Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 11

Untitled

Below are discussions made between 11:37, 11 December 2005 UTC to 09:36, 4 January 2006 UTC.

Voronin in Bucharest

Vladimir Voronin, the President of Republic of Moldavia was the guest of the Romanian President Traian Basescu. The journalists used in their questions words from Moldovan - Romanian Dictionary, but Voronin did not recognized the words saying that they are from Transilvania. That proves that Moldovan - Romanian Dictionary is a fake and Moldovan language is an invention!!!--Dacodava

Even Sati did not know the words, what's there to say about the rest :) Just a tag

Agree. This Moldovan language is a soviet invention. This is also related to the new american military bases from Romania.-- Bonaparte talk 10:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Another link

A link from the article: Songs with lyrics in Moldovan, a demonstration of the colloquial language of Chişinău (MP3) -- http://members.dslextreme.com/users/gm-undernet/tvp/fun.html Graieste Moldoveneste is a band that also had a style of using extreme mixing of the two languages (like Planeta Moldova), read their interview here http://www.jurnal.md/articol.php?id=818&cat=&editie= (from 2003). Anyway, that's not the point, the point is the link above is distributing copyrighted music (and not only by Graieste Moldoveneste) but other romanian, moldovan bands, as well as cypress hill, 50 cents, mariah carey and so on, so now WP allows having links to illegal mp3s ? Just a tag\

No of course not. Wikipedia does not allow this. We may accuse Node also of illegal posts on Wiki. Which I think this is pretty bad of him. How illegal works him. There is no wonder that he has been accused by so many users and so many times. He made illegal things.-- Bonaparte talk 12:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then the link should be removed. Just a tag

All his illegal edits must be deleted.-- Bonaparte talk 12:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of adding that? I didn't add it. --Node 01:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference

Grigore Ureche, Летописецул Цэрий Молдовей (Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei). Doesn't seem like a valid reference to me, if you want to point to the edition printed in cyrillic, then indicate the year, publisher, etc.. the information that can be used to FIND the source in cyrillic, otherwise it should be written in latin script indicating again publisher, year, etc.. And since this is the article about Moldovan language, which is written in latin script, the reference to the edition with latin script should be first (since it's most accesible for the people of Moldova). Just a tag

Oh yeah. Good remark Just a tag!-- Bonaparte talk 12:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, look at his contribution of Node

Well look again at his contribution of Node. This is another proof that this kid is only saying stupid things, not relevant to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Node_ue/German_language

German is an isolated language spoken only by squirrels from Mars, but only on Tuesdays. It only has one word, vlacka, which translates roughly as: "Three days after the first full moon of the year occuring on a Friday, a spaceship which was flying from Earth to Pluto went slightly off track at 8 o'clock in the morning, but its course was soon righted by its pilots, who then shared a pint of Bavarian beer before going back to watching a DVD with a title beginning with an S and ending with an exclamation point, after all this they proceeded to have sex and when they got back to Earth they got married in Canada at 3 o'clock PM on the 3rd of December 2101, and went on their honeymoon to Mars, returning at sunset the next Wednesday".

Popular myth says that this language is spoken in Germany, however the national language of Germany is Swahili and it has been that way since the first written records from the area appeared, and German squirrels are forbidden from speaking the German language, instead they speak Italian except on Sunday evenings when they speak Cantonese.

Until mid 20th century, German was often printed in Block-style squirrel scratchings and written in corresponding handwriting (e.g. Quick Block-style squirrel scratchings). These variants of the squirrel scratching alphasyllabarical abugida are very different from the Round squirrel scratchings typefaces used today, and are difficult for the untrained to read.

How can one such stupid things post on Wiki? What credibility has such a kid? What authority has such kid after so many stupid things?

Remember one of the latest related directly to this article: MOLDOROMANIAN and BUCHARESTIAN LANGUAGE!

Conclusion: Node is Anti-German, as well as Anti-Romanian! He is obviously motivated by ethnic and political views, not linguistics.

-- Bonaparte talk 14:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there's also a Texan language, an LA language...(insert all english speaking city names here) language. Just a tag

• Goie is back, y'all. After reading the above (about the Germnan language), I felt like puking. This kind of stuff has no place at an encyclopedia. I am starting to believe that Node_ue has a certain unexplained hatred towards those nations that by some kind of coincidence fought on the same side against his beloved Soviets. Can it be just a coincidence that Node_ue is Jewish and his hatred of the Germans is...well...obviously motivated b/c of WWII? Can it be possible that his Moldovenisms and anti-Romanianisms are fueled by similar reasons? In that case, Node ue should be expelled. He throws his anger at entire peoples and at their languages, therefore following the suggestions of his hero, Stalin who among others said "TAKE AWAY THEIR LANGUAGE, DESTROY THEIR SOULS". Node_ue is a chauvinist and a racist homosexual who does NOT belong here! Domnu Goie 15:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Bine ai revenit Domnu Goie! Sanatate si mult curaj! On the basis of his proven anti-romanian behaviour he will respond by his blocking for good here. Just trust me. Bonaparte talk 16:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If 100 persons tell him that he's anti-romanian with his behaviour and he's just a blatant extremist that makes revert war only (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=30761682&oldid=30747005) and other...) and labelled others as "sperm" (((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language/archive01#moldovan_a_dialect)) or introducing false terms like "Bucharestian language" why can he be blocked for good? He is obviously guity of all these charges.-- Bonaparte talk 16:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the joke was not that funny as probably Node ue thought it would be, I would like everyone here to keep in mind that the article on German language was written by Node during April Fool's Day, so he does not really believe what is written there. However I must say it is quite strange that he had to pick the German language out of all other 3 mil. articles on wikipedia. Constantzeanu 20:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny -- nobody noticed it was userfied. Notice it's located at User:Node ue/German language??Node 22:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

People are allowed to post jokes on their user pages. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they wanted to hurt his credibility, not say that he's not allowed to post that sort of crap. Personally, I think that Node ruined his credibility months ago. --Anittas 01:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Telling jokes that are clearly jokes has no effect on anyone's credibility in my eyes. From what I can see, Node's contributions are a mixed bad, but, frankly, so are a lot of other people's who are participating in this exchange. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, if you feel you have a bona fide complaint against Node, start an RfC and seek mediation or arbitration. If not, please stop the personal attacks on this page. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, what kind of site is this? A serious one, or a bad joke? This site must have true informations and not stupid jokes like Node do it!!!--Dacodava

Again, if you feel you have a bona fide complaint against Node, start an RfC and seek mediation or arbitration. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A Moldavian

I am a Moldavian, and I can explain better what is a Moldavian. As a Sicilian is an Italian, a Bavarian is a German, so the same: a Moldavian is a Romanian!--Dacodava

A Moldavian, perhaps. But not a Moldovan. You are from Bacau. Bacau is in Moldavia, not Rep Moldova.

Proof that you are different from us: [1] Real Moldovans don't hate Hungarians.

No true Scotsman... bogdan 14:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh? That only applies if you can find an example of a Moldovan who hates Hungarians. It should be difficult, because unlike Moldavians, Moldovans have no reason to hate Hungarians. --Node 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

After all, why would we? When your great-grandparents were busy lamenting about how bad Hungarians were, my great-grandparents didn't care because there were no Hungarians in the Russian Empire. --Node 11:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Moldavians and Moldovans call themselves the same (Moldovean). You are neither. You are a Jew. A Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!! --Anittas 14:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And you're from Iaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasi! Iaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasi! Don't tell me what I am and am not. --Node 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

While one may care to note that, since it is an element here in whatever way, I think Anittas just went too far. Though Node is provoking the crowd. It's a case of action and reaction. Alexander 007 14:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Node just exhibited once again his emotional, extremist, political POV, which he tried to back up with a number of fallacies. A Moldovan in Romania does not call himself a "Moldavian" (which is an English term), he calls himself the same way as they do across the river. Alexander 007 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In English, someone from the region of Moldavia in Romania is usually called "Moldavian", and somebody from Rep Moldova is usually called "Moldovan". In Rep Moldova when people say "Eu sînt Moldovean", the "din dreapta prutului" is implied. In Romania you guys would call this "basarabean", and sometimes ppl from Rep Moldova use this word too if there is a need to distinguish between Moldavia and Rep Moldova, but usually there is not. --Node 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I went to far? How? Is he not a Jew? He is. --Anittas 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly like you say "You are a Romaniaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan". Or you are an "Americaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan". It's a fact isn't it? There is not a shame to be German or Chinese for example. But Node intentionally said that Moldavians are not Moldovans. Which is false of course. Actually Node said in a perverse meaning.Superman (Bonaparte)

Despite the ethnic overtones, Anittas is correct to point out that there is a difference between a Moldovan and a Jewish Moldovan, however one feels about it. They are largely two different ethnic groups, at least, subgroups. I don't see anti-Semitism in Anittas' comment, it just could've been phrased otherwise. Alexander 007 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do. And I take it nearly as personally as if it was directed at me. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I must add my opinion to Jmabel's: Anittas' comment is bizarre & makes no sense to someone like me who happened upon this exchange. Anittas would do well to either explain himself or apologize for it. -- llywrch 05:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I see an anti-romanian statement of Node when denying that Moldovans are not Moldavians and are not Romanians.Superman (Bonaparte)

How exactly is it anti-Romanian to suggest that the indigenous people of Rep Moldova are somehow different from those of Romania? You are one of those romanticist unionists, thinking things like "oh we will unite with our brothers from across the pruth". But what is the reality of it? In the last centuries, your nation and Rep Moldova were only in the same land for 22 years. This is since 1400s. 500 years is more than enough time that these peoples histories diverged, such as sacking of Chisinau by Imperial Russian military, occupation by Turks, which were experienced by Moldovans but not Moldavians, and anti-Hungarian movement, a century of Romanian political maneuvering, which were experienced by Moldavians but not Moldovans. As I said before, why would a Moldovan hate Hungary? Moldovans have no beef with Hungary. --Node 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you think that you are so right about this, have you ever wondered why we study "History of Romanians", and there's no "History of Moldovans" ? Have you ever thought why, when they tried to replace this course with "History of Moldovans" they couldn't, because everyone went on strike. As for 22 years "on the same land", just shows you don't know history well enough. Anyway, people, let's try not to provoke Node for more of his wonderful insights collected from the web and talk about the issues related to the article. Personally I think (and there are much more who share this opinion) that we are the same Nation, at this point it's not possible to integrate with Romania (there was a chance in the 90s) but I think in the future there will be some sort of an economical and maybe a bit later, political integration at some level. Just a tag

Just ignore Node's personal attack. A duck just quacks. Superman (Bonaparte)

I don't think Node meant any personal attack; I'm only responding to Node because I've seen this argument used before and I want to clear it up. Node, you say "In the last centuries, your nation and Rep Moldova were only in the same land for 22 years." Let's take a better look at that statement.

"[RO & MD] were only in the same land for 22 years" -- what is that supposed to mean, exactly? I expect you actually meant they were united for only 22 years. And that would be true. But how does that have any weight whatsoever? Take Wallachia and Western Moldavia -- for how long have they been united before 1862? What about Transylvania before 1918?

If we had a similar conversation in 1858, you'd surely hold the view that those three lands were independent, have always been independent, and should by all means stay independent forever. However, history has played a trick on your hypothetical alter ego back in 1958 -- and you NOW recognize the unions that have occured in the meanwhile; you might NOW even recognize those people were all "brothers", despite their lack of common history before THEN. But hey, NOW we don't ALREADY have a union with RM, therefore we aren't "brothers" in your opinion, because we don't have a common history BEHIND! You're certainly right, we don't have much of a common history -- and I'll even give you that we won't start to have a common history until we unite. But that's why us unionists want that union to happen: in order to finally START having a common history. Do you understand now why this argument doesn't hold? Because it's a fallacy similar to this one, which might be easier to follow, since it's about a more mundane and less emotional issue: "you can't ever drink Coca-Cola because you haven't had any before!" --Gutza ^{T T+} 11:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Interwikilinks (+lb)

Can a sysop please add an interwikilink to [[lb:Moldawesch]]? Thanks. --Otets 01:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Otets, the article has errors (the dialect issue that has been discussed here, again, ASM regulating Moldavian is false, it does not, it regulates Romanian, also the region nordamerika and sudamerika ??). To make it simpler reflect the main idea from this article - A significant number of linguists consider Moldovan language to be identical to Romanian (instead of going into issues like "grai", dialect, which would create again a lot of conflicts, look at the history of this page :)) And really, I don't see any reason for putting cyrillic there, if you do, again, you have to explain where precisely it was used (presenting a lengthy history from this article), otherwise it comes with disagreement with the constitution of Moldova which says that the language is written in latin script and don't forget that a lot of users don't even have cyrillic fonts installed and they'll get squares or ??? instead of those characters, plus to that given the history of Moldova, we find it offending to have our language written in cyrillic alphabet. Just a tag

Actually the lb-article mainly reflects what can be found also at the en-wiki, so I would not say that it contains errors. I added however some more details in order to avoid any possible confusion on some more controversial points.
Thanks to Jmabel for adding our interwikilink. --Otets 21:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dimitrie Cantemir

Dimitrie Cantemir was a Moldavian Prince who lived in Rusia for a long time. He wrote "The Chronicle of Romano-Moldovlahilor". And he said that people from Moldavia are descendants of Romans. If you want to read anout "the difference" between Moldavians and Moldovans read my profile. And it is true, I hate bouth hungarians and russians! You should read about Dragoş and Bogdan I of Moldavia.--Dacodava

HELLO! Why have you reverted the Cyrillic note?

The Cyrillic script has not been in official use in the Republic of Moldova since independence 1989, but is official in the breakway Moldovan Nistrian Republic, according to it's constitution. Still Transnistria's (as a region of Moldova) official script is Latin. That is the real situation, and your reverts become a damaging Wikipedia content act. I expect that to be reentered by tommorow, because this becomes outrageous, dennying the constitution of Moldova, and supporting the Moldovan Nistrian Republic. Why should Wikipedia recognize that Republic, as the international community doesn't? Wikipedia (or Wikimedia proper) is based in the US. As US doesn't recognise the Moldovan Nistrian Republic, why is Wikipedia presenting erroneos things? I agree presenting both arguments, but not favourising the one that is not in force. --Danutz

The infobox already has the name of the language in cyrillic, why the beginning of the article has it again in cyrillic, without even bothering to explain that it's not official in Moldova. A possible solution might be to write: Moldovan (limba moldovenească, sometimes translated into English as Moldavian) is the official name of the state language of the Republic of Moldova as specified by its constitution, as well as of the disputed territory of Transnistria and add a footnote at the end specifying that it's written in cyrillic in that region and remove the cyrillic from the infobox. And who wrote this: Many Moldovans who use "î/â" spellings write sânt, which is not an officially accepted spelling in either country., what is the source of that ?! Even google returns just 908 results out of which there are romanian and moldovan sites (a search for "sânt" site:md gives only 261), but that doesn't say that MANY _MOLDOVANS_ write it that way doesn't it? Just a tag

I fully agree with Danutz. He made his point very accurate and clear. Dennying the constitution of Moldova and supporting the so called Moldovan Nistrian Republic is outrageous since that entity is not recogninized internationally by a country. --Superman

Protection

Is there any good reason this is still protected? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably that as soon as it's unprotected, people will start reverting it over and over and over.

Yes, well, it's probably time to find out. I would really think it would be useful if someone would make a list here on the talk page, worded as neutrally as possible, listing what issues are in contention, since the matter seems to be disagreement rather than vandalism; I'll try to start that. I would suggest that everyone try to leave the contentious questions as they are in the article for at least 36 hours starting now.

Meanwhile, I was asked to make Danutz's proposed edit and was told that it was "by consensus". I'm not tracking this closely enough to do that, so I'm going to unprotect and Danutz (or someone) can make the edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Will someone change the note? I promise this time I wont abandon the subject. Your intention are now in bad faith

Also, I saw, you said in the note that cyrillic is used in "smaller groups elsewhere". Please cite your sources, else that weasel sintagm should be eliminated. That is a response to the elimination of weasel sintagms in favour of Romanian. I always tried to satisfy you, but now I see your response is bad intended. So I'll be strict as you are. --Danutz

I will ask an Admin to do your proposal edits. I agree with them.-- Bonaparte talk 15:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What is in contention

The following lists, unlike usual talk page content, may be edited. The intent is to clarify what is and is not contentious in this article. Please try to word items as neutrally as possible. If someone feels that one of the items listed as uncontentious is actually contentious, feel free to move it and reword it as a question. If someone feels that one of the items listed as contentious is actually uncontentious, please start a discussion in a separate section below, and move it only if after 48 hours all parties agree that it is uncontentious.

Please try to word all items as neutrally as possible.

My initial comments were based on this version of the article.

This section is not intended for discussion. Probably, each contentious item deserves its own discussion section, although it may be possible to group some of these. And please don't refer to them by number, because the numbers are likely to change.

Consensus/uncontentious should mean that no one objects strongly enough to object to this statement. It is possible that some statements that are not factually contentious should ultimately be refactored to another article; I'd like to suggest that we try to settle the factual issues before we try to settle the refactoring issues.

Two last remarks: (1) I know that a lot of people have been very unhappy that a small number of contributors have been continually challenging the clear majority view that Romanian and Moldovan are the same language. I want to point out how much stronger a case has now been made for that majority view. (2) There seems to me to be a lot here that is solid and not in contention. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Uncontentious in terms of fact (that is, there is consensus). This is a separate matter from whether someone thinks that something should be refactored.

1. Moldovan (limba moldovenească) is the official name of the state language of the Republic of Moldova as specified by its constitution.
2. In practice, Moldovan is often referred to as "Romanian" or "the language of the state".
3. In English, this is sometimes also referred to as Moldavian.
4. In schools, the language is called Romanian, and textbooks from Romania are used significantly in the Moldovan education system.
5. Several Moldovan government departments call the language Romanian, and their websites are offered in Romanian, Russian and often English, but not "Moldovan".
6. Some government departments likewise call the official language "Moldovan"
7. Factsheets by US Department of State and documents of some other countries list Romanian as the official language of Moldova.
8. In 2002, the Moldovan Minister of Justice, Ion Morei, said that Romanian and Moldovan are the same language and that the Constitution of Moldova should be amended, not necessarily by changing the word Moldovan into Romanian, but by adding that "Romanian and Moldovan are the same language".
9. Education Minister Valentin Beniuc said "I have stated more than once that the notion of a Moldovan language and a Romanian language reflects the same lingustic phenomenon in essence."
10. Tatiana Mlecico continually referred to the language as Romanian during a press conference when she was the chief of the Department of Interethnic Relations.
11. A 1996 attempt by Moldovan president Mircea Snegur to change the official language to "Romanian" was (1) dismissed by the Moldovan Parliament and (2) the grounds for this was that it "promoted Romanian expansionism".
12. There are some (possibly small) differences between the typical speech of parts of Moldova and the typical speech of most of Romania.
13. The Before 1812 section is uncontentious.
14. The Language in imperial Russian Bessarabia section is uncontentious.
15. In the section Beginnings of the Moldovan language, the political history down to 1918 is uncontentious.
16. The Soviet Union deported many ethnic Romanians and encouraged migration from the rest of the USSR, so by the mid-20th century Bessarabia acquired large communities of Russian speakers.
17. During Soviet rule, Moldovan speakers were encouraged to learn Russian
18. Moldovans use more Russian loanwords in their spoken language that Romanians use.
19. The Romanizators vs. Originalists struggle existed.
20. The Moldavian in Soviet Moldova section is uncontentious.
21. In 1989, the contemporary Romanian version of the Latin alphabet was made the official script of the Moldavian SSR.
22. After the independence of Moldova in 1991, "Romanian" was declared the official language, but the 1994 constitution changed the name of the language to "Moldovan".
23. Moldova did not go along with the 1992 Romanian Academy changes in official orthography.
24. In 2002, Moldova gave the Russian language the same privileges as Moldovan.
25. In 2002, Russian was declared to be a mandatory foreign language in Moldovan schools.
26. Making Russian official created a wave of indignation among the Moldovan-speaking majority of the population, etc.
27. The population of Russian-speakers in the Baltic States has been declining over the past 15 years.
28. In 2003, a Romanian-Moldovan dictionary (Stati 2003) was published. The linguists of the Romanian Academy in Romania declared that all the Moldovan words are also Romanian words.
29. Some of the Stati 2003 dictionary's contents are disputed (an indication of by whom would be good) as being neologisms resulting from Russification.
30. Ion Bărbuţă described the Stati 2003 dictionary as "an absurdity, serving political purposes".
31. Supporters of Stati (an indication of who would be good), accused Bărbuţă and the Romanian Academy of promoting "Romanian colonialism".
32. The 2004 census is the most recent
33. 2004 census results have been delayed.
34. It is reported that on the 2004 census, more Romanian-Moldovans declared their mother tongue to be "Romanian" than "Moldovan".
35. There were press claims that the public preference for "Romanian" caused the 2004 census results delay.
36. The Alphabet and spelling section is uncontentious except the statement about "Many Moldovans who use "î/â" spellings write sânt", which there is consensus to remove.

    Consensus between whom? Just another tag and Bonaparte? I'm still considering it, but more people need to express an opinion before it can be considered "consensus". --Node

37. The Comparison with Romanian section is uncontentious.

Factual contention exists

1. Does the Academy of Sciences of Moldova state explicitly that in their opinion, the language of Moldova is Romanian?
2. Were Soviet authorities the first to speak of a Moldovan language?
3. Has the population of Russian-speakers in Moldova been declining over the past 15 years?
4. Is the population of Russian-speakers in the Baltic States relevant?
5. Is "significant" in "significant number of linguists" POV?
6. Should the article say that the linguists consider it "identical", or "virtually identical"?
7. Do a significant number of linguists consider standard Moldovan not to be identical to standard Romanian?
8. If so, are any of those linguists neither from Moldovan nor of Moldovan ancestry?
9. Does the typical speech of any part of Moldova vary more from standard Romanian than is typical within Romania?
10. A five-phase "language shift" model has been proposed. Since that is complex and largely uncited, it is probably a matter of some contention. It would be great if people can agree that parts of it are uncontentious.
11. The Soviet authorities purpose in declaring the "Moldavian language" was to give the region its own identity separate from Romania.
12. Up until "just 80 years prior" to 1924—that is, up to 1864— "the language was usually written in Cyrillic." (and possibly contention over what "the language" and "usually" mean: does this refer just to this region or is it saying that was the practice everywhere?
13. There may be contentious aspects to the Romanizators and Originalists section; if so, could someone please replace this remark with a characterization of those disagreements.
14. Is there "a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian"?
15. Our article seems to disagree with itself wither "about two thirds of Romanian-Moldovans" or 55% declared their native language to be "Romanian".
16. The entire section Spoken language in Chişinău and its suburbs is contentuious.

Scope/refactoring contention exists

1. Should this article be specifically on the official language of the Republic of Moldova or should it be broader. If broader, should it cover graiul moldovenesc? Should it cover non-Romance languages of the Republic of Moldova (Russian as used in Moldova, for example)?

Great list of facts. --Anittas 23:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks, Jmabel, someone had to start a discussion on this, and you did a great job putting everyting together. I had a quick glance over the "uncontentios" part, agreed with it (I will have a better look at it a bit later, it's late now).

1. Do a significant number of linguists consider standard Moldovan not to be identical to standard Romanian?

Well, except Stati I did not hear of other linguists who share his opinion. Sources, anyone ?

3. Does the typical speech of any part of Moldova vary more from standard Romanian than is typical within Romania?

There is a notable accent I guess, so a Romanian from Romania could probably tell if someone is from Moldova or not. But then again, I could tell who is from England, who's from New Zealand, etc... Guys, when you went to Moldova, what did you think of our accent ?

5. The Soviet authorities purpose in declaring the "Moldavian language" was to give the region its own identity separate from Romania.

Of course, is there anyone here who disagrees this ?

8. Is there "a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian"?

Payed encyclopedias classify it as Romanian, ethnologue does too, I'm not even sure if ISO is that important since a country with an oficially declared language can request an ISO language code, so there is probably little chance that ISO would have refused it. Based on that, I'd say the asnwer is: yes.

9. Our article seems to disagree with itseld wither "about two thirds of Romanian-Moldovans" or 55% declared their native language to be "Romanian".

Yeah, I've pointed that before, but I think all of those numbers is a speculation, since there's no official data over this, plus: Modul în care s-a desfăşurat recensământul la capitolul apartenenţă etnică şi limbă vorbită a fost criticat de către reprezentanţii Consiliului Europei......Şapte din cele zece grupuri de observatori internaţionali care au activat în diferite localităţi ale Republicii Moldova în perioada recensământului au semnalat un număr considerabil de cazuri în care recenzorii au încurajat respondenţii să se declare moldoveni şi nu români" from [BBC Romanian]. First we need to find multiple credible sources for the 2/3 or 55% numbers and then ponder =)

10. The entire section Spoken language in Chişinău and its suburbs is contentuious.

Agreed, I would suggest it be removed altogether.

As for scope: I think its scope should be narrow: the official language in Moldova.

Just a tag

Consensus between whom? Just another tag and Bonaparte? I'm still considering it, but more people need to express an opinion before it can be considered "consensus". --Node

Weird, you said to me that I should look at the google for this, well, I searched _moldovan_ sites only, ~152 000 matches for "sunt", 2220 for "sânt+sant" (including the matches to a company Sant SRL), and 59 400 matches for "sint+sînt". So if we total up all numbers: 32.17% use the old "sînt/sint", 1.19% use the incorrect "sânt/sant" (which you keep believing that many use) and 66.62% use the new "sunt" (which is official in Romania). Again, if you don't believe me, try it yourself: sunt site:md, sint site:md and sant site:md. Just a tag

Oh, I believe you. But 12 out of 100 people qualifies as "many", I think -- that would mean that 31,528 Moldovans (out of 2,649,477 total speaking some balkanian romanic variety) write sânt... so your own statistics are working against you. However, your statistics are inaccurate -- many of the results for "sant" are not as equivalent of "sunt"/"sînt". So if you filter out all irrelevant results for "sant", you get approximately 550 results. 550 vs 59400 vs 152000. Based on this, approximately 6875 Moldovans could be extrapolated to use "sânt". Is 6785 "many"? Well, it's certainly not "none". --Node 09:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Node, 12 out of 100 is 12%, not 1.2%. Literacy rate in US is 97% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), 3% are illiterate, yet, you don't write "Many people in US are illiterate", even less for 1.19%. Just a tag

Does the Academy of Sciences of Moldova state explicitly that in their opinion, the language of Moldova is Romanian?

Yes, the head of the institute of linguistics (Ion Barbuta) said that. Plus this has been previously discussed, they do not have anything "moldovan" related, they study the Romanian language as is shown quite clearly on their website. An interesting quote related to Stati's work: Ion Barbuta, directorul Institutului de Lingvistica din Chisinau, reia opinia lui Melniciuc: “Acesta nu este un dictionar bilingv, ci mai degraba un dictionar de cuvinte regionale, care sint “traduse” in romana literara. Stati afirma ca apara limba moldoveneasca, dar in realitate scopul sau este de a degrada limba romana la statutul de dialect, pentru a o face mai usor de inlocuit cu rusa. Nici sub Stalin nu a indraznit nimeni sa publice un dictionar bilingv roman-moldovenesc”. For more read here http://www.expres.ro/externe/?news_id=128634

Who cares if they study Romanian or not? They also study French and German; the Romanian Academy (in Romania) also studies French and Spanish. Here, many universities study Romanian. But that doesn't mean that Romanian is the major language of the US! To prove that ASM says they're one language, you need a statement from them saying "the national language of Moldova is Romanian" or "Moldovan and Romanian are the same laguage". Just saying that they study Romanian is insignficant. --Node 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It does matter, their main orientation is the study of Romanian, and your universities don't focus on Romanian. Just a tag

Well, many universities in Egypt focus on English, yet the national language is Arabic. Unless they say "We study the national language which is Romanian", or "It is the opinion of the linguistics institute that Romanian and Moldovan are the same", or something similar, it isn't valid to state they say that. --Node 21:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Has the population of Russian-speakers in Moldova been declining over the past 15 years?

Yes, just look at the results of the census compared to the previous one.

Here you're directly equating "Russian ethnicity" with "Russian language". This is quite inaccurate. At the time of the last Soviet census, 10% of ethnic "Moldovans" in RSSM claimed their native language as Russian. Census results for language haven't been released for the most recent census, so there's no real numbers. --Node 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, read the original question. Russians speak russian, considered that the numbers of russians has been in decline (which is on www.statistics.md), we therefore say the number of russian speakers has been in decline. Prove me wrong. Just a tag

No -- you made the statement, so the burden of proof is on you. "Russians speak Russian" is not really true -- some Russians speak Moldovan or Ukrainian as a native language. Besides, non-Russian people speak Russian as well -- many Ukrainians, and quite a few Moldovans. --Node 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm yet to see someone who calls himself a russian and doesn't know the russian language =)) Just a tag

Do you ask everybody you meet on the street, "What languages do you speak? What nationality are you"? I don't think so. You only know based on the relatively small pool of Russians you've met personally. Plus, you're ignoring the significant proportion of ethnic Moldovans (or as you would call them, "Romanians"), who don't speak Moldovan very well and whose native language is Russian. Ask any statistician, and they will tell you that statistically it's totally wrong to directly equate ethnicity or nationality with linguistic background because there may be other influencing factors. --Node 21:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Is "significant" in "significant number of linguists" POV?

It's not POV, it's the truth, if POV means not having true facts in an article, then what's the point ?

"Significant" is clearly a judgement. To say "a significant number of linguists..." is like saying "a significant number of Romanians...". Who decided whether or not the number is "significant"? There are no objective criteria for rating "significance". "Most linguists" is another matter -- if the majority of linguists do in fact believe something, "most" is not POV. "significant", however, is always Point Of View. --Node 10:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you are not modifying just "significant", you are changing big chunks of the article, pretending that you do only one-two changes. Just a tag

That's not relevant in this particular subsection of this talkpage -- here you said "It's not POV, it's the truth". So we're discussing whether or not "significant" is OK, not my modifications (which are discussed later) on this page. --Node 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, significant is a measure of differences between certain groups. Just a tag

So where does "significant" begin and "insignificant" end? If a vote ends up with 49% to 51%, you would say that's an "insignificant margin of victory". What about 55% to 45%? 60% to 40%? 70% to 30%? Or any number in between? Each person has a different idea of what is "significant" and what is not. For that reason, it's wrong to state outright on a Wikipedia article that something is significant or insignificant -- give the numbers or the evidence, and let readers decide for themselves. --Node 21:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the article say that the linguists consider it "identical", or "virtually identical"?

Identical, the "virtually" part was introduced to explain the "sint/sunt" and "î/â", but both forms are used in Moldova (and even used in Romania to some extent).

No -- the "virtually" part was not introduced to explain those differences. It was introduced because the references which are tied to it all say "virtually" or "nearly". None of them lists those as differences, because put simply, they're not real differences. --Node 10:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me all references which are tied to it so we can verify that everyone says it's virtually the same. Just a tag

Tag, they're right there on the page. Right after where it says "virtually identical", there's a little link... click it, and it takes you straight to the references. --Node 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The ones that also have 4-5 links out of which only 1 works and most of the sites are just home pages ? :) Just a tag

Apparently you didn't actually click the little link. If you had, you would see 3 or 4 references, to BOOKS. --Node

--Just a tag

The five-phase creation

In email to me Bonaparte provides the following citation for the 5-phase creation of Moldovan, which he characterizes as "artificial"; he doesn't say whether that adjective is his or the cited author's, nor whether the five-phase structure is his or the cited author's. Given the extremity of some of Bonaparte's rhetoric against the very concept of a distinct Moldovan language, I personally will not add his citation of material I cannot verify; either Bonaparte can do this on his own at his next opportunity, or someone else who is willing to take responsibility for saying that our text conforms with Colesnic-Codreanca's views can do so. A web search fails to turn up an ISBN, but I'd guess that a good bookstore, major urban public library, or university library in Romania or Moldova can turn up a copy; I have little chance of accessing one in Seattle, since the University of Washington library does not have one, and no other library locally has any significant Romanian-language materials aside from literary classics.

Bonaparte's citation:

• Lidia Colesnic-Codreanca, Limba Românã în Basarabia (1812-1918). Studiu sociolingvistic pe baza materialelor de arhivã, Chişinãu, Museum, 2003.

In English, I believe that should be given as:

• Colesnic-Codreanca, Lidia. Limba Românã în Basarabia. Studiu sociolingvistic pe baza materialelor de arhivă (1812–1918) ("The Romanian language in Bessarabia (1812–1918): A sociolinguistic study based on archival materials"). Chişinãu:Editorial Museum, 2003.

-- Jmabel | Talk 01:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Here, you go, Jmabel: http://www.contrafort.md/2004/113-114/691.html (a review of the book) , and also biography of the writer can be found here: http://www.bnrm.moldova.md/publicatii/files/5/2004_07.pdf . Just a tag

I really don't think Bonaparte's sections are NPOV. Having a reference does not give you an automatic pass to insert a POV. In that vein, regardless of the sources he may give, those contributions should be checked for neutrality. --Node 09:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing

The colloquial Moldovan of Chişinău and its suburbs tends to use a much higher number of Russian and Ukrainian loanwords than in Romania, though such words are generally avoided in formal situations. Residents of rural areas tend to use less slang and foreign words, and their speech is reported to be more conservative than that of residents of urban areas.

I'm not going to add a {{fact}} as I know this is a pretty heated article. Someone might want to provide a source though... Or maybe its there and I've missed it, in which case a reference mark would be useful. - FrancisTyers 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Process

I see that rather than participate in the process about identifying what is in contention, and despite the fact that his edits have clearly been among the most controversial, leading to the recent protection of this artilce, Node is continuing to make obviously contentious edits. I am reverting on principle; I will restore several of Christopher Sundita's edits afterwards. - Jmabel | Talk 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, what makes the edits contentious? They're 100% sourced. Nobody has presented specific objections. And by reverting, you're reintroducing unsourced examples from Just a tag. --Node 09:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You said that you gave the reasons on the talkpage -- well, you didn't respond to my concerns. I always check the talkpage before I revert in case somebody added something there to explain more. But now that you've reverted, I see nothing here, and I'm guessing that's because you yourself didn't check. --Node 10:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the talk page, we've discussed your "source" already, we have agreed that your examples do not reflect the reality. Plus the copyright issues (your reference contains phrases taken from Planeta Moldova and Graieste Moldoveneste which are copyrighted, plus it hosts a couple of songs as well, which are again copyrighted). Just a tag

No, you discussed the validity of El Noel as a source, not Donald Dyer. Donald Dyer is a respected expert on the topic of Moldovan, and has made dozens of peer-reviewed contributions to journals on the subject of colloquial and standard language in Moldova. In my last version, the majority of the examples were from Dyer (and are used with permission from him).

And when I asked you to give me a concrete reference to Dyer, what is your reply ? - silence! I will contact Mr.Dyer myself in a couple of days and ask him where is his information from, as for original research, that's exactly why I proposed the section to be removed altogether. Having looked at his site, there are a total of 6 articles related to moldovan as a language, does that make it dozens of peer-reviewed contributions to journals ? http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/modern_languages/Dyer.html . And I think Mr.Dyer might be biased since he is a professor of Russian, naturally he is interested in bringing out all the russian influences. Just a tag

Noo... I counted 12 articles on Moldovan in particular. If you include his articles on "diaspora bulgarian in Moldova", which would fall under the umbrella of "colloquial language in Moldova", he has written multiple dozens.

Ok, list here the 12 articles that were peer-reviewed and are directly related to moldovan language. Just a tag

Dyer is not a professor of Russian. His specialties are, as he states on his page: Russian, Bulgarian and Romanian languages, Slavic and Balkan Linguistics, languages in contact, Moldova. You never asked for a concrete reference to Dyer, in fact, I provided one in the aticle already. Dyer, Donald Leroy. SEEJ, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1999): pp85-98. If you don't see that as a solid reference, perhaps because of the "SEEJ" which isn't specific... SEEJ stands for "Slavic and East European Journal". Also, you said something about him wanting to bring out the Russian influences... did you even look at the examples from him? The Russian influence in them is much smaller than those from El Noel -- a word here and there, a grammatical influence sometimes, not such dramatic differences to the whole sentence. --Node 10:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's go. Dyer is not a professor of Russian, from Dyer's homepage: Professor of Russian and Linguistics. I don't care much what his "specializations" are as long as his education is only in Slavonic & Russian. (again, see his website). You never asked for a concrete reference to Dyer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language#Node and I quote Show me those references to Dyer and Nissler. As for the examples you are right, I explained already, having looked at the differences I saw the old examples back and figured that's what you call "examples from Dyer". Just a tag

Also, regarding El Noel, if you wish to challenge his validity as a source, that's fine, but it's not OK to replace referenced examples with entirely unreferenced examples you thought up yourself, which qualify as original research. --Node 10:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

--Node 10:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, and, how does your process provide for introduction of new content? As far as I can see, it doesn't. Just for working out what's already there. --Node 09:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

See, Jmabel, it's not too easy to keep the head cool when he does things like that, so the revert wars start again or something ? :( Just a tag

Up until now, I have been concerned to get a fair hearing for Node's ideas. But this article isn't really very important to me. Since he has now shown that he has no interest in working cooperatively through a process I painstakingly set up, I'm walking away. As far as I can tell, people will run roughshod over him, even where he is right. Oh, well. It amazes me to watch the person who is clearly in the minority prefer a head-on fight (which he will almost certainly lose even in matters where right is on his side) to a calm, careful process, in which his ideas would get a fair hearing and where he would have a chance to persuade people.

I still believe that the process I tried to establish would be perfectly workable, and encourage people to use it, but it will be in my absence. I am removing this article from my watchlist, and will not look at it again until the start of the new calendar year, about two weeks from now. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, you never addressed the concerns I raised both here and on your talkpage. Again, how does your process allow for the addition of new content? I'm fine with using your process for working out the kinks in existing material -- which phrases are contentious and whatnot. But I don't see you've provided a way to add new, relevant content. --Node 10:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Protect the page

Jmabel, please revert Node's last edits (again, making major edits without talking it out) and protect the page again, this just doesn't get anywhere... Just a tag

Tag, I commented out the contentious examples from El Noel, leaving only examples from Dyer 1999. "Dyer 1999" was a peer-reviewed article by a respected expert in an academic journal, the examples having been reviewed by other linguists including linguists from Moldova. The examples from Dyer are used with Donald Dyer's explicit permission (in a personal communication; I can produce the permission letter if anybody requests). --Node 10:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Node, I don't agree with the examples, they are simply wrong (a moldovan wouldn't say it like that for sure), but I think we should settle to removing the examples altogether until I will talk it out personally with Mr.Dyson and will contact the linguists from Moldova that were in contact with him. I sort of doubt Mr.Dyson opinion on this since his studies are in Slavonic languages, which Romanian is not, but I will talk to him about that anyway. But the point is you modified a lot of other content without consulting everyone first (the examples is not the only place you made edits!) Just a tag

Who is this Mr Dyson? Doesn't he invent vaccuum cleaners or something? Perhaps you mean Mr Dyer. Just because you say something is wrong doesn't make it so.

Mr Dyer's studies are not in Slavonic languages. He specifically states that his areas of expertise are " Russian, Bulgarian and Romanian languages, Slavic and Balkan Linguistics, languages in contact, Moldova". In there he includes "Romanian", "Balkan linguists", "languages in contact", and "Moldova".

This is not his opinion, they are examples given by him. As sources he includes Sylviu Berejan, Semion Cebanu, Valentina Iepuri, Felice Coles, Kostas Kazazis, Nikolae Korletjanu, and James Mullen. He confirmed his examples with some of these people (I think it was Cebanu and Berejan). --Node 10:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, and, Iepuri has personally vouched for his credibility. If you doubt him, I recommend contacting her and asking if he's credible -- you trust her I hope, because she's pure Moldovan born and raised, in addition to being an expert.

Also you said "the examples is not the only place...". That's fine. If you object to other edits I made, we can discuss them here; in most cases I think it'd be OK if you reverted them (the smaller changes of wording, such as "a significant number"-> "most", "viortually identicall" -> "identical", etc). But indiscriminately reverting edits is not at all constructive. --Node 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For Mr.Dyson, sorry, the effect of too much physics (Freeman Dyson) :) I was looking at the "differences" and saw the old examples again, without noticing they are commented out (although I would suggest to remove it to not create further confusion), at least the examples now are closer to reality than before. Ok, first of all, please revert the other parts of the article to the way it was, and then discuss the examples. Note it says "Romanian words in italics" and yet not all romanian words are in italics.

1. Ok, agreed, probably could hear that.
2. Could hear that too.
3. There is no point for a russian version here, since there are no russian words in the first place and there is an explanation already.
4. The same example as 3), no need to repeat yourself
5. Again, same as 3, super hillarious english translation: "Our mother works out in the countryside", works out ? =) Is she a bodybuilder ? :) Really it should be "Our mother lives in the village".
6. Again same as 3
7. Again, no need for Russian here, explanation should do just fine.

I would say the best thing to do is to leave only the original plus english translation (since it is an english wikipedia) and explanations.

--Just a tag

---

I clarified the note about the cyrillic script in Trasnistria

I guess the constitution of Moldova and the Moldovan Nistrian Republic are prior to an Internet article (otherwise we would not have to discuss this article, BTW). The consitution of Moldova formerly aplies also in Transnistria, as the officiality of Moldovan language formerly aplies in Moldova (even though the language is Romanian). Moldovan in cyrillic is official only in the Moldovan Nistrian Republic (the one that spans on the teritory of Transnistria region, and is not recognised). So Moldovan in cyrillic is not official in Transnistria. Moldovan in Latin is official in "UTA Stînga Nistrului" and Moldovan in Cyrillic is official in "Republica Moldovenească Nistriană" (allthough I'm not sure, I don't find any reference to the alphabet in the constitution of it). But the region of Stînga Nistrului and the country of Republica Moldovenească Nistriană both claim the same teritory. Why should the breakway republic should be favourised. At most they should have equal status in Wikipedia. Please donnot change this, it is well cited by the two constitutions. --Danutz

I agree with your changes. Just a tag

Examples

Node, "La tine/mine/noi/voi/ei/ele" is the same example, no need to include 4 examples of the same kind! Plus since when "traieste" means "works" ????? Just a tag

"No need"... there's "no need" for us to help writing a free cyclopaedia, but we do it because we like it, or because we feel it helps the world, or whatever. Do you have a specific reason why we should not include more than one example? Other articles (Spanish grammar iirc is one of them) include multiple examples which essentially re-use the same principle. What's wrong with that? It just shows the diversity of its possible use. --Node 20:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course node, you can also add "La el mintea e similara cu a unui copil de 3 ani", "La el parintii aparent nici nu stiu romana", it's all the same example, you put 4 examples that present the same error "La ...", there is a reference to Dyer, if a reader is interested in more examples, let him read Dyer.

No I couldn't add them -- there is no source for those examples. And you call it an "error" -- there is no such thing as an "error" here, just contact linguistic phenomena. --Node 12:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It is called an error because it does not correspond to the correct language learned in school (Romanian). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.0.211.204 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 18 December 2005 -User has few edits besides Moldovan language.

Current version of the first lines is not NPOV

It seems to me there is a contradiction here between.

The Moldovan language is spoken in the Republic of Moldova.

and then it goes on to explain what Moldovan can mean. I think that the first sentence should be erased. and the intro should start right with the explinations of what Moldovan can signify.Constantzeanu 20:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Constantzeanu. Welcome back! -- Bonaparte talk 20:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's not POV, then I guess that's good. right? ;-) --Chris S. 20:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Warning! There is no unitary Moldovan language, but a variety of Romanian is spoken.

-- Bonaparte talk 20:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean a variety of Daco-Romanian? I have been thinking about this some more. Picture this. In the United States, they call it an elevator. But in the UK they call it a lift. They are different terms to refer to the same thing. And that is what happens in Romania and Moldova. They call Daco-Romanian simply "Romanian" in Romania and Daco-Romanian is simply "Moldovan" in Moldova. They are both legally languages but scientifically they are considered part of one bigger one. --Chris S. 22:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

<personal exchange removed>

Node and Bonaparte, please stop using personal comments at article talk pages. Please refer to particular phrases you object, not to persons. mikka (t) 21:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mikka, so long as you enforce this policy, I will be happy to refrain from ad hominem arguments. --Node 21:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Which Moldovan newspapers?

Somebody changed the thing about Moldovan newspapers using â/sunt spelling. They added a few newsspapers - Flux, Jurnal de Chisinau, Contrafort, Moldova Suverana.

But as far as I can tell, all of these newspapers use î/sînt spelling.

• Flux: pînă, sînt

Well, just tell the whole truth:

for pînă pînă 11 hits

for până [2] 123 hits

for sînt [3] 21 hits

for sunt [4] 244 hits

Conclusion: the form with â/până is 10 times more used as the other one. The new writting reform from Romania is also applied in Moldova.

The same is also for the other Journals.-- Bonaparte talk 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not Moldova Suverana... --Node 07:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Jurnal de Chisinau: pînă, sînt
• Contrafort: pînă, sînt
• Moldova Suverana: pînă, sînt

In actuality, these newspapers seem to mix, depending on the author of the particular article. M. Suverana has more î/sînt pages; the other three have more â/sunt. The others have more â/sunt, but still none of them comes close to the ratio of Accente or of Romanian newspapers. --Node 21:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How nice of you to say "they use", then "in actuality". You clearly have no idea of what many or majority means, for you 1 single person out of 100 is a majority, what else is there to discuss with you ? And by the way the article says "use" and not "use only", so what I wrote that is absolutely correct.

a trăi= to live

According to the dictionary a trăi= to live. The debate should be more scientifically made. I don't like and accept this kind of approach where a single user just starts again with invalid sources, bad translations, bad intention to look up in the dictionary. Bonaparte talk 09:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Which "invalid sources"? How are they invalid? --Node 12:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost all your edits are not backup with valid references. Remember your "Bucharestian language", Moldoromanian, and so on...there are so many... Bonaparte talk 14:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I noted that mistake on the talk page, but he preferred to do a revert and not make any comments to what I said on the talk page. And that's not the only place he did that, he translated "La mine rochia(sic!)/Rochia mea" as "I have a new dress" which would be "Eu am o rochie noua", after I corrected it he just made a revert. Anyway, let him do that, even more reasons why people will consider wikipedia politically oriented with lots of erroneous information.

^-- this comment is by User:212.0.211.204, he continues to revert my addition of {{unsigned}}, so I will include it in my own words. He is quite right that I do not own this wikipedia page, but I'd like to point out that his contributions started recently and largely involve this article. For those who don't speak Romanian - or Moldovan for that matter :), User:Bonaparte's message on his talk page reads Hi! Don't go, relax all things will be solved.. Thanks - FrancisTyers 14:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

FrancisTyers you have to understand that many users have just left this page due to the fact that here is User:node ue. This user has annoyed everybody except me. I have enough pacience to deal with him. So, that's all. Did you see his bad approach? He is alone in his positions and he do likes so much to troll. -- Bonaparte talk 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I think you're all pretty crazy for not following User:Jmabels suggestions. I was attempting to improve the readability of the talk page from what I suspected was a new user. This is a contentious topic and they are sometimes difficult to follow, especially if people don't sign their comments. Perhaps you'd like to remove the note at the top of the page requesting people to sign their comments if it isn't going to be followed. - FrancisTyers 14:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried following them, I started posting my comments over it. But then again, it seems I was the only one, Node started right away modifying the page to the way he wants it. Just a tag

My IP is not static, bummer for you dude. Check out .25, .88, .114, and other similar ip's, you'd be surprised, I was previously signing as "Just a tag" here. And everyone knows quite well here who I am.

Cool! By the way, did you read the note at the top of the page? - FrancisTyers 14:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not worry, as I noted already, I am not going to edit the article anymore, thanks to Node this article everyday looks more and more like a joke (with erroneous translations on the article even as I write this, distortion of facts, etc.) so nobody will take it seriously eventually anyway. And Node is the one who should be looking at the top page more often. 212.0.211.204 15:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes! I agree with you. Bonaparte talk 10:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Node again stars the edit/revert wars

Thanks to Node, all editors have left this page except the pro-russian Node who tries to put his cyrillic everywhere, and mikka who does pretty much nothing but defending the latter (Mikka is from BeloRUSSIA). Chris does some linguistic changes from time to time. Bonaparte is banned. Jmabel left because of Node. Constantzeanu, Ronline, AdiJapan, Alex007, Anittas, Danutz, etc.. all left. An example of last Node's moronism: now it seems in romanian "traieste" means "works", so basically "to live" according to Node means "to work", instead of giving DIFFERENT examples (that is different errors) he just does the same error 4 times. When all agreed to have it "identical" instead of "virtually", he just waited silently for everyone to leave and reintroduced his "virtually" again. He always tries to undermine the majority of speakers in Moldova, trying to emphasize the importance of the PMR (again getting himself involved in politics that way), he changed proper data (ISBN, year, etc..) to a reference without any info on how to find it. I see no more point in even discussing something with a moron who thinks that 1.2% is 12 out of 100 (which makes 12%), and says that 1.2% is MANY. Therefore, I'm also (probably to the delight of Node) leaving this page and will make no more edits to it, I'm sure it'll end up being a place of horrible disinformation (Node has nothing to do with Moldova, never even was here, he just reads pro-soviet stuff off the web), so Wikipedia enjoy, you lost my trust and of many others, you go against every encyclopedia in the world which has correct information on this subject. And mikka, Node, is a M O R O N, that's not an insult, it's a conclusion based on his actions. Ta-ta.

Node actually did something against consensus reached here again. He tried again to make just a revert war and trolling. Because the last changes of him <adding "virtually"> completely denaturates and manipulates the whole issues. Since they are identical what's his problems? Cann't he see that here is a consensus that they are identical? Bonaparte talk 09:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

Warning! User:Node ue didn't reached the consensus yet.

He made several edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=31825192&oldid=31776974 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=31765947&oldid=31763954) in which nobody agree with him. He did not reached the consensus. -- Bonaparte talk 10:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Admin should block the users that are just trolling and making revert war here. -- Bonaparte talk 14:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

the true list of Joe

This was the real list of Joe and I suggest not to modify it again. From this list we can discuss if there is something to be discussed since the present version of the page is quite good.

What is in contention

The following lists, unlike usual talk page content, may be edited. The intent is to clarify what is and is not contentious in this article. Please try to word items as neutrally as possible. If someone feels that one of the items listed as uncontentious is actually contentious, feel free to move it and reword it as a question. If someone feels that one of the items listed as contentious is actually uncontentious, please start a discussion in a separate section below, and move it only if after 48 hours all parties agree that it is uncontentious.

Please try to word all items as neutrally as possible.

My initial comments were based on this version of the article.

This section is not intended for discussion. Probably, each contentious item deserves its own discussion section, although it may be possible to group some of these. And please don't refer to them by number, because the numbers are likely to change.

Consensus/uncontentious should mean that no one objects strongly enough to object to this statement. It is possible that some statements that are not factually contentious should ultimately be refactored to another article; I'd like to suggest that we try to settle the factual issues before we try to settle the refactoring issues.

Two last remarks: (1) I know that a lot of people have been very unhappy that a small number of contributors have been continually challenging the clear majority view that Romanian and Moldovan are the same language. I want to point out how much stronger a case has now been made for that majority view. (2) There seems to me to be a lot here that is solid and not in contention. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Uncontentious in terms of fact (that is, there is consensus). This is a separate matter from whether someone thinks that something should be refactored.

1. Moldovan (limba moldovenească) is the official name of the state language of the Republic of Moldova as specified by its constitution.
2. In practice, Moldovan is often referred to as "Romanian" or "the language of the state".
3. In English, this is sometimes also referred to as Moldavian.
4. A significant number of linguists consider standard Moldovan to be identical to standard Romanian.
5. In schools, the language is called Romanian, and textbooks from Romania are used significantly in the Moldovan education system.
6. The Academy of Sciences of Moldova calls the language Romanian.
7. Several Moldovan government departments call the language Romanian, and their websites are offered in Romanian, Russian and often English, but not "Moldovan".
8. Factsheets by US Department of State and documents of some other countries list Romanian as the official language of Moldova.
9. In 2002, the Moldovan Minister of Justice, Ion Morei, said that Romanian and Moldovan are the same language and that the Constitution of Moldova should be amended, not necessarily by changing the word Moldovan into Romanian, but by adding that "Romanian and Moldovan are the same language".
10. Education Minister Valentin Beniuc said "I have stated more than once that the notion of a Moldovan language and a Romanian language reflects the same lingustic phenomenon in essence."
11. Tatiana Mlecico continually referred to the language as Romanian during a press conference when she was the chief of the Department of Interethnic Relations.
12. A 1996 attempt by Moldovan president Mircea Snegur to change the official language to "Romanian" was (1) dismissed by the Moldovan Parliament and (2) the grounds for this was that it "promoted Romanian expansionism".
13. There are some (possibly small) differences between the typical speech of parts of Moldova and the typical speech of most of Romania.
14. The Before 1812 section is uncontentious.
15. The Language in imperial Russian Bessarabia section is uncontentious.
16. In the section Beginnings of the Moldovan language, the political history down to 1918 is uncontentious.
17. The Soviet authorities declared the "Moldovan language" in 1924 and replaced the Latin alphabet with Cyrillic.
18. The Soviet Union deported many ethnic Romanians and encouraged migration from the rest of the USSR, so by the mid-20th century Bessarabia acquired large communities of Russian speakers.
19. During Soviet rule, Moldovan speakers were encouraged to learn Russian
20. Moldovans use more Russian loanwords in their spoken language that Romanians use.
21. The Romanizators vs. Originalists struggle existed.
22. The Moldavian in Soviet Moldova section is uncontentious.
23. In 1989, the contemporary Romanian version of the Latin alphabet was made the official script of the Moldavian SSR.
24. After the independence of Moldova in 1991, "Romanian" was declared the official language, but the 1994 constitution changed the name of the language to "Moldovan".
25. Moldova did not go along with the 1992 Romanian Academy changes in official orthography.
26. In 2002, Moldova gave the Russian language the same privileges as Moldovan.
27. In 2002, Russian was declared to be a mandatory foreign language in Moldovan schools.
28. Making Russian official created a wave of indignation among the Moldovan-speaking majority of the population, etc.
29. The population of Russian-speakers in the Baltic States has been declining over the past 15 years.
30. The population of Russian-speakers in Moldova has been declining over the past 15 years.
31. In 2003, a Romanian-Moldovan dictionary (Stati 2003) was published. The linguists of the Romanian Academy in Romania declared that all the Moldovan words are also Romanian words.
32. Some of the Stati 2003 dictionary's contents are disputed (an indication of by whom would be good) as being neologisms resulting from Russification.
33. Ion Bărbuţă described the Stati 2003 dictionary as "an absurdity, serving political purposes".
34. Supporters of Stati (an indication of who would be good), accused Bărbuţă and the Romanian Academy of promoting "Romanian colonialism".
35. The 2004 census is the most recent
36. 2004 census results have been delayed.
37. It is reported that on the 2004 census, more Romanian-Moldovans declared their mother tongue to be "Romanian" than "Moldovan".
38. There were press claims that the public preference for "Romanian" caused the 2004 census results delay.
39. The Alphabet and spelling section is uncontentious except the statement about "Many Moldovans who use "î/â" spellings write sânt", which there is consensus to remove.

1. The Comparison with Romanian section is uncontentious.

Factual contention exists

1. Do a significant number of linguists consider standard Moldovan not to be identical to standard Romanian?
2. If so, are any of those linguists neither from Moldovan nor of Moldovan ancestry?
3. Does the typical speech of any part of Moldova vary more from standard Romanian than is typical within Romania?
4. A five-phase "language shift" model has been proposed. Since that is complex and largely uncited, it is probably a matter of some contention. It would be great if people can agree that parts of it are uncontentious.
5. The Soviet authorities purpose in declaring the "Moldavian language" was to give the region its own identity separate from Romania.
6. Up until "just 80 years prior" to 1924—that is, up to 1864— "the language was usually written in Cyrillic." (and possibly contention over what "the language" and "usually" mean: does this refer just to this region or is it saying that was the practice everywhere?
7. There may be contentious aspects to the Romanizators and Originalists section; if so, could someone please replace this remark with a characterization of those disagreements.
8. Is there "a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian"?
9. Our article seems to disagree with itself wither "about two thirds of Romanian-Moldovans" or 55% declared their native language to be "Romanian".
10. The entire section Spoken language in Chişinău and its suburbs is contentuious.

Scope/refactoring contention exists

1. Should this article be specifically on the official language of the Republic of Moldova or should it be broader. If broader, should it cover graiul moldovenesc? Should it cover non-Romance languages of the Republic of Moldova (Russian as used in Moldova, for example)?

I suggest the user that continues this trolling to refrain himself. This is not a playground.-- Bonaparte talk 16:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the answers for the 10 questions remaining again the answers were already told. See below:

Comments

Thanks, Jmabel, someone had to start a discussion on this, and you did a great job putting everyting together. I had a quick glance over the "uncontentios" part, agreed with it (I will have a better look at it a bit later, it's late now).

1.+2 Do a significant number of linguists consider standard Moldovan not to be identical to standard Romanian?

Well, except Stati I did not hear of other linguists who share his opinion.

Agree, except Stati no other serious linguist share his opinion.

3. Does the typical speech of any part of Moldova vary more from standard Romanian than is typical within Romania?

There is a notable accent I guess, so a Romanian from Romania could probably tell if someone is from Moldova or not. But then again, I could tell who is from England, who's from New Zealand, etc... Guys, when you went to Moldova, what did you think of our accent ?

4 .All parts of it are uncontentious since it is already given the reference.

5. The Soviet authorities purpose in declaring the "Moldavian language" was to give the region its own identity separate from Romania.

Of course, is there anyone here who disagrees this ?

Of course the statement tells the truth: The Soviet authorities purpose in declaring the "Moldavian language" was to give the region its own identity separate from Romania.

6. There is a very good example: until some years Turkish language didn't used Latin script. Still it's the same language.

7. This must be still discussed. It was a term introduced first by Mikka. Nowhere can be find such similar. Only he introduced that term. I don't agree with "romanizators" and "originalists".

8. Is there "a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian"?

Payed encyclopedias classify it as Romanian, ethnologue does too, I'm not even sure if ISO is that important since a country with an oficially declared language can request an ISO language code, so there is probably little chance that ISO would have refused it. Based on that, I'd say the asnwer is: yes.

All over the world is internationaly recognized that Moldovan language is simply Romanian with a different name.

9. Our article seems to disagree with itseld wither "about two thirds of Romanian-Moldovans" or 55% declared their native language to be "Romanian".

Yeah, I've pointed that before, but I think all of those numbers is a speculation, since there's no official data over this, plus: Modul în care s-a desfăşurat recensământul la capitolul apartenenţă etnică şi limbă vorbită a fost criticat de către reprezentanţii Consiliului Europei......Şapte din cele zece grupuri de observatori internaţionali care au activat în diferite localităţi ale Republicii Moldova în perioada recensământului au semnalat un număr considerabil de cazuri în care recenzorii au încurajat respondenţii să se declare moldoveni şi nu români" from [BBC Romanian]. First we need to find multiple credible sources for the 2/3 or 55% numbers and then ponder =)

It's quite clear that there are more people that recognize as Romanian rather than Moldovan. The ratio is somewhere 3 times more people are recognize it as romanian.

10. The entire section Spoken language in Chişinău and its suburbs is contentuious.

Agreed, I would suggest it be removed altogether.

That paragraph should be removed.

As for scope: I think its scope should be narrow: the official language in Moldova.

Just a tag+ Bonaparte talk 16:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Answers to Bonaparte's questions

When Bonaparte does not troll around, he write pileloads of text, as you have seen above, and expects people to spend half a day answering them. Bonaparte, take things easy, issue by issue. That's how things are solved.

Actually it's Jmabel's list. Just a tag

This is the Jmabel's list. Don't forget this.

Anyway, he has been bugging me on my talk page and even accusing me of cowardice, so as one of the few people from Moldova on Wikipedia I would like to answer his questions (whether this will lead to anything or not).

Hello then, I'm also from Moldova :) Just a tag

1. Do a significant number of linguists consider standard Moldovan not to be identical to standard Romanian?

   I doubt. Even Stati seems to believe that the literary language is the same, but it is more a matter of "we are our own country and please let us call our language the way we see fit". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   Agree with you Oleg. Even Stati seems to believe that the literary language is the same. -- Bonaparte talk 08:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

2. If so, are any of those linguists neither from Moldovan nor of Moldovan ancestry?

   ??? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Does the typical speech of any part of Moldova vary more from standard Romanian than is typical within Romania?

   Yes. When Moldova got taken by Russia there was no Romania, no latin script, no national awakening and 1848 events. All that came later. 200 years of being with Russia cannot be ignored. But the literary language is the same, and differences in educated speech are no larger than British vs US. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   Those "differences in educated speech" should be expounded on in this article. Also, Dyer 1999 says that the "lucreaza sofer" vs "lucreaza ca sofer" difference has crept into the literary language, and Google seems to agree (I tried it with several professions, and the "lucreaza (profession)" occurred more in Moldova than in Romania even in formal texts, and "lucreaza ca (profession)" was more used in Romanian sites). What are your thoughts on that? --Node 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

4. A five-phase "language shift" model has been proposed. Since that is complex and largely uncited, it is probably a matter of some contention. It would be great if people can agree that parts of it are uncontentious.

   That's all crap which needs to be removed from this page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   It remains unsourced except for a small part of the section. Most of the significant events are already covered elsewhere in the article. And, it's obviously not NPOV. --Node 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

   Yeah, the article should be smaller, that along with some other things has to be removed. Just a tag

5. The Soviet authorities purpose in declaring the "Moldavian language" was to give the region its own identity separate from Romania.

   I think so. During soviet times they did a lot of moving people around and imposing Russian. There was a strong policy of Russification and suppression of national identities. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   Agree with you Oleg. There was a russification process there. Bonaparte talk 08:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

6. Up until "just 80 years prior" to 1924—that is, up to 1864— "the language was usually written in Cyrillic." (and possibly contention over what "the language" and "usually" mean: does this refer just to this region or is it saying that was the practice everywhere?

   Don't know. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   If it's to be the truth, it's referring just to that region, because in Transylvania, Romanian was always written in the Latin alphabet. --Node 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

7. There may be contentious aspects to the Romanizators and Originalists section; if so, could someone please replace this remark with a characterization of those disagreements.
8. Is there "a growing international recognition that Moldovan language is in fact Romanian"?
9. Our article seems to disagree with itself wither "about two thirds of Romanian-Moldovans" or 55% declared their native language to be "Romanian".

   The number of people who declared their language Romanian should be easy to check. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   No, it's impossible to check, there is no data over this at http://www.statistica.md/recensamint.php?lang=ro Just a tag

   That's true, and it's an anomaly. As far as I know, that question was asked on the census... Data from Gardianul indicate that 1/3rd of Moldovan citizens declared their native language as Moldovan (it was more specific than that, with some percentage). Others assumed from this that 2/3rds declared Romanian, but -- about 1/3rd of citizens would've declared Ukrainian, Russian, Gagauz, Romany, Bulgarian... so it would be about equal portions, I think. But there's no good source for that... --Node 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

10. The entire section Spoken language in Chişinău and its suburbs is contentuious.

    I am from a suburb of the captial, 13 miles from city center. There is no creole language, who the heck said that? There are some Russian words, mostly for neologisms (refrigerator, iron (for ironing clothes)), swear words, fancy teen slang, but their number has been decreasing since the 90's. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

    The most essential, and orrect, part of that, that I think should be kept, is the part that shows grammatical influence ("morphosyntactic calquing" is the technical term) from Russian in colloquial language. Parts talking about "large numbers of loan words" or "creole", or whatever, can be discussed seperately and I'd be OK with maybe deleting them. --Node 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

    I'm from the capital, sometimes russian swear words are used, but beyond that it's mostly standard romanian. I think there is no point in "Spoken language in Chisinau" section and it should be removed. Just a tag

    You yourself recently said that it's "closer to the reality". --Node 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

    If you are to quote me, do it properly examples now are closer to reality than before, that is compared to ElNoel. Just a tag

Node and his propaganda

This is not acceptable:

---

In some cases, Russian words take on Romanian inflectional paradigms (examples after D. Dyer [25]):

Original: "Maşina bucsuieşte" Translation: "The car is skidding" Explanation: "Bucsuieşte" is from the Russian root word буксовать (bucs-ova-ti), "to skid", and the Romanian inflectional suffix (i)-eşte, the 3rd person singular present tense ending for a 4th conjugation verb.

Original: "Pe Ion l-au sudit pe doi ani" Translation: "John was sentenced to two years" Explanation: "Sudit" is from the Russian verbal root суд (sud), "to judge" or "to sentence", and the Romanian inflectional suffix -t, the passive participle ending.

In other cases, sentences are patterned after Russian syntax:

Original: "La mine rochia'i nouă" Translation: "I have a new dress" Explanation: "La mine rochia" and the Russian "У меня ... платье" both mean literally "At me the dress", as opposed to the Romanian "Rochia mea", literally "my dress".

Original: "La tine mama'i bolnavă" Translation: "Your mom is sick" Explanation: "La tine mama" and "У тебя мать" both mean literally "At you the mother", as opposed to the Romanian "Mama ta", literally "your mother".

Original: "La noi mama trăieşte în sat" Translation: "Our mother works in the countryside" Explanation: "La noi mama" means literally "At us the mother", as opposed to the Romanian "mama noastră", literally "our mother".

Original: "La mine fratele'i în armată" Translation: "I have a brother in the military" Explanation: "La mine" and "У меня" both mean literally "At me...", as opposed to the Romanian "mea", literally "my".

Original: "Ion lucrează şofer" Translation: "Ion works as a driver" Explanation: In Romanian, there is no instrumental case, so the preposition ca (as) or the phrase în calitate de (in the capacity of) is used instead. In Russian, the instrumental case is marked by the suffix -ом. Colloquial Moldovan extends the function of the nominative case to the function of instrumental case as well, thus eliminating the Romanian prepositional phrases. Unlike most Russian influence, this is beginning to appear in the literary language as well.

---

It will be removed, because it's propaganda. Much of the things written in so-called Moldovan can also be said in Romanian. Example:

Original: "La noi mama trăieşte în sat" Translation: "Our mother works in the countryside" Explanation: "La noi mama" means literally "At us the mother", as opposed to the Romanian "mama noastră", literally "our mother".

No, nothing is opposed. You can say in Romanian "La noi mama traieste in sat". You can also say, in both Romanian and Moldova, "Imi plac fetele", which means, "I like girls". All of what it said there is inaccurate. --Anittas 01:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just Another Tag said that the usage in those examples is "incorrect"... and if you want to say what I'm saying is wrong, you need to find a source opposing my source or which somehow discredits it. You can't just say "You're wrong!". --Node 02:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is incorrect in formal Romanian, at least in my humble opinion, but that doesn't mean you would never hear it in Romania, and all the words there are certainly romanian. Please change the "as opposed to the Romanian" to "as opposed to the correct formulation" because your "Romanian" version is exactly the correct "Moldovan" version. The current state of the examples is POV. Node, I repeat, the translation of some of the examples is incorrect. Just a tag

The fact that the words are all Romanian words is meaningless. In the phrase "He arrow me to make copies or not? I blur", all of the words are totally English, and yet you'd never hear it in America, or Britain, or India, or Canada, or really anywhere except Singaporea and maybe Malaysia. --Node 04:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

But your example even if valid is not the same, the examples you listed (except the two with the russian words) will be perfectly understood by all people from Romania, and more than that, you could hear that used in Romania as well. Just a tag

I need what? I am the source! Any Romanian is the source! I am saying that most of what is said in so-called Moldovan, can also be said in Romanian! That's a fact. What you say there, is true, but when you say that there's a difference between how you say it in Romanian, is false. That's just different styles of expression. You can use whichever you like, in both Romanian and so-called Moldovan. --Anittas 02:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You're not a source. Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia, unfortunately. --Node 04:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I was joking. What I meant is that what was said there is wrong, and it can be verified by anyone who speaks Romanian, or so-called Moldovan. And what's your source, again? --Anittas 04:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As I noted before, just because something is correct, or incorrect, has no bearing on whether or not it belongs in Wikipedia. What matters is that it is verifiable using published sources. My source was Dyer 1999. If you want to challenge it, instead of just telling me I'm wrong you need to do one of the following: 1) Find a contemporary or more recent source which states the opposite to be true, or 2) Find a credible source which challenges the credibility of Dyer in the realm of Moldova and Eastern Romance linguistics. Just saying that Dyer or node or whomever is wrong, or saying that "anyone who speaks Romanian" can verify it, is not a valid criticism by Wikipedia guidelines. --Node 07:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody agree with your edits Node since they are so far from reality. You're alone on your positions. You've been told to stop if you don't you'll be banned from editing in Wikipedia. Be aware of this thing! Bonaparte talk 08:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues

1. is a hotly-debated political issue in the Republic of Moldova. -- What is the source for that ?

   I'm not sure, but, I'm sure one could easily be found. Do you deny that it's a hotbutton issue?

   That's the whole point, I think it's a hotly-debated issue mostly on Wikipedia, you don't get much info about that here, it seems that most know quite well that moldovan is alias for romanian and nobody is making too much fuss about it. But if someone can provide a good source... ? Otherwise I'd suggest changing hotly-debated to just debated. Just a tag

2. although a few Moldovan linguists dispute this -- The reference is just to stati, therefore a few is POV.

   Fine -- remove the "a few" and replace it with "one" or "at least one".

   Please, someone, change the "a few" to "one". Just a tag

3. hotly contested political issue within and beyond the Republic of Moldova. -- again, what's the source for the "hotness"

   Ask Chris Sundita.

   Chris, what's the source for this ? Again I suggest s/hotly// Just a tag

4. The number of Moldovan speakers depends on one's view of the status of Moldovan. If taken as a separate language, then 1.2 million people speak Moldovan -- what is the source for 1.2 million ?

   No idea.

   Content based on uncited, unverified sources must be removed then. Just a tag

5. then there may be as many as 28 million speakers. -- What is the source for 28 million ?

   Romanian language

   But it says there 26 million, not 28. Just a tag

6. Romanizators and Originalists -- where is the information from ?

   Ask Mikkalai. I believe he cited it somewhere.

   So this material is taken from a book written by an author from transnistria, this goes against the principle of neutrality, in such cases there must be at least two publications (from the two sides). I suggest this section be removed. Just a tag

7. Supporters of Stati, however, accused both of promoting "Romanian colonialism". -- Stati said that on the first pages of his dictionary, and not his "supporters" (who are they ?), again this is POV, as the word "supports" is not backed up, that statement was made by Stati in his own dictionary.

   It used to say "the Moldovan government, however, accused...", which certainly isn't true -- it made it sound as if Stati's dictionary was commissioned by the government, which is a ludicrous suggestion at best. Feel free to change it, I don't care.

   Ok, then it should be changed to "Stati, however, accused both of ..." Just a tag

8. On the 2004 census, about two thirds of the Romanian-Moldovans... -- provide a source.

   No idea.

   Should be removed then. Just a tag

9. According to newspaper reports about the most recent Moldovan census, about 45% -- source ?

   Gardianul.

   Hmm, a quick search gives http://gardianul.ro/print.php?a=externe2004110302.xml , but it says there circa 34 la suta din cetatenii Republicii Moldova s-au declarat romani", iar 40 la suta din cetateni au declarat ca "romana este limba lor materna which means that 40% of all citizens declared the romanian language as their native. And the article doesn't say anything about % for "moldovan" language and it doesn't mention the term daco-romanian. So it should be: "According to newspaper reports about the most recent Moldovan cenus, about 40% of all respondents declared their language to be Romanian". This article is a bit outdated though, from 2004, maybe there is a recent article that I missed ? Just a tag

10. while some Moldovan newspapers use -- as a matter of fact the journals listed are the major newspapers in moldova, so what is the justification for some ?

    Because there are other newspapers in Moldova.

    But that's POV, undermining the importance of listed newspapers in Moldova, and the article says "use", I'm quite sure all newspapers use sunt at some point, depending on the author, if you can provide me a list of ~60% of newspapers that don't use sunt at all, then I'm willing to agree on "some", if not then it should be changed to "majority". Just a tag

11. In Chişinău, most strangers, even ethnic Moldovans, address one another in Russian, despite the fact that Moldovan is official language. -- I quote from the source provided there Even native people who don't know each other often address each other in Russian, please use the wording from the source and not your own, and as I they didn't spend much time in Chisinau, I kind of doubt the source, I think the best way would be to say: "According to a source, in Chisinau even native people might address each other in Russian" (often->might changed because as I said, the source cannot be overtrusted as Diana Nissler didn't spend much time in Chisinau), plus a source must be verifiable, that is if you still want to use this wording provide more valid sources (peer-reviewed journals).

    If you read the article, Nissler consulted about this topic with Moldovans. Some of the quotes she provided were interesting. --Node 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

    I've read the article, she says she asked a student about this, and she specifically asked "why?" and not "do they often use ?". The line about "often" is purely her speculation. Just a tag

--Just a tag

bonaparte

Did you remove the infobox? If so, may I ask why? The info box is accurate. --Anittas 05:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. But the article in this form is pretty good. It contains all the aspects proposed by Joe. Even Oleg agree with this version since he answered to Joe's list. Bonaparte talk 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Boni, this is not the way to write in an encyclopedia:

Russians manipulated people of Republic of Moldova and washed their brains to create a new person, the soviet "Moldovan". The real name in English is Moldavian, in Romanian is Moldovean and in Russian is Molidavanin.

WTF is that? And put back the infobox where it belongs! I can't revert the article because I've already done two reverts on the guy who dislikes girls. --Anittas 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, I'm fine with girls. Please stop making such offensive remarks. --Node 07:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't edit at all. I am still prepared to edit if the things are going bad here. Lately Cris Sundita's contributions were only to revert text. So I am still prepared to edit in case of need. Bonaparte talk 05:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You have gone mad! You are editing right now as we speak. You just edited it again! Revert it back to my version! Your version sucks! That fragment sounds like a part from bad B movie. --Anittas 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Your version Anittas is much superior. - FrancisTyers 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

With that, I must agree. Bonaparte has been adding text along the lines of communist forced brainwashing or whatever for a day or so now... --Node 07:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction

I hope this won't be too controversial, but I've removed one of two contradicting sentences.

There is no unitary Moldovan language, but a variety of Romanian is spoken.

directly contradicts

An official standard Moldovan language as such does not exist: there are however variants of the Romanian language spoken in Moldova; and these are, mainly for political reasons, sometimes referred to as "Moldovan".

The first one says there is one "variety", then the second one suggests there is more than one "variety"/"variant". Also doesn't "unitary language" and "official standard language" kind of mean the same thing? If not unitary language should be a link, official language should be a link and the difference explained. The second sentence would probably be better worded:

There is no official standard for the Moldovan language. The variants of Romanian spoken in Moldova are sometimes, mainly for politicial reasons, referred to as "Moldovan".

- FrancisTyers 09:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

They are identical that explains all. Bonaparte talk 09:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Language

these differences are not significant enough to make Moldovan a separate language to Romanian.

Could you direct me to a list of linguistic features that are significant enough to make a "dialect" into a "language" as I'm not aware of one. I have to say this revision was far more linguistically accurate, not perfect but a mile and a yard better than whats here right now. - FrancisTyers 09:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That version state that they are virtually identical and more inaccuracies. That version is against the consensus that was already reached. Please see once again the Joe's list. Bonaparte talk 09:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My advice again

Please for the n-times now, just focus on the 10 points from the Joe's list. There is already a consensus about the others issues. -- Bonaparte talk 09:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, I haven't the foggiest idea why you are supporting the edit, judging from your inaction in reverting, of an anonymous vandal who keeps on reverting to a version that is full of gibberish. If you are so concerned about helping out, then help out with reverting the vandal's contributions. As far as I concerned there is no consensus with that version - even Anittas was complaining! So far Anittas, FrancisTyers, Node, and I support this version that I am continually reverting to. --Chris S. 13:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the consensus version was the one that Jmabel posted [5]. Is this correct? - FrancisTyers 14:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. The consensus is the 40 points list of Joe Mabel. -- Bonaparte talk 14:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway let me be very clear: this is a message to all users: I warn you guys to stop making this revert war and let us focus on the other 10 points that were partially solved also. Any edit on the points that is already considered consensus it will be classified as "vandalism" and attempt to undermine the process of making this article. So stop yourself editing and putting "virtual" and other issues that were already discussed and agreed that is not the place for such phrases. I will post this message on Administrator's incidents and to all other Admins to block you or the page if you don't stop this revert war and trolling. This page was for much to much time the playground of trolling users like Node and his co, but now with the help of some admins will solve this out. So be aware, either you will focus on the remaining 10 points or you'll be blocked! -- Bonaparte talk 14:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see anything about wash braining in the consensus so why do you persist in reverting to the version with wash braining in? - FrancisTyers 14:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't persist in anything. Did you see my edits or not? So, if it bothers you so much that phrase delete it. But let me ask you why did you revert since I don't see anything about "virtual" in the consensus? Bonaparte talk 14:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you be amenable to restoring this version while we try to reach consensus on the other remaining ten points? The version I specified is the result of Jmabels last edit before he left the article. - FrancisTyers 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Note

Please translate this and add it to the article:

Oficializarea limbii majorităţii şi introducerea obligativităţii alfabetului latin pentru scrierea acesteia a atras proteste din partea vorbitorilor de alte limbi decât cea română. Termenul de "limbă română" era evitat, fiind preferate sintagme ca limba noastră sau limba majorităţii (v. articolul "Moldova Noastră"). În prefaţa legii privind funcţionarea limbilor (septembrie 1989), aflată încă în vigoare [6] se menţionează identitatea lingvistică dintre limba română şi limba moldovenească (v. raportul Comitetului consultativ privind Convenţia-cadru pentru protecţia minorităţilor naţionale).

Making officially the majority language and compulsory introducing of the latin alphabet for its writting had attracted protests from the speakers of the other side than romanian. The term "romanian langauge" was avoided, being prefered other notions as "our language" or "the majority language" (see articolul "Moldova Noastră"). In introduction of the lows concerning the functioning of the languages (september 1989), still applying [7] it is mentioned the linguistic identity between romanian language and moldovan langauge (see the report of the Commitee concerning the frame for protection of national minorities).

The note is extracted from the article ro:Conflictul din Transnistria, and is written by me so I can show exactly where you can find the info.

So:

Pretinsa problemă lingvistică îşi trage rădăcinile încă de la începuturile statalităţii Republicii Moldova. Pentru a evita suspiciunea cercurilor conducătoare de la Cremlin, în 1989, formatorii de opinie moldoveni au evitat să folosească termenul de limbă română, preferînd expresii ca limba noastră sau limba maternă. În aceste împrejurări, sub presiunea mulţimii din Piaţa Marii Adunări Naţionale şi sub îndrumarea intelectualilor şi a savanţilor de la Institutul de Limbă al Academiei de Ştiinţe s-a hotărît ca: limba majorităţii populaţiei să devină limbă de stat, cu grafie latină, modificări care au fost consfinţite în Legea privind funcţionarea limbilor în R. Moldova. ( http://mdn.md/print.php?id=320&lang=ro )

The so called linguistic problem comes from the beginning of the concept of state of the Republic of Moldova. For avoidinng suspicious from the leading circles from Kremlin, in 1989, the opinion makers from Moldova begun to avoid the use of the term romanian language, preferring expressions like our language or mother language.

Legea din 1 septembrie 1989 cu privire la funcţionarea limbilor vorbite pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova rămîne în vigoare în măsura în care nu contravine prezentei Constituţii. ( Constitution of Moldova, Titlul I, Articolul VII, paragraful 1: http://presedinte.md/const.php?page=8700&lang=rom )

Legea privind funcţionarea limbilor (sept.1989) menţionează în prefaţa sa despre existenţa identităţii lingvistice dintre limba moldovenească şi limba română. (Comitetul consultativ privind Convenţia-cadru pentru protecţia minorităţilor naţionale Opinie asupra Republicii Moldova: .pdf file)

That proves the identy between Romanian and Moldovan, according to the very Moldovan law. The first source is not that relevant, it just explains the evitation of term Romanian, but the Constitution of Moldova and the Law of the languages in Moldova (sept. 1989) are relevant, my guess. BTW, this are independent sources. :p --Danutz

Nice work Danutz! I will try to translate and add to the text since is in a very accordance with the consensus reached here. Bonaparte talk 14:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, great work, Danutz! So no more virtually identical, is believed blah blah. It's: according to the legislation of RM, Moldovan language is identical to the Romanian. Just a tag

Consensus version

Hi, instead of this constant reverting, can we just decide on a consensus version of the article. The last version that Jmabel left would be a good place to start. If anyone disagrees, please note it here. I don't see brainwashing anywhere in the consensus and I don't see the "virtually" in Jmabels version. - FrancisTyers 15:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Francis. But I doubt that Node could refrain himself as he immediately reacted as Joe left the page. We all know him by now (he is here since May or July) so I think is a good start, but I doubt sincerely since until now he just shown us the contrary. What's the problem with the current one? [[8]] it may be also a good start since no more than 10 points are left and Oleg and Just a tag already answered. So we can start add their contribution by now. Bonaparte talk 15:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If it were by me I would make this article as short as possible, otherwise it seems everyone tries to put "this yet another link I've found" and it's everything but an encyclopedic entry (ALL versions). It should be short and to the point. Infobox indeed doesn't serve a purpose, it only confuses a reader. Indeed, one may argue that we have a very nice collection of facts here (some of which are wrong, some are not) but it's not fluid, it's too long, it's confusing, it's contradictory. IMHO it should be something like this (it's the main idea, the wording of course should be changed):

"Moldovan language (Limba Moldoveneasca, ISO639: mo, mol, Ethnologue: none) is the official language of the Republic of Moldova. The existence of the language as a separate entity is disputed. The majority of linguists specialised in Romanian language, just as the majority of the citizens of Republic of Moldova who speak Romanian as their native language, assert that the moldovan language is just the politically renamed Romanian language. It is spoken by X millions.

Some SHORT history here till 1989 (no more than 14 lines). In 1989 it was declared as the official language...(more text) In 1996 there was an attempt to declare Romanian as the official language ... (more text))

Something about Stati, his dictionary and his opponents.

Some archaic Romanian words are still used in Moldova (and sometimes even in Romanian Moldova). Some russian words are ocasionally used, but due to the influce of mass-media and the educational system, standard romanian tends to impose itself in Moldova.

A notable difference between the two variants is the "â/î". ... Even with that, the majority of the newspapers use the standard romanian "â" along with "sunt" instead of "sint".

There are certain differences in pronounciation as well, but they are not bigger as say between Bucuresti and Cluj-Napoca.

---

And that's IT! If anyone wants to have a huge collection of confusing facts/lies/whatever let them by all means put it on their homepage.

Just a tag

Apart from the fact that you, or one of your cohorts has a defective browser that broke the interwiki links, the current version is very far from the consensus that Jmabel left. This diff shows the differences between the version you seem to be intent on editing and the consensus version. - FrancisTyers 15:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

no need for infobox

This is one of the post regarding to the infobox. It states very well the fact that there is no need to have an infobox.

Gareth I don't think this article is about how the language is different from Romanian. I don't think that we should take this sort of a stance. This article is rather about the notion of Moldovan and how some people think it is a language and about how some do not. As in the case of Flemish, I do not think it needs an infobox. You pointed out correctly that Flemish never had one and that requests for the removal of the infobox may be politically motivated in certain cases, however the same argument can be done the other way around. Whoever put the infobox was politically motivated as well or at the least did not have a good background on the whole issue of the Moldovan language. For this reason I do not think that this infobox should stay or if it should stay then some things about it clearly have to be removed like the official in: part and the number 1.2 mil. I do not see how we ca reconcile the 3 statements from above about what Moldovan can mean, which you correctly identified with the official in: part. How can it be official only in Moldova when in fact Moldovan can be either a Romanian vernacular(spoken also in Romania), either a Romanian dialect or either a sepparate language(depending on political affiliation)? I think all that would confuse the reader.

I think we can all agree that Moldovan is not like any other language such as German, English, etc. etc. This article is about the status and name of Moldovan and how they are used. Constantzeanu 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This post was made by Constantzeanu. Bonaparte talk 15:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This argument was debunked by the fact other languages in Romanian and Moldovan's situation have infobox. It doesn't compare to Flemish because it is not a constitutionally-mandated name. --Chris S. 23:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This was an old discussion. Please provide the link to the whole discussion, or this piece will be deleted as clutter. If people start cut'n'pasting huge pieces of old discussions, there will be a huge chaos. mikka (t) 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Again a good chance to have a good version

Since that vandals will be blocked, now we really have the chance for making a good article. I did post a message against the edits of node here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Node_ue_3). -- Bonaparte talk 15:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE open up a request for comment on Node_ue or on this article, whatever way you want to do. Asking admins to block users over and over again is not the answer since both sides are guilty of transgressions here. This is for user disputes and here would before the article itself.--Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless after that RfC the user will be blocked for good. I don't see another answer. Or maybe Jimbo will see this. Bonaparte talk 18:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected against revert war

Page protected against revert war combined with vandalism. I restored the version which has the language infobox. If you think that some important sections are missing, I think admins have right to reinsert. I again strongly suggest to disallow edits by non-admins, since I see again a massive intervention of anonymous accounts. mikka (t) 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not that something is missing, quite the opposite, the article probably has to be shortened to about 50-70 lines max, otherwise it will be impossible to reach a consensus, at this stage it contains too much information which is simply irrelevant to an average user and is incorrect to an informed one. Just a tag

Спасибо! Mulţumesc! I appreciate it - the vandalism was getting out of hand. --Chris S. 23:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. And what "Tag" said is a bit strange -- there is no limit to the length of a Wikipedia article... --Node

Well, all your blatant extremist edits are strange Mark, how do you feel now that the article state very clear: they are identical? Bonaparte talk 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles especially the part about Long articles. Just a tag 09:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to RFC

I do not understand romanian or moldovan. Ater reading the article and discussion, I have no doubt that the two languages are the same, just like British and Americal English, Dutch and Flemish, German and Austrian German, European/African and Brazilian Portuguese, etc. One language with two different names. The distinction is clearly politically motivated, see linguistic separatism.

This article is a clear example of the serious drawbacks of WIkipedia that may ultimately kill the whole project. I do not understand how a RFC will change this, it is up to the editors to accept each other's position and stick to scientific standards. Andreas 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Very good opinion Andreas. Belive me, you're not the only one. Actually except Node and his buddy all others I think they agree with you. Bonaparte talk 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Andreas, Wikipedia shouldn't get involved in politics, but it does so with articles like this one. --Just a tag 09:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Andreas, there are no scientific standards for deciding what is or isn't a "separate language". Some people believe Brazilian to be a separate language from Portuguese (and not without good reason -- see Brazilian Portuguese), in the past some people have spoken of an "American language", and in fact West Flemish is pretty much a separate language (as opposed to East Flemish). And yet, any debate about whether or not two varieties are part of the same language, or are in fact separate languages, is completely unscientific -- linguistics defines languages, and dialects, and varieties, but it does not define the distinctions between them. "Moldovan" FWIW clearly meets the definition of "language" -- a set of morphemes and the grammatical rules used to combine them. Linguistics tells us that Moldovan is a language; however, it can't and won't tell us whether or not it is a separate language from Romanian (or for that matter any other language), because the idea of "separate languages" is not a scientific idea, divisions between "separate languages" in general being 100% arbitrary on linguistic grounds, and usually fractured more on national and regional borders. -- Node

That's why "structural similarity" and "mutual intelligibility" criteria are used by linguists, if you know Romanian (which you don't) then you would understand someone from Moldova without any kind of effort and vice-versa. It goes even further with writing in Romanian/"Moldovan", there are simply no differences. Who decides to make something a language or not ? The answer is obvious - the one who has the power, so this article is about the name and the use of that power, not the language, because it has been accepted by everyone already that "Moldovan" is a politically renamed Romanian. -- Just a tag 08:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Andreas, I have to agree with you. I see virtually the same language. I will not dispute that. However, politically they are different languages. I have to ask you if you believe that this article is a serious drawback, then surely you believe that the articles on Malay, Indonesian, Serbian, Croatian, Hindi, Urdu, Tagalog, Filipino, Catalan, Valencian, Scandinavian languages, etc. are serious drawbacks to the whole project as well? These are roughly in the same boat as Romanian and Moldovan, more or less. Not only are these languages recognized by linguists as one language, but they are recognized as separate languages due to the respective laws of their country. However, even within one language there are differences as outlined by Node ue in Dr. Donald Dyer's research on the subject.

Since obviously you keep repeating saying "virtually" and you said here about differences, I have to ask this: Could you tell me what are the differences ? The use of occasional russian words in spoken language ? (that which you would never see written, on TV, on the radio, etc..) ? So basically if in US they write the same standard english but ocasionally use the words "Yo, wassup, Oy vey" in their speech that makes it automagically "differences between languages" as far as I know we have already commented on Dyer's examples, they do not constitute real differences as you could hear that in Romania as well. I repeat, if someone from Moldova goes to Romania he will be completely understood, I've been to Romania many times with my friends, most of the people we met couldn't even tell if we are from Moldova or not as there wasn't even much of an accent. Just a tag 08:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already expounded on that. You haven't been at this page nearly long enough. Check the archives. Besides the stuff I already expounded on though, there's more, just not heaps and heaps of it. --Node 08:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and, who said that "language" solely constitutes the written word? You? Language has always meant the spoken word, and only added "writing" a few thousand years ago. Linguistics as a science focuses primarily on speech, and considers written language on a lesser scale. You will find many more scholarly articles about the colloquial spoken word than the written word. As far as I can tell, "Moldovan" means "Of or from Moldova"... so "Moldovan language" means "The language of Moldova"... so that would include the spoken word. And I strongly doubt that you can hear "mashina bucsuieshte" in Romania. But that's not to say differences don't exist in the written word -- they certainly do. --Node 08:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You come in disagreement with linguists from Moldova. To not make a linguistic chaos for a language, there are ruling bodies that specify the rules of usage for a given language. ASM (Moldovan Academy of Sciences) doesn't recognize moldovan as a language and it regulates the usage of Romanian in Moldova. Quantum field theory is only about 80 years old, yet it's a very hot topic, so stop pretending that colloquial language is of main interest to the linguists because it is much older than the writing. As for "bucsuieste", I wasn't referring to the examples that have russian words, by all means keep them, it is mentioned anyway that ocasional russian words are used, but what you did to other examples is POV (not to mention the errors in translation) by saying "in Romanian it is ", because you could hear the original in Romania just as well, and it would be Romanian. --Just a tag 09:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"linguists from Moldova"... like Vasili Stati, Valentiny Iepuri, Vladimir Taranav, all of whom disagree with you... Linguists care more about colloquial spoken language because it is more vibrant, more alive, it changes faster and it is more dynamic. People are less prudish about the "correctness" of the colloquial spoken word, so it flows more naturally from the mouths of its speakers. And I'm not "pretending" anything -- go ahead, search through any journal on linguistics of modern languages and it will discuss primarily colloquial spoken language. Ask any of the linguists at WP to tell you otherwise and they will confirm what I've said... User:Angr, User:Jallan, User:Mustafaa, User:Mark Dingemanse, User:Pasquale, User:Secretlondon... all of them are linguists by training. Most of them will also agree with me on other things here, such as the lack of real meaning of "separate language", the lack of a real distinction between "language" and "dialect", the reliability of Donald Dyer as a source (after all, he is a linguist by training himself), and the importance of documenting things as they are rather than emphasising similarities or differences. --Node

In any case, along with teaching myself some Romanian I have also been learning about this concept of Daco-Romanian which has been used synonimously to refer to whatever is spoken in Romania. In turn, whatever is spoken in Moldova is also Daco-Romanian too but under a different name. Why indeed are people so bent on getting rid of the Moldovan page? If we do that, maybe we should get rid of the Romanian page and just concentrate our efforts on the meager Daco-Romanian page. --Chris S. 04:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Chris S. - FrancisTyers 12:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Scandinavian languages are not in the same root as this case. I speak Swedish, and I understand most of Norwegian, but I find it difficult to understand Danish. They are different languages. --Anittas 05:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

True - I've studied Bokmål Norwegian which looks like Danish in writing but Swedish in sound. But in the big picture, one could consider them one language. Their differences are greater than Daco-Romanian, yes, but they share a whole lot in common. --Chris S. 05:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You could possible say this about Norwegian and Swedish, but not Danish. The differences are too many, much like Romanian and Aromanian. --Anittas 05:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Andreas' comments. I think Node believes in a very odd, if scientifically-acceptable, version of linguists. I think, in pure scientific-linguistic usage, he is right in saying that a language is a set of morphemes for communications, etc, but in common usage, including in the study of linguistics, there is this notion of languages being separate entities, or, if not discrete, then at least standard points on a continuum. This is because, to a very great extent, language are quite discrete, particularly in recent times. Romanian speakers speak roughly the same language - with the same words, sounds, etc, and the next closest language to Romanian - Aromanian speakers - speak something that is quite significantly different to Romanian. This, combined with socio-politics, is why there is this notion of a "language" being not an idiolect - a personal means of communication - but a certain, standard method of communication used by more people. So, I don't think a lot of people here have anything against this page per se. Rather, they want it to state the history and usage of the term Moldovan language rather than saying "well, technically Moldovan is a language" when according to common usage it is not. Ronline ✉ 10:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right Ronline. I actually tried to explain this to Node but apparently he fails to see one elementary thing. A language is indeed a set of lexemes and usage rules. However, for a language to have a name this is not enough; it also needs to be sufficiently distinct from other languages. To put it in another way, if you have two apples that have fallen from the same apple-tree, you don't give them different names just because one has a tiny spot and one doesn't. That's how in linguistics you get to have French and Russian. That's why you don't have Bucharestian. Proper nouns exist for a reason. --AdiJapan 11:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're oversimplifying the issue. The reason these languages have names is not founded in linguistics. I have repeatedly given names of apples that differ by only a spot yet have different names. These languages have names because people give it to them. If the Netherlands weren't a separate country, Germans would most likely be calling the language of Amsterdam nothing but a dialect of German, which is what is done with other, usually unintelligible, German "dialects." Heck, there are people who still think that Catalan and Basque are Spanish dialects. The situation most familiar to me is the Philippines' where the vast majority of the 100-odd languages are called dialects for political reasons. Same for China.

The basic meaning of this message is to say that identical languages can have different names - and that doesn't imply that they are different. On the flipside, there are languages which go by the same name but are vastly different - the Arabic "dialects" and perhaps Inuktitut come to mind.

So when we speak of Moldovan, I don't think the differences - yes, they exist as far as I can tell - are being overstated and neither are the similarities being understated. It is simplying mentioning the political and linguistic realities of Daco-Romanian as spoken in Moldova. --Chris S. 19:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

However, for a language to have a name this is not enough; it also needs to be sufficiently distinct from other languages.

Disagree. The distinction between language and not-language is a purely political one, it doesn't need to be sufficiently distinct at all and there are no linguistic criteria of defining a language as distinct from a dialect. It just needs political or social will. That is what the page needs to cover. - FrancisTyers 13:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

and there are no linguistic criteria of defining a language as distinct from a dialect - Wrong, while there are no strict criteria, "structural similarity" and "mutual intelligibility" are applied in the study of languages. --Just a tag 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please direct me to a reference for the above claim. I must notify the professors in my department of the grave misapprehension they are under. - FrancisTyers 14:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=structural+similarity+linguistics&btnG=Search, search there for mutual intelligibility, you will be amazed. --Just a tag 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, please direct me to a reference or references for the above claim. You have not given me references, you have given me a search engine. Yes, I could spend a hour trawling through google looking for this mysterious reference you claim to have but I'm not going to do that as I believe it would be a waste of time. - FrancisTyers 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Modelling the Evolution of Linguistic Diversity. D Livingstone, C Fyfe - ECAL, 1999.. Syllable-based Dialect Classification and Mutual Intelligibility,CC Cheng Chinese Languages and Linguistics 1 Chinese Dialects. On the mutual intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese. JB Jensen - Hispania, 1989. Quantifying Dialect Mutual Intelligibility. CC Cheng - Huang and Li,(eds.), New Horizons in Chinese Linguistics, 1996. Measuring Relationship among Dialects: DOC and Related Resources. CC Cheng - Computational Linguistics, 1997. But I bet you'll say now you are too lazy to look at them as well. Also look at Haugen's 1966 publication on semi-communication. --Just a tag 16:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not. Having just submitted an essay on the topic of language change, I found Modelling the Evolution of Linguistic Diversity. D Livingstone, C Fyfe - ECAL, 1999 very interesting. It does not however support your claim that there are linguistic criteria of defining a language as distinct from a dialect, unless I've missed that part in which case I encourage you to point me to the paragraph/sentence that illustrates your claim. I shall try and find the other papers although I expect I will find a similar issue. That is that they don't support your claim and you are merely trying to waste my time, which is not the case as I find them very interesting. Perhaps I should try emailing Dr. Livingstone to enquire as to his criteria for distinguishing a language from a dialect? - FrancisTyers 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've read a number of papers that cite Cheng96, none of them claim that there are linguistic criteria of defining a language as distinct from a dialect. There are many interesting models of measuring difference between a number of dialects or a number of languages. I don't doubt that Moldovan and Romanian are as identical as say Indonesian and Malaysian, Serbian and Bosnian, North Korean and South Korean or American English and English English. What I do dispute is that there is a linguistic criteria for distinguishing a language from a dialect. You haven't presented one and none of the papers you cite present one. In short, you are wrong. As a matter of interest, are you a linguist by profession or education? I'm puzzled as to why you'd refer me to all these articles that don't support your claim, perhaps you have difficulty understanding what they actually say? Or perhaps I am wrong and you are going to spell it out for me? - FrancisTyers 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A language is just a politically promoted dialect, but since we ARE talking here about dialects then there must be a certain consensus between linguists of what is a dialect and what is not, even though as I acknowledged it is NOT strict (as in certain set of rules). I said and I quote: "structural similarity" and "mutual intelligibility" are applied in the study of languages, are they not ? Albeit structural similarity does not work for some languages (for example Serbian vs Croatiar), it IMHO works in case of Romanian-Moldovan (because you end up having an exact match). One can argue that "mutual intelligibility" is probably not even a linguistic criteria but still I think it is used (for example, why someone from Moldova when going to Romania understands everything and is understood in return without any extra effort, you are as a linguist not allowed to make any conclusions based on that ?). I'm a physicist, not a linguist, so I'm more than sure that you know all of this linguistic stuff better than me, but instead of jumping at people with phrases they've heard a million times (no creteria, etc..) try to understand that if there is a certain consensus between linguists on this issue THEY USED some sort of criteria to judge it, that's how human mind works. I'm sorry that you feel that I'm trying to waste your time, in that case, please ignore my messages. --Just a tag 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see where the confusion comes from, as I said previously: Who decides to make something a language or not ? The answer is obvious - the one who has the power, so this article is about the name and the use of that power, not the language , I already acknowledged that a language is not the object of study. So it seems I was just trying to show you the dialect vs dialect criteria, yet you wanted language vs dialect. Sorry for the confusion then, I'm wrong on this one. --Just a tag 01:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all, but none of these arguments was new to me. I thought that a RFC is meant to attract opinions of editors that are not directly involved in the subject. As far as I can see, the same editors that have already filled 10 archives of discussions on this subject within a month are repeating themselves again. I would suggest that you start a section or subpage and allow only 'new' visitors to post a maximum of 50 words each. Andreas 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not just politics on the root of the problem. More than 200 years ago, some "cultural" differences initially separated Americans of Canadians or French of Belgians (or French Switzerland).

• There is an article about pogroms in the Russian Empire (Kishinev and Dubasari) and another one about Odessa massacre of 1941. Meanwhile Wikipedia doesn't present an article about the destruction of the Romanian Jews in the time of WWII. Due this relatively recent event, a large part of the inhabitants of the Republic of Moldova consider themselves too good to be Romanians.
• The great Soviet people (Moldavians included) achieved great results in every aspect of the social life. Nevertheless, no ordinary Romanian inhabitant (the majority) of RM could show a bit of advantage from being "Moldavian" speaking "Moldavian".
• The quality of Romanian language taught in time of Soviet Moldova was poor. That is, Moldavian was intended to be the bad vocabulary awful style Romanian. It's no surprise that there is no proof of "Moldavian" literary activity. Three hundred years ago, Dimitrie Cantemir was the one and only "Moldavian" writer achieving world fame. It is an ironical situation as he introduced in Europe the theory of the language and ethnic unity of Daco-Romanians.
• The Russian experiment of "Moldavian" is not a success story -at least not for Romanian Moldovans. Actually, Russia is trying to improve the cultural experiment with a new version, the so-called "Nistrean" people recently developed on the East part of Moldova. --Vasile 16:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Grigore

References to a "Moldavian language" can be found in works as early as Grigore Ureche's "Chronicles of the Moldovan Nation",

Who the hell changed that to this? That's not how you translate the title! Moldovan nation? No!The Chronicles of the land of Moldavia. Moldavia, not Moldovan!!! Mikka, please change it back! Node, if it was you! --Anittas 01:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Please add this in the first paragraphs

The introduction of the laws concerning the functioning of the languages (September 1989), which still applies [9], asserts the linguistic identity between the Romanian language and the Moldovan language[10].

It is well cited, and it refers to the Moldovan law. If that will not be inserted in the article, and further reverted, I'll ask the comunities to block all users that interfere do any reverts to this paragraph and start a discussion on wikipedia mailing list, as the policy of Wikipedia allows to use cited texts (and we are not talking here about opinions -- this is the official statement in the law, this statement has same status as the statement about the language of Moldova beeing Moldovan). Also as it is cited by the Moldovan legislation, it should be inserted there just after the paragraph "A significant number of (...) beyond the Republic of Moldova." So we don't have now the problem of identity, because that was driven out by the legislation of Moldova. --Danutz

Please, can anybody direct me to the wordings of the assertions of the linguistic identity between the Romanian language and the Moldovan language? I do not read Moldovan, but as far as I understand, [11] does not mention language at all, and [12] is not a law but a human rights report. Andreas 15:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Art. 13 al Consituţiei Republicii moldova prevede că limba de stat este limba moldovenească şi alfabetul latin. Legea privind funcţionarea limbilor (sept.1989) menţionează în prefaţa sa despre existenţa identităţii lingvistice dintre limba moldovenească şi limba română. Păstrînd în minte prevederile constituţionale menţionate mai sus, Comitetul consultativ foloseşte ternenul “limba moldovenească” în opinia curentă, fără a lua în consideraţie dacă aceasta este sau nu o limba separată de limba română. And from the site: Articolul VII. (1) Legea din 1 septembrie 1989 cu privire la funcţionarea limbilor vorbite pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova rămîne în vigoare în măsura în care nu contravine prezentei Constituţii., and please call the language Romanian :) (and yes, I am from Moldova). -- Just a tag 16:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. The constitution does not mention Romanian directly. The human rights report is a secondary source. Does someone have access to the wording of the appropriate paragraph in the law of Sept 1st, 1989? Andreas 16:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have links on this article about a girl going with a group of students to Chisinau and "she heard" blah blah in a maxi-taxi, and so her conclusion are generalized into the article :) I think a human rights report to be of more trust than a student who spent a day or two in Chisinau. Anyway, there was a site with all the Moldovan law articles on the net, but it has been brought down due to some copyright violation issues, and it's kind of hard to find a law from 89. --Just a tag 16:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

JAT, that's an outright lie. You need to read the article before making such accusations. [13] [14] It says nothing about hearing something in a maxi-taxi. In fact, if you read the chronology of events, she wrote one of the articles from careful research BEFORE going to Moldova, and the other after returning. She said "Having studied ... the development ... of languages in ... Soviet ... Moldova, I expected that people would be eager to eliminate Russian elements from their language and culture and promote their native Moldovan/Romanian language and culture very strongly. During the time we spent in Chisinau ... this assumption proved to be incorrect."

Now with regards to your lies... "a student in a German class at Chisinau University explained this phenomenon to us in the following way: 'If you want to ask something and address a stranger in Romanian, you might have to repeat your question more slowly, because he doesn't speak Romanian that well. Finally you might have to ask your question a third time, because you may find that he doesn't speak Romanian at all. It's easier and saves time if you speak Russian.'" Maybe you disagree with that... well, she got it from an interview, and her article is a verifyable source. It's not a log of personal opinions, but of firsthand interviews with local people, and of research she did before going to Moldova. Don't make comments if you don't read itfirst. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.35.52.232 (talk • contribs) .

Outright lie, you say, okay, let's go, In the minibuses, for example, we heard hardly any Romanian, so ? where I was lying once again (remember maxi-taxi=minibus) ? And don't worry I've read what she wrote. Could you please tell me how much time exactly she spent in Chisinau, once again ? And I wasn't attacking what she was "studying before coming", but rather the fact that she spent a short amount of time IN Chisinau, and her whole experience is based on interaction with a limited amount of people. And it's funny how if she asked a local, for you it's so important, yet when other people from chisinau tell you something different you suddenly don't believe that they are from chisinau ? You're funny, Node :) And could you tell me please how that http://www.east-west-wg.org/cst/cst-mold/a_dia.html is verifiable ? --Just a tag 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, don't respond to anonymous users as if they are me. I, for one, am well-aware, unlike the anonymous user, that she did indeed refer to a minibus/maxi-taxi in her article. But how does that make it invalid as a reference? It's not as if that's the sole basis for the article. The amount of time she spent in Chisinau, or how many people she interacted with is totally irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant, is that she did field research. Now, just because you're supposedly from Chisinau and you disagree with her, doesn't mean you have the opinion of the majority. You could be fabricating untruths for political motives, or any number of other things, and for that reason it is in your best interest to back up your supposedly factual statements by citing sources. Now, I wouldn't say that that site is verifiable per se, at least not easily (if you had a team of counterintelligence agents at your disposal, you might possibly be able to find the interviewees, but that's not possible here), but it is certainly reliable according to the guidelines for reliable sources -- it's not from a blog or personal website, it's not a partisan website (on the contrary, another article there by a different author expresses more unionistic views), it's not from a bulletin board or USENET posting. The organisation to whom the website belongs can easily be checked and made sure it exists. I would say that counts easily as a reliable source. You accuse me of saying that anybody who disagrees with me must not be Moldovan. Well, I should in turn accuse you (and your friends, or should I say your puppetmaster and his friend and other puppets) of saying that any source which disagrees with you is not reliable. --Node 05:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at 1, 2, 3 and of course people's favourite 4, you dare say now it's not you ? --Just a tag 08:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

When did I say it wasn't me? I said "Please, don't respond to anonymous users as if they are me". And it still stands. Any good Wikipedian asks a user to confirm that they really made an edit before assuming it was them. And how does any of that have to do with the discussion here? Did you suddenly decide we'd talk about me and IPs because you have no response to any of the things I said? --Node 11:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I, for one, am well-aware, unlike the anonymous user -- MPD ? =) No, Node, I decided to talk about that because I understand that a person who says that "I am A" and "I, unlike A, know that.." does not follow ordinary human logic :) --Just a tag 11:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Do you have any arguments against the points made in the previous posts, or do you prefer to continue to resort to invalid ad hominem arguments?

Irrelevant ? How is it irrelevant if you never acknowledge that you are wrong, when you are. It is not ad-hominem:

1. Node_ue makes claim B (B = "I, unlike the anonymous user, know that ...", while "anonymous user == Node_ue")
2. I point out that B is dubious
3. I claim that there's something objectionable about Node, based on his claim B.

Ad-hominem would imply me commenting the rest of your claims on the fact that I find something objectionable about you, did you see me saying "You are irrational, therefore your arguments about the relevance of the Nissler source are wrong" ? - now that would be ad-hominem.

No, ad hominem would imply you making any argument based on my character, which you have certainly done here. It is entirely irrelevant. --Node 23:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the source:

1. An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion., in the article her opinion is enforced as a fact rather then the fact of an opinion.

And what is her opinion?

1. When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence (see Harvard referencing) or using a footnote

I don't see her opinion here. She based her second article on factual reporting, from interviews, etc.

1. Find out what other people say about your sources.

"Other people"... who might these other people be? I only see one or two people on this page. The rest...

1. What is an independent secondary source? making similar claims.

For what? Pretty much everything she said is corroborrated by some document or another by D. Dyer or M. Bruchis.

1. Nowhere in 1 (and in Moldovan language article) it is mentioned that the study trip was in 1997 (just 6 years after Moldova gained independence). The fact the information is outdated has to be mentioned somewhere. (Imagine EU experts judging the state of Romania based on a report from 97). --Just a tag 09:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm... do you have a more recent source? Last time I checked, the best source anybody here could find to support your view of Moldovans not speaking Russian at all was Anittas and his Letopisetzul references... tried to use them to support a view of the current situation. Now, which is older, L.T.M., or Nissler's essay? --Node 23:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well of course, asking a taxi driver is own research. On the other hand, a 'real' encyclopedia should be based on 'hard' evidence. One of the many prioblems with Wikipedia is that most sources that are taken into account are those found on the web. This is because it is too much work for a volunteer to go into the libraries and dig out the hard facts. Maybe somebody will volunteer to do that. In science, citing web sources is regarded as bad praxis because they are volatile. Is there any other independent source on the web that cites the paragraph in the law of 1989 pertaining to the identity of Moldovian and Romanian? However, I agree that a human rights report is a good source and for the time being can be regarded as good enough. Andreas 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but unfortunately one particular editor here believes that any source is good and then we end up having Diana Nissler's words on Wikipedia bringing us "the truth" about Moldova, heh.... --Just a tag 17:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Andreas, solltest vorher mal gut die Quellenangaben durchlesen, in den man aus der Konstitution ausgegeben wird, und zwar dass das Sprachgesetzt aus 1989 noch im Kraft sei. Der Raport vom Europäischen Rat meint nicht das Moldawisch und Rumänisch identisch seien (es interresiert dem Raport nicht), sondern es sagt dass im Sprachgesetzt von Moldawien die Identität von Rumänisch und Moldawisch erwähnt ist (und zwar im selben ´89gen Gesetzt). Ich glaube, dass der ER nicht lügen wollte, wobei der Europäischen Rat nur aus dem Gesetzt anführt. Das Sprachgesetzt von Moldawien ist nicht ins Internet verfügbar, aber im Raport des ERs finden wir das wesentliche. Die übersetzten Versionen der Anführungen, findest du hier --Danutz

Tolle Arbeit Danutz.

Please writ in English, other editors want to konw what you are saying.

Thank you for the link to the note. Andreas 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries, most understand :) --Just a tag 17:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Was glaubst du Andreas? Wir sind nicht dumm. Du kannst auch hier gucken:

TITLE VII - FINAL AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

..............................

Article VII.

(1) The law of 1st September 1989 regarding the use of languages spoken throughout the territory of the Republic of Moldova stays in force to the extent that it does not trespass on this Constitution.

Und auch hier Andreas:

Even the Latin alphabet was changed back to the Cyrillic alphabet. Also, during Soviet rule, Romanian speakers were encouraged to switch to the Russian language, this being a prerequisite for higher education, social status and political power. In 1989 Romanian was declared the official language of Moldova, and the Romanian version of the Latin alphabet was restored as the official script. After the independence of Moldova in 1991, the constitution that followed acknowledged Moldovan as the official language. A 1996 attempt by the Moldovan president Mircea Snegur to change the name of the language to Romanian was dismissed by the Moldovan Parliament. In 2002 the government of Moldova tried to give the Russian language the same privileges as Moldovan, and it was declared to be a mandatory foreign language in schools. This created a wave of indignation among the Romanian-speaking majority of the population, and rallies against this decision were organized in Chişinău and other major cities. In 2003 a Romanian-Moldovan dictionary (authored by Vasile Stati) was published, suggesting that the two countries speak different languages, although the linguists of the Romanian Academy declared that all the Moldovan words are also Romanian words. Even in Moldova, the head of the Academy of Sciences' Institute of Linguistics, Ion Bărbuţă, described the dictionary as an "absurdity," serving political purposes. On the 2004 census about two thirds of the Romanian-Moldovans declared their mother tongue is "Romanian" and only one third "Moldovan", which is dubbed by the press as the reason why the official census results were delayed.

Na was glaubst du nun Andreas? Sag mal bitte.

I had read this before. 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So will the note be or will it not be introduced in the article? Can an admin introduce it, or could someone unblock the page? --Danutz

• Please write what exactly you suggest.mikka (t) 19:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Yes of course it will be introduced.

I don't suggest. I impose, as it is well cited.

The introduction of the law concerning the functioning of the languages (September 1989), which still applies [15], asserts the linguistic identity between the Romanian language and the Moldovan language[16].

--ro:Utilizator:Danutz

Danutz, if it's really a Moldovan law, you should be able to give the exact quote from the legislation, instead of providing external sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.35.52.232 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 20 December 2005.

Moldovan is identical with Romanian. Period.

I think you shouldn't let yourself in the continuous circle that troller Node and his company are trying to do. They are just trying to get you involved in an endless circus. Actually they don't have any proof that they are not identical. They are trying but without success. So, just ignore them and that's all. Moldovan is not even a dialect (although they try to induce in error the reader), is simply identical. Romanian is a unitary language. I will present some more proofs just to show them again something they like so much. -- Bonaparte talk 14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Language Policy in the Soviet Union - by Lenore A. Grenoble

The Moldavian SSR

The history of Moldova typifies the naming difficulties seen elsewhere in the USSR. The historical changes that the region has seen, coupled with changes in names, can result in great confusion. Here I use the term Moldova to refer to the modern state, and Moldovan that variety of Romanian spoken there. These are currently the most political netrual terms and stand in distinction to the Soviet terminology of Moldavia and Moldavian; in Soviet times the region was called Moldavian SSR, a term used here to refer, specifically, to the Soviet Republic. Moldavia was the label to refer to the principality under Ottoman suzeranity in the 19th century as well.

Historically Moldova and Besserabia, a territory lying between three rivers (the Pruth, Danube and Nistru), were part of a region disputed by the Ottoman empire and tsarist Russia. Moldova became an independent state in 1359, and then accepted Lithuanian sovereignity in 1396. In this early period Old Church Slavic served as the official language for both liturgical and non-liturgical writtings, including government documents. In 1812, Russia annexed Bessarabia; the population of the region was approx. 80% Romanian at that time (72% in 2005!!!), and in a move that foreshadowed Soviet policy, the tsar set out to dilute the ethnic make-up of the population by encouraging immigration into the region. Jews who immigrated were exempt from millitary service; Bulgarians and Gagauz Turks were given land and financial inducements to settle in the south (Eyal 1990:124). One long term result of these policies is that urban centers, even to the present, are dominated by non-Romanian groups, while the Romanians are more likely to be found in rural regions. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was matched by similar uprising in Bessarabia, which demanded independence from Russia and sought a union with Romania.

The Soviet government never did recognize this union, and it disputed the ownership of Bessarabia until its annexation in 1940. In the meantime, in 1924 the Autonomous Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was founded on what had been Ukrainian territory bordering Romania along the Dnistr River. Part of this territory was later incorporated into the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1940 with the annexation of Bessarabia and Northwest Bukovina. What this means is that the actual geographic territory of "Moldavia" shifted somewhat in the early decades of the USSR. The particulars of language policy changed as well, but one clear theme emerges: langauge was manipulated in order to create an ethnic identity for the inhabitants of, first, the Moldavian ASSR and, later, the Moldavian SSR. Similarly, the ethnic distribution of hat was called "Moldavia" by the Russian/Soviet government changed as well. The 1897 (tsarist) Russian census, which indetified the population in terms of language, not ethnicity, found an area to be 47.6%Romanian, 19.6%Ukrainian, 11.8 Yiddish, 8.1 percent Russian, 3.4% Bulgarian and 3.1 % German (Tronitskii 1897:226-231). In contrast, the Moldavian ASSR was created out of the territory which included a large part of what had been Ukraine, and did not include any of Bessarabia (with its heavy concentration of Romanians). Accordingly, its ethnic make-up was quite different, with only 32% Romanian, but 46% Ukrainian and 10% Russians(Bruchis 1982:54).

Thus the Soviet government bagan a campaign to create a Moldovan ethnic identity, a Moldovan language, distinct from ethnic Romanians and the Romanian langauge. Yet this attitude was not without its difficulties. While the official policy was that the Moldovans were a separate nationality, this sense of identity had to be created and supported. This was a very regional policy, i.e. limited to Moldavia, which was formulated in an attempt to create a distance from Romania. And this sense of a distinct identity without letting it become too divergent. Language played a central role in this game. Key Soviet linguists emphasized that this Moldovan code was a language distinct from Romanian, with some vacillation in this policy throughout its course. Because of the various changes in policy, they should be catalogued chronological, in detail.

(Now do you see how dangerous and politically motivated are the edits of Node and the pro-soviets????)

The Moldavian Autonomous SSR, created in 1924, had, as we have seen, a largely Slavic population. Just prior its actual foundation, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine as given the charge to develop the national Moldovan language (Deletant 1996:56). Quite possibly with that goal in mind, the Cyrillic alphabet was introduced for written Romanian in the region, in a symbolic gesture distancing this new Moldovan language from Romanian, and at least visually bringing it closer to russian and ukrainian. It was used until 1933 when the Latin alphabet was (re)introduced for Moldovan, along with the orthographic reforms which make the Romanian - Moldovan links clear. It is unclear what precipitated this change. The Latinization movememnt which had begun in the 1920's for the rest of the country was already on the way out by the time Moldovan made the change to Latin in 1933. Thus Moldovan shows the opposite pattern; a shift from latin to Cyrillic in 1924, and then from Cyrillic to Latin in 1933, a direct contradiction of national level policies. In this case the change of alphabets may be the result of external policies, with the early shift to cyrillic an attempt to distance Moldovan from Romanian, and the shift back to Latin coming at a time when the Soviets were attempting to make cociliatory gestures toward Romania.

(to be continued)-- Bonaparte talk 21:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanian = Moldovan, according to Moldovan law

"Articolul VII" from "Titlul VII" of the Moldovan Constitution:

(1) Legea din 1 septembrie 1989 cu privire la funcţionarea limbilor vorbite pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova rămîne în vigoare în măsura în care nu contravine prezentei Constituţii.

The law of 1 September 1989 regarding the usage of languages spoken on the territory of the Republic of Moldova remains valid, excepting the points where it contradicts this constitution.

And here's a quote of the law:

(Legea cu privire la functionarea limbilor vorbite pe teritoriul RSS Moldovenesti Nr.3465-XI din 01.09.89 Vestile nr.9/217, 1989)

RSS Moldovenească sprijină aspiraţia moldovenilor care locuiesc peste hotarele republicii, iar ţinînd cont de identitatea lingvistică moldo-română realmente existentă - şi a românilor care locuiesc pe teritoriul Uniunii RSS, de a-şi face studiile şi de a-şi satisface necesităţile culturale în limba maternă.

Moldavian RSS supports the desire of the Moldovans that live across the borders of the Republic, and considering the existing linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity - of the Romanians that live on the territory of the USSR, of doing their studies and satisfying their cultural needs in their maternal language.

(later on the same law)

În conformitate cu Constituţia (Legea Fundamentală) a RSS Moldoveneşti limba de stat a RSS Moldoveneşti este limba moldovenească, care funcţionează pe baza grafiei latine

According to the Constitution of the Moldavian RSS, the official language of the Moldavian RSS is Moldovan language, which is used with the Latin alphabet.

Since the Moldovan constitution does not say that "Romanian is different from Moldovan", the 1989 law which declares the "linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity" is still legally valid. bogdan 15:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bravo Bogdan! Romanian = Moldovan, according to the Moldovan law - I agree with you. Bonaparte talk 15:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources:

• Legea cu privire la funcţionarea limbilor... -- full text (of 1989)
• Moldovan Constitution -- "Titlul VII" (of 1994)

bogdan 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for another perspective. However, I fail to see how this adds anything new to the debate. Or, is there something that I am not seeing? Also - it says SSR - back when Moldova was part of the Soviet Union. Surely the constitution of the independent Moldova negates this, no? --Chris S. 18:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This law is still valid, and there are unfortunately no new versions of it, and since it mentions SSR pretty much everywhere then if it would count if it's there or not we wouldn't have any law regarding the functioning of the languages. Only the parts that contravene directly with the constitution (like russian language being also an official language) are considered invalid. :) --Just a tag 19:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As for something new to our discussion, this proves that the linguistic identity is asserted in the main RM law regarding languages! --Just a tag 19:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I hope you're satisfied Cris. And let me tell something by now, if I ever catch you and Node with trolling I will just redirect you guys to the old disscussion. Read the archives first. -- Bonaparte talk 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm satisfied, Bonaparte. Though, I'll reiterate what I said earlier where I said that it contributes nothing new, perhaps a little redundant. But this is really minor, so, yeah I'm ok with it. --Chris S. 02:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris, what you have been missing is that the law is still in force according to the constitution of Moldova. But no ofence? Are you people stupid, or you just act stupid? I and Bogdan, cited this thing 10 times and you ask further: "is this valid?" when the link to the constitution of Moldova, where you can find the article stating that the law from 1989 still applies (is still in force), is just below the link to the law. --Danutz

Oops. Stupid stupid me. Ok, I don't think stupid is right word. Perhaps hasty. I was at work this morning when I read this, and I guess I missed the above because I was pressed for time. My bad! That's what I get for not waiting to respond until I get home. --Chris S. 02:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If you would have read only the last section Talk:Moldovan language#Romanian = Moldovan, according to Moldovan law you would have understood that. --Danutz

The phrase is added into the intro. mikka (t) 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei

"Când s-au aşezat Pătru Vodă de a doao domnie la scaunul său, 7049 fevruarie 19 zile."

Node_ue, where did you got the Cyrillic spelling for it? The current version, "Летописецул Цэрий Молдовей", is using some curious hybrid between the Old Romanian Cyrillic and Moldovan Cyrillic.

The spelling was probably "Летописецул Цьрый Молдовей", but I cannot be 100% sure: the spelling varied over the centuries, so it would be best to find a good source about it. bogdan 22:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan, please don't assume I'm the origin of the current spelling. I actually wrote it in Old Romanian Cyrillic, But JAT changed to to Moldovan Cyrillic without giving any reason. --Node

Yes, I see. But Still you haven't answered whether you made the transliterration or you got it from a book. You see, for example for "â" there were three letters used "Ы", "Ь" or "Ѫ". By the 19th century, they were reduced to one: "Ѫ", but as you see, in the image in the right side, "â" in "când" is actually "Ь" (soft sign). bogdan 13:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No bogdan, I made it. It could very well be incorrect. --Node 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you wrote it in the current cyrillic alphabet, if you want to use the Old Romanian Cyrillic then you'd have to type something like in the picture at the right. --Just a tag 10:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tag, you changed it to the current cyrillic alphabet. You are making lies. I wrote "Летописецул ЦьрѪй Молдовей". You changed it to the current Cyrillic alphabet. I did not. I wrote it in old cyrillic. --Node 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I modified it, because it looked rather odd on my screen (then I replaced it with a proper reference with ISBN and all, but it got reverted), if it's wrong, please modify it, but I still think it would be better to have a proper reference to a romanian version that can be found in libraries and in stores. --Just a tag 22:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy disagrees with you. The original origin of a quote or of information is always to be favoured over republications.

A quote from the Policy: Remember though: the most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease.. And References typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the name of the publisher, and the date of publication. --Just a tag 08:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong... --Node 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I found this page of the Letopiseţ manuscript on the internet: as you see it has quite a few diacriticals. :-) bogdan 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Neat graphics on top =)) --Just a tag 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Source

Please add the sources (respectively the Constitution and the link to the Law) of the paragraph concerning the identity. Otherwise after this discussion will pe archived, people will ask for the paragraph to be eliminated. Also change the text to: the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity" ("realmente existentă"). A, and not superceded (that word doesn't exist), the law "is still effective". So the text should be:

The 1989 law on language of the Moldavian SSR, which is still effective in Moldova according to the Constitution [17], asserts the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity". [18]

The [[1989]] law on language of the Moldavian [[SSR]], which is still effective in Moldova according to the Constitution [http://www.parlament.md/law/constitution/t7/], asserts the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity". [http://www.iatp.md/ladom/downloads/M3.doc]

--Danutz

"Linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity" is bad English. --Node 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Your "Bucharestian language" is not bad English, it's called terrorist manipulation and inducing in error, plus outrageous propaganda. I need references that there exist Bucharestian language and explain one more time why do you think that there is Bucharestian language and Moldoromanian. And explain one more time if you still belive that there exist or not. I would like very much to see your answer. Bonaparte talk 11:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should I explain one more time? One time should've been good enough for you already. --Node 22:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the references must be in place, and also, the wording must be closer to the original. As for superceded (sic!) - that's just an obvious typo for superseded, still, IMHO it's not the best possible choice in this context... --Just a tag 13:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Write Bucharestian Romanian in stead? Is one of you (admins) willing to change the paragraph about the identity, as I wrote it here? Or unblock the page. Mikka, what you have done is interpreting the Constitution. In the constitution it says "Legea (...) rămâne în vigoare" (that means "remains effective", or "is still effective", how you prefer) and not "is not superseded" (wich I guess it means "nu este înlocuită?!"). --Danutz

I'm unlocking it, hoping that there won't be any reverts wars. Also, to the person that used the 213.201.165.238 open proxy: don't do that again, your real IP or account. bogdan 21:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Language shift in bessarabia section

The section "language shift in Besssarabia" which was inserted a while ago by Bonaparte is still almost 100% unsourced, despite the fact that it has had {{fact}} tags on it for quite a while now.

If nobody adds more sources soon, most or all of that section should be removed. As far as I can tell, nearly everything in that section of any importance whatsoever is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Also, that section strikes me as exceedingly POV, and the English grammar used therein is still very poor despite attempts of various native English speakers to bring it up to quality. --Node 22:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm

So how is this situation any different from the last block ? :) Node_ue again pushing exactly the same changes, nothing changed :) --Just a tag 23:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Same example four times

Node_ue, do you have any reason of having the same example four times ? (la mine, la tine, la noi...) Once is enough... bogdan 23:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not "the same example". It's different uses of the same principle. Do you have any reason not to have all four? --Node 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any reason not to have fifty examples ? One example is enough. bogdan 11:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Fifty examples clutters the page beyond the point of usefulness; four examples is much less and takes little space. If only one example is needed here, then why are all four given in the cited work? It's for "cementing the principle", it is commonly done when giving examples in linguistics journals, you give 2-6 examples for one concept usually. --Node 11:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know linguistics journals usually have more examples, but this is not a linguistics journals. It's an encyclopedia and the article is supposed to be much shorter. bogdan 12:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Supposed to be much shorter"? Then why not remove Bonaparte's sections? They're basically repetition of other stuff from the article, are likely copyvios, and so far he has only given one source for the entire long section, and they're certainly POV. They take up about 1/4 of the article right now... --Node 12:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why we have a reference to Dyer's paper, if someone wants to look at more examples, they are more than welcome to do that. --Just a tag 12:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I already told him about that a couple of times already, but he doesn't care much about people's opinion :) --Just a tag 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Next time block him Bogdan for sabotaging the consensus reached on talk page! -- Bonaparte talk 08:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Artsimovich vs. Arţimovici

A. Arţimovici, official of the Education Department based in Odessa [...]

<personal attack removed Node 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)>

Bonaparte, this guy was a Ukrainian official in the Russian Empire, so the English transliteration should be used, not the Romanian one. bogdan 09:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, but can you make a little order here? It's seems that there is one fellow that despite the effort of Joe (Joe made a list where only 10 points are left to be discussed) is just making a revert war. You know him very well. His name is Node. He constantly put "virtually" which is against consensus. I was blocked for defending myself for being labelled as "koncenii". This guy was never blocked for labeling others as "koncenii". I want justice. Bonaparte talk 09:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, blocking is preventative, not punitive. Even if "koncenii" WERE a personal attack, which it isn't, no administrator in their right mind would block me for it now considering how long ago it was made. You should be familiar with the process now -- somebody is warned once, usually they are warned one or two more times after that, and if they continue the unacceptable behaviour, they are blocked. You have gotten the full attention of many admins, including MarkGallagher, Ambi, David Gerard, Mikkalai, Oleg Alexandrov, and obviously Bogdangiusca and Ronline. If none of these people has blocked me, what makes you so sure somebody is suddenly going to for something that happened so long ago? You are wasting everybody's time by telling people "Oh he said 'koncenii' a few weeks ago please block him!". It's quite clear that you've asked various people again and again to block me for the same alleged infraction, and they have continuously declined. Despite all of the nasty things you've said to me, I only watch for new ones, instead of whinging endlessly about old ones, especially when they're not really nasty things.--Node 11:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and, if you love Joe's version so much, why is YOUR version so different from it? Why are you making your weird changes instead of reverting to Joe's latest version? And you accuse me of "making a revert war"... --Node 11:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I ignore this personal attack. Bonaparte talk 11:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's a vital fact: Your version is very different to Joe's most recent version. You keep acting like Joe's version is holy, and yet your version differs from it even more than mine does. --Node 11:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you put one more time the word "virtually" I will ask an admin to block you since it's against consensus. You were told many times. That shall be "preventative". You should focus on the other 10 points left by Joe. Bonaparte talk 11:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your version is very different to Joe's most recent version. You keep acting like Joe's version is holy, and yet your version differs from it even more than mine does. How many admins have you already asked to block me? A lot. And how many complied? None. Many admins are watching this page. If I do anything against the rules, they will be rushing to block me. --Node 11:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Node, stop reverting

Node, stop reverting and start explaining why do you think the changes which were made by several editors are bad and you need to revert them. bogdan 12:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

See the change by Anittas earlier today. That one is essential. He reverted the changes I made. He also reverted the talkpage, which removed some stuff I'd said.

Revert wars take multiple people. You are reverting too. It's not simply of a matter of reverting from old to new, in this case it's two approximately contemporary versions.

Also, the version you keep reverting to has lots of stuff from Bonaparte which is unsourced, POV, etc., such as "are in fact indentical". It also removed every last one of the examples from Dyer -- not just a couple of them, but all of them. What needs to happen here is, both versions need to be combined. -Node 12:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It was sourced, but you never bother to look at notes. The article now is very good. :) LOL Bonaparte talk 08:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Node, take a look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=32568231&oldid=32542071, you neglected all my changes and just reverted to your own version with the only change of adding some "Vladimir Taranev". How do you explain that ? --Just a tag 12:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the wrong way to see if somebody has reverted "to [their] own version" or not. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldovan_language&diff=32568231&oldid=32531638, as you can see, I didn't neglect all of your changes. Besides, did you compare it with the current version of the article? And when you are going to make dozens of edits in a row, as you did, you should either make them in a single edit, or spread them out over a period of time. --Node 12:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding or something ? Have you actually looked at my changes ? You only added Taranev, and a weird 2.7 mil figure (where is it from ? if from infobox, then look at the year again and think about the last census, and think why you used the word _speak_), AND THAT'S IT, you neglected everything else. And don't tell me how I should edit, by editing in a row I explained in the summary what I did and why I did it. And how come you tell me to compare to the current version when you reverted all of my previous edits without consulting ?? --Just a tag 12:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

1) Yes. Your changes were radical, and were all being discussed at the time, and no agreement had yet been reached. There is WP:BOLD, and then there is outright provocation by making changes which people are currently already discussing without waiting for the outcome. 2) The 2.7 mil is from the 1979 census. Practice is to use the most recent census for which numbers are available. As far as I know, the exact language numbers from the 2004 census are unavailable; the best source is a tertiary source, a Romanian newspaper, which actually gives a percentage with vague wording rather than an actual number. Prior to 2004, no census asked questions about languages after 1979. 3) A lot of the edits, you didn't. 4) Because the version you just reverted to, and to which Bogdangiusca reverted, didn't contain your edits either -- they got lost in the mix. --Node 13:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Radical changes? I was quoting Dyer word by word from his article, radical ? Your interpretation of the Dyer's article is POV, Specifying that an AEGEE trip was in 1997 is radical ? Saying that the two standard languages are identical is radical ? (Ask Dyer) It's impossible to discuss with you, because when it comes to acknowledge something, you just shut up, you don't reply and that's it. This is called trolling, Node. --Just a tag 13:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please specify how my "interpretation" of Dyer's article is POV. I basically paraphrased what he said. If you copy word-for-word, you need to signify it somehow. Specifying that an AEGEE trip was in 1997 is not radical, but implying that a statement is not true because it originated from interviews conducted on said trip, without real refuting evidence, is indeed radical. Saying that two standard languages are identical is indeed radical, when the very sources cited for that very statement say otherwise. It's not that I refuse to acknowledge things -- it's that your interpersonal skills are lacking to the degree that I got fed up with you and no longer wanted to discuss things in that chat because you were taunting me in a manipulatively annoying way:

(24/12/2005 [06:59:50]) phys_rules: don't tell me what to do

Obviously Node doesn't want us to show the parts where asked for concrete evidence he tells me to "Go and research". --Just a tag 08:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The point of quoting the "don't tell me what to do" is that right after you said that, you told me what to do. --Node 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

...
(24/12/2005 [07:01:37]) phys_rules: My point is stop putting cyrillic symbols there

After that I suggested him asking other editors from Moldova (and listed them) if they agree with Node's insertion of cyrillic. How taunting of me... --Just a tag 08:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, the point is that right after you told me not to tell you what to do, you told me what to do. --Node 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(24/12/2005 [07:02:07]) phys_rules: if they agree with you inserting cyrillic symbols everywhere

You know very well that I was referring to the moldovan related articles, you seem to like adding things like "Raionul Cimislia (Moldovan language: R-nul Cimislia)" which again shows how much you want to push your POV. Why you don't add that to America related articles ? Something like "Wall Street (American language: Wall Str.) maybe ? And the fact the you managed to put moldovan cyrillic even to Chisinau article ? You are pushing a POV, which is "Moldovan Cyrillic is highly important in Moldova", which you cannot prove, is not backed up with hard evidence and when asked for concrete evidence where it is USED (except the obvious transnistrian official web page) you tell me to "Go and research". --Just a tag 08:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, no, the main purpose of those edits was to revamp those pages. See my discussion about those edits with Oleg Alexandrov. And those have nothing to do with Cyrillic because I didn't put Cyrillic on those pages. Now, what's wrong with putting Cyrillic on the Chisinau article? It is historically relevant. I'm not pushing a POV. I never said anything about anything being highly important. I don't think Cyrillic is "highly important". I just think it's relevant, which it certainly is. --Node 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(24/12/2005 [07:02:16]) phys_rules: Òû äàæå ðóññêèé íå çíàåø

Since it seems Node doesn't have russian characters on his computer, that's what was there (24/12/2005 [07:02:16]) phys_rules: Ты даже русский не знаешь (translation: "You don't even know Russian")

That would certainly qualify as taunting (and I do have Cyrillic support, just not on IRC). In fact, it qualifies more as taunting than if it was just random cyrillic symbols. --Node 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(24/12/2005 [07:02:17]) phys_rules: :)

Now do you see how that was taunting? Telling somebody to stop "inserting cyrillic symbols everywhere" is already exaggerating things (everywhere?!), but then to just type some random Cyrillic characters is definitely taunting, especially when you follow it up with a smiley face. --Node 04:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Again you start circular discussions (then you'll ask me how come it's circular, I will show you proof, then you will say "how that is relevant to the discussion?", and so on). I am not going to reply to any more of your messages because I find you to be an unrational person, who enjoys disrupting the process of editing a page (moldovan pages in particular) and even during the holidays you act like a ....not a very good person.... As for using irc logs, would you mind posting what you replied there to me (the "fuck yourself in hell" part) ? Bye, bye, Node, please don't bother answering me, you won't have a reply back. --Just a tag 08:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Disrupting the process of editing a page"? You've constantly reverted my edits on many different pages, that is certainly "disrupting" by your measures. And yes, I did say that. Why did I say it? Because you were obviously not willing to have a rational discussion. You were intent on taunting and bullying me until I bowed to your will, which is a tactic I do not sit and watch, so I gave some harsh language, and left. Fortunately for me, the rules of Wikipedia don't extend to IRC. If they did, lots of people would've been blocked a long time ago. Notably, you have regularly said nasty things against me in #wikipedia (don't think I don't have access to the logs). --Node 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Node you can't refrain yourself or what? What you do is called persistent vandalism. You'll be blocked for this. -- Bonaparte talk 08:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

1) What you removed was not a "personal attack". If you feel that it is, however, you are welcome to address your concerns to User:MarkGallagher who has promised to try his best to spot personal attacks here and take care of them. 2) How many times now have you told me I'll be blocked? And yet, you are always the one who ends up getting blocked. Only administrators can block users. Every threat you make against me of administrative action is essentially empty -- it's not your power to use. --Node 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Vladimir Taranev

Who is this Vladimir Taranev? I can find no google results. bogdan

Oops, it's a misspelling. Taranov is the correct spelling. He is a correspondent member of the ASM. --Node 12:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Far more controversial was MCP's intention to replace the History of the Romanians textbook, introduced in Moldovan schools in 1995, with a History of Moldova textbook. The Moldovan history was written at President Vladimir Voronin's request by a group of historians led by the controversial Vladimir Taranov, the father of the Soviet-era theory of "Moldovenism." According to this theory, Romanian and Moldovan are two different languages, and Moldovans and Romanians are two distinct nations, Moldovans being Slavic and speaking a mix of Latin and old Slavonic, while Romanians are descendants of the Romans speaking a Latin-based language. This theory is not embraced by any serious Moldovan or foreign specialist. By emphasizing Moldova's separateness from Romania, MCP also tries to counter those pro-Romanian Moldovans who want to form a union with Romania.. EECR Volume 10 Nr.4, --Just a tag 12:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That guy is Bulgarian. --Anittas 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? Taranov, although controversial, is a correspondent member of the ASM and, like Stati, he supports the idea that Moldovan and Romanian are entirely separate languages. --Node 13:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Node is pushing a POV

Node_ue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pushing a POV. Let it be blocked forever. Nobody211.78.161.178 13:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Alright, I've protected this page. I haven't blocked anyone for revert warring tonight, and I don't intend to if I can avoid it. Instead, y'all can just sit here on the talk page and play nice with each other. If you can hammer out a compromise version, that would be tops, but frankly I'll settle for nobody participating getting blocked for disruption. Be good! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

finallyConstantzeanu 16:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all the editors here :) It wasn't easy to keep up with this page, and I guess it won't be easier in the future either, but let there be peace at least for a week or so and everyone, enjoy your holidays. I'm sorry if my words have ever offended you, don't forget after all this is webspace where it is easier to go over border or something. And the most important thing: do not forget, wikipedia should be about fun, not wars or reverts, if it's not fun, then there's no point. Once again happy holidays for everyone (including you, Mark :) --Just a tag 01:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Mulţumesc! Crăciun fericit vouă! :-D --Chris S. 01:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Crăciun Fericit and a Happy Hanukkha to all. I hope everyone is enjoying the Holydays :)Constantzeanu 22:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

priviledge -> privilege

Can an admin please do the spelling correction? --Slashme 09:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)