Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 11

message: 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)
thread_title: Voronin in Bucharest

message: 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)
thread_title: Reference

message: 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.
</font>
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Well, look at his contribution of Node

message: Can a sysop please add an interwikilink to lb:Moldawesch? Thanks. --Otets 01:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interwikilinks (+lb) 

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  Great list of facts. --Anittas 23:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is in contention 

message: 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  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)
thread_title: Sourcing

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

text: 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)

text: <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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Current version of the first lines is not NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title: Node again stars the edit/revert wars

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

message: 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)
thread_title: the true list of Joe

message: 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)
thread_title: What is in contention 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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
# 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)
thread_title:  Answers to Bonaparte's questions 

message: # 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
# 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
# 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
# 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
# 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
# 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
# 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
# On the 2004 census, about two thirds of the Romanian-Moldovans... -- provide a source.
#: No idea.
#::Should be removed then. Just a tag
# 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
# 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
# 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)
thread_title: Issues

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

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  bonaparte 

message: 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)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Language

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I was under the impression that the consensus version was the one that Jmabel posted . Is this correct? - FrancisTyers 14:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. The consensus is the 40 points list of Joe Mabel. -- Bonaparte  talk 14:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: My advice again

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: no need for infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Again a good chance to have a good version

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grigore 

message: 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)
thread_title: Moldovan is identical with Romanian. Period. 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Romanian = Moldovan, according to Moldovan law 

message: 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 , asserts the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity". 
:The 1989 law on language of the Moldavian SSR, which is still effective in Moldova according to the Constitution , asserts the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity".  
--Danutz
:"Linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity" is bad English. --Node 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why should I explain one more time? One time should've been good enough for you already. --Node 22:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Source

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Language shift in bessarabia section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hmm 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Next time block him Bogdan for sabotaging the consensus reached on talk page! -- Bonaparte  talk 08:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same example four times 

message: : A. Arţimovici, official of the Education Department based in Odessa [...]
			
<personal attack removed Node 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I ignore this personal attack.  Bonaparte  talk 11:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Artsimovich vs. Arţimovici 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  That guy is Bulgarian. --Anittas 16:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vladimir Taranev 

message: is pushing a POV. Let it be blocked forever. Nobody211.78.161.178 13:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Node is pushing a POV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

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

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

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