Talk:2019 Moldovan constitutional crisis

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Moldova Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The current infobox make it look like there's three different factions opposing each others, when it's only two. --Aréat (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change.--Aréat (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There in fact three factions, three figureheads, but two of the factions are allied. I personally think that Sandu had a bigger role than Dodon in the crisis. --Pilaz (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we should replace Dodon with Sandu.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the crisis seems to be ongoing, and given the diversity of views -and perhaps future divergences too- I propose that we split the reactions by country. International organisations should also be represented.Most of the press coverage is focusing on the EU, Russia, United States, individual EU member states, and Council of Europe. One example of splitting up reactions by country: Kerch Strait incident. Pilaz (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think as soon as we only have three reactions it does not make much sense, but if more information is added, restructuring of this section could be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more, let me know if the current arrangement works, otherwise we can always switch back to the old one. Still need to add Ukraine to the mix. I'll put them under other countries unless it grows too big and needs its own section.Pilaz (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am fine with the current arrangement.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of going ahead and declaring the crisis over. The Constitutional Court overturned the case against Parliament, the Filip Cabinet vacated the governmental offices while still calling for early elections, and Sandu canceled the pro-coalition protest that was set for June 15. Also, Plahotniuc alledgedly left the country. Are you in Favor or Against declaring the crisis as over? Pilaz (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can decline it over and unclose if smth else happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]