Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 10

message: :An index of archived previous discussions is at Talk:Moldovan language/archives.
Out of courtesy to reviewers of this page and discussion, please sign all of your contributions (new headings or comments) to this talk.
Previous discussions:
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive01 (prior to 05:25, 14 November 2005 UTC)
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive02 (05:25, 14 November 2005 UTC to 22:43, 16 November 2005 UTC) 
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive03 (22:43, 16 November 2005 UTC to 20:28, 18 November 2005 UTC)
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive04 (20:28, 18 November 2005 UTC to 18:07, 19 November 2005 UTC)
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive04 (20:28, 18 November 2005 UTC to 18:07, 19 November 2005 UTC)
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive05 (18:07, 19 November 2005 UTC to 00:19, 20 November 2005 UTC)
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive06 (00:19, 19 November 2005 UTC to 08:42, 03 December 2005 UTC)
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive07 (08:42, 03 December 2005 UTC to 22:00, 04 December 2005 UTC)
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive08 (00:56, 05 December 2005 UTC to 21:57, 05 December 2005 UTC)
*Talk:Moldovan language/archive09 (19:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Bonaparte, is there any way we can shorten that phase. It looks really long.Constantzeanu 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll ask for priest Garzo to help. -- Bonaparte  talk 20:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase 5

message: I wonder why it is vandalism when this anon reverts, but not when you guys do? Seriously, if you have problems with the currentversion, why can't you discuss it?? --Node 21:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's you User:Node ue. Are exactly the same as your edits. You are because I checked the IP and comes from Arizona - Pheonix! -- Bonaparte  talk 21:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not me... I did a traceroute, and it sent the packets to LA, which routed them to some other ISP in Phoenix, but the packets were lost after the 18th hop. So that means it could literally be anywhere. But I've never edited from a similar IP. Mine are always in the format of 6x.*, 24.*, or occasionally 7x.*. You're welcome to request somebody with the appropriate permissions use the CheckUser function, but I guarantee you they will find it's not me. If I really wanted to do something like that, I'd use a proxy on the other side of the world, like in India or China, because using one which is located geographically close to me isn't a good idea. --Node 23:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, I think any anon who displays such a pattern of behaviour should be warned, and if they continue such behaviour, they should be blocked in accordance with WP policy. And now some crazy IP just reverted it to your version it looks like -- happy now? --Node 23:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of [[216.253.3.138]] aka [[User:Node ue]]

message: Bonaparte's new sections certainly have some good additions.
However, they are spelt very poorly, and their English is so confusingly poor that some sentences are literally nonsensical. I made some minor fixes, but I also added  because there are almost no sources in the entire thing.
I'm also wondering if this may be a copyvio. From the looks of it, it's a direct (and poor) translation from a Romanian book or website which is most likely copyrighted. --Node 00:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonaparte's new sections 

message: The coming of Node has provoked another confusing giant addition to the talk page. When is this whole thing going to end? Node, I have nothing against providing sources, but I think that while you were blocked, we came to consensus here. It's not as if we all have the same opinions, as you can see by the fact that even when you were away, we were still arguing about changes. However, the debate was much more constructive. I think you're using these "sources" to justify changes that don't reflect the accurate situation of what's happening in Moldova. That's what worries me. Look at articles on Moldovan language at other encyclopedias, and compare it to the Wikipedia article. Anyway, here are the sections I currently have problems with:
*The lead section - not big things, I just need to look at it in a bit more depth. I think it's quite OK though.
*The linguistic view section: Node, your theory of linguistics, while scientifically-arguable, is very alternative to say the least. If you're going to pester us here about idiolects and about strange abstract definitions of languages, then you should do so at every language article. Until you add this very same thing to articles like Australian English, American English, Canadian French, Brazilian Portuguese, then it shouldn't be accepted here. Again, it's the use of real science facts to try to somehow convince readers that Moldovan is a separate language, in the common definition of language, when it isn't.
:::No, I'm not using an "alternative" definition. I am using the universally accepted definition. The point is, according to linguistics there is no such thing as a "separate language" because all divisions between related languages are completely arbitrary. Moldovan is obviously a language, the debate is about whether or not it is a separate language to Romanian, and as noted in the article, that is not a scientific debate. It's entirely political. Now, you're welcome to add to those articles the term "language", because linguistically, according to the definition universally accepted by linguists, they are in fact languages. Whether or not they are separate from some specific other language is debatable.
*The infobox - namely, the classification of Moldovan as Eastern Romance, full stop. That makes it seem as if Moldovan is on an equal level with Aromanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Romanian, when it is linguistically a subset of Romanian.  Ronline ✉ 01:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who changed that part. I agree that it should have "Romanian" or at least "Daco-Romanian". --Node 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think the point of an infobox is to show "equal level" as you put it, because rarely are languages at "equal level."  In any case, I took a look at Afrikaans language and I noticed that in the infobox, there is "Dutch" above "Afrikaans" in the Genetic classification field.  I suggest putting "Romanian" over Moldovan.  --Chris S. 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's a good idea. Done. 
I agree the linguistic point of view needs to be improved.  I'll have to do some brainstorming on this. I liked the Hindi and Urdu comparison, I wrote a while back. Malay and Indonesian can be used as comparisons as well. --Chris S. 04:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I am not sure we can compare Romanian with Hindi and Urdu or Malay and Indonesian. Let's treat it as a case in itself, because no two cases can be the same.Constantzeanu 05:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on that, but I'm not implying that the cases are not the same at all; I am saying that there are similarities. Hindustani is basically divided by international borders and referred to as different languages in their respective countries. Even in India, Hindu and Urdu are both official languages.  With the case of Malay and Indonesian, this is a case of the Malay language being spoken in another country, named Indonesia, and thus renamed. This is situation is a closer analogy of the Romanian and Moldovan situation. Everyone is fine with Malay and Indonesian being called separate languages (due to politics), and at the same time everyone is fine with them being called the same language (due to linguistics). --Chris S. 06:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How many people speak it? --Chris S. 04:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Now, this is the idea I find puzzling.  Moldovan is Eastern Romance. It is also Romance. It is also Indo-European. It is all of those. I don't know why Moldovan wouldn't be Eastern Romance. --Chris S. 06:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you guys are failing to recognise that the science of linguistics discards the distinction between a language and a dialect as arbitrary among related speech varieties. --Node 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with this vesion: the Moldovan grai in both the Republic of Moldova and Moldavia(in Romania) are the same thing and toghether form a sub-division of the Romanian language.-- Bonaparte  talk 13:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections I have problems with 

message: It is the (n+3) time when he makes an edit war here! -- Bonaparte  talk 21:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Again vandalism on page by [[user:Node ue]]

message: "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin. I propose to insert also this in text of the article. It defines very well what happend there. -- Bonaparte  talk 22:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with latest edits of Mark Williamson aka Node ee. This is troll and edit war what he's doing. We'll never going to have a consensus here if he still continues in this approach. Someone block this guy! It was so better when he was blocked! -- Bonaparte  talk 22:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonaparte, you just did the same thing Node did by removing the entire infobox. That's called being a hypocrite. Alexander 007 22:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I know it sounds funny and yet sad but if you don't believe me look here: . You will see that unfortunately it is not a joke. Constantzeanu 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Am vazut, oricum e super haios ;) user:212....
This quote of Stalin illustrates his ideas and plans for many minorities throughout the FSU.  In the case of the former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Stalin used linguistic tension and forced-immigration to control nascent nationalist movements.  For example, the Soviets liquidated Bukovina and northern Moldova of ethnic Romanians to stem the influence of neighboring Romania's growing nationalism, knowing that it would not be received by Russians and Ukrainians, who were to re-populate these areas. vkxmai 04:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Vkxmai, you've made edits to the page before, and comments here. But you seem to have no idea what's going on. Do you know why? That isn't a real quote from Stalin. Who created it is unknown, but it occasionally pops up in discussions of linguistic oppression. --Node 04:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''"Take away their language, destroy their souls."''' -- Joseph Stalin.

message: Node & Constantzeanu - uh, why is the infobox so unnecessarily wordy in the "Spoken in" section? It should simply list the place names. Any other information is in the article, otherwise it is basically duplicating information that is present in the article. Was there a consensus on this particular section of the infobox? I didn't give my two cents in, just on the Moldovan (Romanian) thing, which I am still pondering. --Chris S. 03:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken in .. 

message: A couple remarks:
*Genetic classification: If you have Moldovan under Romanian that would mean Moldovan is a Romanian dialect, a member of the Romanian language family, and there are actually people saying it could be the other way round. So that's not good. If you have Romanian under Romanian, well that doesn't make any sense. I would then agree with this scheme:
Indo-European
　Italic
　　Romance
　　　Eastern Romance
　　　　Moldovan
　　　　(Romanian)
The explanation (Romanian), if it doesn't fit near Moldovan, should be written below, and indented just as much. Maybe a little manual editing is needed instead of the template defaults.
*The 2,664,000 people in Moldova are all speakers of Moldovan/Romanian, including those who only call it Romanian. Many of them wouldn't like to find themselves counted in the Moldovan group. On the other hand the 181,020 (the number I have is 181,124) people in Ukraine are only those who declared their mother tongue to be specifically Moldovan, while there are another 138,522 people who declare they speak Romanian. I suggest we only count either all Romance speakers or only self-declared Moldovan speakers, but do so uniformly.
*Spoken in...: Is this a joke? Nobody in Romania calls their mother tongue Moldovan.
The infobox is inconsistent: The title seems to claim that Moldovan = Romanian, whereas the contents is an unfortunate fruit salad.
As you can see, the biggest problem with this article is that it's hard to decide if you want to deal with things politically or linguistically. The two points of view are in many ways completely different, or plain opposite. You can't count speakers, you can't classify the language. Look at these Moldovan/Romanian speaking people, they are all native speakers of two languages, no matter if they know it, want it, like it, or deny it.
And finally: Until we get to a workable version, from where only small changes are needed, we must put up a disputed label, otherwise people might think it's all settled and use info from here in other articles/projects. Is there any label that says both "disputed" and something like "please first discuss changes"? --AdiJapan 08:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said by AdiJapan. It is correct.-- Bonaparte  talk 11:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics or Linguistics

message: As even the president of Moldova recognized it that is in fact identical with Romanian only the name being different.-- Bonaparte  talk 11:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Politically is de facto "identical" but the name is different

message: Someone make the note to the reference please. 
Heitmann, K., 1989, Moldauisch. In Holtus, G., Metzeltin, M. and Schmitt, C. (eds), Lexicon der Romanschinen Linguistik, Tübingen, vol 3. 508-21.
-- Bonaparte  talk 12:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: help

message: http://www.languagehat.com/archives/001538.php
The reason for this proliferation of ambiguities is highlighted in the conflict that produced the title Our Language Day. After 1989, when Moldova was still part of the Soviet Union, it was called Our Romanian Language Day to celebrate the decision, on 31 August 1989, to proclaim Romanian Moldova's official language. Then, in 1994, three years after gaining independence, the country's second freely elected parliament stated that the state language was "Moldovan." The word "Romanian" was subsequently removed from the name of the holiday.
Linguists across the world are, though, in agreement: "Moldovan" is Romanian. Since the linguistic battle over the nature of Moldovan Romanian began in 1994, numerous international conferences, symposia, and workshops have demonstrated that, linguistically, there is no distinctly Moldovan language. There are no longer conferences on the issue. For academics, the issue has been resolved.
But not so for the Moldovan government and many Moldovans. For them, naming the language of the country's ethnic majority is more than a matter of linguistics. The persistent question "Is our language Moldovan or Romanian?" has been mirrored in the paradoxical existence of publications written in the same language but which, below their title, carry the tagline "periodical in Romanian" or "periodical in Moldovan."
And in the bookshops, a Moldovan-Romanian dictionary (the equivalent of an English-American dictionary) has become a bestseller, though as a curiosity rather than as an academic work. 
:::(The academic credibility of the dictionary were, in passing, undermined when Vasile Stati, its author, was unable to explain the meaning of a short story written by a talkshow host using only the distinctively "Moldovan" words taken from the dictionary.) 
In the classroom, the United Nations Development Program, which was trying to promote Romanian-language courses among ethnic minorities, two years ago tried to sidestep the problem by saying that its courses were taught in "the language that unifies us."
::Hehe, yes, I even saw the talkshow it is referring to, it was fun to watch! ;) Just another tag
Stalin justified the creation of the Moldavian SSR by claiming that a distinct "Moldavian" language was an indicator that "Moldavians" were a separate nationality from the Romanians in Romania. In order to give greater credence to this claim, in 1940 Stalin imposed the Cyrillic alphabet on "Moldavian" to make it look more like Russian and less like Romanian; archaic Romanian words of Slavic origin were imposed on "Moldavian"; Russian loanwords and phrases were added to "Moldavian"; and a new theory was advanced that "Moldavian" was at least partially Slavic in origin. (Romanian is a Romance language descended from Latin.) In 1949 Moldavian citizens were publicly reprimanded in a journal for daring to express themselves in literary Romanian. The Soviet government continued this type of behavior for decades. 
Proper names in Moldova were subjected to Russianization as well. Russian endings were added to purely Romanian names, and individuals were referred to in the Russian manner by using a patronymic (based on one's father's first name) as a middle name.
:You actually put this on the talkpage once already earlier... that aside, I'm well aware of who Languagehat is, and I read his blog quite a bit. Suffice to say, he has 0 linguistic credentials, and in that particular article he cited no sources. --Node 22:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New references

message: Instead of category Articles lacking sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources) is better the following category Russification and Anti-Romanian policies. This article has many sources so, in this case it's not about an article that has few sources. In fact this is about the process of russification of a language. I wait your opinion.-- Bonaparte  talk 18:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Russification