Talk:Bălți/Archive 2

The 27 issues[edit]

1. The first word [edit]

Articles normally start with Paris (French: Paris, German : Paris, Chinese: ...). The edit of Moldopodo erases the first word. The effect of that is to contest that the correct English name of the city if Balti.

additionally: to make clear: to start with Balti (Romanian/Moldavian: Balti, Russian: ...), b/c the current English-language press writes Balti. For "proof", just google "Balti Moldova". Maramureş is also an English name. the argument that 20 years is new for some individuals is ridiculous. Is the rest of the world supposed to wait for them?</samll> :Dc76\^talk 20:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dc76. --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 - Please see how the names of the cities are presented in other multilingual countries, example Geneva article on Wikipedia. Taking in considertion heterogenuous composition, one cannot avoid Russian and Ukrainian versions of Bălţi (it was under Russian Empire that Bălţi received its city status). For many years it was spelled Beltsy in English. I do not see how else could be presented the name of the city. Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

The idea is to remove the word "Moldovan" before "Balti" in the intro. --Illythr 18:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCGN states that we should use the widely accepted modern English name. The problem is that a Google book search for Bălţi returns mostly Romanian language books, while the search for Beltsy gives mostly pre 1991 books. In this case I think we should use the local official name(s). Also, remove the leading "Moldovan".Anonimu 20:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the Google search with Beltsy and found only two references that are out dated, all the others are up-to-date. I think Moldavian should be left in, as even if this is the official English spelling (no proof or link given by anybody so far), it exists for a couple of years only and a good portion of information related to the city can be found typing beltsy, like Beltsy Steppe, for example; moreover it should be clear where does this word appear in English from. Anyway, Bălţi with accents is not an English word, that's for sure. Moldopodo 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Agree with Dc76. The conventions here state that an article starts like this: Title (other language: titlu) is a thing. The conventions on Wikipedia also state, that when there is no widely accepted English denomination for a subject, than the native denomination should be used. This is a also widely used in all projects of Wikipedia. For instance, even though there is a German name for the city of Cluj-Napoca Klausenburg, the article in de.wiki is called Cluj-Napoca and not Klausenburg. That is because Klausenburg is an historic name, just like Beltsy, and that is why Bălţi is prefered for the contemporan city. --Danutz 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. The Cyrillic alphabet of the official language of Moldova[edit]

That alphabet is no longer in use. It was invented in 1924 under direct orders of Stalin, introduced in 1940, and in 1989, a Moldovan Law has been passed that declared the treditional Latin alphabet the standard. In adddition, the usage of the old cyrillic alphabet has pejorative conotations for ethnic Moldavians. So (1944 - 1989 in Cyrillic - Бэлць) should be removed.

additionally: As a historic reference, I believe it would be correct to give this info down through the text, not in the first line, which suggests that that version might still be official. About negative conotations, I can explain later that it does. But let's not complicate that here. Ignore for a moment that it could have such, and you still see that it has to be moved from the introduction.:Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [Unrelated to this article: Transnistria is the Romanian name for that region. In my oppinion analogous to Bessarabia being a Russian name. Both names took hold in international usage, although the majority of the population of those regions are of other ethnic group. Another name for the area east of Dniester in Romanian is Ucraina Hanului - Han's Ucraine. In 1941, they just looked into the existing history works and picked the name. Coloquially, before 1941, people just sayd "de peste Nistru" - "from over the Dniester". Also, the name Transnistria is in use, and in latin script, by the ethnic Moldavians/Romanians - think about the villages of Cocieri and Cosnita, and about those under the control of the Smirnov's regime how do they write in private. But the inhabitants of the city do not currently use Бэлць.:Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
there is an 'ethymology' section. we can name it 'ethymology and other names'. :Dc76\^talk 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
additionally:This info is clearly given in the right place and creates no confusion as it mentions the exact dates. Moldopodo 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
additionally:As for the added text in small letters, I do not see the point putting it here? The story on Transnistria and Bessarabia is irrelevant. Please, stick to the topic and try to be as concise and concrete as possible, by givong the necesary links and sources (which you never do). Moldopodo 19:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Stalin had very little to do with the invention of Moldovan. He only approved of it. The name is given as a historic reference and bears no negative connotations. Otherwise we can argue that "Transnistria", as a foregn name given to the land by fascist invaders, shouldn't be used anywhere either. --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Dc76 - unfounded demagogy of Dc76 on Stalin, etc.. - Moldavian language in Moldavia during Soviet Union used Cyrillic alphabet (by the way, another proof that there were two languages used in Moldavia and not one, as Dc76 says - Russian), the name in Cyrillic is given for reference. Besides, it is about encyclopedia and not pejorative conotations. Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Since the cyrillic rendition isn't official anymore, there's no pronunciation difference, and cyrillic is unreadable for the usual en wiki reader, I think we can safely move it to the history section. BTW, it would be interesting to find the pre 1812 cyrillic rendition (if different from the Russian one).Anonimu 20:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think since Cyrillic is not used in Moldova for the Romanian language, there is no need for the inclusion of the Cyrilic alphabet in the first sentence. It can be included in sections like Etymology or History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danutz (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. The name of the city in Russian[edit]

There are two formulas used: Бельцы and Бэлць. Moldopodo erases the reference to the second formula. It is used on the building identifications in the city, including the city hall, it is used on the web page of the mayor of the city (who by the way is an ethnic Ukrainian like Moldopodo). I am not contesting that outside the city the other formula is prefered more often. I would not oppose a footnote indicating the frequency of the useage of each form.

additionally: We can have a section Names of the city and write all that there. In the intro, we can leave only current names. Moldopodo's answer shows that he fails to understand the problem: Бэлць is in Russian, not only in Moldavian/Romanian cyrillic. Of course, if people would agree to simply forget it, one would eliminate a lot of confusion: Balti - in Romanian and English, Бельцы - in Russian, and finita la comedia. But, if the administration in the city uses Бэлць, we have to mention it somewhere in the text of the article.:Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
additionally: Бэлць is already mentioned in the intro, where is the problem? And for determination of the right word in Russian it's not Bălţi administration who decides, but a relevant body in Russia. Besides Bălţi was and still is mentioned in English as Beltsy in numerous documents and internet as well.Moldopodo 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
I see this as more of a problem for ru:wiki. Since this is the English Wikipedia, only the most common names used in English should be given here - Balti and Beltsy. --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Dc76 - Бельцы is Bălţi in Russian. Russian Language Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences determines the Russian language. Besides, Бэлць version exists in the 1944 - 1989 Cyrillic reference. Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Even though there is a regulatory instution for the Russian language, I doubt that it determines in one of its acts that one of the names for the city of Bălţi shoud be correct, and another one incorrect. Maybe the Russian language in Moldova is actualy not Russian and it is Moldorussian, a very distinct language from Russian. :) Anyway I don't think there should be a problem mentioning both names because this are just regional variations. For example in Romanian we can say also bieloruşi also belaruşi for the same people (the people of Belarus) and both names should be mentioned just because some people say it one way, some other way. It is still Romanian language, as in this case both Бельцы and Бэлць are in Russian. --Danutz 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Law of the Republic of Moldova № 764-XV dated 27.12.2001 of city and teritorial administration of the Republic of Moldova (published in the Official Monitor Republic of Moldova № 16/53 dated January 29, 2001), for the city of Бельцы ( in russian ) the name of муниципий Бэлць was established as a name that corresponds his current legal status and historical name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.126.199.32 (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Municipality[edit]

Accoring the Moldopodo, the article begins with Balti is one of the five Moldavian municipalities, the second largest ... I suggested that it starts with Balti is the second largest ... followed by a separate sentence Balti is a municipality. Because, according the Law XV-764 of the Moldavian parliament (the diffinition of the territorial units, their names and composition; a law which can be found on the webpage of the Parliament; all laws are brought there up to date on a daily basis, that is, small changes are entered into the texts of the laws on the day of their addoption - you can read all that stuff on the webpage of the parliament, it is a very strict procedure), Moldova is divided into 3 municipalities, 32 raions, 1 autonomous territorial unit, and 1 special territorial unit. Balti is one of the 3 municipalities not subordinated to other units (there is even a wikipedia article explaining all that). The capital cities of the 2 territorial units also have municipality status (it is about the degree of financial autonomy), but unlike Balti, those municipalities are not first tier territorial units of the country. Legally and coloqually, the word municipality has two meanings: one of the 3 first tier units, or one of the 5 cities with that status. Saying Balti is one of 5 or one of 3 is giving preference to one notion over the other. Much more correct would be to say Balti is a municipality. I am not saying one can not elaborate on that, if you wish, but without giving preference to one of the two notions.

additionally: You can also see the template at the bottom of the article. You editted and deleted half the article without even reading it first. :Dc76\^talk 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- additionally: Well, then the template is wrong also and I will change it. There are five municipalities, not 6 and not four. It's basic mathematics. Your info is good to be put in an article on Moldavian municipalities, where you may explain the tier differencies. Moldopodo 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76 - Anyway, Dc76 contradicts herself/himself. It is clear the total number of municipalities in Modlova is five and not more or less. Consequently Bălţi is one of five municipalities. Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
I support the dropping of the number. Additionaly, "municipality" should link to the wiki article about administrative divisions of Moldova.Anonimu 20:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. It is often referred to as "the capital of the North"[edit]

This was a proposal by some politicians, to add into Moldovan legislation these words. It was opposed on the grounds that it says nothing specifically. It would be like giving in the Consitution of the New York state "New York city is the capital of the South of the state". So, there is no such legal definition in Moldova. However, those politicians have continued a PR campain to promote it. The ordinary citizens are led to believe that should the city receive such status, it would allow something that would allow to improve the economics of the city. But it would allow nothing, as there is no law about "capitals of the North" or "capitals" or smth similar. It is a cheap way to blame some deficits of city administration of someone else, indefinite. Now, I am not saying we can not cover these aspects in the article. But to say in the first paragraph of the article, and to state it like a definition, is to addopt a political view. I think a wikipedia article should not do that. A small paragraph about that down throught the text is ok by me.

additionally: please, re-read my last sentence, just bolded. My objection is the presence of that in the intro, and to saying it correctly, i.e. not "often" but "sometimes" or "some people call it". Often means several times a day, which is not true. The fact is the name is not used outside the limits of the city, :), and inside only by a small minority of inhabitants (equally distributed among the ethnic groups) [for references that Moldopodo wants, I would have to find all the interviews and declartions of the current mayor and of some businessmen, mainly K...., I forgot his name, he now sold his businesses and relocated to Ukraine. And I don't have 2 days to find all their writtings, many of which might not be on internet at all. I believe Moldopodo has read them.] :Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moldopodo, thins is my city as well, not only yours. don't hijack it, please. :) I do not object to its presence in the article, but not in the intro. Because many/majority of people do disagree with the usage of such a formula.:Dc76\^talk 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Dc76, again you are missing the point, it's not about politics, please read the answers that are given to you. My city is referred to as a capital of the north or northern capital even on numerous internet sites, not only in English, Russian or Romanian. This is simply obvious. I invite you again to check Google. Moldopodo 19:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Don't see the problem with it. It's not like anyone's going to relocate the capital there or something. I'd suggest the "Northern capital", though. --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Dc76 - 1) Dc76,please, give a precise link and source where such a legal political proposition was done (personally have never heard of it) 2) Where did you see politics and law in a poetically colloquial reference, just like are called Venise, Saint Petersburg or Reykjavík? Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
The nickname should be kept, ideally with a ref.Anonimu 20:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not worth of mentioning as an argument on encyclopedia "many people" don't like it. I can always say no, "many people like it". Do you have a link or a source that supports your argument, how many people, why? BTW, did you check Google as advised?Moldopodo 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

6. among a hilly landscape that used to be covered with forests in the Middle Ages vs among a hilly landscape that is covered with forests since the Middle Ages.[edit]

During 19th century, extensive cutting of woods have occured to clear fields for agriculture. As a result, there is only one forrest south of the city, with very small wooded areas somewhere else. Therefore, to say it is covered is incorrect. Dimitrie Cantemir has described, among hundreds of other things, the 1700 flora and founa of the region, and he described a secular forrest with trees of big diameter. It would be very nice if that would be the situation today, but it is ilogical to say it is covered with forrests now.

Dc76 is correct here, AFAIK. --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and I did not really have a problem with this. I guess it was left out in front of all the edits.... Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

7. in the middle of the Bălţi steppe.[edit]

This is a phrase that Moldopodo keeps adding, and I keep deleting it. Unfortunately, it is a politically motivated notion. The Russian descriptions often used it, and they consider it as part of the Southern-Russian steppe. In international literature, one calles the "Southern-Russian steppe" Asian steppe, or Eurasian steppe. Wikipedia also uses the international terminology: Eurasian Steppe, and its component Pontic-Caspian steppe. According to the international literature and maps, the steppe lies manily to the east of the river Dniester (all the way to northern China), with only a small band along the Black See shore on the western bank of Dniester being steppe, which is 300-400 km from the city. The change in the relief and vegetation is quite sudden at the river Dniester, and is due to the start of the pre-Carpathian area. This is a well-known scientific fact. However, in the second half of the 19th century, when the notion Balti steppe has appeared (under the influence of the Pan-Slavist current in the Russian Empire), there were not so many geologists and travellers through the region. Therefore, the idea that the steppe continues on the western shore of the Dniester took hold in some literature due to its agressive promotion by the Pan-Slavist current.

In the wake of deforestation of large areas in Northern Moldova in 19th century, this can be observed even by a child: The revers and creeks make deep gorges, but if you look at the 4-5 km areas between 2 neighboring creeks, you see easy hills. As you go more to the south, these hills are more abrupt, up to 30% slopes, but in the north, you have a 10% slope. So, each of these 4-5 km areas look like bombated stepps (only by relief, not by the traditional vegetation, which here are woods, not prairies). But then, at creeks, one has big gorges, with 45%-50% slopes. It is incorrect to call the whole of northern Moldova steppe. it is not a traditional prairies. You can find some areas up to 5-10 square miles in size that look like steppe, but not the whole north of the country. if you wish, see also the article Geography of Moldova for more details.

additionally: The Pan-Slavist origin I just gave for your information, I do not oppose it because it was pan-Slavist, but because it is factually false. (Not everything pan-Slavists came with was false.) For the article, the only thing it is relevant: it is not factual, it is NOT a Prairie. [To Moldopodo: what "Russian conotation" has the word steppe? If you see a ~~Russian~~ pan-Slavist (not all Russians were pan-slavist in 19th century, there were 2 equally strong currents) conotation, then you yourself betray that you know that the term was invented.] :Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
additionally:No comment on your last answer, it is totally irrelevant, besides, as usual no lnk or no source is povided. Moldopodo 21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Don't see how a neutral geographic description like "Bălţi steppe" (not even "Beltskaya steppe") can be Pan-Slavist, but whatever. If it's factual - leave it be. If it's factually incorrect - keep it out. --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Again unfounded demagogy of Dc76 - To correct me, state me one source and link where it is said that Bălţi steppe is a Pan-Slavist or political or something like that. I guess you just don't like the fact that the word is of Russian origin? Bălţi steppe is officially recorded by numerous sources (check internet, Britannica encyclopedia, etc.) and has no specific political or Russian conotaion. And even if it had one (I can't see which), would you call then mountain a river? I disagee and remind you, it's about encylopedia and not your imagintion, Dc76. Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
The Balti Steppe is an established geographical name, it has nothing to do with politics.Anonimu 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Elisaveta, Moldova|Elizaveta and Sadovoe, Moldova|Sadovoe vs Elizavetovca and Sadovoe[edit]

There are two issues here. One, there sure are localities called Sadovoe in other countries, and could be the same for Elizaveta. Second, the Moldovan law XV-764 on the administrative division of the country calls it Elizaveta. Elizavetovca was the name used during the Soviet Union, the name in Russian.

you tell me, Moldopodo, there is no other Sadovoe in the whole world? :) Do you really believe that? :) We can leave Elizaveta without ", Moldova" if you insist. The laws of a country have precedence over what mistake one might make on a road sign. Please, no offence, but a child knows that. :Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody knows about those villages anyway, official names are probably better. --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I do not know any other Sadovoe first of all. As for Elizavetovca, I was there recently, as you enter the village the sign says:"Elizavetovca" with latin characters. Just type in Google - Elizavetovca and Elizaveta and tell me how many times more than zero will you find a reference to Elizaveta as a village, suburb of Bălţi. Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
It's clear to everybody reading the article that those settlements are in Moldova. And probably they are more Sadovoes and Elizavetovcas in Moldova.Anonimu 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
additionally: Disagree with Dc76. It is not about what I or you believe, it is about what is. Should there be others Sadovoe or Elizavetovca found and articles on them written, what's the big deal? A desambiguation page will be created and that's all. I do not have knowledge of any other Elizavetovca or Sadovoe as of today, in Moldova or abroad. Moldopodo 15:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
I think here the law on administartion division prevails, it might be a mistake on the road sign, but it should be further researched. Maybe this could help. --Danutz 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

***9. The word Bălţi (pl. of sing. "baltă") is translated literally "puddle pools"*** vs The word Bălţi (pl. of sing. "baltă") is translated literally "swamp, puddle pools".[edit]

I am afraid that Moldopodo does not know well enouth the Romanian language and theirfore makes his confusion. The posibility of confusion is also increased by the fact that in Russian, swamp is boloto, so it is very easy for one who knows Russian but does not know proper Romanian to make the mistake.

additionally: Moldopodo, this is ridiculous. Do you know Romanian? Tell honestly! If you don't know the language of your own country even at a very-very simple level, proved by the fact that even with a dictionary you make mistakes in a word that means the name of the city you live in, then please... give us a brake with your super-knowledge of the language you don't bother learn even at an elementary level. You have to translate "balta" from Romanian to English, not swamp from English to Romanian. You found a dictionary that does not even have "balta" - it is a dictionary in construction! Here is a good online dictionary, I've used it for 4-5 years: http://www.dictionare.com. Alternatively, go to the library, pick up a dictionary, and make a small effort to learn a few words in the official language of your own country. It is a very simple language to learn, it is not Chinese or Hungarian to have to learn from zero. Foreigners come to Moldova and in 1 year speak the language. You live there for 20+ years and don't bother. Instead you blame people of nationalism. And what is your lack of knowledge of Romanian, not nationalism? Noone asks you to write literature, but 1,000-2,000 words anyone can learn.:Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. By the way, something tells me that Romanian version (baltă) of swamp is somehow related to Russian version of swamp (boloto). As for translation, I will not fall into an empty of sense debate full of demagogy and will simply invite everybody check the English Romanian Dictionary On line (http://www.ectaco.co.uk/English-Romanian-Dictionary/). Please type in "swamp". The translation is mlaştină, baltă, smârc... Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Let's take a look at DEX, the official Romanian-language dictionary. DEX defines baltă as:

1. Întindere de apă stătătoare, de obicei nu prea adâncă, având o vegetaţie şi o faună acvatică specifică; zonă de luncă inundabilă, cu locuri în care stagnează apa; p. ext. lac.
2. Apă de ploaie adunată într-o adâncitură; groapă cu apă sau mocirlă; (prin exagerare) cantitate mare de lichid vărsat pe jos; băltoacă.

1. Stretch of still water, usually not too deep, having a specific kind of aquatic vegetation and fauna; forest zone prone to flooding, with places where water stagnates; by extension, a lake.
2. Rainwater gathered into a ditch; hole containing water or muck; (by exaggeration) a great quantity of water spilled on the ground; puddle.

Make of this what you will. Biruitorul 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp is more or less balta. See for example Balta Ialomiţei in Romania.Anonimu 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Moldavian language vs Romanian language[edit]

This is a politically motivated scandal that goes on for years. Its trace on wikipedia is in fact smaller that the real scandal, which is very ugly. In short, the Moldavian law uses three terms for the language:

Moldavian, with the existence of a Moldo-Romanian identity/unity (Language Law of 1989)
Romanian (1991 declaration of independence)
Moldavian (1994 constitution)

The origin lies in the Stalin's decision in 1924 to introduce the term Moldavian language. It was to help him gain Bessarabia, which then was part of Romania. This decision was practically implemented in 1940, when the area was occupied by the Soviet military. During the Soviet time, the usage of the word Romanian language was equivalent to extremist nationalism, while the usage of the word Romanian was qualified by the authorities as fascism (there were people that were condemned for 25 years of labour in Siberia for "fascism" for answering to the judge "I am Romanian"). As a result, when the Soviet system fell, people were afraid to use it. A more neutral formulation "Limba de stat" ("State language" or "Official language") was and still is largely used. By 1991, the fear of "Romanian" has past. In 1994, a political setback has occured, and the word "Moldavian language" was introduced in the constitution. Since then, the issue of content has been that many people, countries, also EU, object to the usage of a term invented by Stalin's request and aproval. The term "Romanian language" is currently widely used, including in all the education system of Moldova (all manuals are called Romanian language). A more neutral "the official language of Moldova" is used in delicate situations.

The problem for our article is that Moldopodo did not introduce the term Moldavian language until his last edits: [1] He accepted the standard international terminolory (Romanian language) before, and only after the disagreements of oppinions have occured on other issues, he introduced these changes. This is a sign of increased demands and increased agressiveness when there are contraditions. It is not something specific to Moldopodo only. It is the traditional Soviet way of negotiating: they tell you X. If you don't accept it, they demand X+Y. They add Y as a revenge that you deared contradict them. I can also add other demands that I think ought to be discussed, but because there are many issues in discussion here, I limited to the essential ones. We can discuss other issues later, when there is a history of mutual colaboration, it would be easier to frankly and openly talk then. And I am prepared to wait (even forever if necessary) and not introduce these other demands unless discussing them beforehand, and receiving agreement. But I am not introducing them now, because I want a civilized concensus, not an eternal edit war. On the same tokken, I object to the increased demands, a policy of "revenge" used for agressive "negociations".

additionally: To Illythr: I meant to say on Stalin's request and by his aproval. Sorry, I corrected myslef. How about we use "Moldavian/Romanian" consistently on wikipedia? Politically, the issue will still go on for years, and it is a pitty to come back to it again and again on WP. To Moldopodo: please read, the 1989 language law, and the declaration independence, where it is written black on white that Romanian is the official language of Moldova.:Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
one word of Stalin was law. A whole sentence - a code. :) You are right Illythr about early 1930s, and then reversal. :Dc76\^talk 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Stalin himself didn't invent or even introduce it. As for usage - I think that administrative issues should use "Moldovan" and linguistic ones - "Romanian". --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Stalin requested the change of Moldovan alphabet to Latin in the early 1930s. This development was later reversed, but I have no info on whether Stalin had any active personal involvement there, or just gave the go ahead to initiatives of local apparatchiks. --Illythr 19:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Again too much demagogy, what does Soviet negation have to do with this, X, Y, Z, what's next? However, the encyclopedia facts are simple. Please check all valid Moldavian legislation and find at least one word "Romanian". Offcially the language is called Moldavian. (See Constitution of Moldova, article 13, available on internet) Moldopodo 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Call it Moldovan and link it to the wiki article. The dispute is fully explained there.Anonimu 21:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy there is not correct to use Moldovan in all situations. Romanian is the language used in education, so no mentions to the Moldovan language should exist in the section about education. See also www.edu.md for further reading. Moldopodo, you said there is no referece to the Romanian language in the laws of Moldova. Actualy there exist many. Just look for romînă, romina, română and romana in the Registrul Actelor Juridice al Republicii Moldova. Moreover, the Academy of Sciences does not recognise the Moldovan language (that is also why Moldovan is not available in the education), and the law on the national conception of the Republic Moldova, states that Moldovan and Romanian are just names for the same language, atribuited by the Moldovan people and Romanian people, respectively. Further details and references in the article about the Moldovan language or in Moldova#Languages.--Danutz 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Erasing the names of city neighborhoods[edit]

Some city neighborhoods bear the names of the former 19th century suburbs: Pământeni, Slobozia, Molodovo, Bălţul Nou, Podul Chişinăului; some are known by their Soviet-era names: 8th district, 9th district; or other names: Autogara (which means the inter-city coach station), Dacia or colloquially called BAM.

vs

Some city neighborhoods bear the names of the former 19th century suburbs; some are known by their Soviet-era names: 8th district, 9th district; or other names: BAM.

This is another issue introduced as increased demaind, as revenge. Moldopodo has erased the names of the city neighborhods, because they are not of Russian origin. Only one name, BAM, which is on Russian origin was left. This is defined in dictionaries as shovinism.

additionally: To Illythr: why not? there are districts with 30,000+ inhabitants, while we have separate articles for localities. I don't say a separate article, on the contrary. But what is wrong with giving the names of the districts? All developed wikipedia articles of cities do so. To Moldopodo: Russian is not the official language in the city. By the way, you even misspelled some names in Russian.:Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that piece of info (any of the district names) really all that useful? --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagre with Dc76,this is just another vandalism by Dc76 on this article - This info is certainly useful as it explains the city's structure, as well a shows what was the positive impact of USSR on Bălţi, as a good part of these distcricts did not even exist before. Please, do not pay attention to chauvinisme accusations of Dc76, it's a simple lie to cover Dc76's chauvinisme systematically erasing Russian names of the districts. Here is what was initially edited, both in Moldavian and Russian, deleted later by Dc76: Some city neighborhoods bear the names of the former 19th century suburbs (Romanian/Russian) respectively): Pământeni/Поментены, Slobozia/Слободзея, Molodovo/Молодово, Bălţul Nou/Новые Бельцы, Podul Chişinăului/Кишинёвский Мост; some are known by their Soviet-era names: 8th district, 9th district; or other names: Autogara/Автовокзал (which means the inter-city coach station), Dacia/Дачия or colloquially called BAM/БАМ (this completely new district was rapidly built during the Soviet times on the unpopulated before territory), as referred to Baikal Amur Mainline - which name is colloquially preferred to the official Dacia, as referred to the land of the Daci. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Probably we should go with the Romanization of cyrillic when the moldovan and russian names are different. Readers of en wiki will most likely ignore info written in cyrillic.Anonimu 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Erasing more than 1/2 of the items from the history section[edit]

Moldopodo has cleared the history sections of all items were Russian or Soviet army were not prased. He has not done such changes for 1 month. But he has introduced them on 17 October as increased demaind, and revenge that I deared contradict them in other places. Mantion of entire chapters of the history fo the city (1812-1860, 1917-18, 1940-1956) were erased as a revenge. Here are the passages he erased:

The local population (most of the battles would take place in the south of Moldavia but occasionally also throughout the rest of the territory) had to support alternatively the burdens of three invading armies [Turkish, Austrian, Russian], none of which were friendly to the locals, regarding them with suspicion, not always unmotivated. Instead of growing at a fast rate as it was a century earlier, the population decreased by 30% during this time.

1812 The Peace of Bucharest grants the whole eastern half of the Principality of Moldavia, a territory named since than Basarabia (or Bessarabia), and which coincides to a substantial extent to the territory of the modern Republic of Moldova, to the Russian Empire.

1812-1828 The Russians allow substantial economic and cultural freedom to Moldavians/Romanians, wanting to secure the new province (gubernia in Russian). After 1828 the policy gradually worses.

1825 The number of counties of Bessarabia is reduced from 12 to 8, but Iaşi county is preserved.

1860s Education in Romanian is gradually banned, and the nobility is forced to use Russian, intermarry Russians, or leave to Romania. However, the policy has a rather contrary effect, due to the absence of assimilation through education by the Russian authorities, Bessarabians strengthen cultural links with the rest of the Romanians.

September-November 1917 At the dissolution of the Russian Empire, Bessarabia elects a National Council (Sfatul Ţării), which proclaims the Moldavian Democratic Republic.

April 1918 Sfatul Ţării votes union of Bessarabia with Romania

June 28, 1940 In accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union demands Romania to cede Bessarabia and, shortly thereafter, the Red Army enters the region. Surprisingly to the locals, the Romanian authorities, in great limbo due to recent international developments (conquest of France by Germany four days before the Soviet ultimatum), decides to temporarily avoid an armed conflict. The army and administration are withdrawn within 48 hours, as required by the USSR, giving up all defensive installations in the area that were built for the sole eventuality of a Soviet aggression.

June 22 - July 26, 1941 Romanian Army participates in the Axis offensive against the Red Army dislocated in Bessarabia, initially being ordered to push only to the river Dnister, Romania's eastern border in 1940.

Military action in 1941. For the first 10 days, 3rd and 4th Romanian Armies developed bridgeheads, as their main advance was planned to start on July 2. According to the will of its new ally, Nazi Germany, Romania has allotted an 80 km long segment between its two armies to the 11th German Army, half of the effectives of which, including its artillery, were Romanian units transferred for one month under the German command. This portion of the front line included Bălţi. The German motorized columns and the 1st Romanian Armored Division started their move from several bridgeheads on the river Prut, 50 to 70 km from the city, on the evening of July 2, and by July 5 already controlled large portions of northern Moldavia (Bessarabia).^[1]

The main military actions took part on July 7 - July 9 near the villages south of the city: 8th Dorobanţi Regiment and the 32nd Infantry Regiment Mircea, both from the 5th Romanian Infantry Division, clashed with Soviet cavalry. Feeling much easier on the ground than the German and Soviet units, they managed to overcome several Soviet strongholds near Zgîrdeşti, Mîndreşti, and the Gliceni Forest. Then, supported by four artillery battalions, the 32nd Regiment attacked Mîndreşti frontally with one battalion and with the second maneuvered to the south, threatening the rear of the Soviet forces, which retreated leaving behind a lot of their heavy weapons.

1944 Fearing the repeat of the 1941 deportation, thousands of people, including most of intellectuals, flee to Romanian in front of the Soviet troops.

August-September 1944 Active age Moldavians in the recuptured territories are enrolled en masse in the Soviet army, and are not disbanded until 1946.

'1945-1947 Soviet authorities practice a quasi-total confiscation of peasants' harvest and food "for the needs of the State", while many fields remain unworked.

1946-1947 Moldova suffers two years of famine, the only known famine in the recorded history of Moldova, taking a toll of 298,500 lives.

1949 Another mass Soviet deportation

1949-1950 Mass collectivization of farmed land is implemented.

1951 Another mass Soviet deportation

Aslo erased were the mentions of Holocaust (several thousand Jews of the city were killed, a few in the city, the rest deported and killed in Transnistria (WWII)), and the Soviet concentration camp (45,000 prisoners were killed, some in the city, some were taken to the Urals and there). Erasing all this information is a desire to clean the history on unconvinable facts: the exaclt same facts that the Soviet propaganda was erasing. For example, only with the perestroika they allowed mention of Holocaust in the city, and and only in 1990, after the first free elections, mentions of the concentration camp were allowed.

additionally: if anyone wants sourses, one can easily place {{Fact}} tags. In a few weeks they will be filled. We are not students at Mr. Moldopodo exams to have to submit all info for his aproval beforehead, and he is not THE redactor/editor to remove what he does not like. He wants references for something, he can put {{Fact}} tags any times of the day or night.:Dc76\^talk 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Dc76 - All of the above listed "historical facts" (with no link or proven source provided, as usual by Dc76) have nothing to do with the history of Bălţi. Otherwise, why not to mention as well Napoleonic wars, US Civil War and whatever else... Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76 - Not a single source or verifiable link was provided for this information. This is about cleaning enyclopedia from vandalism and imagination and not cleaning the history. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
An important part of the entries have little to no relevance for this article, and some info is presented in a dishonest way. Maybe Moldopolo was a bit too bold deleting all that, but a cleanup is needed indeed.Anonimu 21:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. Post-1950s immigration[edit]

Also, in the last revenge edits, several pargraphs of the history sections were modified. I offered and am offering to discuss and find a more neutral formulation of these. But erasing information is, imho, propaganda. Moldopodo has replaced:

Late 1950s through 1980s Bălţi, as well as in Chişinău and other cities of Moldova, see a Soviet-sponsored immigarion of non-Moldavians from throughout the Soviet Union, a very heterogeneous mass composed of:

by

Late 1950s through 1980s Bălţi, a very heterogeneous mass from throughout the Soviet Union settled in Bălţi, composed of: competent specialists, well-qualified engineers, doctors, ordinary workers, many Soviet World War II veterans, Soviet and Communist Party apparatchiks.

where the following categories were also expluded:

-ordinary workers trying to leave the poorest regions of the Soviet Union, generally without any professional qualifications

-a few outright criminals

'additionally: We can try a compromize: a minimal amount of information, with more detail to be given in the history of balti article for those who want to read more. Let me explain what I mean on the most difficult issue of all. We could say that from 1950s till 1980s the city saw a significant imigration from other republics of the soviet union, and give the 1989 ethnic composition data (50-50). Full stop /period. We don't say who these people are, but we don't say who these people also are. We don't say to do what they came here (rebuild), but we don't say why that was necessary (Stalin's scorshed earth - there was no military action INSIDE the city), and how come there are not enough locals (deporations till 1954-1956, giving work repartitions to the end of the world after 1954). We can explain these things in the history of balti article, using "there is a point of view that .... there is another point of view that ..." (that kind of text wouldn't be ok for the main article, but for history of balti should be fine.) There remains the question of "Soviet-sponsored", which I believe should be there. But maybe we can find something else to ballance it with and move both to history of balti article, with "one view, other view" formula.:Dc76\^talk 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to present that everyone that imigrated was super-qualified is a distortion of reality. Also, the criminality rate par capita has been up 3-5 fold during that period.

Note that nearly all of the deleted stuff is not Balti-specific - it deals with developments common for all of Bessarabia/Moldova. Therefore, it is for the most part redundant and serves to bloat the history section well beyond reasonable size (for a city). As for the last sentence - both versions are POV. I'd suggest this:

Late 1950s through 1980s: A very heterogeneous mass from throughout the Soviet Union, composed of various specialists, engineers, doctors, workers, Soviet World War II veterans, as well as Communist Party apparatchiks settled in Bălţi. --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 - any proof, source, link? Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Agree with Illythr Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
I support Illythr's version.Anonimu 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14. No usage of the Romanian language during the Soviet period[edit]

Continuation of the revenge edits:

Although the city could then claim several dozen nationalities, only one language was accepted in public places - Russian. The majority of the newcomers never felt a home connection with the city, rather considering USSR as a whole as their home, in contrast with the Russian and Ukrainian minorities before 1940. From 1940 to 1989 the population of the city increases 4-fold, with the addition of the newcomers from all over USSR, and of the local Moldovans/Romanians moving from countryside to the city. By 1989 a tie was established between the numbers of the two communities, although one of them was entirely deprived of using its language in public life, even for shopping.

was replaced by

Although the city could then claim several dozen nationalities, only both languages were accepted in public places - Russian and Moldavian. From 1940 to 1989 the population of the city increases 4-fold, with the addition of the newcomers from all over USSR, and of the local Moldovans moving from countryside to the city. By 1989 Russian was a dominant lagnuage compare to Moldavian in public and private life.

Moldopodo edit is even grammatically and logicall strange ("although dosen, onlth both"). Usage of Moldavian/Romanian in public live, including shops was forbidden. It was only a language of private communication between individuals. Erasing that informationn is an attempt to hide or justify the persecutions of the communist regime.

First time I hear Moldovan being forbidden in public life. All those plaques, newspapers and document forms I've seen must've been a clever optical illusion, then. Use of Russian was encouraged, often at the expense of Moldovan, true, but actually forbidding it? Naaw. I suggest:

With the ethnic composition of the city claiming several dozen nationalities, two languages dominated the public sphere: Russian, the language of interethnic communication, and Moldovan, the language of the largest local ethnic group. From 1940 to 1989 the population of the city increases 4-fold, with the addition of the newcomers from all over USSR, and of the local Moldovans moving from countryside to the city. By 1989 Russian dominated over Moldovan in public and private life. --Illythr 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Illythr except the last sentence. Moldavian was used by public administration, in education, on legal acts, etc. It's a lie that Moldavian was forbidden, or else Dc76 present some proof, source, link? Dc76, vandalising this article tries to present falsified history. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
1) Vandalism is disruption of Wikipedia for the purpose of causing mayhem. That is not what Dc76 does.

-Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (Wikipedia definition) Moldopodo 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Yes. Dc76's edits classify as participation in a POV-conflict with you, certainly not a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. --Illythr 23:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) Sure, Moldovan was present everywhere, but Russian dominated, especially in cities. --Illythr 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illythr's version.Anonimu 21:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree generally speaking with Illythr, but the phrase could be more neutral: Moldavian was present everywhere, but Russian prevailed. Moldopodo 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Well, maybe By 1989 Russian was prevalent in public and private life. Pretty much the same... --Illythr 23:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence by Illythr is ok. The first, though, I'd like to reformulate slightly, like this: During the Soviet era, the ethnic composition of the city claimed several dozen nationalities, while two languages dominated: Russian, which dominated the public sphere, and Moldavian/Romanian, the language of the largest local ethnic group. From 1959 to 1989...

Observation: Russian was not a language of interethnic communication, as such expression was not invented before 1989. All communication was and is interpersonal. It was in 1989 that the soviets promotted: you first talk within your ethnic group, and then the groups interethnically communicate [whatever that means]. People used Romanian as well to communicate. Not at partsobrania, of course, but then who attended those, 96% of population was not party members. Many people used two languages interchangingly - both parties knew the other's native language. If you haven't seen a single case like that, it must have been a big unseen wall between us before 1989.

I also changed 1940 to 1959, since during WWII the population decreased significantly, and 1959 is the first Soviet census. It would be ok also 1956, 1953, and even 1950 (after the 1949 mass deportation), but we don't have censuses/censa [which one is correct?] then. also you have to check how many times exactly. Better say several times until someone finds the data.:Dc76\^talk 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. Negation that anti-communist demonstrations has taken place. Labeling ethnic Moldavians, as a community, with extremism.[edit]

1988-1989 Bălţi is known as the "quiet city" of Moldova. Only four public demonstrations take place in the city during this period, none gathering more than 15,000. The main reform-oriented part of the population was formed by the students and faculty of the local university, which regularly gathered indoors, sometimes numbering several thousands.

was replaced by

1988-1989 Bălţi is known as the "quiet city" of Moldova. Regular peaceful demonstrations and gatherings take place around the Lenin monument in order to support the old system and keep the language balance. A couple of demonstrations are organised from Chişinău by representatives of the extreme right organisation National Front with slogans like "Baggage - Station - Russia", meaning pack your baggage, go to the train station, and go to Russia, a message to the Russian speaking Moldavians.

This is pro-Soviet propaganda, as it is outrageous even to claim that. Look, there were never regular demonstrations in the city, it was "the quiet city"! When the Soviet authorities learned about the preparation of each of the 3 demontrations [the forth one occured, i think, in 1991 in front of the theatre, and it was a totally different athmosphere - it was actually about calling the language romanian, if i remember corectly], they organized one on the same date and same hour, and tried to end it in 30-40 minutes. Each time, when asked to go home, the people went to the tribunes from which the Soviet apparatchicks spoke to them before, took the microphones from them [with a few alterations], and continued for another cca. 1 hour. Then, the demonstrations ended with marches "Jos Mafia" ("Down with the Mafia") from the City Hall to the University.

Also, we are not talking about Chisinau here, but about Balti. In Chisinau demonstrations were every week, and very big.

Labeling an entire ethnic community with using a slogan that 99.99% of them oppose is Soviet propaganda! The Russian and Ukrainian communities have never been labeled of persecuting the ethnic majority, of shovinism. It was the Soviet leadership and individual sympathyzers that were blamed the whole ethnic group of shovinism. It is very uncivilized to add labels to a whole ethnic community. The majority never called for "Baggage-Station-Russia", some derained individuals addressing to other derained individuals did [from my part, they both could go], and were immediately opposed by the people. Blaming a whole ethnic group of extremism is the faithful continuation of the policy of calling one fascist for calling oneself Romanian. (lots of mistakes corrected :Dc76\^talk 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Proper sourcing should solve this issue, I believe. --Illythr 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 - any proof, source, link? Besides, Dc76 has deleted the edit: the pression to set Moldavian as the only one language turned into separation of eastern cantons of Moldavia and creation of a break-away Republic. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Present facts. If pro-Soviet public demonstrations have taken place, they should be mentioned. Also, if demonstrators in Balti didn't use "B-S-R", i see no reason to mention that. Remember this s about Balti, not Moldova.Anonimu 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16 Local elections[edit]

Since 1989 All local elections are won by the old Soviet apparatus candidates, the Russian minority being stronger politically not least because of its higher turnout rate. However the policies of the local authorities have evolved from one individual to the next, so that although extreme left by today's standards, some of them would have been considered quite liberal in Soviet times.

Currently, the municipal activity is done in Russian and Romanian, in disregard with the 1989 national language law, which states that Romanian/Moldavian is the only official language of the country.

The city actively supports Ukrainian language and culture, as cca 30,000 inhabitants can speak at least some degree of that language.

vs

Since 1989 All local elections are won by the old Soviet apparatus candidates, the Russian minority being stronger politically and economically.

Currently, the municipal activity is done in Russian and Moldavian.

The city actively supports Ukrainian language and culture, as at least 25,000 inhabitants speak Ukrainian.

Again this was done as revenge. However, I agree find a more neutral formulation here.

additionally: Agree to stop at "...apparatus candidates" for the first paragraph. The second and third paragraph in the first version. I modified 25,000 to 30,000 [now]. :Dc76\^talk 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 as far as the text in ~~bold~~roman shrift is concerned - any proof, source, link? Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76 - any proof, source, link? Dc76 is taking the role of a judge on encyclopedia, this is ridiculous! Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 - any proof, source, link? This has nothing to do with revenge. Your analysis is so strange and ill-minded. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Unless reliable sources are brought, I think the phrase should stop at "...apparatus candidates".Anonimu 21:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17 "Repatriation"[edit]

Many ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians, prompted by the poor economic situation, have repatriated to Russia, resp. Ukraine.

vs

Many ethnic Russians, ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Romanians, prompted by the poor economic situation of Moldova, have repatriated to Russia, Ukraine and Romania.

Again, indroduced as revenge. The people that lef the city and went to Russia and Ukraine had to renounce the Moldovan citizenship and claim return to those countries for ethnic belonging reason. That was the recuirement of those countries. There are others who got those citizenships and did not leave, those still live in the city, they have not repatriated. In the entire Moldova there were only 20 (!) cases of people that received Romanian citizenship and renounced the Moldovan one. I don't know of a single one of them to be from Balti. There are, I guess, a couple thousand inhabitants of the city (100,000 people in the entire Moldova, and the city is 3.5% of the population of the country) that have Romanian citizenship, but they live in the city, and have Moldovan citizenship. They never left. What kind of repatriation, to where? Moldova, not Romania is there home. Aquiring Romanian citizenship does not mean to "repatriate" anywhere.

Disagree with Dc76 - any proof, source, link? I know plenty of Moldavians who received Romanian citizenship and left for Romania for good, from Bălţi namely, because they identified themselves with Romanians and Romania, just as some Russians and Ukrainians did. Now, is that an info to be put on an encyclopedia? Also it is just another false statement by Dc76 that people had to renounce Moldavian citizenship to go to Ukraine or Russia. People who left for Russsia and Ukraine had for home Moldova as well, they were born in Moldova, but had to flee in front of people like Dc76, outright nationalsts, trying to assimilate everything to Romanian and to rewrite the history on the expense of people's lives. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

"Repatriated" is a very ugly world. Use a NPOV word, like "left".Anonimu 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18. Erasing that there were doubts about the accuracy of 2004 census[edit]

From now on, this is old stuff, not as revenge.

N.B. The accuracy of the 2004 census data was questioned by international observers, as the census officials, possibly motivated by financial shortages or political considerations, often filled in approximate figures, based on police data, rather than questioning large portions of population. However, the trends, proportions, phenomena put into evidence by the census data were not questioned, as the filling in was mainly due to economic situation. ^{[citation needed]}

This is a necessary information imho. Expressing the same with different words is ok. Note, it is about accuracy not correctness.

additionally: I have added {{Fact}}. Note, this text would be with <smal>smaller shrift. Once this dispute will be consumed, I'll bring the sourses (sorry, but i have other stuff to do as well, not just WP). Everyone could read and appreciate, and re-open the question then if wants. The questionings were in press very much, all of you know very well it is not an invension, so my only thing will be to find you the most authoritive one.:Dc76\^talk 15:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 - This article is about Bălţi with the statistical data submitted by State administration. If you have a link, verifiable source that questions this census write an article on this census and put it in there. Such comments have no place on the article about Bălţi proper. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
I support Moldopodo's request for sources. Anonimu 21:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19. 1935 estimations[edit]

According to the Romanian official estimations for 1935, based on the census of 1930, the city had around 35,000 people.

was erased by Moldopodo.

Don't see the need to delete it. --Illythr 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 - We need a link and a verifiable source here. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

20. 1940.[edit]

In 1939, another Romanian census was carried out, however its data was not processed because of the Soviet occupation. Preliminary data suggested cca 40,000 inhabitants.

vs

in 1939 another Romanian census was carried out, however its data was never processed because of the beginning of the World War II

The military action of WWII started in the region on 22 June 1941. The WWII in the world has started on 1 September 1939. The census was taken "as on 1 January 1940". Start of WWII in Poland was not a hinder for a census in Romania. The data was not finished to be processed because on 28 June 1940 Soviet troups have entered. The word "occupation" is used because that is the title of a specific wikipedia article about the events.

additionally: This exists even on the russian wikipedia! :Dc76\^talk 15:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 - We need a link and a verifiable source here (on this census, its date and other important details). Anyway, that's the version that was on Russian Wikipedia, which I find much more neutral and positive as an article. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

The second version is much better.Anonimu 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21. Ethnic composition according to 1930 census[edit]

I understand that it was clasifiedand crime to write that information during the Soviet period. But what is wrong of writing it now?

Disagree with Dc76 - We need a link and a verifiable source here. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

22. Moldovans/Romanians as ethnic group[edit]

This is perhaps the most delicate of the whole issues, maybe we need a separate discussion for it. First, please note that the census data show that there is a completely different cituation about the name of the language. Cca 40% of those that declared themselves Moldavians declared Romanian as their native language. Second, please note these numbers are very fluctuant from one census to another. It is a psychological process of national emancipation (Remeber that calling oneself Romanian during the Soviet time was equivalent to saying "I am fascist", and it takes people years to overcome that fear.) You can agree or disagree with the rightousness of this process of emancipation, but you can not deny it is happening. There are two questions here:

A) do we say ethnic Moldavians, ethnic Romanians, or ethnic Moldavians/Romanians. I believe the second is correct. But because of political volatility of this issue, I would definitively agree to use the third.

B) We should not divide the community into Moldavians and Romanians, because the majority of those that consider themselves Moldavians also consider themselves Romanians: they consider the nothin Moldavian to be part of a larger notion Romanian. Like Bavarian or Austrian within German. Also, they consider themselves as a whole community. Even the few politicians that support Moldovenism claim that the community is entire and never devided. All they oppose is the emancipation transformation that occures. Therefore, I am supporting to write Moldavains/Romanians and in the ethnic composition subsection to give the total number of the members of that community, but also to faithfully give the numbers of those that are declared/recorded Romanians and those that are declared/recorded Moldavians. Otherwise, one artificially minimizes the true size of the community as proportion of the city population (even if it is only by 2%).

Moldopodo, I insist, please don't brake my argument above. It is not perfect, but leave it as it is, please. None can understand anything if you brake it in 7 places. Find time to write yours in full, or write it shorter and more inteligently. thank you. :Dc76\^talk 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Dc76 vandalised this talk page, by piling up my comments in one place, after I have already re-edited them twice, so that it would impossible to know which statement exactly they went to.

Official Wikipedia definition of vandalism: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Moldopodo 08:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Best simply stick to the actual census data. --Illythr 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. Please, state your sources and links. Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. Please, state your sources and links.Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. Please, state your sources and links.Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. Please, state your sources and links.Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. I do not see two or even one question here. Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. German speaking Austrians and German speaking Swiss, as well as German speaking Belgian or German speaking Lichtensteinians do not consider themselves Germans. Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. Please, state your sources and links. Who are the politicians? Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. The last suggestion of Dc76 may be qualified as a suggestion to change the official census data, in other words say the State of the Republic of Moldova does not exist. Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree with Dc76 - We need a link and a verifiable source here. Official data is a stubborn thing, that may not please, imgaination of Dc76 is another. Why did not Dc76 write Moldavian/Swedish or Moldavian/Japanese? Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Moldovans and Romanians should be listed separately. Also, there were people who declared themselves Romanians even in soviet census, so DC76's arguments is false.Anonimu 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovans and Romanians should be listed together. This is not a Moldovan encyclopedia, it is an international project, and some guidelines should be respected. CIA Factbook, Encarta, Britannica, U.S. department of State, all list Romanian and Moldovans together. Still I understand this subject is even more delicate than that of the language, because allthough everybody knows the language of Moldova is Romanian, and all Romanian native speakers from Moldova agree to this, and even other people (with the exeptions of some bizare people, that don't speak the language, but still have an opinion on it), the debate about Romanians and Moldovans is larger. --Danutz 18:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23. Erasing external links[edit]

Web page of Bălţi in Romanian, English, French: news, photos, videos, maps

was erased. Simultaneously, to the external links the webpage of a commercial internet service provider was added. That is not a public institution like the university, it is basically advertizing. But look, have it there if you insist. Don't erase non-commercial liks. That is doen in bad faith: because that link does not have a Russian version. That is shovinism.

Moldopodo, I have no idea about that portal. I think I visited it once 1 year ago out of curiousity. I have no relation with it, and if you require, I can disclose my full information to an admin.:Dc76\^talk 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it is there, but the title was removed, therefore it apeared to me erased. We ought to discuss a good presentation of the external links. Here is my proposal:

Suggest to remove as commercial site:

- Official web portal of Real-Progres, internet service provider
The logic: first official sites: mayor, the university, a well-known press agency, the government-sponssored turism site. Then unofficial ones: on in Romanian, English and French, and two in Russian. Since the official language is Romanian, I believe this order is more correct. I personally have nothing against presence of commercial sites, but WP does, so I guess there is a reason why. :Dc76\^talk 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Gog gracious, how many times I have to say, I have nothing to do with that site. I reacted to the fact that you erased the words "in Romanian, English, and French". 2) How can one have a site/two sites, albeit unofficial, of a city which do/es not have even under construction an official language version is very interesting. Obviously those are sites intended only for a small portion of the public. (perhaps even mostly for people who once lived in Balti but no longer live there) Whatever, they can exist. 3) the words "internet service provider" is what is commercial there. obviously, this could be a smart strategy by a company to present on its site useful info about the city. it's the best advertizing. But WP discurages links to such. 4)just to make it clear: Moldopodo, do you have any relationship with http://www.beltsy.md Official web portal of Real-Progres, internet service provider? It is absolutely clear that if you don't, you won't shy to say so. :Dc76\^talk 19:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't erased the last time I checked... just rearranged. --Illythr 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 - Indeed, the link was not erased, but it should have been considered as a spam, as the link is inserted on all Wikipedia pages. This anonymous amateur site is apparently the source of Dc76's inspiration for imagination on editing the Bălţi article. This site is registered with a free hosting provider, is advertised as multilingual, whereas only Romanian version is working, is not visited, the forum is almost empty. I am afraid there is a link between Dc76 and this site, so well it is advertised everywhere. As for the site of Real-Progres, the first internet provider in Bălţi, it was a site with a catalogue of companies in Bălţi. Its multimedia portal (chat namely) is the most visited (just count an average number of visiors in Bălţi ad allows people to find relatives, etc. It has a lrge section of pictures and news updates whish are all very well professionally done. At least one can always know where to call and whom to contact personally if there is any problem. As I am writing it is visited by 283 persons, whereas the controversial site of Dc76 was visited today only by me as I was writing and the most it had was 12 since its creation. Moldopodo 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Amateur sites are not a good idea for external links.Anonimu 21:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisemnt of this site is a banal spam for obvious reasons described here[2]. As for the site of Real Progres. First of all its domain name is a city name trnsliteration in Russian (www.beltsy.md), and not a domain of a commercial company (for example www.realprogres.md). Secondly I have found no information on the contents of the site on the company Real-Progres itself. The contents of the site is: City Administration, City History, Beltsy today, Consumer Guide, Articles, News, News Topics, Reviews, Gallery, Forum, Chat, etc... This was the frst site about Beltsy on internet and I see no reason for not including it in external links. Moldopodo 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

24. Erasing mention of discuraged education in Moldavian/Romanian during the Soviet period[edit]

The later case was inherited from the Soviet system, which discouraged education in any language but Russian, and where mixed schools were created with the administration being carried out in Russian (the official language of the Soviet Union).

vs

The later case was inherited from the Soviet system, which provided for education in Russian and Moldavian languages, where mixed schools were created with the administration being carried out in both languages.

Actually, there was no official language in the Soviet Union. --Illythr 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. Indeed, the administration and education were carried out in both languages. Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Moldopodo labelling as "simple lie" DC76 statement is qualifying as personal attack. Few Moldovan-language schools existed in Bălţi, is true that Moldovan-language education was discuraged, while not entirely forbiden.--MariusM 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25. Current legal status of one official language in Moldova.[edit]

Today, both Romanian and Russian languages are used in the administration, although legally only Romanian is official.

vs

Today, both Moldavian and Russian languages are used in the administration.

Exactly, today both Moldavian and Russian languages are used in the administration. Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
legally only Moldavian is official. That's a fact. See the Constitution.--MariusM 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26. Negation that many young Moldavians do not know Russian[edit]

Younger Moldovans, educated after 1989, speak both Romanian and, usually, at least one foreign language. They might or might not know Russian.

vs

Younger Moldovans, educated after 1989, speak both Moldavian, Russian, understand Ukrainian and, usually, at least one foreign language.

Also, less than 16% of the population from public polls understand Ukrainian. How about. "Quite a few inhabitants of the city speak/understand Ukrainian" ?

Any sources for both statements? --Illythr 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76 - First of all sources and links are needed. Secondly Bălţi is home for the only consulate of Ukraine in Moldova, Bălţi was the first city in Moldova where Ukrainian retail chain "Fourchette" opened its first and soon second store[3], where another Ukrainian major restaurant chain "Sushi-Studio" openedits first branch in Moldova[4], Bălţi has a large cultural centre for Ukrainian speaking Bălţiers, Bălţi State University offers courses in Ukrainian, next to other languages, the Mayor of the Bălţi (elected since 2001 and still incumbent) is of Ukrainian origin, speaking Ukrainian. There is a monument to Ukrainian writer in the center of Bălţi, 30 288 inhabitants of Bălţi - 23,7 % are ethnically Ukrainian.Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

27. Denial of change of ethnic composition of the city during the Soviet period[edit]

The text in bold was erased by Moldopodo:

After World War II, during the period when the city was part of the former Soviet Union, there was significant immigration from all over the USSR in a move to establish a local Soviet and party apparatus, to develop the industry, and to create a Russian-speaking majority.

In the same period many Moldovans (Romanians) from the countryside of Moldova moved to the cities, including Bălţi. By the end of 1980s, the Jews of Moldova had migrated en masse to Israel. The Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking (officially, over 30 other ethnicities of the former Soviet Union) had by then reached almost 50%, with Romanian-speaking Moldovans representing the other 50%.

Currently, many emigrant workers from the city are temporarily (legally or illegally) working in Russia and Greece, as well as Western Europe, including Italy, Portugal, Ireland, as it is very difficult to earn a living in Moldova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc76 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Dc76, namely on the plan to create the Russian speaking majority. The above cited statement is false, also qualified as simple lie, reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view and has nothing to do with the reality that should be depicted in an encycloepdia. Please provide reliable and verifiable sources and links. Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Disagree with Dc76. The above cited statement is reflecting only Dc76 subjective point of view. Please provide reliable and verifiable sources and links. Also this statement rather goes into an article on the Economy of Moldova or Demographics of Moldova, but not in the article on Bălţi. Moldopodo 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

"to create a Russian-speaking majority" is just a jingoistic POV.Anonimu 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation of intentional demographic change is unreferenced (and although such things happened elsewhere in the USSR I don't think it was the case here). Alæxis_¿question? 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, what is meant here by the 'recruitment to Soviet labour camps'? As far as I know you weren't exactly recruited in Soviet camps then. And what is 'Moldovan famine'? Alæxis_¿question? 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals[edit]

Let's focuss to see, maybe we can get unanimous or almost unanimous on some issues.:Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1[edit]

Do you support or oppose using in this article the term Romanian to denote the language?

Support

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danutz; Still in the introduction we should evoid any mention of the language, as we don't need it. --Danutz 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Alternative

Just remove the first word. --Illythr 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2[edit]

Do you support or oppose using in this article the term Moldavian to denote the language?

Support

Oppose

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danutz 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3[edit]

Do you support or oppose using in this article the term Romanian/Moldavian to denote the language?

Support

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danutz 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

4[edit]

Do you support or oppose having a section Ethymology and Names as the first section of this article, and move there from the introduction everything (in that regard) except the current names of the city in Romanian, Russian and Ukrainian ? The intro will start

Bălţi [ˈbəltsʲ] (Romanian: Bălţi, Russian: Бельцы, Ukrainian: Бєльці) is ...

Support

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Danutz 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

5[edit]

Do you prefer this:

Bălţi [ˈbəltsʲ] (Romanian/Moldavian: Bălţi, Russian: Бельцы, Ukrainian: Бєльці) is one of the five Moldavian municipalities, the second largest city in terms of area and economic importance (after Chişinău), the third largest city in terms of populationan (after Chişinău and Tiraspol) in Moldova.

or this:

Bălţi [ˈbəltsʲ] (Romanian/Moldavian: Bălţi, Russian: Бельцы, Ukrainian: Бєльці) is the second largest city in terms of area and economic importance (after Chişinău), the third largest city in terms of populationan (after Chişinău and Tiraspol) in Moldova. It is a municipality.

The first

The second

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) because it avoid the three vs five municipalities problem. [three if you look af first-tier territorial units, five if you look localities having that status. Administrative divisions of Moldova explains that][reply]

Third opinion

Tiraspol isn't Moldova of course ;) but I'm curious why do you think that its economic importance is less than that of Beltsy? Alæxis_¿question? 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6[edit]

Do you support or oppose using the phrase the capital of the north or the northern capital in this article?

Support

Why not? Just mention it in passing somewhere. --Illythr 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7[edit]

Do you support or oppose using the phrase the capital of the north or the northern capital in the introduction?

Support

Oppose

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8[edit]

Which of the two you prefer?

the capital of the north

the northern capital

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Illythr 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9[edit]

Do you prefer the phrase Bălţi steppe or Bălţi plateau?

steppe

An area of highland? Naw. --Illythr 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does the word "plateau" carry necesarily the conotation "highland" ? :Dc76\^talk 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

plateau

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Hills form a plateau, which is a type of relief, while steppe (totally =/= hills) is rather a type of vegetation.[reply]

neither

I don't think either of those terms is accurate. I don't see how the territory around Bălți can be considered a steppe considering the soil type and level of humidity. And it's not really a highland either. TSO1D 00:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you call then a "plateau" at 300 m altitude ? If you find such a word, I suggest using it. Alternatively, we can drop the whole sentence. It would be strange to live such a contested sentence, especilly in the introduction. :Dc76\^talk 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10[edit]

Do you support

Elizaveta and Sadovoe

or

Elizavetovca and Sadovoe ?

(please, notice also that the links for Sadovoe are different)

the first

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Elisaveta is the official name, according to Moldovan Law no XV-764 which everyone can find on the Parliament's website.[reply]

the second

11[edit]

About ethymology, do you prefer

The word Bălţi (pl. of sing. "baltă") is translated literally "puddle pools"

or

The word Bălţi (pl. of sing. "baltă") is translated literally "swamp, puddle pools"?

no swamp

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

swamp

Other

Who came up with puddle pools? That is just bizarre. Swamp is better, but I think the best translation would be marsh. TSO1D 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12[edit]

Do you prefer

Some city neighborhoods bear the names of the former 19th century suburbs: Pământeni, Slobozia, Molodovo, Bălţul Nou, Podul Chişinăului; some are known by their Soviet-era names: 8th district, 9th district; or other names: Autogara (which means, the inter-city coach station), Dacia (colloquially also called BAM).

or

Some city neighborhoods bear the names of the former 19th century suburbs; some are known by their Soviet-era names: 8th district, 9th district; or other names: BAM.?

the first

Dc76\^talk 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the second

13[edit]

Do you support or oppose introducing in the subsection Demographics of section Population this paragraph:

N.B. The accuracy of the 2004 census data was questioned by some observers, as the census officials, possibly motivated by financial shortages or political considerations, sometimes filled in approximate figures, based on police data, rather than questioning portions of the population. However, the overall trends, proportions, phenomena, etc, put into evidence by the census data, were not questioned.^{[citation needed]}

assuming that a proper citation will be put?

support

Dc76\^talk 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danutz 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC); This paragraph is very important in relation for the data collected from the census, and the census data has no value without this notes, because otherwise it wouldn't have been recognised. In my personal opinion, I think this afirmation should include the notes issued by the supervising comitee of the census, that stated the problems encountered in the census.[reply]

oppose

The census was specific to all of Moldova, not just the city. Put whatever concerns into the appropriate article. Oh, it's already there... --Illythr 20:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14[edit]

Do you support or oppose introducing in the subsection Demographics of section Population this paragraph:

According to the Romanian official estimations for 1935, based on the census of 1930, the city had around 35,000 people.^{[citation needed]}

assuming that a proper citation will be put?

support

Dc76\^talk 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sourcing was the original problem here. And with every other "Romanian census" entry. They can be stacked here, I believe. Illythr 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took the date from the ro.wiki, which refers either to a broken link, or to a (statistics) book that publishes (officially) all the 1930 census data. Unfortunately, I don't have that book. Once I get a hold of it, I will photocopy everything. Meanwhile I am looking for online or printed references which cite that book/huge report.:Dc76\^talk 00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just referencing the book (by name and publisher) would be enough. It's not like this is a hotly contested issue or something... --Illythr 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose

15[edit]

Do you prefer

In 1939, another Romanian census was carried out, however its data was not processed because of the Soviet occupation. Preliminary data suggested cca 40,000 inhabitants.

or

in 1939 another Romanian census was carried out, however its data was never processed because of the beginning of the World War II?

the first

Dc76\^talk 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC), since the military action of WWII started in the region on 22 June 1941. The census was taken "as on 1 January 1940". Start of WWII in Poland was not a hinder for a census in Romania. The data was not finished to be processed because on 28 June 1940 Soviet troups have entered. The word "occupation" is used because that is the title of a specific wikipedia article about the events. But, if you prefer a milder "was annexed to", I wouldn't oppose.[reply]

the second

16[edit]

Do you support or oppose introducing in the subsection Demographics of section Population this paragraph:

According to the Romanian official census for 1930, Bălţi had a population of 30,570, of which 14,200 were Jews, 8,900 Romanians, 5,400 Russians and Ukrainians, 1,000 Poles. Also 14,400 were Christian Orthodox, 14,250 Judaic, 1,250 Romano-Catholic. In that year, the city represented only 7.9% of the population of the surrounding Bălţi County (it would be 30% of the same territory today).^{[citation needed]}

assuming that a proper citation will be put?

support

Dc76\^talk 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose

17[edit]

Do you support or oppose using in this article the phrase Moldavians/Romanians to denote the indigenous ethnic group? If you support, you would automatically favour the first table. If you oppose, you would automatically favour the second one.

According to the 2004 census, the ethnic composition of the city is[5]:

+ N.B. The census organizers asked the people to declare themselves either Moldavian or Romanian, and counted the two numbers separately. This policy was severely criticised by the civil society. below the table

Ethnicity	Number	%
Moldavian/Romanian	69 135	54.2 %
incl. Moldavian	66 877	52.4 %
and Romanian	2 258	1.8 %
Ukrainian	30 288	23.7 %
Russian	24 526	19.2 %
Bulgarian	297	0.2 %
Gagauz	243	0.2 %
other	2 889	2.3 %
did not declare	183	0.1 %

According to the 2004 census, the ethnic composition of the city is[6]:

Ethnicity	Number	%
Moldavian	66 877	52,4 %
Ukrainian	30 288	23,7 %
Russian	24 526	19,2 %
Romanian	2258	1,8 %
Bulgarian	297	0,2 %
Gagauz	243	0,2 %
other	2889	2,3 %
not declared	183	0,1 %

the first

Dc76\^talk 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danutz 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC) According to other widely known publications like CIA Factbooks, Country Data from the US Departament of State, Encarta, Britannica and others.[reply]

the second

This is not the same as questions 1,2,3. I don't have an opinion about those questions (now, at least) but here I strongly support the second table. As far as I understand Moldovan authorities counted Moldovans and Romanians separately. We shouldn't undertake original research and modify census results. Alæxis_¿question? 19:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, "civil society" is a weasel phrase in this context. --Illythr 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18[edit]

Do you support or oppose the following list of external links:

Note that the following link has been omitted as commercial:

Official web portal of Real-Progres, internet service provider.

support

Dc76\^talk 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oppose

Remove the university site and beltsy.info (seems to have expired), add beltsy.md (note that beltsymd.ru refers to it as a site about the city). --Illythr 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what's wrong with the university's site? Check again, it worked the last time I checked (just now). Ditto for beltsy.info, but this one I checked rather long time ago. My only objection to beltsy.md is the commercial character. We can reformulate "Useful information about the city at the website of the comercial comapny X". I don't see a problem with that, as long as we don't directly advertise the company.:Dc76\^talk 00:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site of the university is about the university, not the city. beltsy.info is gone. I could find virtually no info on that company on the site. It looks like the site's pretty much about the city now. --Illythr 01:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site of the university is not supposed to be about the city, just as the site of the mayor office, of the press agency, etc. These are public institutions that operate in the city. Given the fact that it is the second largest university in the country, I guess it should be mentioned.

about the "Real-progress", go to the website, look at the left column. In that column after "Beltsy" you will find "Real-progress". Below that, you can select different things. It contains rather a lot of information about the company. It is in fact the company's site. Obvioulsy, noone stops Moldopodo to re-register the website to an NGO. I am not opposing a link to it in general, but the reader must be warned that the content of the site is first of all commercial.:Dc76\^talk 01:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19[edit]

Do you support this

The later case was inherited from the Soviet system, which discouraged education in any language but Russian, and where mixed schools were created with the administration being carried out in Russian.

or this

The later case was inherited from the Soviet system, which provided for education in Russian and Moldavian languages, where mixed schools were created with the administration being carried out in both languages. ?

the first

Dc76\^talk 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the second

The assertion that Soviets discouraged education in any language but Russian is way too strong (and not completely truthful, imho). It's not referenced and I'm not sure it should be here (in the article about Beltsy) at all.. Alæxis_¿question? 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Alaexis. I still remember the old subject forms in both Russian and Moldovan Cyrillic. --Illythr 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20[edit]

Do you support this

Today, both Romanian and Russian languages are used in the local administration. Legally, only Moldavian/Romanian is official.

or this

Today, both Moldavian and Russian languages are used in the local administration. ?

the first

Dc76\^talk 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danutz 18:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~#TSO1D 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Indeed, Romanian is the only official language of Moldova.~~ see my comments below.[reply]

the second

Article 17 of the language law[7], I believe. --Illythr 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that law does not apply anymore. The Constitution (article 13) directly states that Moldovan is the only state language. The language laws were passed when Moldova was still part of the USSR, so Russian was given special status because it was the common language of the USSR. However, the Constitution states that the language laws are only retained insomuch as they do not contradict the latter, and in this instance, they clearly do.TSO1D

...that is, not meaning that Russian's official, but rather, that it's allowed to be used in local administrative bodies. The law is still in force. It was last amended in 2003 [8]. For some reason, noone bothered to remove all the USSR references, though... --Illythr 08:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actual curious about this issue and read some analysis. So basically, the law about the language used in official documents and affairs is called "Legea privind actele normative ale Guvernului şi ale altor autorităţi ale administraţiei publice centrale şi locale" And there, it is stated that: "Proiectul de act normativ întocmit în limba moldovenească cu traducere în limba rusă se transmite spre examinare autorităţii care îl va emite." Or "Bills written in Moldavian and translated intro Russian should be transmitted to the authorities who will execute it for examination." Thus, the bill makes an explicit mention of the Russian language, although the meaning is to translate the final product, not to have its elaboration done in Russian. The Constitutional Court actually found a similar uncostitutional, because of the Constitution's statement that Moldovan is the only official language. Anyway, the whole thing is very confusing, but it's Moldova, what else could I expect :) So basically it seems that the government pushed through laws of questionable constitutionality that mention the Russian language in a quasi-official status. So it's probably better not to mention that "legally only Moldavian is official," in this context because this statement might not be completely accurate in light of these complications. TSO1D 17:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every law once passed is legal. Subsequent laws modify them, or cancel them. This is a general principle of the legal system worldwide. In particular, the law from 1989 is valid today, but with modifications made subsequently. Otherwise, why would the parliament modify in 2001 (a paragraph about something related to notary offices, e.g.) a law that would be not valid since 1991. The 1989 law says to use Russian in communication with USSR authorities, hence if such authorities would exist today, Russian would have to be used.

About constitutionality, only the Constitutional Court can rule. With all due respect, we can not. Things might seem confusing at the first sight, if one tries to judge them in comparison with other countries. But they are simple. The bill that you refer was turned down by the constitutional court, so legally it is not valid. You can understand the reason behind bringing such a bill: the real situation on the ground was breaking the law, so anyone could sue. The government wanted to avoid this, but it was turned down on the ground of constituion.

Lastly, the article 13 of the constitution clearly says that there could be an organic law. That is the law from 1989. Normally, the parlament should have revised it, and rewrite from scratch, based on the fact that USSR does not exist anymore, and that it is a market economy now. It did not do that precisely because any initiative would heat the political situation. And in the current economic situation, plitical turmoil is the last thing anyone wants. So, until then, the organic law is the 1989 law. The consitituion says which language is official, not how to call it, because no law can order people how they want to call things. You can interpret the consitution as saying that the word "Moldavian" is prefered to the word "Romanian". That is why I suggest "Molavian/Romanian". Normally, ther should exist a legal stipulation in some law that says "In official documents, the word "Moldavian" should be prefered to call the language." But even such a phrase, or similar, does not exist in Moldovan legislation (at least to my knowledge).:Dc76\^talk 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21[edit]

Do you support this

Younger ethnic Moldavians/Romanians, educated after 1989, speak Romanian and, usually, at least one foreign language. This might or might not include some knowledge of Russian. Also, quite a few inhabitants of the city speak/understand Ukrainian.

or this

Younger Moldovans, educated after 1989, speak both Moldavian, Russian, understand Ukrainian and, usually, at least one foreign language. ?

the first

Dc76\^talk 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danutz 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the second

Why would they understand Ukrainian? TSO1D 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because 30,000 of the 127,000 inhabitants of the city are ethnic Ukrainians. They represent the second ethnic group, begger than Russians, which are 25,000. True, not all ethnic Ukrainians speak Ukrainian (some speak Russian), but most of them do. And occasioanlly, although quite rarely, but not non-notibly, some others do also understand Ukrainian. If someone has a Ukrainian neighbor, and are communicating often, within a couple years, they get to understand it (without being able to write in it, of course), because some Ukrainians have a tendency to speak a language that is half-Ukrainian half-Russian, meaking it possible to understand for those who know Russian.:Dc76\^talk 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22[edit]

Do you support the italic + the bold part, or only the italic one ?

In 1940-1941, and 1944-1954, the city has lost an important part of its population to Soviet deportations of the political, economical, and cultural elites and of more successful peasants, to Soviet political emprisonments, to Romanian deportation of Jews (holocaust), to World War II, to Moldavian famine (1946-1947), to Soviet recruitments into labour camps, to emigration.

After World War II, during the period when the city was part of the former Soviet Union, there was a significant immigration from all over the USSR in a move to establish a local Soviet and party apparatus, to develop the industry, and to create a Russian-speaking majority.

From 1950s to 1990s, many Moldavians/Romanians from the countryside of northern Moldova moved to Bălţi. By the end of 1980s, most of the Jews of Moldova had migrated en masse to Israel. The Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking had by then reached 50% of the population of the city, with Moldavian/Romanian-speaking representing the other 50%.

Currently, many emigrant workers from the city are temporarily (legally or illegally) working in Russia and Greece, as well as in Western Europe, including Italy, Portugal, Ireland, since it is very difficult to earn a decent living in Moldova.

italic+bold

Dc76\^talk 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

italic only

perhaps some of both?

During the 1940s and early 1950s, the city has lost a significant part of its population to Soviet deportations, Romanian deportation of Jews (holocaust), World War II, the Moldavian famine (1946-1947) and emigration.

After World War II, during the period when the city was part of the former Soviet Union, there was a significant immigration from all over the USSR in a move to rebuild the country, establish a local Soviet and party apparatus and to develop the industry.

From 1950s to 1990s, many Moldovans from the countryside of northern Moldova moved to Bălţi. By the end of 1980s, most of the Jews of Moldova had migrated en masse to Israel. The Russian- and Ukrainian-speaking group had by then reached 50% of the population of the city, with Moldavian/Romanian-speaking representing the other 50%. --Illythr 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illythr 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this version. Alæxis_¿question? 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(if 3 more words are added) I'd support that with "Soviet political imprisonments" added. Because that did occur as well. Especially in the cities. (Remember article 58 of the Stalin's penal code?) Also, what is wrong with the forth paragraph? I don't even think there can be a POV there. What other "POV" can there be? :) :Dc76\^talk 23:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps change Soviet deportations to the broader Soviet (or Stalinist) repressions (two "deportations" next to each other are kinda awkward)? Fourth para needs sourcing and the last part, "since...", is unencyclopedic. --Illythr 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deporatation is ssylka", emprisonment is "lageri". It's different. In the second case, there is a (fictious but) trial (generally by a troika in Moscow, i.e. you don't get to see them). In the first case, whole families are deported, including 1-year old children. But I get you point, that it can seem repeetition to an outsider. How about this "Soviet (Stalinist) repressions (political emprisonments and deportations)".

Soursing the forth para shouldn't be a problem. Please, reformulate it to a version that sounds likely to you. Change "since", change whatever you like. E.g. we can say "They find it very difficult to earn a living in Moldova." And I could sourse that as well with 1-2 interviews or stories in newspapers.:Dc76\^talk 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion, comments, information[edit]

DEXonline[edit]

http://dexonline.ro/search.php?lexemId=4971 In what language is written? --Mr. Diegos 19:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on now?[edit]

Please,

use Section 1. The 27 issues to discuss, exchange oppinions, understand arguments ponitwise,
use Section 2. Prposals to summarize, or rather to record your preference,
use Section 3 for further discussion.

I intentionally avoided the History section of the article, because it is big and I am still working on a shortened version of that section, based on what I read in the previous discussion. Obviously, I am not stopping anyone to bring any new proposals, or to propose a different version of the section "History". :Dc76\^talk 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, do you want me to repeat my comments at the first section? I could do that... Alæxis_¿question? 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I cannnot figure out for the moment to what exactly you refer, please tell me. :) The meaning of my last sentence of the previous message is: add something as no. 24. no. 25 etc., if you have something. By all means, please do!:Dc76\^talk 23:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Section[edit]

I went through the history section and made a number of minor changes, and also removed various POV terms. However, this was only a light edit, and the entire section needs significant change, and much more sourcing. The only major changes that I made were:

removing "Russian officials were unhappy with the number of Jews arriving, but unlike in Chişinău, they have not organized pogroms in Bălţi. "

I also removed the sentence: "The Jews of the city, primarily speakers of (generally) Yiddish and some of Romanian before 1940, quickly switched to Russian, so that by 1980s only the elderly was speaking Yiddish. However the degree of knowing the Moldavian/Romanian language before 1989 was higher among Jews, even those born after 1940, than among Russians." Sounds like unsourced speculation, and why was this in the history section?

I also have a question about this sentence: "1980s The vast majority of Jews move to Israel." No source is provided, so I don't even know whether this is true or not. Does anyone have a source for this?

Also, what does this mean: " Bălţi was known as the "quiet city" of Moldova. Regular peaceful demonstrations and gatherings took place around the Lenin monument in order to support the old system and keep the language balance." I have never heard of Bălți referred to as the "quiet city." And what exactly does "language balance" mean?

I did not make any major changes to the WWII part as that is discusses in the "23 points." TSO1D 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first two. 3) That cca 90% of the Jews left you can indirectly see from the ethnic composition. The 1979 or 1989 Soviet census had 15+ % Jews. Anyway, I'll try to find a direct sourse as well. 4) "quiet city" was a nickname that Balti had in 1988-1991, just as "northern capital". A sourse can be found in that peroud newspapers, which are not online. So, I'll look for one in the next few days.

It has nothing to do with "language balance", which was not something I introduced, so I don't know in what context. I can guess the meaning... prehaps it could refer to the "moldavian-russian and russian-moldavian balance" that was ensrined in the article 6 of the 1989 law when it says something like "the language in relations with USSR authorities, in the military, and in USSR institutions in Moldova should be russian, and that should ensure a moldavian-russian and russian-moldavian balance" [citation from memory].

Although your edits to the article were very good, and very helpful (you found several good reformulations), I'd suggest to first focus on ending the issues of dispute, hopefully within 1-2 weeks. Then, we can look at reordering some sections, at which point it would be great if you could re-read the whole article and copyedit it, not just for individual things, but for the overall balance. I abstained from any edits since Moldopodo and me got to edit war. I asked everyone to do the same. Some did (e.g.Illythr did not do further edits after I ask him), some ignored me.

About the history section, as I said, there are many more problems, and I want to re-write it from scratch, to shorten it. I would appreciate if you could copyedit my version before I put it up.:Dc76\^talk 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot, issues 12-17 refer to the history section. But now, since I am re-thinking it, some might not be valid. So, please read with that in mind.:Dc76\^talk 23:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Acording to the law of Moldova, Moldovan is only a name (glotonim/lingvonim) for the Romanian language. See Moldovan language. Apart from this. Article conventions in Wikipedia state that an article starts like this: Title (other language: titlu) is a thing. Not like this article, that started with "Moldovian:...". Also, in Moldova, the language of teaching is Romanian. The name Moldovan was eliminated from the educational system, see www.edu.md. So stop saying that some schools in Moldova teach in Moldovan, because they don't, they teach in Romanian, that isn't contested by nobody. --Danutz —Preceding comment was added at 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about education. Since the state language is officially called "Moldavian" in most official documents, then it makes sense to use that word in some places. However, there are certain exceptions where it is more logical to use Romanian. As a subject of study, the language is always called Romanian, and the Ministry of education exclusively uses this name. TSO1D 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly agree with TSO1D on this one. Now, how about you guys use this to state your oppinion about proposals 1-22. Refer to your comment in this section as your argument. In fact, this principle is also good to use in other articles, I'd suggest in all articles related to Moldova.:Dc76\^talk 05:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only now I've noticed "spins around" :):):) :Dc76\^talk 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official name of City[edit]

Some editors have added the Russian name of the city to the official name line in the infobox. I do not believe that this is accurate. The Constitution declares that Moldovan is the only official language (and states that the official language is determined by organic law) and stipulates that former laws on the subject that contravene it are invalid (thus this includes the '89 Law on Lnaguages). However, in any case, the main goal here is verifiability, and virtually all sources list Moldovan/Romanian as the official language. ex: Britannica :Official language;Romanian; U.S. State department Romanian (officially known as Moldovan) is the official language TSO1D 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu added the name in the "other names" category. I think that makes sense, and I also added the Ukrainain name. The city ahs a 19% Russian minority, and a 23% Ukrainian minority, so I think, it's logical to have the two names as well. TSO1D 17:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but not in the infobox. In Romania, there is this law about 20% ethnic minority, but in Moldova no such law exist yet. Anyway, Russians are only 19%, and Ukrianians are 24%. These are names in other languages, even when we talk about names in languages spoken by a good portion of the population of the locality, not in a language/languages that have some official status. We can not call those names official in English. "Other" must be clear to mean "other languages", not "other official names".:Dc76\^talk 17:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizations of Dc76's actions by Moldopodo[edit]

Detail of controversial edits by Dc76

Moldova is a new multinational country and is still looking for a true identity of its citizens.

Constitution of the Republic of Moldova Article 13. The National Language, Use of Other Languages
(1) The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet.
(2) The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country.
(3) The State will encourage and promote studies of foreign languages enjoying widespread international usage.
(4) The use of languages in the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be established by organic law.

Therefore, there are four official languages in Moldova:

1) Moldavian (wich is the same as Romanian, however no reference to Romanian exists in Moldovan legislation)

2) Russian (language of international communication (as stipulated by the Moldovan law)[9] (official language in Transnistria and Gagauzia)

This passage will be translated in English, (but again, the discussion on languages is rather for the article Demographics of Moldova than history of Bălţi. Your help with traslation is welcome.

В условиях существования единого государства – СССР, русский язык и общесоюзная культура были достоянием и необходимым средством общения всего советского народа. Это в значительной мере определяло этноязыковую ситуацию в республиках вне России – ныне новых независимых государствах, тем более, что во многих из них, помимо титульного населения, проживало и немало людей других национальностей. По данным переписи 1989 г. 1,5 млн. жителей Молдавии составляли не молдаване: русские, украинцы, болгары, гагаузы и другие. Их доля в населении Молдавии на тот период превышала 35% (украинцы – 13,8%, русские – 13%, гагаузы – 3,5%, болгары – 2,0%, евреи – 1,5%, другие национальности – 1,7%). Для 68,5% представителей этих национальностей русский язык был родным или вторым языком, которым они свободно владели.

Лишь 12,1% русского населения Молдавии свободно владело молдавским языком, в то время как среди молдаван степень такого же знания русского языка отмечало более половины (57,6%). Эти диспропорции были еще очевиднее в городах, где более 80% молдаван по данным переписи 1989 г. считало русский родным языком или свободно владело им как вторым. В Кишиневе в конце 1980-х годов знали молдавский язык 1,8% русских, в составе же молдаван русским языком свободно владели 85% .

Следует отметить, что процесс распространение русского языка, судя по данным переписей, охватывал все более широкие слои нерусского, в том числе молдавского населения. Так, например, в 1970-е годы свободно владели русским языком менее 50% молдаван. Среди же русских в 1970-1980-е годы произошло некоторое снижение (на 15% по сравнению с 1970-м г.) доли лиц, свободно владеющих молдавским языком. Из других союзных республик подобное явление было отмечено у русских в Казахстане и Киргизии, а в 1979-1989 гг. – также в Узбекистане, Армении и в меньшей степени в Белоруссии)[10].

3) Ukrainian which used to be legal language of the Modavian Principality. According to the last census, Moldavians with Ukrainian, as native language, represent 369 000 persons, or 8,5% of total population of the Republic of Moldova. Unkrainian linguistic environment exists in more than 300 localities in Moldavia[11]. Public poll in the north of Moldavia: 86% of Ukrainian Moldavians are ready to flee away from assimilation (into Romanian Moldavians). 54% of asked persons consider themselves as ethnic Ukrainian or Ukrainians as far as cultural background is concerned... 5 October 2005.[12]. Ukrainian is one of three official languages in the eastern cantons of Moldova. (official language in Transnistria)

4) Gagauz language, which is official in the southern autonomous region Gagauzia.

Hence I will delete any unverifiable and moreover extreme (politically) edits (like those who cosider themselves Romanians and those who consider themselves Russians, respectively those who consider Moldova to be part of Romania and those who consider Moldova to be part of Russia)

Edits expressing nationalism, political views, personal opinions or simpy false statements made by User:Dc76, namely:

changing Moldavian language into Romanian language,
changing Moldavian nationality into Romanian nationality and adding Moldavian and Romanian nationalities together,
deleting phrase that Bălţi is located in the Bălţi steppe (it is a world known fact, registred by the Encyclopædia Britannica),
deleting names of districts in Bălţi in Russian, whereas even Moldavian speakers use them,
changing names of Bălţi suburbian villages and Bălţi districts into inexisting names,
changing official English word chernozem into black earth,
badly translating from Moldavian (deletion of Bălţi translation as a swamp, check any online dictionnary),
writing imaginary history of Bălţi, adding completely unrelated passages on Romanian hostory (so why not to write about Napolenic wars in Bălţi history then?),
providing "historic facts" without any link or possible verification,
stating that schools and administration were in Russian during USSR, whereas both Russian and Moldavian were used officially everywhere in Moldavia, schools and universities including, official state acts, etc.;
stating that Soviet people never felt connection to the city of Bălţi (what source supports this statement?),
speaking of Bălţi as a quiet city, omitting to state the most important demonstrations that were against one official language, but not forgetting to mention some minor demonstrations organized by National Front (extreme right of Moldavians considering themselves as Romanians) with a couple of students from Bălţi State University,
stating that Russian speaking politicans were always elected by Bălţi citizens because of their higher turnout rate (whatever that is supposed to mean), whereas Bălţi was always international city, and was always governed by Russian speaking persons simply because of their higher competence, acknowledged even by Moldavian speaking persons, who also vote for Russian, or Ukrainian speaking persons,
adding phrases that opposition in Bălţi is pro-Western, whereas, the governing Communist party is clearly Western and has made the most since Moldavian independence for EU and NATO integration,
specifically diminuishing the importance of the Ukrainian speaking community in Bălţi by adding phrases "speak some Ukrainian",
deleting names of City Administration in Russian and adding those in Moldavian,
stating that last local elections took place in 2003, whereas they ook place in 2007,
providing data of Romanian censuses, with no possible verification,
adding phrases like "immigration from USSR was a move to establish a Russian speaking majority" (another simple lie), whereas immigration was about sending competent specialists to rebuild a whole Republic of Moldova, all these communities spoke Russian amnog them, even if for themseves it was not their native language,
adding phrases on economy of and demographics, as well as history of Moldova in general, whereas nothing pertinent to Bălţi proper,
stating that "younger Moldavians might or might no know Russian", whereas in Bălţi Russian is spoken and understood by everyone, even the official site of the City Administration is bilingual and actually has more pagesin Russain than in Moldavian,
adding phrases that Bălţi was and not is the industrial center in the north of Moldavia (so which city is then in the north of Moldavia?),
adding personal opinions as an official reference like "It is debatable whether this was a policy of the Soviet administration or simply carelessness",
adding an unknown amateur site hosted for free in the second line after the official site of the city in the External Links section, whereas the most important city portals and sites are left after,
changing the name of the cetral street Independenţii into boulevard.

Thank you for contributing Wikipedia with encyclopedia information only.

Moldopodo 19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

The only answer that will be[edit]

I only have to add two things to this:

The Moldovan legislation (1989 language law) says black on white that there is only one official language of the country. Gagauz and Russian are official only locally in one small region of the country. The language is called Romanian in the Declaration of Independence of Moldova. The language law calls the existence of a Moldo-Romanian linguisitic identity/unity, and uses the term "official lanaguage" ("limba de stat") in the rest of the text. (Moldopodo, both laws have never been abolished!!!)
Ukarainian is not and never was official language in Moldova. Principality of Moldavia did not have an official language, everyone spoke one single language - Romanian. Texts were written in Old Slavonic till mid 1600s and in Romanian afterwords. There was noting in Ukrainian.

Appart from that, I do not intend to answer to agressive shameless blames, full of falsities.:Dc76\^talk 15:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Dc76 this is a wrong answer, the question was about valid, actual, effectively entered into force legislation, and not about history of previous short-term laws that are no longer applied and are officially abolished, please. By the way, Dc76, you keep "forgetting" stating your sources and links. Moldopodo 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree - another lie by Dc76. Please state your sources and links. Moldopodo 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Disagree - Dc76 this is a wrong answer, the question was about valid, actual, reality of linguistic situation in Bălţi, and in Moldova in general please. By the way, Dc76, you keep "forgetting" stating your sources and links. Moldopodo 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Disagree - Dc76 is clearly showing bad faith here. I answered all of the questioned points, as analysed by Dc76. I am expecting Dc76 do the same for the points I have indicated above. Moldopodo 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Erm, the 1989 language law[13] was not abolished, AFAIK, just amended a few times. Additionally, although Ukrainian is indeed an official language in Transnistria, it is not recognized as such by the central Moldovan government for obvious reasons. --Illythr 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Illythr - Please try to avoid arguments as AFAIK, rather by providing an exact source or link, thank you in advance. The link you have provided to a Wikipedia article is a copy-paste of the above mentioned law, without any indication where it was taken from, what are the modifications or whether it was abolished at all. The Consitution of Moldova is clear and is the supreme law of the Republic of Moldova. No reference to anything Romanian can be found there. Moldopodo 11:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
I have checked myself the law, as no reply from Illythr arrived. Indeed the law still exists, it was modified onn 29.05.2003 (wording concerning criminal persecution) and here is what it says[14]:

Закрепление Конститутцией (Основным Законом) Молдавской Советской Социалистической Республики статуса молдавского языка как государственного призвано способствовать достижению полноты суверенитета республики и созданию необходимых гарантий для его полноценной и всесторонней реализации во всех сферах политической, экономической, социальной и культурной жизни. Молдавская ССР поддерживает получение образования и удовлетворение своих культурных потребностей на родном языке молдаванами, проживающими за пределами республики, а с учетом реальности молдавско-румынской языковой идентичности - и румынами, проживающими на территории СССР. Придавая молдавскому языку статус государственного, Молдавская ССР обеспечивает защиту конституционных прав и свобод граждан любой национальности, проживающих на территории Молдавской ССР, независимо от используемого языка в условиях равенства всех граждан перед Законом. В целях государственной охраны и обеспечения развития гагаузского языка Молдавской ССР создает необходимые гарантии для последовательного расширения его социальных функций. Молдавская ССР обеспечивает на своей территории условия для использования и развития русского языка как языка межнационального общения в СССР, а также языков населения других национальностей, проживающего в республике.

This law, in its full (introduction) version, and not only one separated part, which was preseted by Dc76 about Romanian-Moldavian linguistic identity, as if there were no other sentences after, is fully compatible with Moldavian Constitution, art. 13. Therefore all the four languages (Moldavian, Russian Ukrainian, Gagauz) are protected as by the Constitution, as well as by simple laws, of which this one is another example. The law does refer to the identity of the Romanian and Moldavian language, however cal the State language as Modavian only, without adding Romanian. The law has also a very interesting provision, to my mind, regarding protection of stasfaction of cultural needs and educaton of Romanians on the territory of the USSR. I wonder how was that supposed to be done by Moldavian Government? Moldopodo 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

They could not have used "Romanian" back in 1989. Funny that it was never updated in that part. As for the languages - only Moldovan is official in the whole country. --Illythr 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Illythr. It is really strange how you read the text. Constitution and the above cited law are both official documents first of all. Secondly, Moldavian and Russian explicitly appear both in Constitution, art. 13 and in the law. Gagauz appears directly in the law and indirectly in the Constitution, art. 13, Ukrainian appears indirectly both in Constitution, art. 13 and in the law indirectly, and it appears directly in the unrecognized laws of the unrecognized Transnistria and it appears in the law regarding the status of Eastern cantons of Moldova of 22.07.2005, art. 6 (2)[15]. Therefore, Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz are all four official languages in Moldova. Moldopodo 15:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Nice to know that you finally recognize the language law of Moldova as an official legislative document. But nope, the only state language of Moldova is Moldovan. Russian and Gagauz are also official in Gagauzia. This is the language in which all official documentation in Moldova *must* be done. The rest are just "protected". That is, nobody will imprison you if you do your paperwork ALSO in Russian, Gagauz etc. Just read the passage in Russian you cited above. The text you've bolded. --Illythr 19:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am sure you understood the difference. All four languages are official, none of them is unofficial. However, there is one State language. I agree with this formulation. As for recognition of information, law in our case, I can do it only when it is properly referenced. Copy-paste outdated and unsourced version on Wikipedia (where everybody can write whatever comes on mind (on Dc76's mind in our case), just like in the present dispute) cannot be considered as a verifible source. However, official updated governmental legislation portal certainly can be and is. If you have noticed, that's what I refer to every time. Moldopodo 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Referring to the Illythr's argument that Russian and Gagauz are official, but region/canton limited in Moldova I respectfully disagree. All you have to do is to read the Constitution and the above cited passages of respective laws. No regional limitation is indicated there, even implicitely. To the contrary, it is explicitely said "on the territory of the Republic of Moldova". I think the sense is clear to anybody who understands English, or Russian or Moldavian (languages in which legal citations were copied on this talk page). There are four official languages on the whole territory of the Republic of Moldova: Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz.
It states ...acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use... on the territory. That doesn't quite amount to enforcing its usage (in legislation, public sphere etc). I think I see the problem. Would you provide your definition of what an official language is?

Here are articles two and three of the language law:

Статья 2. В местностях проживания большинства населения гагаузской национальности языком официальных сфер жизни является государственный, гагаузский или русский языки. - That is, Gagauz and Russian are co-official in Gagauzia (there is a separate law stating that Ukrainian and Russian are also co-official in Transnistria).

Статья 3. Русский язык как язык межнационального общения в СССР используется на территории республики наряду с молдавским языком как язык межнационального общения, что обеспечивает осуществление реального национально-русского и русско-национального двуязычия. - This article doesn't explicitly state that Russian is an official language, but it de facto provides Russian with such a status. Hm, I wonder why were the references to the USSR not eliminated yet... --Illythr 13:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, because they steel hope the return to the USSR. :) In fact, what you see on the site is the editted version. Strictly speaking, legally one takes the original law and applies latter modifications from all laws. In this case, they aplied some. They did not apply the 23 June 1990 declaration of sovereignty that changed MSSR into SSRM, nor the 23 May 1991 law that changed SSRM into RM, not the Declaration of independence that said that Moldova is no longer par of USSR... In the Romanian version, one also has some more funny things, like ucraineană, rusă, bulgară, ivrit, idiş, ţigănească(art 4), when one should have sayd ucraineană, rusă, bulgară, ebraică, idiş, rromani. (I am one of those people who object to calling the ethnic group rromani, and prefer gypsy, but if they prefer calling the language rromani, I would have to respect that.) According to this text :) we still have KGB of the USSR (art 5) :) :) :) :Dc76\^talk 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to Illythr - Thank you for your reply. I really like this kind of dialog, which could be an example for Dc76.

When the law refers to Russian as equivalent of Moldavian (which is mentioned as the State language), it means that the language is official, more than that, a link to other languages, along with Russian, is present in the Constitution, which makes all of them equally official as Russian and Moldavian.

Further, when Constitution and laws refer to protected rights, this explicitly means their enforcement, otherwise why would one need to stipulate a right's existence firstly, and the right's protection secondly? A difference between a right and a simple possibility to do something is that a right is legal norm, whose use is protected, this is exactly what both Constitution and the above cited laws do.

Further, referring to the Constitution and above cited laws, we are talking about official documents. I guess I see the problem here. You are looking for literal wording "official", which is not my approach. I do not think anybody would give in to an argument like "what is said in Consitution or a law is not official or semi-official". There is no mention in Moldavian legislation that Moldavian Constituion or Moldavian laws provide for such notions as "co-official". Where did you find this "co-official" term, Illythr? Moldopodo 09:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I just shortened the phrasing of article 2. The fuller wording is that there are three official languages in Gagauzia, the языком официальных сфер жизни является... part. --Illythr 14:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To support my argument on equivalence and enforcement of all four languages, read please this citation from Constitution once more: защиту конституционных прав и свобод граждан любой национальности, проживающих на территории Молдавской ССР, независимо от используемого языка в условиях равенства всех граждан перед Законом (protection of Constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens of any nationality, living on the territory of the Moldavian SSR, independently from the used language, conditioned by equality of all citizens before the Law) and ...acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use... on the territory, do you mean that calling a language official/State means something else than acknowledgment, protection, development and usage? Moldopodo 09:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Here is a simple comparison - a similar law of the Russian Federation[16]. The law clearly states that there is only one state (official) language in Russia and that any federation subjects may give this status to other languages on their territory. The law also states that all languages spoken by the peoples of the Federation are protected by federal law and are equal in rights. Still, the only language official throughout all of Russia is Russian.

This is, however, mostly for the sake of argument. As Wikipedia is a "second hand" source of information, we are not allowed to freely interpret original sources (rewording is allowed, though). Therefore, in order to add information that Russian, Gagauz and Ukrainian are official on the entire territory of Moldova, you must provide a reliable, preferably official Moldovan source saying so.

Additionally, check out the article you referenced yourself: [17] it says that there was an attempt in 2001 to make Russian the second official language in Moldova, which failed. --Illythr 14:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant vandalism[18] by Dc76 on the Bălţi article of English Wikipdia (written by Moldopodo)[edit]

In order to explain yourself on these points, you may right your comments right below. If the point was already answered previously (in 27 points section), leave a reference (see point X in 27 points section).

Spam[19][edit]

Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism.

Adding by Dc76 an unknown anonymous, amateur and almost not visited site hosted for free in the second line after the official site of the city in the External Links section, whereas the most important city portals and sites are left after. The site presents the history of Bălţi in Romanian (whereas the site is advertised as multilingual) in a avery similar wording as Dc76 puts on English Wikipedia, namely about history of Bălţi. Dc76 adertises this site on almost all languages of Wikipedia in article on Bălţi, in the External links section, often even omitting the official site. Yes, almost all of the most visited officially registered sites and portals about Bălţi, if not all of them, are in Russian, which is just another sign how "wide spread" Moldavian is in Bălţi. Even on the official site of Bălţi there are more pages in Russian than in Moldavian.

Sneaky Vandalism and Intentional Misinformation[edit]

Sneaky vandalism Vandalism that is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even use edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" to mask their changes.

Changing Street names[edit]

changing the name of the central street Independenţii into boulevard.

Covering of Historic prevalence of Russian language in Bălţi[edit]

stating that younger Moldavians might or might no know Russian, whereas in Bălţi Russian is spoken and understood by everyone, even the official site of the City Administration is bilingual and actually has more pages in Russain than in Moldavian,

Falsifying history of migrations inside the USSR[edit]

adding phrases like immigration from USSR was a move to establish a Russian speaking majority (another simple lie), whereas immigration was about sending competent specialists to rebuild a whole Republic of Moldova, all these communities spoke Russian amnog them, even if for themseves it was not their native language,

Deleting the date of Local public elections[edit]

stating that last elections of local public administration took place in 2003, whereas they took place in 2007

Deleting Names of City Administration in Russian and leaving Moldavian language names[edit]

deleting names of City Administration in Russian and adding those in Moldavian, whereas even signs on Republican Ministeries in the capital of Modlova are written both in Russian and Moldavian (like the Ministry of Internal Affairs for example)

Diminishing the importance of the Ukrainian community in Bălţi and in the North of Moldova generally[edit]

specifically diminuishing the importance of the Ukrainian speaking community in Bălţi by adding phrases speak some Ukrainian

Claiming an unexistent "pro-Western" opposition[edit]

adding phrases that opposition in Bălţi is pro-Western, whereas, the governing Communist party is clearly Western and has made the most since Moldavian independence for EU and NATO integration. Besides the AMN bloc (which is part of the so called "opposition") is openly linked with Russian politicians.

False presentaion of the Bălţi history[edit]

speaking of Bălţi as a quiet city, omitting to state the most important demonstrations that were against one official language, but not forgetting to mention some minor demonstrations organized by National Front (extreme right of Moldavians considering themselves as Romanians) with a couple of students from Bălţi State University, and calling these reform orientated,

False statements on Bălţiers[edit]

stating that Soviet people never felt connection to the city of Bălţi (what source supports this statement?), whereas most of them were born here.

False statements on languages used in the MSSR[edit]

stating that schools and administration were in Russian during USSR, whereas both Russian and Moldavian were used officially everywhere in Moldavia, schools and universities including, official state acts, etc.;

Deleting Russian names of district names of Bălţi[edit]

deleting names of districts in Bălţi in Russian, whereas even Moldavian speakers use them, and leaving only those in Moldavian;

False presentation of Moldavian ethnicity[edit]

changing Moldavian nationality into Romanian nationality and adding Moldavian and Romanian nationalities together,

False presentation of Moldavian language[edit]

changing Moldavian language into Romanian language,

Denying an obvious world known fact: Bălţi (Beltsy) Steppe[edit]

deleting phrase that Bălţi is located in the Bălţi steppe (it is a world known fact, registred by the Encyclopædia Britannica),

Intentional Nonsense Edits[edit]

Personal undocumeted opinions[edit]

adding personal opinions as an official reference like

The railroad lines are not electric, and contain only a single lane between stations./ref/It is debatable whether this was a policy of the Soviet administration or simply carelessness./ref/
Bălţi was the industrial center in the north of Moldavia (so which city is then in the north of Moldavia?),

Misplaced statements relevant for other articles[edit]

adding phrases on economy of and demographics, as well as history of Moldova in general, whereas nothing pertinent to Bălţi proper,

writing imaginary history of Bălţi, adding completely unrelated passages on Romanian hostory (so why not to write about Napolenic wars in Bălţi history then?),

Unverifiable data[edit]

providing data of Romanian censuses, with no possible verification. If it's statistical data, it is not part of general culture obviously known by everybody. A link and a source is necessary.

providing "historic facts" without any link or possible verification,

Pure nonsense[edit]

stating that Russian speaking politicans were always elected by Bălţi citizens because of their higher turnout rate (whatever that is supposed to mean), whereas Bălţi was always international city, and was always governed by Russian speaking persons simply because of their higher competence, acknowledged even by Moldavian speaking persons, who also vote for Russian, or Ukrainian speaking persons,

Lack of linguistic knowledge[edit]

badly translating from Moldavian (deletion of Bălţi translation as a swamp, check any online dictionnary),

- additionally: I wonder, if Bălţi dates back to 1421, what was the language used then, may be Old Slavonic? In that case the word comes from Slavic "boloto", pronounced as "balota", which means swamp. The place was founded by Polish rulers (Slavic language), if I am not mistaking. Or may be Moldavian word 'baltă' has Russian origins? This way or the other, Moldavian baltă can be and is translated as swamp. Moldopodo 16:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

changing official English word chernozem into black earth,

changing names of Bălţi suburbian villages and Bălţi districts into inexisting names,

Vandalism by Dc76 on the Bălţi talk page (written by Moldopodo)[edit]

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

By piling up all my comments at one place, detaching from actual phrases and statements to which they refer exactly, Dc76 makes them pointless, hence compromising in a deliberate attempt the integrity of Wikipedia. This was made at least twice (re-editing by Dc76). Just have a look at the Bălţi talk page and its history. Moldopodo 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Moldopodo, you should know that personal attacks are forbiden in Wikipedia. There is a difference of opinion between you and DC76, but this is not allowing you to accuse DC76 of vandalism. He acted only to bring a version of article which, in his mind, is better.--MariusM 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MariusM, firstly you may have started this article, but you don't own it. Secondly, it has explained to you several times about personally attacking other editors by calling them vandals.--Addhoc 22:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Marius, controversial edits of Dc76 listed above are not intended to make someting better or worse. Dc76 is clealy trying to put through some Romanian propaganda here and diminishing the importance of USSR, Russains and Ukrainian in the development of Balti and Moldova generally. Wikipedia is not a place to express political opinions, but only state verifiable facts. Look, until today, Dc76 has not filled out any of requests to document his/her sources, to fill out citation requests. Nothing, there is no link or verifiable source whatsoever, moreover Dc76 categorically refuses any dialog, and by today none of my concerns was answered (see the empty list above),a t least plainly in unreferenced manner, as Dc76 always does anyway.

Unfortunately there is no difference of opinion here. We are dealing namely with deliberate additon, removal and change of content in order to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Moldopodo 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Disagree with Addhoc. I have not started the article, I came by through the English page recently and was simply shocked by Dc76 previous "contributions" and other edits. I edited then, Dc76 kept editing after (simply undoing edits) each time without properly saying what exactly and why was edited (undid). I remind you that I have not called Dc76 vandal directly (I probably should have), but I have qualified Dc76 acts in accordance with the strict definition given by Wikipedia itself on what vandalism is (Wikipedia vandalism namely). Moldopodo 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

By the way, in what quality do you participate in the discuassion (both Marius and Addhoc), how did you learn about Balti page problem?
- I found the article from the medcab case page, and my comments are those of another Wikipedian. The above subject title "written by Moldopodo" implies you aren't familiar with WP:OWN and in addition, you clearly aren't assuming good faith in regard to DC76's edits. The view that describing the work of other editors as vandalism is uncivil is widely held in Wikipedia and is considered an indicator of tendentious editing. My advice is that you should focus on article content and avoid using the phrase 'vandalism' to describe other editors' contributions.--Addhoc 00:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I participate in this discussion in my quality of wikipedian. Just reading this page is showing that there are some problems. Those problems were advertised for me in the talk page of User:Illythr, one of my old friends from Wikipedia. Sometimes I enjoy reading his talk page.--MariusM 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers, Addhoc and Marius. Addhoc, I understand you are the mediator on this page, that's what I meant when asking "in what quality". It is clear to all that everybody elses quality is Wikipedian on Wikipedia anyway. Referring to your last post:

Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.[20]. This is exactly what did Dc76. Addhoc, please, just look a little higher on this talk page what think other users of Dc76' edits and how they qualify them (example. "jingoism", etc..) Besides, reading the above mentioned definiton I did not find anything referring to the definition of what is civilised, nor how the notion of civility is connected and applied to tendentious editing. May be you have another soutce for this conclusion?

Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act as if their mistakes were deliberate.[21]. You cannot call continuous intentional undoing of edits and instead deliberate stating of false information by Dc76 as a simple mistake with good intention. If there were any good intention from Dc76 part, why would Dc76, for example, violate NPA policy and insult me (see here and on my talk page), when I and other users indicate him/her that, the translation of balta from Romanian in English is swamp? So where is hidden the good intention of Dc76?

As for owning the article, this argument seems rather strange to me. Frst of all,it is obvious that nobody owns an article on Wikipedia, this goes without saying. Dc76 continuous editing and undoing of my edits could however be considered as owning the article, as he/she edited/wrote parts of the article well before my first edits. If Dc76 does not own the article, why would Dc76 keep undoing other edits? I just discovered about two months ago the Balti on English Wikipedia page.

As for inserting "written by Moldopodo", this is because Dc76 keeps changing even names of Sections written by me on Balti talk page, putting instead "characterisation of Dc76 actions by Moldopodo". I know that everybody can see who wrote which section by clicking on history. I have inserted "written by Moldopodo" only because in this way, I made sure Dc76 would not change my own posts on Balti talk page. Moldopodo 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I changed the name of the section, because it contained words directly offending me personally, like calling me vandal.

It's a lie of yours, Dc76, and you may call it NPA, I have never called you vandal, but did qualify your edits as vandalism. Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

One way was to accuse you of personal attack and demand some administrator's intervention. The second way (which I chose) was to change the title to "characteristion ..." hoping you will understand the problem with the title of that section. You understood, and added "(written by Moldopodo)". So you spared me the need to go for another NPA.

About sourses, what statements exactly you want me to sourse? I don't see the need to waste time (I have very little, sorry) and bring sourses for sentences that are no longer in the text of the article. Look at the 27 issues, read my versions of them, and add a ^{[citation needed]} in the places you would prefer to have a citation.

If you do not have time to source your edits, why do you edit? Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

About which language(s) is official. Illythr's explanation from 27 october is very exact and correct. The main difference between my explanations and his, is that you are reading his in rm shrift, and mine in bull-red one. :) Perhaps, also because he has a good adility to explain, which is very true.:Dc76\^talk 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavian, Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz languages are official languages in Moldova, it is clearly said both in Consitution, art.13 and in the above cited laws, moreover it conforms to the definition of official languages given by Wikipedia. Please read carefully the explication given above. Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Moldopodo, Just for your notice, I consider that you have erased truthful information, and that you have added some false information, like you addition that there are 4 official languages in Moldova. So, please, don't assume right away what is right and what is wrong.

It is not about what is right or wrong, what you like or what you don't, it is about reflecting what it is. Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Second, when did I personally attacked you? Lastly, on two occasions I demanded an answer from you and you still did not reply:

You have insulted me on my personal talk page:

Also, don't dear accuse me of 'Lack of linguistic knowledge', you, who living there did not bother in 20+ years to learn the official language of the country you are citizen of. I asked you directly: do you speak the language or you don't? If you have anything to say about other people's knowledge of the language, first answer: do you speak it?

, and you have threatened to stop for a while on this this talk page, what you have acknowledged yourself, presenting excuses on the talk site of Persian Poet Gal[22] (as a true "man" to make sure she sees, and probably forgetting that there is also my talk page to present public excuses and accept your fault). So regarding you personally Dc76, I have only one question, are you a man or a woman? So that I know at least how to refer to you, because I write all the time her/him.

Moldopodo 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

You have also said the following:

- If you personally are/were apparatchik of the 1940s-1980s, if you personally were a member of NKVD/MGB and shot people, then yes, I have a problem with you. If you are son/doughter of an engeneer who arrived in the city during 1970s or 1980s, then believe me, you are the last of my worries. See this, smart man. Who deleted? YOU deleted. Do you even know how to edit wp without deleting other people's work? Please, no offence, but a child knows that... I am afraid that Moldopodo does not know well enouth the Romanian language and theirfore makes his confusion Moldopodo, this is ridiculous. Do you know Romanian? Tell honestly! If you don't know the language of your own country even at a very-very simple level, proved by the fact that even with a dictionary you make mistakes in a word that means the name of the city you live in, then please... give us a brake with your super-knowledge of the language you don't bother learn even at an elementary level. Alternatively, go to the library, pick up a dictionary, and make a small effort to learn a few words in the official language of your own country. It is a very simple language to learn, it is not Chinese or Hungarian to have to learn from zero. Foreigners come to Moldova and in 1 year speak the language. You live there for 20+ years and don't bother. Instead you blame people of nationalism. And what is your lack of knowledge of Romanian, not nationalism? Noone asks you to write literature, but 1,000-2,000 words anyone can learn. This is a sign of increased demands and increased agressiveness when there are contraditions. It is not something specific to Moldopodo only. It is the traditional Soviet way of negotiating: they tell you X. If you don't accept it, they demand X+Y. They add Y as a revenge that you deared contradict them. On the same tokken, I object to the increased demands, a policy of "revenge" used for agressive "negociations"."" This is another issue introduced as increased demaind, as revenge. Moldopodo has erased the names of the city neighborhods, because they are not of Russian origin. Only one name, BAM, which is on Russian origin was left. This is defined in dictionaries as shovinism.

Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Do you speak Moldavian/Romanian? (This goes b/c you offer to translate the word balta and contradict what other speakers of Romanian are saying.)
Do you have anything to do with the website of the commercial Internet Service Provider in the Bibliography, the link which you paciantly defended. This goes towards determining whether there is any conflict of interest ("commercial")?

It would be nice if you could answer them. I am not saying you are oblidged to. But then I would like it to go on the record that you deliberately chose not to answer them.:Dc76\^talk 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you will need to look for answers above[23] in the spam section, which is still unanswered by you, as because of such requests to repeat an answer twice, this page wil be archived (whatever that means) pretty soon, as far as I understand. I have answered these quetions before, useless to ask them twice, see here and on my talk page, where I have explained all about www.beltsy.md site (historic first site on Balti, which as of today has no single information on Real-Progres itself). However, balti.atspace.com is not visited and inserted in all external links on pages on Balti on all Wikipedia languages. This site has only a more or less functioning version in Romanian, and nobody knows who is responsible for it. It is an ananymous, amateur, hosted for free somewhere site, with history of Balti strangily exact the same as Dc76 tried to put through on Wikipedia, and another surprise, with no source whatsoever indicated. Besides, look above, other users indicated you that you were wrong almost at all of your edits, including a banal translation from Romanian, which you couldn't do propelry. So one should rather ask, what is your knowledge of Romanian?

Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I think is Moldopodo is Mauco. --Moldo rubo^talk 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - very unlikely, b/c Mauco was clearly a native or near-native speaker of English, and because Mauco did not have the same "popular culture" knowledge and Soviet regime-glorifying mentality that Moldopodo shows (at least to my view). Second, whatever factual non-sense he might occasionally bring (e.g. 4 state languages; diminished importance, etc), he is entitled to good faith and civil language from other WPedians. He had already toned down some of his rethoric after talk with Illythr. I suggest everyone to concentrate on the edits to the article, issue by issue, as we might be able to eliminate a dosen of them in one go.:Dc76\^talk 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not Mauco (though I doubt) he's Dikarka/MarkStreet et Co.--Moldo rubo^talk 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He knows enough about Balti (from some details of his edits) to be clearly identifible as living in the city. (At least to my understanding.) Also, he clearly does not know a lot of WP rules: e.g. he used my name on his page, which is the definition of being on the verge of PA. So, when he says he first saw WP 2 months ago, I believe him. Then, why on the earth would Mauco or Mark Street care about Balti? I believe Smirnov is rich to sponsor PR image of Transnistria, but I don't think him be that rich to get to a God forgotten place (unfortunately, with heavy hard, it is still true) like Balti. I suspect (but this is just a supposition, I might be totally wrong), Moldopodo is related to www.beltsy.md. Whatever that be, I have no problem with him. Some of his edits are my problem. :Dc76\^talk 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia needs my comment on the paragraph above Moldopodo 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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 no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. The use of diacritics is an unresolved issue in the MOS, but there is no consensus for a change here. Dekimasu よ! 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Moldopodo has suggested moving this page to Balti, i.e. without diacritics on the basis that this is the name most commonly encountered in English. He provided a link from Britanica where indeed no diacritics are used. Finally, he has stated that this policy should not be restricted to this city, but should be done for most Moldovan cities, including Chişinău. Please discuss this issue below so that we can decide whether to make the move or not. Please only sign your names in the polling area (this is only done as a quick overview) and keep most of the discussion in the discussion area.

For[edit]

Moldopodo (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
Erudy (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is English wikipedia, with English alphabet. `'Míkka >t 02:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against[edit]

TSO1D (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fizzgog (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against the new socks of MarkStreet/Sotnik/Mauco/Moldopodo --62.84.145.2 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See reasons in discussion section below. — AjaxSmack 07:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we change all the names with diacritics into "English"? There are at least 0,45 million articles with titles not in "English". Is this a new rule ? ? --Cezarika f. (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The written English language allows any variations of the Latin alphabet, including the diacritics present in this name. Writing with them is most accurate English. Hús ö nd 00:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I believe that making the move would be a mistake. I agree that Britannica uses the name without diacritics, however, they do so on all articles about Moldova, even Chişinău. Wikipedia guidelines for naming conventions suggest that in the case where no established English version exists, that the official local name should be used, and this is Bălţi. Another encyclopedia of similar stature, Encarta uses the spelling Bălţi, as it does for Chişinău. And for Chişinău other enсyclopedias such as Columbia also use the form with diacritics. Please note that the three sources suggested on the Wikipedia city naming guidelines include Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta, and for Chişinău, two out of the three have the form with diacritics. To sum it up, my point is that most encyclopedias use the form of the city names with diacritics and that these are the official names, so the pages should be kept under those names. TSO1D (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Were I to type the word "balti" into Wikipedia Search, I'd expect one of the immediate options to be the style of cooking, which I believe to be one of the most common usages in the English-speaking world. I'm in favour of keeping Balti as a disambiguation page which makes the various options available. --Fizzgog (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, may be we should call the page on English Wikipedia Beltsy? Try to type Beltsy, you will see references exclusively to the city, and plenty of them. I guess the romanised Cyrillic alphabet Russian version Beltsy is more popular and important than the naturally romanised Romanian version Balti itself. Moldopodo (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I do not see any controversy or need for discussion. TSO1D, your arguments defy the logic itself, and this goes without mentioning your sources, to which I will come back in the second time. It's a simple matter of correct spelling in English language. Moreover, the latin alphabet used in English language does not know such letters as: ă, ţ, ş, â, î. I guess it is rather ridiculous to discuss something like this. Secondly, all the encycolpedias you have cited, refer in the first time to English spelling, for example the source TSO1D provided on Chisinau[24] says "Chisinau" as the title of the article. As far as Balti is concerned, it is not even mentioned in the same source (as cited by TSO1D) in the new updated version (already 16 years in use), so one can surely make a conclusion of the value of this source. But even taking its form Belcy[25], one can only see the letters used int he English alphabet. I guess no other comments are needed. As for the Balti (disambiguation) article, I think it is very well made and a reference on the top of Balti page (For other uses, see Balti (disambiguation), like Moscow article) is very good as well. My last phrase goes to the new user User:Fizzgog who all of a sudden appeared on the Balti talk page and immediately voted. How did you become so interested in Moldova related articles? Respectfully, Moldopodo (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I'm interested in disambiguation. I came to the article Balti via Special:Recentchanges. --Fizzgog (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the English alphabet does not include diacritics, does not mean that the common name for cities as used in English-language sources cannot use them. For instance, the Serbian city is not found at Pristina. As for the name of Chişinău in Columbia, I don't understand your point. The name of the page (taken from the page address is written as Chisinau) because diacritics are not supported well in URL's, however, in the article istelf only the name with diacritics is used. TSO1D (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the URL address, but about the TITLE of the article, which clearly says Chisinau. Please, read one more time what I have said above.Moldopodo (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't understand what you meant. But anyway, they have it in the form Chisinau in the top line with a link to two dictionaries, but in the entire article it is called Chişinău as I'm sure you noticed. TSO1D (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be discussion over this matter, and I do not think that the example of Balti should be used as a rationale for moving all Moldovian city articles to their non-diacritic forms. Although I would likely support such moves, I think they should be addressed individually. That being said, I do support the move to "Balti", with the caveat that the final title might have to be something like Balti, Moldova in order to avoid seperate disambiguation issues. I agree in this case with User:Moldopodo that the English name for this city appears to be "Balti" rather than "Bălţi", per the evidence that he sited. The one piece of counter evidence cited (Encarta reference) pertaining to Balti is not persuasive against Britannica, since the reference is not to an article but rather to a map citation. (I think Britannica probably did more research on Balti for their article than Encarta did for their dot on the map). Moreover, google hit count (never decisive, but useful to build a cumulative case) returns (in English) are:

Google "Balti" Moldova 118,000 hits
Google "Bălţi" Moldova 9,190 hits
Google News "Balti" Moldova 7 hits
Google News "Bălţi" Moldova 0 hits

In my opinion, this evidence shows that there is an established English name for this city, and it is Balti. Per WP:NAME and WP:ENGLISH, I think that we should go with the non-diacritic form Erudy (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing my decision to support the move, I now feel more confident that the article should be moved. I refined google search to exclude wikipedia, with the result that the the ratios (unusually) become even more slewed:

Google "Balti" Moldova -wikipedia.org 114,000
Google "Bălţi" Moldova -wikipedia.org 861

Moreover, I found additional diplomatic uses of Balti in English. The Moldovan Embassies (presumably able to spell their own city) in the US [26] [27] and Poland [28] use Balti, while the US Embassy in Moldova returns the favor [29], [30]. All these pages are very much able to support diacritics (for instance, you can switch from fully-decorated Romanian to English and back again on the same site) To me, this confirms that, descriptively speaking, the English rendering of Balti is without diacritics. As for the seperate debate as whether it should be Balti or Balti, Moldova, I am now inclined towards Balti alone, since it has the most wikipedia internal links then other competitors such as Balti (food) and is thus arguably more important within wikipedia, at least. However, on google, it seems to be a three-way race between Balti (food), Balti (town in Moldova), or (Bianca) Balti (supermodel). Finally, I would like to point out that the use of diacritics on wikipedia generally is debated, and each case should be taken seperately. Therefore, we should avoid the arguments "X place has diacritics in the title, so why not Balti" or "If we change Bălţi to Balti, we will have to change every single Moldovan article that has diacritics" Each case needs to be decided individually, based on description of current English usage. This is what fulfills WP:NAME's mandate of naming according to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize Erudy (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion doesn't matter, just because you can't stand the official language in Moldova which is the Romanian language, that's your own problem. Otherwise I suggest you to start "changing" all the hungarian names with Õ Ñ Ẽ Ý è à ò Ô ê Ä Ŵ signs....start with this one Csongrád for example...--62.84.145.2 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Encarta, you can look at the article about Moldova http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566942/Moldova.html, where the form of diacritics for Bălţi is used. Also, keep in mind, that many sources do not have diacritics for reasons of compatibility or convenience, most Romanian pages also have only Balti, because the authors did not not bother to add the diacritics, although in Romanian only the version with diacritics is correct. TSO1D (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for encyclopedias/maps this is not a proper example I think, because they use the local language principle. Thus, on the same map you can see names of cities in all (or some) languages spoken on the given territory, the same principle is applied by Google maps (Earth). On Wikipedia, we should stick to traditional encyclopedias, like Britannica. Moldopodo (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

And that's why I linked to an article in Encarta, not just a map (I mean the Moldova article where Bălţi is mentioned. I'm sure that's quite "traditional" by any standards. TSO1D (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the new page, I think it should be called Balti, and on the top of this page, before the text, as the standard requires on many other articles on cities on the English Wikipedia, a tag should be put which allows for the following text in italics: For other uses, see Balti (disambiguation), like Moscow article (and there are plenty others to cite). Once clicking on that text, the reader is redirected to the Balti (disambiguation) article. As for the Balti (disambiguation) article, I think it is very well made (I basicly copied what was before on the Balti page). Moldopodo (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Just to clarify my comment above, were the move to something like Balti, Moldova, as Erudy suggested, I would have no objection to that. --Fizzgog (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all suggestions are in good faith, the official Romanian language name of the city should remain as it is. 62.84.145.2 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as I see no reason, nor any Wikipedia standard, with the proposal to name the article Balti, Moldova. Taking in consideration the English Wikipedia standard, it should be put simply Balti, and inside of the article on the very top before the text, the reference should be made to the disambiguation page as I explained above. Moldopodo (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Can you establish that the term "Balti", when used in the English language, more commonly refers to a place in Moldova than to any other usage? I think this is something to consider. --Fizzgog (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzgog, you have just reminded me with your question what I wanted to complete in my answer. In fact the three aforementioned encyclopedias have already answered your question. None of them refers to Balti as Balti, Moldova. In other words, all English encyclopedias, icluding the most persuasive source, traditional Encyclopedia type - Britannica, refer to Balti only, without specifying after the word Balti, the word Moldova. I guess those who wrote encyclopedias, Britannica namely, knew why they were doing this. And I am sure they were better English speakers and English language professionals then you and me. Respectfully Moldopodo (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Does the Britannica have many other articles related to the name "Balti"? That's not a rhetorical question; I don't have access to a full version. --Fizzgog (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to try a search "balti" in Britannica online, even on a free version, you get all the results, although not full articles. You will find Balti (as referred to the city in Moldova) in the first top three results, which speaks for itself. None of them is annotated as "Balti, Moldova", to the contrary all of them are marked as "Balti" only. And if you do not find references to the same number of articles related to "balti", as a word with other meaning than the Moldavian city (as compare to the number of balti related articles on Wikipedia), it probably may indicate the importance of Balti (as Moldavian city) and the lack of importance (or lesser degree of importance) of other balti related articles (like balti food for example). And, let's imagine, someone looks on Wikipedia for balti with a different meaning as the Moldavian city, in the proposed version, there will always be a reference on the very top of the page to the Balti (disambiguation) article, which will always remind that there are other meanings to the word balti. I think everyone should be satisfied with such version (as Moscow article). Moldopodo (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Does Britannica online have an article about the style of food, currently the most common use of the word "balti" in written English? You see, if they don't, then they have no need to disambiguate. And if they have no need to disambiguate, then their concerns about naming are different to Wikipedia's. --Fizzgog (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is importnat to understand from Britannica is that Balti (alone) as a key word primarily results in refrences to Balti (as a city in Moldova) and not ot anything else. I don't think I should elaborate on importance of Balti alone and secondary importance of all other results with key word "balti" on Britannica. And yes, you are right, for the bigger number of same key word results English Wikipedia has a particular standard - refrence to disambiguation articles inside of the top of the most important article (as Balti, Moldavian second/third largest city) with the same key word. Please refer for example to such articles on English Wikipedia as: Moscow, New York, Linz, Frankfurt, Freiburg, Cologne, Mainz, Vienna, Fribourg, Marseille, Rennes, Odessa, Lvov, Kharkiv, Alexandria, Danube, Volga. Moldopodo (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I am a big supporter of WP:UE but this case is not an English toponym. (If it was, it would be "Beltsy") WP:UE says that "if there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration." cf. Cádiz, Düsseldorf, Łódź, Iaşi. The sources mentioned in the discussion use "Balti" because they cannot support ă/ţ but Wikipedia can.

Also, if this is a proposal to move all Moldovan cities, it should probably be done somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Europe with a longer period of discussion. — AjaxSmack 07:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should first decide with the Balti city. That's what the original discussion was about. As I see most users agree that Balti is the proper name in English. Also, as no one has presented any contrary arguments, on moving Bălţi article to Balti with a link to Balti (disambiguation) (the latter is a copy of the actual Balti page) on the top of the article I suppose the debate is over and the decision is taken. So we can proceed with the move request. Moldopodo (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how exactly do you see that? You actually see a consensus for moving the article? Only three users counting yourself have pronounced themselves in favor of that move, whereas at least four have expressed that they were against the move. In any case, though, this is not a poll. Consensus is supposed to be reached before the move is undertaken, and that's certainly not the case here. TSO1D (talk) 14:49, 21 November

2007 (UTC)

TSO1D I clearly see bad faith in your manoeuvres here. This voting is not about moving all pages but exclusively about Balti. Voting people, please make sure that you have been aware what you are voting for. I totally agree with Erudy on the point that for other moves (Eastern Europe project and longer discussion) we should discuss and vote in a different place, not here. I repeat, here we discuss exclusively Balti and no ohter locality. So please, vote taking in consideration arguments for Balti only. Thank you to all voters.Moldopodo (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

And what maneuvers do you perceive dear Moldopodo? In fact I have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. You motion did not pass, and yes, I did not agree with it, but what exactly have I done that you dislike? And please, don't accuse me of bad faith without at least explaining where exactly you disagree with my actions. TSO1D (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSO1D Here is how you cited my phrase Finally, he has stated that this policy should not be restricted to this city, but should be done for most Moldovan cities, including Chişinău. in the very secon sentence of this section which you started. Now, please give me exact citation of what was said by me, which is not the same thing as you cited. You bad faith starts here. This is how you enduced the readers and other users that we are debating of changing all the names, which has nothing to do with the reality. The result is clearly seen with comments of those who voted. The comments refer to general refusal to change generally all names, whereas the only question and debate here was about Balti. This is Balti talk page. All the comments posted next to NO answer refer not to Balto proper, but to general problem of renaming into English from language susing diacritics, none of them says anything to Balti proper. That is what I meant by your bad faith, I hope now it is clear. Moldopodo (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

But on my talk page you wrote: "Will you make the request to move then? By the way, the same applies to Chisinau and other Moldavian localities. " I thought you wanted to discuss the changes to all of these? In any case, I think it makes sense to talk about all together, because Wikipedia guidelines suggest having a consistent pattern for a given country. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. TSO1D (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the right quote. You see the difference of what you said and what I really said? Why would I want to discusss something related to Chisinau and other localities on the Balti talk page? Anyway, I suggest to restart the voting, to make clear everybody knows what she is voting for. Here we are voting for Balti only, please. If we are talking about all together, we are talking about nothing at the same time. Look on the number of arguments in favour of move and on their absence against the move, namely concerning Balti and not localities in general. I think your "misunderstanding" played a bad joke to your cause. You have accepted the move to Balti as well, it can be seen above on this very talk page. But you have suggested Balti, Moldova, whereas my proposition is Balti purely and simply and a link to the Balti (disambiguation) on the top of the Balti article. As far as I understand that's where the true debate lies right now, and that's where the second voting should take place, after we renew the first one, explicitely stating that it refers to Balti only and has no consequences on other articles. Moldopodo (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

If you wish to make a new poll, of course, feel free to do so if you want. However, I want to make some comments about your comment above. I have always been against removing the diacritics, I don't care if it's Bălţi, Moldova or just Bălţi, as long as that name is used. Also, I believe that most who voted against the move, presented arguments against removing the diacritics in this specific case, even if some added that this should also apply to other cases. Therefore, I think that making another poll isn't likely to change anything, and it is probably too early to stop this one and start a new one. TSO1D (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just before we start a new poll, I want to remind you that there are four persons for the move you including, and three persons against the move (even though they refer to general move and to general, however unsourced, rules of written English)Moldopodo (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

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.

I believe the scope of the previous discussion was clear enough; anyway, even making sure that everyone knows the discussion is limited to this page, it is highly unlikely that a consensus for a move will be found here. There are enduring arguments on both sides of this debate, and this discussion is not a vote. Dekimasu よ! 11:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late vote:

I once tried a similar move for Maramureş --> Maramures, and was rv and explained that this is wrong. Diactrics can be used everywhere where there is no established English name. :Dc76\^talk 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your vote cannot count, because it is another bad faith, unrelated to Balti argument. Here we are discussing/voting for Balti. So you voted for Maramures, you have made a mistake, there is an article on Maramures and a talk page there, please use that space to vote, not here. Moldopodo (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Dekimasu[edit]

Funny, Dekimasu, you arrive out of nowhere and make expedient conclusions, which are not true to my mind. First of all, could you explain how did you know about this article? Secondly, have you read all the comments? Who are you Dekimasu? Users Cezarica and 62.84.145.2 are apparently clones of former user Bonaparte, who is fond of creating many clones. User TSO1D has accepted on this very talk page to move to Balti. This makes the following result:

For the move (4):

Fizzgog
Moldopodo
Erudy
Mikkalai

Against the move (however, with unclear motivation as TSO1D enduced them in error thinking that all articles will be changed) (3):

Husond
AjaxSmack
TSO1D

Conclusion: 4 vs 3, the decision to move the article is taken.Moldopodo (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Moldopodo, I am not in favor of the move and never have been. Furthermore, Cezarika has not been established as a sock puppet of Bonaparte. Finally, as Dekimasu has pointed out, this is not a vote, but a discussion meant to lead to consensus. TSO1D (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deksimasu said: The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, so she should have counted the votes in order to speak of the result, so it was a vote.Moldopodo (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

The way decisions are made on Wikipedia is based on Consensus. This means that the process is not simply a vote where a simple majority is sufficient to make a decision. The system is based on communicating with other users, with the hope of reaching agreement. Unanimity is of course the goal, although this rarely happens, but in any case, an overwhelming level of support for one position is needed to constitute consensus, although deciding exactly when this happens can sometimes be a bit tricky and is a bit subjective. However, in this case, it is clear that no such consensus exists, and this is what Deksimasu tried to explain. Please read the Consensus link above if you want to learn more about the policy. TSO1D (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deksimasu said: The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, so she should have counted the votes in order to speak of the result, so it was a vote. Sorry, TSO1D, it was Fizzgog who said: Just to clarify my comment above, were the move to something like Balti, Moldova, as Erudy suggested, I would have no objection to that. --Fizzgog (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC) So I changed respectively the vote count.

Further, I remind you that nobody from the "against" side presented any discassable or debatable arguments and sources for not moving the article to Balti, in particular arguments pertaining to Balti proper. However, many more arguments were presented in favour of the move to Balti, and all these arguments are based on Balti exclusively, without any subversive generalisation, like often the induced in error opponents did, so no one knows anymore what she/he is voting against exactly. How do you want to reach the consensus if you make the debate obscure and people who vote no, vote for something else (general modification and move of names of all localities), whereas the debate here is strictly about Balti. Moldopodo (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I reached this page as a disinterested observer via Wikipedia:Requested moves, where this discussion was listed as a move request with its scope limited to determining the location of this page. I often close move requests listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You can see that page for more information on how the move request process works. I read all the comments here, and I did not see a consensus for a move - evidence that we roughly agree upon and will agree to abide by a certain outcome. Consensus is not based on the number of editors who support a position; if there is no consensus, we do not turn to numbers and vote on a result. If "who are you" is meant to ask whether or not I am a sockpuppet, the answer is no. (As far as the count you list above, Fizzgog objected to moving this page over the Balti disambiguation page because there are other things called "Balti" in English, but he did not object to removing the diacritics. I am not sure why discussion of the Belcy and Beltsy suggestions died out.) Dekimasu よ! 02:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dekimasu, thank you so much for explication you have given above. Unfortunately it is rare that users who come from Romania or Romanian speaking Moldavians present themselves in such a civilised way. Even if you are against the move, it is a pleasure to read your passage, as it gives me hope that there are adequate users on Wikipedia. I certainly agree with you on what is based the consensus. The problem is that here people were speaking and commenting on different topics. Instead of debating exclusively on Balti, we have seen everything referenced against the move to Balti, except the arguments concerning Balti itself. How do you want to find a consensus, if one is speaking on one topic and the other on the other topic? This is exatly the reason why Beltsy was faded out. Personally I agree to move iether to Beltsy or to Balti. Taking in consideration irrelevant comments against the move to Balti, one can justly infer that no comments were expressed against the move of Balti proper. At the same time, all of the commentaries made in favour of the move to Balti are about Balti proper. IMHO this can only mean: all relevant arguments are for the move of Balti. Baldly saying no is not an argument to me, moreover you say, and I garee with you, it was not a vote. Moldopodo (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

A move can be taken only be consensus, not by vote (read WP guidelines). And BTW, your arithmetic is very strange to say the least (to say the truth in full, it seems you are prepared eve to rig that 2+2=4 in order to get your POV through). :Dc76\^talk 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Localities[edit]

please, see this, law # 764 /2001 about the correct names of localities.:Dc76\^talk 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing these edits[edit]

Let us nicely write the arguments here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc76 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, to start the discusion, please answer this 1) [31] and this 2) [32] After we see your answers there, we can move on with all the new disussion topics you have.Moldopodo (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

- Moldopodo, Those passages are a disguised form of personal attack. WP editors are supposed not to get personal. Everyone has the right to refuse to answer a personal question. I am open and will be open to discuss anything about any issue related to edits to the article. That is what WP talk pages are for, not for chat. I also do not intend to convince you personally of anything: you are entitled to believe everything you wish. I only intend to present my arguments as clear as possible, such that the other editors see that I am right to support the edits I support or oppose the edits I oppose. I expect you to do exactly the same: nothing more and nothing less. So, please, list here the issues you have with today's edits. :Dc76\^talk 16:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to accept this, if somewhere down in the text we can mention that ... what "the hell": I accept, I am tired of to many disputes in this article. :Dc76\^talk 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moldopodo, please read the intro: "hilly landskape in the middle of the steppe" ! :):):)

"northern capital", not "capital of the north". The north is not a country or a territorial unit to have a capital. And I do not oppose to mention it, but just not in the intro, it is in the first section. :Dc76\^talk 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dc76, there was a general concensus reached that the mention "capital of the north" goes in the intro. As said above on this very talk page, this has no reference to politics, territorial units or whatsoever. You are the only person who sees something political in this name. This is not something we are discussing twice. --Moldopodo (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
- There is a general consensus to keep it (including me), but there is no consensus to place it in the intro. BTW, "northern capital", not "capital of the north":Dc76\^talk 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dc76, Balti steppe is the name given by Britannica. We can also put in Beltsy steppe, as there are much more references found on the internet under these key words as any other (although it is not conclusive evidence).
- Britannica does not contain an article Balti steppe. :Dc76\^talk 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for diacritics, nothing was decided so far. The side "in favour " of move has presented serious arguments, the side "against" has presented nothing or almost next to nothing relating to Balti proper. So, please stop editing everything in diacritics version before the consensus is reached --Moldopodo (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]
- To use diacritics is a general WP policy. You should debate it somewhere else (more generally), not for one specific instance. I will oppose to remove them as long as there is a WP standard to keep them, and I will remove them when/if the standard is changed. But I would do that not in one article, but in 100 more related to 20 more names.:Dc76\^talk 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant arguments, Dc76. We are talking about removing diacritics from Balti as it was established that there is an English word for the city of Beltsy in Moldova, and it is spelled Balti (without diacritics). Diacritics are used in English, and according to Wiki policy, for cities which have no established English word for them. --Moldopodo (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Regarding Elizavetovca, we are dealing with bad faith of user User:Dc76 providing us as a source a page with about twenty laws listed not specifying which one and where exactly has the reference to Elizaveta and not to Elizavetovca (the version that Dc76 pushes through for an unknow reason). We are also dealing with bad faith of user User:TSO1D who wrote the following on the talk page of user User:Dc76: About Elizavetovca, I'm not sure that this is not the official name. Looking at the webiste of the Moldovan Parliament, I found references to Elizavetovca, but not Elizaveta. Why do you think the latter is the official name? TSO1D (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC) and after, at 18:47, 23 November 2007 TSO1D made the following edit[33] on the Balti article, changing the official name Elizavetovca into imaginary name Elizaveta, although having acknowledged previously that the proof of exactly the contrary exists. --Moldopodo (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Moldopodo, please relax for a second. These bad faith allegations are getting ridiculous now. About the "capital of the north", I don't care one way or another. About Steppe of Bălţi, as long as the city is called Bălţi here, then all other articles using that name should use the same form. This is general Wikipedia policy with few exceptions. So Britannica has Balti steppe, because they also have Balti, we at this time have the version with diacritics in the main article, so we should keep that in all articles. And as for Elizaveta, your accusation against me makes no sense. If I were editing in bad faith, why would I have tried to argue the matter and find the truth? As it is, after I made that comment, I looked at the the link that DC provided, and it does include the form "Elizaveta." That is an official law of Parliament, so I didn't see how I could have rejected it. TSO1D (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think everybody is quite relaxed; it's Saturday, and even Dc76 after insults in my regard and refusal to dialog, makes an effort, although forgetting to say a civilsed expression (which civilised Dc76 should know very well) "excuse me Moldopodo for insults uttered in your regard, I do recognize that this and that... and also that Balti is translated as swamp in Romanian (which is an ABC of Romanian) and that I intentionally deleted Russian names of neighbourhoods".

As for diacritics, I repeat no consensus was reached (as third party users say), so no decision was taken either in favour or against diacritics. However, if you do believe that no docaritics should be used, please give us some conclusive evidence on that, as the "against" camp really lacks arguments here. I would be even glad and interested to see your arguments "against" and discuss them publicly. Unfortuntely, so far there are only arguments "for the move" of Balti that can be and were presented. As for Elizaveta, please, give the exact source with exact reference, you know like http link with the number of article of the law to which you refer, on a site that supports updated versions of laws (there is only one in Moldova: lex.justice.md), you may also copy paste or translate the relevant passage in English (as I did on Moldova talk page for all of my arguments), so we can all see your source. TSO1D, you know it's very simple to prove that there was no bad faith, just show us the argument, the source. It's useless to write how good faithed you are, when no contrary proof is brought. Moldopodo (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Moldopodo, DC provided the link to the law above. Click on the link, go to 764 and a zip file will open and in A2. There the name of the two villages will be given. I quote: "Municipiul Bălţi Sate (comune) Localităţile din componenţa lor Elizaveta Sadovoe" That law is found on the official website of Moldova's Parliament, sorry but I see no need to look for it at lex.md.

As for the name, since no decision was made to change the name of the city to the form without diacritics, please, do not change that name either in this article, or in other articles incorporating the name of the city. My argument for diacritics is simple, that is the official form of the names, and lacking an established in English name, that should be used in default according to the Wikipedia naming guidelines. Other users who opposed the move mentioned the same argument. If consensus is reached to move the article, then I will fully agree that other articles such as Bălţi steppe or others should have the name of the city changed to Balti. It's important to stick to an existing pattern to avoid confusion. TSO1D (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exatly since no decision was made, nor no pattern exists, what exactly are you talking about?Moldopodo (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

As for your bad faith on Elizaveta namely, I apologize and completely take back my previuos statement in your regard, as I have checked the law[34], and it does say "Elizaveta". However, you should properly reference laws. Referencing it on the site of Parliament does not mean that you are referencing the updated version. The only updated version of laws in Moldova exists at lex.justice.md, all Moldavians know this. There you can always check whether a law, Constituion, any other legal document, was modified, how many times modified or abolished at all. In our case, the law was modified 6 times since its publication, and you were referencing the outdated version of the law, which is not valid anymore. I advise you to check this law, and to make necessary edits on a good number of articles on Moldovan localities. Moldopodo (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Excuse me Moldopodo, but I sincerely believe you have gravely misunderstand me. I have not "uttered insults in your regard", at least nothing that I said was meant as anything close to insult. I recognize that Balti is not translated as swamp in Romanian, but that near to where Rautel meets Raut, before the Autogara district there was a 1/2 sq.km.-size swampy land. (I do recognize that it is those and other poodles that suggested the name, but strictly speaking the translation is "poodles" or perhaps better "pools". I agree to mention that some people translate it (incorrectly) also as swamp. I even agree to drop the word "incorrectly" so that you do not get it as an "insult", just say "some people" - which BTW is not just you) and that I intentionally deleted names of neighborhoods that are not in the official language, while having nothing in mind about Russian. If you succeed to place Russian names in districts of New York, at at least for Brooklin, I would revise.:Dc76\^talk 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no justification for deleting Russian names of balti districts and leaving those in Romanian. And this has nothing to do with New York. I see it's a common tactics of Romanian propaganda on English Wikipedia, when you guys have nothing to say on the subject, you start changing the topic. So please, put back the Russian names, moreover put as well refrences that BAM was built duirng the Soviet Union from scratch, also I think the following phrase should be left in text Baikal Amur Mainline as it explains why is it called BAM, namely because of the efforts put by Soviet workers to build and rebuild the city, which was a piece of mud after the Second World War (and before). Also, I do not understand why you remove hyperlink to Dacia. Do you think everybody knows what Dacia means?

As for the swamp, I am sorry to dissapoint you, but it IS translated as swamp. I have provided you the link to the translation dictionary English-Romanian-English online[35], [36], [37], [38] (how many more than four refrences do you need to persuade you?). You have deleted it and put instead the link to the etymology dictionary in Romanian only. By the way, what's the point, we are on English Wikipedia and the issue is clearly about translation. However, even that article explains that balti is translated as swamp in Romanian, more than that, this very article in Romanian refers to Russian (Slavic) origins of the word, which I have said myself earlier on this very page (certainly you have not reacted), as in Russian it 'bolota'.

As for the rawing channel, it is in use for many years now, and on many holidays official competitions are organised there. I was very surprised when you said that there were plans to build something there, as this area of the city has always been swampy and floodable, that's why no constructions are found there until today. By the way, if you truly live in Balti, have a look at the official www.balti.md page (sorry, most of it is in Russian). Also in the Balti press (SP I think) it was said that the City Hall has problems with authorisations for new buildings and construction works, as no constructible space is left in Balti. Why would you think they would not have space, whereas, according you, there is plenty of space in the centre around the rawing channel. Namely, because the soil in the centre around the rawing channel is swampy, floodable and therefore not constructible. The Jewish cemetery which is situated on one the slopes leading to the rawing channel is probably the only "construction" there, and even that cemetery has problems, as graves are opening from time to time because of unstable soil movements in all of that area. Does not your statement sound contradictory to you? Moldopodo (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

About the Russian names of the streets, I don't really understand what the point of including the Russian names would be. I mean I can understand why it makes sense to include the actual names of the streets (and by actual I mean the official names as they are now in existence), but why should we include the translations into Russian? About BAM, is that really where the name came from? I never knew that. As for the translation into English, I agree with Moldopodo that swamp is a valid translation. I think though that marsh might be better, or that both terms should be given together. Because in Romanian swamp would best be translated as "mlaştină," although baltă could also be right. I would prefer to have "Bălţi... comes from the word baltă, which means marsh or swamp in Romanian. TSO1D (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSO1D, the district BAM, was built from scratch , where there were nothing during the times of the Soviet Union. It is called BAM because, just as in Baikal Amur Mainline, Soviet people who built the district, did it heroicly with great efforts and in a a very short time. After independence of Moldova ot was renalmed in Dacia (go figure why), but honestly Dacia appears publicly only on trolleybuses digital or written direction indications in Balti. However private maxi taxi (shuttles) still put BAM, and even in Latin characters. Everybody in the city still calls the district BAM. This is also where many Ukrainian speaking Baltiers live, as well as Romanian speaking Moldavians who recently migrated from villages. This district is one of the most fastly developing in Balti, both business wise (retail shop branhces of Furshet (Ukrainian), Fidesco, Mall "Bum" of Kirilchuk (Ukrainian), this is also where Ukrainian company will build modern stocking facilities for Gura Cainarului (the most popular in Moldova mineral water brand), which is a brand of Balti based "Rusnac" mineral waters company, belongig to Ukrainian speaking Moldavians as well). This dstrict is also known for the real estate boom, where no land is left for sale anymore (last were Dutch investors (probably Moldavian through a mirror company as usually)). Pole Chudes (imitiation of Rublevka in Moscow) is part of BAM district, and that's where private fancy houses are located.

Why should we put district names in Russian? Becase it is one of the official languages in Moldova and because in Balti in particular Russian is used everywhere in all spheres (public, state, business) daily casual and official life. More than that, if you truly live in Balti, you know perfectly well that everybody speaks Russian in Balti, even Moldavians with native language Ukrainian or Romanian, even them, all speak Russian. Tell me one simple thing, in how many restaurants or cafés can you find a menu in a different language than Russian (very very few)? How many professional or at least identifiable and paid for sites are there in Romanian on Balti? (zero). Why do you think the official Balti City Hall site is mostly in Russian even though we have a Ukrainian speaking Moldavian mayor? How many schools are teaching fully in Romanian and fully in Russan in Balti? How many groups in Balti State University use Russian and how many use Romanian (may be the only place in Balti where the proportion is more or less equal)? When you go to buy something at a supermarket or at the Central Rynok, how many times do you speak Russian (always, sometimes Ukrainian). In what language is published the most popular newspaper "SP" in the north of Moldova and that recently received an award from Chisinau as the best independent newspaper? (Russian). Why in the Alecsnadri Theatre the earphones translation system is provided for theatre plays? Have you ever heard anybody speak Romanian in Balti clubs (everybody speaks Russian there again? What language speak waiters in Turkish and Japanese restaurants around the central square in front of the City Hall (Russian and some Ukainian in Sushi Studio, because again it is a Ukrainian owned business). Oh I forgot, the only place of which I know where Romanian is used is Metro, simply because Moldavian Metros are Romanian branch owned (certainly with German ownership at the end). However, when you come to the cash desk, the girl behind the counter speaks... Russian. Moldopodo (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Ok, if you just want to say that many still use the Russian names of the districts, I of course have nothing against explaining that. Also, if you want to give the Russian names of some of the districts to explain common usage, I don't have anything against that either, especially for those whose Russian name is used by almost everybody (such as BAM). The only thing I'm against his having a Russian translation whenever a name appears in the article. In summary, I am in favor of explaining that colloquially many streets and districts are referred to by their Russian names (and to provide these names for the most important cases), but in the rest of the article to use the official names (in Romanian). Do you agree? TSO1D (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What districts are in question here? Dacia is the only district for which people colloquially use a different name: Bam. Pamanteni, as far as I have known all my life is called Pamanteni (I have never have heard Pomyanteny! Even in Russian people say Pamanteny, i.e. only last i changed to y.) 8th and 9th district are called just that in all languages: cartierul 8, 8-i kvartal, etc. Centru is called Centru, Autogara - Autogara, Baltul Nou - Baltul Nou, Slobozia - Slobozia, Molodova - Molodova, and I have never heard other names. Yes, Russian pronounce them respectively Tsentr, Slododzeya, Molodovo, but that's in Russian. I have never heard anyone speaking English using Russian pronounciation for them, correct me if I am wrong. So, unless there is at least some sourse for that usage, I believe it is fair to use the official language terms. Conclusion: the only object of discussion is Dacia/Bam, and I have nothing against adding in brackets "pepople call it colloquially Bam" or something like that. We can even make it a blue link to the Baikal-Amur Magistrale, but I don't think we need o explain about that magestrale in this article. :Dc76\^talk 14:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not explining anything in the article, namely for this reason I put [[ ]] around Baikal Amur Mainline, so the one who is interested lay just click and see what it is in a different article.

As for the argument of Dc76 "I have never heard of people using Russian names, and Russian prononciation" - first of all this is not a serious argument. Secondly this is an open lie, as I have given enough sources that Balti is a largely Russian speaking city (even the official City Hall site has much more pages in Russian than in Romanian, this goes without saying that there is NO other indentifiable professional and paid for web site about Balti in Romanian, whereas there are at least four in Russian). If you do live in Balti, you know very well that even the inhabitants who have Moldovan as native language (those who came from villages recently) use Russian for the names of districts (funny, but they shy away pronouncing them in Romanian accent). Foreigners who travel to Balti, use Russian. Please, give me a break, you do not live in Balti, for what you are saying that Baltiers do not pronounce Pomenteny in the Russian way Pamyantaeny. By the way, the proper name of the far eastern district of Balti is Molodovo, even in Romanian. I wonder where do you get this strange Molodova form in Romanian from? Moldopodo 02:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Also, Dc76, please put back all the edits on which the consensus was reached, like the Balti steppe in the intro (also, please source your new add-on about Moldavian plateau). Also, please put back the refrences to the proper translation of the word Balti and not etymological explication in Romanian. I mean, if you insist on etymology of this word, we can put a reference in Russian, as there much more English readers who know Russian (as one of the most spread languages in the world)[39], or:

формы, родств. ст.-слав. блато (др.-греч. λίμνη). Ср.: укр. боло́то, белор. боло́то, болг. бла́то, сербохорв. бла̏то, словенск. bláto, чешск. bláto, польск. błoto «грязь, трясина», в.-луж. bbłóto «грязь, тина», н.-луж. bbłoto «заболоченный лес, грязь». Родственно лит. báltas «белый», др.-прусск. местн. н. Rythabalt, алб. baltë «тина, болото, глина, земля» — иллирийского происхождения: сев.-ит. palta, ломб. palta, пьемонтск. pauta. Знач. «белый» и «болото», ср. с русск. бель, польск. biel. Сюда же, далее, бе́лый, в то время как нидерл. peel из *pali-, др.-в.-нем. pfuol, англ. pool «лужа», др.-инд. jam-bālas «болото, тина» следует отделить, вопреки Уленбеку и Бернекеру. (Использованы данные словаря М. Фасмера; см. Список литературы.)[40]

or:

Слово:болоґто,

Ближайшая этимология: укр. болоґто, блр. болоґто, ст.-слав. блато l…mnh, болг. блаґто, сербохорв. бла?то, словен. blaґto, чеш. blaґto, польск. bљoto "грязь, трясина", в.-луж. bљoґto "грязь, тина", н.-луж. bљoto "заболоченный лес, грязь".

Дальнейшая этимология: Родственно лит. baґltas "белый", др.-прусск. местн. н. Rythabalt (Буга, РФВ 67, 232), алб. balteЁ "тина, болото, глина, земля" -- иллирийского происхождения: сев.-ит. palta, ломб. palta, пьемонтск. pauta; см. Г. Майер, Alb. Wb. 25; ВВ 19, 155; Ngr. Stud. 2, 64. Знач. "белый" и "болото", ср. с русск. бель, польск. biel; см. Фортунатов, ВВ 4, 579; В. Шульце, Kl. Schriften 111 (=Sitzber. Preuss. Akad., 1910, стр. 787). Сомнения Бернекера (1, 70) неоправданны. Сюда же, далее, беґлый; см. Траутман, BSW 25, в то время как нидерл. peel из *pali-, д.-в.-н. pfuol, англ. pool "лужа", др.-инд. jam-bѓlas "болото, тина" следует отделить, вопреки Уленбеку (РВВ 17, 439 и сл.) и Бернекеру (1, 70).[41]Moldopodo 02:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Moldopodo,

You say "Secondly this is an open lie, as I have given enough sources that Balti is a largely Russian speaking city" - Well, that is an open lie. You personally largely use Russian. Don't generalize.

I use Ukrainian primarily, but also Russian and Moldavian. But this article is not about me, so I'll stop here with personal considerations. Now, please tell me, how many Baltiers, speaking Moldavian as primary language, are owners of major businesses in Balti, who is the Mayor of Balti (I'll help you, Mr. Panchuk is a Baltier who speaks Ukrainian as native language, and he was elected twice by all Baltiers). By the way, do you know who many Russian/Ukrainian speaking mayors were in Balti compare to Moldavian speaking? I repeat, Balti is a largely Russian/Ukrainian speaking city in Moldova, although Moldovan is spoken in Balti as well sometimes. --Moldopodo (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I appreciate your change in tone.

54.2% of Bãlţians (with "i", as opposed to Romanian) are Moldavian/Romanian. That is the only thing that should count, official data. Anything else is POV.

There is no official data on a hybrid ethnicity Moldavian/Romanian, this is your personal, and very strange, point of view, Dc76. Also, ther is no "Bãlţians" in English. Inhabitants of the city of Beltsy/Balti are called Baltiers ot Beltsiers in English language.--Moldopodo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Any English-language sourse for Bãlţians/Baltiers? :Dc76\^talk 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if you noted that in business there are many Ukrainians and Russians, I suggest to look at culture and education as well, where you will see a predominance of Moldavians. In professional jobs there used to be an equality, now due to the decrease in number of Russian-speaking, proportionally... Moldavians speak also Russian (those that know it, many younger ones do not know it!), I think because they are more forthcoming and tolerant than the average Russians and Ukrainians from the city (not on average; on average all nations are the same). Let me give you a counterexample for your example with the mayor. The mayor of Sibiu is ethnic German in a city where only 1-2% are ethnic Germans. And Sibians elected him with much larger majority than in Bãlţi. All that should count is the person. Suggesting that he is better because he is Ukrainian is nationalism. In fact, I don't like Panciuc, I mean his policy and his association with the Soviet system, but I wouldn't mind at all a better person without any regard to the ethnic group. That is the difference between you and me, IMHO: I tolerant, you are not. At least the impression you left me during the last months. :Dc76\^talk 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youngers and old, everybody speas Russian in Balti and most understand (at least) Ukrainian. Very few in Balti speak Gagauz however. As for professional jobs, to which you refer, Dc76, please don't make me laugh. It is a widely known fact that Russian speaking professionals were the spinal core of Moldavian reconstruction after the 2WW, and all the way up to late 80', and this in whole Moldova. This has nothing to do with racism or nationalism, it's just history. However, this following statement by User:Dc76 is uncovered racism/nationalism:Moldavians speak also Russian (those that know it, many younger ones do not know it!), I think because they are more forthcoming and tolerant than the average Russians and Ukrainians from the city. The following statement made by Usr:Dc76 is an open lie: Suggesting that he is better because he is Ukrainian is nationalism. I have only said that the Mayor Panciuc was Ukrainian and was re-elected twice, just as Mayors before him were Russian or Ukrainian speaking Moldavians. Nowhere have I said anything about one nationality beig better than the other, contrary to User:Dc76 who is openly doing this right on this very talk page. I am sorry, but User:Dc76 has a very strange manner to interpret everything in this perverted way. Besides Panciuc has nothing to do with any association with the Soviet system. This is just another simple uncovered lie from User:Dc76 (User Dc76, you have to be responsible for your words). With Mayor Panciuc the economy (and it is free market capitalist economy in Balti just as in the rest of Moldova) in Balti is booming, foreign investments and local investments have grown significantly (building of new stocking and logistics centre for Gura Cainarului, opening of Metro, opening of Rail Plant, building of new houses and apartment buildings just to name the few...). Look User:Dc76, with your irrelevant statements made on Balti (negation of Balti steppe, speaking of a Medieval forest around Balti which has never been seen there before, strange ideas about construction plans in the swampy central valley of Balti, which is foodable and unconstructable, inserting in Balti history plenty of irrelevancies on history of Romania (why not China then?), all of this, makes me really think how much do you know of Beltsy at all, and whether you have ever been there at all. --Moldopodo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

No, not everybody in Balti speaks Russian. And almost everyone understands when spoken to in Romanian. I blamed you of nationalism not because you mentioned Panciuc, but because you said Ukrainians dominate in the affairs of the city. Everything you say about Panciuc is politically interpretable: if you vote for him, you support that, if you vote against him, you oppose that. The "booming" (this is an overly big word) is due to the general economic situation. Opening of private businesses is not a mayor's merit, at most you can say he favored. Obviously, I am not saying 100% of what he did was wrong. I am saying that there are better people than him. The central valley was meant to have a few stadium tribunes, and some sport-like one-story buildings, not multy-story constructions. That's what I said. That in middle ages it was forest, read Dimitrie Cantemir. History of Romania is important for the period for which the city was part of Romania. Since it was never part of China, history of China is irrelevant. :Dc76\^talk 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And almost everyone understands when spoken to in Romanian - Dc76,if there is a prize for the biggest lier on English Wikipedia, it goes to you right here and right now! Now, you say you do not approve Panciuc, but you have never said anything to support your argument! I like him, as well as the majority of Baltiers does. Things are better in the city thank to him. The city became much cleaner, old buildings were repared, public street lighting was never better before him. So, tell me one thing that Panciuc did is not good? And moreover, who is better than him? Had ther ebeen someone better people would have voted for him, it's easy as this. Look, Panciuc was elected twice, I think it's a sign that he is good! As for the forest, please give me exact citation, verifiable via internet, where Cantemir refers to medieval forest with trees with big diameters around Balti. Not like you used to give references to the Law on Elizaveta (you referred to a page with 30 laws on it), but exact reference, like I always do (page, paragraph, article number, and certainly URL address).--Moldopodo (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

You say "the inhabitants who have Moldovan as native language (those who came from villages recently)" - This is ethnic hatred. They were born in the city, they did no come from anywhere. You are promoting Soviet-style city vs. village hatred, but don't worry, we, the city natives will cut short your elan of hate.

I am afraid you draw a wrong interpretation/conclusion of what I say. It is a historical fact (section on history was written in part by yourself, remember?) that Moldavian speaking inhabitants started moving to Balti in late 80's and this phenomenon continues to the present day. Russian/Ukrainian speaking inhabitants of Balti were a clear majority before, and even today, when the proprtion of inhabitants speaking Moldavian as a native language in Balti has grown (after the break-up of the USSR), even today, the city remains a largely Russian/Ukrainian speaking locality in Moldova. The usage of these official languages is by the way also protected by the Constitution of Moldova and Law on Functioning of Languages. Today, a good number of villagers work abroad (Italy, etc) and buy real estate in Balti with that money. This has nothing to do with any kind of hatred at all, I am afraid your mind is too perverted by some very strange pro-Romanian propaganda. I am just citing history here, whether you like it or not, it is your personal affair. --Moldopodo (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Late 80's? Are you kiddling? Moving from village to city started right after WWII, at least after 1950. After 1980 there was very little due to housing shortages, and then in 1990 stopped due to economy. What I wrote was 50s-80s and described 2 phenomena that happened, one of which is this. It happened DURING, not at the very end. Russian-speaking have never been a majority. In fact, immigration from USSR happened mostly from mid 60s, while coming from villages was already at its pick in 1960. And Moldavians were a majority/plurality for all the centuries before that, except for a period (cca 1870 - cca 1950) when Jews were a plurality. Anyway, I don't see any purpose for discussing which of the two phenomenas in 1950s-80s was a little earlier than the other. Unless one has some nationalistic intent in mind. Otherwise it is logical to reflect both phenomena simultaneously, just as they happened.

Look, Russian speaking populaion existed in Balti before the USSR, I hope I do not need to make you a history course on Russian Empire... Russian/Ukrainian speaking population was always majority in Balti, and this has nothing pejoratove. It's history. Why do you think ten all the press articles say that the more or less equal proprtion of Moldavian-Ukrainian/Russian Baltiers was reached only NOW? Probably because it did not exist before, don't you think? I do not negate that migration of Moldavian speaking Moldavians from villages took place before, but it took really exponential character after the break-up of the USSR, as a good number of Russian or Ukrainian speaking professinals were forced to leave, or rather to flee due to the political developments of that time (remeber some agressive fanatics crying at Russian speaking peaceful citizens "Baggage-Station-Russia"? some of those who yelled this phrase belonged to the "groups, manipulated from Chisinau, gathering inside of the University and Alecsandri theatre"... ). --Moldopodo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Censa before 1940 show that Russians+Ukrainians, even if taken together were only the 3rd community in the city. The quasi-equality was reached in cca 1980, when Jews emigrated and Russians/Ukrainians arrived in big numbers. It was preserved for cca. 20 years, and now it is back a decline. After the break-up of the USSR, there was very little migration between localities of Moldova, since people became more poor and could not afford to move. You opinions about the 1989 are extreme, super-conservative. These are political opinions, let's not debate politics here. The Soviet authorities could not manipulate people anymore, that's what happened. :Dc76\^talk 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another lie, The quasi-equality was reached in cca 1980, when Jews emigrated and Russians/Ukrainians arrived in big numbers. Russians were here before, just as Ukrainians, and they did not arrive from somewhere, they were born in the city, just as their parents, grandparents and so on..., contrary to many Moldavian speaking Moldavians who came en masse namely at the end of 1980's in the city. And they came from villages. And as you can see, the opinion expresser on Wikipedia is you (with you perverted interpretations), as it is very rare that we see any source whatsoever to support your strange arguments. --Moldopodo (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

It is the rigth of any Moldovian, regardless of eny ethnic group, to buy property in any locality. Any problem with that?

Not at all, strange why do you see a problem with this, I guess one should blame again your perverted interpretation. --Moldopodo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I asked because you complained about people buying houses in the city now. If it is "pervert" to ask you if you have a problem with that, why it is not "pervert" of you to complain about in the first place?:Dc76\^talk 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, again your perverted analysis played a bad joke to you. Where did you see I was complaining of whatsoever? Where? I have written a historical fact, quite neutrally I should mention in plus. It's really strange how you manage to read through the letters and see perverted political connotations in such things, just as in Balti steppe for example, or English word chernozem...--Moldopodo (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

A note about the usage of the word pro-Romanian. Do you mean pro-Romanian as an ethnic group or pro-Romania (no "n") as a country? I have been always pro-Romanian since that is my ethnic group (within it I always though identify myself as Moldavian. I am not only Romanian, I am a Moldavian Romanian.) But I am not necessarily pro-Romania (in fact quite often I find myself at odds with many of Romania's politicians.) I am pro-Romania just as much as Romania is pro-Moldova, and that's my no 1 criterion. I am also pro-American just to the same extent America is pro-Moldova, pro-Russian just to the same extent... you get the picture. I am Romanian, because that it the language I speak, and because my ancestors called themselves so. As far as I know, they have always lived in a 0 to 60-km radius of Bãlţi, for all generations I could trace. My family name is also specific to northern Moldova, and to a smaller extent to the Iasi county in Romania, which was the county which contained the city and surrounding localities in middle ages. I am not talking about one branch, the same goes for all 8 pairs great-great-grandparents of which I can be certain. And they all called themselves Romanians and Moldavians and one meant the other and the other the first, and there was never a problem. Romania as a country, yes, that appeared in 1859, and then we get also political meanings to the term. So, the "propaganda" I got, was here from the down of time, not from recent politics.:Dc76\^talk 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, al of my ancestors lived in Balti proper for centuries before, and all of them spoke Ukrainian for their whole life, as well as Moldavia and Russian. They have always considered themselves Moldavian, but never Romanians. Nobody in my extended family was ever Romanian, I am not talking about one branch, the same goes for all 8 pairs great-great-grandparents of which I can be certain. And one never meant the other and the other never meant the first, and there was always a big problem if someone would have a strange idea to put it in a different way. All of them are proud to be Moldavians, a nation that pre-existed Romania not only as a country but as a nation as well a long time before somebody knew what Romania means. Nevertheless, from time to time, one can see a couple of Romanian tourists in Balti, asking awkwardly street directions in ... Russian.. My family is also very speciic to northen Moldova, with a typical Moldavian-Ukrainian ending. When I say pro-Romanian propaganda of yours(Dc76), it means, just to name the few: you insert irrelevant passages on Romanian history in Balti history, trying by phrasing your paragraphs in a "proper" way to glorify the actions of those who faught with fascists against Moldova. You keep adding to every word 'Moldavian' the word 'Romanian', etc, etc...--Moldopodo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

You just copied what I said and changed to "no". I bet you don't even know your 16 ancestors by name. This kind of falsities have been promoted in Moldova by the new government since 2001. But fortunately, it won't last forever.:Dc76\^talk 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied some of your sentences to show you and to make you understand that this kind of argument does not have much value (you know, you like to argument this way "I know many people who.."). Here, one more time, your strange perverted interpretation played you another bad joke. Where did you see a word about government? It's very ill-minded from your side, Dc76 to analyse things this way, why so much frustration and anger from your side?--Moldopodo (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

You, dear, might be coming from God knows were, where you were a burden. (Otherwise you wouldn't ever say about inhabitants of the city "came recently". That - frustration- is the only logical explanation that comes now to my mind.) I, like 100,000 more people, was born in this city, and live in it. I can scan my id card and email it to a sysop for proof!

First of all please stop personal attacks here NPA, like this one: You, dear, might be coming from God knows were, where you were a burden, and try to learn a civilised way of having a dialog. I am, again, surprised by your unsupported strange conclusions, like this one: That - frustration- is the only logical explanation that comes now to my mind.). Moreover, I am afraid, you are the one who is frustrated, as you speak using words like "hatred" and "racism", in a avery agressive and uncivilised way. These kind of agressive and uncivilised expressions are exactly the style of banned User:Moldorubo and User:Suchwings1, trying to push on the entire English Wikipedia non-sense Romania related propaganda. Moreover, the banned User:Suchwings1 edited in exact same places, ignoring the consenus reached on this very talk page (on use of Russian names for Balti districts, on use of dicaritics for Balti, on Balti steppe, etc, etc..., all of this exactly just as you (User:Dc76) did, just as banned User:Moldorubo. --Moldopodo (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I have only had problems from Bonaparte's socks. I am not following him. He is following me. For example Belţi was obviously vandalism, and I reverted that on spot. In fact, i did not check yesterday who User:Suchwings1 was, I am not user-follower. I assume all are legitimate ones, although perhaps that is too naive. Now this explains some of his biased edits: he copied some of mine/TSO1D/Constanteanu' edits to look ok, then he added some utter nonsense. This way he wants to get credibility. Ask yourself: how many of his good edits were his? zero! He just copied some to look nice, so that he afterwards can vandalize. :Dc76\^talk 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but Bonaparte fully adheres to your cause and intervenes just wjen you are approaching the 3 revert limit rule... And Bonaparte should be really someone who has a lot of time, as every time Bonaparte (according to you) edits, his edits exactly correspond to the most recent edits you tried to push through. Very funny and strange coincidence, and "sure it does not look at all" that you are related to each other... Moreover, Bonaparte should also have a lot of time to study your style of agressive answers, doing it exactly in the same language manner.. User:Illythr said the differenc between you (Dc76) and him (Bonaparte) is that you (Dc76) listen. Unfortunately you do not listen and do not even read this talk page (so do not listen just like Bonaparte) where consensus was already found on a good number of your controversial edits, which you keep bringing back without any consideration fo the reached conensus. --Moldopodo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Moldopodo, just to let you know: I read this, but it itches my brains to read so much non-sense. Therefore I do not answer. If you like to fight with Bonaparte, i think you would find the perfect match. He is just your style of intolerance. But, give me a break, please.:Dc76\^talk 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, User:Dc76, boldly revering edits with no regard whatsoever to reached consensus, speaks of tolerance? So basicly you have nothing to say how you are NOT related to Bonaparte, Moldorubo, Suchwings1 and other anonymous users from Tanzania and Poland...--Moldopodo (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Suggesting to look for the translation of the word Bălţi in a Russian dictionary is ludicrous. It is like looking for the translation of New York in Chinese, justifying that there is a Chine Town in it. :Dc76\^talk 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing ludicruous in this, to the contrary it is the logic and good sense themseleves who speak for this. First of all the proper link that should be put is a link to a translation dictionary, not to an etymological dictionary (who do you expect an English reader understand Romanian?). The paragraph deals with translation, not with etymology, check the Balti article again. Secondly, the Moldavian word 'balta' has the same origins as Russian word 'balota', moreover, the link you have provided to a Romanian etymological dictionary refers to Slavic origins of the word itself. Thirdly, even if you insist on etymological ditcionary link, instead of a translation link, I suggest you rather insert a link to a Russian etymological dictionary for two reasons: 1) it is the first etymological root/source, 2) English speaking readers are much mor elikely to know Russian than Romanian, as Russian is a much more spread language in the world. --Moldopodo (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Yes, and I suggest to use Hindu since that is more spread than Russian either, and more close to old Indo-European, where the root actually is from! Obviously you are trying to model the facts to suit your desire to use Russian. All you want is to somehow connect it to Russian language.

Not at all, Dc6, please read carefully the link you have provided, it refers to the Slavic etymology. So, if a link to an etymology dictionary should be put, let's put it in Russian.--Moldopodo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Old Slavonic, not Russian. Ok, you did not know that before. But now, how hypocritical can you be to continue with that "put it in Russian" non-sense. edit the entry of the world balta in Wiktionary as much as it pleases you.:Dc76\^talk 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is another perverted interpretation of yours, Dc76. I suggested a Russian dictionary, because Russian is certainly related to Old-Slavonic, what's the problem here?--Moldopodo (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Ok, let's leave the rhetoric apart. I suggested this dictionary: http://www.dictionare.com/ which is a Romanian-English-Romanian dictionary, not an etymological one. This is a more respectful site, I've told you, I've used it for at least 8 or 9 years. Of course, if you know of a better one, you are welcome. "Please, type in "baltă", and see for yourself.

I have cited more than FIVE translations dictionaries links with swamp translation, how many more do you need?--Moldopodo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

are they romanian-english dictionaries? No. :Dc76\^talk 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an elementary lack of respect from your side. I have cited plenty of references on the proper translation dictionaries a while ago, just as other users confirmed on this very talk page the "swamp" translation. Pretending not having seen them, is at least disrespectful to all of us, from your side, Dc76. --Moldopodo (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Let's avoid the origin of the root of the word "baltă". All I can say it is Indo-European. If you find in some dictionary that it is Slavic, then to ask to use a Russian dictionary is just as legitimate as a Czech one. You can wiki-link to baltă, where you are welcome to theorize about the origin of the word. The name of the city comes from the word in Romanian language, not from other language. Let's limit to that. :Dc76\^talk 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, make a guess, how many English speaking persons speak Czech and how many Russian? See? That's why we should put the etymological link to a Russian dictionary. Other thn that I do not really are for etymological (although it's quite interesting and surprising at times!) link, as the paragraph in the article deals with translation. --Moldopodo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Now, that logic, Moldopodo, is exactly what itches my brains and why I only selectively answer to you. If you have serious stuff to discuss, please. Otherwise, with no disrespect, you are making yourself look like a child.:Dc76\^talk 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you say concretly to my suggestion? --Moldopodo (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Moldopodo, You are here just to create confrontation. I am not interested to discuss politics or anything not related to article edits with you. So, all you political and nationalistic comments will from now on remain unanswered. Please, refer strictly to the content. Illythr, TSO1D, and everyone else, they listen, you just talk and rv war. :Dc76\^talk 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dc76, please stop publicly lying about me. You are the one who is here clearly for pushing through any kind of Romania related material, whether it fits or not in the text. You were always invited by me to explain yourself and bring proof to your edits from verifiable source, which you have never done, except issue on Elizaveta (and even that you did improperly, not giving the right references). Since it is a free encyclopedia, please feel free to make edits and they will be most welcome, as long as they are logic (in the absence of sources), or properly sourced and not nationalistic. There is not one edit of mine that was nationalistic, however there are plenty of yours (they are available for public reading on this very talk page about "more tolerant Moldavian speaking Baltiers than Ukrainian and Russian speaking Baltiers", they are also available on the history of edits of History of Balti article, where you put Romanian fascist army as a liberator of Balti, where you also write that Russian do not want to speak any other language than Russian, etc, etc, they are also available on my user talk page (which are very well presented as I have regrouped them), they are also available on the Balti page, when you delete Russian names of districts and leave only those in Moldavian. You are also the one who engages in edit war. You say "for new edits we need at least couple of weeks to discuss", and then you immediately edit on Balti depression without any discussion. There are plenty of examples like this, you also engage in edit war trying to manipulate me by counting edits and telling me "this is your second revert", and then you change I.P. and edit without registration or with your Bonaparte's new puppet.--Moldopodo (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Other stuff[edit]

BTW, excellent pictures.:Dc76\^talk 17:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The camp[edit]

It contained up to 45,000 prisoners at a time, most of which were POWs, while others were arrested locals of military age who were discharged, due to light injuries, from the Romanian Army after fighting from several weeks to several months against Nazi Germany.

Huh, the Romanian army was actually fighting the Germans before 20.08.1944? Around Balti? --Illythr (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Romanian army fought the Germans after 23 August 1944. I am referring to at least several dozen documented cases (which means that there were thousands, since documented are fates of less than 2%, i.e. the ones that were lucky to survive and to live long enough, or lucky to be picked arbitrary by researchers to follow) of solders of Romanian Army, originally from Bessarabia, who were discharged in October-December 1944. They fought against Germany. These were people who were in the units that never fought the Soviets, but were kept on the Romanian-Hungarian border, or people who fought the Germans in Bucharest and Ploiesti in August 1944 (remember there were lots of killed there as well, remember there were entire German divisions there), who often because of injury were discharged. They returned home, and on the way, they were almost 100% picked up by Soviet patrols and put in the camps. Obviously I am not referring to 20 August 1944.:Dc76\^talk 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the time period is kinda mangled there - the last ref point is "summer 1944" --Illythr (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you see, that's the kind of things I can not notice because I read myself. That's one of many things why your help is very useful. So, the camp existed in 1944-1945. Inmates were added from cca June till December 1944. The majority were POVs, and the majority of those were from Iasi-Chisinau operation. Now we have to convey that in a better way.:Dc76\^talk 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Illythr Please feel free to read through the article on Balti history on my user page, I am sure you will find what you are looking for there. I am unfortunately too tired to look at it again tonight.--Moldopodo (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

History section[edit]

The history section is way too long. I suggest to make a summary and continue with all the developments (only those relevant to Balti history proper) on the History of Balti page--Moldopodo (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

I agree. Also, wherever possible, information should be changed from "timeline" format to paragraph format. TSO1D (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was kinda the whole idea ever since an anon IP had stuffed that huge POV chunk into the history section over two years ago... --Illythr (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree to shorten the section in the main article. The details will then be read in the separate article. That was the whole idea to introduce: I gave you something more specific to work on, you see the total size, you figure out in what proportion to shorten. Timeline format was something I introduced a few months ago in order to make it more NPOV, answering to the suggestion by Illythr. Obviously the format is irrelevant. I also like paragraphs more.:Dc76\^talk 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be working on Beltsy history, once I get the copy from www.balti.md, official City Hall site. They have an extensive full copy version of book on Balti anniversary in Russian, a very nice, complete and neutral version. Unfortunately the site is not working for the moment. So far I have gathered some other historical refrences of lesser value and put them here [User:Moldopodo/Reserve copy of official Balti history] --Moldopodo (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Bălţi vs Balti[edit]

Everyone seeing this, Can we please settle this once and for all? It's becoming annoying.:Dc76\^talk 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather apathetic on this issue - on one hand, many articles seem to use the diacritics, on the other hand, most English speakers have no idea what those weird comma thingies are supposed to mean... --Illythr (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was Khoikhoi who told me that, since the diatrices are available, they should be used. This is to convey the name as faithfully as possible (since the alphabet is latin, that can be done at 100%). How to pronounce that is a problem already without commas in many-many instances. That's just how it is in languages that reproduce foreign names just as they are (except when an English-version exists.) Moldopodo's argument seems to be, according to his answer in one section above, that Balti without diatrices is an established English term. I contest that.:Dc76\^talk 14:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Dc76, but no official decision was taken. When I will have some time and possibility I will scan pages from English dictionaries for your attention.--Moldopodo (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

...[edit]

Dc76, the Greek city is indeed called Larissa, there's no need to blindly revert all of Moldopodo's changes. ~~Likewise, the French wikiarticle does not use diacritics.~~

I also still don't get how "Balti steppe" can be any more POV than, say, "Antarctic glacier" or "Siberian taiga"... "Plateau", however, means highland, which is certainly false for the Balti region.

The old Romanian census is better moved to the History of Balti article. What's the point of having it here? --Illythr (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting sidenote about the French version. Seems like it was moved to the version without diacritics quite recently. Guess by whom?

(actu) (diff) 16 décembre 2007 à 17:34 Moldopodo (Discuter | Contributions) (20 702 octets) (défaire)

Moldopodo, I don't really care about the French article, and Wikipedia projects are atonomous, but still I want to ask you why did you do a hard move there (i.e. without using the move version). Now the page history there is lost and you made a bit of a mess. I could understand if you did that when you first appeared, but I've already explained to you on this project a few weeks ago that this isn't the right procedure. TSO1D (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-D Ha, that was wicked! My apologies Dc76 for that one. :-) --Illythr (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Moldopodo did that in 15 wikipedias in 10-15 articles in each. Also, I am sincerely sorry if I rv something alright. If there were 8 bad and 3 good, obviously I would try to minimize my work, first rv and then redo his 3 good ones, rather than undo 8. :Dc76\^talk 15:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is uplands a better word? I notice it in Britannica. :Dc76\^talk 15:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plateau, in my understanding, is a piece of land at a higher altitude. It can be a mountainous plateau, but does not have to be necessarily. The Russian word is "vozvyshennost'", and there is for example "Podoldkaya vozvyshennost'" North Moldavian one is just another. Steppe is a type of vegetation. The POV is because it associates the territory of Moldavia with areas dominated by migratory peoples (east of the Dniester) rather than those dominated by sedentary peoples (west of the Dniester). Note, that Britannica, which is the only Moldopodo's serious argument, does not have a separate article on that. Just one word in the article about the city, obviously copied from some Soviet book. They made the mistake to assume that everything there is in good faith. :Dc76\^talk 15:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uplands. ;-) I suppose "Flatlands" could be used, but, uh, "Steppe" is really just another word for it... Steppe is not a type of vegetation, but a landscape type characterised by a certain type of vegetation. "Podolskaya vozvyshennost" - no idea if it's the same thing. I also strongly doubt that Britannica would copy anything out of a Soviet book, much less assume that anything in such a book is "in good faith"... I don't know how accurately the word "steppe" describes the area around Balti, but I contest that the word itself is POV in this case. Not every steppe was populated by nomads, and even if they all were - what's the POV in that? It's like claiming that calling a terrain "Tundra" is bad, because it associates with Chukchi. The only valid criterion here should be whether the description is accurate or not. --Illythr (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, not every prairy. But this one, the Indo-Assian Steppe has a certain historic association related to it. 99% of geography information in Soviet texts is accurate, why not trust it. Unless it is to hide a military site or city, or some stupid propaganda, it is very fine.

Actually, unlike EvelAlex, I have positive associations with both tundra and chukchi. Not that I wouldn't send the Transnistrian leadersip somewhere, but that place is very well defined: prison.

Now, content-related. Uplands works for me. You see, the terrain is not flat. Also, the depression is barely 500 sq km in size. In my understanding it is non-notable. I'd rather have all Balti steppe's "info" moved to Geography of Moldova. Different parts can be treated there in different sections.:Dc76\^talk 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to move the results of the 1930 census to history section if that were not so itchy. Just yesterday, Moldopodo wrote above in this talk page that Russians/Ukrainians were a majority in the city for centuries before 1980. It is quite likely that he will try to add reformulations of such non-sense to the article. These non-senses would be in obvious contrast with the ethnic composition section, which is the first place one looks when a strange ethnic composition claim is made. Once Moldopodo would be kept in check in regard to that issue - I am neutral to which section it belongs. So, if you say there - that tips the balance for me, and I agree to move it there.:Dc76\^talk 15:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History article, not section. If Moldopodo wishes to add that Slavs were a majority in the area for centuries - he merely needs to present a supporting source, like an imperial census or something... --Illythr (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that info must be present in the article of the city. Because it is relevant. No prob. however to reformulate that sentence, and perhaps remove the religious composition, since that reflects the general tradition of the ethnic groups. Anyway, perhaps we can settle the more itchy issues first. I am not saying I will be always against, I am saying I am today against.:Dc76\^talk 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think this discussion is ridiculous. I mean it's the same to "try to reach consensus" on question whether Black Sea, Alps, or planet Earth alltogether exist at all or not. Beltsy steppe, as well as Moldavian geography, were studied by numerous geography scientists (foreigners, as well as locals in English including), Beltsy agriculture scientists from NPO Selektsiya have published works on cereals they managed to grow in difficult conditions of Beltsy steppe. Beltsy steppe is also mentioned in the introduction of all articles I found on Balti. The mere fact that this is put under question is striking proof that Dc76 has very little to do with Beltsy in reality. It is obvious that User:Dc76 is not a Beltsier. Also check the history of Balti that Dc76 wrote. I guess the method Dc76 used was to take Romanian history and to try to insert where possible and even where not, the word Balti.Moldopodo (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Now, for History of Balti article, I have finally managed to copy the article from official site of Balti City Hall. You can read it here: User:Moldopodo/Reserve copy of official Balti history, or to be more precise, here: User:Moldopodo/Official History of Balti. This, I think, is the best guide for all of us in writing a nice article on History of Balti. The article is very long, very detailed, but deals exclusively with the history of the city. Even if you are not interested in editing, you might just want to read it for your interest. I spent half of the day on it...Moldopodo (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

- Moldopodo, claiming that I am not from my home town is nationalism on your side. Nationalist, please know that Selectia, Balti are the correct names to use in English, not their Molodopodized (Russified) versions. You are simply intolerant to people who are of different ethnic group.

Look, this is getting better than Bald Singer of Ionesco... Dc76, I am claiming that you have very little to do with Beltsy in relaity. This is because your edits are very strange for someone who lives in Balti. (negation of existence of Balti steppe, lack of knowledge on businesses' ownership, lack of knowledge on demonstrations' history in 1990's, imaginary plans to build a stadium in a place which has always been known as floodable and unconstractable, saying that Panciuc did wrong, etc, etc...) This has nothing to do with your ethnicity. It only deals with your lack of knowledge. Ah, ok, I understand, (may be). If I am right, your perverted analysis is far beyond of what I could have imagined. Did you mean that nationalism means someone who does not know much, and since this person is of X nationality, it's nationalist regrding this person? Please tell me I am wrong, otherwise, we are really thinking and analysing in a different way.--Moldopodo (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

- About the site. 1) it is not in the official language, neither in English. Putting it there in Russian is a sign of nationalism on your side, since it does not refer to something that is about Russia, but about a foreign country. Find an English or a Romanian version. I can read Russian, but you exclude English-speakers. And I think you try to do it intentionally, nationalist. 2) The City Hall is a (local) government. Writing history is historians' bread, not politicians'. I would agree to use that info only as a guide in order to search for the good sources. I believe that a good chunk of information from there could be accurate, clearly copied from somewhere. Find those places, and that's it. :Dc76\^talk 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)Definitely, it's better than Ionesco. I am sorry, I do not know anymore what to say, other than your analysis is as pervert as it was before. It is simply not healthy to react this way. If you insist on Moldavian language version of this article, please feel free to translate it. There is no Moldavian language version on the official site of Beltsy City Hall. 2) Look, Dc76 how many verifiable sources via internet did you give us, for all the controversial edits you do on Balti history?--Moldopodo (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Balti without diacritics in English, Northern capital and Balti steppe[edit]

For those of you who still wonder about this, have a look at this:

www.turism.md[edit]

Balti

General: The so-called "Northern capital" of Moldova, Balti is known as far back as 1421. The locality obtained its name from the local swamps, and later all the environs retained the same name for a large area, known today as the Balti Steppe. In 1711 Balti was the location for the alliance of the headquarters staffs of the Ruler of Moldova Dmitrie Cantemir and Russian tzar Peter I, during the "Prut’ Campaign" against Turkish janisaries. Latter, with the development of a rail interchange, the importance of Balti rose, and it became a big industrial centre. This role in creased further in the Soviet period: the town was extended and the population became more numerous and was especially trained for the industrial factories.[42]

Encyclopedia Britannica[edit]

Copied from the Balti article in Britannica:

formerly Belts, also spelled Beltsy, or Belcy, city, northern Moldova, on the Raut (Reut) River. Balti, dating from the 15th century, is a major railway junction and the centre of the rich agricultural Balti Steppe. Most industries are concerned with processing farm produce, notably flour milling, sugar refining, and wine making, but furniture, agricultural machinery, and fur clothing also are made. Balti has a teacher-training... [43]

Copied from the Moldova / Land relief article in Britannica:

The northern landscape of Moldova is characterized by the level plain of the Balti steppe (500 to 650 feet in elevation) and also by uplands averaging twice this height, culminating in Vysokaya Hill (1,053 feet). The northern uplands include the strikingly eroded Medobory-Toltry limestone ridges, which border the Prut River.[44]

National Council for Accreditation and Attestation www.cnaa.acad.md[edit]

Soil fertility in dependence of crop rotation and system of fertilization on typical cernoziom from the Balti steppe[45]

Ministry of Environment and Territorial Arrangement[edit]

Welcome to State of the Biological Diversity

Country Overview - Republic of Moldova

Last update February 2000

Chisinau-2000

B) Steppe ecosystems

Steppe ecosystems cover the West extremity of Euro - Asian steppe zone and in the last time period here underwent great changes, their vegetation being very much destroyed and broken up. The habitats’ areas of these ecosystems decreased with about 70% in the last 40 years and some fragments of steppe areas only survived. Nowadays grassy steppe formations occupy 300 thousand ha (about 8,9% of the total area of the country) and they preserved themselves in the shape of clusters in northern zones (Balti steppe) and in southern zones (Bugeac steppe).[46]

European Commission[edit]

2. The region of hay-fields and elevations of Balti steppe.[47]

Tiscali British reference[edit]

Major towns/cities Tiraspol, Balti, Tighina Physical features hilly land lying largely between the rivers Prut and Dniester; northern Moldova comprises the level plain of the Balti Steppe and uplands; the climate is warm and moderately continental[48]

and 767 other hits from Google....

Also Beltsy steppe[edit]

Physical features - hilly country lying between the rivers Ptrut and Dniester, Beltsy Steppe in the north are a level plain, it has a warm climate...[49]

Beltsy steppe[edit]

http://bnrm.md/publicatii/files/6/2002.pdf at page 6

Beltskaya steppe[edit]

A considerable part of the country’s north and south is occupied by steppes (namely, the Beltskaya steppe in the north and the Budjakskaya steppe in the south). The terrain in the central part of the country is characterized by the availability of wooded and mountainous hills up to 430 meters high. Narrow valleys and steep flanks contribute to the impression of a mountain landscape. Since ancient times, this territory has been named “Kodry”, which means “old forest” or “thick forest”. In total for the Republic, forests account for 9.4 percent of its territory. Over 72 percent of soils is ‘chernoziom’ (black humus earth). In the northern part of the Moldavian tableland, a thick layer of chalkstone (named “toltry”) outcrops.[www.economy.gov.ru/UnidocFileServlet/FileServlet?unidoc_id=1169201078531&template_id=4]

--Moldopodo (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Trolling[edit]

Some admins should take some administrative measures here against serious violations of trolling from Moldopodo.Ungurul (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User;Ungurul, before you vandalised the article Balti steppe, you have never said anything on the relevant talk page. Further you have simply replaced every word "steppe" with "depression" and you also added diacritics signs everywhere. None of these edits were justified. For none of these edits you tried to reach a consensus in advance. --Moldopodo (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

User:Ungurul, de:User:Cultura, de:User:Forta - ref. [50], [51], fr:User:William Pedros ref. [52], [53], [54], [55], ro:User: 125.245.199.2 ref.[56], [57], please stop personally attacking me under the above mentioned user names, everywhere you insult/personally attack me and vandalise disussion pages.--Moldopodo (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo[reply]

Stop attacking me and others who are not agreeing with your stupid idea not to use official names in Wikipedia. Can't you stand any rule here? Ungurul (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, please stop with the personal attacks. Such behavior is counter-productive and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Civil discussions in an attempt to reach a consensus will go much further. TSO1D (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope one can block him here as Moldopodo was blocked on others Wikipedia as well. See the french one. They are not joking with vandals there. Ungurul (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Operation München - (German-Romanian) retaking (of) Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (from USSR) - 1941

[1] Operation München - (German-Romanian) retaking (of) Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (from USSR) - 1941

[1]

The 27 issues[edit]

1. The first word [edit]

2. The Cyrillic alphabet of the official language of Moldova[edit]

3. The name of the city in Russian[edit]

4. Municipality[edit]

5. It is often referred to as "the capital of the North"[edit]

6. among a hilly landscape that used to be covered with forests in the Middle Ages vs among a hilly landscape that is covered with forests since the Middle Ages.[edit]

7. in the middle of the Bălţi steppe.[edit]

8. Elisaveta, Moldova|Elizaveta and Sadovoe, Moldova|Sadovoe vs Elizavetovca and Sadovoe[edit]

9. The word Bălţi (pl. of sing. "baltă") is translated literally "puddle pools" vs The word Bălţi (pl. of sing. "baltă") is translated literally "swamp, puddle pools".[edit]

10. Moldavian language vs Romanian language[edit]

11. Erasing the names of city neighborhoods[edit]

12. Erasing more than 1/2 of the items from the history section[edit]

13. Post-1950s immigration[edit]

14. No usage of the Romanian language during the Soviet period[edit]

15. Negation that anti-communist demonstrations has taken place. Labeling ethnic Moldavians, as a community, with extremism.[edit]

16 Local elections[edit]

17 "Repatriation"[edit]

18. Erasing that there were doubts about the accuracy of 2004 census[edit]

19. 1935 estimations[edit]

20. 1940.[edit]

21. Ethnic composition according to 1930 census[edit]

22. Moldovans/Romanians as ethnic group[edit]

23. Erasing external links[edit]

24. Erasing mention of discuraged education in Moldavian/Romanian during the Soviet period[edit]

25. Current legal status of one official language in Moldova.[edit]

26. Negation that many young Moldavians do not know Russian[edit]

27. Denial of change of ethnic composition of the city during the Soviet period[edit]

Proposals[edit]

1[edit]

2[edit]

3[edit]

4[edit]

5[edit]

6[edit]

7[edit]

8[edit]

9[edit]

10[edit]

11[edit]

12[edit]

13[edit]

14[edit]

15[edit]

16[edit]

17[edit]

18[edit]

19[edit]

20[edit]

21[edit]

22[edit]

Further discussion, comments, information[edit]

DEXonline[edit]

What is going on now?[edit]

History Section[edit]

Language[edit]

Official name of City[edit]

Characterizations of Dc76's actions by Moldopodo[edit]

The only answer that will be[edit]

Blatant vandalism[18] by Dc76 on the Bălţi article of English Wikipdia (written by Moldopodo)[edit]

Spam[19][edit]

Sneaky Vandalism and Intentional Misinformation[edit]

Changing Street names[edit]

Covering of Historic prevalence of Russian language in Bălţi[edit]

Falsifying history of migrations inside the USSR[edit]

Deleting the date of Local public elections[edit]

Deleting Names of City Administration in Russian and leaving Moldavian language names[edit]

Diminishing the importance of the Ukrainian community in Bălţi and in the North of Moldova generally[edit]

Claiming an unexistent "pro-Western" opposition[edit]

False presentaion of the Bălţi history[edit]

False statements on Bălţiers[edit]

False statements on languages used in the MSSR[edit]

Deleting Russian names of district names of Bălţi[edit]

False presentation of Moldavian ethnicity[edit]

False presentation of Moldavian language[edit]

Denying an obvious world known fact: Bălţi (Beltsy) Steppe[edit]

Intentional Nonsense Edits[edit]

Personal undocumeted opinions[edit]

Misplaced statements relevant for other articles[edit]

Unverifiable data[edit]

***9. The word Bălţi (pl. of sing. "baltă") is translated literally "puddle pools"*** vs The word Bălţi (pl. of sing. "baltă") is translated literally "swamp, puddle pools".[edit]