Talk:Megleno-Romanian language

message: I've just overhauled the English of the article, but two passages were rather obscure, and my recasting might have changed the intended meaning.  Could those involved have a look at the new version, and let me know whether or not I've understood the original text correctly?  If I haven't, I'd be grateful if you could explain what was actually meant, and I'll go back and correct my revision.  Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected one of your revisions. It wasn't a big mistake, but a clearer formulation was required. Alexander 007 06:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of questions 

message: * "Moglenitic" -wikipedia: 0 hits
* "Megleno-Romanian" 1940 hits
I rest my case. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megleno-Romanian vs. Moglenitic 

message: : from the official policy of Wikipedia regarding Naming conventions:
::If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources.
: The most common name of this language is "Megleno-Romanian" and it's the one used in works such as the Ethnologue and Encyclopedia Britannica. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming policy 

message: :The term "Megleno-Romanian" has been used by linguists who noticed the similarity to the Romanian language, as well as by certain Romanian nationalists who claim the language as a mere dialect of Romanian and its speakers as ethnic Romanians, even though they themselves self-identify as a people called Vlahi.
Need I say more? Sentences like these just don't belong in an encyclopedia. It is utter bullshit that calling a certain variant a dialect of another language consitutes any claim of their ethnicity. Linguists are politically neutral and when the cold-hearted truth is that Megleno-Romanian is extremely similar to Daco-Romanian, well, you can't do anything about it. Which fact does not essentially make them Romanians, of course. Another ethnic identity does not automatically consitute a different language. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 10:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The linguists noticed. Ridiculous. This section needs more reword. To politically loaded.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I think the title should be changed to MEGLENIAN language, because it represents better the reality.
The term Megleno-Romanian is a misleading one. It gives from the start the impression that the language is a dialect of Daco-Romanian. It is true that there are different points of view about its origin, but as they are only theories, it can be discussed in the ’’ origin & history ‘’ section . 
Taken into consideration the geographical area, where the language is spoken and the low level of mutual intelligibility with the modern Romanian, the title should be :  Meglenian  language !
We can not continue with theories of the XIX-th century, when all Eastern Romance languages were considered dialects of Daco-Romanian.Verginia's star (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Reliable sources" in Wikipedia is explained in the guideline WP:RS. In general, it would be helpful if you tried to learn how Wikipedia works. You could continue by reading WP:V about verifiability, which is a basic principle in Wikipedia. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD explains how editors are supposed to co-operate in order to build the encyclopedia. By the way, the formula "commonly used ... in reliable sources" is not my invention. It is stated in the guideline WP:COMMONNAME which I gave the link to earlier, but which you obviously have not bothered to read. --T*U (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  - The title of the page ! 

message: During the last month,  has made a huge number of edits to this and related articles, many of which have been improvements. The problem, however, have been that those edits mostly have been without proper sourcing. Also, the lack of edit summaries have made it hard to follow what has been going on. In many cases, the additions have taken the form of commentary, giving it a look of original research. I have tried to follow up the Aromanian language article somewhat, among other things with tagging of unsourced additions. The sheer volume of edits have made it impossible for me to follow up more.
In the early hours today (UTC), the user made a number of large edits to the article, among them some major changes in the lede. These were reverted by  with the edit summary "These edits are neither explained nor verified." Verginia's star reverted immediately (for once including an edit summary: "which edits, specifically?") and continued editing. I have now reverted this last bout of edits to the article. It is necessary to take a time-out for some discussion.
The changes to the lede include:
*changing the name of the language used by the language speakers themselves from Vlăheshte to Meglãneshte
*removing two alternative names (Meglenitic and Moglenitic) for the language that have been in the article for years
*adding one virtually non-existent name (the editor's preferred name Meglenian) for the language
*adding a name for the speakers (Meglens) that is not mentioned in the article Megleno-Romanians or anywhere else I can find
*removing info about where the language users live
Some of these changes may be correct, others are definitely wrong, none of them are sourced. They need to be discussed and sourced before re-entered. Suggested reading for participants: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS. --T*U (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time-out 

message: 1) The name of the language used by its speakers is Meglãneshte  or Moglãneshte and not Vlăheshte !
Vlach, Vlãheshte, ta Blaxika, Vllaçe, etc. are all of them EXONYMS!
No one among Romanians, Aromanians, Meglenians, describe themselves or their language as Vlach!
The ENDONYMS are: Romãn, Armãn, Meglen!
2)  Maybe the two alternative names (Meglenitic and Moglenitic)  have been in the article for years, but they are WRONG!
Both terms are Greek and are used only by Greeks in order to describe the language!(ta meglenitika or ta moglenitika)
The general term is MEGLENIAN or MOGLENIAN language!
3) The name for the speakers is not mentioned in the article Megleno-Romanians, but that doesn't mean that it does not exist!
Have you asked yourselves where the title of the language comes from?
And don't tell me that it comes from Megleno-Romanians, because the second component of the term is an INVENTION of Romanian scholars, the same like Macedo-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Proto-Romanian...According to them everyone in the Balkans is Romanian and speaks Romanian!  
Anyone in Albania, Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria call them MEGLENS or MOGLEN people and no one calls them Megleno-Romanian! 
4) I didn't remove any info about the area where they live, I just put them in an order.Verginia's star (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see you giving sources for any of your claims. Especially I wonder how you can claim that "Meglenian language" or "Moglenian language" is what you call "the general term" when they give respectively three (all identical) and zero hits in a Google search. Also, you did remove info about the area they live in from the lede, where it certainly belongs. --T*U (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of new edits!