Talk:Communist Party of Moldavia

Untitled
What would the name with Cyrillic letter look like? --Soman 07:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

CPSU?
Some question has emerged on how to deal with parties that were merged into and/or emerged out of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I suggest a centralized discussion at Talk:Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union. --Soman 11:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist Party of Moldova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120815193447/http://basarabialiterara.com.md/?p=3231 to http://basarabialiterara.com.md/?p=3231

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Again
I invite you to outline and quote here some sources explicitly defining "Moldovenism" is a loaded term -- to back your extraordinary claim that it is a loaded term. I hope to return soon with about 30 scholarly sources specifying Moldovenism as a descriptive term and ascribing this ideology to the PCM. Let's have it already. Dahn (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For now, allow me to introduce you to Ágnes Patakfalvi Czirják, Piotr Olesky and other non-Romanian, non-political scholars using "Moldovenism" (var. "Moldovanism") to describe the communist ideology on national issues. The exact same usage in Stefan Ihrig, who even notes that Moldovanism was born from Soviet communism, and served as the official ideology of the Moldavian SSR. Will you let this go, or will I have to RfC you? Dahn (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding to this emerging list: Igor Cașu, Virgil Pâslariuc, "Chestiunea revizuirii hotarelor RSS Moldovenești: de la proiectul 'Moldova Mare' la proiectul 'Basarabia Mare' și cauzele eșecului acestora (decembrie 1943 – iunie 1946)", in Archiva Moldaviæ, Vol. II, 2010, pp. 275–370. It describes the direct links between PCM politicians and older/newer Moldovenist discourse, designated with this exact word. Dahn (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On page 111 here is Moldovan historian Gheorghe Gonța specifically defining the PCM's official ideology as Moldovenism even under Ivan Bodiul. Dahn (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The same notion and exact terminology is endorsed by philologist Vasile Bahnaru... Dahn (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by historian Sergiu Musteață (in his Educația istorică – între discursul politic și identitar din Republica Moldova, Chișinău, 2010)... Dahn (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by political scientist Iulian Chifu (see his chapter in Basarabia după 200 de ani, Iași, 2012)... Dahn (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by historian Valentin Burlacu... Dahn (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by historians Larisa Noroc and Sava Balan... Dahn (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by linguist Silviu Berejan... Dahn (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by anthropologist Ludmila Cojocari (see the association spelled out on page 95 sqq)... Dahn (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by historian Octavian D. Țîcu... Dahn (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by political scientist Kamil Całus (see especially p. 14)... Dahn (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by historian Jonathan Eagles (p. 86 sqq)... Dahn (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by political scientist Károly Benes (p. 12)... Dahn (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by historian Alexandra Șarov (p. 311)... Dahn (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by ethnologist Loretta Handrabura (p. 221)... Dahn (talk) 06:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by historian Gheorghe Cojocaru (who, you will do me the favor of noting, actually outlines its neutral or even positive aspects, in that Moldovenism functioned as a defense mechanism against full Russification)... Dahn (talk) 07:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by literary historian Maria Șleahițchi (p. 15 sqq; in reference to works published on Eminescu by Soviet Moldavian authors, and also highlighting some neutral or positive aspects in this)... Dahn (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by linguist Eugenia Bojoga... Dahn (talk) 08:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by literary historian Răzvan Voncu (p. 99)... Dahn (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ...by historian Dorin Cimpoeșu (p. 166 sqq)... Dahn (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Lest I forget: I also make note about the use of "Moldovenism" as a descriptor for the far-right localist movement in Western Moldavia after the Free and Independent Faction, something on which our article on Moldovenism is of course silent (presumably because it is embarrassing for modern Romanian nationalism). On this usage of the term, see Andi Mihalache here and Ovidiu Buruiană (the relevant chapter in Murgescu and Sora's România Mare votează, Iași, 2019). Dahn (talk) 07:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please indicate any use of the term by PCM or at least ethnic Moldovan authors. You just listed articles by Romanian authors (some rabidly nationalist) or members of the (Romanian government-sponsored) Romanian minority of Moldova. The term originated in the Romanian political discourse in the early 90s (probably as an oblique reference to communism), it was never used before either as a self-reference or even as a concept in Moldova. Charles King, in his in-depth study of Moldovan nation-building, never uses the term (though he uses “moldovanizers” to refer to supporters of the cultural current supporting standardizing the local dialect).Anonimu (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't even bother answering that inane and contrived request, what I will point out out is that these authors are eminently qualified in their fields of expertise, and are of various backgrounds; that I cited foreign scholars, neither Romanian nor Moldovan, using the term, should be enough for whatever matters on wikipedia. I will not make this into another endless chitchat with you, I will simply apply the term where it is validated, and, if you revert me based on your personal agenda, I'll make sure to let moderators look into your behavior. Dahn (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can’t wait for the moment when you are going to push other ideas used by authors “eminently qualified in their field of expertise” in mainspace: “falsified history”, “natural development in the Romanian ethnic and cultural context”, “sacrilege”, “obedients slaves of Soviet ideology”, “natural part of the Romanian stock”, “compromised national identity”, “party abberations”, “manipulated public opinion”, “abasement of the language”, “disgracing the national identity”, “restoring the true ethnic identity” and so on and so forth. The few foreign authors using the term make sure to use quotes when citing the term and make sure to only present it in oposition to “romanianism” (which, unlike “moldovenism”, WAS and IS used as a self-identification by Romanian nationalist groups). Its interesting how you went from threats of starting a RfC to canvassing moderators, probably realising that the strong nationalist discourse reminiscent of the 1940s used by your ethnically-selected authors would not really help your case in case of a wider review.Anonimu (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, dear, we've been through this: authors are judged by their qualifications and reputation, not by how they express their POV -- their POV about a vile thing such as communism, no less. Your attempt to disqualify sources based on your personal inferences about their language and wink-winks about "who finances them" is tantamount to nothing; your claim asks from your readers to believe that all the major institutions in Moldovan academia, all top-ranking publishers of academic books in several countries, and in general any intellectual not taking up Moldovenism itself (when Moldovenist intellectuals are in reality the contextually marginal ones, primarily because Moldovenism is not intellectual), are frauds. And yes, your own POV and how you edit based on it something that would and should invite in reviews by both moderators and third-parties. Now, to the point: do you have any qualified source describing the term "Moldovenism" as loaded and to be avoided? Produce it, and produce it now, or forever hold your peace on this trite issue. Dahn (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, several of the sources above consistently show that "Moldovenism" is in fact used for self-labeling even by its exponents (you can also ascertain this from primary records: ); though, again, that should not matter: what should matter is that it is used in third-party expert literature. Dahn (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I will not tell you again, : the sources above verify usage by academics of several nationalities, as well as self-designation by Moldovenists. Your claim that the term is loaded and belongs on Metapedia and whatnot is utterly self-sourced, you have brought up nothing to support it, and yet you keep removing the term. I don't really have the time to deal with your case now, but my next move will be to ask that moderators' oversight and sanctions are again applied to you and your editing. Dahn (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are overwhelmingly nationalists pieces of Romanian authors sporting racialist views and expressing their frustration that Moldovans fail to adopt the Romanian identity. The few non-Romanian authors make sure to use scare quotes around the term and always use in contrast to "Romanianism". Since we do not refer to parties supporting Romanian nation-building and nationalism by that term, I see no reason to use its pair for the one supporting Moldovan nation-building. There is no indication that PCM ever used the term (it couldn't have, since it had been banned by the time the label entered Romanian nationalist discourse), some 2010s blogs are irrelevant for the position of a party that was dissolved in 1991. Unlike the Romanian Wikipedia, here we have a higher standard of NPOV and Romanian nationalism cannot be promoted just because it is popular in Romanian public discourse.Anonimu (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your theories about the sources are of no interest, as long as you dont present other sources questioning their credentials. Moreover, your claim that foreign sources only use Moldovenism in quotes is evidently contradicted by those very sources -- the ones using quotes do so only where they quote opinions, and in the conclusions you find the terms used without the quote marks; this mirrors usage in several Romanian sources. Your claim that we should not retrospectively identify the ideology of a party using more modern terms is evidently against common practice on wikipedia and in political science overall -- the claim is even more egregious when you suggest that we should only use self-labeling to define parties. By which token Zhirinovsky is a liberal democrat and "national communism" (which was never used as a term by the PCR, for instance) practically doesn't exist, and neither does "Austrofascism"; by that token, we can't refer to Mobutu's party as authoritarian, and we cannot describe a group as "Titoist". Dahn (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)