Talk:2010 Moldovan constitutional referendum

removal of material

per [1] "This event is now in the past and Wikipedia is not a news source. Outdated statements on who can participate or what PCRM hopes to do (as opposed to did or did not) are no longer needed"

first you say this is not a news source and then you say its in the past so its not needed? Because its over doesnt mean there werent any controversies. There were and theyre cited to WP:RS so kindly explain why it should be here.

Why was everythign in the edit removed?Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

These statements are past projections into what has meanwhile become a past event. That is, they talk about what can happen, when it has already happened (or not). For example, the information about the possibility of foreign residents to vote is now useless - relevant now is the information whether they did vote or not. Similarly useless, now, is the intent of the PCRM to boycott the referendum - all that matters now is whether they did boycott it or not (apparently not, judging by their NO in the table). This also concerns Filat's statement - the failure is no longer "most likely", it is now a fact.

If you want this information to be in the article so much, then just find a post-referendum source that discusses these events and add them into the article in the past tense. Also, next time you revert someone, please try to pay attention to what you're reverting to. Right now, the first para reads: <topic> was a nationwide referendum in Moldova held on 5 September, [...]. The referendum was held on September 5. --Illythr (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay i agree with at least the gist of what you are saying. As in the possibility of foreigners voting, and whether PCRM would boycott or not. However, i dont think it need be removed because there was such controversy issued once. Thus a mention like "there was concern on voting" + "PCRM had considered boycotting" stuff like that.

Per statements, there are quotes of person X at the time, we cant edit quotes. I've tried something new, see how you like this. Edit it away to what you think, or remove whatever you feel fit but also can you discuss it here? Thanks. (oh, and sorry for the revert that messed it up, i must admit i say that to others too ;))

I changed stuff but had a few questions: how to change the "aftermath" section to merget he quote with the affirmation of failure and a counter-statement to the controversy, which can then change the controversy to a "consideration of boycott becasue..."

Otherwise i think we're in agreement now? sorry again.Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I removed the communists' intent to get the populace to boycott the vote is that in its present state the article implies that they succeeded (the only opposition to the vote mentioned in the article), which I find rather unlikely (if they're popular enough to affect the decision of 70% of the population, they'd be in power now). Filat's quote is not needed either - it was a valuable estimate at the time he said it, but now we know the referendum failed. The other part, where he tried to explain the failure is important, so I left just that.

The best solution is to find a post-referendum analysis and use it to describe the events from the current perspective (i.e.) post factum. This is necessary because what seemed important back then is probably unimportant now (for example, the foreign residents voting didn't affect the outcome) and vice versa (the most likely reason of failure was the lack of popular trust in the coalition, perhaps due to their internal squabbling - but this point was barely mentioned before). --Illythr (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Analysis like this one, for example. --Illythr (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

About the communist, not hard to believe the high-number with them, governed for most of Moldova's independence and controversial change of government that "ousted" them that lead to this referendum (probably we can add a "background" section).The main point being that was an intent once upon a time and they signaled it, so in some capacity a major party's call like this is certainly warranted in mention.

For the quote, i agree the second sentence can go, the only reason i had to keep it was the indication of the 33%threshold, but we can reword it outside the quote if you feel so. (there was no other mention of the requirement with sources (the template though had it)

Perhaps an analysis is found in Moldova? Can you get one? I cant read it. then we can discuss the wording if need be

Saw your link after. the following seems to indicate what i said and can be in a "background"

<quote>The governing Alliance for European Integration (AEI) of four parties had initiated this referendum to circumvent (not resolve) the year-long vacuum of legitimacy in parliament, the presidential institution, and government. The collapse of the parliamentary system of government has cast Moldova in the throes of a permanent electoral campaign since April 2009, without fully legitimate state authorities....The referendum maneuver also suited the interests of the two smaller parties </quote> Although the latter could be constitued POV. The last para seems like "analysis" you were seeking? Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, the Communists' intent can stay.

Analysis in Moldova - eh, I barely watch or read the media other than (non-Moldovan) newsfeeds. Besides, if it's not available outside of Moldova, it's value is minimal due to WP:V.

Yes, the facts in the quote are good. Reduce the flowery language and it can be added. Another important point missing from the article is the lowering of the validity threshold from 50% to 33% just prior to the referendum. --Illythr (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moldovan constitutional referendum, 2010. 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://archive.is/20120906151657/http://www.mdinto.biz/news.php?nid=4664 to http://www.mdinto.biz/news.php?nid=4664
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323173650/http://www.allmoldova.com/en/moldova-news/1249046708.html to http://www.allmoldova.com/en/moldova-news/1249046708.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215204920/http://digest.electionguide.org/2010/09/01/cabacenco-moldova-on-the-threshold-of-change-2/ to http://digest.electionguide.org/2010/09/01/cabacenco-moldova-on-the-threshold-of-change-2/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)