the time, there were no public discussions about any reunification with Romania. Yes, there were (and there is still now) a political force who wants it, but they don't didn't have access to the resourceless mass-media, and also nobody has proposed any concrete path to the realisation of unification. The general atmospere was an explosive one: on the one hand nobody understood what Snegur was doing with the "Transnistrian question" (surrender or more struggle?), on the other hand, nobody said we were told that we would need to make "concessions" to Russia so that they would leave us in peace. And through these "concessions" it was started, of course, an anti-Romanian campaign on radio and TV in the official media and in the Russian media." (translation courtesy Node, corrected by Dpotop 09:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

• The source [8] is interesting. Not only for this citation from Snegur, but also for the fact that the armistice between Moldova and Transnistria was signed between Snegur and Eltsin. Is it true? Dpotop 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Raspuns: Yes, it is.

• Reference [9] is long. Didn't have time to read it. Dpotop 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Raspuns: In comentariul prea lung la care va referiti este important, in fond, fragmentul citat, care face referire la situatia tipica pentru Republica Moldova, si anume: ca orice referendum, practic, poate fi initiat numai de putere si numai daca asta convine puterii.

Translation: "In the overly long comments it's important that you find, in essence, a fragment of a quotation, which makes reference to the typical situation for R. Moldova, namely: that practically any referendum could be called only by the people in power and only if it was convenient for them." (translation courtesy Node, corrected by Dpotop 09:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

P.S. Imi cer scuze ca nu am scris in engleza. Problema e ca nu am nici acces permanent la Internet, asa incat sa pot sta mult timp (acum scriu dintr-un local public din centrul Chisinaului), ca sa scriu foarte des, si nici cunostinte bune de engleza (am facut franceza in scoala). Voi reveni cu noi surse (articole din 1994, care nu sunt pe Internet), dar mai tarziu, cand voi gasi timp sa le copiez. Multumesc pentru intelegere. Va urez succes in ceea ce faceti.

Thanks for the replies. If you have an e-mail, we could talk directly (in Romanian). My e-mail is dpotop1@yahoo.com. Dpotop 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to give a rough translation of the above answers to any person interested. But I won't do it without being asked (in CS, this is called lazy computing, guess why). Dpotop 22:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the translation of User:Node_ue, because I felt it was not correct. Node, you still need those grammar lessons. Dpotop 09:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And I feel that many of your corrections are pedantic. Rather than congratulating a "foreigner" for a mediocre knowledge of your language, as would be done in most countries, I am consistently subjected to harsh criticisms and comments on how my Romanian is "horrible". And in this vein, you are being hypervigilant, trying to spot errors in my translation. I certainly made some, but you invented ones that aren't really "errors" simply because they don't exactly preserve a grammatical parallel to the original. In some cases, you show your own poor understanding of the rules of English grammar by replacing an idiomatic translation with a nonsensical literal translation. --Node 10:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Node_ue, I am not being overly pedantic. Your translation changed the sense of the text (you can see it by comparing the striked text with the current one). In some cases, you even write the opposite of what the original text said (e.g., "nobody said" vs. "we were told that"). So it's not a question of grammar, it's about correctly conveying ideas (semantics). It just happens that your current level in Romanian did not allow you to correctly understand the text. Dpotop 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking only by way of my own learning of Romanian: Isn't "Va referiţi" above "Are you referring to"? Because I see two translations offered, and neither is this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone answer my question? By the way (I mention this only because we are talking about language): striked ==> stricken. - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)