Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 12

message: What's the status? I was going to unprotect but I want to hear where things are first. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the sort of page that if you unprotect it now, it will become a site of revert wars again. Node_ue will come with his anti-Romanian porpaganda, Romanian nationalists will come with theirs and nothing will get done.Constantzeanu 19:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, please. Anti-Romanian? Moldovenism isn't anti-Romanianism. --63.225.223.77 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhm. Right. Well thanx for hiding your name. I can only guess that it is the one and only Node-ue. If I am wrong then Node please excuse me. In any case create an account MR. X. Constantzeanu 05:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, this is Node ue. Mark, please don't edit anonymoulsy, nothing good comes out of that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a helpful comment. Please make an account and contribute productively. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So 

message: I would like this source to be added to the article:
The Annals of Jan Dlugosz; ; page 593; A.D. 1476
"The Bessarabian soldiers, who share a language and customs with the Walachians and know their secrets and domestic affairs, are able to inflict more damage on them than can the Turks"
Note: Dlugosz refers to Moldavians as Walachians and sometimes will mention The Voivode of Moldavia's Walachians; while the southern Wallachians of Wallachia are mentioned as Bessarabians, and their country as Bessarabia. Sometimes, however, Moldavians are called just Moldavians. Dlugosz was talking about the Battle of Baia. --Anittas 17:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The source of Jan Dlugosz 

message: Oleg, as much as I tried to do it your way, sorry, but it doesn't seem to work. As I said before, this article cannot be discussed paragraph by paragraph, simply because we did not agree on what should be included in the article. Actually, it is still not clear if this article is about a language. It is actually about the dispute around the name of a language. There are some pretty silly things in the article such as the language infobox. Several fields in this box are simply illogical, and cannot be made logical: Spoken in, Total speakers, Genetic classification, Regulated by. All you have as valid info is where it is official and the language codes.
I suggest we actually talk about what information this article should contain, and leave phrasing for later. We've been trying to paint a house that doesn't have walls yet. — AdiJapan ☎ 05:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents

message: Here is a brief history of the subject at hand for the uninformed visitor which should help him understand why the name "Moldovan" cannot be used as a language name without misleading the uninformed reader. So, consider a language which appeared sometime at the beginning of the millennium with a surprisingly degree of uniformity (fact which was used by some to place its birth place in a much more confined territory, possibly south of Danube). Centuries after, in XIV-th century, the population speaking the respective language – called Vlachs of Wallachs by foreigners – suddenly jump into history as inhabitants of two princedoms initially formed as anti-tartar buffer marks by the kingdom of Hungary: Moldova (or Moldo-Vlahia or Moldua) and Walachia (or Muntenia or Tara Romaneasca). So, attention, the proto-Romanian language long preceeds even the word "moldova" and it is highly improbable that at that time it was even used on the actual territory of RM.. (For instance, the Slavic elements in Romanian are almost exclusively south-danubian.) Further on, the first known documents written in Romanian date from the beginning of XVI-th century and were written in the north of Walachia and southern Transylvania. However, in the second part of  XVI-th century, there is an explosion of mostly religious translations (most likely due to the Lutheran propaganda in Transylvania) and the bases of the literary Romanian language are set by the work of a guy named Coresi whose language is a combination of the north walachian (same as south transylvanian) and moldavian speech (since some of his books are revised versions of religious books previously translated from Slavonic in northern Transilvania and Moldova sharing the same type of Romanian subdialect). The sole name of the language is everywhere “româna” or “ru/ro/mâneste”. In the respective extended period, the only cases when the language is called “moldoveneste” (see e.g. Neculce) is in the sense of “language of a those living on a territory called Moldova”, while the actual name of the language is “româneste” (see Miron Costin who clearly states in XVII-th century about the colloquial speech in Moldova: “One do not ask “Do you know moldavian?” (Stii moldoveneste?) but “Do you know Romanian?”  (“Stii romaneste?”  from Latin “Scis romanicae?””). Later on, at the beginning of XIX-th century, Russian empire seizes the eastern part of Moldova along the Prut river. Attention, there was no large town on the respective territory and the sparse population was rural. The remaining part of Moldova is already involved in the Romanian nation-building, including the development of a literary language by massive borrowings mostly from French, Italian and Latin. In fact, the contribution to the vocabulary and grammar from writers from the Moldavian province is overwhelming. However, none of the respective writers, or literary critics or linguists calls the language Moldovan. Ever! Meanwhile, the Russian seized territory - renamed Basarabia - is subject of colonization and the aboriginal language becomes more and more a patois under the pressure of Russian. By the beginning of the XX-th century, the language called Romanian is a fully developed modern idiom, with a rich literature and technological lingo, well established regulatory institutions and documentation. In 1918, Basarabia becomes part of Romania and the state opens hundreds of schools in Romanian in order to revert the effects of the russification. That is pretty much the first time when the Russian and soviet authorities realized that they must invest more propaganda and social engineering into diverging the course of the Basarabian population from its Romanian course. One initial solution was to create an artificial language based on a very contaminated dialect from a Transnistria – a territory which had never been even part of the medieval principality of Moldova. The project fails, and the new solution was to simply confiscate the literary Romanian language (together with some censored classics from the Romanian province of Moldova), write it in Cyrillic alphabet, dub it “Moldovan”, pretend that it has nothing to do with Romania where the language “was infested by French language” and voila!, once the territory is reconquered from Romania there is a new language and a Moldavian literature separated from the Romanian one… The trick is just to repeat as much as possible that these artifical constructs exists, in order to instill this idea in the minds of the uninformed visitors which may even pledge for the Moldovan right to not be what they actually are. For example, a well intended visitor may innocently believe that Romania puts some cultural pressure onto the Moldovans to Romanianize their own cultural achievements, while the truth is that, unfortunately, the Romanian cultural establishment doesn’t even care too much about what’s going on in RM. The biggest pressure for synchronization with the cultural life in Romanian comes from within RM, from the local intellectuals – writers and linguists – and institutions responsible for regulating the language. For instance, the most prestigious literary magazines from RM – such as Contrafort and Sud-Est – circulate even more in Romania, part of the Romanian common cultural space, than in their own country. In fact, most writers in Romanian language from RM consider Romania as the main market for their creations, inasmuch as RM suffers from a disturbingly influent Russian speaking environment.--MarioF 18:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A short history for the inocent visitors

message: Although it's almost certainly a mistake, I've unprotected this article anyway, because it's been protected for almost a month and that's just unwiki.  Try not to edit war quite so enthusiastically this time, guys; by editing this article now, you agree that your New Years' Resolution is to stop getting upset over Moldovan language.  Happy editing! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a fresh start for a fresh year 

message: I have a problem with the following statement:
The number of Moldovan speakers depends on one's view of the status of Moldovan. If Moldovan is taken to mean Romanian spoken in Romania and Moldova and by the Romanian/Moldovan diaspora, then there may be as many as 29 million speakers.
We can't argue that there are 29 million Moldovan speakers, when only around 1.3 million people claim they speak Moldovan, which is already mentioned in the infobox. A better thing to say would be that Romanian is spoken by xx million speakers. But I really don't see the point of the above statement. Also, the 2004 census data is out AFAIK, so why use the 1979 data? The 2004 census mentions 1.2 million speakers.  Ronline ✉ 10:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does ? where ? www.statistica.md doesn't know about it. ---Just a tag 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part with 1.3 or 1.2 mil Moldovan speakers has to be erased. First of all, all we know from some newspapers is that 1/3 of the population said Moldovan and 2/3 Romanian. Those 1/3 is really a rough estimate. It could be 1 million, 900.000 people or even as much as 1.5 million. This is an encyclopedia. Let's not put words in other people's mouths. To say that there are 1.3 or 1.2 mil. Moldovan speakers goes against wikipedia rules about trying to post your own personal research. Let's stick to 1/3 of the population like the newspapers say. Official Moldovan data on it has not been made public yet so let's refrain from making such estimations based on Node ue's urge to push for a "Moldovan language". We can argue that if Moldovan is ment to mean Romanian, then there are 29 million such speakrs in the World. So that sentence is perfectly fine, in my opinion. Also the infobox should be gone. This article is about the name of a language, not about a language itself. I will refrain from erasing the infobox though because I do not want to start a revert war. Someone however should after we all agree on it. Constantzeanu 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Constantzeanu. Trying to say that N speakers speak Moldovan/Moldavian is silly, because they're speaking Romanian, yet to say that all Romanian speakers are speaking Moldovan is sillier. The infobox should go, and anything not directly related to the orthographical or phonetic differences in the Moldovan vernacular should go. Overview-History-Differences-Controversy-Sources would be a great outline for the new article. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Klaw's point about "to say that all Romanian speakers are speaking Moldovan is sillier". That's why I disagree with the saying that there are 29 million speakers of Moldovan if it's taken to be the same as Romanian. While all Moldovan speakers can be argued to be speakers of Romanian, you can't say that all Romanian speakers are speakers of Moldovan.  Ronline ✉ 22:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed statements 

message: ===Intro===
Moldovan language is the official name for the Romanian language in the Republic of Moldova and in the territory of Transnistria. Most linguists consider standard Moldovan to be identical to standard Romanian, although one Moldovan linguist (Vasile Stati) has disputed this. There are, however, more differences between the colloquial spoken languages of Moldova and Romania, most significantly due to the influence of Russian in Moldova which was not present in Romania. The matter of whether or not Moldovan is a separate language is a contested political issue within and beyond the Republic of Moldova.
"Moldovan" (graiul moldovenesc, in older sources limba moldovenească) can also refer to the speech of the historical region of Moldavia in Romania, one of the northern varieties or dialects of colloquial Romanian.
Moldovan may be written in either the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets.
===History===
(as is)
===Controversy===
The 1989 law on language of the Moldavian SSR, which is still effective in Moldova according to the Constitution [3], asserts the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity". [4] Title I, Article 13 of the Moldovan Constitution, names it the "national language" (limba de stat) of the country. In the unrecognized state of Transnistria, it is co-official with Ukrainian and Russian.
Despite the official nomenclature, standard Moldovan is widely considered to be identical to standard Romanian. (sources) 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"[32]. 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."[33].
According to newspaper reports about the most recent Moldovan cenus, about 2/3 of all respondents declared their language to be Romanian.[35].
===Orthography===
(as is)
===Comparison===
(only if folks feel this section is necessary ... I think it belabors the point)
----
Thoughts? | Klaw ¡digame! 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested rewrite

message: (only if folks feel this section is necessary ... I think it belabors the point)
----
Thoughts? | Klaw ¡digame! 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: It's good. And I have to agree that the "comparison" section is not required. Btw, one more thing, can the history go to "History of the moldovan language" or something ? --Just a tag 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with the suggested rewrite above. I think a comparison is good but the history should be moved to another article that deals only with that since it is too long and takes too much space here.Constantzeanu 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all for the comments. I removed the infobox and the comparison section. I farmed the history section out per your suggestions, and I wrote one original paragraph as a summary stub for it. The only problem I see with my rewrite is that some of the endnotes probably have lost their refs earlier in the article. I hope this rewrite provides a useful new template for everyone to work with. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did well. Thank you! --Candide, or Optimism 21:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Linguists do not recognize Moldovan as a language distinct from Romanian (see what Ethnologue says), so there's no point in having that box, which is supposed to be used for actual languages. bogdan 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, if one wants to see the linguistic affiliation, one can look at the Eastern Romance languages box with Daco-Romanian, etc. bogdan 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said above and previously in the archives, linguists do not recognize other languages as being "distinct" from another but yet they have their own infoboxes.  I have given Malaysian/Indonesian, Serbian/Croatian, German/Dutch, Valencian/Catalan, Hindi/Urdu, and others as examples. --Chris S. 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really disagree with your comment here Chris. I also disagree with your attempt to compare the Moldovan-Romanian case with other cases like Serbian-Croatian, German-Dutch, Hindi-Urdu or Malaysian-Indonesian. This case is unlike any other cases you have presented here so please try to refrain from doing that in the future. I suggest either some serious research on the subject (on your part) or some Romanian language lessons first before making such bold statements. Everyone else contributing right now to the article has done either one or the other. And please don't take this in an offensive way(because this is not my intent) but to say that Romanian-Moldvan is like German and Dutch is just wrong. I think even "scholars" like Stati will tell you that. Moreover, I think that Klaw was right to remove the infobox. Remember Chris, that this article is not about a language, but about the dispute about the name of a language.Constantzeanu 00:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm studying Romanian right now and I do see them as one language. But that is not the point. Furthermore I am afraid you are not seeing my point with the languages I am comparing them, see dialect continuum for more information. But back to my point. Why does Romania get to call whatever they have a language but yet Moldova cannot?  In the end they both speak Daco-Romanian. --Chris S. 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, you made me curious, can you explain briefly why you do not see "them" – Romanian and “Moldovan” - as one language? What do you mean by "dialect continuum"? Do you suggest that the language named “Moldovan” in the Constitution of RM, i.e., the language used in newspapers and books has its roots in the cumbersome language spoken colloquially nowdays on the streets of Chisinau or in the rudimentary language of the rural population? In your opinion, when did "Moldovan" language become a language developed enough to write a modern Constitution? Anyway, read my previous comments about the specific linguistic situation in this country. And who exactly is your "Moldova" which is not allowed to have a language, in your opinion? The overwhelming majority of the writers in RM are active part of the Romanian cultural area, the language studied in schools is curricularly called Romanian, the Moldovan Academy is repelling the name "Moldovan" as inaccurate... The only academic institution worldwide which studies Romanian under the name "Moldovan" is in the breakaway region of Transnistria. Then, who is "Moldova" demanding for a language? What is the regulatory body of this language? If there is a Moldovan language, can you give several names of writers using it in a coherent and independent way? --MarioF 01:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, from a linguistic perspective I do not see Romanian and Moldovan as separate languages. They are both part of Daco-Romanian. Similarly, I do not see Indonesian and Malay as separate languages.  Second, due to the fact that the Daco-Romanian in Moldova has been given a new name of Moldovan, then I do consider it a separate language by law just as Indonesian and Malay are separate languages by law.  Calling them languages on this basis does not in no way imply that they are linguistically separate. Neither should the presence of an infobox.  Now, one of my arguments is that on what specific mechanism can one remove the infobox for a language like Moldovan when it is perfectly acceptable to have infoboxes for languages in a similar position?  Saying that it is basically Romanian is not sufficient reason because others have argued that some language is basically another but the infoboxes are preserved.  --Chris S. 01:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't answer my questions? Please, could you ask yourself "What language was renamed "Moldovan""? Do you have the details about the political situation in RM when the Constitution you keep in bringing about voted the name "Moldovan"? Do you realize that, sticking with your “by law” over-conformism, you promote the ridiculous situation when several politicians (mostly of them former soviet nomenclatura and kolkhoz engineers) voted in 1994 a language name considered by the intellectuals in Moldova as a Stalinist symbol? In your opinion, since the language called “Moldovan” in the respective Constitution was developed in Romania under the name of Romanian at a time when Russian was official on the actual territory of RM, do Romanian have a say in the whole argument? In your opinion, since you seem to be so into the “by law” argument, what is more lawless: 
# stealing a language and several chunks of a literature and renaming them in order to control better a population about to be denationalized, or
# disregarding a language name voted in the Constitution by some soviet postcolonial politicians against the will of the Moldovan intellectuals?--MarioF 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are three comments regarding the infobox on this page, all favoring its deletion. There are no comments in favor of retaining it. And since the consensus is that this article is not about a language at all but about differences in nomenclature (and to a lesser degree orthography), the infobox is out of place here. That's why the infobox was removed; I'm not sure why you're demanding greater consensus than what we already have, as several others have chimed in and/or edited since the rewrite without lamenting the infobox's absence. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  The linguists recognize all those languages. All of them have their own Ethnologue entry, even if they are only dialects. Moldovan does not has its own entry. Ethnologue simply says Moldovan is an alternate name for Romanian. bogdan 00:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flemish has an Ethnologue entry but yet people are not making an infobox for that.  In any case, I am seeing that no one is listening to my arguments and I find myself repeating and repeating.  Let's do it this way. We'll hold a week-long poll based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Straw_polls and Wikipedia:Current_surveys. Any action taken will be the result of a clear consensus (75%-80%) and not by a majority (50%). I'll respect any consensus arising from this poll. --Chris S. 00:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then someone has to come up with the text, then we'll have to make sure to explain the situation to everyone, then comments, comments, comments, replies, replies, replies, ...., what was I talking about ? Ah, right, polls, so, all of that for what ? Because you think it's a good idea to keep it, your argument being "others have it", why don't you make a poll for Flemish while you're at it ? --Just a tag 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  There's no need for a poll! The editors here: bogdan, constantzeanu, just a tag, klaw and anittas make already a consensus, even though you oppose. Usually, polls are not made when one or two editors disagree with the rest. bogdan 00:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the long run, it will be better. I have not heard from Node in a while, neither do I think he knows about this. Whatever the case is, when he returns there will probably be an edit war again. This will hopefully prevent one as far as the infobox is concerned. Furthermore, we need more outside input. --Chris S. 00:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So basically what you are saying here that in the long run, each edit should be made via polls or otherwise will come node_ue and will start edit warring ? I mean am I the only one who finds that to be a bit ... odd ? --Just a tag 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is more likely to respect consensus. --Chris S. 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  More likely than who ? --Just a tag 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not whom, but more likely than not. --Chris S. 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, I am seeing that no one is listening to my arguments and I find myself repeating and repeating. We've all heard your arguments and it appears that everyone here disagrees with you. Solid counterarguments have been raised; you appear to be the user who is not listening. And yes, I too think a poll here is silly. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm sorry, I have not seen any "solid" counter-arguments. The arguments I've seen appear to be a misreading of my comments. --Chris S. 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then it seems you are the one who has been misreading, why don't you start a similar poll on the Flemish (linguistics) article ? --Just a tag 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't think it's fair to characterize disagreement with you as "misreading." That's more of the condescension I cited below. If anyone is misreading, it is you, offering the inaccurate analogy German:Dutch::Romanian:Moldovan. If people want the infobox here, it's fine with me, but I believe we had already reached a consensus on the new structure, and you have unilaterally overruled it, and are now mandating a 75% supermajority for anyone to overrule you. That reeks of page ownership to me. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sincerely think I am being misunderstood, condescension or not. My point with German and Dutch is that they are part of a dialect continuum just as Romanian and Moldovan are. I have stated in just a tag's talk page that a better analogy would be Malaysian and Indonesian. They are virtually the same language just as different as British English and American English are. But yet, each of these are treated as separate languages due to political reasons. There are other languages that are in similar positions as Romanian and Moldovan. --Chris S. 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, should I understand that Indonesians have been for more than a century under the occupation of some empire which first suppressed their language and then simply imported the Malaysian language renaming it Indonesian as an exercise of socio-cultural engineering? Really, you should be a wee bit more less pressumptions with your poor comparisons... In fact, if you don't want to sound ridiculous, any comparison should be preceded by a well balanced research. You may consider yourself like some kind of unbiased visitor saving the right of a small culture to define itself… Well, in this case, try to read more about the nature of this “Moldovan” language before intervening, since the only thing you empower with the symbols of respectability you’re trying to promote is a relict of the soviet propaganda perpetuated today in RM only by a communist party (mostly Russian speaking) and a part of the uneducated population which cares less about “limba decat ce-i pe limba”…--MarioF 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on suggested rewrite 

message: ...Up to where the language info box was.  It might look funny I have note even tried yet.  But without the info box the article formatting and length looks a bit worse, and then you have this very tall info box at the bottom all alone.  It might only look funny to me since I generally brows wikipedia in a 21" monitor at full screen but still.  Does anyone object strenuously?  Is there some sort of policy on that template about placement? Dalf | Talk 10:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to this. Can we narrow the box at all? It's quite wide on my screen. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What you guys thnk about moving the eastern romance languages template 

message: J.a,t, stop playing shrink at my page and take a pill yourself. You are reverting my text, so you owe me explanations. My position is plain and simple: Mold lang is officially the language of the state. And this official opinion of a souvereign state overwhelms all your opinions. Now, are you saying that you have more rights than the state of Moldova over Moldova's language?  mikka (t) 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK you reverted the article to the text that was before, without consulting with ALL THE OTHER editors involved, you ignored everything that has been discussed over the days. And I think _we_ deserve an explanation other than just "it's 40%, ok, it's 1/3" taking the data out of thin air again ? If you had good intentions in mind you would start by reading the talk page and then presenting your opinion on the matter, not just "I think it should be like this, everyone else shut up". --Just a tag 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1/3 was original text in the infobox, not out of "thin air". I don't know who and why put it there. The number 46% was discussed earlier, basing on the publication in Guardianul. If you have a better number, please provide it. mikka (t) 22:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guardianlul says that 41% declared their language as romanian (and there is no official data on this), it doesn't say anything about how many declared their language as moldovan. Guardianul also says that 34% declared themselves as Romanians, while the official data says 2.2%, since when we start putting newspaper estimates in an infobox ?Tthe article as it was did say that Moldovan is the official language, you may not like the formulation, but this is called contentual dispute that you would have to talk out here (as one would expect from an admin) rather then forcing your opinion. --Just a tag 22:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think I owe you anything. --Just a tag 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am no longer reading anything written in offensive language. mikka (t) 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you find my remarks offensive then I'm sorry, but I've found your behaviour even more offensive on the matter, it's not right to put your own opinion above everyone else's. --Just a tag 22:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a tag's behavior

message: I've noticed that there seems to be a dispute between Just a tag and Mikka, which while minor compared to what this page saw a few months ago, is still significant enough to potentially cause a revert war. Firstly, it would be great if neither of you broke 3RR. Secondly, please find a way to solve your disputes in a more constructive manner. One thing I have noticed here is that as soon as someone new comes, with different views, he is immediately pounced upon by the other users. This is not good. On the other hand, there is a justification - the users working at this page feel quite frustrated when they have nearly reached a compromise, often through hard work and prior negotiation, and then someone else comes, with differing views, and breaks that. Remember, though, that consensus is part of the Wikipedia working method, and we need to respect that and the many different views that come with it. So, I will give both of you some advice about how this dispute can be averted: 
*To Just a tag - please try to talk in a more constructive, neutral manner. I wouldn't say you've necessarily attacked Mikka personally, at least not in comparison to what's been done at this page historically. However, it would be good if you stop using words like "you are very close to acting like a troll". I don't think anyone has trolled here recently. It would be good if you wouldn't treat Mikka as some "arrogant outsider seeking revenge", but rather as a user with a different point of view, and try to constructively and with dialogue solve the content issue. That means that you should take more of his proposals with good faith, instead of just seeing them as an attempt to introduce anti-Romanianism on Wikipedia.
*To Mikka - it would probably be good if you engage in discussion more. I think just saying "Strike two" or "Strike three" to people causes quite a degree of annoyance, and that's not good. The point here isn't justice, it's not even trying to annoy the other user, it's negotiating a good solution for the article. Just a tag was right to an extent when he said "you just push and revert". Honestly correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you still see this as some "war against the trolls", where dialogue and ample justification isn't really necessary. You have made edit summaries that explain your edits, but overall it would be good if you really discuss the issues here rather than actually applying them to the article. It would be good if you wouldn't treat Just a tag as "troll" - which pisses people off because they don't feel understodd - but rather as a user with a different point of view, and try to constructively and with dialogue solve the content issue.
*:Excuse me, I don't buy your crooked logic. I don't treat his "like a troll". I even answered one of his concerns stated in neutral tone. It is he who treats me like a troll. So very nice meeting you again, putting blame upside down. I am saying here that I will not read any offensive text. I will be counting offensive remarks, just in case. mikka (t) 23:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so I should be saying "Bad, bad Just a tag. What you do is inacceptable and you will soon be banned". And that's mediation? It's true that he also treats you like a troll, but you should try to engage with his point of view more rather than just dismissing it as "chauvinistic".  Ronline ✉ 00:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked myself for, like, 240+ hours. So now I can violate 3RR 10 times :-) mikka (t) 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respecting each other 

message: :: The recent developments on this page can only be described as a step back and a result of disruptive changes. Please do not change anything, unless you come with sources to back them up. I think it has been properly established that Voronin himself and Stati himself have said that Moldovan is another language for Romanian. Unless you can come up with another reliable source which will say that in fact they have never said that, then leave the article alone.Constantzeanu 23:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Colleague,  constitution of the souvereign state is the most authoritative source for me. It says "limba de stat" ie, "state language", not "name of the state language". So please leave interpretations out of the intro. mikka (t) 23:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the 1989 law, "Moldovan" is just another name for "Romanian". That law is still valid, see the archives of this talk page. bogdan 23:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it does not say so in these words. It says  "the really existing linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity" (or do you have in mind another place?). I.e., it says "identity", but it does not say that "Romanian" is another name for "Moldovan" or "Moldovan" is another name for "Romanian". The law, unlike you, uses a careful non-discriminative phrasing. let me remind you about Trinity: three are the same, but we don't say that holy spirit is a synonym of God the Father. Limba moldoveneasca has the same right to be named as limba romana until people say otherwise. mikka (t) 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Linguistical identity" means that language A is identical to language B. Oh, for crying out loud, even Voronin says that there are no differences between Moldovan and Romanian. bogdan 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For crying out even louder, who disputes this? Did I delete this from the article? I am saying that if constitution says "limba de stat", it is "limba de stat", not "synonym of something". It has constitutional rights to be its own name, not someone's else synonym. mikka (t) 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not because you are looking only at constitution. One must look at the 1989 law as well. Both are in effect, by the way.Constantzeanu 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Constitution article and then I will answer you. (warning: no insult intended, just to make sure that we know the same things, or you understand yourself what I mean). mikka (t) 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Maybe it should include both pieces of information in the first sentence: a) that it is the official language b) that it is the name for Romanian. bogdan 23:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe: "Moldovan language is the official language of ... It is a renamed Romanian language with most linguist ..." Probably doesn't sound too good, but maybe it's a start. --Just a tag 00:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's exactly what I wrote. But this knee-jerk reaction with all-guns preemptive assault of j.a.t. makes me think you guess what. mikka (t) 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A debate on that matter is pointless now, as we're finally discussing something of essence here, which is exactly what was required. Nevertheless, I'll reiterate: you've made a radical change (by reintroducing the infobox and changing the intro text to the old one), hence my reaction. Were you to say: look guys, the intro doesn't mention that the language is official in Moldova, let's try to rewrite it a bit, I would endeavour to carry a constructive discussion, which would have led to a proper rewrite. I admit, I might have acted a wee offensive, but I'm writing that off to a "cause-effect" case. --Just a tag 00:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK lets say peace. mikka (t) 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. --Just a tag 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You again seem to totally ignore what I wrote. I am not disputing (and never disputed) that they are same languages. By the way, did you read Constitution article? And I disagree that the article is about the name of the language. There is much more to say. Otherwise we'd rather put it right into wiktionary. mikka (t) 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We diverge greatly on this one, I believe that the present article should be about the name of the language rather than the language itself (which is romanian). --Just a tag 00:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok firts of all, Mikka, the tone has to change. Notice how I am trying to make small talk and be nice to you so try to do the same. I am not ignoring what you just said. You are ignoring my point about the two pieces of legislature. The article should reflect both. If you do not think that this is about the name of a language, please come up with scholarly articles that prove beyind any doubt that Moldovan is a language in itself.Constantzeanu 00:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice how I am repeating for the third time: I am not denying that they are the same. I did not delete, never ever, this info from the intro.  Since you did not answer me whether you read the Constitution article for whatever reason, let me remind you that Constitution is  Basic Law, i.e., all other laws of the state are derived from it. In democratic states there is a Constitutional Court that may cancel laws that disagree with constitution. Now, my point is, that  the primary definition must be quoted from constitution. And then you may say whatever you want. Just like I wrote in the intro: "M.L. is the official state language. It is considered identical bla-bla-bla...". And your resistance to put Basic Law first baffles me. Can you explain the reason why you refuse to start the definition from what constitution says? mikka (t) 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I will answer your points one by one. Yes I have read the constitution. Yes, the constitution is basic law. I would never dispute that. That, however, does not mean that just because it is written so in the constitution it must appear here in the first sentence as "The language of Moldova is Moldovan." This statement is not clear at all. The reader will think that Moldovan is a kind of different language right of the bat. We had something similar before and it didn't go anywhere. Node ue wanted to change identical to almost similiar, then we got into revert wars, etc. etc. Also constitutions are sets of laws as well. Laws are subject to interpretations. Combining this constitutional article with the 1989 law, one gets the exact result as the first sentence currently states: "Moldovan is the official name of the Romanian language in Moldova". Remember mikkalai, this is not about a language, but about a name of a language and the controversies that arise with it. Constantzeanu 06:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: There is one similar case: Malay [...] is practically the same as or mutually intelligible with Bahasa Indonesia, the official language of Indonesia, but differentiated in name for political reasons. On the other hand, Indonesian [...] does differ from the Malaysian form in some ways, with differences in pronunciation and also in vocabulary, due in large part to the many Dutch words in the Indonesian vocabulary. Andreas 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't speak those languages so we cannot be the judge of your scenario. Nor do we care very much. We don't believe in proving a point by making analogies. --Candide, or Optimism 18:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point here is less the analogy than the idea that the specific situation in Moldova has to be explained to somebody who (like me) doesn't know much about it. Andreas 18:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Romanian language is not just pronunciation and vocabulary. --Vasile 04:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indonesian vs. Malay

message: I just wonder why so many of the editors who want to change the article from the current version are posting with IP's its pretty clear that they are probbly one of the editors with accounts who have been participating in the discussion.  Is it just that they do not want to be associated with their own edits? Dalf | Talk 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also have an idea as to who we are dealing with here. In essence it is only one ip: that is 128.something.something.something. What 128 is doing here amounts to vandalism. Things must be discussed first, sources must be presented and then we proceed with changes to the article. Also if trolling is the case here, I will ask an admin to check it out. Constantzeanu 03:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consteantzeanu, I resent your accusation, although you weren't explicit. Now, I am not that IP. I think that user should log in. BUT, I think what that user is doing is about AS FAR FROM VANDALISM AS YOU CAN GET -- see Wikipedia:Vandalism. People should discuss their changes ideally. But this is Wikipedia -- simply making changes to a page without discussing it first is encouraged, see WP:BOLD. Besides, did you discuss more than one or two of the massive changes you made to this article? No... And you asked for scholarly sources from me -- did you give any for your changes? No. My best guess is that that IP is a not-logged-in Christopher Sundita or someone else who has kept up with this debate. --Node 10:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats up with the IP's? 

message: Please see  -- I'm just curious, did anyone ever actually look at my changes? I've noticed that nearly all of the edits I've made to Moldova- and Romania-related articles recently have been instantly reverted, including a couple which were just spelling and grammar fixes. I'm beginning to suspect you folks are reverting on sight without looking at my edits. Now, that aside, as you can see, I made very few changes to the article.
Had I made more extensive or more obviously controversial changes, reversions would be understandable. However, in this case, despite the fact that they were accompanied by edit summaries, I would not hesitate to call these "unexplained reverts". Given the small extent of the changes, I think you should be able to enumerate specific objections to my changes. --Node 10:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Node, I would call that large extent of changes. Look at the difference between versions. And when you mix good changes (spelling, wording) with bad changes in one edit, you cannot expect the other editors to carefully revert just part of the changes. It's not practical. Why don't you edit in steps, one kind of changes at a time, starting with those which nobody would have reasons to revert? — AdiJapan ☎ 12:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Large extent? Hah. Most of the changes were addition of  templates, which you have no right to remove even if you dispute my other edits, or changing of wording from Constantzeanu (such as "Romanian language in Moldova" to "official language of Moldova" and other changes from judgemental POV wording to neutral non-judgemental wording). --Node 14:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to know, is it possible to get an IP check for sockpuppet for that IP and find out if it is Node ue or not. And if so can we get Node ue banned for life? Duca 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh, are you a troll? That IP is registered to the University of Minnesota  - I thought Node was 16 and lived in Arizona. Either way, that wasn't a very nice thing to say. I'd just like to make a few comments now: this article is located at "Moldovan language" - that means that Wikipedia is acknowledging it as a language (and not a mere dialect of some other language). In Wikipedia, regional variations of languages are usually in the form "region - language" - e.g. American English, Canadian French, Mexican Spanish, Egyptian Arabic and so on. If this article were full of Romanian POV, then this article would be at Moldovan Romanian. It isn't, so I think that the current version is totally acceptable. You can't ignore the experts: Ethnologue, Britannica, World Book Encyclopaedia, Encarta and the Country Studies of the Library of Congress all indicate that it is a Romanian dialect (part of the Romanian language). The title of this article, in my opinion is a sufficient concession and I think it should stay this way, as the Moldovan government recognise it as an independent language. There is no need to fill the article with the Moldovan government's POV as well as having their title. Of course, I don't really know much about this, it is just my ill informed opinion. Latinus 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Kalimera. You are pretty much right latinus. On top of all that you said, which is 100% correct, the Moldovan government according to the 1989 language law recognizes a Moldo-Romanian unity in the language and states that Moldovan is Romanian. As a result, yes they left that article 13 in the constitution where it says "Moldovan language"(a Soviet-era legacy) but in actuality the 1989 law makes it pretty clear that Moldovan and Roamanian are the same thing according to Moldovan law. Mos Grigore 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, yet another mysterious sockpuppet. I wonder whose it is :-))) Latinus 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you saw that a racist and unballanced user has called me a sockpuppet and now you go ahead and repeat the same thing. You want to check? Fine check and see if I am this same Bonaparte person.Mos Grigore 18:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just check Mos Grigore's talkpage. Ghirlandajo simply accuses him of sockpuppetry with no mention of who the operator is, and Mos Grigore responds by saying he is not Bonaparte. Nobody even mentioned Bonaparte. Hmm. --Node 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: :Bogdan, you can't just ignore the stuff I said and say there's consensus. Constantzeanu and Latinus replied, but only Latinus replied to the real issue (Constanteanu chose instead to heckle and PA me)
however, I actually replied to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoldovan_language&diff=38526056&oldid=38521212 bogdan 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Node, stop vandalizing the article. You just reverted it to some old version disregarding all changes (both bad and good, according to your position) that had been made. You had no reason to switch interlanguage links, to "restore" language into langage, and so on. — AdiJapan ☎ 11:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Node, you said this: 

message: Node wants to make the following changes:
*Add  to the statement that most linguists consider Moldovan identical to standard Romanian. I think that's unnecessary - every source I've seen refers to the official language of Moldova as Romanian and I have yet to see an independent source speak of a Moldovan language. As there is at least one linguist (who is far from neutral) who considers Moldovan an independent language, he is obviously in the minority. This is illustrated by the fact that there are very few publications (in the English language at least, that refer to an independent Moldovan language). Even Ethnologue, who is usually very liberal in declaring dialects independent languages (such as Yue Chinese), mentions Moldovan in the dialects section of their entry on Romanian.
*Use the phrase "back-and-forth territory grabs". This does not seem like encyclopaedic language to me.
*Use a lot of HMTL notes saying the sources do not say that. Completely unnecessary. Comments like that are for the talk page.
*Insert a fact template to the statement that the Academy of Sciences in Moldova consider it identical to Romanian - to be frank, I think that this is unnecessary as well. But, if a source can be cited, let it be cited. I am sure that a google search would find something.
*Move the Eastern Romance Languages template. This is obviously a POV issue, which I am not going to comment on. Whatever it is, it is silly to edit war over.
Obviously a silly revert war, despite assurance by Node that this version is more NPOV (how?), but adding fact templates do not make an article NPOV. Not ignoring Wikipedia:Avoid self references, it is obvious that you have not marked all the unsourced statements, only the ones you disagree with. If there is a section you disagree with, try using . --Latinus (talk (el:)) 11:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Latinus, the main point was changing things like "romanian in moldova" to "language of moldova". A "fact" statement doesn't imply something is untrue, it means that sources need to be cited. "back-and-forth territory grabs" was to avoid the "occupiers" vs "liberators" problem. --Node 11:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, well if this is all the changes he wants to make, then why the revert war? Besides, these changes are unnecessary. Constantzeanu 14:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your POV. --Khoikhoi 05:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences 

message: This talk page is really fun, I don't have to go to the movies any more... Andreas 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fun but at the same time I am worried about certain unsigned users who vandalize the article, instead of signing in, bringing sources and discussing changes here on the talk page. Constantzeanu 01:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies 

message: :Although  I do not speak or understand moldovan/romanian, I would like to make a comment. In the Chinese Wikpedia, :zh:Wikipedia:Main, there are three tabs on top of the page: 不转换, 简体, and 繁體
:Clicking on each of these tabs shows exactly the same text but using different characters depending on the locale of the user (simplified, traditional). Sorry, I do not understand Chinese either). Mybe some smart programmer can do something similar for cyrillic moldovan? Andreas 18:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made a script, while not perfect, may be ok. However, the problem is that we haven't met one Moldovan contributor that wants a Cyrillic encyclopedia. :-) The main contributors of mo.wiki are User:Node_ue, an American who barely speaks Romanian, a Korean guy who can't speak it at all and a few occasional Russian guys. bogdan 18:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bogdan has only been around for a few weeks now. Sadly for him, he didn't get to meet any of the folks who actually contributed, and he's only tried to hurt the project. Why can't he just leave it be? --Node 11:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Node, although I am certain that you have made valuable edits on various articles in diverse sectors of Wikipedia, I have to say that your participation in Romanian-related projects has frequently focused not on constructive improvements but on pushing a particular viewpoint which is not accepted by the majority of the members working on the articles. Although you may mock other users for trying to hurt the project, I cannot say that you yourself have greatly advanced Romanian-related projects (to which, surprisingly you have demonstrated an exceptional level of interest). Although the imput of all users is certainly welcome, you do not truly wish to accept the ideas of others or bow to reason, but for some obscure reasons are trying to push an archaic pseudo-scientific ideoology unto all articles related to Moldova or Romania. The greatest effect that your presence has had (and again I am solely referring to Romanian topics as I do not wish to commit the injustice of criticising your involvement on other projcets as I am not aquainted with it) has been to incite long battles between members and have only slowed down progress. TSO1D 02:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese Wikipedia