Talk:Gagauzia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 14, 2006.


according to [1], the census data from 2004 shows that the population of comrat was not even close to 70.000 people. Constantzeanu 02:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official language of The Republic of Moldova, has been ever since independence "Moldovan"(which is virtually the same as romanian), so I don't understand the statement "The Gagauz national movement intensified when Romanian was accepted as the official language of the Republic of Moldova.", that never happened, the President of the Republic Of Moldova, Mircea Snegur, proposed that Constitutional Amendment to the Parliament but it failed and was classified as "Romanian Expansionism", so, therefore I am deleting that sentence. Sufitul 13 April, 2006

You've mixed up the two events: Upon independence, Romanian was indeed accepted as the state language. Then, an amendment to the Constitution was made in 1994, changing the name to "Moldovan". It was Snegur's attempt to change it back to "Romanian" in 1996, that was rejected as "Romanian Expansionism". See Movement for unification of Romania and Moldova#Independence of Moldova. --Illythr 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The [Independence declarations of Gagauzia and Transnistria] prompted the nationalist Popular Front to tone down its pro-Romanian line and speak up for the rights of minorities. - umm, what? The events prompted them to send armed volunteers to the breakaway regions, causing further escalation of the conflict. The "toning down" happened only later, in 1994 when the popularity of the Popular Front (and thus, their number of seats in the Parliament) suffered a sharp decline (no pun intended :)). Of course, there's always the chance that I've missed something important. Perhaps somebody here could provide a link to PF activists actually speaking up for the rights of minorities back then? --Illythr 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say:

Găgăuzia is in Romanian, Gagauz-Yeri is in Gagauz, and the Moldovan (Parliament's) Law uses both names from respect to the minority. Short English is Gagauzia, without diactics.

Dc76\talk 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the double name is not official, how come the russian version of the laws also use "Гагаузия (Гагауз-Ери)"? And how come the Moldovan version doesn't use the Russian diacritic free Gagauzia too? They have less respect for the Russian minority?Anonimu 17:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have a translator office that takes any law, and translates the official version into English, Russian and French. The translator is responsible for the accuracy, literly word by word. The translator is not authorized to deal with "politically correct/incorrect" issues. The "Russian minority" in Gagauzia is 3% of 180,000. Prety small, don't you think? :Dc76\talk 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but think at the russian speaking population of the region. Wikipedia doesn't work with "likely" anyway.Anonimu 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tag[edit]

In the text is written "the right of self-determination". I have put a fact tag there. Unless is provided soon an official document to support this, I will remove the sentence.Sambure talk 05:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example the link given now as a reference in the article. Also this document of the Venice Comission. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 10:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not for example, I asked you official documents, can't you or can you? --Sambure talk 12:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the sentence if there aren't presented official documents. --Sambure talk 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references we've brought are absolutely legitimate per Wikipedia policies (check WP:RS). Alæxis¿question? 12:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you can't provide official documents. Then it will be removed. Sambure talk 12:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother to search for one, I already have an official document http://www.prm.md/const.php?page=8350&lang=rom Sambure talk 13:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do the 110th and 111th articles of the Moldovan consitution contradict what is written in the article? Alæxis¿question? 13:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: ЗАКОН об особом правовом статусе Гагаузии (Гагауз Ери) Nr.344-XIII от 23.12.94 in Russian in Romanian

Alæxis¿question? 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to provide the source from official documents. You failed. Instead I brought the official document of Moldova which is the constitution. I haven't seen there in any article "the right for self-determination".Sambure talk 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wtf? I've brought you a Moldovan law. Isn't it official enough? Alæxis¿question? 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.e-democracy.md/files/elections/gagauzia2006/special-legal-status-gagauzia-ro.pdf this one is old, plus is not the official link. It's from e-democracy. Give me a link from official web sites of Gov. or Presidency. I asked you the latest documents, because as you know the law from 1994 is not functioning any more. --Sambure talk 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you first prove that this law is no longer functioning? Alæxis¿question? 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read constitution. (Art.111 în redacţia Legii nr.344-XV din 25.07.2003) Sambure talk 13:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the 111th article contradicts what is written here. I also have to warn you that you've made 3 reverts. Making one more would be the violation of WP:3RR. Alæxis¿question? 13:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were also warned before that without any official sources that line will be removed ASOP. There is a contradiction between the line from Wikipedia and that old one, not to mention is not valid any more.Sambure talk 13:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

constitution of Moldova[edit]

From constitution of Moldova:

Article 111. Special Autonomy Statutes (1) The places on the left bank of the Nistru river, as well as certain other places in the south of the Republic of Moldova may be granted special forms of autonomy according to special statutory provisions of organic law. (2) The organic laws establishing special statutes for the places mentioned under paragraph (1) above may be amended if three fifths of the Parliament members support such amendments.

Now show me where is written in the Constitution that "If Moldova decided to unite with Romania, Gagauzia would have the right of self-determination" this is the line that you kept inserting there.Sambure talk 14:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've demonstrated that there're no such words in consitution. You still haven't proven that the 1994 law on the status of Gagauzia doesn't work any more. Alæxis¿question? 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I demonstrated, see below.Sambure talk 14:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ammendament[edit]

The ammendament of the law from 1994 regarding the status of Gagauzia, taken from the official website of Parliament of Moldova: http://www.parliament.md/download/laws/ro/344-XV-25.07.2003.doc

3. Articolul 111 va avea următorul cuprins:

„Articolul 111. Unitatea teritorială autonomă Găgăuzia

(1) Găgăuzia este o unitate teritorială autonomă cu un statut special care, fiind o formă de autodeterminare a găgăuzilor, este parte integrantă şi inalienabilă a Republicii Moldova şi soluţionează de sine stătător, în limitele competenţei sale, potrivit prevederilor Constituţiei Republicii Moldova, în interesul întregii populaţii, problemele cu caracter politic, economic şi cultural.

(2) Pe teritoriul unităţii teritoriale autonome Găgăuzia sînt garantate toate drepturile şi libertăţile prevăzute de Constituţia şi legislaţia Republicii Moldova.

(3) În unitatea teritorială autonomă Găgăuzia activează organe reprezentative şi executive potrivit legii.

(4) Pămîntul, subsolul, apele, regnul vegetal şi cel animal, alte resurse naturale aflate pe teritoriul unităţii teritoriale autonome Găgăuzia sînt proprietate a poporului Republicii Moldova şi constituie totodată baza economică a Găgăuziei.

(5) Bugetul unităţii teritoriale autonome Găgăuzia se formează în conformitate cu normele stabilite în legea care reglementează statutul special al Găgăuziei.

(6) Controlul asupra respectării legislaţiei Republicii Moldova în unitatea teritorială autonomă Găgăuzia se exercită de Guvern, în condiţiile legii.

(7) Legea organică care reglementează statutul special al unităţii teritoriale autonome Găgăuzia poate fi modificată cu votul a trei cincimi din numărul deputaţilor aleşi în Parlament.”


PREŞEDINTELE PARLAMENTULUI


EUGENIA OSTAPCIUC

Chişinău, 25 iulie 2003. Nr.344-XV.

So, the law from 1994 was ammendated and there isn't any reference for "If Moldova decided to unite with Romania, Gagauzia would have the right of self-determination" this is the line that you kept inserting there.Sambure talk 14:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny, is this you? Constitution is one document, the law is another one. You haven't proven that the latter was cancelled or amended. Alæxis¿question? 14:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the amendment to the Constitution changes in the text. This 2004 statement by the chairwoman confirms not only that the law on the special status of Gagauzia is still in force, but that steps were taken to enforce it. --Illythr (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I have protected the page for 48 hours until you guys can discuss your differences here. JodyB talk 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Don't worry, he can't bring better and more official documents than the one that I've taken directly from the official website of President of Moldova.Sambure talk 14:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions[edit]

User Dc76 Talk asked me to comment here on my partial revert on his edit that changed the second level header Administrative divisions into third level header Localities under second level header Geography. I think that the second level header Administrative divisions is more in line with Wikipedia standards. But the name of the header could as well be Municipalities, cities and communes. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 08:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I agree! Dc76\talk 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gagauz vs Gagauzian[edit]

I started to clean up this confusion, but I'm sure there's more. A Gagauz is a Turk. A Gagauzian is not. A Gagauzian is a resident of Gagauzia, whether Turk, Romanian, Rom, or Russian. It makes no sense to say that some counties were 50% Gagauzian, because before the establishment of Gagauzia none of the inhabitants were Gagauzian, and afterwards all of them were. kwami (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right. Oxford dictionaries give Gagauz as the singular and plural for the people, and Britannica uses it that way. Library of Congress Subject Heading calls them Gagauz, and offers variants Gagauzi (“earlier established form”) and Gagauzy (with reference to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine).
Etymologically, Gagauzia = “country of the Gagauz”, Gagauzians = “inhabitants of Gagauzia,” and we can state demographics by saying that 84% of Gagauzians are Gagauz.
I believe Gagauzi and Gagauzy are borrowed from Romanian Găgăuzi, Russian Gagauzy and Ukrainian Hahauzy (Gagavzy in the Kharkiv orthography), and other variants Gagauzes, Gagauze may be calqued from them.
I’d welcome more info about these and other names from authorities on English or on ethnic groups.  —Michael Z. 18:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic composition subsection[edit]

User:Anonimu has again brought in the Moldovan/Romanian controversy. I can not possibly fend off this (imho) very damaging activity by this user: he jumps in from article to article at the most controversial issues and does the most controversial edits. Under a comment "partial rv" he not only rv fully, but even went beyond that. I desperately ask other users to look into the matter, otherwise I will just stop editing this article.

To the issue at hand, I'd like to add this example: Costeşti, Moldova is a small city that is composed of the city itself and a suburban village. All census data write the population of each locality separately. Summation is done only by rural/urban within an entity electing a mayor, and then district-wise. You cannot find anywhere in the 2004 statistics data how much is x+y, although you find x and y. A similar case exists for Anenii Noi: you can find the population of the city itself, of each of its 5 suburban villages, and the sum of the rural population (i.e. of the 5 villages), but the sum urban+rural is not there. And a tone of such cases awaits us in the future, because separate articles will exist only for legal entities electing own administration: cities and communes, not for the component small villages and hamlets. I claim it is by no mean OR to add x+y, as long as we write what is x, what is y, and state that x+y is the sum of x and y. The same is here: we write how many declared ethnicity as Moldovan, how many declared ethnicity as Romanian, and the sum, but we do not infer anything about the Moldova/Romanian controversy. Is this so complicated to get? Dc76\talk 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a note: I first edited this article 9 months before Dc76 even registered on Wikipedia, and the accusation that I "jumped" at this clearly is a gross assumption of bad faith. Dc76's edits clearly reflect his POV, which however isn't supported at all by the source. He's not just doing a "summation" of two figures, but it's making a POV synthesis of verifiable facts: why did he add the figures just for Romanians and Moldovans, why not Russians and Ukrainians, Gagauz and Bulgarians etc... the POV is self-evident, and his attempt to portray the situation here as the adding of rural and urban population is a textbook example of straw man. As anyone can see, my partial rv was a partial rv by every WP standard. Dc76's edit just inserted OR, and this is can be seen in the footnote where the user makes assumptions about what a census responder may have thought when completing the questionnaire... no source, no nothing... he just feels that way and thinks he should post his opinion in mainspace. I warmly recommend this user to keep further opinions about what's going on in Moldova in a personal blog (or at least on talk pages), and while editing WP to abide by one of our pillars : "verifiability, not truth". As a note, a quick glance at Dc76's recent edits show this POV-motivated OR is going on on much more articles. I only noticed it because this popped up on my watchlist, but someone should take care to enforce WP policies on every article Dc76 edits in a similar fashion.Anonimu (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TO Anonimu: This hasn't popped up just like that in this article. You have been stalking me for many days since you have returned from your permanent ban, and this is a dozenth article you come after me. Please, also refrain from indicating me what to do in real life. I have never told you want to do in your private life.
TO the rest: The footnote I added in small is used consistently throughout WP, not something I "invented" here and now. Please, let not User:Anonimu's POV stop you from reading Moldovan language, Moldovenism, Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova, Moldovans, Moldovan-Romanian dictionary, Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet. The footnote does not say which is correct and which is wrong, it simply says that there are two opinions. IMHO, Anonimu wants to remove from WP any trace that refers to this controversy, so that articles thus favor one POV (the mention of the existence of other is removed!). Dc76\talk 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Dc76 wants me not to verify edits on articles that I have had on my watchlist for more than 3 years, he shouldn't edit them. Otherwise, it's my full right to check his edits on those articles and note the ones not conformal with WP policies. The footnote is reflecting just Dc76's opinion... he may be right, he may be wrong... but at the end of the day it's just a personal opinion without a source to support it. If Dc76 has inserted his opinion over a dozen WP article, this doesn't mean he should do it here too. As for his last claim... it is simply ludicrous... just look at my last edit on this article: the controversy is mentioned and the main article is linked. So either I'm too stupid (which I ain't, and even if I were, my edits wouldn't justify such accusations) or I have no interest in pursuing the goal indicated by Dc76. Admins should however take note of Dc76 constant ad hominems. While I always discuss factual edits, that are forever kept in page history and can never be deleted (theoretically), he always mentions supposed hidden aims in my editing, and he is creating a false "enemy" where there is none. The matter is simple: as long as Dc76 will produce edits that go against WP policies on my watched articles, I'll intervene to enforce the said policies. Anonimu (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unilaterally disengaging this guy. He can edit this article as he wants. I've had enough. I am unable to concentrate on productive things because I have to spend hours in explaining every bit to him every night. Anonimu, go ahead, damage as much as your heart pleases you. Dc76\talk 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anonimu has a valid point here imho. In case of Moldovans/Romanians there exists a controversy; on the other hand nobody contests that Anenii Noi consists of a city and certain nearby villages. So WP:OR is quite applicable in the first case while in the second one it would be absurd not to sum those populations. Alæxis¿question? 05:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you refer to NPOV, not OR. OR situation is imho exactly the same in both cases, but the existence of the controversy, I totally agree with you, is not the same - once exists, twice doesn't.
What do you think of the version after my last edit? It is quite different from what I originally edited. It only mentions the existence of the controversy, and with small shrift, without interfering otherwise in any way. Dc76\talk 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I hope Anonimu is happy now. Dc76\talk 20:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this page as I was searching for the English name for this people. A friend of mine is as a matter of fact a Gagauzan (that is where I first heard of them), and his account of his people was that they were an Orthodox Christian people in Asia Minor who at one point were forced by the Muslim Turks to either retain their language (whatever that was, I don't know) but become Muslims, or else give up their language for Turkish and retain their faith, and they chose the latter. Sometime later they fled to modern-day Moldavia, where a local ruler by the name of Gagauzos (or something like that) gave them land and protection and they, in gratitude and since they were hitherto nameless, took this king's name. That was his account, and obviously I believe him, being himself a Gagauzan. Anyway, so I wanted to share that, since I didn't see any hint at it on the page; if I missed it, forgive me. -Gregory H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.8.180 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name in different languages[edit]

So we need the name in English (this is English Wikipedia, after all), also Romanian, as the official language of the state, and Gaugaz, as used by the people themselves. But I see no need to add Ukrainian and Russian. Anyone disagree? Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 14:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian is an official language, along Gagauz and Moldovan/Romanian.Anonimu (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Wiki doesn't mention any other than Gagauz (apart from Russian title itself of course), the situation is similar in Ukrainian Wiki (Ukr + Gagauz). let us stop overwhelming the reader with all different indirectly related tags, templates etc. and give up for some time at least the national pride (or political correctness). The lead should contain the most essential information only. Anyone interested may quickly just check the resp. Wiki edition in the national language to find out, how's the title in that language. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a name section? The lead as it stands now is mostly about the name anyway, and not an overview as the MOS recommends.Anonimu (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

map[edit]

it's extremely unusual to have a multilingual topo-map in the infobox, so I reverted this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Moldova there are at least three important minority. So I made ​​maps multilingual. You can not send everyone to their ethnic wikipedia. Unusual? From now on must be common. Moldova is a country with multiple languages. SVG Map is a map type simplistic, incomparable to the one made by me. I return to my version, considering your reason as childish beings.Asybaris01 (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the "childish" accusation earns you an NPA. Apart from that, a location-map is indeed the usual in the infobox on English wikipedia. It doesn't matter how many languages are spoken there. The simplicity is what asked for here, not an explicitly detailed map. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wikipedia policy in this sense of simplicity? Where it says?Asybaris01 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SVG map is poorly made​​. In the bottom contour of Gagauzia is wrong, see my map, which is a location map of the localities.Asybaris01 (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:MAP: For maps, where possible use the blank map images available at Wikipedia:Blank maps when producing new maps.
Apart from that, there are simply the convention norms of English wikipedia. You are certainly free and indeed very welcome to put your map into the article's body, just not into the box. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll fix that mistake, thanks for pointing it out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats about gdp?[edit]

Is there a info about the gdp per capita in gagauzia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beshogur (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gagauzia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gagauzia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gagauzia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gagauz(ia)-Yeri[edit]

@Beshogur: Regarding this edit: the source might not be a reliable source on English terminology on Gagauzia. It is written by Norwegian and Polish politicians, and the English translated and copyedited by who knows whom. and by the way, it uses not Gagauz-Yeri, but Gagauzia-Yeri which appears in almost no books.[2] —Michael Z. 22:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)  Done Diff. —Michael Z. 20:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

This section begins: "Gagauzia comprises four enclaves".

An enclave is territory of one state, completely surrounded by territory of another state. On that definition, no part of Gagauzia comprises an "enclave", because Gagauzia is a part of Moldova, the surrounding state.

This section lacks any citations, so I propose to remove it. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose removing it. Gagauzia is a part of Moldova, but a distinct part with its own status. The four bits of Gaguzia are separated by non-Gagauzia bits of Molodova. Four enclaves is, thus, perfectly fine as a description. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gagauzia&oldid=1212347040"