Talk:Moldovan language/Archive 3

message: :The U.S. Department of State  says that Romanian is the official language of Moldova, although this is inaccurate in the sense that, while many believe Romanian and Moldovan to be the same language, the constitution of Moldova specifies "Moldovan" as the official language rather than "Romanian".
Why is it inaccurate? Here's the quote:
: Languages: Romanian (officially known as Moldovan)
We have Romanian, officially known officially as Moldovan. Is anyone disputing that? bogdan 15:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What? No, it says that "Romanian is the official language of Moldova". The US state dep't says that Romanian is the _language_ of Moldova, not the _official language_. --Node 15:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's your point? Don't the Moldovan speak Romanian? bogdan 15:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends upon whom you ask. Don't ask questions to which you obviously already know the answer. --Node 15:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're not being helpful in here. bogdan 16:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In his belligerent way he meant that according to the census a very significant part of population answered that they speak Moldovan. Even if opinion is mistaken, wikipedia is not the place to tell them they are mistaken. mikka (t) 19:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant that according to some sources, the Moldovans speak Romanian, and according to other sources, they do not. --Node 03:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Department of State 

message: Do we have any reason for which all these dictionaries are in the references section? bogdan 20:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not required to be RELEVANT. I used them as sources in writing the article. Thus, they belong there. --Node 03:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how you use Moldovan-russsian dictionaries as sources. mikka (t) 06:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they had useful lexicographical information, and talked abit about Moldovan language as well in prefaces and the like. --Node 21:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionaries in references section 

message: So, instead of losing so much time here, my impression is that we should write both oppinions in the preamble of the article. It is obvious that my interpretation of the given facts, based on my personal experience, is quite different from that of the users Mikkalai and Node. And the problem is not the acceptation or not of the facts, but rather their high-level implementation. I therefore propose that the preamble of the paper (the very first paragraph) is replaced with something like:
: Moldovan language is the official language of the Republic of Moldova and one of the official languages of Transnistria (Forget about "breakaway" or "de fact", you can explain them later).
: Two main points of view exist between the authors of this article:
: 1. The Moldovan language differs from Romanian in small, but significant ways. This oppinion is supported by the users Node, Mikkalai, etc.
: 2. Moldovan is the Romanian language (its accent or dialect) as spoken in Moldova, and its current existence as a separate language is only due to the post-imperial context existent in Moldova (I will re-phrase this in the future, but it should be essentially this). Oppinion supported by Dpotop, etc, etc.
Then, we will have two separate sections in which each party will explain its position. This seems fair to me. Of course, all statements outside these sections will still have to be edited Wikipedia-style.
User:Dpotop
:You seem still fail to understand wikipedia's policies about POV/NPOV. 
:Point 1 is phrase incorrectly. You are trying to over-inflate the opposition. The key is word "small but significant". If this is stated in the article in this way, this must be deleted (I certainly don't support this position), because this is not our business to evaluate whether the differences are small or significant. We just report them. If there are a reputable scholars who say "small but significant", we msut report their published opinion. 
: Position 2 is fully present in the article, only with the amount of bashing and cursing of Russians insufficient to some extremists. So you are fighting with windmills. 
: If in literature there are reported differences 1 and 2 as you stete them, you are welcome to write a separate section that present these published positions. But there is none of our business to report my or Node's or your's or 185.38.137.43's position. mikka (t) 17:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not posting both positions?